₦airaland Forum

^^^ The burden is on you to burn him with fire.

Chrisbenogor:
Dear Deepsight,
Too bad you are taking my comments the wrong way, I have only been on this site for a while but certainly some good months before you arrived on the scene. This section made me join nairaland after just sitting on the sidelines reading for a good number of months. This section had life, had fire in it. Issues discussed were everyday issues in an everyday manner and lay men like me could make sense of these arguments. I am just exercising my own right to point out that the arguments are sometimes too elaborative and by the third page it becomes difficult to follow, why? Because most people do not bother about the zeros and ones.
By all means carry one with your argument, I was reading intently and got discouraged along the way, I do not even post much here again. I miss the days when a thread like preaching the bus could span for pages and I would read deep deep into the night. Please dont quote me word for word oh this is only my opinion.

Sincerely Yours,
Chris.

Understood and appreciated.

Cheers bro.

Does anybody really believe in such a thing as the Rapture? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ? ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !

You are really waiting for people to suddenly disappear into the skies ehn?

Ok, dey there dey wait.

Pastor AIO:
No vex for me na, I just dey tease you.

But sir, you owe me o! You pulled me into this thread saying
I trusted you and look what we've got so far. Blanket statements with no historical backing, a great deal of nonsense, and banal reasoning.

^^^ To be honest, I am quite surprised: but if you will look at his historical posts, you might get a sense of what i was saying.

My feeling is that one will inevitably collapse into muddy holes when one tries to defend traditional christian dogma, and this would appear to be the case with easylogic here.

Take a look at his first 6 - 7 posts on this forum though - I was quite impressed by those.

Chrisbenogor:
LOL, you know say some of us go akara school and all this many many grammer no dey let us do. I miss the short constructive arguments that made this section bubble with life, all this long long quote me I quote you no just follow and na Pilgrim.1 I blame(viaro take note!). Imagine person go nearly quote wetin you dey talk word for word, the whole argument is broken down into a silly number of you do me I do you points and you did not spell nyash well it is nyanch.
Politics is way more fun these days. Make I dey go before person break my response down to zeros and ones.

If the discussion is not to your taste, does it not make sense to simply pass on quietly?

Pastor AIO:
A ah! Chris, are you not acquainted with DeepSight?

Chris Deepsight, Deepsight Chris.

I am tired of this.

Pastor AIO:
I'm beginning to suspect that you find every other person to be 'one of the best minds you've ever interacted with'.
Keep it up sir, flattery will get you everywhere, but used judiciously.

I am tired of this. Be your be.

easylogic:
I fail to see how this is an indicator or argument against the existence of such a being.Merely stating your position does not equal to an argument.Are there any logical inconsistencies with an existing Fallen Angel in the name of Satan and an Omni God?

The logical inconsistency is the creation of such a being. Like I saud, I am inclined to view darkness as self-existent. That, in my view, eliminates the inconsistency. The bible account of "war in heaven" seems mythical, folk-lorish, and wholly implausible to me.

This is really good question and one that most christians have never sat down and asked themselves.How does the death and resurrection of Jesus "Save"?

Remember in my earlier post i talked of Free Will.God having chosen W1 where he has given human beings free will,then he cannot possibly interefre by preventing human beings from doing evil so as to reduce the prevalence of evil.So he's choices are limited.

Think of a scenario,there is a very beautiful girl at your work place whom you really like,but she does not show interest.You have to devise ways to make yourself look more desirable so as to attract her attention and hopefully fall in love with you.You can't force her to love you, she has free will to chose NOT to.

If God is defined as the true measure of perfection,the omnibenevolent creator ,then it is only right that we should try to emulate him as much as possible since,he is perfection.

This is where Jesus comes in.God is unable to force humans to be good/act morally,so he sends his son(personhood) of Jesus.By sending a person who emulates what a perfect human being should act and live like, humans have a living example of what a perfectly good morally character is.God does not stop there,by allowing the Crucifixion of Jesus,God again shows that He is willing to pay the ultimate price for human beings.The Resurrection is significant as it shows God can conquer death and good triumphs over evil.The resurrection was also very important for the first followers of Christ.Had he not resurrected,then Christianity would have died at the tomb.

What was the result of the coming,death and resurrection of Jesus?Christianity! the world's biggest religion.The biggest milestone for Christianity must have been when Rome adopted it as its official religion.After years of killing and persecuting christians.It is a well known fact that many of todays Bills of rights and constituions all over the world have their foundations in Christianity.The impact of Christianity all over the world is truly immense.

The impact of Buddhism, Islam and Hinduism in the world are all also truly immense.

However it is crucial to note that nothing in this post has addressed the question: how does the supposed sacrifice actually "save."

To demonstrate this, I should like to quote your statement in the OP wherein in summarizing my concerns you wrote - "The concept of atonement through jesus Christs death is incompatable with Justice and the concept of a just God."

Thus you can see that the cardinal question is atonement.

What you have written above only states that Christ provided a "good living example" as to how a man should live. With respect, there are several who could be said to have provided such "good living examples" such as the Buddha, Lao-Tze, John the Baptist, Confucius. . .ad infinitum. . .

This in no wise addresses the specific question of atonement.

How did Christ's death atone for human sin?

Because the fact of the matter is that before the death, man was required to be upright inorder to be "saved." Many failed. Now the exact same thing obtains after the death. So what exactly did the death change? It changed nothing. Man is still required to be upright to be saved: and many still fail.

I thus say to you that the Christian view evinces no convincing reason or purpose for the supposed sacrificial death. What exactly did it accomplish? How exactly did it atone for sin? What has changed since the supposed atonement?

It is all the more distressing that Christianity's central answer to the problem of evil is that same death on the cross. It is vaunted as the "victory" over evil. How is this so? As far as I can see, evil is still alive and kicking: just as it has always been.

This makes Christian dogma regarding evil wholly unsatisfactory.

Would the world have been a better place without Christianity? i don't think so.Romans seized most of their barbaric practices after adopting christianity by Constantine.Christianity is credited with the bill of rights etc.

I am quite taken aback at this. Any cursory reading of the role of the Church in Medieval Europe should be enough to have a view of the horrors that the Church instigated on a repeated and massive demographic scale. Torture, witch-burnings, the spanish inquisition, and a cock-tail of many more depressing horrors were bequeathed to Europe by the Church.

Furthermore it is elementary that democracy and the concept of free rights is rooted in Greek tradition. This is the first time I get to hear anybody ascribe these things as the legacy of Christianity.

According to the Bible,the ultimate fate of evil is defeat.In revelations and the gospel,Jesus will return,defeat the devil/satan and create a world where evil is non-existent.

So are we to accept that the sacrifice on the cross did not infact defeat evil.

Now the entire concept of Jesus returning to "defeat" evil seems folk-lorish to me. Evil is here, clear and present, and always has been. Do you expect that it is a satisfying answer to the problem of evil to tell me that a Jewish fellow who lived 2000 years ago is "returning to defeat" evil. How doea that sound in your ears? The self-same fellow already came around 2000 years ago, and departed with evil still intact in the world.

As illustrated Christianity,more than any other religion or non-religion for that matter addresses the problem of evil adequately.

As illustrated, it does not.

Evn though evil persists in our society,the life,death and crucifixion of Jesus proiveds humans with a benchmark,motivation and hope that they can too,live morally good lives and hope for eternal redemption.

So does the life of Mother Theresa.

If Christianity is false,then there is no way out from evil.If the Bible is false,then God does not show us anyway we humans should behave.We would depend on Naturalistic forms of ethics.

What is wrong with natural ethics?

Hi again, Esaylogic -

As you will see in Post #4, I had already indicated to Pastor the specific approach that you would take, having had the benefit of reading your views before on this subject.

I should however say to you that for me the problem is not the existence of freewill viz-a-viz the existence of evil. I have no problems in that regard, and there is no need for us to re-hash that age-old debate because i have no troubles or issues with the existence of freewill and the existence of evil.

Let us note carefully that my trouble is specifically with regard to the biblical worldview regarding evil. In this regard my concerns are -

1. What is the signifgicance of the biblical account of the origin of evil in Eden

2. What is the significance of the biblical narrative which indicates the existence of an adversary of good: to wit - the Satan

3. The bible indicates the Satan as a created being. I do not subscribe to any such entity as "Satan" and I know nothing of such, but my concern is that I am more inclined to view darkness as a self-existent precept opposite to light in line with the principle of duality.

4. How is evil addressed in biblical terms? How does the sacrifice of Jesus supposedly address evil - especially given that evil continues, anyway, the supposed sacrifice notwithstanding.

5. What is the overall biblical supposition regarding the ultimate fate of evil: and does that supposition resonate with any tangible meaning for the living human spirit.

It is in light of these concerns that I do not perceive the biblical world-view on evil to be satisfactory to me.

Your comments please: I will be willing to elucidate on any of the five areas of concern I mentioned above.

Hi Easylogic -

I think it will be really apt before proceeding that you review the ideas contained in this thread

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-402063.0.html

I believe that will help to focus the discussion and will avoid the need to repeat alot of things that have been discussed thoroughly there.

@ Pastor -

Here is one of easylogic's earlier posts a long while ago on the problem of evil and free will -

easylogic:
@ Atheists,


     You need to understand the formulation of the Free Will defense by Alvin Plantinga. Asking questions on "why" does not amount to an argument or even a counterargument. You need to show that God could have created a logically possible and feasible world (earth) where people have significant free will and yet no sin or evil.

There are only 3 options for God.He wants to create a world,

World A

1. People have complete free will and Evil exists.

World B

1. People do not have Free will and evil does not exist.

World C

1. People have complete Free will and evil does not exist.


Now, no one would want to live in world B,we would be mere Robots,and even good actions could not be regarded as good actions since no one can do otherwise.Why would we say eg Not stealing is a good thing,if stealing is a physical impossibility.

The type of world that critics of the Free Will Defense advocate for is world C. This isa logically possible world,but not a feasible world.Something is logically possible if it entails no contradictions.Something is feasible if it can be actualized in reality.

For example,it is logically possible that a tea cup is orbiting Jupiter but its too small to be seen.But we know in reality,there is probably no tea cup orbiting Jupiter.

If God were to create a world with Free people,then He cannot guarantee that every person will not commit atleast 1 evil act in his/her lifetime.Remember if people in world C are to remain truly Free,then god cannot interfere with their choices causally.i.e He cannot make them pick good actions.
Therefore World C is highly unlikely, Where there are free willed people,there is bound to be people choosing to do evil acts.

It seems then God can create only World A.Which is similar to our current world.Where people have complete free will and evil exists.

What do you think of it?

Lol. . .but i dont know if you are familiar with easylogic's logical processes. Read his historic posts (they are very few, only about 80).

I think you will find he is a strong thinker and a huge blast of fresh air. Easily one of the best minds i have ever interacted with on this forum.

Thank you Sir. What then is your take on the problem of evil as presented by the bible?

For me the biblical world-view on that is wholly unsatisfactory. What is your interpretation of the Eden account of the origin of evil?

I previously gave my symbolic take on that account here -

Could it be that the legend related in Genesis regarding the fall of man in Eden is not a reference to an event that occured in this world, but rather describes the departure of the spirit of mankind from the eternal spiritual realm into the world of matter?

This would tally with many things. A forbidden fruit would be the world of matter. Entering into it would bring about knowledge of good and evil, as presumably there is no evil in the realm from which the spirit came. Or there is just pure neutrality. Casting out man from the garden would be sending the spirit out of the spiritual realm into the world of matter. Wearing animal skins is a clear indicator of the physical bodies that man must wear to live in the physical world. Such bodies bear close resemblances to animal bodies. It is instructive that the fruit is given by the woman, since it is by women that we are born into the world of matter. On top of all that God promises that if man eats the fruit he shall die. It is certain that death is only known to man once he has entered the world of matter. Above all the reference to the Lord God strolling in the Garden and communing daily with man there on a one to one basis indicates that this was a spiritual realm where God's presence was.

Most instructively however, the TREE OF LIFE was said to reside in the garden. Crucially, it is said to be guarded by cherubs and a flaming sword after the fall of man. That says it all; it could not have been this earth. It was another realm. The ultimate realm.

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-436863.128.html#msg6355295

For me, this is the best I can make of the Eden account - and mind you it might amount to building logic on a simple story that otherwise appears as a myth, or folklore.

But even if we work with this interpretation, is this a satisfactory take on the problem of evil?

That would be great, Easylogic. Lookforward to the post.

Viaro is on an extended strike. its been ages since he posted on this Forum.

Barriers to Christianity?

Yes, you are right, for me it has a wholly unsatisfactory view as to the origin of evil and the treatment of evil. The Genesis account regarding the fall of man may have deeper symbolic indications: but it nonetheless remains for me a far cry from that which will resonate within the spirit as the truth regarding the origin of evil and the general question of evil.

The entire ontology of God as depicted within the Bible is contradictory and internally inconsistent. God is depicted in the Old Testament as genocidal and barbaric: in the New Testament he is depicted as an all forgiving Santa Claus who could not hurt a fly: I can not accept that God is changeable: the bible presents us with a changeable God, whereas I am persuaded that God being a necessay and self-existent factor, remains immutable and unchangeable.

Regarding that which is required for salvation, it ticks me off that the NT presents a picture of a situation whereby it appears that the rules of the game had been changed half-way: that whereas once obedience to the law was required, the NT emphasizes belief in christ and grace. I have no problem with either: but like I said I do not believe in a changeable God. For me, God is and remains immutable: and accordingly God's standards and requirements for salvation would also be immutable and unchangeable from eternity to eternity.

I can not accept the idea that God arranged a sacrificial death for the remittance of sins. I regard this as completely averse to everything that I understand God to be. I believe in the exacting justice of God: and for me that justice is not satisfied by such a bizzarre arrangement.

I do not believe in or accept the deity of Christ. I believe that Jesus was a human being like any other. Accordingly I am seriously turned off by the christian tendency to worship Jesus, the claims that Jesus is God, the doctrine of the trinity, etc. Frankly I regard these as blasphemies. At all events I am aware that it has been the tendency of mankind to deify their spiritual leaders and I regard the case of Jesus as being no different. I simply cannot bring myself to go along with these things.

I do believe in a spiritual tractectory for the spirit of man. And I firmly believe that all men of any religious or cultural persuation may attain spiritual light if they will live in simplicity in accordance with the dictates of a conscience premised on love - whether or not they ever heard of Jesus of Nazareth or not.

Easylogic! Nice to see you popping in again. . . a great head you've got on those shoulders, bro.

Why do you ask about crossing over to xtianity? Do you have such an expectation of me?

Maurice Toba why are you trying to rig the vote?

How are you doing, Nuke.

I stated that you are yet to show how exactly critical thinking leads to a non-belief in God.

You responded  -

thehomer:
We generally do not prove a negative.

I agree that we do not prove a negative. However you must realise that your statement that "critical thinking leads to a non-belief in God" - IS A POSITIVE STATEMENT and not a negative statement.

If you simply said "I dont believe in God" - that would be a negative statement for which you needn't adduce proof.

But when you make an addittional claim - namely that "critical thinking leads to a non-belief in God" - you have made a very positive statement declaring that critical thinking leads in a certain direction - and that, you MUST prove.

To do this you must lay out the essentials of existence, and then apply critical thinking to those essentials to draw up a logical conclusion that shows that critical thinking leads towards the tendency that you positively claimed it does.

Otherwise, you must concede that your statement is nothing but water in a basket.

thehomer:
Such a concept raises so many questions that are either absurd or answered by fantasy. e.g, where does this entity stay?

Where DOES THIS ENTITY STAY? ? ? ? ? ? ! ! ! ! ! ! !

Sorry Mr. Homer, but this really proves that I am correct when I state that you are still battling with the concept of a Santa Claus God despite your denials to the contrary.

What do you mean "where does this entity stay? ? ?"

You may note that you have not seen me use the word "he" at all in my discussions regarding God in this thread? That is exactly because God is an intangible transcendental reality and not to be described as a "he." Nor should we begin to look for the home or office address for such a construct as you are attempting to do. Have I not laboured hard enough to make you understand that we are not discussing  an ol' granpa in the skies?

This question of yours is particularly dis-spiriting and discouraging. It gives me a terrible sense of futility about this discussion.

I seek to discuss the primordial uncaused cause of all existence and you are asking me Santa Claus questions such as "where does he stay."

Do you expect that that which caused this universe and this existence to be would perhaps be something that you could come across smoking a pipe in a mud-hut beside the road to your village? Or perhaps you hope to encounter him strolling on the third mainland bridge.

Dont worry, I know where he is  - its christmas after all, so he must he on his way down your chimney with his gifts, and his reindeer parked outside your house waiting to take off.

Please.

Where did I speak of a pre-singularity?

I did not say pre-singularity. I said you spoke of a pre-expansion state.

In the post above i believe we are addressing the core question to wit: is it logical to believe in God given what we know of the commencement of the universe? Everything written in this thread shows that belief in a pre-existent causative factor is very logical indeed, and that factor is what people understand when they use the word "God."

You have not in any way shown that "critical thinking" will tend towards a disbelief in God - unless of course you are speaking of Santa Claus.

Rather it is obvious that your "critical thinking" has led you to become a champion of a meaningless, magical, purposeless universe, springing from nothing in a voodoo-istic fashion. That is not critical trhinking in the least: and if it is: please dissociate me from that brand of "critical thinking."

Anyhow, I just want to say that there are many untenable things that you have said in this thread which I propose to take up in a new thread so as not to lose the tangent of the current discussion.

Particularly with regard to the concepts of time and self existence.

thehomer:
Which law of motion is this?

These laws of motion -

1.First law: Every body remains in a state of rest or uniform motion (constant velocity) unless it is acted upon by an external unbalanced force. [2][3][4] This means that in the absence of a non-zero net force, the center of mass of a body either remains at rest, or moves at a constant speed in a straight line.

2.Second law: A body of mass m subject to a force F undergoes an acceleration a that has the same direction as the force and a magnitude that is directly proportional to the force and inversely proportional to the mass, i.e., F = ma. Alternatively, the total force applied on a body is equal to the time derivative of linear momentum of the body.

3.Third law: The mutual forces of action and reaction between two bodies are equal, opposite and collinear. This means that whenever a first body exerts a force F on a second body, the second body exerts a force −F on the first body. F and −F are equal in magnitude and opposite in direction. This law is sometimes referred to as the action-reaction law, with F called the "action" and −F the "reaction". The action and the reaction are simultaneous.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion

Now you need to prove to me in very specific terms exactly why the relevant law of motion which requires a trigger ('F' - Force) in order for motion to occur should not apply to that which you have already stated is physical.

In saying this I am very mindful that there are cases where these laws work out differently, but I state to you that each such case must be properly rationalized. I am yet to see the specific rationalization for exempting the initial expansion from the laws of motion as stated above: and please note that I refer specifically to the law which requires 'F" - Force, as in a trigger, in order to initiate motion.

THAT particular rule of motion is NOT a rule that breaks down in time, and this is a rule I can state to you applies in every circumstance, for there is simply nothing that just begins to move without a trigger. That is a categorical logical impossibility and stating otherwise will amount to a belief in magic. That will surely make you sound as incredible as the religionist you like to criticize.

thehomer:
The laws of motion as we know it do not work at that level.

This is an escapist cop-out which we can only countenance when you specifically rationalize why exactly the particular law stated will not apply at that stage.

I am very well aware that laws do vary, or more specifically, the application and results of laws do vary at different existential stages within the universe, but i state to you that there are certain laws which are definitively constant irrespective: and the specific law of motion I have indicated here is one such law.

It is not enough for you to broadly state that "the laws do not work at that level" - - - you must rather show exactly why they do not work and what operates in lieu of such laws at that level. And in this I remind you that I refer to the principle that force or a trigger is required for the motion of mass. I state to you that this particular principle is universal and there can be no circumstance in which it does not apply for the simple reason that nothing may move without a trigger. It is an adamantine and constant law: and the reasons that are advanced regarding the breakdown of certain applications of laws at certain stages, cannot operate to obviate this law of motion because it is a cardinal law on which the motion of all matter is hinged. So if you wish to create a special pleading, by all means do so, but it is incumbent on you to adduce clear proof showing that this specific law does not apply at that level.

Anything short of that will amount to a belief in magic - - - hey presto! abracadabra! open sesame, the universe starts moving!

I am sure you will not allow your self to be reduced to the level of one who advocates voodoo as the source of the big bang?

Another really enjoyable one.

I would like to invite thehomer to state the purpose of his life.

[size=3pt]I hope that will not in reality amount to re-inviting mazaje. . .[/size]

And another great thread went south. . .

Given the foregoing, I may deduce that your arguments once addressed with basic logic, infer the existence of a Pre-Existent, Causative, Factor. Now you have yourself stated that you do not know what this factor is. And since this is the case, it becomes absurd for you to argue that logic tends towards atheism.

- Pre-existent - because you yourself have described a state prior to, or before, the initial exapansion called the big bang. You thus accede that there is that which exists before time and space (as YOU describe them), commence. You have thus irretrievably accepted pre-existence. This is cast in iron.

- Causative - [/i]because the laws of motion give us to know that regarding physical things, there would be no expansion or movement without a trigger - and you yourself stated the pre-bang state to be physical.

Thus we have a pre-existent state in which a cause is logically inferred given the laws of motion. This is therefore a pre-existent cause.

With these - your assertion that critical thinking will tend towards atheism has collapsed already, and unbeknownst to you, you are totterring dangerously close to Theism already.

Let us like kindergardten pupils take the time to carefully repeat and absorb the logic -

Pre-existent - because you yourself acceded to pre existence by describing a state existing before the big bang.

Causative - because you yourself in answer to my query described that pre- existent singularity as being physical: and physical things are subject to the laws of motion: which give us to know that the expansion could not occur without a trigger, hence a causative factor.

Thus in summary, a pre-existent causative factor.

Having firmly and logically established that there is indeed a pre-existent cause, I advance now my propositions a step further.

I state to you as a firm rule of logic and based on the law of cause and effect, that that which is an effect is not also simultaenously a cause of itself. This holds firmly true in the material realm of which we speak. Accordingly physical matter could not be its own cause. Nor can physical energy such as that contained in the pre-bang singularity be its own cause. The principle that I thus lay out is logical to wit - once we have established the existence of a pre-existent cause of matter: then that cause could not itself be material. [i]Accordingly that cause must perforce be immaterial.

Thus we are in logical terms a step advanced now as we can logically see the construct of a pre-exisitent immaterial cause.

At this point it is utterly inconceivable to state that critical reasoning does not evince the existence of God as the construct above shows.

I repeat to you that you need to stop attempting to debunk the idea of God as a grey bearded old man sitting in the skies. That idea is a childish construct and is certainly not that which the serious thinker will concern himself with.

thehomer:
Yes it tends towards that.

In everything that you have said, it must be noted that you have not stated exactly why critical thinking must tend towards a non-belief in God.

So long as God is understood to be a pre-existent factor which caused the universe as we know it (and this is the general understanding of what God is) - then in NO wise can you show that critical thinking tends towards a conclusion that such a pre-existent factor does not exist.

If anything, not just critical thinking, but common sense as well, would stand on the side of the existnce of a pre-existent causative factor. Indeed YOU YOURSELF have conceded that there would be such a causative factor but you have averred that you do not know what it is. That is fair enough - and that is more than enough for the objective reader to conclude that you have no business discountenancing the existence of God.

It seems to me you have to put aside the notion of a Santa Claus sitting in the clouds as the notion of God that you are trying to debunk: I do not think anything so puerile has ever formed the basis or gammut of my discussions: and I am certainly not prepared to entertain a discussion based on any such childish notion at this time. God, in terms of this particular discourse - is simply a reference to the pre-existent factor that caused existence as we know it. As far as that is the case, then your submissions have already acceded to and accepted the existence of such a factor, given that you have spoken of a pre-singularity state.

How does it contradict the laws of motion? (Keeping aside the fact that the motion you wish to describe is only available to us within the universe.)

The laws of motion give us to know that no motion is observed without a triggering cause or factor - other motion.

This obtains in the physical universe.

You already stated that the singularity was a physical state.

Ergo, you CANNOT seek to exempt it from physical laws.

The inescapable conclusion is that the initial expansion must have had a triggering cause or factor as well: given that it is an expansion of matter: and matter is not known to move without a triggering cause or factor.

This alone puts a final and decisive lie to any suggestion on your part that the initial expansion may be an uncaused event.

You can in no terms escape or deny this.

. . .time also began with the expansion

Can I ask you why then you have been able to describe a pre-[/b]expansion state.

You described that state as "hot and dense" - and you stated this to be [b]before the expansion.

Can anybody coherently use words such as "before" and "after" without a construct of time? ? ?

PS: Your responses on the questions of self-existence were simply disastrous, no offence intended. However I have decided to leave them off for now as discussing the concept of self existence with you will clearly take forever. It is easier for me to focus your mind on the clear thrust of the main discussion - and this I will do with the posers I give you. Please address the posers in red above. Thanks.

Chai, what a whirlwind this thread was. Admittedly it descended to the banal, to my eternal shame, but i men!. . . the astonishing claims of the religionists here! This is why we must miss Viaro. His contention that God Almighty dwells in the spriritual heaven in a physical human body is one for great comedy.

We miss ya, Viaro. Come back, or reincarnate, and sizzle us with some more astounding claims such as these, please na?

Even "Theism" is not a religion. Then ATHEISM? ? ? ?

vescucci:
DeepSight, I suggest you understand the scientific definition of time. You don't even need to go that far. You must have heard the phrase, 'time stood still' usually marked by everything stopping. Also think of the phrase 'turning back time' in which everything happens in reverse. Your perception of time is a rigid non-stopping flow (and this is just a perception), my understanding of time (and also that of science I believe) is that marked by events (or motion) which therefore can be stopped, fast-forwarded or slowed down i.e. the first phrase. The utterly wrong idea of time is that which can be rewound. You can't go back in time.

Bottomline, time is marked by events. No events means time ceases to exist. If something stays in one fixed way, time also stops.

You have described human perception of motions and events.

You have not described time.

We are in an anthill where everything stops moving. And we presume that is the end of time. HA!

@ thehomer -

I percieve that if we persist with this peicemeal approach, we will not get very far.

I thus propose to break down the issues very carefully and take them step by step. In this, I will do away with elements of the discussion that are not useful to the overall object that we seek to discuss. For this reason, even though i do not know how it is possible to use words such as "before" or "prior to" the initial expansion, without thereby simultaenously indicating a pre-existent state also indicative of time, I will have no choice but to leave that issue aside and focus on the main point.

The main point is your assertion that "critical thinking leads to a non-belief in God."

I vehemently disagree with this. I am of the view that critical thinking mujst certainly espouse something pre-existent: and further critical trhinking can discern certain attributes of that which is pre-existent.

I further state to you that the reverse: namely a conclusion that God does not exist: is unsustainable as it amounts to an endorsement of a meaningless and purposeless commencement of existence: and this is at odds with every tenet of simple logic. Particularly it directly contradicts the observable laws of motion.

Rather than continue in the piece-meal fashion whereat nothing is being gained, I will simply advance this discussion by putting the following questions to you:

1. You state that "prior" (hmmm!)  to the initial expansion that is referred to as the big bang, only a hot dense point, called a singularity existed.

      - Can you define for me what that singularity is.

      - Can you tell me why it is rational to suppose that it simply exists there of itself and by itself and of no cause, reason or rationale?

      - If not, can you suggest what its cause, reason or rationale may be?

      - Was that singularity Material/ Physical?

      - If it was, is it rational to suppose the singularity to be self/ existent (default state) in light of the changeable nature of matter and energy?

      - Are self-existent things changeable?

      - If self-existent things are not changeable, is it rational to suppose that matter is a self existent thing?

These form the first series.

Thank you, in anticipation of your responses.

Pastor AIO and MyJoe

Vesc/ thehomer -

Your statements to the effect that critical thinking would lead to a conclusion that God does not exist are absolutely presumptuous.

Is it not true that Thomas Aquinas was deploying critical thinking in these arguments he made - - - ?

The existence of God can be proved in Five Ways:

The first and plainest is the method that proceeds from the point of view of motion. It is certain and in accord with experience, that things on earth undergo change. Now, everything that is moved is moved by something; nothing, indeed, is changed, except it is changed to something which it is in potentiality. Moreover, anything moves in accordance with something actually existing; change itself, is nothing else than to bring forth something from potentiality into actuality. Now, nothing can be brought from potentiality to actual existence except through something actually existing: thus heat in action, as fire, makes fire-wood, which is hot in potentiality, to be hot actually, and through this process, changes itself. The same thing cannot at the same time be actually and potentially the same thing, but only in regard to different things. What is actually hot cannot be at the same time potentially hot, but it is possible for it at the same time to be potentially cold. It is impossible, then, that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, in regard to the same thing and in the same way, or that it should move itself. Everything, therefore, is moved by something else. If, then, that by which it is moved, is also moved, this must be moved by something still different, and this, again, by something else. But this process cannot go on to infinity because there would not be any first mover, nor, because of this fact, anything else in motion, as the succeeding things would not move except because of what is moved by the first mover, just as a stick is not moved except through what is moved from the hand. Therefore it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this all men know as God.

The second proof is from the nature of the efficient cause. We find in our experience that there is a chain of causes: nor is it found possible for anything to be the efficient cause of itself, since it would have to exist before itself, which is impossible. Nor in the case of efficient causes can the chain go back indefinitely, because in all chains of efficient causes, the first is the cause of the middle, and these of the last, whether they be one or many. If the cause is removed, the effect is removed. Hence if there is not a first cause, there will not be a last, nor a middle. But if the chain were to go back infinitely, there would be no first cause, and thus no ultimate effect, nor middle causes, which is admittedly false. Hence we must presuppose some first efficient cause---which all call God.

The third proof is taken from the natures of the merely possible and necessary. We find that certain things either may or may not exist, since they are found to come into being and be destroyed, and in consequence potentially, either existent or non-existent. But it is impossible for all things that are of this character to exist eternally, because what may not exist, at length will not. If, then, all things were merely possible (mere accidents), eventually nothing among things would exist. If this is true, even now there would be nothing, because what does not exist, does not take its beginning except through something that does exist. If then nothing existed, it would be impossible for anything to begin, and there would now be nothing existing, which is admittedly false. Hence not all things are mere accidents, but there must be one necessarily existing being. Now every necessary thing either has a cause of its necessary existence, or has not. In the case of necessary things that have a cause for their necessary existence, the chain of causes cannot go back infinitely, just as not in the case of efficient causes, as proved. Hence there must be presupposed something necessarily existing through its own nature, not having a cause elsewhere but being itself the cause of the necessary existence of other things---which all call God.

The fourth proof arises from the degrees that are found in things. For there is found a greater and a less degree of goodness, truth, nobility, and the like. But more or less are terms spoken of various things as they approach in diverse ways toward something that is the greatest, just as in the case of hotter (more hot) which approaches nearer the greatest heat. There exists therefore something that is the truest, and best, and most noble, and in consequence, the greatest being. For what are the greatest truths are the greatest beings, as is said in the Metaphysics Bk. II. 2. What moreover is the greatest in its way, in another way is the cause of all things of its own kind (or genus); thus fire, which is the greatest heat, is the cause of all heat, as is said in the same book (cf. Plato and Aristotle). Therefore there exists something that is the cause of the existence of all things and of the goodness and of every perfection whatsoever---and this we call God.

The fifth proof arises from the ordering of things for we see that some things which lack reason, such as natural bodies, are operated in accordance with a plan. It appears from this that they are operated always or the more frequently in this same way the closer they follow what is the Highest; whence it is clear that they do not arrive at the result by chance but because of a purpose. The things, moreover, that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent; just as an arrow is sent by an archer. Therefore there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan---and this we call God.
In response to the first objection, then, I reply what Augustine says; that since God is entirely good, He would permit evil to exist in His works only if He were so good and omnipotent that He might bring forth good even from the evil. It therefore pertains to the infinite goodness of God that he permits evil to exist and from this brings forth good.

How you can imagine that critical thinking tends towards atheism beats me.

InesQor:
@Deep Sight:

Speaking objectively, can you confidently say your tone was not accusatory but was rather designed to enquire if my beliefset had changed?

Did you not see the response by Martian that followed immediately after it, and then your own evil good grief that followed that one too?

So I am not deceived by your supposed ab initio "I was only trying to find out" aspect on the alleged accusation.

Once again I say, "Whatever dude".

Of course it is only natural that when one notices such a plain contradiction, one would address it to you.

Note again my comment after quoting it -

Deep Sight:
Given the foregoing, your contributions to this thread are paradoxical.

Which is a simple enough statement to make, no?

Haba. I tire for de matter sef. E no worth am. I hope you are doing good. Cheers.