Win My Soul!

Well, God knows your every thought. To get to know God, within your own mind say "God, please teach me of your existence no matter what it takes for me to learn." Remember, to learn of God in this life (before death) you must be willing to suffer through your own misconceptions being brought to light. Your statement of internal willingness to go through whatever it takes to be taught the truth by God is something you must remember- because you will go through a necessary period of spiritual growth with corresponding growing pains (a lot like physical puberty- except a lot more intense).

Anyway, you must be serious about your pursuit of truth. If you are halfhearted about it, it means that you are not yet ready to learn of God. Everyone becomes ready (to learn of God) in their own time. Perhaps now is your time.

 

LOL...well, if I understand you correctly. You believe in "recycling" rather than resurrection or reincarnation--ha ha...

Pantheism? I could almost accept that...

 

No, actually. I was raised to believe. It was reinforced through my education and my own studies. Once I began to study the opposing viewpoint outside the filter of the Christian apologists' viewpoint of the opposition--I began to see the other more clearly. And finally I had a decision to make as to which made more sense to me. Guess?

Well, I see the "other" heart as nothing more than emotion (which is stimulated in the mind). And as far the "last days" thing, it's been the "last days" for 2000 years now...

Believer to a non-believer? My road was convincing enough for me.

 

In the interest of charitability, pop terror's argument which reads:

1. It is possible that an omniscient God exists.
2. Therefore, anything that can't possibly be known to exist does not exist.
3. Therefore, in the absence of life, nothing exists.

probably should read as follows:

1') Anything that cannot be known to exist does not exist
2') But something does exist
3') So, some knowing agent must exist [1', 2']
4') It is not the case that organic, knowing-agents (esp. humans) have always existed
5') But organic, knowing agents currently exist
6') So, some non-organinc, knowing agent must have existed before organic, knowing
agents existed [3', 4', 5']
7') The universe exists
8') In order for the universe to exist, some non-organic knowing agent must know the
[whole] universe [3', 6', 7']
9') The only sort of entity capable of knowing the universe would
be omniscient
10') The only sort of entity possibly capable of omniscience is God
11') Therefore, God exists [8', 9', 10']

This, I think, is a more complicated way of writing Aquinas's 3rd Way. I've used the phrase 'organic/inorganic knowing agent' because I don't want to beg any questions in favor of God's existence.

As for my own agenda, I'm only concerned with presenting arguments as clearly and convincingly as possible (and in this case with accurately capturing pop terror's original argument). The above argument is open to objection (in fact, I can spot at least 2 things wrong with it---a questionable premise and a questionable inference), but that's for you folks to work out.

If the above is interesting and accurate, enjoy!

 

I was also raised to believe. Church every sunday, and 8 years of Christian education. Well even though i left hom at 15 and rebelled from my roots, and tried to run away from God, no matter how far i ran, i could still feel his love. Even though i left Him, He never left me. As a kid i didnt really care too much for God, but when i was 18 and was tired of running, i finally let Him speak. and THAT is when it all made sense.

We must keep our faith in God and not in his followers though, cause Christians are human and will let us down. Too many people turn from the faith because of how they have been hurt by the church. We are not perfect!

 

Ahh...the old ontological argument. Ha! Ha!

Brilliant form of sophistry by St. Thomas Aquinas.

But, this time it is combined with the Cosmological Argument.

Problem with it?

By the "knowing agent", I take it you mean some agent which is self-aware, an intelligence, right?

Firstly, the universe is the whole of existing things (we are not just speaking the observable universe). And the earth (part of the universe) is organic. The earth is natural. The universe exists because it is the whole of the existing things. It is natural. It is nature.

So, we ask ourselves:

1) Did something come from nothing?
2) Does everything have an element of life in it?
3) Did a non-natural (supernatural) agent form something and if so, was it from something else (non-organic) or from nothingness?

#1 I think is disconcerting because it would create a reasonable and logical fallacy.

#2 Is a possiblilty because matter/energy cannot be destroyed or created but can only change form and we know the seeds form trees, sperm forms babies, etc. So, it is a good possibility that there is some form of "life" in all things, but not that everything itself is a "knowing agent".

So, can a "knowing agent" come from a "non-knowing agent"? I think the "knowing" is simply a matter of degree. Evolution is a prime example of the process of prime and simple equating into the complex. Thus, it's not a matter of knowing or non-knowing, life or non-life, but by only what degree of life and knowing does each element contain.

#3- Has two major problems:

a) You are presupposing a foreign concept (non-nature) into a determined concept (nature) by using an illogical deduction which seems logical. If the universe is the whole of existing things, nothing can exist outside of the whole of existing things. Either "God" is the universe (which cannot be the creator) or there can logically be no "god".

b) Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, & Omnipresence are all self-refuting and no being could possibly exist in nature. However, if the Being is presupposed to be "supernatural" or outside nature. You must provide evidence for such a theory, without presupposing "god" in any argument. This is a circular argument.

Furthermore, to say that "god" is responsible for the phenomena of the universe is to say some unknowable, all-knowing agent caused (x) to happen through some unknowable means. This isn't an explanation--it is a concession that the origin of the universe is inexplicable.

Adding the supernatural element (non-contigent intelligence) to the equation is not an explanation but an appeal to ignorance. Saying, "it's supernatural" is like saying "it's unknowable" --thus, repeating that it is inexplicable.

And the "unexplained" doesn't necessarily equal "inexplicable".

So, you must prove that the "supernatural" is a legitimate concept, if we are to assume that a "non-contigent" intelligence could possibly and logically exist.

 

That's a nice testimony, but doesn't offer me much considering the circumstances of the challenge.

Also, before we continue, I have not been "hurt" by anyone. After taking both sides of the issues for years, I came to a reasonable assessment of which one made the most sense to me.

Now, I am open-minded enough to offer anyone a chance to convince me otherwise.

Gunison and yourself have made very good points, but none that I haven't dealt with myself so far. There may be something else, though...who knows? Someone could present me with such an irrefutable piece of evidence or reason that I could not help but accept it .

 

http://www.doesgodexist.org/
http://www.doesgodexist.org/Phamplets/Mansproof.html
http://www.philosopher.org.uk/god.htm
http://www.carm.org/dialogues/atheist_absolutes.htm
http://www.everystudent.com/features/isthere.html
http://www.hightruth.com/faq/01real.html

i guess this is all i can do then, my friend. I would assume you're doing your own research on the internet if you are this interested in finding proof of GOd's existence. And you may never find the answers you are looking for, because His existence cannot really be proven by logic. God said He is love. Not logic.

So, all the links and debates and interpretations and opinions and points of view really cannot get you very far, you will probably always find something or someone to disagree with while waiting for it to make complete sense. That day may never come.

I would encourage you to really look inwardly. I see in your signature you like to think for yourself and question authority. How will you be convinced then? If you ask for answers and then 1000 answers that you dont agree with, and cannot come down off your pedestal you have placed yourself on above authority, then you cannot be penetrated by anything other than the very hand of GOd.

You have done your research on both sides and you say you dont believe in GOd...so why give us the challenge then? Arent you sure of yourself? Or are you Agnostic rather than Athiest, not sure if God exists or not.

I'm not trying to judge you or put you down, so please let me know if i offend you. I know that Jesus would take the time to talk and come to an understanding rather than running away, or telling you that you'll burn in hell...I cannot stand it when Christians give one liners and look like a bunch of chicken shits from the Flanders Family.

 

libertine: By the "knowing agent", I take it you mean some agent which is self-aware, an intelligence, right?

Not necessarily. I'm using it as a generic term to include God, humans, and any other entity that could accurately be described as "knowing".


libertine: Firstly, the universe is the whole of existing things (we are not just speaking the observable universe). And the earth (part of the universe) is organic. The earth is natural. The universe exists because it is the whole of the existing things. It is natural. It is nature.

Here again, I only mean to be as generic as possible. Let's say the universe is "all that is the case". This includes, but is not limited to, nature. What is there besides nature? I don't know (and frankly, could care less). My only worry is against begging the question.

I don't think your (1) and (2) above affirm or deny anything I say in the argument I've presented (remember, it's not my own position). Nevertheless, (1) is compatible with some of the premises in the argument I've presented.


libertine:a) You are presupposing a foreign concept (non-nature) into a determined concept (nature) by using an illogical deduction which seems logical. If the universe is the whole of existing things, nothing can exist outside of the whole of existing things. Either "God" is the universe (which cannot be the creator) or there can logically be no "god".

I don't think the argument I presented makes the mistake about "introducing a foreign concept". What I mean is, you seem to be refer to my (8'). But (8') was inferred from previous premises. While this IS a valid inference, that doesn't necessarily mean that all (or any) of the premises preceding it are true.

b) Omniscience, Omnipotence, Omnibenevolence, & Omnipresence are all self-refuting and no being could possibly exist in nature. However, if the Being is presupposed to be "supernatural" or outside nature. You must provide evidence for such a theory, without presupposing "god" in any argument. This is a circular argument.

While the argument may be flawed, it isn't circular (though 9' and 10' look suspicious). If there is a knowing agent that must found everything (which pop terror's original argument supposes), what kind of an entity other than an omniscient one could possibly do this (personal beliefs aside, I'm just considering what the words 'omniscient' and 'universe' mean: all-knowing and all that is the case, respecitively)? What kind of entity, aside from God (not necessarily the Christian God), could be omniscient?

I'm trying to pump Aquianas's intutions because each of his 5 ways ends rather abrupty with 'Therefore, God exists' (wherein Aquinas, unlike my version above, does mean the Christian God). Why God? Why not your "energy" or my "uncaused cause" to name two other possibilities (or the fucking Stay Puff Marshmellow Man)? Omniscience (given [1']) seems to bridge that gap. Is Aquinas out of the woods? I don't think so.

Again, I don't think the argument is circular, but I do believe it's problematic (what about [1']?????).


Even if I didn't win your soul, can you at least give me a quart of milk til payday? I got nothing to put on my cereal in the morning!

 

ok, im not reall y taking part, but i just wann find out what you think on this subject...i know you often say "the universe is the whole of existing things", when you say that do you mean the one universe that the earth/solar system/milkyway galaxy etc is in...or are you counting the other universes that sometimes sub-atomic particles will cross over into what we can observe...

let me give an xample...an electron is moving happliy in a straight line path, but for no apparent reason it suddenly veers off on some tangent because for a single moment, another particle showed up in its path, diflected it, then disappeared?

 

Because I am open to all discussion, really. I do have my theories like anyone else, but I am not all-knowing , so perhaps there is something I have missed that someone else can show me. Perhaps not. I don't see it as a pedestal. The reason I question authority is simple. I do not blindly follow or believe anyone just because they have a fancy title attached to their name or uniform on their body. Respect is earned not by titles, but by those who deserve it regardless of their status in society.

I will check out the links and let you all know if I find something appealing enough to post. I may. I may not. But, I will be honest and truthful about it. The challenge is simple. I already explained it above. No, I am not "agnostic" in the sense that I don't know whether or not I believe. I do not believe because I see no evidence that has convinced me enough, so I am atheist. Atheism is not a "denial of god" as much as it is a "disbelief in god". You have to believe something in order to deny it. Unless, you are denying the "existence" of that something--which, in this case, I suppose I am, but only because I see no reason to accept the belief.

 

Still evidence must be made that an omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent being could exist. We know that such a Being could not logically exist in the natural realm. Thus, we must appeal to a "supernatural" realm.

If we are to appeal to a "supernatural" realm, we must provide evidence for it.

If not, we are presupposing it, unnecessarily.

 

I am not all knowing either, obviously, i am human. But in my experience i have had with God, it has not been all one sided....i havnt just believed in him and prayed to Him without Him taking part in the relationship. It's hard to explain, and even harder for a sceptic to accept, but time and time again GOd has spoken to me through other people, through an experience, through tears, rejection, music, joy, prayer, ect ect.....


I might not be the type of person you need to talk to about this. Perhaps Huck Finn can help you, He is usually pretty good with practical links and is quite educated in philosophy and theology, it seems.

oh and what you said about authority, i agree with for the most part, but i guess it would be 'preaching' if i were to say anything further. but i have to say that Jesus rebelled against authority too...always confronting hypocritical religious leaders and leaving them speechless.

 

Interesting thread, but I cant really see it getting anywhere in the way of converting anybody. There is no hard evidence for Christianity or we would all be for or against it. Which is how a lot of people like to look at it anyway. In my opinion, if your unsure about your beliefs the best route is to study all the religions and philosophies you can and follow the one that best suits you until it suits you no more. Which it appears you have done already. So whats wrong with being an Atheist? Religions that use scare tactics and discourage an open mind can only be oppressive to someone who has an open mind and doesnt want to be scared into a belief system.


There are a few philosophies out there that encourage you to use your mind instead of blindly following their teachings. They give you their theories, and make sure you understand its all just theory until you prove it for yourself, and then lay out the techniques to follow to prove or disprove what they told you. But again this isnt for everybody, some people need dogma and some dont need to believe in anything. To each his/her own.

Sorry Libertine for not trying to prove Christianity, but I really wouldnt know where to begin and I just wanted to throw my biased point of view into the mix.

 

That's right, there is no hard evidence, but like i said before...and as it says in the good book... FAith is the evidence of things UNSEEN.

what would be the point of that? drifting from one belief to the other as is suits us? What about sticking to something that sometimes doesnt suit us and perservering and growing and learning in those beliefs? I couldnt imagine believing one thing but keeping in mind that next year i will probably believe something completely different, not to mention what i mioght believe after that. One way. One GOd. one truth.I would assume this lifestyle you describe would also encourage marriage until it doesnt suit anymore, only to move on to the next spouse? Why even bother dating if you're not looking for one partner for life?

i have not been scared into my beliefs, i have been loved into them. And i think believing in the gospel of Jesus Christ more open minded than not believing in it. it's too easy to not believe!

 

Good points!

It's not that I am displeased with being an atheist at all. It is just that I like to keep my options open in all things. Keep an open-mind, but not so open that my brain falls out.

Yes, I do not subscribe to religion for those reasons stated.

However, if there happens to be a "God" and I seem to have overlooked any hard evidence for such, I am perfectly willing to accept the evidence and make a reasonable assessment.

 

If you come to the realisation that your beliefs may not be infallible truth, then why wouldnt you search for something else? I'm not saying you should change religions like you change your clothes but that you should constantly test your beliefs and if you feel they arent right then you shouldnt be afraid to change them. People grow and change with new experiences and if you dont allow your belief system to do the same it could cause a schism.

I grew up with parents who were Christian and my exposure to their beliefs was enough to make me fearful of being tortured for all eternity because I didnt believe in the bible. Your situation differs from mine because your happy with Christianity and I am glad you are, but I was not and had preachers telling me I was going to burn in hell. I dont know about you but I think thats some fucked up shit to tell a child, and If my parents hadnt been kind enough to allow me to make my own choices and not force their beliefs on me as if they were the only truth then I would probably have a repressed fear of looking for truth outside of the bible, lest I burn in hell for all eternity.

 

Can 0+0=1?No it cant.Therefor there is a god.I think we should start with that.

 

Please elaborate your position. Are you simply asking if SOMETHING can come from NOTHING? If so, that isn't a viable argument for "god".

Prove that there ever was a "nothing". You can't because "nothing" isn't a something...it is the opposite...the absence of "something". And really, "nothing" doesn't exist (ironic, huh?)...something is always there.

Matter/Energy cannot be destroyed or created but can only change form. Thus, it makes sense to me that that which exists, exists in past, present and future just in differing forms and variations.

 

Yes there was never a "0" so there allways had to be a "1".Its impossible for there to be a "0" beacause somthing cant come form nothing.So there has to be somthing that allways has exsited.Thats God.He is the Ultimate Reality.I myself am wondering if my religon is ture or not but I think that it is logical for god to exsit.There is a god.If you want a personal exprence go to the "My Finds(Read)" topic.