For Those Who Do Believe In God...

[Againsheila]

Faith is a personal relationship with the One True God. For the faithfuls' life experience it is an irrefutable fact. For those lacking that experience it is foolishness.

People of faith speak in a manner consistent with that faith. They know what they know. Without that faith it is impossible to know it. So it is a mute argument. The faithful know what they know and the unfatihful think the faithful are nuts. It is a circular argument. There is no arguing faith. You either have it and the resulting life experience or you don't.

You are either drawn to God or you are not. In my experience God makes sense and is the source of all that is good in this life and the one to come. I have never regretted my faith.

Have you ever watched the show Firefly? Shepard Book has a great quote in there "You don't fix the Bible, the Bible fixes you."

 

[random3434]

Faith is a personal relationship with the One True God. For the faithfuls' life experience it is an irrefutable fact. For those lacking that experience it is foolishness.

People of faith speak in a manner consistent with that faith. They know what they know. Without that faith it is impossible to know it. So it is a mute argument. The faithful know what they know and the unfatihful think the faithful are nuts. It is a circular argument. There is no arguing faith. You either have it and the resulting life experience or you don't.

You are either drawn to God or you are not. In my experience God makes sense and is the source of all that is good in this life and the one to come. I have never regretted my faith.

Well said, and I agree!

 

[PeterS]

Just because you don't believe it and mock it doesn't mean it isn't true,

And just because you believe doesn't make it true. You left that part out. How come?

 

[tigerbob]

Your certainty, in your belief, that your God is irrefutably real, is entiely in your own head--it's all about you. Rather arrogant to demand that that which you imagine to be real is real, because you believe it real. There is really no better example of arrogance than the ". . . because I say it is so" that is ultimately the only validation faith requires.

Except, of course, for the existence of your God.

You keep coming back to this "demand" word and your definition of what is a demand. Let's look at that.

–verb (used with object)
1. to ask for with proper authority; claim as a right: He demanded payment of the debt.
2. to ask for peremptorily or urgently: He demanded sanctuary. She demanded that we let her in.
3. to call for or require as just, proper, or necessary: This task demands patience. Justice demands objectivity.
4. Law.
a. to lay formal legal claim to.
b. to summon, as to court.

To be clear, I'm not asking for or calling for anything. You seem to be saying that if one person believes something it also means that they are asking or calling for others to believe it as well, as in your comment 'Rather arrogant to demand that that which you imagine to be real is real, because you believe it real", something I have never said, or even thought.

I simply set out what I believe, and others can either agree or disagree as they see fit. If you view this as a demand, then clearly your determination to validate your own argument is getting in the way of a reasonable discussion.

Allright pumpkin, consider the 3rd definition you provided while you replace "demand" with "assert."

Pick the one definition you can post-rationalize and change words round? Is that a serious attempt to validate your point??? You're grasping at straws.



Somebody throw Mr Smug a life preserver.

 

[rcajun90]

I love bait threads.

God knows if you really have faith and are saved. If you don't, you go to hell. Pretty simple.

And what makes my religion right is that it is right, it is of God, by God and for God. God indwells in those with faith, and in the Holy Word. But you can't see those things unless you ask to see them.

Just because you don't believe it and mock it doesn't mean it isn't true, and in the end, every person in hell will believe. But of course, it will be too late.

And the bible tells us not to waste pearls before swine. People who bait, torment and tease Christians are not worth the effort of trying to convert. You aren't interested in being converted. You simply want to humiliate and torture those who believe, and perhaps make them lose faith.

Have fun.

Ever notice it is the non believers that have a problem with religion?

 

[Kalam]

Without a conclusion, you've made no argument, therfore no question begging?

The argument supports the "a" side of both premises and the conclusion. So, the conclusion is that the universe had a beginning that was caused by a personal creator. Now, I don't believe that you're intellectually honest enough to actually read the full argument, so why don't you just let me know which part of it is so difficult for you to wrap your head around?

Which argument, EXACTLY, supports the "a" side of both premises, leading to the EXACT conclusion are you referring to? State it.

You have to resolve the first premise in order to examine the second. There is a logical formulation that connects your first premise to the conclusion that that the universe had a beginning that was caused by a personal creator. While every other formulation I'm aware of is question begging (or at least requires contentious premises) yours might not be--but you're not about to share, are you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/72252-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-discussion.html

Disingenuous. Get lost.

Don't be a prick.

Who's being the prick?[/QUOTE]
Nobody, hopefully.

 

[LOki]

The argument supports the "a" side of both premises and the conclusion. So, the conclusion is that the universe had a beginning that was caused by a personal creator. Now, I don't believe that you're intellectually honest enough to actually read the full argument, so why don't you just let me know which part of it is so difficult for you to wrap your head around?

Which argument, EXACTLY, supports the "a" side of both premises, leading to the EXACT conclusion are you referring to? State it.

You have to resolve the first premise in order to examine the second. There is a logical formulation that connects your first premise to the conclusion that that the universe had a beginning that was caused by a personal creator. While every other formulation I'm aware of is question begging (or at least requires contentious premises) yours might not be--but you're not about to share, are you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/72252-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-discussion.html

The question begging exists within the unstated--and contentious to argument--presumptions in the premises:

1. The universe [except for it's personal creator] had a beginning.
2. Beginnings [except for a personal creator] are caused.​

Asserting that whole of the universe had a beginning because it's pieces had beginnings is subject to compositional error, which is really secondary to the contentious presumption that there is some existence [where a personal creator exists] outside of the universe within which the universe should begin. Contentious in the presumtion that there is existence outside of the universe, and then question begging in that the existence outside of the universe is the personal creator who created the universe.

 

[Dr Grump]

Ever notice it is the non believers that have a problem with religion?

Us non believers only have a problem with a religion when the perveyors of said religion try and indoctrine the rest of us, and when they can't, try and get statutes passed that support their POV based on their religion. Keep religion out of politics (and don't be so rude as to door knock my house, and when I tell you I am not interested still pester me), and we'll be fine. Note the vast majority of atheists aren't beating down your door trying to enforce laws that encroach on your personal beliefs. It's always the religious folk that do.

 

[LOki]

Pick the one definition you can post-rationalize and change words round?

There's no "post-rationalization" going on--you just got punked.

Is that a serious attempt to validate your point??? You're grasping at straws.

No grasping necessary, no attempt to validate made--my point is valid, you validated it.

Somebody throw Mr Smug a life preserver.

Somebody get tigerbob a diaper.

 

[Kalam]

Which argument, EXACTLY, supports the "a" side of both premises, leading to the EXACT conclusion are you referring to? State it.

You have to resolve the first premise in order to examine the second. There is a logical formulation that connects your first premise to the conclusion that that the universe had a beginning that was caused by a personal creator. While every other formulation I'm aware of is question begging (or at least requires contentious premises) yours might not be--but you're not about to share, are you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/72252-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-discussion.html

The question begging exists within the unstated--and contentious to argument--presumptions in the premises:

1. The universe [except for it's personal creator] had a beginning.
2. Beginnings [except for a personal creator] are caused.​

Asserting that whole of the universe had a beginning because it's pieces had beginnings is subject to compositional error, which is really secondary to the contentious presumption that there is some existence [where a personal creator exists] outside of the universe within which the universe should begin. Contentious in the presumtion that there is existence outside of the universe, and then question begging in that the existence outside of the universe is the personal creator who created the universe.

Did you bother reading the argument?

 

[Avatar4321]

Us non believers only have a problem with a religion when the perveyors of said religion try and indoctrine the rest of us, and when they can't, try and get statutes passed that support their POV based on their religion. Keep religion out of politics (and don't be so rude as to door knock my house, and when I tell you I am not interested still pester me), and we'll be fine. Note the vast majority of atheists aren't beating down your door trying to enforce laws that encroach on your personal beliefs. It's always the religious folk that do.

Ill make a deal with you. When you keep your opinions out of politics, I'll keep mine out of politics. Until then, Im going to speak my point of view regardless whether you like it or not.

When you stop forcing your views on us and our children, then you can whine and complain about things. Until then, stop whining and let the political process work.

 

[Father Time]

Us non believers only have a problem with a religion when the perveyors of said religion try and indoctrine the rest of us, and when they can't, try and get statutes passed that support their POV based on their religion. Keep religion out of politics (and don't be so rude as to door knock my house, and when I tell you I am not interested still pester me), and we'll be fine. Note the vast majority of atheists aren't beating down your door trying to enforce laws that encroach on your personal beliefs. It's always the religious folk that do.

Ill make a deal with you. When you keep your opinions out of politics, I'll keep mine out of politics. Until then, Im going to speak my point of view regardless whether you like it or not.

When you stop forcing your views on us and our children, then you can whine and complain about things. Until then, stop whining and let the political process work.

Do you not understand the difference between religious views which purport to be fact and cannot be proven vs. just plain political opinion?

Saying we should force everyone to do something because God wants it that way has always been a piss poor reason.

 

[LOki]

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/72252-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-discussion.html

The question begging exists within the unstated--and contentious to argument--presumptions in the premises:

1. The universe [except for it's personal creator] had a beginning.
2. Beginnings [except for a personal creator] are caused.​

Asserting that whole of the universe had a beginning because it's pieces had beginnings is subject to compositional error, which is really secondary to the contentious presumption that there is some existence [where a personal creator exists] outside of the universe within which the universe should begin. Contentious in the presumtion that there is existence outside of the universe, and then question begging in that the existence outside of the universe is the personal creator who created the universe.

Did you bother reading the argument?

I obviously did.

 

[tigerbob]

Ever notice it is the non believers that have a problem with religion?

Us non believers only have a problem with a religion when the perveyors of said religion try and indoctrine the rest of us, and when they can't, try and get statutes passed that support their POV based on their religion.

So your point of view is that it's OK for people to have faith so long as...

1) They recognize and accept that faith is a personal thing that should not be forced on others.
2) They don't try to insist that their beliefs are factual.
3) They don't try to lobby for laws to be built on religious foundations.

Would that be a reasonable summation? Feel free to disagree - I'm not trying to entrap or put words in your mouth, just to compartmentalize they key aspects of your position for my own ease of understanding.

If so, I think that's an entirely reasonable position.

 

[Kalam]

The question begging exists within the unstated--and contentious to argument--presumptions in the premises:

1. The universe [except for it's personal creator] had a beginning.
2. Beginnings [except for a personal creator] are caused.​

Asserting that whole of the universe had a beginning because it's pieces had beginnings is subject to compositional error, which is really secondary to the contentious presumption that there is some existence [where a personal creator exists] outside of the universe within which the universe should begin. Contentious in the presumtion that there is existence outside of the universe, and then question begging in that the existence outside of the universe is the personal creator who created the universe.

Did you bother reading the argument?

I obviously did.

How, then, did you manage to completely misunderstand it?

 

[HUGGY]

Which argument, EXACTLY, supports the "a" side of both premises, leading to the EXACT conclusion are you referring to? State it.

You have to resolve the first premise in order to examine the second. There is a logical formulation that connects your first premise to the conclusion that that the universe had a beginning that was caused by a personal creator. While every other formulation I'm aware of is question begging (or at least requires contentious premises) yours might not be--but you're not about to share, are you?

http://www.usmessageboard.com/religion-and-ethics/72252-the-kalam-cosmological-argument-discussion.html

The question begging exists within the unstated--and contentious to argument--presumptions in the premises:

1. The universe [except for it's personal creator] had a beginning.
2. Beginnings [except for a personal creator] are caused.​

Asserting that whole of the universe had a beginning because it's pieces had beginnings is subject to compositional error, which is really secondary to the contentious presumption that there is some existence [where a personal creator exists] outside of the universe within which the universe should begin. Contentious in the presumtion that there is existence outside of the universe, and then question begging in that the existence outside of the universe is the personal creator who created the universe.

Here is where the men and boys get separated sport. If you cannot underget the concept that the was no "beginning" as such as in what was before the bang etc.. Secondly you need to get right with what is possible and what is not..your invisible friend etc...

Good luck..no excuses

 

[Kalam]

Here is where the men and boys get separated sport.

Get lost, troll.

If you cannot underget the concept that the was no "beginning" as such as in what was before the bang etc..

The universe had a beginning. The Big Bang was that beginning. The Big Bang had to have had a cause. It's all very, very simple.

Secondly you need to get right with what is possible and what is not..your invisible friend etc...

The god I believe in isn't a biblical, anthropomorphic tyrant. If you want to debate this, head over to the thread that was started about it.

 

[HUGGY]

Here is where the men and boys get separated sport.

Get lost, troll.

If you cannot underget the concept that the was no "beginning" as such as in what was before the bang etc..

The universe had a beginning. The Big Bang was that beginning. The Big Bang had to have had a cause. It's all very, very simple.

Secondly you need to get right with what is possible and what is not..your invisible friend etc...

The god I believe in isn't a biblical, anthropomorphic tyrant. If you want to debate this, head over to the thread that was started about it.

We can debate later sparky after you are allowed to wear long pants.

 

[LOki]

Did you bother reading the argument?

I obviously did.

How, then, did you manage to completely misunderstand it?

I did not misunderstand it at all--but I note that you fail to point out the precise nature of this "misunderstanding" when you have every opportunity to do so--you just seem to be in denial that Kalam is just like every question-begging cosmology argument that requires the presumption of the existence of a creator to "prove" the existence of a creator.

 

[Kalam]

I did not misunderstand it at all--but I note that you fail to point out the precise nature of this "misunderstanding" when you have every opportunity to do so

I'd rather not discuss it in detail here - it's off-topic. There's already a thread about it.

Asserting that whole of the universe had a beginning because it's pieces had beginnings is subject to compositional error, which is really secondary to the contentious presumption that there is some existence [where a personal creator exists] outside of the universe within which the universe should begin. Contentious in the presumtion that there is existence outside of the universe, and then question begging in that the existence outside of the universe is the personal creator who created the universe.

The claim made was not that the universe had a beginning "because its pieces had beginnings." That the universe had a beginning is indisputable. As I mentioned on the other thread, a universe with an existence stretching into negative infinity would have attained maximum entropy an infinite amount of time ago. Moreover, actual infinites do not exist in nature; that's the point that the KCA makes. The universe absolutely had a beginning.