The Magic Café
Username:
Password:
[ Lost Password ]
  [ Forgot Username ]
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » A TOUGH QUESTION TO ANSWER.. (0 Likes) Printer Friendly Version

 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..11..19..27..35..39~40~41~42~43..48..52..56..60..64~65~66 [Next]
kambiz
View Profile
Inner circle
Perth, down by the cool of the pool
1129 Posts

Profile of kambiz
Why don't you share with everyone what you think it is critter?

Kam
If I speak forth, many a mind will shatter,
And if I write, many a pen will break.
.....and when I consider my own self, lo, I find it coarser than clay!
The great Gumbini
View Profile
Inner circle
2059 Posts

Profile of The great Gumbini
Kam,

I looked at pg 22 and saw several questions. Can you please tell me which one you would like for me to answer? Also when someone denies the deity of Christ they are calling Him a lier and therefore talking against Him. To deny His deity is to deny Him. that's the point I'm making. But please if you don't mind let me know which question.


Good magic to all,


Eric
S2000magician
View Profile
Inner circle
Yorba Linda, CA
3469 Posts

Profile of S2000magician
Quote:
On 2012-06-23 08:36, R.S. wrote:
If everybody in the world undertook a detailed analysis of all religions before selecting one, then you would expect to see a somewhat even distribution of religious preference around the world, no?

No.

If they were all equally appealing, then maybe. (Only "maybe" because there would still be cultural considerations that would tend to nudge individuals one way or another in close cases, so the distribution of, say, world-wide political views might have a big sway on world-wide religious views.)
acesover
View Profile
Special user
I believe I have
819 Posts

Profile of acesover
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 00:53, mastermindreader wrote:
Acesover wrote:

Quote:
I already have a belief so I am not open to any more.


That comes pretty close to summarizing the difference between science and religion.


Not realy.

Wothout a Supreme Being science would not be possible. So science is dependent on a Supreme Being and not the other way around. Science cannot create a Supreme Being but a Supreme Being Can created what we term science. That is the difference. Without the Supreme Being you are back to the someting from nothing theory and that is why science endears this theory. It does away with the Supreme Being. Science forever wants to taste the forbidden fruit and play God. Do not mistake the forbidden fruit as researach and advancement for God gave us that potential, but rather wanting to know all that God knows and become Godlike, that is the forbidden fruit. Man was not satisfied in the Garden of Eden with no maladies. He wanted to know more and become just like God. Just as the angels fell so did man. The one thing he was asked not to persue is what caused his downfall, "The Forbidden Fruit". Questioning and discussisng The Forbidden Fruit would be a topic in of itself.
If I were to agree with you. Then we would both be wrong. As of Apr 5, 2015 10:26 pm I have 880 posts. Used to have over 1,000
Steve_Mollett
View Profile
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
3010 Posts

Profile of Steve_Mollett
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 09:11, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 00:53, mastermindreader wrote:
Acesover wrote:

Quote:
I already have a belief so I am not open to any more.


That comes pretty close to summarizing the difference between science and religion.


Not realy.

Wothout a Supreme Being science would not be possible. So science is dependent on a Supreme Being and not the other way around. Science cannot create a Supreme Being but a Supreme Being Can created what we term science. That is the difference. Without the Supreme Being you are back to the someting from nothing theory and that is why science endears this theory. It does away with the Supreme Being. Science forever wants to taste the forbidden fruit and play God. Do not mistake the forbidden fruit as researach and advancement for God gave us that potential, but rather wanting to know all that God knows and become Godlike, that is the forbidden fruit. Man was not satisfied in the Garden of Eden with no maladies. He wanted to know more and become just like God. Just as the angels fell so did man. The one thing he was asked not to persue is what caused his downfall, "The Forbidden Fruit". Questioning and discussisng The Forbidden Fruit would be a topic in of itself.

That's making the very loaded assumption that a supreme being even exists.
Even WITH a 'god' you are back to the "something from nothing" stance, since the 'god' allegedly either "came from nothing" or "always existed."
If the 'god' could have "always existed," why couldn't the elements that compose the constantly-in-motion universe?
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
199 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 00:25, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-23 22:06, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-23 21:19, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-23 12:47, R.S. wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-23 09:14, acesover wrote:
Obviously the majority of people in this world have been fooled according to you as I believe the majority of people in this world are christians. I guess you atheists are just smarter than most everyone else. Smile Can't fool you guys first there was nothing then there was something then here we are Bang. And you are talking about a ball under a cup. Jeeeez.

BELIEVE WHAT YOU WANT


Aces,

EVERYBODY in the world has been deceived by their own senses/perceptions/memory at one time or another. Claiming 100% certainty about anything is probably not a good idea. (and I'm 99.9999% certain about that statement) Smile

Yes, I AM talking about a ball under a cup! It either exists or it does not, right? Some wholeheartedly believe it does while some may not. But when the cup is lifted and the truth is revealed, we see that somebody was wrong. Somebody who "knew for sure" that they were correct in their belief.

No thanks, I will NOT "believe what I want." I will instead accept that which is backed by sound evidence, reason, and logic. And I will, if necessary, gladly dismiss that which I have previously accepted in the face of new, more convincing evidence for something else. That should be the correct approach, no?


Ron


OK then. Having said what you said above. Exactly what proof would you need to believe in God? What sort of sound evidence, reason and logic would make yo ubelieve in God? You did saay yoiu would except that which is back by those atributes? So again just asking?


An omiscient and omnipotent God would know what it would take to convince me. If he wants to leave convincing evidence (convincing to me), or reveal himself to me in some way, it would easily be in his power to do so.

But let me ask you, what would it take for YOU to believe in, say, Ganesha?

Ron


Who?

I already have a belief so I am not open to any more.

So you cannot reallyanswer my question can you? You said and I quote you here: "I will instead accept that which is backed by sound evidence, reason, and logic." but when I asked you what it would take you have no answer. So what you said is a lot of baloney right? I mean I am only quoting you not being a wise guy here.


Ganesha is the Hindu elephant God - I'm sure you've seen depictions.

"I already have a belief so I am not open to any more."

So once you establish that you believe something, you will not accept any new facts which may contradict your belief? Isn't that the definition of close-minded?


I see... you wan't specifics. Well, because fantastic claims require fantastic evidence it would have to be something that could ONLY occur as a result of an omniscient and omnipotent being. No wishy-washy "I feel the spirit of love" stuff will suffice. For example, I will go outside and look at the clouds and think of a phrase. If the clouds instantly and unambiguously reshape themselves into the phrase I am merely thinking of and remain that way all day while being witnessed, corroborated, and documented by others (who do not know what I am thinking), that would be very convincing for me. This would be a demonstration of omniscience (knowing what I am thinking) and omnipotence (instantly and expertly controlling the clouds). Another way would be to instantaneously halt the water flowing over Niagara Falls (as if frozen solid) at the EXACT day, hour, minute and second that I am thinking, and then to instantly restart it at exactly another day, hour, minute and second that I am thinking. This too must be widely observed, corroborated, and documented. Piece of cake for an omniscient and omnipotent being, no? The evidence would be there for all to see and document and it would be reasonable for me to conclude that a Supreme being had read my mind and carried out feats that are beyond the capabilities of mere mortals.


Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
199 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 07:56, S2000magician wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-23 08:36, R.S. wrote:
If everybody in the world undertook a detailed analysis of all religions before selecting one, then you would expect to see a somewhat even distribution of religious preference around the world, no?

No.

If they were all equally appealing, then maybe. (Only "maybe" because there would still be cultural considerations that would tend to nudge individuals one way or another in close cases, so the distribution of, say, world-wide political views might have a big sway on world-wide religious views.)


But again, for WHATEVER the reason, the biggest predictor of one's faith is the country that they are from.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
Dreadnought
View Profile
Special user
Athens, Georgia
836 Posts

Profile of Dreadnought
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 09:30, Steve_Mollett wrote:

That's making the very loaded assumption that a supreme being even exists.
Even WITH a 'god' you are back to the "something from nothing" stance, since the 'god' allegedly either "came from nothing" or "always existed."
If the 'god' could have "always existed," why couldn't the elements that compose the constantly-in-motion universe?


Because then those elements would be God.
Peace

"Ave Maria gratia plena Dominus tecum..."

Scott

Would you do anything for the person you love?
Dreadnought
View Profile
Special user
Athens, Georgia
836 Posts

Profile of Dreadnought
Quote:
On 2012-06-23 22:06, R.S. wrote:

An omiscient and omnipotent God would know what it would take to convince me. If he wants to leave convincing evidence (convincing to me), or reveal himself to me in some way, it would easily be in his power to do so.

But let me ask you, what would it take for YOU to believe in, say, Ganesha?

Ron


It depends on what definition of omniscient and omnipotent you are using. Theologically, He has given you everything you need. In John's last Supper Discourse (Chapter 15) and the Matthew and Mark account of the Last Supper, Jesus (God) knows that there will be those who do not believe. In John 15, He prays for His disciples and those that come after them and believe, He doesn't pray for everyone, He doesn't pray for the unbelieving, because He knows no amount of evidence will ever change their mind.

Peace and Godspeed.
Peace

"Ave Maria gratia plena Dominus tecum..."

Scott

Would you do anything for the person you love?
The great Gumbini
View Profile
Inner circle
2059 Posts

Profile of The great Gumbini
Now am I to understand that you want to take the BIBLICAL claim that God always existed and use that for the elements? Interesting---and in some ways partly taking ideas from the Bible. I like it. At least you can see how the Bible explains things and the always existent God. Now if you suggest this may be applied to the "elements" then why not apply it to Who it was first written for---GOD? He ALWAYS has and ALWAYS will EXIST!


Good magic to all,


Eric
landmark
View Profile
Inner circle
within a triangle
5010 Posts

Profile of landmark
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 02:17, critter wrote:
Quote:
...I guess the application of a 'year of patience' for divorcing couples would come into play too...


I don't know what this is- but if it's what it sounds like then it sounds just awful.

*Edit* Looked it up. It's what it sounds like.

As opposed to marriage, which is decades of patience... Smile
Dreadnought
View Profile
Special user
Athens, Georgia
836 Posts

Profile of Dreadnought
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 10:06, The great Gumbini wrote:
Now am I to understand that you want to take the BIBLICAL claim that God always existed and use that for the elements? Interesting---and in some ways partly taking ideas from the Bible. I like it. At least you can see how the Bible explains things and the always existent God. Now if you suggest this may be applied to the "elements" then why not apply it to Who it was first written for---GOD? He ALWAYS has and ALWAYS will EXIST!


Good magic to all,


Eric


I'm only following Steve's logic. If something is equal to or greater than God then it must be God or a God as well. Which would be illogical as nothing is greater than God, no creature is greater than its creator.

Peace and Godspeed.
Peace

"Ave Maria gratia plena Dominus tecum..."

Scott

Would you do anything for the person you love?
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
199 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 09:11, acesover wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 00:53, mastermindreader wrote:
Acesover wrote:

Quote:
I already have a belief so I am not open to any more.


That comes pretty close to summarizing the difference between science and religion.


Not realy.

Wothout a Supreme Being science would not be possible. So science is dependent on a Supreme Being and not the other way around. Science cannot create a Supreme Being but a Supreme Being Can created what we term science. That is the difference. Without the Supreme Being you are back to the someting from nothing theory and that is why science endears this theory. It does away with the Supreme Being. Science forever wants to taste the forbidden fruit and play God. Do not mistake the forbidden fruit as researach and advancement for God gave us that potential, but rather wanting to know all that God knows and become Godlike, that is the forbidden fruit. Man was not satisfied in the Garden of Eden with no maladies. He wanted to know more and become just like God. Just as the angels fell so did man. The one thing he was asked not to persue is what caused his downfall, "The Forbidden Fruit". Questioning and discussisng The Forbidden Fruit would be a topic in of itself.


So where do you draw the line between research and advancement and wanting to "know all that God knows"? Maybe eradicating smallpox was going to far, because after all, the smallpox virus is one of God's creations, and he certainly had a purpose for it in mind when he designed it, yet we have virtually eliminated it from the face of the earth. In your opinion, should scientists stop searching for vaccines/cures for other diseases, like, say, the Ebola virus or the AIDS virus?

Would you "forbid" your own children from knowing all that you know? Most parents want their children to grow up with MORE of an education than they had, and more of an opportunity to be successful. It's silly to think that an all-loving being wants to stunt the progress of his own children. We are still just human, so matter how much we learn we will never be "Godlike."

No pure knowledge is "forbidden." It's the application of that knowledge that has consequences. The universe is ours to explore.

Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
R.S.
View Profile
Regular user
CT one day I'll have
199 Posts

Profile of R.S.
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 10:00, Dreadnought wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-23 22:06, R.S. wrote:

An omiscient and omnipotent God would know what it would take to convince me. If he wants to leave convincing evidence (convincing to me), or reveal himself to me in some way, it would easily be in his power to do so.

But let me ask you, what would it take for YOU to believe in, say, Ganesha?

Ron


It depends on what definition of omniscient and omnipotent you are using. Theologically, He has given you everything you need. In John's last Supper Discourse (Chapter 15) and the Matthew and Mark account of the Last Supper, Jesus (God) knows that there will be those who do not believe. In John 15, He prays for His disciples and those that come after them and believe, He doesn't pray for everyone, He doesn't pray for the unbelieving, because He knows no amount of evidence will ever change their mind.

Peace and Godspeed.


I'm using the commonly accepted definitions; Omniscient - all knowing. Omnipotent - all powerful. What other definitions are there?

So under those definitions, it would be easy for him to convince me. I would venture to say that it is a weak God indeed who cannot even convince someone of his existence.

Besides, you indicated in another thread that it is possible for lifelong atheists to make it to Heaven. So belief is not all important apparently. Care to elaborate on how exactly atheists can find themselves in Heaven after they die?


Ron
"It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry." Thomas Paine
TomBoleware
View Profile
Inner circle
Hattiesburg, Ms
2775 Posts

Profile of TomBoleware
Hey Ron,

Sorry I suddenly dropped out on the Santa Claus talk. Had to leave for the weekend. (A little trip to the North Pole. lol)

I'm afraid you never going to find God because you looking in all the wrong places. God is not in the magic trick business and you seem to be just looking for a puff of smoke.

Just because something can be explained doesn't mean God didn't have a hand in it. Not saying God can't do, (and occasionally does) do miracles, but why should he. Why can't a God just connect all the dots without making a big scene? So what if science can explain it, big deal, it still happened.

If I pray for help with getting a swimming pool in my back yard, I don't expect God to come dig it himself. Or to send mystery men dressed in white clothes to come dig it for free. I'm just looking for help and if I get it in a somewhat normal way after praying for it, shouldn't I still feel blessed?

I want bore you with my rags to riches story, but my life didn't turn around until I partnered up with Jesus. You might say I wasted the first 40 years of my life, but I've been blessed these last 25. I have everything I want in life. Sure it can all be explained away by simply saying the power of prayer is great, it works because science already proved it, but I would be stupid to not give God some of the credit when he was the one I was praying too. I thank God every day for all the many blessing he has given me. Why shouldn't I.


Four years ago I had a major heart attack, they thought I had 100 percent blockage on one side. The doctors looked into doing surgery, but quickly discovered it had repaired itself. They didn't do surgery, they sent me home. Yes, hearts have rerouted themselves before, and I do seem to be lucky, but still, who's to say God didn't have a little hand in it. Not me.

I could give you story after story, but none involves a cloud of smoke, so therefore they don't count. Huh?

Tom
"Entrepreneurs are willing to work 80 hours a week to avoid working 40 hours a week"--Lori Greiner

www.tomboleware.com
Steve_Mollett
View Profile
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
3010 Posts

Profile of Steve_Mollett
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 09:55, Dreadnought wrote:
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 09:30, Steve_Mollett wrote:

That's making the very loaded assumption that a supreme being even exists.
Even WITH a 'god' you are back to the "something from nothing" stance, since the 'god' allegedly either "came from nothing" or "always existed."
If the 'god' could have "always existed," why couldn't the elements that compose the constantly-in-motion universe?


Because then those elements would be God.


Would those elements be 'god' if they were not intelligent. A 'god' is traditionally conceived as being an intelligent entity.
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
Steve_Mollett
View Profile
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
3010 Posts

Profile of Steve_Mollett
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 10:06, The great Gumbini wrote:
Now am I to understand that you want to take the BIBLICAL claim that God always existed and use that for the elements? Interesting---and in some ways partly taking ideas from the Bible. I like it. At least you can see how the Bible explains things and the always existent God. Now if you suggest this may be applied to the "elements" then why not apply it to Who it was first written for---GOD? He ALWAYS has and ALWAYS will EXIST!


Good magic to all,


Eric

Which brings us to the philosophical question of why man would NEED a god if one did exist.
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
Steve_Mollett
View Profile
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
3010 Posts

Profile of Steve_Mollett
Don't get me wrong though, I still maintain such has not been proven to exist.
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
Jonathan Townsend
View Profile
Eternal Order
Ossining, NY
27113 Posts

Profile of Jonathan Townsend
Quote:
On 2012-06-24 11:32, Steve_Mollett wrote:
Don't get me wrong though, I still maintain such has not been proven to exist.


People behaving as if they needed to have a god to fret over and fuss about seems a tenable hypothesis. Hold onto that much at least.

I just finished reading John Scalzi's story "Redshirts" and believe it on not - it addresses the basic question of this thread. As did Borges story about a magician from way back when. Care explore the Red King's world?
...to all the coins I've dropped here
Steve_Mollett
View Profile
Inner circle
Eh, so I've made
3010 Posts

Profile of Steve_Mollett
I'll have to look into that.
Author of: GARROTE ESCAPES
The absurd is the essential concept and the first truth.
- Albert Camus
The Magic Cafe Forum Index » » Not very magical, still... » » A TOUGH QUESTION TO ANSWER.. (0 Likes)
 Go to page [Previous]  1~2~3..11..19..27..35..39~40~41~42~43..48..52..56..60..64~65~66 [Next]
[ Top of Page ]
All content & postings Copyright © 2001-2021 Steve Brooks. All Rights Reserved.
This page was created in 0.23 seconds requiring 5 database queries.
The views and comments expressed on The Magic Café
are not necessarily those of The Magic Café, Steve Brooks, or Steve Brooks Magic.
> Privacy Statement <

ROTFL Billions and billions served! ROTFL