Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all,
Vanilla are planning an update to the site on April 24th (next Wednesday). It is a major PHP8 update which is expected to boost performance across the site. The site will be down from 7pm and it is expected to take about an hour to complete. We appreciate your patience during the update.
Thanks all.

You know God exists. Now thats either true or its not. Your opinion matters.

Options
  • 23-11-2019 2:10pm
    #1
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭


    Romans 1: wrote:
    20 For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse.

    I found myself stopping on this word 'invisible'. In the context of this forum it struck that for the word 'invisible' you can safely insert the term "not empirically nor rationally demonstrable or provable"

    The statement in this passage then, is that God is self-evident to everyone. And no excuses exist.

    It follows that each individual has to decide whether what He has made is sufficient evidence of self-evidency.

    If one decides not and it is nevertheless true*, then one has also decided against that which was in fact, self-evident.

    The only thing that can deny a self evidence is wilfulness. Straight self denial of truth ... a.k.a. lying to self. But the one person you can't successfully lie to, besides God, is yourself. You know the truth .. because it is self evident. Denial can do many things. It can buy time. But it can never trump self-evidency because what is true can't be trumped by a denial. At least not forever.

    Ignorance is not an excuse because the definition of self-evident is that there is no ignorance: it is evident to every self, all selfs have sufficient information.

    From what has been made. Which is everything, whether an expression of Him directly or an expression of will in those whom He has created and enabled to co-create with Him.

    And man has no excuse for wilfullness. It is fully right that he position his view below God's view. Man is wonderful, but he is not the creator of wonderfulness. He fully ought to occupy the position he rightfully, logically and rationally was created to occupy.

    Much wanted and much loved children of God. Created by their Father to be ever-children.

    For there is no death as God's children or in the new Earth they will occupy. No being born into entropy.

    All we are asked to becomes, is those children. To allow ourselves to be led, by self-evidency, away from the death march we travel because we have not yet become His children. It IS God who attempts to lead us. We might be blind to him, but we are not blind to His self-evidency.

    Instead, what we are trying to be, and insist on being, is that which we can't be. Which is God. Or rather, equal to God. Our equality comes through our seemingly being able to operate without any reference to Him.

    We are merely believing the serpent when he tells us we can be like God. When it is utterly self evident, from the things WE have made, that we have made a complete mess. We have made the kind of mess what unruly, destructive and hateful can be expected to make.

    By their fruit shall ye know them, writ large.

    What we actually are (truth again) is unruly, destructive and hate capable little gods. Each with their own mutated, fast-burn attempt at equalling God. Come and gone in the blink of an eternal eye.

    Self-as-god (or false God) is the problem. It was what Adam was doing in his deliberate construction of the first sin. It's still the primary sin in each one of us. The root problem.

    Hence too, the solution to the problem. That rotten root, that hook, has to be dug out of us.

    Wisdom and sense in the 1st Commandment so.


    -

    The way of salvation is to trust God to lead you to Him. He has evidenced Himself in all He has made. We have evidenced ourselves in all we have made. So go look at what He and we have made. You don't have to trust a God you can't see. But you can a God you do see. The evidence, as it sought for, will be found and assimilated and will produce conviction. And as you are convicted, He will reveal Himself more. Until one day you believe. And become a child of God.

    A first step is to ask for help, taking the stance the healthy child He wants you to become would take. For it is in you to be a child of His. Be respectful, hopeful, trusting, patient. Humble, yes, but not cowering, or sullen or half-hearted or angry.

    "I want to find You. Help me find You." would be a fine 1st prayer.





    * where the definition of true is that it is true. That every objection that can be made to its truth is truly false, truly erroneous, truly mad, truly wilful.


«134567…34

Comments

  • Options
    #2
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,708 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    I found myself stopping on this word 'invisible'.

    Mod: I humbly suggest you may have stopped in the wrong place so, as your lengthy post appears as no more than soap-boxing. While your contribution is always welcome, please have another read of the charter and construct your posts in such a ways as to encourage debate rather than treating this forum as a pulpit. Thanks for your attention.


  • Options
    #3
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The statement in this passage then, is that God is self-evident to everyone. And no excuses exist.
    I find it offensive that your god helped the SS gas so many Jews.


  • Options
    #4
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    the_syco wrote: »
    I find it offensive that your god helped the SS gas so many Jews.

    God made us co-creators, what can I say. Creativity expresses in many ways, some godly, some not so.


  • Options
    #5
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    smacl wrote: »
    Mod: I humbly suggest you may have stopped in the wrong place so, as your lengthy post appears as no more than soap-boxing. While your contribution is always welcome, please have another read of the charter and construct your posts in such a ways as to encourage debate rather than treating this forum as a pulpit. Thanks for your attention.

    Understand the overarching point but there are good talking points in there. I mean, you hear a lot of excuse on this forum. Like our SS objection above.


  • Options
    #6
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,708 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Understand the overarching point but there are good talking points in there. I mean, you hear a lot of excuse on this forum. Like our SS objection above.

    Your post is based on the statement "that God is self-evident to everyone" which is clearly not the case, particularly in this forum. There is nothing whatsoever that suggests to me that there is even the faintest hint of truth in Christian mythology and more than Norse mythology, Egyptian mythology or any other broadly held supernatural belief. That religion has also been the excuse for acts of barbarity throughout history is also no doubt the case but not really relevant.

    Quoting random bits of scripture on this forum does not constitute a valid basis for argument as most of us on this forum consider the bible to be a work of fiction.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #7
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    God made us co-creators, what can I say. Creativity expresses in many ways, some godly, some not so.
    So your god only takes credit for the good things, and not the bad things?

    Your god sounds like a narcissist.


  • Options
    #8
    NIMAN
    Registered Users Posts: 32,986 ✭✭✭✭NIMAN


    Why did he allow 40 churches to be damaged in the recent Venice flooding?

    You'd think he'd look after his own properties, wouldn't you?


  • Options
    #9
    corks finest
    Registered Users Posts: 8,628 ✭✭✭corks finest


    Yes he exists end of ðŸ‘


  • Options
    #10
    jaxxx
    Registered Users Posts: 3,230 ✭✭✭jaxxx


    And this is what happens when you ingest magic mushrooms. Say no kids.


  • Options
    #11
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,515 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    Are you okay, antiskeptic? You’ve posted here long enough to know the exactly the types of response you will get. I’m left with the thought that you’re looking for something in your life and that you use religion to fill it, but it’s still empty and you think throwing yourself to the lions here will somehow validate the decisions you’ve made.

    You’re argument isn’t going to convince anyone and of course you know that. If posting these kinds of things makes you feel better maybe you need a healthier outlet in life.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #12
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    5uspect wrote: »
    Are you okay, antiskeptic? You’ve posted here long enough to know the exactly the types of response you will get. I’m left with the thought that you’re looking for something in your life and that you use religion to fill it, but it’s still empty and you think throwing yourself to the lions here will somehow validate the decisions you’ve made.

    You’re argument isn’t going to convince anyone and of course you know that. If posting these kinds of things makes you feel better maybe you need a healthier outlet in life.

    It wasn't so much as an argument as a statement (well the statement of scripture expounded upon).

    The question is whether evidence sufficient is true. Which does damage (if true) to the varying excuses generated here.

    Clearly, if true, the lions have no teeth and there is little to fear.

    All depends on your view (true or not true). Obviously, the statement dispenses with argument from the empirical mindset. Such argument would have no relevancy to the issue of what is self evident.


  • Options
    #13
    5uspect
    Moderators, Arts Moderators Posts: 10,515 Mod ✭✭✭✭5uspect


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    It wasn't so much as an argument as a statement (well the statement of scripture expounded upon).

    The question is whether evidence sufficient is true. Which does damage (if true) to the varying excuses generated here.

    Clearly, if true, the lions have no teeth and there is little to fear.

    You know most people here think it’s all nonsense. You may as well read the script of Dr Who to us. It’s like me asking you about your thoughts on the latest episode of Coronation St as if it’s somehow the most important question ever when it really is utterly irrelevant.

    Are you okay? Do you have friends and family to talk to? Or are you here because all you have is arguing about religion with people on the internet?


  • Options
    #14
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,708 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    It wasn't so much as an argument as a statement (well the statement of scripture expounded upon)

    Mod warning: If you're planning on starting a debate which assumes the veracity of a piece of scripture as the opening gambit can I suggest you do so on the Christianity forum where it is a more reasonable assumption. Further posts of that nature, intended as statement rather than argument, will be considered intentionally inflammatory soap boxing and result in infraction. Again, your contribution to this forum is welcome, but please remember your audience and post with a view to encouraging civil debate on that basis. Thanks for your attention.


  • Options
    #15
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,405 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    It wasn't so much as an argument as a statement (well the statement of scripture expounded upon).

    The question is whether evidence sufficient is true. Which does damage (if true) to the varying excuses generated here.

    Clearly, if true, the lions have no teeth and there is little to fear.

    All depends on your view (true or not true). Obviously, the statement dispenses with argument from the empirical mindset. Such argument would have no relevancy to the issue of what is self evident.

    "If true"

    How do you make a statement of fact based on the premise of "if true"?


  • Options
    #16
    nozzferrahhtoo
    Registered Users Posts: 9,336 ✭✭✭nozzferrahhtoo


    Having read it twice the only thing that I am getting from the OP is that it says in around 700 words what the writers user name already says in 1. Which is that the wish/agenda is to establish one baseless assertion as "default true" and that the sceptic of this asserted and baseless "truth" is merely to be derided in every way from merely "erroneous" to "mad".

    The user is against, in fact "anti" scepticism. And that is all the 700 or so words in the OP appears to be saying. I can literally find no other content or meaning or agenda or interpretation of the text here.

    Content containing any actual argument, evidence, data or reasoning that a god entity actually does exist however, is entirely lacking in the OP just like every other post ever written on this forum by that user.

    On a linguistic note though I have never before in any dictionary, or any other context I have encountered to date, heard it suggested that "not empirically nor rationally demonstrable or provable" is even tangentially related to the word "invisible" let alone a valid full replacement for it. The move above appears not to much to have been a replacement of a word in scripture.... but a wholesale re-writing of it's content and meaning to suit an agenda.

    One wonders what the divine author/inspiration of the text, were it to actually exist, would think of having the meaning of it's text not just mangled or distorted, but entirely changed from one thing to an entirely different thing in this fashion. Were I to believe in that author, and were I to make such a move against it's will, intent, meaning and design, I would find myself somewhat in desperate need of repentance and restitution in fear of the well being of my eternal soul.

    Thankfully there is no reason on offer, least of all here on this thread, to think this malicious, malignant, capricious, emotional snowflake entity exists and is out to get us.


  • Options
    #17
    smokingman
    Registered Users Posts: 3,737 ✭✭✭smokingman


    Here's a statement.
    I wear red glasses and the world looks red. If I know I'm wearing red glasses then I might discern that the world might not be red. If I know, but ignore, that I'm wearing red glasses then maybe I'm doing that because I like red.
    Is it that you like red and don't want to accept a rainbow?


  • Options
    #18
    the_syco
    Registered Users Posts: 37,295 ✭✭✭✭the_syco


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    well the statement of scripture expounded upon
    I dismiss it as the folklore of the times.


  • Options
    #19
    Mark Hamill
    Registered Users Posts: 7,771 ✭✭✭Mark Hamill


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    The statement in this passage then, is that God is self-evident to everyone. And no excuses exist.

    But many different contradcitory religions all say this same thing, that their god is self evident in some way.
    So we have the problem of how do you know if your god is what is self-evident and that you aren't just misinterpreting a very different god or gods and, wait, didn't we do this before?
    Oh yes, in the "Justifying Your WorldView to an Impartial Onlooker" thread from a few months back, that you had to stop posting in because you got busy.
    Well you are back posting know, and I'm sure you didn't just start this thread with no intention of actually further discussion, so would you like to get back to that thread?


  • Options
    #20
    robindch
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 24,399 Mod ✭✭✭✭robindch


    Romans I wrote:
    [...] God’s invisible qualities [...] have been clearly seen [...]
    Not sure Paul understands how "invisible" works.


  • Options
    #21
    Cabaal
    Moderators, Technology & Internet Moderators, Regional South East Moderators Posts: 28,462 Mod ✭✭✭✭Cabaal


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    God made us co-creators, what can I say. Creativity expresses in many ways, some godly, some not so.

    Which god?
    Odin?

    You'll need to be far more specific


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #22
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    robindch wrote: »
    Not sure Paul understands how "invisible" works.

    Hence my insertion. The question is: do we have access to non-empirical information? If we do then without excuse follows.


  • Options
    #23
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Mark Hamill wrote: »
    But many different contradcitory religions all say this same thing, that their god is self evident in some way.
    So we have the problem of how do you know if your god is what is self-evident and that you aren't just misinterpreting a very different god or gods and, wait, didn't we do this before?
    Oh yes, in the "Justifying Your WorldView to an Impartial Onlooker" thread from a few months back, that you had to stop posting in because you got busy.
    Well you are back posting know, and I'm sure you didn't just start this thread with no intention of actually further discussion, so would you like to get back to that thread?

    As I pointed out, all hinges on whether trueor not. If true then ignorance isn't an excuse. Similarily, if true then conflicting claims isn't an excuse - since what's true is true and trumps conflicting.

    If you can know God exists then all else is subsiduary.


    As for our impartial onlooker. Iirc we were bogged down in the impossibility of same. We had to rely on a particular worldview being true (i.e. yours) in order to enable impartiality. But if we relied on my worldview being true then there could be no such thing as an impartial onlooker.

    The problem was a cart before the horse one. We couldn't overcome the problem of deciding which view was the correct one in order to progress.

    And so a stalemate came about.

    If you have thoughts on how to circumvent that problem then I am all ears.


  • Options
    #24
    weisses
    Registered Users Posts: 9,430 ✭✭✭weisses


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    Hence my insertion. The question is: do we have access to non-empirical information? If we do then without excuse follows.

    I saw the image of Maria on a slice of toast .. does that count ?


  • Options
    #25
    PHG
    Registered Users Posts: 475 ✭✭PHG


    The religious stuff you quote was written 100s of years after any Jesus or other odd nonsense prophet was about. If Chinese whispers can't go further than 10 people, how can any of what you say be relevant when written so far after.

    How many times in life do we convince ourselves/feel we know what others are thinking or feeling and it is a pile of nonsense.

    Life is simple, try to be a decent person, we cannot always be good but the good things in life tend to come from the kindess of people not some Ghost making them do it.

    The closest and only thing that moves me internally is my coffee in the morning, not some religion. You would spend your time better helping someone than 30mins writing that opening passage.


  • Options
    #26
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    the_syco wrote: »
    So your god only takes credit for the good things, and not the bad things?

    Your god sounds like a narcissist.

    If the good things are the result of him (including his attributes in us outing themselves) and the bad things not-him, then you're in non sequitur territory.

    Being good can't be narcissitic since narcisstic (you appear to hold) is bad.


  • Options
    #27
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    PHG wrote: »
    The religious stuff you quote was written 100s of years after any Jesus or other odd nonsense prophet was about.



    Other than being asked to submit to the faintly ludicrous idea than man is on an ever upwards trajectory, I've never understood the 'it's old therefore irrelevant' argument

    The question is whether true. Not whether old.
    How many times in life do we convince ourselves/feel we know what others are thinking or feeling and it is a pile of nonsense.

    Life is simple, try to be a decent person, we cannot always be good but the good things in life tend to come from the kindess of people not some Ghost making them do it.

    The closest and only thing that moves me internally is my coffee in the morning, not some religion. You would spend your time better helping someone than 30mins writing that opening passage.

    Classic 'close the art galleries and museums and feed the poor with the money saved' think.

    As if you cannot have both.


  • Options
    #28
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,405 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    antiskeptic wrote: »
    As I pointed out, all hinges on whether trueor not. If true then ignorance isn't an excuse. Similarily, if true then conflicting claims isn't an excuse - since what's true is true and trumps conflicting.

    If you can know God exists then all else is subsiduary.


    As for our impartial onlooker. Iirc we were bogged down in the impossibility of same. We had to rely on a particular worldview being true (i.e. yours) in order to enable impartiality. But if we relied on my worldview being true then there could be no such thing as an impartial onlooker.

    The problem was a cart before the horse one. We couldn't overcome the problem of deciding which view was the correct one in order to progress.

    And so a stalemate came about.

    If you have thoughts on how to circumvent that problem then I am all ears.

    If I remember correctly didn't you claim that you wanted a stalemate and in fact did everything you could to create a stalemate as it somehow got you out of the debate/gave you a win (in your mind)?


  • Options
    #29
    Odhinn
    Registered Users Posts: 7,972 ✭✭✭Odhinn


    the_syco wrote: »
    I dismiss it as the folklore of the times.


    Slayer FTW.


  • Options
    #30
    smacl
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 15,708 Mod ✭✭✭✭smacl


    Life is simple, try to be a decent person, we cannot always be good but the good things in life tend to come from the kindness of people not some Ghost making them do it.

    Agreed.
    PHG wrote: »
    The closest and only thing that moves me internally is my coffee in the morning, not some religion.

    Same. The Christians may have ditched Limbo some time back but I find myself there or thereabouts most mornings sometime between rolling out of bed and getting the first gulp of coffee.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #31
    antiskeptic
    Registered Users Posts: 9,555 ✭✭✭antiskeptic


    Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »
    If I remember correctly didn't you claim that you wanted a stalemate and in fact did everything you could to create a stalemate as it somehow got you out of the debate/gave you a win (in your mind)?

    It wasn't so much my wanting but my sense that that is where things will end up. Mark (the main protagonist) required that his worldview hold sway in order that the impartial onlooker be conceived of - even if by thought experiment.

    But didn't seem to understand that he was relying on his worldview holding sway to get going.

    Naturally, I wasn't going to grant him such a convenience.

    Which produces a stalemate, for, if my worldview was the one assumed from the get go, there could be no such thing as an impartial observer. There is only two kinds of men in the world (according to that worldview): the lost and the found. No impartal inbetweeners.

    So how could such a thread get going if it was doomed from the off by irreconcilable worldviews on the matter of an impartial onlooker?


Advertisement