Jesus Christ is Lord!

Post Reply New Topic

Last time I checked the number, 73% of Americans identify as Christian and 85% of the senate and congress identify as Christian.
Quit trying to play the persecuted minority card. Its a very transparent and a factually wrong argument.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=guCku3_pK7Q[/youtube]

...sure thing.

Last edited by drh1138 on 06 Sep 2014, 7:47 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Yes, people on WP have actually told me that science has proven GOD does not exist. How tragic that science does this to people - to make them develop false conclusions.

I even showed the wikipage for the concept of cosmological "fine-tuning" which is used by religious philosophers in debates as the strongest evidence of creationism:

Wikipedia: "Physicist Paul Davies has asserted that 'There is now broad agreement among physicists and cosmologists that the Universe is in several respects ?fine-tuned' for life' ....".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned_Universe

However, upon reading this science evidence, people were confused, how could science have evidence for 'fine-tuning'? Science is suppose to be this religion that proves GOD does not exist. So, they insulted me, told me I was "quoting out of context" and other nonsense, when in fact I am quoting right from the top of the wiki page and quoting the prevailing scientific theory. That shows you how science closes off minds and how only science that supports "no GOD" is "good science" and any science that is evidence for GOD is "bad science".

Nope. As a teacher of literacy, I'm more concerned with what someone is saying than correcting their grammar. And in making points meself, I'll often care more about the point than me own spelling or grammer.

Let's flip it around. Religious people come here and make statements that exclude us non-religious (or ex-religious or other-religious) types. Stating that Jesus is Lord is a grand way to get the heckles up. Telling people that our bias is due to anything other than what it really stems from is making grand assumptions - and nobody likes assumptions being made about them, especially when they're totally wrong. And lastly, when religious people come here and tell us, covertly or overtly, that we will be judged, is making a judgement about us in and of itself.

You may think the same about us non-religious types, but it's pot-kettle with the truth.

If the religious here don't wish to provoke an adverse reaction, then don't make absolute statements. I defend your right to your beliefs, as much as I defend the rights of the non-religious or the other-religious. And I also defend the right for us all to have an argument, even if/when emotions come into it. We are both logical and emotional beasties.

hmmm.. reminds me of the Monty Python sketch...
- "Is this the room for an argument?"
- "No, this is abuse. Argument is down the hall."

One day the tide will turn and the flock of the slave "god" yaweh will realise who he really is and will over throw him and Satan will rule

Ave Satanas Rex!

I can agree with what your saying about the fine-tuned universe. However, to take the huge step from fine tuning to things like 'holy ghost money shots, virgin births, people being god, people coming back from the dead, god requiring blood, young earth creation, people feeding thousands of people with two fish, etc.' is a huge unsubstantiated leap. The fine tuning doesn't prove a single uniquely Christian doctrine. The thread is talking about Christianity, which isn't proven by fine tuning. So fine tuning is really not relevant to the conversation.

Someone did call him a troll. Being accused of being a troll is- well folks certainly react to it as- a personal attack.

Thank you; as a straight "A" student in English, if I made that a habit, my life long acquaintances and friends would likely number close to zero.

I've learned much more from animals and intellectually disabled persons, than anyone I went to college with; simply as they had full use of their emotional intelligence; the oldest and scientifically proven most important intelligence of all.

Thank God science has finally figured this out; it took me longer than it could of to figure this out, if this knowledge is available when I am much younger.

The difference in having emotional intelligence and not having it is night and day, for me at least.

There was a time when I had to drink a six-pack of beer to even go into a dance bar to even think about socializing.

Now I lead the dance and social interaction without any substances to get me through the night.

And yes, dance is the oldest form of communication; far more informative for emotional intelligence than any language developed; science shows that 60 to 93 per cent of all human communication is non-verbal; totally lost in text only communication.

But ha, there is photography and videos now for social interaction, and I for one do not fear to show my face anywhere I go, online or off.

I like myself; so sue me (not you, by the way;) it's what socially adjusted humans do.

And no it certainly wasn't always that way; and yes the real man Jesus from the Gospel of Thomas translated in English, in 1959, actually suggests that folks strip down naked; not unlike the old stories of King David, to get in touch with the spirit of GOD inside, outside, above, so below.

http://www.sacred-texts.com/chr/thomas.htm

The stuff of metaphors that unfortunately not all folks can understand, but that was understood then as well as now.

It is just part of the human condition: different minds with different ways of thinking and perceiving the world.

It takes a great deal of cognitive empathy to understand that; and mostly non-verbal communication; not the newer complex abstract language of approximately connecting to other human beings, rather than through the non-verbal mirror neuron process of really getting in touch with another human being's heart.

And then there are folks with non-verbal learning disability who unfortunately have little ability for this human skill; this effects and yes affects everything in life; as well as my form of Autism that was almost completely opposite; a language delay with Hyperlexia per pattern and visual thinker.

If I had not lost effective use of my eye sight and hearing, I would likely never be writing on the Internet, as I do not see writing as an effective means of human communication; I much rather meet folks face to face; but nah, I am not scared of people at all, anymore; I love them, and if a person loves themselves and all the folks around them, a relationship with some type of all encompassing GOD, is much more likely, from both my experience and opinion from interacting with tens of thousand of people, in my career of working with the public.

And after all, the philosopher Yeshua suggests that some folks will see and hear GOD without their eyes and ears, and some folks will not see or hear GOD at all, as reported in the Gospel of Thomas.

That part hasn't changed one bit, as far as I can see; proven every time I visit here too, time and time again; yes to be expected, too.

But as a classical pantheist there is evidence for the GOD I believe in, yes; inside, outside, as above, so below; almost word for word from the Gospel of Thomas linked here; and whether or not the reported words from oral tradition duplicate Yeshua's actual words, it matters not to me.

Truth rings true, regardless of who said what, when, where or how.

That's all I am concerned with, the Truth, the whole truth and nothing but it.

God is ALL IT IS to me.

IT as metaphor for GOD does not get any bigger or more whole than that. :)

Yes, it's as simple as THAT, if one wants to use the metaphor of THAT for GOD too.

That's what I mean about the inefficiency of language; people get caught up in the letters and words and lose the essence of true meanings.

Also known as literal thinking language, per text communication, is still a very inefficient and ineffective means of communication, overall for those proficient in more than that, but not more than THAT, if you will. ;)

And to be clear; my discussion here is about the topic and not directed personally at any person in this discussion.

I do not want to hurt anyone's feelings; but yes, sometimes the Truth ITself CAN AND WILL HURT.

AND NO the GOD I know is far from fair.

But YES, I STILL respect GOD and follow GOD's laws of nature, one and the same for me; WITH absolutely no words, text books, or even human beings necessary to describe GOD for me; without humans here, there is no Jesus, no bible, and no religion; but yes, GOD does still exist with or without human culture; it's just common sense, in my opinion and of course easily proven as a classical panTHEIST per the GOD I know as TRUE.

I can only hope that's not too many Caps to make a point, too.

Standard text is way too boring for me; I'm a real life kind of guy, through and through, now that all my physical disabilities are all healed by the GOD of nature, per the greater and more nuanced laws of nature, I find and enjoy everyday, in activities as simple as dance, song, and martial arts.

IT doesn't need to be that complicated, in my opinion.

Yup, and I was reported as a delusional egoist for paraphrasing Zen philosophy.

Wonders never cease, neither here or there or no where too. ;)

This can be true. On many forums I've seen people jump at shadows, on alert for interlopers.

On a well known forum, dedicated to science, I once was accused of making a religious comment because I used the word 'spirit.' I made a comment about something being "in the spirit of debate," but the moderator leaped to a the wrong conclusion and threatened suspension from the forum. And with me being a science nerd, it made me a little jaded of some of the reactionaries within science.

If they legitimately think the OP is starting a thread just to cause trouble, I don't see how it's a personal attack.

Well, it's not an uncommon belief, considering over 70% of the country believes this way.

The Op was paraphrased right out of John 3:16.

This is a philosophy, religion, and politics forum.

John 3:16, most definitely fits in there.

There is absolutely no reason to believe it is emotional hyperbole, considering that simple statistic.

Other than strong disagreement and or abuse of so called authority.

I call it as I see it; hopefully that doesn't upset anyone.

Sorry I've missed these conversations and am possibly just reiterating criticisms you've already encountered.

Many physicists and cosmologists are non-theists - it's far more common in their community than in the general population. The "broad agreement about fine-tuning" probably doesn't amount to broad agreement that science renders theism rationally more compelling than non-theism, or even that the evidence for "fine-tuning" lends plausibility to belief in a conscious, deliberate fine-tuner.

Instead what it probably amounts to is broad agreement that the physical constants and other facts about our universe, had they been very slightly different, would not have permitted our universe to exist and/or to yield conditions favorable for human life on Earth.

But this claim alone does not constitute an argument for theism. In order to constitute an argument for theism, it needs to be supplemented by some combination(s) of the following premises, or premises very similar:

(a) It is not the case that the physical constants etc. were, by yet-unknown factors, determined in law-like fashion to be what they are; i.e., it was physically possible for them to have been very slightly different.

(b) It is not the case that there were so many opportunities for the physical constants etc. to obtain, that the emergence of human life (or something sufficiently comparable) by unguided natural processes was more probable than not. (So, e.g., any relevant "multiverse" hypothesis is false.)

(c) It is not the case that something different from but sufficiently comparable to human life could have emerged by unguided natural processes that didn't require our universe's physical constants etc. to obtain.

And if there is scientific consensus in favor of (a) through (c) or appropriately similar premises, I'd be interested to know; I haven't looked into the matter deeply, but as far as I'm aware, that's not the case. (That doesn't mean there's consensus in opposition to any of them.)

Some further (brief) reading on the fine-tuning argument, from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy: http://www.iep.utm.edu/design/#SH2c

Correct.



Correct.



Thesists present the Teleological argument ("Fine tuning" argument) as a mathematical argument that random creation of the life permitting physical constraints of the universe are sooooooo improbable that it cannot be seriously believed, therefore, a theist explanation is necessary. The "mathematical improbability" is based on physical constraints of the universe such as the strong nuclear force, low entropy, relative force of gravity to electromagnetism ... all having such an infinitesimal range to permit life.

When the physical constants of the universe are looked at independently, the math is .....

(odds of constraint A) * (odds of constraint B) * (odds of constraint C) .... = random creation of a life-permitting universe is nearly impossible

However, the math is not so easy because, as stated in wikipedia, "The precise formulation of the idea is made difficult by the fact that physicists do not yet know how many independent physical constants there are"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-tuned ... se#Premise

In probability theory , the probability of non-independent events is determined differently than dependent events. So, the odds could be even more improbable or less improbable.

I don't know if I addressed your (a)-(c).