Is it possible for atheism to ever be anything more than critical theory?

[ding]

Which is it?

Things change in 6 years.

They can. There are three possible states; we can be moving towards God, we can be moving away from God, or we can be static.

I can only speak to my own experiences. I answered your question of "Which is it?". But I do find it amusing that you went back 6 years to try and find some sort of 'gotcha'.

It's took all of two minutes using the search feature, but I am happy that I was able to amuse you.

You can speak of your experiences all you want but you can't refute the logic.

If yo believe that nothing exists beyond the material world, such as God or spirit, then you must believe that everything proceeds from the material world. Even things like thought and music and love.

Once again, I have not said that I do not believe in anything beyond the material world. I simply do not believe in a deity.

Is the only thing beyond the material world, by definition, God or a God?

And once again I believe your belief is illogical.

Can you tell me where these things that are not material came from?

Because everything you have mentioned proceeds from something that is material.

 

[ding]

See post #404 where it explains that materialists believe that all things, including mental aspects and consciousness, are results of material interactions.

So since you do not believe that anything exists beyond the material world, such as God or spirit, then you must believe the non-material things are a result of material interactions.

By definition you are a materialist. All atheists are.

I do not believe in God. This does not mean I do not believe that anything exists beyond the material world. I have pointed out several things that do not fit the definition of material interactions.

And I have explained that if you do not believe anything exists beyond the material world, then everything which exists must proceed from the material world.

Have I said I do not believe in anything beyond the material world? Or have I, by identifying as an atheist, simply said I do not believe in a deity?

By definition an atheist is a materialist because he does not believe anything exists beyond the material world. That all things proceed from the material world. It's not that hard of a concept to understand and I have no idea why you find it so distasteful. It is the logical conclusion.

Whereas I believe that the material world proceeds from something which is not material. George Wald said it best...

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

Once again, your entire supposition depends on your claim that I believe in nothing beyond the material world.

What do you believe in that didn't proceed from the material world?

 

[WinterBorn]

Things change in 6 years.

They can. There are three possible states; we can be moving towards God, we can be moving away from God, or we can be static.

I can only speak to my own experiences. I answered your question of "Which is it?". But I do find it amusing that you went back 6 years to try and find some sort of 'gotcha'.

It's took all of two minutes using the search feature, but I am happy that I was able to amuse you.

You can speak of your experiences all you want but you can't refute the logic.

If yo believe that nothing exists beyond the material world, such as God or spirit, then you must believe that everything proceeds from the material world. Even things like thought and music and love.

Once again, I have not said that I do not believe in anything beyond the material world. I simply do not believe in a deity.

Is the only thing beyond the material world, by definition, God or a God?

And once again I believe your belief is illogical.

Can you tell me where these things that are not material came from?

Because everything you have mentioned proceeds from something that is material.

I don't know. Just because I don't know does not mean it should be attributed to a god. It means there are things that are beyond the material realm that I cannot explain. I am fine with that.

 

[WinterBorn]

I do not believe in God. This does not mean I do not believe that anything exists beyond the material world. I have pointed out several things that do not fit the definition of material interactions.

And I have explained that if you do not believe anything exists beyond the material world, then everything which exists must proceed from the material world.

Have I said I do not believe in anything beyond the material world? Or have I, by identifying as an atheist, simply said I do not believe in a deity?

By definition an atheist is a materialist because he does not believe anything exists beyond the material world. That all things proceed from the material world. It's not that hard of a concept to understand and I have no idea why you find it so distasteful. It is the logical conclusion.

Whereas I believe that the material world proceeds from something which is not material. George Wald said it best...

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

Once again, your entire supposition depends on your claim that I believe in nothing beyond the material world.

What do you believe in that didn't proceed from the material world?

There is quite a list. I do not believe that Love comes solely from chemical reactions in the brain. At the same time, I do not attribute that to a god. I do not know where it comes from. I do not believe in god, but I do not try to pretend I know everything. As I said before, I can only speak to my own experiences and beliefs.

Your claim that one either believes in god or a god, wholly and thoroughly, or one only believes in the material world, is your belief. You want it to be black and white. I see the world as shades of grey.

 

[ding]

And I have explained that if you do not believe anything exists beyond the material world, then everything which exists must proceed from the material world.

Have I said I do not believe in anything beyond the material world? Or have I, by identifying as an atheist, simply said I do not believe in a deity?

By definition an atheist is a materialist because he does not believe anything exists beyond the material world. That all things proceed from the material world. It's not that hard of a concept to understand and I have no idea why you find it so distasteful. It is the logical conclusion.

Whereas I believe that the material world proceeds from something which is not material. George Wald said it best...

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

Once again, your entire supposition depends on your claim that I believe in nothing beyond the material world.

What do you believe in that didn't proceed from the material world?

There is quite a list. I do not believe that Love comes solely from chemical reactions in the brain. At the same time, I do not attribute that to a god. I do not know where it comes from. I do not believe in god, but I do not try to pretend I know everything. As I said before, I can only speak to my own experiences and beliefs.

Your claim that one either believes in god or a god, wholly and thoroughly, or one only believes in the material world, is your belief. You want it to be black and white. I see the world as shades of grey.

But you are certain it does not proceed from God, right?

Because you are certain there is no God, right?

 

[ding]

They can. There are three possible states; we can be moving towards God, we can be moving away from God, or we can be static.

I can only speak to my own experiences. I answered your question of "Which is it?". But I do find it amusing that you went back 6 years to try and find some sort of 'gotcha'.

It's took all of two minutes using the search feature, but I am happy that I was able to amuse you.

You can speak of your experiences all you want but you can't refute the logic.

If yo believe that nothing exists beyond the material world, such as God or spirit, then you must believe that everything proceeds from the material world. Even things like thought and music and love.

Once again, I have not said that I do not believe in anything beyond the material world. I simply do not believe in a deity.

Is the only thing beyond the material world, by definition, God or a God?

And once again I believe your belief is illogical.

Can you tell me where these things that are not material came from?

Because everything you have mentioned proceeds from something that is material.

I don't know. Just because I don't know does not mean it should be attributed to a god. It means there are things that are beyond the material realm that I cannot explain. I am fine with that.

But you are certain it should not be attributed to God, right?

You keep saying "a god," why is that? Do you believe there can be more than one creator?

 

[WinterBorn]

Have I said I do not believe in anything beyond the material world? Or have I, by identifying as an atheist, simply said I do not believe in a deity?

By definition an atheist is a materialist because he does not believe anything exists beyond the material world. That all things proceed from the material world. It's not that hard of a concept to understand and I have no idea why you find it so distasteful. It is the logical conclusion.

Whereas I believe that the material world proceeds from something which is not material. George Wald said it best...

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

Once again, your entire supposition depends on your claim that I believe in nothing beyond the material world.

What do you believe in that didn't proceed from the material world?

There is quite a list. I do not believe that Love comes solely from chemical reactions in the brain. At the same time, I do not attribute that to a god. I do not know where it comes from. I do not believe in god, but I do not try to pretend I know everything. As I said before, I can only speak to my own experiences and beliefs.

Your claim that one either believes in god or a god, wholly and thoroughly, or one only believes in the material world, is your belief. You want it to be black and white. I see the world as shades of grey.

But you are certain it does not proceed from God, right?

Because you are certain there is no God, right?

I do not believe there is a God. There is no certainty on either side of the argument.

 

[WinterBorn]

I can only speak to my own experiences. I answered your question of "Which is it?". But I do find it amusing that you went back 6 years to try and find some sort of 'gotcha'.

It's took all of two minutes using the search feature, but I am happy that I was able to amuse you.

You can speak of your experiences all you want but you can't refute the logic.

If yo believe that nothing exists beyond the material world, such as God or spirit, then you must believe that everything proceeds from the material world. Even things like thought and music and love.

Once again, I have not said that I do not believe in anything beyond the material world. I simply do not believe in a deity.

Is the only thing beyond the material world, by definition, God or a God?

And once again I believe your belief is illogical.

Can you tell me where these things that are not material came from?

Because everything you have mentioned proceeds from something that is material.

I don't know. Just because I don't know does not mean it should be attributed to a god. It means there are things that are beyond the material realm that I cannot explain. I am fine with that.

But you are certain it should not be attributed to God, right?

You keep saying "a god," why is that? Do you believe there can be more than one creator?

Some people believe in one god. Some people believe in more than one god. Your own Bible has the 10 Commandments. What is the first commandment?

 

[ding]

By definition an atheist is a materialist because he does not believe anything exists beyond the material world. That all things proceed from the material world. It's not that hard of a concept to understand and I have no idea why you find it so distasteful. It is the logical conclusion.

Whereas I believe that the material world proceeds from something which is not material. George Wald said it best...

“In my life as scientist I have come upon two major problems which, though rooted in science, though they would occur in this form only to a scientist, project beyond science, and are I think ultimately insoluble as science. That is hardly to be wondered at, since one involves consciousness and the other, cosmology.

The consciousness problem was hardly avoidable by one who has spent most of his life studying mechanisms of vision. We have learned a lot, we hope to learn much more; but none of it touches or even points, however tentatively, in the direction of what it means to see. Our observations in human eyes and nervous systems and in those of frogs are basically much alike. I know that I see; but does a frog see? It reacts to light; so do cameras, garage doors, any number of photoelectric devices. But does it see? Is it aware that it is reacting? There is nothing I can do as a scientist to answer that question, no way that I can identify either the presence or absence of consciousness. I believe consciousness to be a permanent condition that involves all sensation and perception. Consciousness seems to me to be wholly impervious to science.

The second problem involves the special properties of our universe. Life seems increasingly to be part of the order of nature. We have good reason to believe that we find ourselves in a universe permeated with life, in which life arises inevitably, given enough time, wherever the conditions exist that make it possible. Yet were any one of a number of the physical properties of our universe otherwise - some of them basic, others seemingly trivial, almost accidental - that life, which seems now to be so prevalent, would become impossible, here or anywhere. It takes no great imagination to conceive of other possible universes, each stable and workable in itself, yet lifeless. How is it that, with so many other apparent options, we are in a universe that possesses just that peculiar nexus of properties that breeds life?

It has occurred to me lately - I must confess with some shock at first to my scientific sensibilities - that both questions might be brought into some degree of congruence. This is with the assumption that Mind, rather than emerging as a late outgrowth in the evolution of life, has existed always as the matrix, the source and condition of physical reality - that the stuff of which physical reality is composed is mind-stuff. It is Mind that has composed a physical universe that breeds life, and so eventually evolves creatures that know and create.”

George Wald, 1984, “Life and Mind in the Universe”, International Journal of Quantum Chemistry: Quantum Biology Symposium 11, 1984: 1-15.

Once again, your entire supposition depends on your claim that I believe in nothing beyond the material world.

What do you believe in that didn't proceed from the material world?

There is quite a list. I do not believe that Love comes solely from chemical reactions in the brain. At the same time, I do not attribute that to a god. I do not know where it comes from. I do not believe in god, but I do not try to pretend I know everything. As I said before, I can only speak to my own experiences and beliefs.

Your claim that one either believes in god or a god, wholly and thoroughly, or one only believes in the material world, is your belief. You want it to be black and white. I see the world as shades of grey.

But you are certain it does not proceed from God, right?

Because you are certain there is no God, right?

I do not believe there is a God. There is no certainty on either side of the argument.

So you choose to believe there is no creator because why?

Because otherwise I have no idea where you believe these non-material things proceed from if not from something that isn't material.

Which is why I believe you are a materialist.

 

[ding]

It's took all of two minutes using the search feature, but I am happy that I was able to amuse you.

You can speak of your experiences all you want but you can't refute the logic.

If yo believe that nothing exists beyond the material world, such as God or spirit, then you must believe that everything proceeds from the material world. Even things like thought and music and love.

Once again, I have not said that I do not believe in anything beyond the material world. I simply do not believe in a deity.

Is the only thing beyond the material world, by definition, God or a God?

And once again I believe your belief is illogical.

Can you tell me where these things that are not material came from?

Because everything you have mentioned proceeds from something that is material.

I don't know. Just because I don't know does not mean it should be attributed to a god. It means there are things that are beyond the material realm that I cannot explain. I am fine with that.

But you are certain it should not be attributed to God, right?

You keep saying "a god," why is that? Do you believe there can be more than one creator?

Some people believe in one god. Some people believe in more than one god. Your own Bible has the 10 Commandments. What is the first commandment?

You want to discuss theology to determine your beliefs?

I am asking you if you believe it is logical to believe that multiple Gods exist.

My point here is that you can't determine who God is until you believe God is.

It seems to me that you are skipping steps.

 

[WinterBorn]

Once again, your entire supposition depends on your claim that I believe in nothing beyond the material world.

What do you believe in that didn't proceed from the material world?

There is quite a list. I do not believe that Love comes solely from chemical reactions in the brain. At the same time, I do not attribute that to a god. I do not know where it comes from. I do not believe in god, but I do not try to pretend I know everything. As I said before, I can only speak to my own experiences and beliefs.

Your claim that one either believes in god or a god, wholly and thoroughly, or one only believes in the material world, is your belief. You want it to be black and white. I see the world as shades of grey.

But you are certain it does not proceed from God, right?

Because you are certain there is no God, right?

I do not believe there is a God. There is no certainty on either side of the argument.

So you choose to believe there is no creator because why?

Because otherwise I have no idea where you believe these non-material things proceed from if not from something that isn't material.

Which is why I believe you are a materialist.

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

 

[WinterBorn]

Once again, I have not said that I do not believe in anything beyond the material world. I simply do not believe in a deity.

Is the only thing beyond the material world, by definition, God or a God?

And once again I believe your belief is illogical.

Can you tell me where these things that are not material came from?

Because everything you have mentioned proceeds from something that is material.

I don't know. Just because I don't know does not mean it should be attributed to a god. It means there are things that are beyond the material realm that I cannot explain. I am fine with that.

But you are certain it should not be attributed to God, right?

You keep saying "a god," why is that? Do you believe there can be more than one creator?

Some people believe in one god. Some people believe in more than one god. Your own Bible has the 10 Commandments. What is the first commandment?

You want to discuss theology to determine your beliefs?

I am asking you if you believe it is logical to believe that multiple Gods exist.

My point here is that you can't determine who God is until you believe God is.

It seems to me that you are skipping steps.

I am skipping nothing.

Why do you take issue with my believing in neither one god nor multiple gods? The argument is semantics, nothing more.

 

[ding]

What do you believe in that didn't proceed from the material world?

There is quite a list. I do not believe that Love comes solely from chemical reactions in the brain. At the same time, I do not attribute that to a god. I do not know where it comes from. I do not believe in god, but I do not try to pretend I know everything. As I said before, I can only speak to my own experiences and beliefs.

Your claim that one either believes in god or a god, wholly and thoroughly, or one only believes in the material world, is your belief. You want it to be black and white. I see the world as shades of grey.

But you are certain it does not proceed from God, right?

Because you are certain there is no God, right?

I do not believe there is a God. There is no certainty on either side of the argument.

So you choose to believe there is no creator because why?

Because otherwise I have no idea where you believe these non-material things proceed from if not from something that isn't material.

Which is why I believe you are a materialist.

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics confirm there was a beginning.

So I have tons of evidence that points to a beginning.

What evidence do you have that says there wasn't?

And if you have no evidence to believe there was no beginning, why would you choose to believe that when there is tons of evidence to support that there is?

 

[hobelim]

What do you believe in that didn't proceed from the material world?

There is quite a list. I do not believe that Love comes solely from chemical reactions in the brain. At the same time, I do not attribute that to a god. I do not know where it comes from. I do not believe in god, but I do not try to pretend I know everything. As I said before, I can only speak to my own experiences and beliefs.

Your claim that one either believes in god or a god, wholly and thoroughly, or one only believes in the material world, is your belief. You want it to be black and white. I see the world as shades of grey.

But you are certain it does not proceed from God, right?

Because you are certain there is no God, right?

I do not believe there is a God. There is no certainty on either side of the argument.

So you choose to believe there is no creator because why?

Because otherwise I have no idea where you believe these non-material things proceed from if not from something that isn't material.

Which is why I believe you are a materialist.

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

Ding just can't comprehend why anyone else won't confess that they are a sinner and worthless pice of shit and then get down on their knees and blubber to Jesus for forgiveness when it was so easy for him.

He never suspects that some people have no need to be forgiven.

 

[ding]

And once again I believe your belief is illogical.

Can you tell me where these things that are not material came from?

Because everything you have mentioned proceeds from something that is material.

I don't know. Just because I don't know does not mean it should be attributed to a god. It means there are things that are beyond the material realm that I cannot explain. I am fine with that.

But you are certain it should not be attributed to God, right?

You keep saying "a god," why is that? Do you believe there can be more than one creator?

Some people believe in one god. Some people believe in more than one god. Your own Bible has the 10 Commandments. What is the first commandment?

You want to discuss theology to determine your beliefs?

I am asking you if you believe it is logical to believe that multiple Gods exist.

My point here is that you can't determine who God is until you believe God is.

It seems to me that you are skipping steps.

I am skipping nothing.

Why do you take issue with my believing in neither one god nor multiple gods? The argument is semantics, nothing more.

You absolutely are skipping steps and unnecessarily muddying your waters by arguing over the different flavors of God. None of which will help you answer the question of is there a creator.

I don't take issue with what you are doing, I am telling you that you are intentionally keeping yourself from discovering the truth by unnecessarily complicating matters. It is entirely illogical what you are doing. So it is not a matter of semantics. It is a matter of logic.

 

[ding]

There is quite a list. I do not believe that Love comes solely from chemical reactions in the brain. At the same time, I do not attribute that to a god. I do not know where it comes from. I do not believe in god, but I do not try to pretend I know everything. As I said before, I can only speak to my own experiences and beliefs.

Your claim that one either believes in god or a god, wholly and thoroughly, or one only believes in the material world, is your belief. You want it to be black and white. I see the world as shades of grey.

But you are certain it does not proceed from God, right?

Because you are certain there is no God, right?

I do not believe there is a God. There is no certainty on either side of the argument.

So you choose to believe there is no creator because why?

Because otherwise I have no idea where you believe these non-material things proceed from if not from something that isn't material.

Which is why I believe you are a materialist.

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

Ding just can't comprehend why anyone else won't confess that they are a sinner and worthless pice of shit and then get down on their knees and blubber to Jesus for forgiveness when it was so easy for him.

He never suspects that some people have no need to be forgiven.

And that's why I know your intention is disingenuous. I am not arguing for a specific flavor of God. I am arguing for a creator.

You seem to be arguing against that which is why I don't believe you when you say you believe in God.

 

[WinterBorn]

There is quite a list. I do not believe that Love comes solely from chemical reactions in the brain. At the same time, I do not attribute that to a god. I do not know where it comes from. I do not believe in god, but I do not try to pretend I know everything. As I said before, I can only speak to my own experiences and beliefs.

Your claim that one either believes in god or a god, wholly and thoroughly, or one only believes in the material world, is your belief. You want it to be black and white. I see the world as shades of grey.

But you are certain it does not proceed from God, right?

Because you are certain there is no God, right?

I do not believe there is a God. There is no certainty on either side of the argument.

So you choose to believe there is no creator because why?

Because otherwise I have no idea where you believe these non-material things proceed from if not from something that isn't material.

Which is why I believe you are a materialist.

Your logic only works if you assume there was a beginning to everything. Again, neither of us knows that for a fact.

You can believe what you want. But I am telling you differently. And which of us do you suppose knows me (and my beliefs) better?

Red shift, cosmic background radiation, Friedmann's solutions to Einstein's field equations and the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics confirm there was a beginning.

So I have tons of evidence that points to a beginning.

What evidence do you have that says there wasn't?

And if you have no evidence to believe there was no beginning, why would you choose to believe that when there is tons of evidence to support that there is?

All of those things point to a Big Bang. Which provides scientific evidence that there was no God involved, but a cosmic event that occurred naturally.

And all the matter that was involved in the Big Bang existed before the Big Bang. The best theory I have seen is that the universe is still expanding from the Big Bang. When it stops expanding, it will begin to contract. Eventually, all the matter will come together into one place. The laws of physics say that when this matter reaches a certain mass, the Big Bang will happen again.

Nothing in the numerous things you quoted suggest that the matter and energy was created at the time of the Big Bang. In fact, the 1st Law of Thermodynamics states that energy cannot be created or destroyed.

 

[ding]

Let me be very clear here, I believe that God can be discovered differently by different people. That God does not care which religion you practice. Only Hobelim cares about that.

 

[WinterBorn]

I don't know. Just because I don't know does not mean it should be attributed to a god. It means there are things that are beyond the material realm that I cannot explain. I am fine with that.

But you are certain it should not be attributed to God, right?

You keep saying "a god," why is that? Do you believe there can be more than one creator?

Some people believe in one god. Some people believe in more than one god. Your own Bible has the 10 Commandments. What is the first commandment?

You want to discuss theology to determine your beliefs?

I am asking you if you believe it is logical to believe that multiple Gods exist.

My point here is that you can't determine who God is until you believe God is.

It seems to me that you are skipping steps.

I am skipping nothing.

Why do you take issue with my believing in neither one god nor multiple gods? The argument is semantics, nothing more.

You absolutely are skipping steps and unnecessarily muddying your waters by arguing over the different flavors of God. None of which will help you answer the question of is there a creator.

I don't take issue with what you are doing, I am telling you that you are intentionally keeping yourself from discovering the truth by unnecessarily complicating matters. It is entirely illogical what you are doing. So it is not a matter of semantics. It is a matter of logic.

My referring to one god or multiple gods has no bearing on the discussion. I am not skipping any steps.

I use the terms, if for no other reasons, than to include more beliefs. I share none of them.

 

[hobelim]

I don't know. Just because I don't know does not mean it should be attributed to a god. It means there are things that are beyond the material realm that I cannot explain. I am fine with that.

But you are certain it should not be attributed to God, right?

You keep saying "a god," why is that? Do you believe there can be more than one creator?

Some people believe in one god. Some people believe in more than one god. Your own Bible has the 10 Commandments. What is the first commandment?

You want to discuss theology to determine your beliefs?

I am asking you if you believe it is logical to believe that multiple Gods exist.

My point here is that you can't determine who God is until you believe God is.

It seems to me that you are skipping steps.

I am skipping nothing.

Why do you take issue with my believing in neither one god nor multiple gods? The argument is semantics, nothing more.

You absolutely are skipping steps and unnecessarily muddying your waters by arguing over the different flavors of God. None of which will help you answer the question of is there a creator.

I don't take issue with what you are doing, I am telling you that you are intentionally keeping yourself from discovering the truth by unnecessarily complicating matters. It is entirely illogical what you are doing. So it is not a matter of semantics. It is a matter of logic.

logic? Says the guy who believes that the living God can be turned into a material thing made by human hands that is not God, has no life, and can neither see, hear, speak, or walk,.