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.
As I pointed out to your buddy, the existence of matter means that there is a cause. This point was disputed by neither of you.
I'm on the fence with this. Cause and affect intuitively, for me, are related to time; i.e., first the cause, then the affect. I have to ask, can this position be reconciled without time? We don't know and some suggest that time has not always existed. If this is the case, than cause leading to affect becomes muddled.
Quote:
That leaves only a few possible alternatives:
Self created matter.
Self existing eternal matter.
Matter created by a self existent, transcendent and eternal being.
If you know of any more, please enlighten me.
Assinging self to matter is problematic. As subjective beings we have square pegs and regardless of available holes (round and what have you) we may try to fit that square peg in a round hole. We're bound by sensory perception, and while it is fantastic, I have little doubt that it presents limitations. Of course, this gives room (for me) for consideration of what we could call supernatural. To be clear, I don't believe that there is a dividing line between the natural and supernatural. It's a matter of what we are capable of perceiving. At one time disease was considered supernatural and it ceased to exist in that category once we were able to reason and test it out. Point being is that origins may be far more complicated, and more interesting, than matter spontaneously appearing (infers time) or god did it.
Quote:
I would also assert that one's choice to proceed with a particular world view does not necessarily have to be cogent or immediately cerebral. However, the choice to adopt a specific world view indicates a "firm belief" in that chosen view. We proceed in our world view with a choice of acceptance or non-acceptance of the existence of a transcendent eternal being. It's either one or the other no matter which way you try to spin it.
It's either one way or another as far as you can fathom. As I stated previously, I certainly don't know, but I'm open to new ideas, evidence etc and choose not to be boxed in by limited views/perceptions of others.
"I'm tired of your charging my honesty (personal attacks). It has nothing to do with the topic at hand and poor attempts to avoid discussion by attacking people is just lame. Grow up."
I charged your honesty and pointed out your arrogance based on your assertions that were clearly pointed out and not delivered as personal attacks - simply an honest assessment from direct observation.
Honesty is vitally important in any discussion or debate.
Your right, I think that it may be time for me to get out of your sand box and let you play.
"In all these pages you really haven't said anything. You haven't presented any type of an argument. Who knows what you're thinking or what you know or what your point is. I don't think you know either."
"The "choice to believe in the veracity of speculation"? No, I don't have faith in speculation, sorry. It's an unreliable source of knowledge, which is sort of the point here."
As I pointed out to your buddy, the existence of matter means that there is a cause. This point was disputed by neither of you. That leaves only a few possible alternatives:
Self created matter.
Self existing eternal matter.
Matter created by a self existent, transcendent and eternal being.
If you know of any more, please enlighten me.
Who cares, there are plenty of threads that are about this.
But here's one more possibility: matter is eternal, and it is actually incorrect to use the phrase "before the universe..." The same that you would say about your god.
Not that I am subscribing to any of those, I merely state them as possibilities. I believe it is you who is asserting one over the other to us with the faith of complete (or near) certainty.
Quote:
I would also assert that one's choice to proceed with a particular world view does not necessarily have to be cogent or immediately cerebral. However, the choice to adopt a specific world view indicates a "firm belief" in that chosen view. We proceed in our world view with a choice of acceptance or non-acceptance of the existence of a transcendent eternal being. It's either one or the other no matter which way you try to spin it.
Wrong. "Firm belief" my arse. You may as well say agnostics have a firm belief in both God and not God.
Quote:
"If you think it's impossible to have faith without doubt, then fine, it's impossible to have complete faith."
Gosh, is this a confession!
For some reason I put you above this... obviously you took it out of context by deliberately deleting my sentence where I stated that I don't agree with your assertion that it is impossible to have complete faith.
Quote:
"If you want to continue disputing the definition of faith, take it up withMerriam-Webster."
I charged your honesty and pointed out your arrogance based on your assertions that were clearly pointed out and not delivered as personal attacks - simply an honest assessment from direct observation.
First of all, you don't know anyone on this board well enough to determine honesty. I have not presented any kind of lie or deception. The fact remains is that you're dramatically getting caught up with attacking the poster rather than addressing the post and it's ridiculous. You attack me and then you call me arrogant. That's rich. Whatever.
I knew a guy once that tried to convince me he was Jesus. I'm pretty sure he was mentally ill. He was nice enough though.
I also just saw that comedy documentary religulous (sp?). There was a guy in that movie that thought he was the second coming too.
Hey I just saw some thing and for whatever reason i watch it here. It was a sitcom and I'm not really into such shows, but made myself watch. The show was called , "the BIG BANG THEORY" and I thought it was funny. Things come late to Sweden and I've never heard of it before.
Again, the law of causality (which I did not invent) states that every effect has a cause.
...but why bother.
Effect has a cause within space/time. If you read the rest of my post you would have addressed my questions about eternal exisence of time. I want to be clear, I don't endorse quatum quackery, so I bring this up with trepidation (due my own limited education on the subject and grappling kooks), but at the atomic level IRT quatum events, what common sense says about cause and effect, again, becomes muddled. Hopefully, we have a physicist on board that may take the time to discuss.
"I'm on the fence with this. Cause and affect intuitively, for me, are related to time; i.e., first the cause, then the affect."
Again, the law of causality (which I did not invent) states that every effect has a cause.
...but why bother.
hmmmmmm
Dare we give it a symbolism to illustrate ???
Here's one that Chinese have given me in the past to illustrate "Cause & Effect" using the common Yin and Yang symbol. Add to that a little spooky "World of Warcraft" religious symbolism for spice flavouring and viola!!!
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.
