On Orange Gods and the One Apple God

_{Barry Arrington

October 19, 2014

Off Topic}

Share: Facebook; Twitter; LinkedIn; Flipboard; Print; Email

This morning a friend said she had recently heard an atheist make the “I am atheistic about just one more god than you are” argument. Ricky Gervais makes the argument this way:

So next time someone tells me they believe in God, I’ll say “Oh which one? Zeus? Hades? Jupiter? Mars? Odin? Thor? Krishna? Vishnu? Ra?…” If they say “Just God. I only believe in the one God,” I’ll point out that they are nearly as atheistic as me. I don’t believe in 2,870 gods, and they don’t believe in 2,869.

Like many things the new atheists say, the argument has a kind of first blush plausibility but does not hold up on even a moment’s reflection. As David Bentley Hart explains in The Experience of God: Being, Consciousness, Bliss, Gervais has made a glaring category error by lumping the God of the three great monotheistic faiths in with other “gods”:

according to the classical metaphysical traditions of both the East and West, God is the unconditioned cause of reality – of absolutely everything that is – from the beginning to the end of time. Understood in this way, one can’t even say that God “exists” in the sense that my car or Mount Everest or electrons exist. God is what grounds the existence of every contingent thing, making it possible, sustaining it through time, unifying it, giving it actuality. God is the condition of the possibility of anything existing at all.

Properly understood, the God of the monotheistic faiths is not like the gods in the Greek, Norse or Indian pantheons – contingent creatures all. He is pure being that is the source of all being. He is the necessary being, and by definition there can be only one necessary being. The necessary being cannot be compared to contingent beings. To lump the God of the monotheistic faiths in with Odin demonstrates that you understand neither God nor Odin.

Think of it this way. Gervais says in essense: “There are a bunch of oranges, and I disbelieve in all of the oranges without exception. You are little different from me because you admit that you also disbelieve in all of the oranges, except for that last little orange that you irrationally insist on clinging to.” No, Ricky, just like you I disbelieve in all of the oranges without exception. But I do believe in an apple. Why should I stop believing in an apple just because I don’t believe in oranges?

Comments

A reminder on logic: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/darwinian-debating-devices-14-distorting-or-dismissing-self-evident-truths/kairosfocus_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
04:04 AM
4
04
04
AM
PDT}

HeKS at 174, that was well written and well reasoned post. A pleasure to read. Thank you.bornagain77_{October 21, 2014
October
10
Oct
21
21
2014
03:35 AM
3
03
35
AM
PDT}

@Aleta #165
I have said that I believe strongly that personal Gods of any sort don’t exist, and that I believe it much more likely that a non-personal foundation underlies, in some way, the universe we know. However, I am also very much a strong agnostic about all this – we can’t really know what lies behind/beyond the universe, either as an original or ongoing cause of states of nature.
I'm trying to understand what seems to be a contradiction here. You say: "I believe strongly that personal Gods of any sort don’t exist" That is a strong positive claim that is presumably based on something, though I don't think you've shared what. However, you also say: "I am also very much a strong agnostic about all this" This is a strong claim about the inability to attain relevant knowledge. If you strongly believe that we can't gain knowledge relevant to deciding this issue, then upon what do you base your strong positive belief in the non-existence of any personal God?
However, just as we (human beings and cultures in general) have invented religions, we have also invented metaphysical arguments that appear to be “logical” because we take for granted assumptions that seem to us unassailable, but which are in fact not necessarily true.
Are you suggesting that logic cannot provide us with powerful arguments? Or that logic itself is invalid? Or merely that we can't know what is really logical vs. what only appears to be "logical"? Or are you saying something else? We'll consider these arguments and assumptions more in a moment.
For instance, you write, “Big Bang cosmology holds that matter, space and time (at least as we know it), as well as the physical laws that govern them, came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang. The cause of the universe, then, would have to be of a nature that is immaterial, spaceless, and timeless.” But it is not true that the cause of the universe would “have to be” immaterial, spaceless, and timeless.
Well, it is true that the cause would have to have those qualities if matter, space and time did come into existence at the Big Bang, which is the standard view of Big Bang cosmology. So the first question is what positive reason we have to think that prior to the origin of the matter and space-time of our universe there was simply more matter and space-time?
There are may a “larger” level of reality that has matter, space, and time, or analogs to them, from which universes such as our arise. We really can’t know from what our universe came, because we are constrained to the universe of matter, space, and time that we live in.
The thing is, positing another super-space above our universe with more space, matter and time just pushes the problem back a level, but it doesn't solve it, because apart from the scientific evidence we have for the beginning of our universe, a hard beginning is also necessitated by the widely known philosophical and mathematical problems with the possibility of actual infinites, and particularly the impossibility of an infinite number of past events. So, even if we grant that the matter, and space-time of our universe were preceded by still more matter and space-time, the philosophical arguments against the possibility of actual infinites would necessitate a beginning for that pre-existing physical super space-time as well. And that super-space couldn't be timeless, because if it were it would be impossible for any material mechanism to cause our universe to come into existence. For the same reasons, we couldn't appeal to an infinite regress of higher level super spaces to avoid the problem.
Similarly, you write, “But this cause would also have to be personal, because any non-personal or mechanistic cause that is, in its nature, immaterial, spaceless and timeless, could not suddenly change its state so as to bring about the origin of the universe.” And we don’t know that – that is an unwarranted, and certainly not a necessary, assumption. Even in the world we live in, the interactions of things produce sudden changes of state without personal intervention or direction.
You're mistaken. It is not an unwarranted or unnecessary assumption. At some point, no matter how many higher-level super-spaces you try to appeal to, you eventually need to come to a hard beginning of space, matter and time, and no mechanism existing timelessly could change its state or interact with anything else to produce a change of state. And this conclusion is needed just to account for the existence of space-time itself. We haven't even drawn in the issue of the fine-tuning of the initial conditions of the Big Bang. So, it seems to me that based on the evidence we actually have available to us in our own universe for examination, as well as the logical arguments that can be derived from it, we have strong positive reasons to infer to a personal cause of the universe. To posit any other explanation is to ultimately disregard the evidence we do have on the assumption that there exists something beyond our universe that is not positively indicated by the evidence (e.g. a multiverse, further levels of physical super-spaces, etc.), and even those assumed explanatory entities don't actually resolve the problem. The whole affair simply amounts to appealing to a large number of additional explanatory entities that are not positively indicated by the evidence only for the sake of trying to (unsuccessfully) avoid the need for a personal cause.
My main point, then, is that your argument, which seems to show that “it is most rational to believe that unconditional cause is personal” follows only because you make assumptions about things that we can’t really know about that have embedded in them the conclusions that you reach.
Just the opposite really. I'm not making assumptions about what we can't know. I'm making inferences on the basis of what we do know from the evidence available to us and through the application of deductive logic. And so I stand by the claim that the view I'm proposing is the most reasonable and rational one.
The assumptions you make seem necessary to you because they fit of a piece with your theistic worldview, but to someone who doesn’t already accept that theistic worldview, they are not compelling assumptions and therefore don’t lead to a compelling conclusion.
Except that they aren't assumptions based on my theistic worldview, or even assumptions at all, but simply the most reasonable interpretation of the evidence in light of basic logic. And the implications of the Big Bang were, in fact, compelling (in the sense of being strongly suggestive of a particular conclusion) even to many atheists and agnostics. Consider some comments: "Astronomers now find they have painted themselves into a corner because they have proven, by their own methods, that the world began abruptly in an act of creation to which you can trace the seeds of every star, every planet, every living thing in this cosmos and on the earth. And they have found that all this happened as a product of forces they cannot hope to discover. That there are what I or anyone would call supernatural forces at work is now, I think, a scientifically proven fact." - Robert Jastrow, Astrophysicist "Philosophically the notion of a beginning of the present order is repugnant to me. I should like to find a genuine loophole. I simply do not believe the present order of things started off with a bang ... the expanding Universe is preposterous ... it leaves me cold." - Arthur Eddington, Astronomer "Perhaps the best argument in favour of the thesis that the Big Bang supports theism is the obvious unease with which it is greeted by some atheist physicists. At times this has led to scientific ideas, such as continuous creation or an oscillating universe, being advanced with a tenacity which so exceeds their intrinsic worth that one can only suspect the operation of psychological forces lying very much deeper than the usual academic desire of a theorist to support his or her theory." - C.J. Isham, Astrophysicist Einstein put a fudge factor in his equations for General Relativity to keep the universe steady because an expanding universe implied a beginning to the universe, which seemed far too religious to him. Fred Hoyle rejected the Big Bang theory when it was proposed by Georges Lemaitre because it sounded to him far too much like the Biblical creation story and it was initially thought that Lemaitre - who in addition to being a physicist was also a priest - was trying to sneak his religious views into science. So, I can't agree with you that the conclusions I draw from the evidence are simply based on theological assumptions I bring to the table, or that the arguments are only compelling because of my theistic worldview. They stand on their own. Perhaps I could take this opportunity to suggest you take a moment to look at Kairosfocus' recent post on Selective Hyperskepticism.HeKS_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
09:00 PM
9
09
00
PM
PDT}

Aleta,
I have said that I believe strongly that personal Gods of any sort don’t exist, and that I believe it much more likely that a non-personal foundation underlies, in some way, the universe we know. However, I am also very much a strong agnostic about all this – we can’t really know what lies behind/beyond the universe, either as an original or ongoing cause of states of nature.
Interesting and I believe you! You *strongly* believe two things: (1) that a personal God doesn't exist and (2) that you're strongly agnostic. As you indicated, these beliefs are outside of any objective evidence. But they are your firm beliefs, and they came from somewhere. The question is where. Could it be that you *want* to be an agnostic rather than an atheist, and that a personal God would be inconvenient? Again, I have no doubt about your honesty and that your beliefs have a rational cause. But here's a crazy guess . . . You're not ready to chuck God completely over the side, but you don't like the possibility that if you did allow yourself to get more involved, "God" might cramp your style. Go ahead and be honest with yourself. Am I all wet or more or less on-the-money? -QQuerius_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
07:50 PM
7
07
50
PM
PDT}

Axel Money is not the root of all evil, the love of money is. I hold that every cent ever made belongs to the creator of our universe, There are many wealthy people in the Bible and they certainly carried God's blessing. The minute money becomes more important than God the trouble starts.Andre_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
07:16 PM
7
07
16
PM
PDT}

Aleta, I'll get back to you a little later this evening.HeKS_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
06:40 PM
6
06
40
PM
PDT}

Turbokid @ 53 stated:
Querius, if you want a yes or no then my answer is no. But as i say, the question does not really have any meaning to me.
Thank you for your honesty---I truly understand what you're saying. You can always have a change of heart as long as your heart is beating, but if you actually do meet up with God after you die, and the same question is put to you, your answer would be the same. I believe this answers your earlier question:
Why would anyone fear an eternity of torment if the God is all-compassionate?
As Dionisio indicated earlier, God will not force you into intimate communion. The Christian sadhu, Sundar Singh, even suggested that no human is forced to go to hell, but rather it will be their preference. -QQuerius_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
06:02 PM
6
06
02
PM
PDT}

But alas Aleta, unless I'm missing something, you indeed ARE defending mechanical causality as primary and mind as derivative, which is a self-defeating proposition,, along that line, this may be of interest,, "Are We Really Conscious?": A Reply to Dr. Graziano's Brain - Michael Egnor - October 20, 2014 Excerpt: Our current morass in philosophy of the mind is a direct consequence of the Cartesian abandonment of the Aristotelian-Thomist understanding of the human person. In the Aristotelian-Thomist view, we are composites of soul and body -- form and matter -- which are inseparable in natural life. Psychological attributes like intelligence, will, perception, memory etc. are powers of human beings, not powers of organs. Such powers are properly applied only to persons qua persons, and not to parts of persons, even such important and fascinating parts as the brain. Neurophysiology is the proper study of the activities of the brain, which include metabolism, electrochemistry, etc. Psychology is the proper study of the powers of the human soul (psyche). Cognitive neuroscience is the proper study of the correlates between neurophysiology and psychology. But correlates are not causes, and it's essential that we do not conflate parts with wholes. http://www.evolutionnews.org/2014/10/are_we_really_c090461.htmlbornagain77_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
05:52 PM
5
05
52
PM
PDT}

BA writes, "I ask you why you believe that the logic/truthfulness of your argument may possibly have the power to persuade us that your atheism is correct?" I don't believe I'm been trying, through logical argument or otherwise, to persuade anyone that my view is correct, other than by just trying to articulate as best I can, under these circumstances, what I believe. It's useful to understand the position of others even if you don't agree with them. My goal is to offer an alternative perspective here - perhaps some reader may find an interesting thought that slightly changes their perspective, or not, but convincing anyone here that they should think as I do is not my goal. And I certainly don't claim, as you say Harris does, that my "position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic." In fact my last post explained what I think are flaws in claiming an "irresistible necessity of logic" when it comes to metaphysical beliefs, and explained my agnostic beliefs about, essentially, the necessity of living with uncertainty. Perhaps you didn't mean to hold me to the same position as Harris, but I want to make it clear that I'm expressing my thoughts, and not in any way wanting to defend the thoughts of Sam Harris.Aleta_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
05:32 PM
5
05
32
PM
PDT}

Aleta, since you "I believe it much more likely that a non-personal foundation underlies, in some way, the universe we know" ,,,and as such deny the reality of your own mind, then you don't mind (no pun intended) if I ask you why you believe that the logic/truthfulness of your argument may possibly have the power to persuade us that your atheism is correct? "There is something ironic about the position of thinkers like Harris on issues like this: they claim that their position is the result of the irresistible necessity of logic (in fact, they pride themselves on their logic). Their belief is the consequent, in a ground/consequent relation between their evidence and their conclusion. But their very stated position is that any mental state -- including their position on this issue -- is the effect of a physical, not logical cause. By their own logic, it isn't logic that demands their assent to the claim that free will is an illusion, but the prior chemical state of their brains. The only condition under which we could possibly find their argument convincing is if they are not true. The claim that free will is an illusion requires the possibility that minds have the freedom to assent to a logical argument, a freedom denied by the claim itself. It is an assent that must, in order to remain logical and not physiological, presume a perspective outside the physical order." http://www.evolutionnews.org/2012/11/sam_harriss_fre066221.html i.e. In my Theistic worldview you argument collapses in on itself, and in your worldview, I have no choice, regardless of how logical your argument may be, to believe it to be true.bornagain77_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:56 PM
4
04
56
PM
PDT}

Axel, You beautifully described it. I can't add anything. Thank you. While the sanctification process gradually makes us wanting to be more like Jesus, we turn more compassionate about the lost ones. We pray that the lost sheep will recognize the voice of their shepherd and run to Him, before it's too late. We don't know who will and who won't, but we should proclaim the good news to all without exclusion. After all, we too were lost, but now are found, were blind but now see. Our chains are gone, we've been set free. Our Savior has ransomed us. And like a flood, His mercy rains, unending love, amazing grace.Dionisio_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:52 PM
4
04
52
PM
PDT}

I'm still around today, and would like to reply to your thoughtful post, but to do so I need to back up a step. I have said that I believe strongly that personal Gods of any sort don't exist, and that I believe it much more likely that a non-personal foundation underlies, in some way, the universe we know. However, I am also very much a strong agnostic about all this - we can't really know what lies behind/beyond the universe, either as an original or ongoing cause of states of nature. However, just as we (human beings and cultures in general) have invented religions, we have also invented metaphysical arguments that appear to be "logical" because we take for granted assumptions that seem to us unassailable, but which are in fact not necessarily true. For instance, you write, "Big Bang cosmology holds that matter, space and time (at least as we know it), as well as the physical laws that govern them, came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang. The cause of the universe, then, would have to be of a nature that is immaterial, spaceless, and timeless." But it is not true that the cause of the universe would "have to be" immaterial, spaceless, and timeless. There are may a "larger" level of reality that has matter, space, and time, or analogs to them, from which universes such as our arise. We really can't know from what our universe came, because we are constrained to the universe of matter, space, and time that we live in. Similarly, you write, "But this cause would also have to be personal, because any non-personal or mechanistic cause that is, in its nature, immaterial, spaceless and timeless, could not suddenly change its state so as to bring about the origin of the universe." And we don't know that - that is an unwarranted, and certainly not a necessary, assumption. Even in the world we live in, the interactions of things produce sudden changes of state without personal intervention or direction. My main point, then, is that your argument, which seems to show that "it is most rational to believe that unconditional cause is personal" follows only because you make assumptions about things that we can't really know about that have embedded in them the conclusions that you reach. The assumptions you make seem necessary to you because they fit of a piece with your theistic worldview, but to someone who doesn't already accept that theistic worldview, they are not compelling assumptions and therefore don't lead to a compelling conclusion.Aleta_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:21 PM
4
04
21
PM
PDT}

I think we'll be entranced by the myriad ways in which the most sublime beauty is expressed by God's infinite love. We'll be intoxicated by it. Oddly enough, becoming part of it.Axel_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:13 PM
4
04
13
PM
PDT}

Hi Dionisio, No, I've long been persuaded that that is the case: that the 'children of darkness' can't bear the light, nor, as you indicate, the whole scene of adoration and praise of our God of infinite goodness, purity and beauty. It's as if by dying to ourselves here, we are making room for a spiritual nature to grow in us, one in which we shall literally feel 'at home' in heaven. And if we don't, then there simply won't be any space for this spiritual person, enlightened by the Holy Spirit, to be assimilated into us. The graft won't 'take' in the vine, but will fall to the ground.Axel_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
04:09 PM
4
04
09
PM
PDT}

Also of note to the claim of "mechanistic, unconditional cause”, that claim is simply 'not even wrong' “In the whole history of the universe the laws of nature have never produced, (i.e. caused), a single event.” C.S. Lewis - doodle video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_20yiBQAIlk "to say that a stone falls to earth because it's obeying a law, makes it a man and even a citizen" - CS Lewis Random Chance and Necessity (i.e. law) have never ‘caused’ anything to happen in the universe: https://uncommondescent.com/intelligent-design/one-of-the-four-horsemen-of-the-atheist-apocalypse-sort-of-thinks-there-is-free-will/#comment-519756 A Professor's Journey out of Nihilism: Why I am not an Atheist - University of Wyoming - J. Budziszewski Excerpt page12: "There were two great holes in the argument about the irrelevance of God. The first is that in order to attack free will, I supposed that I understood cause and effect; I supposed causation to be less mysterious than volition. If anything, it is the other way around. I can perceive a logical connection between premises and valid conclusions. I can perceive at least a rational connection between my willing to do something and my doing it. But between the apple and the earth, I can perceive no connection at all. Why does the apple fall? We don't know. "But there is gravity," you say. No, "gravity" is merely the name of the phenomenon, not its explanation. "But there are laws of gravity," you say. No, the "laws" are not its explanation either; they are merely a more precise description of the thing to be explained, which remains as mysterious as before. For just this reason, philosophers of science are shy of the term "laws"; they prefer "lawlike regularities." To call the equations of gravity "laws" and speak of the apple as "obeying" them is to speak as though, like the traffic laws, the "laws" of gravity are addressed to rational agents capable of conforming their wills to the command. This is cheating, because it makes mechanical causality (the more opaque of the two phenomena) seem like volition (the less). In my own way of thinking the cheating was even graver, because I attacked the less opaque in the name of the more. The other hole in my reasoning was cruder. If my imprisonment in a blind causality made my reasoning so unreliable that I couldn't trust my beliefs, then by the same token I shouldn't have trusted my beliefs about imprisonment in a blind causality. But in that case I had no business denying free will in the first place." http://www.undergroundthomist.org/sites/default/files/WhyIAmNotAnAtheist.pdfbornagain77_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
03:48 PM
3
03
48
PM
PDT}

Axel, Christians want to be in God's glorious presence eternally, because God is the ultimate reality, the Creator, who revealed His unconditional love and mercy and forgave their previous rebellious attitude, and provided the way to Him through their saving faith in Christ's redemptive death on the cross. Didn't leave much for them to do, just surrender and sing hallelujah! :)Dionisio_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
03:43 PM
3
03
43
PM
PDT}

HeKs you may appreciate this: What Properties Must the Cause of the Universe Have? - William Lane Craig - video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1SZWInkDIVI The First Cause Must Be A Personal Being - William Lane Craig - video http://www.metacafe.com/w/4813914bornagain77_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
03:41 PM
3
03
41
PM
PDT}

@ Aleta #139
do you accept the distinction I make between a personal and non-personal “unconditional cause” and just think I am wrong about a non-personal unconditional cause being the case, or even being possible?
Aleta, if you're still around I'd like to address this. I think it is correct to recognize a distinction between a personal "unconditional cause" and a non-personal, or mechanistic, "unconditional cause". However, I would say that you are, indeed, wrong about a non-personal unconditional cause being the case and that such a non-personal cause would not be a viable explanatory entity. This unconditional cause would be the cause of material reality (i.e. the material universe) at the Big Bang. Big Bang cosmology holds that matter, space and time (at least as we know it), as well as the physical laws that govern them, came into existence at the moment of the Big Bang. The cause of the universe, then, would have to be of a nature that is immaterial, spaceless, and timeless. Obviously, it would also have to be immensely powerful. But this cause would also have to be personal, because any non-personal or mechanistic cause that is, in its nature, immaterial, spaceless and timeless, could not suddenly change its state so as to bring about the origin of the universe. Any mechanistic cause would need to achieve sufficient conditions to bring about the universe as an effect, but any mechanistic cause that meets the criteria of being immaterial, spaceless and timeless would not only be "changeless" in its natural state, but actually "unchangeable" in principle. This means that a mechanistic cause would either never achieve sufficient conditions to bring about the universe or else would have ALWAYS met those sufficient conditions, in which case our universe should be infinitely old, which it isn't. Conversely, a personal cause, one with a mind and possessing free will alongside the other criteria mentioned, could freely choose to change its state and bring about a new effect like the universe. This issue was summarized nicely by a British Mathematician and Physicist, named Edward Whittaker. Here's what he said:
"There is no ground for supposing that matter and energy existed before and was suddenly galvanized into action. For what could distinguish that moment from all other moments in eternity? It is simpler to postulate creation ex nihilo -- Divine will constituting Nature from nothingness."
Whittaker's comments would apply equally to any non-material mechanistic cause (if one can imagine such a thing). So, if you believe there is most likely an "unconditional cause of reality", then it is most rational to believe that unconditional cause is personal. Take care, HeKSHeKS_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
03:15 PM
3
03
15
PM
PDT}

Axel, I forgot to address post #157 to you. Please, read it and let me know if you disagree with anything I wrote, so I go back and review it. Thank you. Rev. 22:21Dionisio_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
03:04 PM
3
03
04
PM
PDT}

#150 continuation... Those who deny God or get so irritated when someone praises God or mock God believers or don't tolerate the mentioning of Christ as God, would be tormented in heaven, where all we want to do is praising God and enjoy His presence forever. But God, in infinite love and compassion, won't force anyone to that kind of torment, against their will. Only those who know God intimately and want to enjoy His presence eternally, would long for heaven. Because that's all heaven is: the wow! amazing indescribable opportunity to be in God's glorious presence without the limitation of space or time. However, the pass to heaven has a high price we can't pay. God provided that payment with the blood of Christ on the cross. Christ certified His credentials with His resurrection. Jesus claimed to be the only way to that eternal state. All we have to do is genuinely accept Him into our lives. It has been said that this world is the closest to heaven God deniers and mockers will ever be. And we can see they don't like anything that reminds what heaven is all about. Now imagine a place where the central focus constantly is God, because there's no time boundaries. That, which for us who adore Christ will be the ultimate hallelujah! source of joy, must be a real torment for those who deny Christ. God in His infinite providence has allowed them to stay out of that eternal meeting. Actually, according to the scriptures, God has allowed the undecided to stay out too. It is only the ones who have decided to follow Jesus who will be taken into that wedding of the Lamb of God with His own church. Now, I don't quite understand what they are complaining about. What fear are they talking about? What torment?Dionisio_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
02:55 PM
2
02
55
PM
PDT}

Oddly enough, Dionisio, I've been arguing with a woman on a Catholic site, who obsesses about being perfect. I get the feeling Jesus might just as well have not bothered. She does sound distinctly unbalanced, though, that hobby-horse, just being indicative of larger problem. Still, if you were going to lead me towards Calvinism, I'll hold on to that thought in my #153. I don't doubt your Christianity or your rationality.Axel_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
02:45 PM
2
02
45
PM
PDT}

stevah @ 151. Now you are just blithering. I will try to help you again by saying: Stop it. It's embarrassing.Barry Arrington_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
02:13 PM
2
02
13
PM
PDT}

Joe at 122 I noticed you did not answer the question as to whether Jesus 'ceased to exist', i.e. died, but instead tried to turn your dilemma around and insinuate that since no one ceases to exist then everyone is God
122 You claim that Jesus died and that God cannot die and that therefore Jesus is not God. That is only one reason but it is enough. noted in response to you that the soul/mind of Jesus did not die and only his mortal body died therefore God did not literally ‘die’. Only mortal bodies die- that includes everyone. So everyone is God?
Everyone has a indestructible soul, but only one soul claimed to be God and proved it by raising his body from the dead 'laying his body down and taking it back up again'... Moreover, as pointed out in 62,, https://uncommondescent.com/off-topic/on-orange-gods-and-the-one-apple-god/#comment-520094 ,,only Jesus's resurrection from the dead provides a very credible reconcilliation of Quantum Mechanics and General Relativity into the much sought after 'theory of everything' thus substantiating this following claim from Christ,,,
Matthew 28:18 Then Jesus came to them and said, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Further notes,, Shroud Of Turin - 3 Dimensional Hologram Reveals Words ‘The Lamb’ - video http://vimeo.com/97156784 Solid Oval Object Under The Beard http://shroud3d.com/findings/solid-oval-object-under-the-beard Scientists say Turin Shroud is supernatural - December 2011 Excerpt: After years of work trying to replicate the colouring on the shroud, a similar image has been created by the scientists. However, they only managed the effect by scorching equivalent linen material with high-intensity ultra violet lasers, undermining the arguments of other research, they say, which claims the Turin Shroud is a medieval hoax. Such technology, say researchers from the National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development (Enea), was far beyond the capability of medieval forgers, whom most experts have credited with making the famous relic. "The results show that a short and intense burst of UV directional radiation can colour a linen cloth so as to reproduce many of the peculiar characteristics of the body image on the Shroud of Turin," they said. And in case there was any doubt about the preternatural degree of energy needed to make such distinct marks, the Enea report spells it out: "This degree of power cannot be reproduced by any normal UV source built to date." http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/scientists-say-turin-shroud-is-supernatural-6279512.html
bornagain77_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
02:07 PM
2
02
07
PM
PDT}

And you write very beautifully from the heart.Axel_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
02:06 PM
2
02
06
PM
PDT}

Yes, I do agree, Dionisio.Axel_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
02:04 PM
2
02
04
PM
PDT}

The category “necessary being” is not ad hoc; nor is it unreasoned.
I never heard an atheist argue "we all lack belief in thousands of necessary beings, I only believe in one less necessary being than you". I should also add: Our belief in the numbers of gods who lack a Noodly Appendage also differ by one out of thousands (plus one that has one). I don't see how bringing up noodly appendages is any more ad-hoc or unreasonable in this context than what you have done.steveh_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
01:48 PM
1
01
48
PM
PDT}

#146 follow-up or addendum or continuation: All that said, here comes the 'compassionate' part of the story: I believe, based on what is written in the scriptures, that God, in addition to being pure and just, is also loving and compassionate. In His infinite wisdom, which is unfathomable to us, He decided (i.e. by His own initiative) to provide a way for us to be in His glorious presence eternally. However, He doesn't force anyone into this against their will. Do you agree so far?Dionisio_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
01:45 PM
1
01
45
PM
PDT}

Yes, very substantively, I'm with you right up to that point, Dionisio (up to a point, which I'll adumbrate in a mo). But I just hope you're not heading for Calvinism. I've heard youngsters on a Christian forum effectively boasting that they can do what they like because they've been saved. As if proud of how little to zero commitment to Christ they needed to show. Because they knew they'd been saved!!!! I boiled over once, and pointed out that young girls fired by an all together different spirit, a spirit of courage, rather than pusillanimity, had chosen a martyr's death, rather than fail in their witness to their faith.Axel_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
01:43 PM
1
01
43
PM
PDT}

#146 correction
..., regardless of what ~~you~~ we think or do,...
Dionisio_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
01:34 PM
1
01
34
PM
PDT}

'It is true that Ismael was blessed, a promise we seen even today with the Arab worlds being blessed with wealth,' I would have thought it more of a curse, Andre. And hideous as the suffering of the mass of the inhabitants of those Moslem countries has been, through all manner of wars, I really believe the most unfortunate of all are the rich citizenry of the mega-rich oil states, such a Kuwait, Qatar, etc. What makes me think this, is the way in which too many of them I have read about in the newspapers, either enslave or all but enslave people from poorer countries, who work for them as menials (also) in the UK, or labourers on their construction sites. No need for it whatsoever. So they must have an intolerable darkness in their hearts that such wealth can only exacerbate.Axel_{October 20, 2014
October
10
Oct
20
20
2014
01:30 PM
1
01
30
PM
PDT}

Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 … 9 Next

You must be logged in to post a comment.

Leave a Reply