Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So basically his approach is just "There is a god because no matter what you talk about I can just say 'That is god too' at every turn... therefore it must be true!"?
I have heard some poor apologetics in my time but that certainly takes the biscuit. And the cake. And the tea tray.
So basically his approach is just "There is a god because no matter what you talk about I can just say 'That is god too' at every turn... therefore it must be true!"?
I have heard some poor apologetics in my time but that certainly takes the biscuit. And the cake. And the tea tray.
That is a distortion (not surprisingly). In my BELIEFS (as opposed to my scientific hypotheses) our entire reality is God . . . everything that comprises Him . . . including His consciousness which bounds and constrains everything. We are part of God's "consciousness-producing neurons." Everything that exists is some part of God and performs some function in His existence. This is a panENtheist view. There is no "outside" of our reality. There is no "supernatural." There is no separate "creator" of our reality. God's very existence itself is our creator and reality.
To employ my favorite tool . . . an analogy . . . it is as if our brain cells were individually aware (like us with respect to God). They would be in a similar situation to us as their God. Every other cell in our body and their myriad functions would be part and parcel of their "universe" and their "creation" would be a function of our existence as their God. Like our universe . . . very few cells are involved in the production of our consciousness . . . only the brain cells. All the other cells in their "universe" would be part and parcel of what makes our physical body function and enables us to exist.
We have no more idea what all the other features of our reality DO in the maintenance and perpetuation of God's spiritual body . . . than our individual brain cells would have about the myriad other cells and functions of our physical body. I am just thankful that we are all God's consciousness ("neural") cells . . . and NOT God's anal cells as some of my misguided Christian brothers and sisters seem to believe we are!
Hardly a distortion if you follow up claiming that the entire reality is god. So it is just as I said. No matter what argument, topic, evidence or information we look at all you do is say "That is god too because everything is god".
My guess is that, in calling herself "Christian," perhaps she believes that accepting JC as lord and savior means salvation/heaven. I think that's a basic tenet of anyone who is technically "Christian."
How does she know what the earliest churches practiced, besides being killed by Romans for their belief in Jesus?
Hardly a distortion if you follow up claiming that the entire reality is god. So it is just as I said. No matter what argument, topic, evidence or information we look at all you do is say "That is god too because everything is god".
The context is your enemy because no matter what we investigate . . . it is within the existence of God . . . which is no different than saying it is within the existence of the universe. You just have a bias against the term God based on the actions of fallible men with their purblind beliefs.
The context is your enemy because no matter what we investigate . . . it is within the existence of God . . . which is no different than saying it is within the existence of the universe. You just have a bias against the term God based on the actions of fallible men with their purblind beliefs.
I will say Mystic, that yours is the only theory that makes the least bit of sense, of all the beliefs about this supposed God. But, to paraphrase something the late Christopher Hitchens once said, a theory that is set up in such a way in which it can never be disproven, is not a theory worth having.
I will say Mystic, that yours is the only theory that makes the least bit of sense, of all the beliefs about this supposed God. But, to paraphrase something the late Christopher Hitchens once said, a theory that is set up in such a way in which it can never be disproven, is not a theory worth having.
I agree. And worse, it is speculative and some have found fault with the science. It looks that way to me, too, but I'm no expert in that area.
And worse still...
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
The context is your enemy because no matter what we investigate . . . it is within the existence of God . . . which is no different than saying it is within the existence of the universe. You just have a bias against the term God based on the actions of fallible men with their purblind beliefs.
This is theist -talks for 'You just have a bias against 'Gaps for god' arguments because of the bad appearance of the sorts of Christianity I disagree with'.
In fact we have a bias against Gaps for god arguments because they are speculative, unverifiable (as Whippers says) and false logic. It's the old ploy of presenting a dodgy argument and trying to shame us into swallowing it with accusation of prejudice. I think we are all to canny to fall for that one.
The context is your enemy because no matter what we investigate . . . it is within the existence of God
My point exactly. Essentially whatever you invedtigate.... that is god.... whatever you use to investigate too.... that is god... whatever conclusions you come to - correct ones or incorrect ones.... that is god too.
You just wave your hands and declare it is all "god" and that is it. So basically you responded to post no. 24 to tell me I was wrong - but the proceeded to show exactly why it was right.
What caused the Big Bang? Or is the Big Bang of the universe cyclical, expanding and contracting eternally?
Is there enough matter/gravity for the universe to cease expanding and contract? There doesn't seem to be so science proposes there is dark matter. Matter we can't see but is there responsible for keeping the universe from expanding so much that it never contracts again and just fizzles out in every direction. It's a belief in dark matter, which is important from a scientific view because were the universe tightly bound up in dense matter/black hole for eternity, never beginning, no starting point, always there, and it was to suddenly explode for no reason, it would be illogical.
Or something made the Big Bang happen. I'm not saying it's God, but if something else caused the universe to expand once then the universe isn't eternal and that other thing is or at least precedes the universe.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
