- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
The Fundamental Flaw in every last God/No God thread ever on this board
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:01 pm
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:01 pm
The flaw is simple. The conversation takes place where the word "God" is never defined and the arguments vacillate between arguments that might be over the question "Is there a God of the Bible" to being over "Is there some all powerful force that created the universe" to "could there have been supremely advanced beings that created the universe?
The problem is, often, you see counter arguments that apply to ONE of the above being used to apply to a different element of the above. IE, the "eyeball" argument used by people as support for the God of the Bible when all it really supports(if anything) is the idea of SOME creator who may or may not be supernatural. And frick, even supernatural is problematic here. What if a supremely advanced race from ANOTHER universe is in the universe creating business. They would exist OUTSIDE our "nature" so, they'd be "supernatural". LOL
And BOTH the theists and the atheists have this problem. Basically, the core discussion takes place as if it was still 500AD.
You see theists using "evidence" that really just supports the idea that there had to be some "designer" but that really is only evidence of about 100 possible designers even if accepted as evidence at all.
On the other side, you get atheists who travel from the reasonable, "the God of the Bible is a highly suspect concept" to the absurd "we can absolutely know that there is no creative force responsible for our universe at all.
Then, we call people who recognize that we can't possibly fathom what supremely advanced beings might be capable "agnostics" but that term loses all meaning if we are suddenly expanding "God" to mean "anything other than completely random shite happening".
OK. Soap box complete.
The problem is, often, you see counter arguments that apply to ONE of the above being used to apply to a different element of the above. IE, the "eyeball" argument used by people as support for the God of the Bible when all it really supports(if anything) is the idea of SOME creator who may or may not be supernatural. And frick, even supernatural is problematic here. What if a supremely advanced race from ANOTHER universe is in the universe creating business. They would exist OUTSIDE our "nature" so, they'd be "supernatural". LOL
And BOTH the theists and the atheists have this problem. Basically, the core discussion takes place as if it was still 500AD.
You see theists using "evidence" that really just supports the idea that there had to be some "designer" but that really is only evidence of about 100 possible designers even if accepted as evidence at all.
On the other side, you get atheists who travel from the reasonable, "the God of the Bible is a highly suspect concept" to the absurd "we can absolutely know that there is no creative force responsible for our universe at all.
Then, we call people who recognize that we can't possibly fathom what supremely advanced beings might be capable "agnostics" but that term loses all meaning if we are suddenly expanding "God" to mean "anything other than completely random shite happening".
OK. Soap box complete.
21
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:03 pm to ShortyRob
You're pretty high right now aren't you?
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:04 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:Sober as a judge.
You're pretty high right now aren't you?
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:06 pm to ShortyRob
God loves atheists too, he created them in his own image. If we keep debating them on this board one day they will look up from their keyboards and see the light of Christ
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:10 pm to Darth_Vader
quote:
You're pretty high right now aren't you?
Wish I would have been before reading it. Would have made better sense to me.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:14 pm to Homesick Tiger
quote:
Wish I would have been before reading it. Would have made better sense to me.
Which part requires clarification?
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:16 pm to ShortyRob
Agnostics are just those who are intellectually lazy and never thought about the subject hard enough.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:17 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Which part requires clarification?
I was yanking your chain. Usually on a long post I just kind of scan it to see if anything catches my eye.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:19 pm to ChewyDante
Agnosticism is the only evidence-based stance.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:26 pm to ShortyRob
Lots of words....
I'm going to deal with the bit about the Agnostics, since I believe the vast majority of Atheists to be incredulous and dogmatic to a flaw.
Interestingly enough, a first century lawyer coined the term 'agnostic' while he was traveling through the Areopagus. Acts 17:23 says Paul observed and altar dedicated 'To an Unknown God'. So unwittingly, agnostics beliefs are based on a term an apostle/Christian disciple used for the first time.
Irony at its finest. If God is truly 'unknowable', what's the point in learning new things? There are scientists and so-called intellectuals that are starting to admit that the designs around them speak to an intelligence far superior to ours.
An alien race? Unlikely. Exactly what the Bible says? Have some faith
I'm going to deal with the bit about the Agnostics, since I believe the vast majority of Atheists to be incredulous and dogmatic to a flaw.
Interestingly enough, a first century lawyer coined the term 'agnostic' while he was traveling through the Areopagus. Acts 17:23 says Paul observed and altar dedicated 'To an Unknown God'. So unwittingly, agnostics beliefs are based on a term an apostle/Christian disciple used for the first time.
Irony at its finest. If God is truly 'unknowable', what's the point in learning new things? There are scientists and so-called intellectuals that are starting to admit that the designs around them speak to an intelligence far superior to ours.
An alien race? Unlikely. Exactly what the Bible says? Have some faith
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:31 pm to EthanL
quote:I said nothing of the sort.
Irony at its finest. If God is truly 'unknowable',
quote:Why?
An alien race? Unlikely.
quote:The Bible is wholly irrelevant to the above.
Exactly what the Bible says? Have some faith
Even if we found definitive evidence that the universe HAD to have been created by a supreme being, that wouldn't say shite about the Bible.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:34 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
The Fundamental Flaw in every last God/No God thread ever on this board
Is that people actually participate in them
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:35 pm to Antonio Moss
quote:
Is that people actually participate in them
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:39 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
Even if we found definitive evidence that the universe HAD to have been created by a supreme being, that wouldn't say shite about the Bible.
The imperfect (inferior?) being's attempt to understand it (Him ... whatever) -- or at least just one of such attempts?
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:41 pm to Y.A. Tittle
quote:
The imperfect (inferior?) being's attempt to understand it (Him ... whatever) -- or at least just one of such attempts?
I simply mean that if there was A creator at whatever the "beginning" of everything was doesn't actually address if that creator was the cause of OUR universe's beginning or if that creator is an actively participative in his creation.
Hence, it really doesn't address the Bible at all.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:42 pm to ShortyRob
The whole argument is like two blind people debating color. Neither one is properly equipped.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 2:51 pm to ShortyRob
if there was A creator at whatever the "beginning" of everything was doesn't actually address if that creator was the cause of OUR universe's beginning or if that creator is an actively participative in his creation.
I am slow so please elaborate.
Non belief does not equate to non existence.
I am slow so please elaborate.
Non belief does not equate to non existence.
This post was edited on 9/21/17 at 2:57 pm
Posted on 9/21/17 at 3:10 pm to ShortyRob
quote:
I simply mean that if there was A creator at whatever the "beginning" of everything was doesn't actually address if that creator was the cause of OUR universe's beginning or if that creator is an actively participative in his creation
but that's just postponing the question. if you accept the axiom that nothing can come from nothing, then either there is a creator, who lives independently of creation and is self-existent, or the universe(s) have always existed. Those propositions are equally plausible. so you look at the evidence, which i THINK is that the universe that we live in is in a state of decay, and there is no present evidence of multiple big bangs. Then there's the secondary question of if there is a creator, did he attempt to reveal himself and his character by the events and testimonies as shown in the Bible and do you judge its authenticity by the same standard as other documents of its age or by a the standards of the day.
then there is the existential evidence of the proposed believer and the ultimate choice of belief.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 3:16 pm to SFVtiger
quote:Not regarding the God of the Bible which is what I was responding to.
but that's just postponing the question.
quote:OK
if you accept the axiom that nothing can come from nothing, then either there is a creator, who lives independently of creation and is self-existent, or the universe(s) have always existed.
quote:We only would have evidence in OUR universe so, by definition, if there are other universes, we would have no evidence on them.
Those propositions are equally plausible. so you look at the evidence, which i THINK is that the universe that we live in is in a state of decay, and there is no present evidence of multiple big bangs.
Alas, by definition, a God capable of making one universe is capable of making more than one.
quote:To me, judging the authenticity by the standards of when it was written makes no sense.
Then there's the secondary question of if there is a creator, did he attempt to reveal himself and his character by the events and testimonies as shown in the Bible and do you judge its authenticity by the same standard as other documents of its age or by a the standards of the day.
God would be independent of time so, he certainly wouldn't feel compelled to teach people according to any particular time's morality.
quote:I honestly have no idea what this means.
then there is the existential evidence of the proposed believer and the ultimate choice of belief.
Posted on 9/21/17 at 3:26 pm to ShortyRob
whether you believe there are multiple universes or not is not relevant. Each would have to be examined with the same argument. you would still come down to the original cause, eventually.
of course no one has any evidence that might exist in another universe.
why judge a document's authenticity by a standard that did not exist when it was made. do you question every ancient document the same way? or is there a bias--which is fine, everyone comes to the table with a bias.
one of the biases i work under is that i am a temporal being. I cannot come close to imagining a universe that had no beginning. I can imagine something that comes into existence and exists thereafter. and time as a creation itself. and the experience of living is another bias i have. I've done the math (emotional) and concluded there are no coincidences. but that's just me and i admit it, it's an emotional argument i actually accepted incrementally.
you can disbelieve the bible and still accept the existence of a creator. or at least its equal plausibility. all i'm really trying to say as logically consistent.
of course no one has any evidence that might exist in another universe.
why judge a document's authenticity by a standard that did not exist when it was made. do you question every ancient document the same way? or is there a bias--which is fine, everyone comes to the table with a bias.
one of the biases i work under is that i am a temporal being. I cannot come close to imagining a universe that had no beginning. I can imagine something that comes into existence and exists thereafter. and time as a creation itself. and the experience of living is another bias i have. I've done the math (emotional) and concluded there are no coincidences. but that's just me and i admit it, it's an emotional argument i actually accepted incrementally.
you can disbelieve the bible and still accept the existence of a creator. or at least its equal plausibility. all i'm really trying to say as logically consistent.
Page 1 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News