Miracle Of The Sun & Other Musings

The Prophecy of Simeon
34Then Simeon blessed them and said to His mother Mary: Behold, this Child is appointed to cause the rise and fall of many in Israel, and to be a sign that will be spoken against, 35so that the thoughts of many hearts will be revealed and a sword will pierce your soul as well. 36There was also a prophetess named Anna, the daughter of Phanuel, of the tribe of Asher, who was well along in years. She had been married for seven years,

I noticed that Moose is mad at you for your personal attacks on other members. Message 42I wanted to allow you to vent some of your anxiety here at EvC since you used to frequent this forum as a kid along with your twin brother, but I do see where you are going a bit overboard with your spam and all, so I am going to intervene on behalf of the administrators in order to keep your participation at our weird little Forum open for now. Forum GuidelinesGranted you are not the only member engaging in personal attacks on others as they dish it right back at you *cough*AZPaul3 *cough, but Moose is speaking on behalf of the interest of the Forum-at-large. Tangle got mad at me for even giving you your own topic, but I like you and want to give you this opportunity to rant and yet still improve your communication skills with others---especially our resident liberals. So my solution is to both warn you to think before posting (a message which I myself need to hear) and to encourage you to freely express your concerns here in this topic, focusing on the positive defense of conservatism and Roman Catholicism yet having the discipline to refrain from spamming the Forum with negative media attacks on the opposition. Anyone who actually wants to engage Chris (memento chronological) here in his topic needs to also be reminded to keep the dialogue focused on the issues and not make it personal.IF that is at all possible! I sometimes think that we humans actually like ranting and being disresapectful to each other.For now, as a discipline, I am limiting memento chronological to the free for all forum and reminding everyone that if you choose to respond to his content in this topic, you and he will be showcased publicly. ~~Phat, acting as AdminPhat yet speaking personally.Also note that Chris has a history of aliases.

quote:

---

--TheEducatedBelieveInGod
-messenjah of one
a servant of Christ
chris porcelain
Chris Porteus
CHRIS PORTEUS jr
chris simon porteus jr
Christ crucified?
Either/or
friend of Kierkegaard
funny
Hey Mick, chat a minute?
Kierkegaard
lovesnature
messenjaH
messenjaH of oNe
momentofclarity
proudly roman catholic
riotcoming
working out eating chips

---

You do have a creative mind,as did Faith and also as I myself claim to have. We are Creationists (though I only claim to be a Cosmological Creationist and not a Biblical one.)Tangle commented on what he sees as a common trait among us. AZPaul3 likesa to fire back definite lack of belief "evidence" just as easily as Creationists attempt to fire our "evidence" at him. He loves a good fight! So in summation, dont get mad at me for limiting you to this forum for now. Im keeping Moose from banning you.

It's amazing how many of you fruitcakes are.

By that logic, God can't exist.

I use my Nobel Prize as a paperweight.

Apologists and philosophers often jump to the uncaused first cause argument. You may ask why we would never use this argument for any other God but only for the One whom we acknowledge but the entire argument is based upon only One. Argument from first causePersonally, I always say that it makes more sense to me that Mind came before Matter. You have historically challenged the notion, just as you love to challenge everything! But your whole premise of "In The Beginning, Chemicals" is an ode to Physicalism otherwise known as Materialism.

That's most unfortunate.
I wish you better in your future relationships.Eros/Brotherly/Agape...Those terms seem outdated.Eros Love = Lust
Brotherly Love = Friendship
Agape Love = LoveOr, at least, that's how everyone I've ever talked to understands the terms. If you really think that's true - you have a lot more to learn about Love, and humans.

I looked up The Prophecy of Simeon and found some interesting commentaries. This one was the best:
The Prophecy of Simeon: Seven Sorrows of MaryWhat I like (and learn from and am educated by) about commentaries of Biblical Scripture is the fact that I see the scripture through the eyes of another human, one who is learned and also a believer in the scripture as being more than just human opinion and belief.

And who or what caused the first cause?Sorry, the logic doesn't work, it's a paradox.

I have three comments to make.First, there is no adequate evidential or logical case against an infinite regress. I can manage better (but not decisive) arguments against a Creator God. Nevertheless I do not accept an infinite regress, or that everything came from nothing (in the absolute sense of ‘nothing ‘).Second, it is a huge step from a First Cause to a Creator, and almost as big a step from a generic Creator to the specific Gods proposed by human religions. I have seen attempts to bridge the first gap, but they are sadly inadequate.Third, as best we can tell the only minds we know of are dependent on matter - indeed on complex organised matter. It does not make sense to argue that mind proceeded matter unless we can establish that a non-material mind can exist, and exist in a way that would permit it to exist prior to matter. That has not been done.

For a smart guy you really don't pay much attention do you?Note the Wiki article which I quoted. It has notes. One of them states:
The change in phrasing from "everything that exists" to "everything that begins to exist" is an attempt to avoid infinite regress and the question of "So what was the cause for (your) god's existence?" in a slightly more clever way than claiming that the deity is self- or uncaused. By referring to "everything that begins to exist", the apologist is pre-emptively excluding any eternal (or "timeless" in William Lane Craig's even more clunky terminology) phenomena or beings (e.g the Abrahamic God).You are challenging the logic by even daring to ask the question. One thing is evident. Something existed before your logic was even formed.

Not only do I pay attention, I also think for myself. Try it.Does what you've quoted make sense to you? Are you impressed by the linguistic gymnastics?We have something.It either existed forever (which, of course makes no normal sense) or it came into existence at some point in time.The way we are built and our everyday experience tells us that things that come into existence require a cause. The way religions deal with that is to invoke a god that didn't require a cause. That's just a convenient fiction isn't it? It denies the first premise, that things require causes. It's a false premise.Like our 'something' the same logic tells us that God - or more usually gods - have to come from somewhere or to always exist. Fiddling with words does not solve that very real paradox. Oh ffs, wake up and think you silly person. Now that, at least, is true. But it's not a philosophical problem that can be solved by manipulating language. It's actually a very simple problem to state, but it has no answer and may never have one.So how do you explain it? How can something exist - even what we call a god - without a cause? Godditit is not an answer because it leaves behind the same question - who or what created the creator?That paradox can not be solved in language because it's created by the poverty of our language. If it can be solved, it will be solved by the language of mathematics and we normals will not understand it.

Why haven't you asked your mate thingamebob whether you are going to hell yet?

If there must be an uncaused first cause I nominate the big bang.From all our present science this big-bang-created universe appears to be all there is or will be or ever was.Sounds like a good uncaused first cause to me.And there is only the one to be considered. No mucking about with all those various gods.