Changing the Goalposts

by braincleaned 88 Replies latest watchtower bible

tec

You obviously have not even taken the time to see these videos.
You are right, I did not (though i might have seen it before, I have watched a couple of his videos). I'll try and take a look soon.
Your argument is totally in your head, as there no observable example of ANYTHING coming into existence "ex-Nihilo" or from nothing.
Yes, I agree... but I, as you show that you do understand from your comments below, am not saying that something comes from nothing (the absence of anything/everything)
The current scientific theory... or hypothesis, I am not sure how "sure" it is... if I understand correctly (from Laurence Krauss), is that the universe did or could have come from "Nothing" (the meaning of the word has been changed though, lol, so that "Nothing" is actually something)
What you and your fellow believers argue is that God has always existed (with of course, no evidence) AND that he made the Universe come to be from nothing other than his own existance. And to argue this, you are are using 'creatio ex materia' examples to defend 'create ex-Nihilo' claims.
You go even further, and I must admit I need to think about this — you say "Since God is not nothing (the absence of anything/everything)... this is untrue. Everything came from HIM. From HIS energy, that brought forth LIGHT/LIFE."
Yes.
This is yet a new spin for me; because this is NOT what the Bible not other creation stories claim at all. I need to dig deeper in this claim of yours and where you get the idea that God had the elements to make the Universe.
I learned from Christ, from the understanding He gave me... and also the understanding that He gave others who shared as He gave them to share, to which the Spirit confirmed as being true. God being energy, and so the source, has been shared on this forum as well as on my other forum. You, too, could ask for understanding, and then listen... to what the Spirit gives you.
I am not sure myself where people get the idea that God created everything out of nothing. I do not think that the bible even states that God created everything from nothing. Genesis states that God created... it does not say how. He SPOKE (and brought forth LIGHT - which is Christ/Life... from which all other life came forth) Hebrews mentions that the visible was created from what is not visible (but even that is also not saying from nothing)
There is also this verse:
"For in Him, we live and move nad have our being."
He IS energy, and love, and FROM Him, came Life.
But yes, please do ask, and contemplate on this. It is an awesome thing to learn.
(My God, is the Father of Christ... and yes, He is also the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob... but He is only KNOWN/SHOWN by His Image and Truth: Christ)
Peace to you,
tammy
braincleaned

//The current scientific theory... or hypothesis, I am not sure how "sure" it is... if I understand correctly (from Laurence Krauss), is that the universe did or could have come from "Nothing" (the meaning of the word has been changed though, lol, so that "Nothing" is actually something//

I'm not sure I agree with Krauss, although I'm a fan of his. I find his 'nothing' to be 'something' a bit of an intellectual gymnastic.
Of course, I'm not a scientists — but I'm a thinker.
Krauss is a theoretical physicist ("which uses mathematical models and abstractions of physical objects and systems to rationalize, explain and predict natural phenomena"). Nobody has to accept this as a basis for reality.

For example, William Lane Craig bases his argument on the impossibility of an actual infinite (weird I know — he is shooting himself in the foot about the infinity of God), and rewords Kalam's syllogism like this:
1 An actual infinite cannot exist.
2 An infinite temporal regress of events is an actual infinite.
3 Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.
However, Victor Stenger has proven that quantum mechanics refutes the first premise of the argument (that 'everything that begins to exist has a cause'). He points out that such naturally occurring quantum events violate this premise, such as the Casimir effect and radioactive decay.

I am just a comic book writer — a layman. But I have often read that nobody can explain infinity. This is a big surprise for me, as a simple circle is ample proof of infinity: Where does it start? When does it stop? Even a child would get the point. Any circle is a powerful and obvious example of infinity.

So we are both agreeing on one thing. Whether God or Nature — the cycle of life and energy can be eternal.

My problem is when one points to the source of life as being God. Which god?
You think it is YHWH/Jesus…? okay then. But can you give me an argument, different and MORE persuasive than any other religion? Are your arguments against any other god any more persuasive that the argument against yours?
I am an atheist in that I see no evidence for a god of our human folklore. But I am an agnostic as to the possibility of a god-like intelligence out there. Actually, I even side with Einstein and his Spinoza God; Nature. We'll see what quantum physics teach us in the future.
However, like you are an atheist (so to speak) against Zeus, Thor, Allah, Brahma, etc… and as you dismiss their existence as human invention and myth — I — like the other religions out there, dismiss YOUR idea of god. Your arguments are no better. Or at the least, I have read no better argument.
Just for your information, I do know all the arguments for the christian god, as I was a Christian Minister for over 30 years. It's my deep study of the Bible that turned me into a non-believer. I studied other religions too, and still do. The closest I have gotten to logic and reason, is the scientific method and its peer-reviewed research. It does not explain everything — but it's better than believing the folkloric gods of our respective cultures and wishes.
Peace! :)
tec

weird I know — he is shooting himself in the foot about the infinity of God

Lol... true.
And yeah, I don't understand what Craig is saying in his three points there, or how he has disproven infinity. I, too, am a layperson.

Your example of infinity has given me something to ponder, and ask about, as well. Though to me, it is God who is infinite (in that circle... or perhaps rather being THE circle), and we are at specific points in that circle... until we are at other points in that circle.
Just something to ponder. I am not sure, and I would have to ask so that I could know and BE sure, and then listen.
So we are both agreeing on one thing. Whether God or Nature — the cycle of life and energy can be eternal.

Yes.

My problem is when one points to the source of life as being God. Which god?
You think it is YHWH/Jesus…? okay then. But can you give me an argument, different and MORE persuasive than any other religion? Are your arguments against any other god any more persuasive that the argument against yours?
I don't know what other religions argue; I don't even know all or even most of what the various sects of christianity argue (I would disagree with many that I have heard though, in that they don't prove anything, or say anything different than other religions). So I don't know if I can give you a more persuasive argument, lol.
Christ is my argument for God (though Christ does not belong to ME, so He is not MINE... rather the reverse; just to be clear) Not the bible; not men; not religion. Just Christ. The Spirit.
I don't think one can 'argue' another person into faith.
One hears Christ (and the truth in what He taught - both in word and deed), one seeks Him, or one does not. For many who are SEEKING though, and witness from others can help them on their journey, even if they might not know what/who it is that they are seeking. They might hear something that resonates within them, and follow that to see where it leads. Perhaps it leads them to Christ, perhaps they are following his voice.
I never doubted that God existed. I felt Him, experienced Him, always believed in Him. I was not born an atheist (i think few people are... but the world teaches children that what they know as God is something else, or imagination/fantasy, etc, or that He is as they describe Him to be, within their rules)
But believing that God to be the God and Father of Christ... that is from the truth I heard from Christ, as stated above. I loved Him for these, and followed Him. Now, I hear Him... His voice, speaking. So I can hear the truth FROM Him. So I can KNOW Him, and not just 'guess' or hope that He exists. I know He exists, and I put faith IN Him.
One who does not exist or is dead... does not speak. One who is alive and so (obviously) does exist... does speak. People DO hear Him. (some hear Him, but like those children from earlier, are taught that this 'voice' is something else... their own, their imagination, instinct, random thoughts... or mental illness, though this is often an 'internet diagnosis'. Religion, even that of Christianity, does not tend to promote hearing the Spirit, over listening to men teaching religion)
I learn from Him, things I would not have had a clue about otherwise, things I would not know. I listen to Him. (Or when I do not listen to Him on some matter... I end up taking the long route and learning something the hard way, causing myself and others needless pain along the way)
I don't specifically argue against other gods, per se... but more often against the teaching of the religion showing that the teaching did not come from God; and let that reveal whether something/someone is true or not. "test the inspired expression to see if it came from God"
My Lord taught me to do that as well. One time I was bothered by someone's claims about saying something came from Christ (and so God)... and I did not know whether to believe them or not. My Lord told me (though I did not know it was Him at the time; I did not understand that He speaks) to test WHAT was being shared, rather than the claim about it being from Christ. Test the message. So that is what I have done since then, and continue to do. (test against Christ, test against love... and then also test against what is written, though the last is an imperfect source)
I am an atheist in that I see no evidence for a god of our human folklore. But I am an agnostic as to the possibility of a god-like intelligence out there. Actually, I even side with Einstein and his Spinoza God; Nature. We'll see what quantum physics teach us in the future.
I understand that, and I understand why you rely on science/peer reviewed discoveries/theories/etc. None of those (that are true, and not mistaken) will speak against God, though.
God is more than a book or religion or men. (He is not even those things in the first place.. He is spirit, energy... and from that He brought forth Life. He has not abandoned man, He has always been here, speaking and guiding and teaching... though man has moved farther and farther away from Him. So He sent some of those who DID hear Him, to others, and then He also sent One, who IS the Truth... HIS truth... a reflection of HIM... because HIS energy is too great to look upon directly, and survive... at least to this flesh and blood; to teach us and bring us near Him)
Peace! :)
Thank you! Also thank you for the interesting and stimulating discussion, braincleaned!
Peace to you,
tammy
BackseatDevil

(opinion) the 'goal posts' move every time science comes up with a new answer and religion has to shift in their concept of "god" to accomidate what eventually becomes "common knowlege".
We who do not believe in god, are perfectly content just waiting around, living, until more answers are found by people smarter than us. Those that do believe in god have to continually readjust their thinking to merge obvious progression of human understanding with thousands of years of beliefs.
Example:
The sun is not a chariot being pulled across the sky - heresy to the Greek/Roman god at the time.
the sun does not revolve around the earth - heresy to the CHRISTIAN god at the time.
the earth was not created in 4000 B.C. - modern heresy.
Seriously, just because we are discussing atoms and molecular reactions, the creation of the universe (however it was created) and the evolution of life in terms and on levels completely non-existant 100 years ago doesn't mean that anything has changed in this style of debate. If you take out all the scientific research and obvious logic, we still have Galileo standing before the councel trying to defend the rotation of the earth against people who took 1 Chronicles 16:30 as science fact.
That's all this (and the other thread) is.
Hummingbird001

"Isn't it enough to see that the garden is beautiful, without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it, too?"
~Douglas Adams~ The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
Anony Mous

The best answer to tammy and others claiming God always was:
- In order for there to be life in the Universe as we know it, there have be simple beginnings, very simple beginnings. Things that have been expounded on in both biology and physics shows that evolution has very simple beginnings.
- To "create" something as complex as the Universe you have to have a 'being' that's more complex than the Universe. Such being requires us to ask 'how did this complex being come into existence'. How did he evolve to be so complex, how did he begin?
- You can't claim that something as complex as an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent god (which is in itself a problem to explain) did always exist because you claim something as complex as the Universe exists because of him, you get an infinite regression (turtles all the way down). If you say the buck stops at your god, then you have to be able to give a reason why and not with your god's god.
adamah

Anony Mous said-
- You can't claim that something as complex as an omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent god (which is in itself a problem to explain) did always exist because you claim something as complex as the Universe exists because of him, you get an infinite regression (turtles all the way down). If you say the buck stops at your god, then you have to be able to give a reason why and not with your god's god.
And this is the point where believers whisper in mystical hushed tones, worshipfully speaking of their ineffable God who operates in mysterious ways saying, "it is not within man to understand the workings of our Almighty God...."
All of which are awe-inspiring sentiments, but constitute a smorgasborg of emotionally-driven fallacious arguments grouped into the general category of "appeal to ignorance" ("we don't know anything else"), which is followed by a "God of the gaps" claim ("God Dun It!").
Adam
jam

Ok folks what about this. There is no beginning or end for
the universe, so no need for God. In other words the universe
came first and then God, Angels, demons and etc.
So the laws of physics apply to the sky God the same as we humans.
That works for me.
prologos

lets face it, the buck or the turtles stop somewhere. (turtles are actually energy working against gravity).
equating the creator to the god concepts of the past is a cheap shot.
How exciting to live now, when the curtain is opened more and more how things work and worked from before the beginning
out of the nothing that is really something. (in the two senses of the phrase}.
MadGiant

"No. Since God is not nothing (the absence of anything/everything)... this is untrue. Everything came from HIM. From HIS energy, that brought forth LIGHT/LIFE.
(though the statement... God created the universe from "Nothing"... the new definition, is not much different than what that physicist is saying (other than the God part), in that that the universe came from "Nothing". Because "Nothing" isn't nothing)"
“Don't you believe in flying saucers, they ask me?
Don't you believe in telepathy?
— in ancient astronauts?
— in the Bermuda triangle?
— in life after death?
No, I reply. No, no, no, no, and again no.
One person recently, goaded into desperation by the litany of unrelieved negation, burst out "Don't you believe in anything?"
Yes", I said. "I believe in evidence. I believe in observation, measurement, and reasoning, confirmed by independent observers. I'll believe anything, no matter how wild and ridiculous, if there is evidence for it. The wilder and more ridiculous something is, however, the firmer and more solid the evidence will have to be.”
? Isaac Asimov
Do you have any evidence to support this claim?
I have done some research and couldn't fine any evidence to support those claims. Only personals experiences, but those experiences don't count.
Here's why: I can claim that aliens adopted me for 10 days for 10 hours a day, 10 years ago. Proof me wrong.
The scary thing is this: every believer think that he/she have the right answer, every believer have his/her "own account" and everybody is correct. If you have 1,000 believer you are going to end up with 1,000 accounts. Their is no evidence.
Take care,
Ismael

Changing the Goalposts

Share this