|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
posted December 20, 2009 01:08 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
The materialialist atheist view is irrational becasue it has to either hold that: 1) the universe is eternal; or 2) the universe came from absolute nothing with no cause. Both positions are irratinoal based on what we now know about science.
3) Based on what science has so far observed, the origins of the universe are for the most part unknown, but we believe that there is a natural cause for everything.
Present a "natural explanation" that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. If you can do so, you will outdo notable atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens who can offer can offer no such explanation. All they can do is say, "I don't know what caused the universe to come into existence, but it was not God because God is only a delusion." That is a paraphrase, but I think it well represents their position. Well, Dawkins did suggets once that aliens created everything but then he couldn't explain the origin of aliens.
I contend that there could be no natural explanation for the universe because before the universe as there was no nature. There was nothing of matter or energy. The first cause had to be "beyond nature." Supernatural, if you will. This cause had to be timeless ( it created time), spaceless (it created space), immaterial (it created matter), powerful (it created out of nothing), personal (it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something-impersonal forces don’t make choices). and intelligent (there are lots of requirements for life to exist on earth for example.)
Quote:
Quote:
What is dishonest is to take only two words from my sentence. What is idiotic is to say that atheists did not make that claim. They held it, and it has been soundly debunked. The claim of an eternal universe now goes against known science an is therefore irrational.
Oh really? I say it again: There is no true scotsman of atheists.
It seems some atheists like to talk about Scotsmen. but that is not applicable. So you really deny that it was a common atheist argument that the universe is eternal? Very well, I will enlighten you on the recent history of the atheist religion. I'm going to quote the introduction to an article. Perhaps you should read the entire articl.
Clicky
Quote:
There are significant turning points in the history of mankind. We are now living in one of them. Some call it globalization and some say that this is the genesis of the "information age." These are true, but there is yet a more important concept than these. Although some are unaware of it, great advances have been made in science and philosophy in the last 20-25 years. Atheism, which has held sway over the world of science and philosophy since the 19th century is now collapsing in an inevitable way.
Of course, atheism, the idea of rejecting God's existence, has always existed from ancient times. But the rise of this idea actually began in the 18th century in Europe with the spread and political effect of the philosophy of some anti-religious thinkers. Materialists such as Diderot and Baron d'Holbach proposed that the universe was a conglomeration of matter that had existed forever and that nothing else existed besides matter. In the 19th century, atheism spread even farther. Thinkers such as Marx, Engels, Nietsche, Durkheim or Freud applied atheist thinking to different fields of science and philosophy.
The greatest support for atheism came from Charles Darwin who rejected the idea of creation and proposed the theory of evolution to counter it. Darwinism gave a supposedly scientific answer to the question that had baffled atheists for centuries: "How did human beings and living things come to be?" This theory convinced a great many people of its claim that there was a mechanism in nature that animated lifeless matter and produced millions of different living species from it.
Towards the end of the 19th century, atheists formulated a world view that they thought explained everything; they denied that the universe was created saying that it had no beginning but had existed forever. They claimed that the universe had no purpose but that its order and balance were the result of chance; they believed that the question of how human beings and other living things came into being was answered by Darwinism. They believed that Marx or Durkheim had explained history and sociology, and that Freud had explained psychology on the basis of atheist assumptions.
However, these views were later invalidated in the 20th century by scientific, political and social developments. Many and various discoveries in the fields of astronomy, biology, psychology and social sciences have nullified the bases of all atheist suppositions.
In his book, God: The Evidence, The Reconciliation of Faith and Reason in a Postsecular World, the American scholar Patrick Glynn from the George Washington University writes:
The past two decades of research have overturned nearly all the important assumptions and predictions of an earlier generation of modern secular and atheist thinkers relating to the issue of God. Modern thinkers assumed that science would reveal the universe to be ever more random and mechanical; instead it has discovered unexpected new layers of intricate order that bespeak an almost unimaginably vast master design. Modern psychologists predicted that religion would be exposed as a neurosis and outgrown; instead, religious commitment has been shown empirically to be a vital component of basic mental health...
Few people seem to realize this, but by now it should be clear: Over the course of a century in the great debate between science and faith, the tables have completely turned. In the wake of Darwin, atheists and agnostics like Huxley and Russell could point to what appeared to be a solid body of testable theory purportedly showing life to be accidental and the universe radically contingent. Many scientists and intellectuals continue to cleave to this worldview. But they are increasingly pressed to almost absurd lengths to defend it. Today the concrete data point strongly in the direction of the God hypothesis.1
Science, which has been presented as the pillar of atheist/materialist philosophy, turns out to be the opposite. As another writer puts it, "The strict materialism that excludes all purpose, choice and spirituality from the world simply cannot account for the data pour in from labs and observatories."2
Quote:
The first cause, the uncased cause, had to be self existant. Eternal. God.
Quote:
The materialialist atheist view is irrational becasue it has to either hold that: 1) the universe is eternal; or 2) the universe came from absolute nothing with no cause. Both positions are irratinoal based on what we now know about science.
Quote:
BULLsnow! You still claim that atheists hold this view. If you are an atheist you are just say "There is no God or Gods", which are not related to your hate propaganda(what else can I interpret it as?).
Amazingly, many atheists on this board have called other religions irrational but when someone points out that atheism is irrational they seem to freak out. No, saying atheism is irrational is not hate propaganda. I pointed out the fact that materialistic atheism is in opposition to known science.. That is not hate. Saying that an eternal universe violates the laws of thermodynamics is not hate. Saying the universe could not have come from absolute nothing without a cause is not hate. Saying that materialistic atheists have to either believe in an eternal universe or a self-creating universe is not hate. There is no other option if God did not create.
Quote:
That is not evidence, that is claiming. Claiming is NOT good unless its clearly stated. So please stop your bullsnow or reword your phrases so they at the least don't repesent 100% pure bullsnow.
I'm sorry, but how are the laws of thermodynamics not evidence? How are the observations done by such things as the Hubble telescope not evidence? The observed evidence points to the universe having a beginning.
Quote:
I read that too, the reason was that a anti-theist wanted a study group in a prison somewhere. The result was a court case, and he was allowed to make this group. To make such a study group, you need to "have a faith". So the court ruled nothing more than the lack of faith, or better phrased: "The belief there is no god/gods" is a valid faith.
So its a "faith", but not a "religion". There is groups, but there is no "atheist religion" in comparision to "a christian religion".
Look man, below is what the 7th District Court ruled and what the Supreme Court said. . In addition, atheists believe things they can't prove. Atheism is a religion.
Clicky
Quote:
A federal court of appeals ruled yesterday Wisconsin prison officials violated an inmate's rights because they did not treat atheism as a religion.
"Atheism is [the inmate's] religion, and the group that he wanted to start was religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being," the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals said.
The court decided the inmate's First Amendment rights were violated because the prison refused to allow him to create a study group for atheists.
Brian Fahling, senior trial attorney for the American Family Association Center for Law & Policy, called the court's ruling "a sort of Alice in Wonderland jurisprudence."
"Up is down, and atheism, the antithesis of religion, is religion," said Fahling.
The Supreme Court has said a religion need not be based on a belief in the existence of a supreme being. In the 1961 case of Torcaso v. Watkins, the court described "secular humanism" as a religion.
Clicky
Quote:
The atheist was still not satisfied, so he appealed the case. When the case was brought before the higher court, it was further considered, that although the prison officials did not deem atheism a religion, perhaps it should have been considered a religion because it was a group that was "religious in nature even though it expressly rejects a belief in a supreme being." The case, therefore, was finally judged by the State Supreme Court as not being in violation of free exercise because the atheist would still be able to practice his atheism whether or not he was allowed to form the group, however, his right to establishment of that group that was religious in nature was denied, and thus a violation of his First Amendment rights. This case sets precedence that atheism is considered a religion by the United States Supreme Court.
Clicky
Majority Opinion: (Justice Black)
Quote:
The desire to protect people from taking religious test oaths led to the construction of Article 37 of the Constitution. It stated that, ?no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.? This was followed by the passage of the First Amendment that further granted citizens religious freedom. ?We repeat and again reaffirm that neither a State nor the Federal Government can constitutionally force a person "to profess a belief or disbelief in any religion." Neither can constitutionally pass laws or impose requirements which aid all religions as against non-believers, and neither can aid those religions based on a belief in the existence of God as against those religions founded on different beliefs.?
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted December 20, 2009 02:10 AM |
|
|
TheDeath: Please stop it. You are doing it again. Look further, and answer better.
Quote:
Present a "natural explanation" that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. If you can do so, you will outdo notable atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens who can offer can offer no such explanation. All they can do is say, "I don't know what caused the universe to come into existence, but it was not God because God is only a delusion." That is a paraphrase, but I think it well represents their position. Well, Dawkins did suggets once that aliens created everything but then he couldn't explain the origin of aliens.
And i present to you a mirror: Please present a natural explenation for God.
Quote:
I contend that there could be no natural explanation for the universe because before the universe as there was no nature. There was nothing of matter or energy. The first cause had to be "beyond nature." Supernatural, if you will. This cause had to be timeless ( it created time), spaceless (it created space), immaterial (it created matter), powerful (it created out of nothing), personal (it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something-impersonal forces don’t make choices). and intelligent (there are lots of requirements for life to exist on earth for example.)
Or it quite simplely happend and needed no reason to happen. Maybe it always was like that?
Quote:
It seems some atheists like to talk about Scotsmen. but that is not applicable. So you really deny that it was a common atheist argument that the universe is eternal? Very well, I will enlighten you on the recent history of the atheist religion. I'm going to quote the introduction to an article. Perhaps you should read the entire article.
I read it. I still found it to be FUD material. It gets worse by the segment, and its quite noticeable towards the end.
"The common atheist"? Then you claim something about 1 entire group, which is large and splintered beyond imagination.
Mirror: "So you really deny that it was a common Muslim argument that all Americans are gun loving hippies?"
And what atheists have spoken about "there is no true scotsman"? I have seen none.
Quote:
The first cause, the uncased cause, had to be self existant. Eternal. God.
No, it does not. Your faith implies so. But there is no evidence for either of anything.
Quote:
Amazingly, many atheists on this board have called other religions irrational but when someone points out that atheism is irrational they seem to freak out. No, saying atheism is irrational is not hate propaganda. I pointed out the fact that materialistic atheism is in opposition to known science.. That is not hate. Saying that an eternal universe violates the laws of thermodynamics is not hate. Saying the universe could not have come from absolute nothing without a cause is not hate. Saying that materialistic atheists have to either believe in an eternal universe or a self-creating universe is not hate. There is no other option if God did not create.
Lets get on with the facts shall we? There is about 3-4 atheists on these boards who has looked into the great OSM. I se a bunch of theists and agnostics arguing with monotheists.
Next you use 1 group to attempt to hit the rest, to unite them all under your claimed banner.
And yet, you use the last sentence with "This is the factzzzz, and i am correct!".
Quote:
I'm sorry, but how are the laws of thermodynamics not evidence? How are the observations done by such things as the Hubble telescope not evidence? The observed evidence points to the universe having a beginning.
According to the laws of thermodynamics there is no "eternity" which you are promised in your afterlife. No wait, that is what I claim say for verbal harassment.
And you use the laws of thermodynamics to claim what you please. Just like the rest of us do.
Quote:
Look man, below is what the 7th District Court ruled and what the Supreme Court said. . In addition, atheists believe things they can't prove. Atheism is a religion.
I read it. ALL!
And it said this: "A prison denied a inmate to create a study group with equalminded people who's belif there is no God.", going by the equal for everybody principal the court could have said "There may be no study groups, EVER!", or "We respect your fate, and we have violated our own laws. This must be undone.".
So pick your poison.
Dislclaimer: This post should not be read as 100% serious, but to be read for understanding the meaning of what is written.
____________
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 20, 2009 05:17 AM |
|
Edited by TheDeath at 05:20, 20 Dec 2009.
|
Quote:
Please stop it. You are doing it again. Look further, and answer better.
hmm not sure how more specific can I be but let's take that portion again: (your quote below)
Quote:
I read it. I still found it to be FUD material. It gets worse by the segment, and its quite noticeable towards the end.
"The common atheist"? Then you claim something about 1 entire group, which is large and splintered beyond imagination.
Mirror: "So you really deny that it was a common Muslim argument that all Americans are gun loving hippies?"
And what atheists have spoken about "there is no true scotsman"? I have seen none.
First of all, as much as I want, I couldn't find that red piece of text in "The common atheist". Furthermore 'common' means statistically speaking the majority at that time, you can't seriously not know that. 
Also Elodin, the fact that the Universe had a beginning is not proof for God or anything at all. It's simply a debunk of the "Universe is eternal" belief but that doesn't mean it was God who created it. It could have been aliens, extra-dimensional creatures (like in the matrix), or simply an extra-dimensional law of physics (that we obviously cannot perceive).
Obviously ALL of these are beliefs, like I said, they are unmeasurable and unobservable... and God falls in the same boat.
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
bixie
Promising
Legendary Hero
my common sense is tingling!
|
|
posted December 20, 2009 11:45 AM |
|
Edited by bixie at 17:57, 20 Dec 2009.
|
Rational views
Elodin, most of your dismissal of most peoples arguments have been down to irrational views...
Look at yourself!!!!
You believe in an invisible allpowerful man in the sky, a jewish zombie that performed miracles, and that said zombie was the invisible man in the sky made flesh!!!!!
as well as believing anything that fox news says, most importantly Glenn beck, a man who is such an right-wing attention seeker, that all the other right wing attention seekers (made up of Nick Griffin, Angela murcle, Jezza clarkson, Jeremy Kyle, Matthew hopkins, the KKK and a little austrian man with a stupid moustache) need to go "actually, we're not all that delusional" in order to disassociate themselves with a man who is clearly a nut job!!!
Irrational views, I spit on the very idea of rational thinking!!!! Irrationality is what makes people human, or else we would be spock clones!!!!
____________
Love, Laugh, Learn, Live.
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
posted December 20, 2009 12:28 PM |
|
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted December 20, 2009 04:38 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Irrational views, I spit on your rational views!!!!
@ Bixie
Even though I can understand that arguing with walls isn't very satisfying, I have to warn about the way you do. Please either try to ignore the wall, or use better words.
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
TheDeath
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
with serious business
|
|
posted December 20, 2009 07:15 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Good and Bad Reasons for Believing
Well at least he admits that scientists are also an authority, and although he said it's "comforting" that others can take a peek at the research, that doesn't say anything about validity. (I'm not talking about ordinary scientific experiments but more, eh, expensive and "monopolistic" ones).
For example, it goes against very logic he upholds to claim that Linux is free of viruses because "everyone can take a look at the source code" too.
Also, given quantum mechanics where things happen simultaneously, then the question "who is right" can be answered vaguely with "everyone" (not so serious)
Quote:
What Happened Before the Big Bang ?
Great article. 
But who is gonna ask who/what made or caused the laws of physics to be the way they are...?
____________
The above post is subject to SIRIOUSness.
No jokes were harmed during the making of this signature.
|
|
Shares
Supreme Hero
I am. Thusly I am.
|
|
posted December 20, 2009 08:29 PM |
|
|
Sigh. Well, I tried.
And it is indeed an interesting link.
____________
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted December 31, 2009 05:08 AM |
|
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 01, 2010 03:48 AM |
|
|
And yet the quote you have chosen to put in your sig does not reflect the idea of tolerance, respect, or truth.
____________
Revelation
|
|
DagothGares
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
No gods or kings
|
|
posted January 01, 2010 04:40 AM |
|
|
Grow a sense of humor, elodin, I love you!
____________
If you have any more questions, go to Dagoth Cares.
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted January 01, 2010 08:12 AM |
|
|
An atheist was walking through the woods. "What majestic trees"!
"What powerful rivers"! "What beautiful animals"! He said to himself.
As he was walking alongside the river, he heard a rustling in the bushes behind him.
He turned to look. He saw a 7-foot grizzly bear charge towards him.
He ran as fast as he could up the path. He looked over his shoulder & saw that the bear was closing in on him.
He looked over his shoulder again, & the bear was even closer. He tripped & fell on the ground.
He rolled over to pick himself up but saw that the bear was right on top of him, reaching for him with his left paw & raising his right paw to strike him.
At that instant the Atheist cried out, "Oh my God!"
Time Stopped. The bear froze. The forest was silent.
As a bright light shone upon the man, a voice came out of the sky. "You deny my existence for all these years, teach others I don't exist and even credit creation to cosmic accident." "Do you expect me to help you out of this predicament? Am I to count you as a believer"?
The atheist looked directly into the light, "It would be hypocritical of me to suddenly ask you to treat me as a Christian now, but perhaps you could make the BEAR a Christian"?
"Very Well," said the voice.
The light went out. The sounds of the forest resumed.
And the bear dropped his right paw, brought both paws together, bowed his head & spoke:
"Lord bless this food, which I am about to receive from thy bounty through Christ our Lord, Amen."
|
|
Aculias
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Pretty Boy Angel Sacraficer
|
|
posted January 01, 2010 11:43 AM |
|
|
Quote:
TheDeath: Please stop it. You are doing it again. Look further, and answer better.
Quote:
Present a "natural explanation" that does not violate the laws of thermodynamics. If you can do so, you will outdo notable atheists such as Dawkins and Hitchens who can offer can offer no such explanation. All they can do is say, "I don't know what caused the universe to come into existence, but it was not God because God is only a delusion." That is a paraphrase, but I think it well represents their position. Well, Dawkins did suggets once that aliens created everything but then he couldn't explain the origin of aliens.
And i present to you a mirror: Please present a natural explenation for God.
Quote:
I contend that there could be no natural explanation for the universe because before the universe as there was no nature. There was nothing of matter or energy. The first cause had to be "beyond nature." Supernatural, if you will. This cause had to be timeless ( it created time), spaceless (it created space), immaterial (it created matter), powerful (it created out of nothing), personal (it made a choice to convert a state of nothing into something-impersonal forces don’t make choices). and intelligent (there are lots of requirements for life to exist on earth for example.)
Or it quite simplely happend and needed no reason to happen. Maybe it always was like that?
Quote:
It seems some atheists like to talk about Scotsmen. but that is not applicable. So you really deny that it was a common atheist argument that the universe is eternal? Very well, I will enlighten you on the recent history of the atheist religion. I'm going to quote the introduction to an article. Perhaps you should read the entire article.
I read it. I still found it to be FUD material. It gets worse by the segment, and its quite noticeable towards the end.
"The common atheist"? Then you claim something about 1 entire group, which is large and splintered beyond imagination.
Mirror: "So you really deny that it was a common Muslim argument that all Americans are gun loving hippies?"
And what atheists have spoken about "there is no true scotsman"? I have seen none.
Quote:
The first cause, the uncased cause, had to be self existant. Eternal. God.
The hell you talking about Diablllo?
You freaking expllain what god is.
All I see you delibriate BS Disagreements.
Lets here your o[inions instead ooof your BS others around when they sssspoke thioer opinion dude.
Yea lets here it New year Diablo dude!!!!
No, it does not. Your faith implies so. But there is no evidence for either of anything.
Quote:
Amazingly, many atheists on this board have called other religions irrational but when someone points out that atheism is irrational they seem to freak out. No, saying atheism is irrational is not hate propaganda. I pointed out the fact that materialistic atheism is in opposition to known science.. That is not hate. Saying that an eternal universe violates the laws of thermodynamics is not hate. Saying the universe could not have come from absolute nothing without a cause is not hate. Saying that materialistic atheists have to either believe in an eternal universe or a self-creating universe is not hate. There is no other option if God did not create.
Lets get on with the facts shall we? There is about 3-4 atheists on these boards who has looked into the great OSM. I se a bunch of theists and agnostics arguing with monotheists.
Next you use 1 group to attempt to hit the rest, to unite them all under your claimed banner.
And yet, you use the last sentence with "This is the factzzzz, and i am correct!".
Quote:
I'm sorry, but how are the laws of thermodynamics not evidence? How are the observations done by such things as the Hubble telescope not evidence? The observed evidence points to the universe having a beginning.
According to the laws of thermodynamics there is no "eternity" which you are promised in your afterlife. No wait, that is what I claim say for verbal harassment.
And you use the laws of thermodynamics to claim what you please. Just like the rest of us do.
Quote:
Look man, below is what the 7th District Court ruled and what the Supreme Court said. . In addition, atheists believe things they can't prove. Atheism is a religion.
I read it. ALL!
And it said this: "A prison denied a inmate to create a study group with equalminded people who's belif there is no God.", going by the equal for everybody principal the court could have said "There may be no study groups, EVER!", or "We respect your fate, and we have violated our own laws. This must be undone.".
So pick your poison.
Dislclaimer: This post should not be read as 100% serious, but to be read for understanding the meaning of what is written.
____________
Dreaming of a Better World
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 01, 2010 01:18 PM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 13:19, 01 Jan 2010.
|
Quote:
And i present to you a mirror: Please present a natural explenation for God.
Ah, so it seems two atheists have sounded "Run Away!" on the question I asked. Don't feel bad. Dawkins has to sound "retreat" on that one too.
Clicky
Actually, I have addressed the question already, several times. God is not matter or energy. God is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics. God is a Spirit. God is not natural. God is "above" or "outside" the naturea. Supernatural.
God is the painter. The universe is the painting. God existted before the painting that he painted. God's existence is not dependant on teh existence or bounds of the painting that he painted.
As an atheist you must prove how the painting needed not a painter even though the laws of thermodynamics imply it indeed needed a painter.
There is not one bit of evidence, not a bit, that God does not exist. Saying "God does not exist" is a statment of faith for it not only can't be proven, there is absolutely no evidence to back up the statment.
Quote:
Or it quite simplely happend and needed no reason to happen. Maybe it always was like that?
No, that is utterly impossible from a scientific viewpoint. If something has a beginning, there must be a cause. Without causality there can be no scientific theories at all.
Matter and energy could not create itself and could not be eternal. Atheists in the past made such claims of an eternal universe, but that idea had the last nail driven in its coffin in 1992 with the observations of the Hubble Telescope that confirmed that the univese indeed had a beginning.
Now the atheist apologists Dawkins, Hitchens, ect, would not dare to present the idea of an eternal universe. All they say now is they don't know what caused the first singularity but it wasn't God because God does not exist. That is atheism. Faith in the unproven atheist dogma that somehow things just magicallly came to be. A religion.
Quote:
Mirror: "So you really deny that it was a common Muslim argument that all Americans are gun loving hippies?"
And what atheists have spoken about "there is no true scotsman"? I have seen none.
Sorry, I'm not Muslim. Ask them to tell you what Muslims have been saying. I'm just not ignorant or prejudiced so I don't dismiss an article for the simple reason that someone who does not believe what I do wrote it.
But for the record, I don't think Muslims have said that. Can you present quotes to back up your silly claim?
Anyways, I did prove that atheists presented the eternal universe idea and you can certainly look up the atheist names in the article and verify that the "evil Muslim" was not lying. If you are an atheist and don't know what arguments atheists presented in the past perhaps you should do some research on it.
Quote:
According to the laws of thermodynamics there is no "eternity" which you are promised in your afterlife. No wait, that is what I claim say for verbal harassment.
I'm sorry, but your statment is just flat out wrong.
The laws of thermodynamics have not one thing to do with the existence of spirits.
Quote:
And you use the laws of thermodynamics to claim what you please. Just like the rest of us do.
False claim. Atheists just don't like the implications of the laws of thermodynamics.
Oh, if you still deny the courts say athesim is a religion, there is really nothing more I can say. I quoted the 7th court and Supreme Court that says it is.
Again, I don't want to deny you the comfort of your religious beliefs. If you find comfort in atheism, at least your faith is having some good effect in your life.
|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
|
posted January 01, 2010 04:36 PM |
|
|
Disclaimer: I am quoting this apart on purpose.
Quote:
Actually, I have addressed the question already, several times. God is not matter or energy. God is not subject to the laws of thermodynamics. God is a Spirit. God is not natural. God is "above" or "outside" the naturea. Supernatural.
.....laws of thermodynamics.....
The laws of thermodynamics have not one thing to do with the existence of spirits.
False claim. Atheists just don't like the implications of the laws of thermodynamics.
And yet you keep it on. Either way you are claiming something, you are in the blind on this exactly like the rest of us.
Then onto a more intact quote:
Quote:
Again, I don't want to deny you the comfort of your religious beliefs. If you find comfort in atheism, at least your faith is having some good effect in your life.
When did I claim i denied the existence of God or Gods or any supernatural puppetmaster, or the Flying Spaghetti Monster? When did I claim or say I belived anything at all?
You on the other hand got a hard history of proving your faith. Quite the difference, no?
____________
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted January 01, 2010 05:20 PM |
|
Edited by dimis at 18:20, 01 Jan 2010.
|
Kvant and Quantum wish you a Happy New Year!
Quantum magazine appeared from 1990 till 2001 in USA. It followed the initiative of the russian Kvant. The american magazine was also translated in Greek by Katoptro publications.
Wikipedia entry
Index of articles - Russian version.
Index of articles - US version.
The greek version lasted from May/June 1994 until July/August of 2001. Usually it was a translation of the previous bimonthly edition of the US version (but not always, and sometimes you find articles that did not appear in the US version).
I am just giving the references above because many of the articles are otherwise not easily spotted. I think the russian version has almost everything available online in pdf format, but of course they are in Russian ... 
Good and Bad Reasons for Believing, Richard Dawkins,
Sep/Oct 2000, Greek, pages 2-5.
What Happened Before the Big Bang ?, Paul Davies,
Jul/Aug 1996, Greek, pages 2-5.
The Anthropic Principle (humans and the universe), A. Kuzin,
Jan/Feb 1999, US
Mar/Apr 1999, Greek, pages 4-10.
Suggested reading from the last one (apart from the Davies entry above):
The “Most Inertial” Reference Frame (the universe’s relict radiation), Gennady Myakishev,
Mar/Apr 1995, US
May/Jun 1995, Greek, page 18.
The Inevitability of Black Holes (Schwarzschild radius, principle of equivalence), William A. Hiscock,
Mar/Apr 1993, US
May/Jun 1995, Greek, pages 19-23.
Interstellar Bubbles (a phase in the life cycle of stars), S. Silich,
Nov/Dec 1997, US
Jan/Feb 1998, Greek, pages 24-29.
The Thermodynamic Universe (does time have a beginning and an end?), I. D. Novikov,
Mar/Apr 1998, US
May/Jun 1998, Greek, pages 12-16.
In the end of Novikov's article above there are other interesting references (excluding cross-references):
What is time ?, Lee Smolin,
Jan/Feb 1995, Greek, pages 2-4.
Does an Elementary Length Exist? (surprising implications of relativity and quantum mechanics), Andrey Sakharov,
May/Jun 1997, US
Jul/Aug 1997, Greek, pages 12-18.
The original publication was written in 1968 for the magazine "Physics in High School" and was published in 1991 in Kvant.
Happy reading and happy new year!
If somebody can give me the links to the pdf files in Russian I would greatly appreciate it. I will try to find the remaining articles in the US version soon.
EDIT: Whoops! I almost forgot another article:
Visionary Science (atmospheric anomalies), V. Novoseltsev,
May/Jun 1998, US
Jul/Aug 1998, Greek, pages 28-33.
The article also gives explanations on Iezekiel's "visions".
____________
The empty set
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted January 04, 2010 02:57 AM |
|
|
By the way Elodin,
Who sends the Holy Spirit ?
____________
The empty set
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 04, 2010 05:59 AM |
|
|
Quote:
By the way Elodin,
Who sends the Holy Spirit ?
God. You could say either the Father sends the Holy Spirit or the Son since the Holy Spirit since Jesus is the Father existing as a man [as the Son.]
So no, the two verse you found on an anti-Christian website are not contradictions. I assume that is what you are refering to.
The Holy Spirit is Jesus himself coming to us in the form of a Spirit rather than as a man.
____________
Revelation
|
|
dimis
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Digitally signed by FoG
|
|
posted January 04, 2010 06:18 AM |
|
|
Elodin, please stop assuming things. I didn't find anything on any website.
So, you say that the Holy Spirit is Jesus himself. Jesus is the Father himself. And yet in the question who sends the Holy Spirit you say God (in one word) which you extend as both the Father and the Son. So, if the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Son, how can the Father (or the Son - according to you) send the Holy Spirit ? Why doesn't the Holy Spirit "just go".
Can you give me a verse where the Son sends the Holy Spirit ?
____________
The empty set
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted January 04, 2010 10:34 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Elodin, please stop assuming things. I didn't find anything on any website.
So, you say that the Holy Spirit is Jesus himself. Jesus is the Father himself. And yet in the question who sends the Holy Spirit you say God (in one word) which you extend as both the Father and the Son. So, if the Holy Spirit is the Father and the Son, how can the Father (or the Son - according to you) send the Holy Spirit ? Why doesn't the Holy Spirit "just go".
Can you give me a verse where the Son sends the Holy Spirit ?
God has always existed as the eternal, all powerful, ever present Spirit. 2000 years ago God also began to exist as the man Jesus Christ. Jesus Chrsit is the human manifestation of God. God existing as the promised Christ. When God began to exisst as the man Jesus Christ he did not cease to exist as the Spirit.
Below is one of the places Jesus promised to send the Spirit upon his disciples. Remember tha the gospel of Luke and Acts are written by Luke. They are a book and a sequel.
Quote:
Luk 24:49 And, behold, I send the promise of my Father upon you: but tarry ye in the city of Jerusalem, until ye be endued with power from on high.
Act 1:4 And, being assembled together with them, commanded them that they should not depart from Jerusalem, but wait for the promise of the Father, which, saith he, ye have heard of me.
Act 1:5 For John truly baptized with water; but ye shall be baptized with the Holy Ghost not many days hence.
Act 1:8 But ye shall receive power, after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you: and ye shall be witnesses unto me both in Jerusalem, and in all Judaea, and in Samaria, and unto the uttermost part of the earth.
Act 2:4 And they were all filled with the Holy Ghost, and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit gave them utterance.
There are other references to the Son sending the Spirit, but I think that is sufficient.
The Spirit is called:
-the Spirit of the Son (Galatians 4:6),
-the Spirit of Christ (Romans 8:9),
-the Spirit of Jesus Christ (Philippians 1:19),
-the Spirit of the Father (Matthew 10:20)
-the Spirit of God (1 Corinthians 2:11)
There is one God who exists as both a Spirit and as a [now glorified] man.
The initial "outpouring" of the Spirit occured on the day of Pentecost (as refered to in my earlier quote of the book of Acts.) That was 40 days after the resurrection of Christ (he spent much of that teaching his disciples.)
Jesus, God existing as a man, is now seated on the throne of God. The throne is now both the throne of God and the "throne of David" ie the Messianic throne. God is the Christ.
The word "sending" is really a metaphor for a spiritual reality. The Spirit of God is everywhere. At every point in time and space and he transcends time and space. It means that God will have a special relationship with the believer and "live" in the believer. Empower the believer. The believer is now "in his kingdom."
When one "receives" the Spirit in this manner he will initially speak in "tongues" which a language that he does not know. This is the Spirit helping the person's human spirit praise or pray to God in such a manner as to bypass the misunderstandings and hang ups of his intellect. The Bible says such a prayer is "according to the will of God." There will be nothing said in it that goes against the will of God for the Spirit of God is assisting the human spirit pray. Once a person has been baptized in the Spirit he can speak in tongues "at will."
The true God is the Father and the Son. One Spirit who also exists as a [now glorified] man.
I hope you understand what I am saying here. When the Spirit of God comes to a person he comes as both the Father and the Son. The God who has lived a human life.
1Jn 5:20 And we know that the Son of God is come, and hath given us an understanding, that we may know him that is true, and we are in him that is true, even in his Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God, and eternal life.
Eph 4:4 There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling;
Joh 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.
Mar 12:29 And Jesus answered him, The first of all the commandments is, Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord:
Mar 12:30 And thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind, and with all thy strength: this is the first commandment.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
