Evidence for God from Science

I wish Lunalle could one day see love as we see it or at least understand how we see it.

Could this come from mere debates? I doubt so. It needs to meet loving people and have those loving people in our lives.

1over137 wrote:I wish Lunalle could one day see love as we see it or at least understand how we see it.

Could this come from mere debates? I doubt so. It needs to meet loving people and have those loving people in our lives.

I agree Hana, these really are pointless exercises if what we are trying to do is change someone's mind but I find that it sharpens my faith when I see what the opposition has to offer, I actually get a lot out of it, as I am sure people who read this might also.

Lunalle's God is not the sort of God that I think is deserving of worship and Lunalle wants to be a God also and that is definitely not the God that I would want in my life.

Dan

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

1over137 wrote:I wish Lunalle could one day see love as we see it or at least understand how we see it.

Could this come from mere debates? I doubt so. It needs to meet loving people and have those loving people in our lives.

I agree Hana, these really are pointless exercises if what we are trying to do is change someone's mind but I find that it sharpens my faith when I see what the opposition has to offer, I actually get a lot out of it, as I am sure people who read this might also.

Lunalle's God is not the sort of God that I think is deserving of worship and Lunalle wants to be a God also and that is definitely not the God that I would want in my life.

Dan

Why do you assume I haven't seen love that way? I am confident I have, and I don't like it. So, Dan and I have different preferences of God, and we don't like each others preferences. Isn't that to be expected? We are two different people. The key difference is I don't think God exists, regardless of my preference, where Dan has faith the God of his preference does exist (I assume?).

lunalle wrote:Why do you assume I haven't seen love that way? I am confident I have, and I don't like it.

May I ask what have you seen? It is strange to me that if what you have seen was real love, you did not like it. Why did not you like it?

1over137 wrote:

lunalle wrote:Why do you assume I haven't seen love that way? I am confident I have, and I don't like it.

May I ask what have you seen? It is strange to me that if what you have seen was real love, you did not like it. Why did not you like it?

I have seen many people, I have explored many religions, many moral systems, many beliefs, many actions. Forgive me for being vague, but it would be impractical for both of us for me to type out everything I have seen.

I expect a lot of people to disagree with my values, but we all have our own. Like is based on values. To my understanding "real love" as you say, is valuing living people higher than the sum of people yet to live. While valuing living people is certainly noble, I value the sum of people yet to live higher than the people who currently live (both are of course, a range of value). Based on this, I focus on the framework of living, such as science, philosophy, society, and religion. Hopefully this clears things up.

Cheers!

Have you read C.S.Lewis - The four loves? Lewis is master in understanding people and love.

1over137 wrote:Have you read C.S.Lewis - The four loves? Lewis is master in understanding people and love.

I have not.

Lunalle wrote:

1over137 wrote:Have you read C.S.Lewis - The four loves? Lewis is master in understanding people and love.

I have not.

I can only recommend this book to you. It is very excellent book.

Lunalle wrote:

B. W. wrote: hmmm???

You said this:

I expect God wouldn't say anything. Language is a very crude tool, and I'd expect better of him....

Let's look Rom 1:19, "because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. 20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead..." NKJV

I'm familiar with that type of thinking, and I reject it.

Romans 1:21-23 ESV , For although they knew God, they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking, and their foolish hearts were darkened. 22 Claiming to be wise, they became fools, 23 and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man and birds and animals and creeping things.

I am familiar with your type of thinking as well too…

Lunalle wrote:

1over137 wrote:

lunalle wrote:Why do you assume I haven't seen love that way? I am confident I have, and I don't like it.

May I ask what have you seen? It is strange to me that if what you have seen was real love, you did not like it. Why did not you like it?

I have seen many people, I have explored many religions, many moral systems, many beliefs, many actions. Forgive me for being vague, but it would be impractical for both of us for me to type out everything I have seen.

I expect a lot of people to disagree with my values, but we all have our own. Like is based on values. To my understanding "real love" as you say, is valuing living people higher than the sum of people yet to live. While valuing living people is certainly noble, I value the sum of people yet to live higher than the people who currently live (both are of course, a range of value). Based on this, I focus on the framework of living, such as science, philosophy, society, and religion. Hopefully this clears things up.

Cheers!

People yet to live – you value more than those living???

Jeremy Bentham quote: "It is the greatest good to the greatest number of people which is the measure of right and wrong."

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" – Leonard Nimoy's Spock in Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan quote...

… is there much difference between these two statements based upon social utilitarianism and yours?

Your Marxist slip is showing…

So it would the greatest good to kill as many people that oppose Marxism now so those yet to come can have it good and repeat the same processes without end?

Did you realize that according to Marxist didactic – once it controlled the world, it becomes the new status quo social order that Marxism demands be overthrow for the greatest good of those not yet born?

That’s not love… how could you know what real love is when you can’t forgive?

Lunalle wrote:

B. W. wrote: You stated this too:

God knows exactly what it would take for me to change my beliefs (based on point 1), and he'd do whatever it took. (based on points 2 and 6).

1) God is all knowing.
2) God is all powerful.
6) God wants me to live my life in accordance to the knowledge he supplies to me.

Is your father still crippled?

No, and that is obviously not enough to convince me God exists.

Yet it happened?

Much like the elephant in the room parable…

God did do something and you deny it… therefore you deny your own proof ultimatum and thus your premise holds no honest value.

I'll take it that you told the truth about your father being healed and no longer a cripple now. How much of your argument with God is but a mirror reflection of but you and your dad's relationship?

Would not such mirroring skew your bias so as to prevent you from seeing the elephant in the room?

Lunalle wrote:

B. W. wrote: You claim that

God would not judge us, but improve us.

John 3:15-19, "Then everyone who believes in him can live with God forever. "God loved the world so much that he gave his one and only Son. Anyone who believes in him will not die but will have eternal life. "God did not send his Son into the world to judge the world. He sent his Son to save the world through him. Anyone who believes in him is not judged. But anyone who does not believe is judged already. He has not believed in the name of God's one and only Son. "Here is the judgment. Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light. They loved darkness because what they did was evil." NIrV

And these words have no meaning to you?

John 3:19 "Here is the judgment. Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light. They loved darkness because what they did was evil."

Isa 26:10 Grace is shown to sinful people. But they still don't learn to do what is right. They keep on doing evil even in a land where others are honest and fair. They don't have any respect for the majesty of the LORD. NIrV

Those words have very little meaning to me, because they are directly contradictory.

These words show that God desires to improve us and pose no contradiction. It would be up to you to show how they contradict each other.

They may contradict your worldview but they do not contradict each other…

God desires to improve those that He knows as his adopted and does so.

We can love and forgive which appears to be something rather foreign to you.

Lunalle wrote:

Anyone who believes in him is not judged. But anyone who does not believe is judged already.

This is incoherent, at best.

You are judged as not believing – how can that be incoherent?
-
-
-

Hi B.W.

I believe you've made a few judgement here, which I'd like to address.

You think me dishonest. While I am not claiming to be 100% honest, I believe I am for more honest than you see. The justification of my being dishonest you have offered, is based upon a certain set of assumptions which you hold true, and I do not. I believe you are more dishonest for holding those assumptions as true with no valid logical justification for them.

You say: "God did do something and you deny it".
I say: "Something happened that I don't understand".

According to Ockham's razor, I am less likely to be incorrect, and therefore more honest.


You also judge my value of life, in black and white, when I took effort to say "both of course, a range of value". That is, to say it is a matter of grey, not black and white. It is not fair, or accurate, to paint it as a black and white matter.


You asked: That’s not love… how could you know what real love is when you can’t forgive?
My answer: Because I have memories of a time when I did forgive, and did love.


RE: Anyone who believes in him is not judged. But anyone who does not believe is judged already.

What you said, is not what the above says. What you said is coherent, the above statements are not. It is incoherent because it uses two different points in time to describe the same action. One being set in the present (you are not judged), one being set in the past (judged already). I think I know what the statement means, but it is incoherent as written, and what I take from it is a best guess.

Cheers!

Lunalle wrote: RE: Anyone who believes in him is not judged. But anyone who does not believe is judged already.

What you said, is not what the above says. What you said is coherent, the above statements are not. It is incoherent because it uses two different points in time to describe the same action. One being set in the present (you are not judged), one being set in the past (judged already). I think I know what the statement means, but it is incoherent as written, and what I take from it is a best guess.

Cheers!

It's perfectly fine to have both past and present tense used in the same sentence.

Like: I am eating dinner right now; he has already eaten.

TheArtfulDodger wrote: It's perfectly fine to have both past and present tense used in the same sentence.

Like: I am eating dinner right now; he has already eaten.

True, but again, your example does not match the original quote. A more accurate example would be:
I am eating dinner right now and am enjoying it, he is eating dinner right now and has already enjoyed it.

Now, we all make the same assumption (as far as I can tell), which is to correct the mistake, and read it like your example, even though this is not what it actually says. Interestingly, this assumption leads to a very disturbing conclusion, specifically prejudgment.

Lunalle wrote:

TheArtfulDodger wrote: It's perfectly fine to have both past and present tense used in the same sentence.

Like: I am eating dinner right now; he has already eaten.

True, but again, your example does not match the original quote. A more accurate example would be:
I am eating dinner right now and am enjoying it, he is eating dinner right now and has already enjoyed it.

Now, we all make the same assumption (as far as I can tell), which is to correct the mistake, and read it like your example, even though this is not what it actually says. Interestingly, this assumption leads to a very disturbing conclusion, specifically prejudgment.

Just my two cents, since God is not affected by time then it would make sense that they are already judged.

Lunalle wrote:

PaulSacramento wrote: We are not talking about you or me and I certainly do NOT profee to know the mind of God.
That you don't see the validity of the argument is not my problem.
That you don't see the issues with a uber-advanced being making Himself know to a lower species and all the issues that may come from that, is again not my concern.
God is not hiding, He is just not "waving his arms and say Looking at me, look what I can do!".

IMO, God is acting like a being of immense power and knowledge that KNOWS the history of humanity and its propensity for destruction.

Well, I think it should be your concern, but hey, I'm not God.

PaulSacramento wrote:He is just not "waving his arms and say Looking at me, look what I can do!".

IMO, this is justification that points 3 through 6 are incorrect. IMO, there is no God and this is a poor justification for faith.

No, you are not God, none of us are and to think we can know His thoughts FULLY is the height of arrogance.
It is of no concern to me if you agree or do not agree in regards to my views, they are after all mine, not yours.
You are of the opinion that there is no God because God doesn't "behave" like YOU THINK He should.
Then in that case, you should simply admit that you can't conceive of a God that exists that is different than what YOU think He should be.
So, what doesn't exist is the God that YOU have created in your mind.
And I agree, that God doesn't exist.

Lunalle wrote:

TheArtfulDodger wrote: It's perfectly fine to have both past and present tense used in the same sentence.

Like: I am eating dinner right now; he has already eaten.

True, but again, your example does not match the original quote. A more accurate example would be:
I am eating dinner right now and am enjoying it, he is eating dinner right now and has already enjoyed it.

RE: Anyone who believes in him is not judged. But anyone who does not believe is judged already.

That is not representative of the Bible quote. In the Bible quote the second part has someone doing something in the present while another (God) doing the thing in the past.