Jump to content

O.K. then what or who is God?

Recommended Posts

Why do people always bolt when the questions get too hard?

 

What's wrong with saying, 'Look, I don't know', or 'I may be wrong'?

 

If I didn't already know far too many Theists to know they're not all like that it would really put me in the mind that Theists really do have exceptonally poor faith in what they claim to be true.

 

 

Agree entirely!

 

I've said before that I suspect many of the most vociferous theists are quite insecure in their faith. Those who aren't probably just smile knowingly and get on with their lives.

 

I know what you're gonna say, Janie!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Agree entirely!

 

I've said before that I suspect many of the most vociferous theists are quite insecure in their faith. Those who aren't probably just smile knowingly and get on with their lives.

 

I know what you're gonna say, Janie!

 

What about the most vociferous atheists,they might be insecure in their lack of faith? "Those who arn't probably just smile knowingly and get on with their lives"

I'm not insecure in my faith by the way.

 

I hope i've had the last word because the thread has gone on long enough,i expect daffodil would be relieved if it ended..:)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What about the most vociferous atheists,they might be insecure in their lack of faith? "Those who arn't probably just smile knowingly and get on with their lives"

I'm not insecure in my faith by the way.

 

I hope i've had the last word because the thread has gone on long enough,i expect daffodil would be relieved if it ended..:)

 

Ha ha! ... My secret message was correct!

 

I did, as I stated in the last post, know you were going to say that .... Kinda obvious.

 

Now go back and look at my posts if you can be bothered. You will probably be surprised to note that not a single one of them is about atheism.

 

You are insecure in your faith, by the way. Psychology 101. I've told you before.

 

ETA, next day:

 

Look Janie, I know you think I'm just out to have a go at you and that's probably a reasonable deduction given our many exchanges but, I assure you, that's not simply the case.

 

If you go back to our first ever exchanges, if they're still viewable, you'll see it started with me asking you a couple of simple questions about why you believe stuff. Your evasive responses led me to conclude that, like pretty much every religious person I've ever engaged with, you don't actually know what you believe. (Before you default to your usual cry of "insult", note that I'm talking about me here, not you; I am trying to explain my thought process to you). Since then there have been a few jibes, I admit, though not as many as you think - you have responded to a number of genuine questions and concerns from me as insults, a fact which has reinforced by underlying view regarding faith/delusion (still talking about myself here, remember).

 

When I posted my agreement to Richard's point I knew you would respond by turning the comment round to apply to atheists. I knew because it was the obvious response. I probably would have made the same response myself if I was in your position. You can see, above though, that I had considered the response before I posted the question and had deduced that it wasn't valid for the reason pointed out at the start of this post. As an aside, I always consider potential responses when I make a point on here or in real life, do you?

 

Anyway, I hope that helps you understand a little about my thinking here. I'll provide an example now, to illustrate why I think the way I do and why I was keen to show my agreement with Richard. It's some questions:

 

You said, earlier in the thread, that you are hoping to meet your loved ones again after dying. Can you tell me how that meeting will take place, where it will happen and what you are going to do together for eternity or however long you consider this afterlife will last?

Edited by Lockjaw

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
That didn't answer my question.

 

 

If you live in the bubble of 'chance' then I don't need to waste my time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you live in the bubble of 'chance' then I don't need to waste my time.

 

Hiya Mr Fisk.

 

Here's a bit of a post I made some time in the past. Would you care to have a look and give us an answer?

 

 

Fungus needs moisture, a source of nutrition (eg some wood) and a minimum temperature level to grow.

 

If a lump of nylon found itself in a nice warm moist place, by accident, no fungus would grow on it because there was no source of nutrition.

 

If a piece of wood found itself in a warm dry place, by accident, no fungus would grow on it because there was no moisture.

 

If a piece of wood found itself in a very cold place, by accident, no fungus would grow because it was too cold.

 

If a piece of wood found itself in a warm moist place, by accident, fungus still may or may not grow because there is the requirement for fungus spores to land on it first.

 

If a piece of wood found itself in a warm moist place, by accident, and fungus spores landed on it then there would be a good chance that fungus would grow.

 

All those possibilities could arise, do you agree?

 

Now, when you see the fungus covered wood, do you think "Aha, somebody has placed this wood in this warm environment, provided some water and added fungus spores" or do you think "ah, the environment was conducive so some fungus grew" or, maybe, do you draw another conclusion?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hiya Mr Fisk.

 

Here's a bit of a post I made some time in the past. Would you care to have a look and give us an answer?

 

Oh--- the famous 'fungus' shows its head:hihi:

 

Let me state again, chance will not provide a causal mechanism and underlying structure.

Chance cannot provide a causal mechanism and underlying structure because chance needs a causal mechanism and underlying structure upon which to work.

 

There is no such thing as chance working on nothingness, only chance working on an underlying structure. In a state of nothingness, there is no such thing as chance.

 

Get it??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Both you and RB have missed the point completely.

 

I stated that for that to happen, you need a causal mechanic- you describing your own eventual birth is not an example as your parents are the cause and you the effect!

 

For the Universe to just pop out of existence on a belief that certain 'conditions' were just right is baseless and nonsensical.

 

I gave reputable quotes from current leading scientists to show how this happening was impossible.

 

This is why it is so hard to discuss anything with some atheists as they remain closed mind- using chance to get them out when they have no answer.

 

I suppose if you woke up and saw a pink elephant sitting in your garden, you will say 'Oh, there was chance that could have happened'?!!

 

Lets say you find a mobile phone in while walking in a desert,(your phone is made of metal/plastic/glass)- and these very three are found in sand (glass), plastic (oil) and metal (extracted from ground)...will you say, "Oh, look, the Sun shone, the wind blew, lightning struck, the oil bubbled to the surface and mixed with the sand and metal, and over millions of years the mobile came together by chance?

 

I will leave it there and bid goodbye and good sense(hopefully).

You appear to be making some huge assumptions here;

 

A) That to believe in the big bang you must be an atheist

 

B) That if you believe in the big bang, you believe that it came from nothing

 

 

You are, of course, wrong.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The initial post is begging the question by placing God at the centre of the discussion. Creation by a god (or gods) hasn't earned it's place there - it's there because old habits die hard - those ancient notions are part of our culture, despite them having no evidence and bringing nothing new to the debate since they were put down in writing.

 

Evolution isn't in question either. Scientists are probing the real big mysteries - how life got started on Earth (or elsewhere), and the nature of the Universe (eg. did it even have a beginning?). These are the questions for the 21st century in my opinion.

 

Who or what is God? - a figurehead from human imagination, born from superstition, turned cult, turned worldwide organised religion and probably completely unrecognisable from 'his' beginnings.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh--- the famous 'fungus' shows its head:hihi:

 

Let me state again, chance will not provide a causal mechanism and underlying structure.

Chance cannot provide a causal mechanism and underlying structure because chance needs a causal mechanism and underlying structure upon which to work.

 

There is no such thing as chance working on nothingness, only chance working on an underlying structure. In a state of nothingness, there is no such thing as chance.

 

Get it??

Lockjaw never claimed that it would happen without a "causal mechanism".

May I remind you that you started all this with a response to one of my posts, when you said...

Takes a hell of a lot of faith to believe in chance..

Neither mine or your posts mentioned anything about causes or the big bang.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
If you live in the bubble of 'chance' then I don't need to waste my time.

 

I haven't shared my position with you, I've asked you some questions which you have avoided - my only conclusion being that rather than give evidence for your own position you'd rather try to pull others positions down.

 

I've had about my fill of people doing that today, if you don't answer my questions I will assume yo can't and your position is baseless - no skin off my nose.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh--- the famous 'fungus' shows its head:hihi:

 

Let me state again, chance will not provide a causal mechanism and underlying structure.

Chance cannot provide a causal mechanism and underlying structure because chance needs a causal mechanism and underlying structure upon which to work.

 

There is no such thing as chance working on nothingness, only chance working on an underlying structure. In a state of nothingness, there is no such thing as chance.

 

Get it??

 

I take it that's a "no" then.

 

Ah well, I tried.

 

Next!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.