Evidence for God from Science

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote:

Kenny wrote:

RickD wrote: Keep the peace? Sorry Kenny, that's a load of crap. Jac wrote the book. And he already has you on ignore, so it makes no difference.
It doesn't even matter if you agree with what he wrote. I want you to read that section because I want you to understand our argument.

I already understand he argument from the book! Nicki explained it back on page 14 or 15 already; haven't you been keeping up?

Ken

No Kenny, you don't understand what Jac wrote. Otherwise you wouldn't have said this:

Nicki wrote:
Jac's book answered this quite nicely, I thought - in essence, that God is goodness, or good is what God is, and when he says what is right that's his expression of his nature. Hope my summary's all right, Jac.

Ken wrote:
Sounds like answer #1. Thanks for answering my question.

Ken

You want to try again?

I also said this:
Nicki answer was "X" is right because "X" is an expression of God's nature.
Do you agree this is the answer the book provides?

Ken

Actually Kenny,

You wrote:

Nicki answer was "X" is right because "X" is an expression of God's nature. Though worded differently, that is basically the same as #1.

Ken

It's not "basically" the same as #1. It's a completely different answer. #1 says morality is determined by God's decrees. Which would mean that if God decided to decree that murder is not wrong from now on, then morality is based on nothing more than God's arbitrary declaration. And there really would be no such thing as a moral law.

Whereas the third option is based on God's unchanging nature. And since God decrees according to His nature, or who He is. So, murder is wrong because murder is contrary to God's nature. And since God's nature is unchanging, morality is unchanging and objective.
Some of what I said, was just repeating what Jac said in his book. He says it much better than I can, so again, I ask you to read pg 93-97 of his book.

And yes, I agree with what Jac says about this in his book. Neither of the other 2 answers is logical.

Kenny wrote:
Fair enough. To me the answer is the same as #1, but to you there is an obvious difference. But this obvious difference still does not support your claim! Believing good is God’s nature does not mean good is meaningless without God, good still has meaning to the person judging the action as good weather he believes in God or not.

Ken

Arbitrary actions are closely related to teleology, the study of purpose. Actions lacking a telos, a goal, are necessarily arbitrary. With no end to measure against, there can be no standard applied to choices, so all decisions are alike. Note that arbitrary or random methods in the standard sense of arbitrary may not qualify as arbitrary choices philosophically, if they were done in furtherance of a larger purpose; in the examples above, discipline in school and avoiding overcrowding at gas stations.

Nihilism is the philosophy that believes that there is no purpose in the universe, and that every choice is arbitrary.[6] According to nihilism, the universe contains no value and is essentially meaningless. Because the universe and all of its constituents contain no higher goal for us to make subgoals from, all aspects of human life and experiences are completely arbitrary. There is no right or wrong decision, thought or practice, and whatever choice a human being makes is just as meaningless and empty as any other choice he or she could have made.

RickD wrote:Proverbs 26:4 indeed.

B. W. wrote:

RickD wrote:<a class="rtBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Prov%2026.4" data-reference="Prov 26.4" data-version="nasb95" data-purpose="bible-reference" target="_blank">Proverbs 26:4</a> indeed.

<a class="rtBibleRef" href="http://biblia.com/bible/nasb95/Prov%2026.4" data-reference="Prov 26.4" data-version="nasb95" data-purpose="bible-reference" target="_blank">Proverbs 26:4</a> and now all who read can see what this verse means first hand and guess what - that's good!


-
-
-

Kenny wrote:So we’re quoting scriptures now? Consider Matthew 7:12.
It seems the very people who insist I consider to an alternative point of view, listen and try to learn from their words, make an effort to understand an opposing persons POV, these are the very people who are least likely to do that themselves. Kinda funny how that works huh?

Ken

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:So we’re quoting scriptures now? Consider Matthew 7:12.
It seems the very people who insist I consider to an alternative point of view, listen and try to learn from their words, make an effort to understand an opposing persons POV, these are the very people who are least likely to do that themselves. Kinda funny how that works huh?

Ken

I love it when your more Christian side comes out Kenny.

Posted below are 13 rules from Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals

1-“Power is not only what you have, but what the enemy thinks you have.” Power is derived from 2 main sources – money and people. “Have-Nots” must build power from flesh and blood.

2-“Never go outside the expertise of your people.” It results in confusion, fear and retreat. Feeling secure adds to the backbone of anyone.

3-“Whenever possible, go outside the expertise of the enemy.” Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety and uncertainty.

4-“Make the enemy live up to its own book of rules.” If the rule is that every letter gets a reply, send 30,000 letters. You can kill them with this because no one can possibly obey all of their own rules.

5-“Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon.” There is no defense. It’s irrational. It’s infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force the enemy into concessions.

6-“A good tactic is one your people enjoy.” They’ll keep doing it without urging and come back to do more. They’re doing their thing, and will even suggest better ones.

7-“A tactic that drags on too long becomes a drag.” Don’t become old news.

8-“Keep the pressure on. Never let up.” Keep trying new things to keep the opposition off balance. As the opposition masters one approach, hit them from the flank with something new.

9-“The threat is usually more terrifying than the thing itself.” Imagination and ego can dream up many more consequences than any activist.

10- "The major premise for tactics is the development of operations that will maintain a constant pressure upon the opposition." It is this unceasing pressure that results in the reactions from the opposition that are essential for the success of the campaign.

11-“If you push a negative hard enough, it will push through and become a positive.” Violence from the other side can win the public to your side because the public sympathizes with the underdog.

12-“The price of a successful attack is a constructive alternative.” Never let the enemy score points because you’re caught without a solution to the problem.

13-“Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.” Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

Kurieuo wrote:

Kenny wrote:So we’re quoting scriptures now? Consider Matthew 7:12.
It seems the very people who insist I consider to an alternative point of view, listen and try to learn from their words, make an effort to understand an opposing persons POV, these are the very people who are least likely to do that themselves. Kinda funny how that works huh?

Ken

I love it when your more Christian side comes out Kenny.

B. W. wrote:And how many post has Kenny made so far on this forum and on this thread to speak his mind freely?

and folks think we haven't considered his views?

B. W. wrote:Fact of the matter, Kenny does not regard any alternative point of view, nor will he listen and try to learn from the others words here,

B. W. wrote:nor does he make an effort to understand an opposing persons POV on this thread. We have and tried and tried to have an intelligent conversation but to o avail,

Kurieuo wrote:Yes, I don't argue with that B.W.
I'm quite aware to the spinning that goes on by those who deny God.

What I said was more to make Ken reflect and doubt himself. Analyse any possible "inner Christian" if you will.

Let me very openly summarise what I see regardless of whether I'm wrong and over-analysing.

Ken is at these boards not to just be a pain to us Christians as much as it might appear to the contrary.
His being a pain is because he was raised in a Christian household and then turned away in frustration.
At some point, for some reason, he resented his own Dad and/or the particular form of Christianity that he came to experience and know.
I expect the Christianity he knew was very judgemental, from Kenny's own words "fire and brimstone" talk, and had little message about the love and grace upon which is the cornerstone of the Gospel and why Christ came.
And if they did talk of love and grace, such was quickly contradicted and overturned, had the rug pulled out from, with a legalism that often strangles the "Good News".

So Kenny either saw or found some sort of love and grace that elsewhere. Sadly, not in Christianity.
Perhaps in someone else God placed in his life. Perhaps he's still searching.

And now, he's here because, well, at some level he's wondering about such Christianity.
Maybe he has loose ends with his younger Christian identity. I don't know,
but I do not sense that everything with Ken is as anti-Christian as it seems.

He won't let on, maybe even finds it hard to admit to himself.
But something doesn't add up with Kenny.

If I'm wrong, then I'm happy to be wrong still, for the hope that I am right.
What do I base this on? Some sort of gut intuition.

Nonetheless, these forums would actually be quite dead without the likes of Kenny around so...
And I do not intend to this in anyway as judgement upon those who treat Kenny with more strong words and call his bluff.
It is also good that people here state their minds and respond in very blunt terms. Authentic and honest. Direct. Stops any pretense that these issues don't matter.

However, for myself, I simply decided to opt for a different approach with Kenny several months back.