"In the end there must have been a creator"

Hey, T.C. I was browsing through old posts when I came upon this one and a quote that you presented.Do you still believe this quote to be true? Where did you get the info? Is the chance that slim?

Yes, Paul. I must confess that I DID have too much time on my hands that day. Actually, I always respected T.C. and I wanted to dialogue with him...but unlike me, he has a life and is not responding as of yet! I respect him because he is a Theist despite being a good young scientist.

We are talking about dreams. About hypothetical situations. In an article from Jerry Solomon of Probe Ministries,Worldviews the author asserts Solomon goes on to explain several different worldviews, among them "naturalism" and of course, Christian Theism. Now, the reason that I am using so much of this article to make my point is that the author explains my position better than I could, (plus I am too lazy to type you out a long response. Bear with me, please! ) In order to understand the difference in our perceptions of an encounter with God, EVEN a "hypothetical" one, I want to contrast how I think with how you think.While I am not a word for word Biblical literalist, I AM a thought for thought literalist. I am NOT ignorant of the disciplines of scientific thought, and I do not as of this time believe that Ken Ham
and the crew over at Answers In Genesis have in any way convinced me of their position over many respected scientists, whatever their belief.I will say that I believe that God was the first..and the last. He transcends time in that He cannot be subjected to time. Thus, when we talk of dreams, hypothetical encounters, and imaginative processes, I see it as humanity being an initial product of Gods imagination rather than Him,(or any other religious or secular explanation) being a product of our imagination.Allow me to tie in my Biblical view: Now from my point of view, God saw that humanity was "one"...in other words humanity was in common agreement...a communion, if you will..without Him included. Lets go back to the worldviews. Now, you may state that you "imagine" a god, and YOU will declare that he is an s.o.b. who gave YOU the faculties of reason and logic that you have...in order to disprove him. Right?But your logic has been developed by human wisdom. To wrap it up,my worldview is based on a supernatural God as an origin that first imagined me. (thus I can never deny Him as hypothetical) whereas you may see human wisdom as the origin of hypothesis on everything.Am I right, Mike? Do you believe that human wisdom invented the concept of God?This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-17-2005 06:37 AM

Hi, Paul! The assertions as defined and framed by Solomon quite naturally are topics worthy of debate and discussion. I used that particular article to frame my logic only because I tend to be of the same worldview that Solomon defines as Christian Theism. It is, agreeably, far too narrow and incomplete for me to lump all scientific and rational thought that runs counter to a literalist, supernatural view as "naturalism."Any one individual at EvC has been influenced by many of the worldviews that Solomon expounds upon in his article. Indeed, the argument has been brought up that I have adopted a Christian Theist worldview primarily because I was brought up in that environment.
(Thankfully, my parents were not too religious!)I would assert that my worldview concerning the literal presupposition of God being prior to human intellect and thus unrefuteable has stemmed from my conversion experience when I believe that I was "saved" and indwelt with the Holy Spirit. Quite naturally, I need the "human wisdom" of the Christian Theistic supernatural explanation to justify my belief to others..(not to myself)...seeing as how no other evidence is possible. (some call this circular reasoning)
In defense of this, I can only proclaim that the conversion experience where I met God reinforced the adoption of Christian Theism defined by human wisdom...rather than the other way around. True from your rational way of processing the information. As an example, you say that You are referring to this question? If I assert that God is the first cause, cannot be denied, and that Original Sin/seperation led to human wisdom in opposition to God...and you said that the concept of god is unimportant because each of us has a relativistic view which should be tolerated, I can see your point. I may not agree with you, yet why need I be an absolutist Monarch and deny you the right to your science?

Which is why Ward Churchill should be allowed to air his views at a University. Education needs to have contradictory views within its framework...otherwise, people can never rationally decide what they believe. Again, this is why the current administration which claims to be based on theistic morality is involved in a war with fundamentalist ideas from another culture and another worldview. And the traditional Theistic answer is because the Bible explains how things will be. I would expound on this to add that You have a purpose and a destiny in life that is apart from you. Perhaps this is the mystery of humanity being part of the body and of Christ being the head. Of course, my explanation to you is based upon my own theistic worldview. This is why the Bible makes sense to me and others, while seen as so ridiculous and out of context to so many others.
Theology is absolute, definite, and conclusive within ones chosen belief.
Philosophy is inquiring, inconclusive, and expansive.

Yes, but that is my worldview. You may assert that "The Bible says so" is a poor explanation. You are correct that I am backing my assertion by my belief. Within the context of our discussion, the Bible should be allowed to be presented. You are referring to which question, again?Do you mean that if something does not exist, nothing exists?Let me ask you a question. In math, on a number line, how many points exist between two points on the line?Imagine, if you will, a line that starts with 0............1
one represents my value system, i.e. God is one. Say that in theory, every other possible belief is correlated with any point between 0 (or nothing) and 1, (absolutist Theistic Belief) We can say that all points exist in theory. All views expressed. Is there an absolute value...an answer to this question?This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-17-2005 08:43 AM

and I use the number line analogy to assert that some would say that every human has a belief and an explanation. If we as humans all count as an equal value(tolerance) than our beliefs can be construed as relative to the individual. You are right. How do we know that there is something rather than nothing? Is God something? This implies room for error +/- in which there is room for doubt...ie "some other thing." My view asserts that God is not only something but is the very source for all things. There is no room allowed by me to be a disinterested observer on this belief. You may very well answer your own question by asserting that you do not believe in something(in this case, God) and that it is NOT a black/white either/or issue. In other words, it is not either 1 or 0, (something or nothing) but it is a relative concept. If so, I'll leave it at that, and we can disagree. We ask: Why is there something other than nothing? In context, Why God?
You say: I will respond by saying that the Bible as a book is no explanation at all. The Bible as representative of a character is, in fact, one explanation of why something(God) is. In other words, the Bible is the word of God. (one worldview, remember. I am not being absolute, yet I am defining the value of absolute(something)
The Bible has this to say related to our philosophical discourse: In other words, the only "thing" not subject to God is nothing. Nothing who is no one. None who is none.
Hell was never a reality for people unless they denied the absolute truth of One who is One.
The concept of Satan is the concept of nothing. God was, is, and always will be. He is definitely something! The Beast was,(as the reality of Lucifer) now is not(He is nothing. Yet this is the alternative to something!) and yet will come....perhaps only for those who refused to believe in something.
Does this confuse you more, or am I making any sense? I know what I mean to assert, but I am not sure if you see it from the lens that I see it from.I assert certainty without any proof apart from my belief and logic. Looking back on this post, I see how my own theories pale in comparison to the Bible. Y'all bear with me when I go off on a tangent!This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-18-2005 07:25 AM

The key phrase is "mankind has generated..."My belief is that God imagined humanity prior to humanity imagining God.By refusing to accept God as a first cause, my belief becomes disagreeable. Life preservers are disagreeable to swimmers who are not drowning. This is my belief, and I cannot prove it to you because how can I provide evidence of an imagination apart from my own? Man has attempted to create God in our own definition. This has always occurred throughout History.
As a Believer, I sometimes find myself doing it, as well.(like my number line theory) I can tell the difference between my vain imagination and Gods perfect imagination because when His Spirit...His imagination works through me, everything happens rationally. There is still the choice to believe or not to believe, however.This message has been edited by Phatboy, 02-18-2005 07:37 AM