I am Christian. If your world view is more rational than mine please come show me.

I think asking people to prove you are more rational than they are is a little needy.

I understand religion provides comfort to people, but that kind of statement sounds a little desperate and childish to be honest.

a reply to: BlueMule

ahh, umm, cool...

*heading to dictionary dot com

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

"For example, A square circle simply cannot exist. Neither can a rock an omnipotent being can't lift. These logical impossibilties would make questions like Can God create a square ciricle unimportant " Quote SOTL

...yet you credit that an Almighty can create a creature as its rival, that it cannot defeat...instantly...

What is apparent is that you are confusing logic with sense...

Å99

a reply to: akushla99

Food for thought ..."Ever wonder where old inventions go to die? Some go softly into the good night. Others enjoy long lives as they get repurposed or recycled into new products or services. Legally, this can happen one of three ways. Improvement patents either remove or add something to an existing invention to make it better. Another similar approach is to incorporate new technology into old products. For example, putting a microprocessor into a device previously controlled by analog circuitry can result in a new patent. Finally, it's possible to think of a new use for an existing patent -- something that transforms the first invention into something completely different."http://science.howstuffworks.com/innovation/repurposed-inventions/10-new-uses-for-old-inventions.htm

My world view changes the better acquainted I become with the Bible . What if The creator wanted a heavenly host but because of free will and not being able to atone for their sin He decided a way to accomplish the results ? This redemption love story within the Bible is very compelling evidence to try and understand for some while others would not give it a second thought .

What if that is the case ? Considering what and for how long we can experience this life and what seems to be un-explainable in human terms the glories awaiting those who are adopted into the family of God . To me it's a no brainier .To me ,it has many more challenges then any man can invent .It has a just purpose .A just cause .

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Yet...it is NOT explainable logically and sensibly through one paradigm.

What if's, are conjecture...

What if

- there is no satan, except the thoughtforms of millenia that are reverse-engineered to 'fit' into a constructed worldview that is incomplete, by its very nature?

- hell worlds exist on the subtle bardo levels where anyone can meet any one of the constructed thoughtforms of 'satan'?

- the gift of free will (proxy-encapsulated in the famous '...made in my image...') means that the process of creation also extends to the ability to invent in subtler forms the phantasms of the machinery we are gifted with?

- the 'creation' of satan, psychologically represents the abrogation of responsibility - having being gifted that free will and twice removes responsibility from its source?

The reality is far simpler than we could invent through the auspices of free will gifted...what you do with that gift is history...

Å99

a reply to: the2ofusr1

"My world view changes the better acquainted I become with the Bible" Quote the2ofusr1

My worldview changed when at 11, I realised that ALMIGHTINESS is bound by no human construct imaginable...and that if I were to accept that it was bound, I would need to use a word which best described the notion that God 'could' create a rock it could not lift...satan...and was NOT then ALMIGHTY at all...

Å99

a reply to: akushla99

...yet you credit that an Almighty can create a creature as its rival, that it cannot defeat...instantly... What is apparent is that you are confusing logic with sense.

Lol what is apparent is that you presuppose that I have a belief I don't have..Just because you have glanced at the Bible doesn't mean you understand my beliefs. Your point about is a strawman. God has already defeated Satan in the Biblical world view...nor does God consider him a rival. If Satan was a literally a rival why would Satan need God's permission to mess with Job?

a reply to: puzzlesphere

I am sorry but earlier he seemed quite aware that the majority of the evidence points to a finite universe, although he believes the universe is eternal and gave no evidence for that view....I don't know of any good evidence for that view so thats why I can't help him there...kinda the whole point of the thread was for him to show me an eternal universe was more rational than a finite universe since we disagreed. if you need specifics I can give plenty but i figured the idea that the majority of observable evidence points to spacetime having a beginning was pretty common knowledge now days. I have already pointed out to him earlier that if the universe oscillates based on the current state of entropy it couldn't have gone through more than a hundred oscillations, and therefore the oscillating model of the universe is finite as well.

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Or....not. He is not necessarily 'the Essence of Good.' It is only you people that make that giant leap from the available literature to 'modern born-againism'. It's crap.

Buzzy we would get along better if you weren't always so salty. Go read my conversation with nonspecific. I didn't come to the conclusion God is the essence of Good based on the Bible. I didn't use the Bible at all. As I have said numerous times, I didn't decide on the Biblical God and then decide he was the essence of Good. I observed the moral situations around me, and my own moral experience when i was wronged or when i wronged someone and came to the conclusion that Good exist. If there is a standard of Good that exist for humans to observe, then that standard must have a source. If the universe is most probably finite, then the cause of the universe is transcendant. The best explaination of these to issues is that there is a transcendent Good that created the universe. That Good must be conscious as it gives a standard to conscious beings. So no the Biblical God is not necessarily the Essence of Good. However as I said earlier the only other world view I can think of that can rationalize the existence of Good is that of a Deist.

You don't have to agree with me, but saying that it is unlikely doesn't make it so. I would say it is far more likely than any other view I have seen except for maybe blue mule. i haven't gotten into his yet, but ours will probably be a private conversation .

This does not follow. YOU are the one saying "God" is the essence of "Good" - other people think that your 'God' is a psychopathic jerk. Your 'story' is all based on his 'biography', you know (the Bible).

And your issue is the argument about essence of Good wasn't for the Biblical God. Buzzy, you just seem to be more ready to attack me then try and understand me. I don't care if we agree but we can at least understand each other. I think that will bring a much more positive outcome from this conversation. This argument was giving my reasoning for believing that their is Creator of the universe and that Creator is the essence of Good. You could believe that creator was a big pink unicorn and as long as it still had the attributes Creator and Essence of good that big pink unicorn would be in the running from here on out. I have also mentioned on this thread already that the way I can to my realization that God was the God of the Bible was through cumulative arguments that alone don't point to solely the Christian God, but rather that when one understands each and every argument individually it seems to point only to the Christian God.

a reply to: zazzafrazz

I think this post gave no one any information about your beliefs other than you read the title of this OP and thought it was needy.

a reply to: Prezbo369

Bible believers (Christians) have a long history of imposing their morality on other people, and still do it today (gay marriage? abortion?) so I found it to be very relevant. If you chose to be offended by that, then that's your problem.

I wasn't offended I just don't see how that helps either of us progress in our understanding of one another.

No you asked 'If your world view is more rational than mine please come show me.' And I showed how your 'world view' is based on terrible reasons, while mine has a torrent of good reasons.

You did no such thing. You said morals are subjective. To which I asked you a simple question. Doesn't this reduce to moral nihilism? There is no such thing as Morals. To which you responded :

Don't know don't care.

This is the last time I am going to attempt to have a conversation with you. If you are just here to troll. Troll away but it will be ignored.

a reply to: Mister_Bit

Nothing personal but we cannot discuss things 'rationally'

I could have said this to you the moment you said you believe the universe to be infinite, but instead I waited to see your reasoning for such a belief. You gave none. In fact I am pretty sure you admitted the majority of the physical evidence points to a finite beginning of Spacetime.

You are purposefully evasive and vague, you wont validate your own points, give 'opinion' as fact and faith as evidence and wont answer a direct question.

I am not lol. I gave you two points. A finite universe that points to a transcendent cause. A moral law that points to a conscious standard of Good. These are not proof they are evidence. The question at hand is which view is more rational. Not which view is absolutely true.

You acted as though you were aware of the evidences pointing to a finite universe as you said my point about the oscillating model was a good point if i remember correctly. That is why I didn't feel the need to give you evidences like cosmic background radiation or the expanding universe..

Source

Above=three mathematical arguments against infinity.


My moral argument ultimately leaves a person with two choices to remain rational: person must concede that Morals don't exist, or they must concede that a moral law exist, and therefore a conscious external standard must also exist.

So now I have at least given you a defense of my view. You haven't even done that for yours, so as it stands it would seem my world view is more rational as it actually has some evidence behind it yours is just your conclusions...that contradict the evidence at hand.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

If there is a standard of Good that exist for humans to observe, then that standard must have a source.

What is an "observable standard of good"? Can you provide an example of an "observable standard of good"?

originally posted by: windword
a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

If there is a standard of Good that exist for humans to observe, then that standard must have a source.

What is an "observable standard of good"? Can you provide an example of an "observable standard of good"?

"charity"
noun char·i·ty \ˈcher-ə-tē, ˈcha-rə-\

: the act of giving money, food, or other kinds of help to people who are poor, sick, etc.; also : something (such as money or food) that is given to people who are poor, sick, etc.

: an organization that helps people who are poor, sick, etc.

: the organizations that help people in need

a reply to: AinElohim

I guess in your opinion it would be good if I gave you free money. That wouldn't be my opinion.

a reply to: windword

What is an "observable standard of good"? Can you provide an example of an "observable standard of good"?

My world view believes Good exist and inherently known. There would be no observable standard. There may not be an observable standard in your view either. It might have been best to say a rational standard for good. Your view suggest Good exist, but it is subjective. I think my question was just crappy in all now that I re-read it. What I am trying to understand is how you rationalize the existence of "Good." I rationalize it by saying their is a Creator God who is the essence of Good. This God is a deduction from the observance of the existence of Good as an actual entity or value within reality. So what we are left with are two choices. Either Good exist which means a conscious Creator Exist that is the essence of Good. Or Good doesn't exist and the truth of the world is ethical nihilism.

If god doesn't exist how can there actually be a Good?

I love when WW gets into arguments about objective good & bad.

If popcorn wasn't disgusting, Id be eating some right now.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: windword

What is an "observable standard of good"? Can you provide an example of an "observable standard of good"?

If god doesn't exist how can there actually be a Good?

You just add an extra "o".

Give me a harder one next time!

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

There would be no observable standard.

Then........you can't use it as evidence of a god.

What I am trying to understand is how you rationalize the existence of "Good." I rationalize it by saying their is a Creator God who is the essence of Good.

Why not deduce that the existence of "Evil" is evidence that there is a Creator God who is the essence of Evil? Or violence or chaos?

a reply to: windword

Then........you can't use it as evidence of a god.

This is part of the problem with most unbelievers. We are talking about morals. This is not a question for physical Science. Neither is the concept of a Creator God. The moral argument is a philosophical proof(evidence) for the rationality of my world view.

Why not deduce that the existence of "Evil" is evidence that there is a Creator God who is the essence of Evil? Or violence or chaos?

You'll notice in my talks I have only been mentioning "if Good exist" not "if good and evil exist." I don't think evil exist as a value in and of itself. I think evil is the absence of something that does exist, Good.

a reply to: Eunuchorn

Lol Eunuchorn if you had to label your world view what would it be?