Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 1/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   God caused or uncaused?
bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 66 of 297 (416556)
08-16-2007 4:38 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rob
08-16-2007 6:01 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob writes:
Of course God exists... it is not possible for reality not to exist. And that is the context of 'the God' of the Bible. The creator of all things. Like logic, He is axiomatic or self evident. Not some being that exists in reality, but is what it is.
Yes, and Reality is God...
Just bringing some gentle questioning I was doing on another thread (Deism on Trial) over to this one, as it's more on topic here.
Rob's form of Christianity seems to involve the belief that his God is reality, and that his God was definitely not designed or created.
Rob also believes in the design inference in relation to life forms on earth, and that all life, unlike God/reality, was created.
Reality (God) of course was not created, and therefore the implication is that biological life is not part of reality. It's not real.
Rob seems to think on that thread that life has become only partially real after the (Genesis) fall. I point out that in his system, it never was real as, unlike reality (God), it was created/designed.
I find this fascinating, partly because Rob and I are both life forms, so it conjures up the idea that, according to Rob's religion, two non-real entities are having an unreal internet dialogue about reality.
It's an interesting and, in my experience, new and original creationist departure. Here, evolutionary biologists are simply being told that they are non-real entities studying non-real phenomena.
If life on earth were part of Rob's reality (God) then there's no reason why it should show any real appearance of design, as it would be part of non-designed reality. This lack of real design is, of course, what evolutionists claim (that any appearance of design is superficial, and that on closer examination, life forms do not appear to be designed, but to have evolved).
Thus far, I have to come to the conclusion that Rob must believe that life is not part of non-designed reality (his God), but is, in fact, a non-existent illusion, which makes me wonder why he bothers posting, or, for that matter, living.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rob, posted 08-16-2007 6:01 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 73 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 3:14 AM bluegenes has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 75 of 297 (416849)
08-18-2007 5:54 AM
Reply to: Message 73 by Rob
08-18-2007 3:14 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob writes:
To find those who are interested in becoming real.
And you've got some major confusion as to what I said, but you are funny...
So we're not part of reality, then, in your system. Or, at least, I'm not. Unreal, man, as the hippies would say.
Perhaps I should change my site name from bluegenes to "nowhere man".
No major confusion, I assure you. I'm taking you literally. When you say that God is not himself created, and that he is reality, it's perfectly reasonable to come to the conclusion that all aspects of reality are not created. Reality (God) is not intelligently designed.
Therefore it's surprising that you don't agree with all the evolutionary biologists who regard life on earth, on close examination, as being un-designed.
Most people perceive this planet and its life forms as being "real", and very much part of reality. The apparent lack of design would seem to fit your view of an un-designed reality.
Yet you seem to be a supporter of the William Paley/Michael Behe type of "I.D." view of life on earth. Paley and Behe perceive design in your un-designed reality, so you seem to be contradicting yourself here.
That's why I've suggested that you must believe that life is not real. That it's not part of reality.
As I said in the earlier post, this seems to be a departure in a new direction for creationism, and I give you 10/10 for originality.
Can we call this the "life cannot have evolved because it isn't really there" hypothesis?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 3:14 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 77 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 12:09 PM bluegenes has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 78 of 297 (416907)
08-18-2007 12:48 PM
Reply to: Message 77 by Rob
08-18-2007 12:09 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob writes:
I wouldn't say unreal (in the total sense). Rather, I would say 'illogical'.
Ah, so now we're real. I'm pleased about that, because I was beginning to feel a bit ethereal.
So if we are real, we can be part of the undesigned reality of your system.
Basic Tenets of the Rob Theology:
(a) God is not Himself created or designed.
(b) God is Reality.
(c) Life is real, therefore part of an undesigned reality.
Have I got it right?
I can now assume that you have rejected the Behe type of I.D. as it is obviously incompatible with your line of thinking.
Perhaps you have joined the camp of the more sophisticated Christians (like John Polkinghorne whom I believe you quoted recently on another thread) who support the theory of evolution.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 77 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 12:09 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 79 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 2:45 PM bluegenes has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 80 of 297 (416927)
08-18-2007 3:50 PM
Reply to: Message 79 by Rob
08-18-2007 2:45 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob writes:
Is fiction real? It is written in hardback. People buy it.
The hardback book is real, the people who buy it are real, and the story in the book is real once told. It's a real, untrue story.
Life is real yes, but in the temporal sense. It is relative... But what is it relative to?
The real thing!
You're being a bit cryptic here, I think. You mean it's relative to Coca Cola, or something?
The closer we are to the real thing, the more real we become. Dr. Zacharius put it this way, 'The more logical a man is, the closer he moves to the pronouncements of God, and sustains what God has already said. The more illogical a man is, the farther he moves away from God.'
Ah, I see. A God is the real thing. I thought your God was reality. Well, we certainly know that our species has a characteristic of inventing Gods, because there are so many different ones from so many different cultures. So, logically, the chances are that whichever God you are referring to is a human invention, and therefore only real in a similar way to the real but untrue fiction story mentioned above.
I disagree with Dr. Zacharius (or even Dr. Zacharias) whoever he is.
Dr. bluegenes puts it this way:
quote:
The more logical a man is, the further he moves from the pronouncements of any Gods invented by his fellow men. The more illogical a man is, the closer he is likely to move towards a God or Gods invented by his fellow men.
Reality is logical.
For you, reality is God and is logical.
I have to laugh at the idea of the Abrahamic God being logical.
If there's a real God of some kind, he might be logical, but it's unlikely that we'd understand the logic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 79 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 2:45 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 81 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 6:17 PM bluegenes has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 84 of 297 (416968)
08-18-2007 9:20 PM
Reply to: Message 81 by Rob
08-18-2007 6:17 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob writes:
blugenes writes:
Well, we certainly know that our species has a characteristic of inventing Gods
Hard not to when we are created in God's image and are therfore hard-wired for logical thinking (though we are adept at avoiding it, and denying it's relevance).
Actually, we seem to create Gods in our own image, rather than the other way around. As I said, there are many different Gods from many different cultures, and they all seem to have human aspects. As they can't all have created us, it's perfectly reasonable and logical to come to the conclusion that we invented them.
They also show the relationship to the cultures in which they are invented. For example, the Norse Gods hang around in Scandinavia, follow the vikings on their travels, and generally favour them over others. The Hindu Gods hang around on the sub-continent. The Greek Gods hang around Greece, and occupy themselves with the affairs of the Greeks and their neighbours, and the Hebrew God hangs around in the middle-east and occupies himself with the affairs of the Jews and their neighbours, heavily favouring the Jews.
As you can see, all of the above have the characteristics of human invented gods, invented in specific cultures.
It certainly isn't logical for modern people to believe in such entities, but many still do. There's a Zeus revival going on in Greece at the moment, for example, and many people in your own country seem to have a literal belief in the Jewish tribal God, strangely enough, even though they're not Jewish, and aren't particularly favoured by this God.
We do try to invent all kinds of God's... but when we work out the theology (or theory) which is necessarily assumed to be logical, we run into either external or internal contradictions.
I get the impression from this and other comments in your post that you think that having or not having contradictions has something to do with whether or not a particular God is true.
There's no reason why this should be the case. I can easily invent Deities that have no contradictions, and religions that cannot in any way be proven false, but that doesn't make them true.
The Prophet Bluegenes says:
quote:
The universe was created billions of years ago by seven curious Goddesses who wanted to find out what would happen in black holes.
No contradictions there, some scientific accuracy that's lacking in ancient religions, and you can't prove my Goddesses to be false.
The one that has neither is the actual reality. And that is what makes the words of Christ so powerful. It is the fact that He never once contradicted himself the way mere human philosophers do...
If a guy came up to you and told you that he was his own father, you'd probably consider him to be a walking contradiction and stark raving mad. You're special pleading for the historical Christ. You have to assume him to be God in order to prove him to be God.
I invite you to put the God of the bible on trial and find a contradiction...
You've presumably read the Bible, and you're a believer, so you're not going to agree with anything that I might see as a contradiction in your God. You won't see any inconsistency in an entity who tells one of his prophets to stone someone to death after having given him the commandment "Thou shalt not kill", and then, in another incarnation, tells his followers to love their neighbours and their enemies. Presumably because you don't want to.
Find a contradiction in the words of Christ... That is your assignment.
It is? I'm in Sunday school?
And since the four gospels which supposedly document His words are simply written by men (which is your claim by implication), then it should not be difficult to find the usual sophistry that is so easy to find in your typical historical figure and philosopher.
Weren't the Gospels written by men who, like you, wanted to believe that Jesus was God? They're going to show him in a very good light, aren't they? Get Muslims on the subject of Mohammed, and you'll be told what a noble and wonderful character he was.
Religious people on the subject of their prophets and living Gods are anything but objective historians.
Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 81 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 6:17 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 85 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 10:10 PM bluegenes has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 89 of 297 (417051)
08-19-2007 5:44 AM
Reply to: Message 85 by Rob
08-18-2007 10:10 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob writes:
So when you think of reality and are reading the Bible, you can use the concept of reality (in modern Western terms, and in all of it's dimensions) to equate with the words truth, God, light, Word, and Christ. They are synonymous...
When you realize that this is not an abstaction being referred to when the Bible talks about 'God'; Then, even though you may not agree with or like it, you will at least see the logic it is conveying in the proper context. Otherwise it is shear nonsense.
You must intepret the text within the context it was written in.
The concept of God in Biblical terms, is the same concept as reality in ours.
And this is true whether you are reading Isaiah or John. For instance, consider John's words and keep in mind what I just told you:
John:1 In the beginning was the Word(logos/logic which is only one dimension of reality/God), and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was with God in the beginning. 3 Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made. 4 In him was life, and that life was the light of men.
5 The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. 6 There came a man who was sent from God; his name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that light, so that through him all men might believe. 8 He himself was not the light; he came only as a witness to the light. 9 The true light that gives light to every man was coming into the world. 10 He was in the world, and though the world was made through him, the world did not recognize him. 11 He came to that which was his own, but his own did not receive him. 12 Yet to all who received him, to those who believed in his name, he gave the right to become children of God-- 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of God. 14 The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
So within God / reality, there are distinctions. As a whole, God is God, and each of His qualities are also God and inseperable from Him.
So, let's substitute the synonym.
John:1 In the beginning was reality, and the reality was with reality, and the reality was reality. 2 reality was with reality in the beginning. 3 Through reality all things were made; without reality nothing was made that has been made. 4 In reality was life, and that life was the reality of men. (So neither reality nor life were created?).
5 The reality shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it. 6 There came a man who was sent from reality; his name was John. 7 He came as a witness to testify concerning that reality, so that through him all men might believe. 8 He himself was not the reality; he came only as a witness to the reality. 9 The true reality that gives reality to every man was coming into the world. 10 Reality was in the world, and though the world was made through reality, the world did not recognize reality. 11 Reality came to that which was reality's own, but reality's own did not receive reality. 12 Yet to all who received reality, to those who believed in reality's name, reality gave the right to become children of Reality-- 13 children born not of natural descent, nor of human decision or a husband's will, but born of Reality. 14 The Reality became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen reality's glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.
I like the first four verses, although they're arguably pretty meaningless, in that they pretty much state the obvious. After that, it goes downhill.
I have problems with the personification of reality. Realistically speaking, reality is not a person.
Do you really believe that you are born of reality and that non-Christians are not?
If so, you've got serious problems with reality, Rob, both the word and the concept.
The concept of God in Biblical terms, is the same concept as reality in ours.
The modern concept of reality would certainly not include some people being born of it and others not!
If you're trying to convince me that Christians are even madder than I thought they were, you're doing a good job.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 85 by Rob, posted 08-18-2007 10:10 PM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 92 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 9:28 AM bluegenes has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 94 of 297 (417072)
08-19-2007 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by Rob
08-19-2007 9:28 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Rob writes:
bluegenes writes:
Do you really believe that you are born of reality and that non-Christians are not?
If so, you've got serious problems with reality, Rob, both the word and the concept.
So, are you saying that I am not born of reality and I need to be?
No. You quoted what I said.
Rob writes:
bluegenes writes:
The modern concept of reality would certainly not include some people being born of it and others not!
So, are you saying that I am born of reality, and don't need to be?
No. You quoted what I said.
Which is it?
I didn't actually express any opinion about whether or not you were born of reality in the sentences you quoted. But I did ask you if you believe that you were born of reality and that non-Christians are not. It would be interesting to have an answer, rather than questions that begin "are you saying" followed by things that I haven't said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 9:28 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 96 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 11:14 AM bluegenes has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 97 of 297 (417079)
08-19-2007 11:41 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by Rob
08-19-2007 11:14 AM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
Yes I do! I thought that was a given...
Ah, good. So to you, most people of the world are not products of reality, and therefore not real. As that includes me, then presumably you're not at this moment reading this.
So, are you saying that I am born of (in touch with) the modern concept reality by default, and don't need to be?
That's better phrased, although "suggesting" or "implying" might have been better than "saying".
Then, yes. We're all products of reality and parts of reality.
If you can show evidence that more than two thirds of the world's population, the non-Christians, are non-existent, then you will be on your way to demonstrating that your God is, in fact, reality.
It might be difficult.
Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.
Edited by bluegenes, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 11:14 AM Rob has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 100 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 12:36 PM bluegenes has replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 103 of 297 (417098)
08-19-2007 1:20 PM
Reply to: Message 100 by Rob
08-19-2007 12:36 PM


Re: Alright let's look at this...
So I am in touch with reality...
I noticed that you put "in touch" in brackets after "born of" as if it means the same thing when you changed what you'd previously said in that last post, and I suspected that you'd try and pretend that "born of reality" and "in touch with reality" mean the same thing. They don't.
To what extent you're in touch with reality is another question.
Am I out of line with your reality or not BG?
Why do these phrases like "out of line" and "in touch" come into the discussion? What have they got to do with your very interesting belief that non-Christians are not born of reality? I doubt if anyone has ever made such a strange argument on these threads.
I'm sure you're a product and part of reality, and that you exist. Why should I doubt it?
If your're right then the atheist or non-believing (smallest of all minority) is in even worse shape.
You're missing the point. You're the one who's claiming that most of the world's population is not born of reality, and therefore does not exist. No atheist would ever claim such a stupid thing.
Something that is not born of reality, that is not a product of reality, is non-existent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 100 by Rob, posted 08-19-2007 12:36 PM Rob has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 126 of 297 (417518)
08-21-2007 2:09 PM
Reply to: Message 118 by Rob
08-21-2007 2:12 AM


Undesigned Reality
Rob writes:
I have a friend. His name is reality. And He loves His Son logic. And logic never lies...
Reality, in Rob's system is his undesigned, uncreated God. Logically, reality in his belief system is undesigned. Real things are, of course, all born of undesigned reality, and a part of that reality. There's no logical reason that we should see design in any aspect of nature, as it is all a part and a product of undesigned reality. And sure enough, we don't see design in nature.
Welcome to the evolutionist camp in this debate, Rob. It's rare to see people change sides.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 118 by Rob, posted 08-21-2007 2:12 AM Rob has not replied

bluegenes
Member (Idle past 2477 days)
Posts: 3119
From: U.K.
Joined: 01-24-2007


Message 296 of 297 (418480)
08-28-2007 11:56 AM
Reply to: Message 283 by Rob
08-28-2007 1:11 AM


Re: Perspectives on God
Rob writes:
It's rather crude, but I imagine God as a cell. When He multiplies He simply mulitplies...
1 X 1 = 1
Or 1 X 1 + 1 = {3 in 1} (in the not very logical mathematics of the bible).
If God is like a cell, then he multiplies into lots of cells.
So now you're a polytheist, Rob, which means you believe in multiple undesigned realities. No wonder you sound so confused about everything.
A point you haven't explained is why you appear to be a supporter of the I.D. movement, yet you insist that reality is undesigned. You can't have it both ways.
I.D. claims that aspects of God (reality by your definition) are designed. In the "Rob" theology, that should be sacrilege.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 283 by Rob, posted 08-28-2007 1:11 AM Rob has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024