"I don't like even being around them"

[bbyrd009]

Any worthy Christian knows where you are coming from bro. you are simple and I understand your lot.
You are the one who is clearly ignorant here.

yikes?

 

[Justadude]

Carry on with whatever your agenda is. You have not learned a thing.

You know, I can't recall another time where I have been almost completely unable to communicate with someone, but you and I seem to be on completely different planes. It seems lately that when I post something to you, you read it in a way that I never intended. And that seems to happen the other way as well (I misunderstand what you post to me).

I can't say why that is though.

 

[Justadude]

well i guess that depends upon one's def of both "gods" and "exist"
i would say that Yah does not exist, yet is very real, whereas Zeus exists just fine--at least as a carving, somewhere--and is not "real" at all, or has no effect iow

That's exactly my point. As soon as the existence of gods comes up, things start getting fuzzy and convoluted to the point where IMO it becomes meaningless.

if i consider myself anything, maybe, ya, or maybe a Yahwist; but there are ppl who use those labels that i wouldnt agree with many of their "beliefs" (absolute truths) either i guess

Fair 'nuff.

my guess would be few to none, but idk really. I do know of at least a few members who log in but rarely post, for that you can check the "likes" page for names youve never heard of, i know one guy has been here for like 15 years with virtually no posts!

I know I do, especially when I just peek in on my phone. I don't bother to log in when I'm just reading through threads with no intention of posting in them.

 

[amadeus]

You know, I can't recall another time where I have been almost completely unable to communicate with someone, but you and I seem to be on completely different planes. It seems lately that when I post something to you, you read it in a way that I never intended. And that seems to happen the other way as well (I misunderstand what you post to me).

I can't say why that is though.

I have understood generally what you were saying here on just about every post. The lack of communication between us, I believe, is due to your rejection of where I am with God as a realistic possibility.

I know what it is like to be without God. You, on the other hand, do not know what it is like to be with Him. If you never approach Him on His terms you never will. You may reject His terms as you may reject Him. That is allowed. That is what men call free will.

 

[Justadude]

I have understood generally what you were saying here on just about every post.

Well that's good!

The lack of communication between us, I believe, is due to your rejection of where I am with God as a realistic possibility.

I think it's certainly possible. Plausible though? Not really. But that only matters to me.

I know what it is like to be without God. You, on the other hand, do not know what it is like to be with Him.

That is true. If you're interested in my take on that, keep reading. If however you are not interested in my take, you should stop reading this post at this point.






You are correct, I do not know what it is like to be "with God". But I also don't know what it's like to be "with Vishnu" or "with the Great Spirit" or "with" any number of gods that people have believed in throughout history....and neither do you. So that I don't know what it's like to be with your God doesn't mean much to me.

If you never approach Him on His terms you never will. You may reject His terms as you may reject Him. That is allowed. That is what men call free will.

But in order to know what this god's terms are, I first have to believe. I'll just note how once again, that's entirely circular.

I apologize ahead of time if my skepticism offends you.

 

[amadeus]

You are correct, I do not know what it is like to be "with God". But I also don't know what it's like to be "with Vishnu" or "with the Great Spirit" or "with" any number of gods that people have believed in throughout history....and neither do you. So that I don't know what it's like to be with your God doesn't mean much to me.

Again I am not trying to convince you... only to explain. Your statement about other gods some of which you have named and any that you have not named doesn't mean anything to someone who really knows God.
There is only one God. Either you believe in Him or you don't. People may use another name for Him but still actually know the only God. I won't pass judgment on them based on what you say or what I have heard. If they believe in something that they call god but it is not God, why should that make a difference to me? That is between them and God. If I am able to help and they want help...I will.

We might pursue the similar differences between what people bearing the label Christian based on the Bible [66 books or 72] believe or know about God.

True believers, as I see it, do know some things but only believe others. This is why it is living by 'faith' rather than by knowledge. As He increases in us the knowledge increases, but it remains complete until... but I won't go into that with you. I am explaining, not proselytizing at least not to my knowledge.

But in order to know what this god's terms are, I first have to believe. I'll just note how once again, that's entirely circular.

Yes, as men in their carnal way of thinking see it, it would be circular.

I apologize ahead of time if my skepticism offends you.

The fact that you seemed really concerned about offending me because you are a skeptic speak clearly of your lack of understanding of where I am. Skepticism does not offend me. Purposely mocking or making fun of God and the things of God would displease God and therefore should and does displease me as well. I think you know the difference between skepticism and mocking.

 

[Justadude]

Again I am not trying to convince you... only to explain.

We're on the same page. I'm not trying to persuade you, and am merely explaining my POV.

Your statement about other gods some of which you have named and any that you have not named doesn't mean anything to someone who really knows God.
There is only one God. Either you believe in Him or you don't. People may use another name for Him but still actually know the only God. I won't pass judgment on them based on what you say or what I have heard. If they believe in something that they call god but it is not God, why should that make a difference to me? That is between them and God. If I am able to help and they want help...I will.

Do you agree that humans invent or make up gods?

We might pursue the similar differences between what people bearing the label Christian based on the Bible [66 books or 72] believe or know about God.

That would take a while!

True believers, as I see it, do know some things but only believe others. This is why it is living by 'faith' rather than by knowledge. As He increases in us the knowledge increases, but it remains complete until... but I won't go into that with you. I am explaining, not proselytizing at least not to my knowledge.

What to you is the difference between knowing something and believing something?

Yes, as men in their carnal way of thinking see it, it would be circular.

That statement has always struck me as an empty platitude invoked to wave away the illogic of a religious claim or belief. It's also a tacit admission that the belief is indeed illogical and circular. I mean, what exactly is "the carnal mind" anyways?

The fact that you seemed really concerned about offending me because you are a skeptic speak clearly of your lack of understanding of where I am. Skepticism does not offend me. Purposely mocking or making fun of God and the things of God would displease God and therefore should and does displease me as well. I think you know the difference between skepticism and mocking.

I do understand the difference between the two, but I worry that you will mistake some of my skepticism for mocking.

 

[amadeus]

We're on the same page. I'm not trying to persuade you, and am merely explaining my POV.

No need to explain. I think I already understand your POV.

Do you agree that humans invent or make up gods?

Certainly the Bible itself speaks of them.

That would take a while!

On this forum and on many others before this one I have seen and participated in such discussions or arguments or worse between parties on both sides assuring everyone that they were God's people and they were right. This is the confusion of which God is not the author.

What to you is the difference between knowing something and believing something?

My definitions of the words, knowledge and belief are likely not much different than yours. What you are interested in would probably be the location of the line drawn between the two in believers in God. I have an answer, but it may be meaningless to or misunderstood by to you. Some other believers undoubtedly disagree with me on it.

While you are in darkness [black with possibly a glimmer]... we [believers] are on a pathway [the highway of holiness] hopefully moving or being moved from seeing through a darkened glass to seeing everything crystal clear. The following verses and others explain my understanding, if you can understand them:

John the Baptist said: "He must increase, but I must decrease." John 3:30

Apostle Paul wrote: "For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known." I Cor 13:12

"Looking unto Jesus the author and finisher of our faith;..." Heb 12:2

That statement has always struck me as an empty platitude invoked to wave away the illogic of a religious claim or belief. It's also a tacit admission that the belief is indeed illogical and circular. I mean, what exactly is "the carnal mind" anyways?

Yes, it is illogical to you and to many other unbelievers. If it were not, you would likely be believers.

In the following words is the explanation, but again if you are not a believe you likely cannot understand it:

"For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Rom 8:7-8

The carnal mind is the way every mind is in men born to a man and a woman. It is that way until it is changed. Yours has not been changed.

I do understand the difference between the two, but I worry that you will mistake some of my skepticism for mocking.

Hopefully I won't. Hopefully you won't forget and use the wrong one. You say that you were not mocking before, but it certainly appeared that way to me. In your mind you may be mocking even now. Try to contain it while you are here. I will try to always be civil.

 

[Justadude]

No need to explain. I think I already understand your POV.

That's good.

Certainly the Bible itself speaks of them.

We agree then that humans invent gods. Do you also agree that at least in some cases, people believe very, very strongly that those gods are real, even though they're actually made up?

On this forum and on many others before this one I have seen and participated in such discussions or arguments or worse between parties on both sides assuring everyone that they were God's people and they were right. This is the confusion of which God is not the author.

So how do you tell who's right?

My definitions of the words, knowledge and belief are likely not much different than yours. What you are interested in would probably be the location of the line drawn between the two in believers in God.

Not quite. I'm talking about the difference between belief and knowledge as reflected in common language, such as how we use phrases like "scientific knowledge" and "religious beliefs". To me, the main differences between the two are how they are arrived at, and whether there's an objective means to test them.

As we've seen described here at CB, religious beliefs are derived from dreams, visions, revelations, and other types of supernatural experiences. Because of that, there is no objective way to determine if they are genuine or merely the result of self-delusion.

While you are in darkness [black with possibly a glimmer]... we [believers] are on a pathway [the highway of holiness] hopefully moving or being moved

from seeing through a darkened glass to seeing everything crystal clear.

Yes, that's what you believe. It's like how earlier you used words like "limited" to describe me. You believe you have something special that I and some others lack. Of course other believers in other religious think you're the one who is in darkness and is limited. Tying that back to what I said above about there not being an objective means to tell who's right, that's why we specifically refer to all this as "beliefs" rather than "knowledge".

Yes, it is illogical to you and to many other unbelievers. If it were not, you would likely be believers.

In the following words is the explanation, but again if you are not a believe you likely cannot understand it:

"For to be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.
Because the carnal mind is enmity against God: for it is not subject to the law of God, neither indeed can be." Rom 8:7-8

The carnal mind is the way every mind is in men born to a man and a woman. It is that way until it is changed. Yours has not been changed.

So God creates humans with "carnal minds" that cannot understand spiritual matters because the spiritual matters are inherently illogical and circular, and in order to understand them a person has to have their mind changed, and in order to do that they must first believe in the spiritual, at which point their mind will change and they will believe and understand the illogical and circular spiritual matters.

Do you really believe that's the best way a "god" could go about doing things?

Hopefully I won't. Hopefully you won't forget and use the wrong one. You say that you were not mocking before, but it certainly appeared that way to me. In your mind you may be mocking even now. Try to contain it while you are here. I will try to always be civil.

Okey doke.

 

[amadeus]

That's good.

We agree then that humans invent gods. Do you also agree that at least in some cases, people believe very, very strongly that those gods are real, even though they're actually made up?

Not really, but that is a quirk of mine with which few others here would agree.

So how do you tell who's right?

Why do I have to decide? I have ideas in my mind, of course, but when there is no need, I really avoid trying to decide the accuracy of someone else's belief unsolicited. Sometimes I am led to do otherwise. Usually I just need to strive to remain on the right pathway following God myself.

Not quite. I'm talking about the difference between belief and knowledge as reflected in common language, such as how we use phrases like "scientific knowledge" and "religious beliefs". To me, the main differences between the two are how they are arrived at, and
whether there's an objective means to test them.

I believe your whole approach and understanding is in error. You should not expect me [or any other serious believer] to even try to start from your starting point. It won't work. There is no objective test of men or science that will work here. You cannot get past that. For you are still presuming that your own 5 carnal senses can perceive everything even if help is required through use of the right devices or methods. If you miss on one thing the whole decks of cards is likely to fall down.

As we've seen described here at CB, religious beliefs are derived from dreams, visions, revelations, and other types of supernatural experiences. Because of that, there is no objective way to determine if they are genuine
or merely the result of self-delusion.

I don't have to make such a determination about everyone else here and I do not try. Ultimately it is between me and God. Others are involved but I won't try to explain to you the connection that gives Life to the Body of Christ. There is a Head and it is not me.

Yes, that's what you believe. It's like how earlier you used words like "limited" to describe me. You believe you have something special that I and some others lack. Of course other believers in other religious think you're the one who is in darkness and is limited. Tying that back to what I said above about there not being an objective means to tell who's right, that's why we specifically refer to all this as "beliefs" rather than "knowledge".

You are trying to argue the point with me again. I don't have to understand where everyone else is and why they are there. I don't have to decide who is right and who is wrong among them. You want to draw your limiting line between belief and knowledge, but it is limited, isn't it? Even in your secular world of science and the scientific method it is limited. Where to draw the line?

If I have more than you do, it is because God has given me more... perhaps because I was obedient? You want to throw that all out because it does not meet your "objective" standards, but trying to bind me by those standards doesn't work. You can believe that I am wrong, but you cannot prove it.

So God creates humans with "carnal minds" that cannot understand spiritual matters because the spiritual matters are inherently illogical and circular, and in order to understand them a person has to have their mind changed, and in order to do that they must first believe in the spiritual, at which point their mind will change and they will believe and understand the illogical and circular spiritual matters.

They are Not inherently and circular to God or anyone to whom He has revealed them. That is your carnal mind trying to calculate something like the square root of "-1" [minus or negative one]. It does not compute. It goes against the normal mathematics that most men use and understand.

Do you really believe that's the best way a "god" could go about doing things?

Read your own question! What is the best way for God to go about doing things? If He is omnipotent and omniscient, what do you have on Him to enable you to answer your question? You are presuming your answers are correct perhaps because you have some support among men. Support among men [even wise, well educated scientists] is equal to what? If certain presumptions are allowed you have it. Remove your eyes, your ears, your nose, your taste and your sense of touch... and you won't even be able to communicate with anyone on any side of any issue to be able decide that you agree or disagree.

 

[Justadude]

Not really, but that is a quirk of mine with which few others here would agree.

So all gods humans have ever believed in are real? Even the ones that contradict each other?

Why do I have to decide? I have ideas in my mind, of course, but when there is no need, I really avoid trying to decide the accuracy of someone else's belief unsolicited. Sometimes I am led to do otherwise. Usually I just need to strive to remain on the right pathway following God myself.

You don't hesitate to decide and declare that my POV is wrong. Why are you seemingly okay with doing that with me, but not with other theists?

I believe your whole approach and understanding is in error. You should not expect me [or any other serious believer] to even try to start from your starting point. It won't work. There is no objective test of men or science that will work here. You cannot get past that. For you are still presuming that your own 5 carnal senses can perceive everything even if help is required through use of the right devices or methods. If you miss on one thing the whole decks of cards is likely to fall down.

Then how did you determine that your spiritual experiences weren't imaginary and/or the result of self-delusion? Or did that possibility not occur to you?

I don't have to make such a determination about everyone else here and I do not try. Ultimately it is between me and God.

But you have no problem doing so with me. What's the difference?

You are trying to argue the point with me again. I don't have to understand where everyone else is and why they are there. I don't have to decide who is right and who is wrong among them.

But you do believe that I am wrong and you are right, correct? How did you determine that?

You want to draw your limiting line between belief and knowledge, but it is limited, isn't it? Even in your secular world of science and the scientific method it is limited. Where to draw the line?

It's not just me who does that, it's most of humanity. And that was my point....we use the word "knowledge" to refer to scientifically-derived conclusions and "belief" for religiously-derived conclusions for a reason.

If I have more than you do, it is because God has given me more... perhaps because I was obedient? You want to throw that all out because it does not meet your "objective" standards, but trying to bind me by those standards doesn't work. You can believe that I am wrong, but you cannot prove it.

And likewise, you may believe that I am wrong but you cannot prove it. That's my main point here...the realm of "belief" is a world where anything goes. There are no rules or standards. A person can believe absolutely anything they want, whether it's actually true or not.

They are Not inherently and circular to God or anyone to whom He has revealed them. That is your carnal mind trying to calculate something like the square root of "-1" [minus or negative one]. It does not compute. It goes against the normal mathematics that most men use and understand.

But God only reveals that to people who have ditched their "carnal minds" in the first place, right? And BTW, how does something that's circular to a "carnal mind" suddenly become non-circular upon revelation? And why are people like you who have this special ability completely unable to explain it in non-circular terms? For that matter, why is God unable to convey it in non-circular terms? Is God doing that on purpose to exclude people like me? Does God not want me to understand? If not, why can't God convey it to me in a way that makes sense to me?

Read your own question! What is the best way for God to go about doing things?

In a way that is most likely to generate the desired outcome?

If He is omnipotent and omniscient, what do you have on Him to enable you to answer your question?

Is that your way of saying "Yes it's illogical and circular, but who are you to question God"? If so, I hope you appreciate how that line of thinking has been used to justify some horrid things.

You are presuming your answers are correct perhaps because you have some support among men.

It has nothing to do with what other people think. If I cared about that I'd have been a Christian a long time ago. I conclude that my position is likely correct because it makes sense to me, it is consistent with what I see in the world around me, and those who believe otherwise cannot address basic issues in any sort of reasonable manner.

There's a part to this that I'm not sure you're appreciating. For most of my early life I was surrounded by people who, like you, insisted that a god would reveal itself to me, at which point the things that I had been questioning would start to make sense. I was open to that, and prayed and talked to God. But nothing happened. No revelations, no "presence", no "being filled with the spirit", no magical dreams....nothing. I can still remember the day when I finally said out loud to myself, "This is a waste of time. I'm just sitting here talking to a wall."

Now, if you were me, what would you conclude from that?

 

[amadeus]

So all gods humans have ever believed in are real? Even the ones that contradict each other?

It depends on what you mean by real. Real is God and His realm. Other things, are real to carnal people according to all that have to go on. To God they are temporal or less than that.

You don't hesitate to decide and declare that my POV is wrong. Why are you seemingly okay with doing that with me, but not with other theists?

We've been talking. When I have talked to others I sometimes may have drawn a similar conclusion. I do not know everyone and I certainly have not talked to everyone. How much do I 'know
versus 'believe' about those with whom I have talked?

About you I know very little other than what you have shared here and even in that being not always in the Spirit, I have certainly missed or misunderstood some things. Some of my disagreements with you are due to what God has put in my heart. You don't like that answer, but to answer otherwise would be to lie.

Then how did you determine that your spiritual experiences weren't imaginary and/or the result of self-delusion? Or did that possibility not occur to you?

There is a lot of that in a lot of people, imaginary and self-delusional involvement in thoughts and conclusions. In you as well!

In me? To the extent that I am not always in the Spirit, I am also subject to error and have erred. God never has and does not err, which is why I strive to surrender and to follow Him closely. I admit to the possibility of error still in myself when I am not following Him. That doesn't happen with the frequency it once did. That is because I have continued to surrender my will to His. The battles are not finished in me yet. God is infallible. I am not... but what is the limit in God? Working in me God's limit is my own will inserting itself above Him. The limit is always in me. God is limited as I limit Him. This is free will. It is a primary thing to be overcome in us.

This is why men were able and still are able to fail. In your case, as you now walk according to what you have shared with me, it appears that you have a glimmer. But every man is born with that much. Most men never build on it or allow it to be built into a real Light, which means real Life rather than the death in which they now are. Yes, you are dead as I understand it! But you are not the only effective zombie walking around in our society. Why is it do you suppose that zombie movies have become so popular? I don't mean to offend, but that is what I believe. It is, I believe, what Jesus taught.

But you have no problem doing so with me. What's the difference?

Already answered!

But you do believe that I am wrong and you are right, correct? How did you determine that?

I gave you the simple answer by the Holy Spirit. You don't like that or accept that, but that is what it is. I tried to give you details, but you have only more questions. I have answers acceptable to me... but not to you. God has all of the answers, answers that would be acceptable to you, but only if you could and would travel the Way that He requires. You want it your own way according to you own standard and definition of what truth is or isn't... according to your own 'objective evidence'.

It's not just me who does that, it's most of humanity. And that was my point....we use the word "knowledge" to refer to scientifically-derived conclusions and "belief" for religiously-derived conclusions for a reason.

And so man has again found his way. How many times according to his own written history has he done that? Man has been working on solving his own problems unsuccessfully throughout recorded history. Technology is not the solution. Medicine is not the solution. Science is not the solution. Man always has his derived conclusions for a reason and he has always failed walking alone for a reason:

"O LORD, I know that the way of man is not in himself: it is not in man that walketh to direct his steps." Jerem 10:23

And likewise, you may believe that I am wrong but you cannot prove it. That's my main point here...the realm of "belief" is a world where anything goes. There are no rules or standards. A person can believe absolutely anything they want, whether it's actually true or not.

And then are you saying the man's rules and standards have accomplished something good for all of the people? You say that God's have not, but neither you nor most people have given it serious continuous try to walk in His way to the end.

I cannot prove you are wrong to you, but again I do not have to... That is not my job. Only God gives the increase. If you are interested it is there.

But God only reveals that to people who have ditched their "carnal minds" in the first place, right? And BTW, how does something that's circular to a "carnal mind" suddenly become non-circular upon revelation? And why are people like you who have this special ability completely unable to explain it in non-circular terms? For that matter, why is God unable to convey it in non-circular terms? Is God doing that on purpose to exclude people like me? Does God not want me to understand? If not, why can't God convey it to me in a way that makes sense to me?

In a way that is most likely to generate the desired outcome?

I can repeat myself, but I am not changing on the things you seem to be certain I need to change. I won't and am unable to proceed along your determined road to truth.

Is that your way of saying "Yes it's illogical and circular, but who are you to question God"? If so, I hope you appreciate how that line of thinking has been used to justify some horrid things.

Yes, some horrid things have been done in the name of Christianity, and in the name of many other religions and non-religions of men. But even under the label of 'Christianity' that is not men following God or His Son. Too often it is people following their own heads and calling it 'Christian'. It is perhaps worse than where you are and the scriptures mention that as well. It is better to be 'cold' than to be 'lukewarm'.

It has nothing to do with what other people think. If I cared about that I'd have been a Christian a long time ago. I conclude that my position is likely correct because it makes sense to me, it is consistent with what I see in the world around me, and those who believe otherwise cannot address basic issues in any sort of reasonable manner.

Reasonable manner? How are you able to determine what is reasonable? Is the way this nation and this planet Earth are being headed and directed by men is reasonable... in spite of all the scientific advancements? Man is as much a beast as he has ever been, is he not?

As to your position being correct and making sense, you are not alone in that. Solomon wrote about all of us in this regard 3,000 years ago.

"Every way of a man is right in his own eyes: but the LORD pondereth the hearts." Prov 21:2

There's a part to this that I'm not sure you're appreciating. For most of my early life I was surrounded by people who, like you, insisted that a god would reveal itself to me, at which point the things that I had been questioning would start to make sense. I was open to that, and prayed and talked to God. But nothing happened. No revelations, no "presence", no "being filled with the spirit", no magical dreams....nothing. I can still remember the day when I finally said out loud to myself, "This is a waste of time. I'm just sitting here talking to a wall."

Now, if you were me, what would you conclude from that?

I won't pick specifically on your friends and relatives but mine are mostly the same and generally speaking they along with most people bearing the label of Christian have been and are poor examples. I do not exclude me when I am not in the Spirit. This is why Jesus was sent. People take hold the name, Jesus or Christ, but many or most of them effectively are not much like Jesus. They would have to give up more than they are willing to give up. There are undoubtedly individuals who do better than that. My conclusions come from looking around me in this nation, the US of A, which many have wanted to call a Christian nation. If Jesus were here he would likely do the same thing in many places that he did in front of the temple in Jerusalem to the money changers.

We are Not to pattern our lives after people who have missed or are missing it. Jesus is to be our example. We are to following him... even if we are walking alone without even one other man.

 

[Philip James]

Hello dude,

Not in this case. Remember, space and time did not exist until after the big bang.

If quantum fractures occur in space and time, how can they occur before space and time come to be?

Remember, the fundamental aspect of QM is that events are uncaused.

Hmm, i remember that they are unpredictable not that they are 'uncaused'. Perhaps you can expound on what you mean by uncaused.

This goes back to the first cause argument, which maintains that everything that has a beginning, necessarily has a cause.
Anything that IS, that is uncaused must therefore BE eternally.

If you can't even say what something is, you can't determine if it exists or not.

Really? What is mankinds whole scientific endeavor but a seeking to define the reality that we perceive.
When you perceive something that is, that you have never encountered before, clearly it exists and the natural question to ask is 'what is it?'

So I would suggest that the exact opposite is true.. 'you can't determine what something is until you perceive that it exists..'

How is that different than something entirely made up?

It is a rational argument that proceeds from the reality that we perceive around us.

I noticed that you mentioned biology as your area of expertise..

The same argument holds for life. We perceive that life comes from life and never from inanimate causes..
And our investigations have suggested that life on Earth did indeed have a beginning.
Thus there must be some 'eternal' life that caused the first life to be created in space and time.

Peace!

 

[Justadude]

I think I've identified one of the main factors behind some of the disconnect between us.

Like many others here, you've had a spiritual experience that was deeply meaningful for you. That last part is the key....it was meaningful for you. You've derived many of your beliefs about the world, God, and reality from that personal spiritual experience. But the thing is, the whole construct is entirely subjective. Your beliefs only make sense in light of your personal experience and revelation. You acknowledged that your beliefs are circular and illogical, unless one has gone through the same sort of spiritual experience/revelation as you. So your beliefs about the world, God, and reality are all dependent on those personal experiences, which means they are subjective by definition.

And before I get too far with this, let me be clear....just because they're subjective doesn't mean they're not true or real. They are certainly true and real for you, in the same way a person thinks a type of food is "delicious". Is that true? It is for them, even though it isn't true for others.

The disconnect comes when I see you speak about those subjective beliefs as if they are objective reality. It's no different than if someone who thinks fermented duck eggs are delicious tells me that the truth is that they are delicious and if I don't agree then I'm somehow "limited", "missing something", or otherwise lacking.

I'll show some examples of what I'm talking about....

It depends on what you mean by real. Real is God and His realm. Other things, are real to carnal people according to all that have to go on. To God they are temporal or less than that.

That's all entirely subjective (i.e., dependent on your experiences and beliefs), yet you present them as if they were objective truths.

We've been talking. When I have talked to others I sometimes may have drawn a similar conclusion. I do not know everyone and I certainly have not talked to everyone. How much do I 'know versus 'believe' about those with whom I have talked?

You've been trying to draw objective conclusions from subjective experiences.

Some of my disagreements with you are due to what God has put in my heart. You don't like that answer, but to answer otherwise would be to lie.

I understand that and I think we'd be fine as long as we both understand and agree that "What God has put in my heart" is a subjective experience, unique only to you.

There is a lot of that in a lot of people, imaginary and self-delusional involvement in thoughts and conclusions. In you as well!

In me? To the extent that I am not always in the Spirit, I am also subject to error and have erred.

Since we both agree that humans do delude themselves into believing things that aren't true, did you ever consider the possibility that your spiritual experiences were the product of self-delusion?

God never has and does not err, which is why I strive to surrender and to follow Him closely.

You state that as if it were objectively true, even though it's entirely subjective. "Fermented duck eggs never taste bad, which is why I try and eat one every day."

I admit to the possibility of error still in myself when I am not following Him. That doesn't happen with the frequency it once did. That is because I have continued to surrender my will to His. The battles are not finished in me yet. God is infallible. I am not... but what is the limit in God? Working in me God's limit is my own will inserting itself above Him. The limit is always in me. God is limited as I limit Him. This is free will. It is a primary thing to be overcome in us.

Do you appreciate how because those are all subjective beliefs based on your personal experiences, they are not meaningful to me?

Yes, you are dead as I understand it! But you are not the only effective zombie walking around in our society. Why is it do you suppose that zombie movies have become so popular? I don't mean to offend, but that is what I believe. It is, I believe, what Jesus taught.

That's much better IMO. You qualify your statements with "as I understand it" and "I believe".

I gave you the simple answer by the Holy Spirit. You don't like that or accept that, but that is what it is.

Yes, because it is entirely subjective and based on personal belief. You believe that I'm wrong in the same way the person who likes fermented duck eggs believes I'm wrong when I say they taste gross to me.

I tried to give you details, but you have only more questions. I have answers acceptable to me... but not to you.

Right, because your answers are only meaningful to someone who's had the same sort of experiences as you.

God has all of the answers, answers that would be acceptable to you, but only if you could and would travel the Way that He requires. You want it your own way according to you own standard and definition of what truth is or isn't... according to your own 'objective evidence'.

But "my way" is hardly unique to me. The standard of objective evidence is why you and I are able to have this conversation even though we're physically thousands of miles apart. It's what helps save lives (medical science). It's what's behind just about everything around you....your house, your car, your clothes, your glasses, your books, etc. All of that is the result of our understanding of objective reality and application of objective evidence.

And so man has again found his way. How many times according to his own written history has he done that? Man has been working on solving his own problems unsuccessfully throughout recorded history. Technology is not the solution. Medicine is not the solution. Science is not the solution.

That's a really odd thing to read coming from a person who used a computer and the internet to post it.

And then are you saying the man's rules and standards have accomplished something good for all of the people? You say that God's have not, but neither you nor most people have given it serious continuous try to walk in His way to the end.

Hold on there. How do you know I didn't "give it serious continuous try"? Because I didn't get the same outcome as you?

That brings me back to the subjective/objective issue. You're turning your subjective experience into an objective reality, and from that concluding that everyone who doesn't believe the same as you is therefore wrong. That's no different than the guy who likes fermented duck eggs telling me that I'm wrong when I say I don't like them and insisting that the reason I don't like them is because I'm not "giving them a serious continuous try".

I cannot prove you are wrong to you, but again I do not have to... That is not my job. Only God gives the increase. If you are interested it is there.

You believe it's there.

Yes, some horrid things have been done in the name of Christianity, and in the name of many other religions and non-religions of men. But even under the label of 'Christianity' that is not men following God or His Son. Too often it is people following their own heads and calling it 'Christian'. It is perhaps worse than where you are and the scriptures mention that as well. It is better to be 'cold' than to be 'lukewarm'.

You believe that to be so. But it could very well be that the Christian God really does want believers to do horrid things. Or it could be that the God doesn't exist and Christians just use it as an excuse to justify their horrid actions. How would we actually know which is really the case? Because the entire construct is completely subjective, we can't know.

Reasonable manner? How are you able to determine what is reasonable? Is the way this nation and this planet Earth are being headed and directed by men is reasonable... in spite of all the scientific advancements? Man is as much a beast as he has ever been, is he not?

I can only speak to what is reasonable to me, just as I can only speak to what tastes good or bad to me. I'm telling you that the fermented duck egg just doesn't taste good to me and you're responding by telling me there's something wrong with me because it's objectively true that those eggs are delicious.

I won't pick specifically on your friends and relatives but mine are mostly the same and generally speaking they along with most people bearing the label of Christian have been and are poor examples....

I have no idea how that relates to what I asked.

We are Not to pattern our lives after people who have missed or are missing it. Jesus is to be our example. We are to following him... even if we are walking alone without even one other man.

This is no different than you telling me that the truth is, fermented duck eggs are delicious and anyone who says otherwise is missing something.

 

[Justadude]

If quantum fractures occur in space and time, how can they occur before space and time come to be?

Quantum fluctuations are not dependent on time and space, and can create matter and energy "out of nothing".

Hmm, i remember that they are unpredictable not that they are 'uncaused'. Perhaps you can expound on what you mean by uncaused.

I'm starting to get the impression that you're expecting me to teach a course in QM and big bang cosmology, and eventually explain the origin of the universe without invoking a god. Like I said earlier, this isn't my area of expertise and I generally defer to the experts.

If you're truly interested in those subjects, I suggest you do some reading on them.

This goes back to the first cause argument, which maintains that everything that has a beginning, necessarily has a cause.
Anything that IS, that is uncaused must therefore BE eternally.

And that's refuted by QM.

Really? What is mankinds whole scientific endeavor but a seeking to define the reality that we perceive.
When you perceive something that is, that you have never encountered before, clearly it exists and the natural question to ask is 'what is it?'

So I would suggest that the exact opposite is true.. 'you can't determine what something is until you perceive that it exists..'

If I told you that "boterimjings" exist, and after you asked "What's a boterimjing" I said "I don't know", what would you conclude?

It is a rational argument that proceeds from the reality that we perceive around us.

Where do we perceive gods?

I noticed that you mentioned biology as your area of expertise..

The same argument holds for life. We perceive that life comes from life and never from inanimate causes..
And our investigations have suggested that life on Earth did indeed have a beginning.
Thus there must be some 'eternal' life that caused the first life to be created in space and time.

Again that's nothing more than an argument from ignorance and god of the gaps. A few hundred years ago you could have made the same argument about lightning or earthquakes....we can't explain how they came to be, therefore a god did it.

 

[Philip James]

Quantum fluctuations are not dependent on time and space, and can create matter and energy "out of nothing".

Hmm, if the first law of thermodynamics had been abrogated, i would have thought i would have heard about it.. That's pretty big news.. Do you have a citation?

I'm starting to get the impression that you're expecting me to teach a course in QM and big bang cosmology, and eventually explain the origin of the universe without invoking a god. Like I said earlier, this isn't my area of expertise and I generally defer to the experts.

I am also not an expert, but if you are going to reference QM, you should at least be able to define what you mean by 'uncaused'.
As i have already said, reason dictates that anything that has a beginning, necessarily has a cause.

If you're truly interested in those subjects, I suggest you do some reading on them.

Your assumption that I have not is incorrect.

And that's refuted by QM.

So you say, and yet you are unwilling to discuss it. I don't think QM refutes that at all. If anything, it confirms that the first cause continues to actively uphold the universe..

If I told you that "boterimjings" exist, and after you asked "What's a boterimjing" I said "I don't know", what would you conclude?

That you have not yet determined what it is..

Where do we perceive gods?

Well, I don't know about 'gods'. But our perception that everything that has a beginning, also has a cause comes from our observation of the reality around us..

Again that's nothing more than an argument from ignorance and god of the gaps.

Haha, are you actually reading what I've written?

It is ironic that this statement actually supports the first cause argument and puts 'paid' to your notion that we must be able to define a thing before we can know that it is.

For clearly something caused life to begin even if we don't know what it is.

Peace!

 

[Justadude]

Hmm, if the first law of thermodynamics had been abrogated, i would have thought i would have heard about it.. That's pretty big news.. Do you have a citation?

A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

Is All the Universe From Nothing?

I am also not an expert, but if you are going to reference QM, you should at least be able to define what you mean by 'uncaused'.
As i have already said, reason dictates that anything that has a beginning, necessarily has a cause.

One of the fundamental aspects of QM is how it eliminates and even reverses cause-effect relationships.

How quantum trickery can scramble cause and effect

https://www.nature.com/news/polopol...mns/topLeftColumn/pdf/546590a.pdf?origin=ppub

Retrocausality - Wikipedia

So you say, and yet you are unwilling to discuss it. I don't think QM refutes that at all. If anything, it confirms that the first cause continues to actively uphold the universe..

See above.

Well, I don't know about 'gods'. But our perception that everything that has a beginning, also has a cause comes from our observation of the reality around us..

That's incorrect (see above).

Haha, are you actually reading what I've written?

It is ironic that this statement actually supports the first cause argument and puts 'paid' to your notion that we must be able to define a thing before we can know that it is.

For clearly something caused life to begin even if we don't know what it is.

You appealed to the common talking point of "we've only seen life come from life", which is contingent on our current knowledge about the origin of life. If next year scientists discover a plausible pathway by which a living cell could be generated from non-living precursors, your argument will be negated. As I noted, at one point in history you could have made the same basic argument about the origins of earthquakes.

IOW, your argument is entirely based on the current lack of an explanation for how life originated, which is an argument from ignorance, which is also a "God of the gaps" argument.

 

[Philip James]

A Mathematical Proof That The Universe Could Have Formed Spontaneously From Nothing

Hello dude,

from your link: But if the bubble can expand to a large enough size, then a universe is created in a way that is irreversible.

I asked you if you held to the QM hypothesis that the universe is itself a quantum fracture and you said no. so why are you using it as your argument?

and of course you didn't even mention another interpretation mentioned there that says this: The theory has the effect of making quantum mechanics entirely deterministic since the quantum potential can be used to work out things like the actual position of the particle.

So which is it sir? And can we reason it out from there?

I do find it ironic that you seem to hold that you both do and do not hold to the universe being a quantum fracture hypothesis

Peace!

 

[bbyrd009]

You know, I can't recall another time where I have been almost completely unable to communicate with someone, but you and I seem to be on completely different planes. It seems lately that when I post something to you, you read it in a way that I never intended. And that seems to happen the other way as well (I misunderstand what you post to me).

I can't say why that is though.

"speaking in tongues"

 

[Justadude]

from your link: But if the bubble can expand to a large enough size, then a universe is created in a way that is irreversible.

I asked you if you held to the QM hypothesis that the universe is itself a quantum fracture and you said no. so why are you using it as your argument?

You asked if I was "suggesting the universe itself, is a quantum fracture that just hasnt ended yet".

and of course you didn't even mention another interpretation mentioned there that says this: The theory has the effect of making quantum mechanics entirely deterministic since the quantum potential can be used to work out things like the actual position of the particle.

So which is it sir? And can we reason it out from there?

I do find it ironic that you seem to hold that you both do and do not hold to the universe being a quantum fracture hypothesis

You've forgotten why this came up in the first place. Remember, you asked if it was reasonable if "we define 'God' as that first cause on which the entire universe depends". I replied by asking if it turned out that a quantum fluctuation was the "first cause", would you refer to that as "god".

Since then you pivoted to having me explain and defend the QM explanations for the beginning of the universe, which wasn't the point. If you want to define "god" as "the first cause of the universe", then the question remains....if it turns out that a quantum event was the first cause of the universe, would you refer to that quantum event as a "god"?