User Tag List

First 910111213 Last

Results 101 to 110 of 158

  1. #101
    Ruler of the Stars Asterion's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2009
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    5 sp/sx
    Posts
    2,334

    Default

    Why does the creator need to be a sentient being? Why does s/he need to even care what happens beyond the big bang (which I assume most people agree here happened at some point)? Even if the creator existed, there will have had to have been a creator of that creator. So either nothing became something, or the universe has existed indefinitely. The dynamic nature of our universe seems to indicate that it had a starting point, so if it is infinite, then why is it not stable? I really believe that after even just one event, everything just cascaded into seemingly random events. It's never really random once you find the source(s). Ahhh, This is why I avoid philosophy, no answers, just questions.

    ...Is that seriously the level your on; pitiful.
    Not cool dude, not cool.
    5 3 9

  2. #102
    Senior Member Nicodemus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    9,133

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    The universe, from the beginning has had built into it finite specifications, there are at least 40 of these specifications,- forces constants, values of powers for things, all of which make life possible, a finely tuned cosmos and a creator, of course he most likely has no interest in life, that would be to misread the point of creation, totally.
    If your argument is good, you do not have to hide it. It seems that there is no argument for the sympathetic creator in there, though (the word 'sympathetic' does not even occur in your assertion). Instead, it smells like the old 'a clock needs a clock maker' argument, which, I hope, is not what you are trying to formulate or, rather, obscure here.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    To your second question, since I've already covered this: http://www.typologycentral.com/forum...=1#post1575759
    What you wrote in that post does not address the point I made. If you believe otherwise, please show me how it does.

  3. #103
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    A rule with an exemption is not a very good rule, and it would be a poor distinction to draw where the exemption could be manifest as a deeper structural distinction that brings to light greater ramifications that you have skillfully truncated with that quote of me.
    Whether a rule is good or not, once again, is a subjective evaluation. What you are describing as ramifications are nothing more than potential ramifications, based on the experience of one person. If I accept your potential ramifications as valid, you must also accept contradicting ramifications as valid, provided that no effective means of reconciling the two postulates exists, and the premises of each are valid. You, nor anyone else on the planet, have no authority to definitively answer this question one way or the other.

  4. #104
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by King-Of-Despair View Post
    Why does the creator need to be a sentient being? Why does s/he need to even care what happens beyond the big bang (which I assume most people agree here happened at some point)? Even if the creator existed, there will have had to have been a creator of that creator. So either nothing became something, or the universe has existed indefinitely. The dynamic nature of our universe seems to indicate that it had a starting point, so if it is infinite, then why is it not stable? I really believe that after even just one event, everything just cascaded into seemingly random events. It's never really random once you find the source(s). Ahhh, This is why I avoid philosophy, no answers, just questions.



    Not cool dude, not cool.
    Hey, if I went around harassing you with an obviously fallacious argument you wouldn't be at all peeved, you'd probably completely seriously entertain their stupidity, because your just such a nice guy... If we weren't all so tolerant.
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  5. #105
    Senior Member Sanctus Iacobus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    MBTI
    STP
    Posts
    286

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Qlippoth View Post
    This is always enough for me to reject fundamentalism. What we have is a supposed God who:

    1. Created people with the ability to tell right from wrong, and the ability to reason and understand.
    2. Acts in a manner contrary from what we naturally know is right and wrong, and contrary to reason.

    Even if you could prove that such a diety actually exists, I'd still deny him.
    God did not create man with the ability to tell right and wrong. God created man to trust and obey Him and man ignored the only rule or warning God gave them, not to eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.

    Now at first, this seems like some sick trick God played on humanity, but it's more that God indeed gave man freedom including the freedom to know what God knew. God did not make man to know good and evil, that was not his intentions... His intention for man is relationship with man, where man trusts what God says and lives a simple life of prosperity, such as it was in the garden of Eden. However, sin is a matter of the soul, not so much breaking rules. For a man does what he knows is evil, or doesn't do what he knows is right, for that man it is sin. This knowledge creates shame and fear, which inevitably leads man to flee from God. As God is the source of man's life, this leads to death of man.

    Satan introduced the original lie, suggesting that God was being selfish and trying to keep man from becoming like Him by warning them not to seek to know good and evil for themselves. This manifests pride in man, as man thought "I'll ignore God's warning. Why shouldn't I be God too?" This is the same thought Satan had, being the greatest angel just below God, however, God would not spare Satan and the devil has no better destiny than to lie, murder and destroy everything else. Misery loves company.

    Quote Originally Posted by Tamske View Post
    Which criterium, other than the circular "it's in the Bible", should I use to choose between the Bible, the Quran, the Bravagad-Gita, the God Delusion? All of these books have been written by (one or more) imperfect human beings. Except for the God Delusion, all of them claim to have been inspired by a god. Which religion should I adhere? How do I choose? I WANT to do good, you know, I want to do God's will. I just don't want to do the will of a false god - I guess God wouldn't like that, either. I don't want to spend all my energy trying to be a good Christian and then see that I actually should have been a good Muslim.
    The reason we know Christianity is true (from God) and other religions (although Christianity is an antithesis to religion if anything) are false (man-made) is that no man would ever invent such a view of God that is Jesus Christ. All other views of God are built on man reaching up to God through performance. This does indeed paint God as a demented being who sits on top and insist we "save ourselves" by climbing up. Christianity says, we are fallen and can't get up on our own, and God because He loves man and is wise of our fallen state, provides the means for redemption by coming to earth as Jesus. Jesus, like a true hero, personally settles the account and pays for it with His life. He conquers satan, our sin/seperation, and the death-effect of sin by rising from the dead.

    Christianity answers the "sin problem" with not religion or trying to be better or anything like that, which doesn't really work anyways, but it answers it with faith and trust in God, which is what was broken when made separated himself from God in the beginning of creation (see above). There is no such thing as a "good Christian", in fact to become a Christian you have to "get real" with God and tell him you are also aware of the shame/guilt/sin/whatever in your soul as He is and request it be taken care of for you by His provision of Jesus Christ. Yet again, God proves Himself totally loving and like a perfect father, provides everything. We don't have to do anything but receive it, like you would a gift on Christmas. When you get a gift from someone you don't break out your wallet to pay for it yourself... you just open it. Such it is with Jesus, and this is what no other view of God or religion includes: redemption is based solely on what God did for us (Jesus) rather than what we can do for God, as if God needed us.

    Don't get me wrong, after one comes to faith, there is good works and good fruit, but this is an inevitable aftereffect of faith in Jesus Christ and a joy rather than a burdensome responsibility. These works, too, are prepared in advance for each person if he or she comes to Christ. God provides everything, He asks that we only trust and believe in Jesus.

    In this way, Christianity account for other religions... we can see the pattern of the original lie "man become God by knowing good and evil" manifested in world religions. God actually hates religion more than He hates rebellion because it makes an even greater attempt to establish oneself apart from God, ultimately leading to further death of man whom God loves.

    If you're interested, here are some web-sermons by a pastor Mark Driscoll of Seattle's Mars Hill Church who breaks it down well.
    Vintage Jesus

  6. #106
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Whether a rule is good or not, once again, is a subjective evaluation. What you are describing as ramifications are nothing more than potential ramifications, based on the experience of one person. If I accept your potential ramifications as valid, you must also accept contradicting ramifications as valid, provided that no effective means of reconciling the two postulates exists, and the premises of each are valid. You, nor anyone else on the planet, have no authority to definitively answer this question one way or the other.
    blah blah, there is no truth, activated subscription to postmodern nihilism, can't prove we're even having this exchange right now. so why am I even replying? o,o
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  7. #107
    Dreaming the life onemoretime's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    MBTI
    3h50
    Socionics
    ILE
    Posts
    4,460

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Zang View Post
    blah blah, there is no truth, activated subscription to postmodern nihilism, can't prove we're even having this exchange right now. so why am I even replying? o,o
    Because you feel like it.

    Now that the canvas is blank, we've got to set forth the premises before we can start to paint, with the understanding that these premises are assumptions, and must be accepted as such.

  8. #108
    ⒺⓉⒷ Eric B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Enneagram
    548 sp/sx
    Socionics
    INTj
    Posts
    3,441

    Default

    The whole notion of "causation" assumes a timelike dimension, which we believe would be part of the created order. I liked the direction Brian Greene was heading (at least for a while), in positing a "primeval realm" in which the strings (which make up spacetime itself, as well as force and matter particles) are embedded, that is neither space nor time. He compared it to "commutative geometry".

    So from the viewpoint of creatures trapped in this spacetime realm, they will see a universe that appeared to just pop out of nowhere by itself with no cause.
    APS Profile: Inclusion: e/w=1/6 (Supine) |Control: e/w=7/3 (Choleric) |Affection: e/w=1/9 (Supine)
    Ti 54.3 | Ne 47.3 | Si 37.8 | Fe 17.7 | Te 22.5 | Ni 13.4 | Se 18.9 | Fi 27.9

    Temperament (APS) from scratch -- MBTI Type from scratch
    Type Ideas

  9. #109
    Senior Member Zangetshumody's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    MBTI
    INTJ
    Socionics
    ILI
    Posts
    472

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nicodemus View Post
    If your argument is good, you do not have to hide it. It seems that there is no argument for the sympathetic creator in there, though (the word 'sympathetic' does not even occur in your assertion). Instead, it smells like the old 'a clock needs a clock maker' argument, which, I hope, is not what you are trying to formulate or, rather, obscure here.


    What you wrote in that post does not address the point I made. If you believe otherwise, please show me how it does.
    Hide what? The finely tuned cosmos argument is what its known as, why do you have to refer to the argument in metaphor and not in name. If you do not construct a condescending turn of phrase, do you shrivel up and die? I'm not using this argument to serve as proof of existence, I'm using it serve as God's affinity or connection to his complex manifestations, or life, within creation.
    Escape powerful genjitsu by averting your gaze from the eyes.

  10. #110
    LL P. Stewie Beorn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    4,810

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by onemoretime View Post
    Now that the canvas is blank, we've got to set forth the premises before we can start to paint, with the understanding that these premises are assumptions, and must be accepted as such.
    Why do WE "got to"?
    Take the weakest thing in you
    And then beat the bastards with it
    And always hold on when you get love
    So you can let go when you give it

Similar Threads

  1. Arguing the Existence or Non-existence of God--the thread that never ends
    By The Wailing Specter in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 197
    Last Post: 04-07-2015, 07:37 AM
  2. The Different Names of "God"
    By Thalassa in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: 07-16-2013, 02:34 AM
  3. The central question of religion is not the existence of God?
    By Survive & Stay Free in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 01-25-2012, 04:16 PM
  4. Replies: 96
    Last Post: 12-25-2008, 08:05 PM
  5. Debate on the existence of god
    By nightning in forum Philosophy and Spirituality
    Replies: 149
    Last Post: 12-23-2008, 03:31 PM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO