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.
Taking God out of anything leaves a horrific abomination.
That includes all the great artistic achievements that were inspired by God, for example. What's the purpose in admiring them if you don't understand what inspired them?
You've asked this before. You're obviously very bent out of shape when non-Christians admire Christian-inspired art. Frankly, this idea of yours is hopelessly deluded.
Simply put, a creation's aesthetic is not dependent on the inspiration of its creation. Have you never been to a museum and admired works from ancient Egypt, say those honoring Isis or Osiris or Ra? Do you think one has to worship Athena to appreciate the beauty of the Parthenon? That a non-Jew cannot appreciate the loveliness of a menorah? That a non-Muslim cannot see the beauty the striking beauty of Islamic calligraphy? That a non-Christian cannot enjoy Handel's Messiah?
How pitiful. I wonder what you think of Jews writing songs such as White Christmas and Spirit in the Sky?
Tangentially, I'm struck by how certain Christians want it both ways. They're outraged when Christmas festivals at a public school become the 'Winter Holiday', yet they simultaneously insist that it is a contradiction when a non-Christian celebrates aspects of Christmas. It thereby follows that they think schools should celebrate Christmas while all the non-Christian students are necessarily excluded from said celebrations. They're outraged when 'Merry Christmas' is not uttered, yet they pitch a fit when a non-Christian embraces even an aspect of Christmas that is thoroughly secularized.
When you reduce everything to ideology, even artistic appreciation, you are utterly and completely lost.
"No intelligent designer is observed not to exist," in exactly the same way that Santa Claus and the Easter bunny are not observed not to exist." Make believe is not observable one way or the other.
Statements such as this demonstrate nothing but that your mind is closed to possibilities that billions of people, including world-class philosophers, scientists and academics, accept as plausible or even likely. For good reason, these same folks do not regard Santa Claus or the Easter bunny as plausible or likely. Your pompous declaration that an intelligent designer is "make believe" does not make this true or add to the discussion. The evidence amassed by the Intelligent Design movement points toward an intelligent designer. I don't insist it proves an intelligent designer, but it has established the likelihood of one to the satisfaction of multiple Nobel laureates, https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/it...ar-for-design/. This takes it pretty far out of the category of make believe.
If you are truly tired of the nonsense, stop contributing to it. Confront the evidence. I just finished two excellent books: The Mystery of Life's Origin and The Stairway to Life: An Origin-of-Life Reality Check. Both are highly technical works by credentialed scientists. Digest them and get back to us with your exposure of the "make believe." https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...?ie=UTF8&psc=1, https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...?ie=UTF8&psc=1.
Quote:
The "God of Christianity" can not be observed to exist and is instead assumed to exist and then declared to exist. This is no different from any other form of make believe (make up a god/fairy/leprechaun/whatever and then declare it to be true).
Would billions of people, including world-class philosophers, scientists and academics, accept my tale of fairies and leprechauns? Why do they accept Christianity or some other form of theism? Is string theory, multiverse theory, the Big Bang, and 90% of quantum physics "make believe" because it cannot be observed? You are exposing yourself as a veritable fount of nonsense.
The God of Christianity is not assumed to exist. He is posited by Christians, on the basis of all the available evidence and inferences, as the best explanation for the reality we observe and occupy. He is declared to exist by those who have reached a conviction that he does exist. This doesn't inevitably mean he does in fact exist, but well-founded Christian convictions are no more "make believe" than is string theory. To analogize the God of Christianity to Santa Claus, fairies and leprechauns merely demonstrates the shallowness of your thinking.
Quote:
Current evidence indicates that matter interacts with itself in an ongoing fashion, and that the universe operates in accordance with natural principles governed by physical laws (E=MC², the law of conservation of energy and quantum mechanics).
Sure it does. With the exception of miracles, Christianity says nothing different. But the materialistic paradigm has no convincing explanation for the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the information content of life, the anthropic (fine-tuning) principle, the laboratory results establishing PSI, or the vast and diverse body of evidence suggesting the survival of consciousness. In all of these areas, a theistic explanation is increasingly being recognized as plausible - and this despite the near death-grip that the materialistic paradigm has long had on peer-review and grant funding.
Science has not provided a satisfactory nor reasonable explanation for existence of most of our world much less how it all began
Daily we discover new things that sink our predominant theories
These new things are promptly dismissed by Science leadership
Statements such as this demonstrate nothing but that your mind is closed to possibilities that billions of people, including world-class philosophers, scientists and academics, accept as plausible or even likely. For good reason, these same folks do not regard Santa Claus or the Easter bunny as plausible or likely. Your pompous declaration that an intelligent designer is "make believe" does not make this true or add to the discussion. The evidence amassed by the Intelligent Design movement points toward an intelligent designer. I don't insist it proves an intelligent designer, but it has established the likelihood of one to the satisfaction of multiple Nobel laureates, https://evolutionnews.org/2019/10/it...ar-for-design/. This takes it pretty far out of the category of make believe.
If you are truly tired of the nonsense, stop contributing to it. Confront the evidence. I just finished two excellent books: The Mystery of Life's Origin and The Stairway to Life: An Origin-of-Life Reality Check. Both are highly technical works by credentialed scientists. Digest them and get back to us with your exposure of the "make believe." https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...?ie=UTF8&psc=1, https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B0...?ie=UTF8&psc=1.
Would billions of people, including world-class philosophers, scientists and academics, accept my tale of fairies and leprechauns? Why do they accept Christianity or some other form of theism? Is string theory, multiverse theory, the Big Bang, and 90% of quantum physics "make believe" because it cannot be observed? You are exposing yourself as a veritable fount of nonsense.
The God of Christianity is not assumed to exist. He is posited by Christians, on the basis of all the available evidence and inferences, as the best explanation for the reality we observe and occupy. He is declared to exist by those who have reached a conviction that he does exist. This doesn't inevitably mean he does in fact exist, but well-founded Christian convictions are no more "make believe" than is string theory. To analogize the God of Christianity to Santa Claus, fairies and leprechauns merely demonstrates the shallowness of your thinking.
Sure it does. With the exception of miracles, Christianity says nothing different. But the materialistic paradigm has no convincing explanation for the origin of the universe, the origin of life, the information content of life, the anthropic (fine-tuning) principle, the laboratory results establishing PSI, or the vast and diverse body of evidence suggesting the survival of consciousness. In all of these areas, a theistic explanation is increasingly being recognized as plausible - and this despite the near death-grip that the materialistic paradigm has long had on peer-review and grant funding.
Your so-called evidence is obtained under the PRESUMPTION that there is no Source (Supreme or otherwise) for what are therefore termed "natural" findings. That is known as baking the conclusion into the cake. There is no evidence and there can be no evidence of that presumption, period. You atheists are the primary users of tautology while thinking you are exposing the tautologies of believers. Face it, there is no more support for your atheism than there is for our theism yet you pretend that there is. Pathetic!
Unless you can make a case that God had a source, you are yourself "baking the conclusion into the cake." If God exists without a source (a cause), then existence without a cause is possible, and the assumption of the existence of an un-caused God is an extraneous step. If it is possible that something can exist without cause, than the law of conservation of energy which states that energy can neither be created or destroyed completely answers the question, and is OBSERVED to be true. No extra step is needed.
Your so-called evidence is obtained under the PRESUMPTION that there is no Source (Supreme or otherwise) for what are therefore termed "natural" findings. That is known as baking the conclusion into the cake. There is no evidence and there can be no evidence of that presumption, period. You atheists are the primary users of tautology while thinking you are exposing the tautologies of believers. Face it, there is no more support for your atheism than there is for our theism yet you pretend that there is. Pathetic!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tired of the Nonsense
Unless you can make a case that God had a source, you are yourself "baking the conclusion into the cake." If God exists without a source (a cause), then existence without a cause is possible, and the assumption of the existence of an un-caused God is an extraneous step. If it is possible that something can exist without cause, than the law of conservation of energy which states that energy can neither be created or destroyed completely answers the question, and is OBSERVED to be true. No extra step is needed.
Your reading comprehensions sucks. I said nothing about a cause. I said a Source and our presumptions about our Reality (THE Source) applies to both of our presumptions - your "Nature" and my "God." Why do you think you get to claim the default presumption???
Well, I would just like to say that it's good that people are finally discussing this. I would like to get to the bottom of this question once and for all.
The God of Christianity is not assumed to exist. (1) He is posited by Christians, on the basis of all the available evidence and inferences, as the best explanation for the reality we observe and occupy. (2) He is declared to exist by those who have reached a conviction that he does exist. (3) This doesn't inevitably mean he does in fact exist, but well-founded Christian convictions are no more "make believe" than is string theory. (4) To analogize the God of Christianity to Santa Claus, fairies and leprechauns merely demonstrates the shallowness of your thinking.
You've said way too much for me to attempt to answer too (I work sometimes and I'm tired when I get home) so I'll just look at his paragraph.
(1) All available evidence aside (I just don't see any), "the best explanation for the reality we observe and occupy"? I'm sorry but I don't see Christianity as being an explanation for the reality we observe at all, let alone the best explanation.
(2) "He is 'declared' to exist by those who have reached a 'conviction' that he does exist". OK, you said it yourself. Declared and conviction. Do you see how we are heading into "demonstrates the shallowness of your thinking" territory?
(3) "This doesn't inevitably mean he does in fact exist, but well-founded Christian convictions are no more "make believe" than is string theory". OK, lets be clear here. String theory is no less "make believe" than Santa Claus, fairies and leprechauns. Leprechauns do exist by the way and you can't prove they don't! Which proves they do exist by default.
(4) The evidence for God is no different to the evidence of Santa Claus, fairies and leprechauns. To say that it demonstrates the shallowness of one's thinking is just poor logic. Show me just one piece of logical and verifiable evidence that demonstrates the difference between the belief in the God of Christianity and the belief of Santa Claus, fairies and leprechauns. I should point out that all Christians believe in Santa Claus.
No - the math/physics just doesn't work out for Naturalism.
I've spent 40+ years looking at things from physics/math/computing perspective (career)!
I posted rational reasons, you just make assertions. And you may notice all physics papers have natural results, not a god did it.
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.
Interesting. 
