Angel
DP Veteran
- Joined
- May 3, 2017
- Messages
- 18,001
- Reaction score
- 2,909
- Location
- New York City
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Independent
They don't think they have proof?They don't.
Did you read the article on the off-chance?
They don't think they have proof?They don't.
They don't think they have proof?
Did you read the article on the off-chance?
On what basis do you think they don't have proof?They may think they have proof.
They don't though.
How can you think that a "liar" is one of the greatest humans to have ever lived?
If His philosophy is so perfect (since you find no flaws in it).....then why can't you accept His claim as
the Son of God?
If He's not who He said He is, then why did He willingly sacrifice Himself, and die for mankind?
What kind of philosophy is that? Dying for a lie?
On what basis do you think they don't have proof?
Well, the "proof" in this case arises from phenomena recognized by science but unaccountable in scientific, i.e., materialistic, terms: namely, mathematical reality and consciousness.Because I have never seen a definition of any kind of god (that one would try to seek a scientific proof for) that didn't automatically place the god outside of the realm of proof.
The problems of mathematical reality and consciousness have been written about since Plato, were revisited by Newton, and then grappled with by more modern scientists. The history is in the article.Further, if there was any kind of credible proof for the oldest question in the history of mankind, I'm sure I would have heard about it first through channels other than Debate Politics.
Why should I care if he claimed he was the son of god, if he even did. Alot of paganism was added into the bible by the Church to aid in converting rural peasants outside of Romes immediate influence, and the whole virgin birth son of god thing has been used by Horus, and Mithra long before Jesus. Doubtful he ever claimed divinity as a man, more likely his followers assigned it to him. His philosophy doesn't require anyone to believe he is god's son. It's one of those, the argument stands on their own merits.
Don't know that he willingly sacrificed anything, and don't care if he did. He was challenging the Temple's power, they didn't like it so they had him killed. That's not him sacrificing himself for a lie. That's him being executed for causing problems. A sacrifice would be if no one wanted him dead and he did it anyway. That part of the story is of zero importance anyway to anyone but Christians. I get this is a hard concept for people who believe that being the son of god is what makes Jesus special. But the myths surrounding Jesus have zero to do with his philosophy. Following his parables and morals, does not require you to believe the mumbo jumbo added in by Roman Priests trying to save their power as the cult that would become Christianity swept across their failing Empire.
This is a problem I have found in most "Christians" today. They are under the impression Jesus just walked around the desert telling people he was the son of god come to save them. No, he was a revolutionary who started a grass roots movement that toppled the Western Half of Rome. And he did it preaching pacifism, and love.
If you want to see his philosophy free of divine claims, read the above link. The whole thing. Then watch this Yale lecture on historical Jesus.
Or you can do what most Christians who ask these snarky questions do, ignore everything I said and blabber about his sacrifice, like some random persons declarations actually make it true. Puh Lease.
Well, the "proof" in this case arises from phenomena recognized by science but unaccountable in scientific, i.e., materialistic, terms: namely, mathematical reality and consciousness.
The problems of mathematical reality and consciousness have been written about since Plato, were revisited by Newton, and then grappled with by more modern scientists. The history is in the article.
Deism either requires the invention of a supreme being, which makes it little different than any other kind of theism with a creation myth, or it requires such a vagueness and intentional lack of definition that might as well be a no-god scenario anyway.
So, I'll revise my earlier statememt: Deism is for atheists and theists alike who either lack the balls to defend their convictions, or the skills to do so.
Your opinion that His claim as the Son of God is merely added by priests doesn't hold water.
The apostles - who were fearful when He got arrested that they'd all went into hiding - had written about what they'd witnessed, and willingly martyred themselves after they'd witness the risen Christ. From being fearful they were suddenly brimming with confidence that they'd defy the authorities and kept preaching.
There were also other witnesses to the risen Christ, thus Christianity exploded in the region.
I'm a deist, and I truly believe a force predating the Universe caused the Universe to exist. We have no way of knowing what that force is, or its intentions. If it even has intentions. We have no way of knowing if that force is aware of us, or even capable of self awareness. We have no way of knowing if this force was created in some natural cycle by a force larger than itself.
An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. We do know that.
And as the Universe does exist and is in motion, its safe to assume an unbalanced force acted upon it. If it doesn't have a beginning, then the Universe itself is that force. Whether it is a conscious being with a purpose, or just cosmic energy cycling through its own form of evolution. There is something greater than ourselves acting upon things in some way.
It's likely not aware of us, and even if it is, probably doesn't care about us. But something got the ball rolling somewhere, or the ball has always been rolling and is the something. Either way, its easier to reconcile an unknowable force tipped the dominoes, than it is to infer that nothing beyond what we can perceive exists.
There's your balls and skills...
You refer to journalism here and apparently refuse to read the article inasmuch as your "refutations" do not refer to any points in the article. There's bunk, and then there's bunk.Leading questions are also a good sign of bunk.
"Did our History Chanel explorers find Noah's Ark? Stay tuned!" No, no they didn't. Clearly.
There it is in a well-written nutshell.An object at rest stays at rest and an object in motion stays in motion with the same speed and in the same direction unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. We do know that.
And as the Universe does exist and is in motion, its safe to assume an unbalanced force acted upon it. If it doesn't have a beginning, then the Universe itself is that force. Whether it is a conscious being with a purpose, or just cosmic energy cycling through its own form of evolution. There is something greater than ourselves acting upon things in some way.
So, you're making the cosmological argument, but instead of Aquinas's magical wizard who continues to medle, your magical wizard inexplicably left. Got it.
The cosmological argument has one glaring flaw: if everything needs a cause, then what caused God? If you allow for a universe where an uncaused cause can exist in the first place, you have no need to invent one with a will or a purpose.
The cosmological argument has one glaring flaw: if everything needs a cause, then what caused God? If you allow for a universe where an uncaused cause can exist in the first place, you have no need to invent one with a will or a purpose.
Causality is a fundamental concept in the natural sciences. Science follows this concept back 14 billion years and then falls mute on what preceded the time-space cosmos.The cosmological argument has one glaring flaw: if everything needs a cause, then what caused God? If you allow for a universe where an uncaused cause can exist in the first place, you have no need to invent one with a will or a purpose.
Deism is just another mental gymnastic, like agnosticism, to allow people to live as atheists without pissing off theists as much.
Deism is just another mental gymnastic, like agnosticism, to allow people to live as atheists without pissing off theists as much.
You would think, but in my experience, Christians (at least) get way more pissed off if you acknowledge a domino tipper and discount their domino tipper as false. Than if you just state there was no domino tipper at all.
And they get even more pissed off if you do it while saying Jesus was one of the greatest humans to have walked the earth. Which is odd, you would think they would enjoy that you hold their messiah in such a high regard even if you don't believe in his divinity. I mean, I am basically saying, I live my life by your teachers standards. What does it matter if I believe he is god, I acknowledge his morality as the best option to live by.
But that really ticks off Christians for some reason. Any Christian is free to tell me why that is.
You see, your trying to pigeon hole deists into believing in a standard god with standard god powers. The whole point is, no one can know that, so why try. I stated several times that it could just be a force with no guided purpose. Yet you are determined to discredit the idea because of your own preconceived notion of what a god should be in relation to us.
AS for your uncaused cause, I don't think you caught the part where I stated that the Universe was either at rest, or already in motion. So I do allow for an uncaused cause, the Universe already being in motion and thus being the unbalanced force that caused us to exist. Meaning Deists allow for unconscious nature itself to be the higher power as one of the possibilities. We just don't think we can define the parameters of god, so we don't try. We don't even like the word god. Cause it makes people think we believe in a wizard who just left. We don't believe anything of the kind, we allow for many possibilities. And when new information arrives, we discount the possibilities that conflict with the new information and move forward.
Basically the only thing deists truly believe in, is Newton's first law. The rest is just a statement of preference from person to person. "I would prefer this to be true, but who knows"- Core concept of Deism.
At no point did I state anything left, that is once again your preconceived notion, I did state that it could not be aware of us or is aware and doesn't care. Earlier, I misunderstood something you meant, and corrected myself. Do you got the balls to admit you didn't take a critical look at my statement...
The universe is either eternal....or something/someone outside of the universe had created it.
Science says the universe isn't eternal, it has a beginning........ for there wouldn't be a beginning if
it had always existed!
As far as we know.....matter cannot create itself. If matter cannot create itself, then the only logical conclusion is that someone/something outside of nature (supernatural) had caused the universe and everything in it.
Causality is a fundamental concept in the natural sciences. Science follows this concept back 14 billion years and then falls mute on what preceded the time-space cosmos.
Deistic thought simply carries that concept a step further. According to the article I posted above (which you refuse to read) there is no scientific explanation for the complex mathematical reality at work in the cosmos, i.e., no materialist explanation of the rule of mathematics in the universe.
The "flaw" you find in the cosmological argument is a straw man. "God" is an inference from your own science that accounts for the universe where science cannot. That we cannot account for "God" is not a refutation of that inference. This question just changes the subject.
You haven't read the Jefferson Bible have you?
http://uuhouston.org/files/The_Jefferson_Bible.pdf
I'm a Jefferson Deist myself. I consider Jesus to be one of the greatest humans to have ever lived. And find no flaws in his philosophy as presented from Jefferson's point of view. In fact I think his message is much more compelling if you consider him a human being and not the son of the wizard living in the sky.
Deism either requires the invention of a supreme being, which makes it little different than any other kind of theism with a creation myth, or it requires such a vagueness and intentional lack of definition that might as well be a no-god scenario anyway.
So, I'll revise my earlier statememt: Deism is for atheists and theists alike who either lack the balls to defend their convictions, or the skills to do so.
You would think, but in my experience, Christians (at least) get way more pissed off if you acknowledge a domino tipper and discount their domino tipper as false. Than if you just state there was no domino tipper at all.
And they get even more pissed off if you do it while saying Jesus was one of the greatest humans to have walked the earth. Which is odd, you would think they would enjoy that you hold their messiah in such a high regard even if you don't believe in his divinity. I mean, I am basically saying, I live my life by your teachers standards. What does it matter if I believe he is god, I acknowledge his morality as the best option to live by.
But that really ticks off Christians for some reason. Any Christian is free to tell me why that is.
How can you think that a "liar" is one of the greatest humans to have ever lived?
If His philosophy is so perfect (since you find no flaws in it).....then why can't you accept His claim as
the Son of God?
If He's not who He said He is, then why did He willingly sacrifice Himself, and die for mankind?
What kind of philosophy is that? Dying for a lie?
So, you're making the cosmological argument, but instead of Aquinas's magical wizard who continues to medle, your magical wizard inexplicably left. Got it.
The cosmological argument has one glaring flaw: if everything needs a cause, then what caused God? If you allow for a universe where an uncaused cause can exist in the first place, you have no need to invent one with a will or a purpose.
I always found that anti cosmological argument to be weakly splitting hairs. It's the same as theists asking what else could have caused the big bang? They're simply saying "god" caused the universe and maybe he has no will or purpose, other than to set things in motion and sit back and laugh maniacally...possibly to intervene at a (much) later time