Questions Questions

[Pildit]

(DrBubbaLove;39837)
Actually if you equate pink elephants to that being who you can imagine that which none is greater then you have no open mind at all.
Are you saying Pink Elephants don't exist?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

(Pildit;39838)
Are you saying Pink Elephants don't exist?
no silly, that would be a conditional existence. Am saying if you can equate in your mind conditional existence with necessary existence then you have no open mind at all.

 

[Pildit]

(DrBubbaLove;39841)
no silly, that would be a conditional existence. Am saying if you can equate in your mind conditional existence with necessary existence then you have no open mind at all.
Pink Elephants YOU brought up first but change it to aliens if you wish.The point is, I can imagine aliens existensing, God existing; both with something bigger and nothing bigger. I can imagine all those circumstances... but it doesn't mean any of them are true.A thought is simply a theory. And theories need proof of which, I'm still waiting to see.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Pildit,You have been shown two proofs but as of yet are unwilling to discuss them. We cannot discuss proofs when you are unwilling to agree on any distinction between definitions. If someone is so closed minded that they will not even attempt to agree on definitions of terms, then there really is not much point is trying to either present or ask for proofs.

 

[Pildit]

(DrBubbaLove;39847)
Pildit,You have been shown two proofs but as of yet are unwilling to discuss them. We cannot discuss proofs when you are unwilling to agree on any distinction between definitions. If someone is so closed minded that they will not even attempt to agree on definitions of terms, then there really is not much point is trying to either present or ask for proofs.
What proof is it that are you are showing me?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

(Pildit;39850)
What proof is it that are you are showing me?
Two paraphrased in my words, one from St Thomas's called the proof from change and the other a variation on the onotological as per the two authors mentioned. But again, if we cannot agree on definitions of the various types of existence as used in those proofs then it makes little sense to continue discussing them. As "proofs" they are not perfect but in order to attack them one at least needs to use common terms.

 

[Pildit]

(DrBubbaLove;39874)
Two paraphrased in my words, one from St Thomas's called the proof from change and the other a variation on the onotological as per the two authors mentioned. But again, if we cannot agree on definitions of the various types of existence as used in those proofs then it makes little sense to continue discussing them. As "proofs" they are not perfect but in order to attack them one at least needs to use common terms.
These however are theories and not proven, however if they were proven perhaps they would be a step towards proof.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Actually they are presented as proofs for God's existence, and there are valid questions but as yet we have not seen one in this thread.

 

[Pildit]

(DrBubbaLove;39889)
Actually they are presented as proofs for God's existence, and there are valid questions but as yet we have not seen one in this thread.
What is a valid question?

 

[DrBubbaLove]

(Pildit;39915)
What is a valid question?
That would be to state something which actually attacked the proof. Actually looking back you did ask one that has some merit, one does not necessarily have to call the result "God". But then that begs other questions one would have to answer for one's self.

 

[Pildit]

(DrBubbaLove;39931)
That would be to state something which actually attacked the proof. Actually looking back you did ask one that has some merit, one does not necessarily have to call the result "God". But then that begs other questions one would have to answer for one's self.
Basically what you're saying is... I must agree with you otherwise I'm close-minded, and have been saying for the last few post from what I can gather.Moving on.Anyone who wants to answer my orginal questions, you're welcome to do so. I'm still looking for answers and still looking for God.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

(Pildit;39978)
Basically what you're saying is... I must agree with you otherwise I'm close-minded, and have been saying for the last few post from what I can gather.Moving on.Anyone who wants to answer my orginal questions, you're welcome to do so. I'm still looking for answers and still looking for God.
LOL, do not be insulted. No one is insisting that you agree to anything. Am simply suggesting we cannot have a discussion if we do not agree on terms.You boldy asked and I boldly answered. You were given two proofs and then proceeded to attack them based on a faulty definition/understanding for what it means to "exist". My pointing out that we cannot discuss proofs, those two proofs or any others if we do not agree on terms, should not be seen as an insult or an end to discourse, at least not for anyone claiming to be open minded. If we cannot even discuss terms, then you are correct there is no point in continuing. But then anyone could ask why have discussion at all if there is no intention of trying to understand each other. Defining terms would be the first step at understanding. Moving on would simply mean giving up without really trying to understand at all. But hey, feel free.

 

[Pildit]

(DrBubbaLove;39981)
LOL, do not be insulted. No one is insisting that you agree to anything. Am simply suggesting we cannot have a discussion if we do not agree on terms.You boldy asked and I boldly answered. You were given two proofs and then proceeded to attack them based on a faulty definition/understanding for what it means to "exist". My pointing out that we cannot discuss proofs, those two proofs or any others if we do not agree on terms, should not be seen as an insult or an end to discourse, at least not for anyone claiming to be open minded. If we cannot even discuss terms, then you are correct there is no point in continuing. But then anyone could ask why have discussion at all if there is no intention of trying to understand each other. Defining terms would be the first step at understanding. Moving on would simply mean giving up without really trying to understand at all. But hey, feel free.
This is my understanding (of what you said.. note: NOT my opinion):1.) Everything has something outside of it effecting it, including the universe as a whole. Some people call this God.My opinion on this: God and for example a whole other universe or an energy are different things. God is being, who has a persona, a voice (even if I've yet to hear it); who purposely created the universe. Something else may not amount to the same thing.2.) We can think of something existensing that doesn't have anything higher or greater than it, therefore it must be God.My opinion: Yes we can think of that, but we can also think of a flip situation where there is nothing or indeed there is something but there is something greater than it. Neither of these are yet proven to be God (see defination there of above), of course neither are they proven any other way either, therefore I'm open minded on the situation.

 

[DrBubbaLove]

Pildit,Your "understanding" of the first proof is closer to what is St Thomas's proof from Cause, not the proof from Change. They are different but similar in form. That is ok and any misunderstanding here probably due to my brief and poor representation of the case.If I understood you the first time however I think you make the same point again against the proof from cause. The same point, as you did or would against the proof from change. Basically that whatever is considered "outside" which we call God does not have to be called God or perhaps recognized as a "being" at all. Ok. However; the point of the proof presented was not to show every aspect of God, but simply the existence of something unseen but which is known to exist with absolute certainty, and which is A PART of what some of us call God. You got that point and can see for yourself the validity of these proofs to that limit.As neither of these proofs attempts to explain every aspect of what is meant by "God” it is unfair to claim a failure to do so indicates the proof is flawed or "proves" nothing. We will grant you these do not explain ALL we believe about God, but that was not the point. We can move on as you agreed earlier that it at least proves something exists.From your understanding of #2, in the other proof we are still having trouble with definitions and maybe my presenting logical thought. We agreed all of us can imagine a being that which none other is greater. Though we come back to this later as am not sure we really agree here at all. The first visible problem arises when we consider (still in our minds) whether such a being could exist. Existence in classic philosophical terms, which is the language of the original proof presented (again called a Modal variation of the Ontological proof), is typically divided into 3 groups. Things which could only exist in our minds, not ever in reality. Things falling in this first category would be called necessarily non-existent. In the second category belongs things which are conditionally existent, these depend on other things in order to exist (or not to exist). The third category includes anything which is necessarily existent, it must exist.The proof contends that the “being” we both agreed we could imagine cannot belong to the first two categories, but only the last. You do not seem to have an issue with skipping the first category, we can both imagine such a being without thinking it would be impossible for such to exist.If understand your response, you appear to be hung up on why we could not think of such a being as belonging to the group of contingent existence (things which either may or may not exist – or put another way - not impossible but which possibly exist). Have tried several times to explain that, if in our mind, we can think of something else being necessary in order for the “being” we imagined earlier to have existence, (which is what is meant by contingent existence) then we have imagined something greater than which we previously THOUGHT nothing was greater. So there is a problem logically IN OUR MIND with these thoughts being congruent. We cannot imagine both thoughts being true. In OUR MINDS then, this leads to the only category we have left, not as you suggest, just because “we” say God exists. The thought must occur that this being we all can imagine, this being is necessarily existent because that is the only category left. However that is not the conclusion as this is all still in our minds, it is just the final step before the conclusion. The proof concludes that because such a Being in our mind can ONLY be necessarily existent, He must really exist. Because what we can logically THINK MUST be so (and can only be so), is so.I will save you the trouble here of rehashing this last proof, as it is more complex than the first and harder to follow. You do also appear close to expressing a real objection to this proof so we can cut to the chase. Suspect as a professed agnostic atheist, your real problem here is whether we can really imagine an Infinite Being, which is assumed as part of this proof and why I kept saying that perhaps the “being” you imagined is not big enough (to get beyond conditional existence). And that is perhaps a strike against this particular proof at least as it applies to anyone who maintains we cannot truly imagine the infinite. For no one that can truly imagine an Infinite Being would have a problem understanding logically that such a Being is necessarily existent.

 

[Hawkins]

(Pildit;39451)
1.) This one sort of is revised from the last topic - Apart from not going to hell, why should I believe? How will it better my life, me as a person, what difference will it make?
We are talking about what truth is. How come a truth always in the timeline be beneficial to a person? In the end, we are talking about1) A truth2) A truth with its effect in eternitySo the question waiting for an answer is, is there an eternity? If so, will you be part of this eternity? If so, what will you be?
2.) If anyone here was ever a "non-believer" - what convinced you to believe?
Originally, it's me who convinced myself into believing. And then...
3.) Flipping one of my questions here; you all can see that most of this religious no longer makes sense to me so - Does science, evidence and proof and other kinds of logic make sense to you?
Science, evidence and proof can of course make sense. The point is, other than science, evidence and proof are there any other truth out there. We/I *believe* that there is. It's not exactly but still it can be illustrative that war tactical and political truth and rules are not always be scientific, evidencial before hand and proven. Alot of them are accumulative, can't be predicted before hand, and can only be realised as true after occurance, unlike science which requires predictability.To bring this to the next level, we may have an estimation about what faith can lead to the truth.[here, we are talking about the life-cycle (or level of difficulties) of how a truth is realised or recognised. Scientific truth - easy, Political truth - medium, Religious truth - difficult. Hope that it makes some sense to you]
4.) I've established that your logic/belief is that complex life needs to have a "creator" and therefore "there must be a God"... so where did God come from?
That's a scientific direction of searching and seeking, there's a more effective way of searching and seeking. It's called the spiritual way of searching and seeking. The difficulty or difference here is, you can't do the searching and seeking by your own, you need God to be willing to be with you to be fruitful.
5.) Since no-one has yet proved me with any evidence or proof for the exsistence of God, I'm still looking for this. Be aware of what I've already been told and what I've already said in the other thread though.
If you decided to go the scientific of searching, it's told that the chance to be fruitful is narrow. If you decided to go the spiritual way, you need God, and to reach Him, you need faith, simple as that.
6.) Just because I'm interested - what do you think is the most misintrupted line/section of the bible and why?
Forgive me for my poor English, what do you mean by "misintrupted"?
7.) Howcome if I was a Christian before, even then I didn't see any actual evidence?
God (Holy Spirit) was not with you, simple as that.
Again thank you for your time, I appreciate it.
You are welcome.

 

[followerofchrist]

Pildit I pretty much said all I have to say in your last topic but I must ask you if you have ever read the book, Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis? I have started reading it recently and I really believe that it would be a GREAT book for you to read!! Its not very long either so it won't take too long but it does get kind of deep in parts so you might have to read twice. Anyway I really hope you will take a chance and read this book with an open mind and really consider what you learn.

 

[Hawkins]

That's a scientific direction of searching and seeking, there's a more effective way of searching and seeking. It's called the spiritual way of searching and seeking. The difficulty or difference here is, you can't do the searching and seeking by your own, you need God to be willing to be with you to be fruitful.
And as a side note, it's foretold that we, as end time people, will think with a scientific preference which tends to undermine the spiritual way of tinking.Daniel 12:4But you, Daniel, close up and seal the words of the scroll until the time of the end. Many will go here and there to increase knowledge."And that's why I call the Adam and Eve story a parable. A parable implying that the Adam/human way of thinking can be the scientific way of thinking to approach Knowledge, or the spiritual way of thinking to approach Life.The story is also a prophecy. A prophecy says that in the end, Adam/humans will be eating the fruits from the Tree of Knowledge and fail to find the Tree of Life. This way, humans will die their second death. (don't mean to be offensive)

 

[Pildit]

(Hawkins;40344)
We are talking about what truth is. How come a truth always in the timeline be beneficial to a person? In the end, we are talking about1) A truth2) A truth with its effect in eternitySo the question waiting for an answer is, is there an eternity? If so, will you be part of this eternity? If so, what will you be?
Although I understand where you're coming from with this, this doesn't answer my question that much. How will it have a postive effect on my life if I believe?
Originally, it's me who convinced myself into believing. And then...
The problem here lies that if you want to convince yourself of something, you'll probably suceed. However and then... what? I'm interested to know.
Science, evidence and proof can of course make sense. The point is, other than science, evidence and proof are there any other truth out there. We/I *believe* that there is. It's not exactly but still it can be illustrative that war tactical and political truth and rules are not always be scientific, evidencial before hand and proven. Alot of them are accumulative, can't be predicted before hand, and can only be realised as true after occurance, unlike science which requires predictability.To bring this to the next level, we may have an estimation about what faith can lead to the truth.[here, we are talking about the life-cycle (or level of difficulties) of how a truth is realised or recognised. Scientific truth - easy, Political truth - medium, Religious truth - difficult. Hope that it makes some sense to you]
Evidence doesn't HAVE to be science. It just has to be something that is unmistakably God.The explaination of truths makes sense to me, but I perhaps don't totally agree on their difficultly ratings.
That's a scientific direction of searching and seeking, there's a more effective way of searching and seeking. It's called the spiritual way of searching and seeking. The difficulty or difference here is, you can't do the searching and seeking by your own, you need God to be willing to be with you to be fruitful.
Whilst I'm not saying science is the most effective direction, I can't claim to agree that a spiritual way is more effective (or less for that matter).
Forgive me for my poor English, what do you mean by "misintrupted"?
Misunderstood.
God (Holy Spirit) was not with you, simple as that.
hmmm ok.

 

[Pildit]

(followerofchrist;40347)
Pildit I pretty much said all I have to say in your last topic but I must ask you if you have ever read the book, Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis? I have started reading it recently and I really believe that it would be a GREAT book for you to read!! Its not very long either so it won't take too long but it does get kind of deep in parts so you might have to read twice. Anyway I really hope you will take a chance and read this book with an open mind and really consider what you learn.
I haven't read it but I will look it up and amazon and see if they have it at the library. Thank you.

 

[Hawkins]

(Pildit;40755)
Although I understand where you're coming from with this, this doesn't answer my question that much. How will it have a postive effect on my life if I believe?
As the same thing may have different effect on different persons, why not jus try to figure it out by yourself.

The problem here lies that if you want to convince yourself of something, you'll probably suceed. However and then... what? I'm interested to know.
Then I figured out that there's another way of thinking, other than the scientific way of thinking, which leads to another set of knowledge. It's more like I have two sets of keys for the opening of two kinds of locked boxes. Logically speaking, what I have now is a superset of what I had in the past, what I had in the past is a subset of what I have now.The other day when I chatted with my brother-in-law who is a hardliner unbeliever, I said to him that I understand exactly the way how he thinks because I used to think the same way as how he thinks. Yet he doesn't understand how I think because he never experiences this way of seeking and searching, I have one more set of tools to use to assist my thinking.
Evidence doesn't HAVE to be science. It just has to be something that is unmistakably God.
I understand. Yet by Covenant we are saved by Faith. If to us, He's unmistakably God, how can we be saved?
The explaination of truths makes sense to me, but I perhaps don't totally agree on their difficultly ratings.
I can actually make that example abit more 'scientific' to be illustrative. Almost all scientific truth are somewhat substantial or material in nature. They are about substances located in our 3-dimensional space.For the sake of arguement, spiritual beings substantially reside outside this 3D space but in an upper spatial dimension, which humans were made not to perceive.So now it becomes how effective we are going to explore things within our realm and things outside our 3D realm. Again,Science = easy, Spirituality = difficultWe might need another set of more correct tools to do the exploring, at least we try it another way around.
Whilst I'm not saying science is the most effective direction, I can't claim to agree that a spiritual way is more effective (or less for that matter).
If so, try it by yourself. That's actually what is recommended.

Well, I tried to speak in your language, a scientific one. Actually, it's quite interesting to speculate how those Christians speak highly spiritually to keep the other side clueless about what are said. They speak another language that the other side failed to grasp. Hehe...