I'm a Theist

Is there a God? If so, what is She like?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9077
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Immanuel Can »

Immanuel Can wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 3:32 am
gaffo wrote: Mon Dec 09, 2019 3:08 am i try not to insult folks a like, and i like you, but i do get hot headed rarely, and if i do, and insult you in the future, point it out (if I do not do see it and correct myself and mea culpa - point out i'm being a dick to you, and i will self reflect and appologize to you (for the record you have shown me the upmost respect and one man to another of goodwill - so i have no complants).
Oh, hey...likewise. No problem. We're good.
yes i do have a prety high knowledge of Gnostcism (its not just one religion - but 100+ sects each different, but all similar in central mindset) - all of them are of course extinct now, the Catholic Church removed the last sect around 1200 in Spain (via that fellow that said "kill them all and let God sort them out). Aberginians(sp)?
The Albigenses, Cathars and others are problematic for us to figure out, because most of what we know about them we get from Catholic records, mostly written by the people who rounded them up and killed them. That means they were considered "heretics," and so the Catholics had a stake in saying they were very bad in some way because, well, it's not good to hurt nice people, but feels better if the people you're hurting are very bad. So really, we don't know much from original records, because most of those were burned or lost. So maybe they believed what the Catholics tell us they believed, and maybe they didn't. We may never know for sure.

Were they Gnostic? Maybe. Or was that just the easiest negative thing for their persecutors to say when somebody asked, "How do you know they're heretics?" Maybe.

However, interestingly, Gnosticism isn't entirely a feature of the past. While it did go underground in the 17th Century, it kept popping up in the form of various cults and smaller groups after that. It never really disappeared. For example, the Masons and Mormons both have Gnostic theologies. But lately, it's cropped up in an unexpected way, among technophiles of various kinds. There's even a group called the Extropians, who have Gnostic ideas but think "enlightenment" will entail escape from the body into the world of computers.

I thought you'd find that interesting.
I've asked you many times now - but you prefer your anonemnity(sp) - where are you from? Canada has been my guess since last year, but you could be UK, Ausie, or Kiwi - for some reason i've always leaned toward CA via your posts.
Well, I've said before that I'm not American, but like Americans and have travelled in America. But my parents' families are from Europe, and I spent years in the Developing World as well. In my messages, I don't spell like an American or use (many) UK stock phrases, though I do use some, perhaps.

As for my current location, I have no durable affinity to it. But it's a nice place. Does it matter, then?
User avatar
bahman
Posts: 3206
Joined: Fri Aug 05, 2016 3:52 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by bahman »

BardoXV wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:43 pm More specifically a Lutheran but I listen to a lot of Atheist programs and call-in shows. Mostly I agree with the Atheist as they demolish the Theist who tries to prove the existence of God. I look at the old testament as parabel since Jesus had to learn the practice somewhere.
I am an atheist but I believe in spiritual realities. I have an argument against the act of creation: The act of creation out of nothing means that there was a point that only God existed and then there is another point that God and creation exist. This requires time since one point follows another and there is a duration between two points, no matter how small. Time, however, is part of creation. This means that you need time for the creation of time which is regress.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9077
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Immanuel Can »

bahman wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:22 am I have an argument against the act of creation: The act of creation out of nothing means that there was a point that only God existed and then there is another point that God and creation exist. This requires time since one point follows another and there is a duration between two points, no matter how small. Time, however, is part of creation. This means that you need time for the creation of time which is regress.
So let's see if I can figure out how you find this argument to work.

You suppose that a) time is a feature of creation...I'm not sure how you come to that, but okay. b) you can use "time" to refer to the period before time was created? :shock: I'm not sure how you get that, but okay. c) this somehow implicates a "regress"?

Maybe you could fill that out a bit for me...it seems like a possible critique of Unitarianism, if it were fixed up a bit. But I'm not even quite sure about that...I'm going to have to wait for the clearer explanation before I could comment.
BardoXV
Posts: 67
Joined: Mon Jun 03, 2019 3:29 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by BardoXV »

bahman wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 1:22 am
BardoXV wrote: Wed Nov 20, 2019 6:43 pm More specifically a Lutheran but I listen to a lot of Atheist programs and call-in shows. Mostly I agree with the Atheist as they demolish the Theist who tries to prove the existence of God. I look at the old testament as parabel since Jesus had to learn the practice somewhere.
I am an atheist but I believe in spiritual realities. I have an argument against the act of creation: The act of creation out of nothing means that there was a point that only God existed and then there is another point that God and creation exist. This requires time since one point follows another and there is a duration between two points, no matter how small. Time, however, is part of creation. This means that you need time for the creation of time which is regress.
Science does not state that something was created out of nothing, that is a creationist misunderstanding of science. Science only states that, as far as science can determine, time began at the Big Bang, science does not state what existed before the Big Bang.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9077
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Immanuel Can »

BardoXV wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:17 am Science does not state that something was created out of nothing, that is a creationist misunderstanding of science.
Actually, that's an inescapable deduction from causality...unless you think causality itself began at the Big Bang, but that would take some very special kind of explaining. I'm not sure anybody's up to that.
surreptitious57
Posts: 4217
Joined: Fri Oct 25, 2013 6:09 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by surreptitious57 »

Time did not begin at the Big Bang but what happened before it is not known as that is the point at which the current laws of physics break down
What is known however is that quantum mechanics absolutely forbids the existence of a singularity so time could not have experienced it as such
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:08 am
BardoXV wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:17 am Science does not state that something was created out of nothing, that is a creationist misunderstanding of science.
Actually, that's an inescapable deduction from causality...
Not it is not.

Causality was obviously NOT created out of nothing. Just as obvious is causality ALWAYS exists.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 5:08 am unless you think causality itself began at the Big Bang, but that would take some very special kind of explaining. I'm not sure anybody's up to that.
That "very special kind of explaining" would be like the very special kind of explaining that would be needed to explain how some thing, which is separated from Everything, created absolutely EVERY thing. I KNOW that NO one is able to do that. (Although some BELIEVE this to be TRUE.)
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Age »

surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 6:26 am Time did not begin at the Big Bang but what happened before it is not known as that is the point at which the current laws of physics break down
Current laws, when this is written, do not break down at a point known as the "big bang". Human beings just do NOT see current laws beyond/before that "bang".
surreptitious57 wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 6:26 amWhat is known however is that quantum mechanics absolutely forbids the existence of a singularity so time could not have experienced it as such
Quantum mechanics does not absolutely forbid the existence of a singularity. The way human beings look at things, they then come to this, wrong, "conclusion".

'Time', also, is NOT a thing that could experience any thing, including 'singularity'.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9077
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 6:50 am Just as obvious is causality ALWAYS exists.
Mathematically falsifiable. We know that's not true, because of the infinite regress problem: an infinite chain of causes never gets started.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 2:52 pm
Age wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 6:50 am Just as obvious is causality ALWAYS exists.
Mathematically falsifiable.
Well this is obviously false.

Will 'you' provide absolutely ANY thing, which SHOWS 'causality ALWAYS exists' is mathematically falsifiable?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 2:52 pm We know that's not true,
Who/what is this 'we', which 'you', human beings, use quite frequently, thinking and hoping that "they" will somehow back 'you' up and support 'you'.

'you', "immanuel can", supposedly knows that what I said is not true, correct?

If yes, then who, or what, "else" exactly knows this also?
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 2:52 pmbecause of the infinite regress problem:
But there is NO "problem" here at all.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 2:52 pman infinite chain of causes never gets started.
LOL


So, 'you' agree with me now?

I did, after all, just say and state, in different words, that an infinite chain of causes never gets started. In much simpler, and much easier to understand, terms; Causality ALWAYS exists. This just means obviously an infinite chain of causes NEVER started, nor NEVER ends. This chain of causes is causality, which ALWAYS exists.

So, very simple and so very easy to understand, and so simple and easy to understand that NO "problem" actually ever existed here.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9077
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 3:18 pm Will 'you' provide absolutely ANY thing, which SHOWS 'causality ALWAYS exists' is mathematically falsifiable?
Go and look up the "infinite causal regress" problem. Then you'll see, and you won't have to bother with the inane and childish ad hominems, because I won't have been the one who told you.

https://www.reasonablefaith.org/writing ... -argument/
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 3:32 pm
Age wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 3:18 pm Will 'you' provide absolutely ANY thing, which SHOWS 'causality ALWAYS exists' is mathematically falsifiable?
Go and look up the "infinite causal regress" problem.
To me, there is NO 'problem', and the "problem" you still see has already been resolved, a while ago now.

You even just AGREED WITH ME that 'causality ALWAYS exists', correct?

If no, then go back and 'look at your own words'.
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 3:32 pm Then you'll see, and you won't have to bother with the inane and childish ad hominems, because I won't have been the one who told you.
LOL

ANOTHER who can NOT provide any thing them "self", and just says "look it up". There is NOTHING there, but your OWN distorted thinking.

Also, 'what' "ad hominems" are 'you' also referring to? Or, do you want me to go and "look them up" also?
Do you STILL see things in that link that have not already been solved?

If yes, then WHY do you think that is?

If no, then okay.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9077
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 3:59 pm
Do you STILL see things in that link that have not already been solved?
You should. And if you don't, I'm not arguing with you. The link is. Deal with the data, or don't.
Age
Posts: 5113
Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2018 8:17 am

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Age »

Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:04 pm
Age wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 3:59 pm
Do you STILL see things in that link that have not already been solved?
You should. And if you don't, I'm not arguing with you. The link is. Deal with the data, or don't.
LOL

The link does NOT soundly and validly argue any thing. The so called "argument/s" is based off and from BELIEF only, which obviously could be completely and wholly WRONG.

"the data"???

What 'data'?

Obviously causality exists, and just as obvious is causality ALWAYS exists. This can not be refuted. Obviously ALL the evidence already points to this FACT, which has already been proven to be True. So, to see otherwise, suggests some sort of BELIEF, which is distorting the CLEAR and True Picture of things.
User avatar
Immanuel Can
Posts: 9077
Joined: Wed Sep 25, 2013 4:42 pm

Re: I'm a Theist

Post by Immanuel Can »

Age wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:15 pm
Immanuel Can wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 4:04 pm
Age wrote: Thu Dec 19, 2019 3:59 pm
Do you STILL see things in that link that have not already been solved?
You should. And if you don't, I'm not arguing with you. The link is. Deal with the data, or don't.
What 'data'?
The link. It provides the argument.

If you have nothing to say in specific refutation of its argument, you have nothing to say on the subject.

Fair enough.
Post Reply