Sirona;
Basically I think that God is universal energy - the ALL. I think that we as humans cannot understand the ALL and therefore we put "faces" to the facets (or qualities) of the ALL. Therefore when you think of God you can understand him/her a little easier, because he/she is in human terms of reference. If you think of a loving Mother figure you may think of Mary, or Kwan Yin. If you think of a fair judge, you may think of Ma'at. I believe that these images are given form by our belief in them and are closely related to what Jung called the collective unconscious containing archetypes we can relate to.
The description of gods here doesn't actually require gods to exist, as they can merely be methods of thinking.
What I'd like to know from everyone is "Do you think that Gods are separate entities in themselves, having separate distinct personalities? or Do you think that they are facets of the all as I've described above? Or a bit of both?"
As the only evidence for gods being anything other than ways of thinking is subjective evidence, we have three choices;
1/ gods do not exist
2/ gods exist but choose to deny objective verifiable proof
3/ gods are by their nature not subject to the same laws as everything else
4/ gods are not creators or supernatural, just memories of species we had contact with a long time ago beyond our own level of development
2/ doesn't make any sense unless gods are not interested in us – we might be incidental to the gods’ plans, like wood shavings on a carpenters floor are incidental to what is actually being done. If the gods are interested in us, any argument relating to the lack of proof being necessary for faith is casuistry, illogical, and ends up turning human existence into a game. Of course, it might be true, but if it is, the gods are assholes, and it is very convenient to anyone who wants to control or exploit people. In such a circumstance the gods are clearly responsible for negative consequences related to this franchise for deceit.
3/ is convenient for anyone who wants to control or exploit people. Again, as the buck stops with the gods, they clearly responsible for negative consequences related to this franchise for deceit.
4/ is not provable, and illogical if the contact was intentional. If the contact was intentional, then the super advanced civilisation should have been more careful to avoid imprinting a developing species with such a potential damaging meme.
This makes 1/ look like an attractive working theory.
Clash; how’s my favourite presuppositionalist then? Cuchy-cuchy-coo! Who’s got a philosophy that tastes of ashes then? Has god predetermined you will be saved then? What a good boy! Yes!
It’s funny. On one hand, I can see why you would find Sirona’s more smorgasbord approach to religion almost offensive. For you, the book is god. The idea that you can merge ideas from several books or traditions is alien to you.
Why should you care about polytheism (sic)? Or any discourse (sic) on the objective truth or reallity (sic) of any of theism. To you your god is like Mr. Potato Head a silly little god you get out of a toy box which you fasion (sic) after your likes. Or to put it another way your god is like a McDonalds Big Mac made to order just the way you want (hold the onions, extra mayo)
You seem to have decided to reject all the evidence relating to how the beliefs of the Jews and the Christians were influenced by those of their neighbours. This is funny and illuminates your lack of introspection and your selective application of critical thinking. For all you laugh at someone making a smorgasbord belief structure, you just happen to have adopted one that was written down and set by some other people.
But, being a presuppositionalist, it’s simply not worth arguing with you other than as a form of entertainment. You have decided the Bible is God’s word, and that you and your co-cultists have the right interpretation, and nothing anyone could ever say could change this.
As usual my lazy wanna be (sic) intellectual friend you have absolutely (sic) no clue on what presuppositionalism is you have never read Greg Bahnsen of Van Til. And Laws of logic you say you have never even taken a formal logic class.
Wonderful how we get a lecture about laws of logic from;
a/ a presuppositionalist
b/ someone who doesn’t realise his own attack of smorgasbord religious belief structures actually attacks his own belief structure which was developed in largely the same fashion
c/ someone who obviously never taken a formal spelling class
d/ someone who uses in logical fallacy in the very paragraph they mock someone for not having taken formal logic classes
You attitude, as always, is a complete remove from that of your supposed exemplar. Straight out of the gate you act like a Pharisee. Just to clue anyone who doesn’t realise what an utterly moronic philosophy presuppositionalism is, here’s an extract;
http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Research_Center/Apologetics/Presuppositional_Apologetics/cornelius_van_till.htm
It’s so full of rubbish it defies belief;
“A ccording to Van Til, traditional arguments are also misguided in that they use inductive arguments for Christianity. Inductive arguments are probabilistic; they do not prove their conclusions with certainty. Therefore, traditional arguments give nonbelievers an excuse for rejecting the truth of Christianity. For if Christianity is only probably true, then it is also possibly false. Van Til believed that what was needed was not a probabilistic argument for Christianity, but an argument that proved the impossibility of the contrary. Van Til believed that his transcendental argument alone proved Christianity to be true with certainty. 17
The traditional arguments for God's existence are therefore useless. The nonbeliever must be confronted with the gospel. Only in this direct approach will the believer find a point of contact with the nonbeliever. It should not be assumed that the nonbeliever is an honest, neutral seeker of truth.”
Is it me, or is that not one of the most repulsive set of beliefs you’ve come across?
Why do you defend other people (sic) made up gods? For a hard core athiest (sic) if you know what that is, I find you comming (sic) to the rescue of these fabracations (sic) of ones (sic) imaginary god quite inconsistent (sic).
Except I think Pharisees could spell better… “Scribes and Pharisees” implies they had a good standard of education. As you obviously don’t realise the contradiction of your stance, you have very little chance of understanding what Funky is actually on about. Your god is just as made up as the next god, or just as unmade up as the next god. You will not accept this, as you have closed your mind to accept information that attacks this presupposition.
Funky, the crypto thiest (sic) or at least made up polytheist (sic).
Oh, I love it, the presuppositionalist (who has decided what he has decided is true, because it is, because he says it is) is talking about made-up gods without any realisation of irony!
Like your start with the notion that the claims of Christ are a bunch of crap, and this is before you look at any evidence.
That is a straw man argument. Go back to logic class.
God is not Fasioned (sic) after the imaginations of man nor by his hands. God is TRANSENDENT!
Prove it; the only evidence you have for god is fashioned by human hands, in a book, unless you are claiming to have had direct correspondence with god. Your philosophy is fashioned by human hands. You claim to follow god, but the only difference between you and a cultist who accepts the cult leader’s words as unimpeachable truth is YOUR cult leaders are dead. You follow men and a book.
If I give you pressupositional (sic) apologetics all I am doing is pointing you to Jesus Christ by means of faith and repentance. Delivering the Holy Spirit to you by means of the Word of God the Bible
If you are the best that God can provide to deliver Holy Spirit, I think God had better use UPS next time. And being able to spell your chosen philosophy is a good idea…
The Gosple (sp) accounts provide plenty of evidence, the problem is that you already before looking at the account have rejected them.
No, you’re not allowed to use evidence; you’ve accepted it as truth before examining the evidence. You AGAIN make straw man arguments in accusing others of rejecting the account before examination. This is demonstrably untrue for the majority of atheists here. So, do your Christian morals allow lying to spread the Holy Spirit? Like the Witnesses do? And who is the father of the lie, eh Clash? And how can you not know how to spell Gospel?
For you the problem is deeper than the intellect which for the most part your (sic) a pretty sharp guy the problem with you is in the heart. Your not nutral (sic)you have presuppositions that are due to a sinfull (sic) heart. I'm just here to undermind (sic) your presuposition (sic) and point out that they are unintellegable (sic) in regaurds (sic) to Christ and his gosple (sic).
You are a judgemental person Clash; presuppositionalism is based upon judging people… go read the Bible, especially James, and tell me how you justify going against your made-up god’s words?
Jesus has manifested himself through out human history through his covenant people From Adam to Noah, to Abraham and his desendence (sic) This is demonstraded (sic) through out the acount (sic) of redemptive history.
There’s no point in talking to you; evidence regarding inaccurate Bible chronology and events that there is no evidence for occurring would just be rejected. Are you a YEC or an OEC? I’d think you’d have to be a YEC, but who knows given the illogical nature of your other beliefs.
The explanation of the true God found in the bible is not dependent on our human experience to explain HIM.
Casuistry, again; the only way to maintain your peculiar set of beliefs is to believe that. It is funny how your religious expression has evolved to survive scientific attack by refusing to even see any form of attack. But that is different from it being right, not that you’d ever accept it as your mind is closed, and god knows where your heart is if you can believe the entity described by most presuppositionalists.
I seriouly (sic) doubt you know anything about biblical Hebrew. Even if you studied the biblical languages like Hebrew at a liberal seminary like Fuller Semenary (sic) in CA they flunk your rear end out of the classroom.
Once again we see a logical fallacy from some one who can’t even use his own language properly. Can you imagine Jesus acting like this ambulatory judgemental self righteous joke? Hey, remember, he’s been chosen by god, and if you don’t agree with him it means you haven’t, as you can only understand if you’re stupid called!!
That's enough - remember, arguing with a presuppositionalist is like headbutting a nail sticking out of a wall; pointless and painfull, but not because the nail is smarter or right!
