|
Post by goz on May 24, 2019 21:33:37 GMT
How do you think God would appear in a 3-dimensional world?
A spirit needs a body to appear in this material world.
Which 'god'?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 24, 2019 21:38:29 GMT
It might just be that, to some sensible humans at least, speculation about what is by definition unproven and unknowable - at least enough enough to affirm anything as supposed knowledge - is just meaningless. How many angels was it on the head of a pin again? as I always state, I’m nit discussing this as if it’s a fact beyond narrative. And, as always, you are being disingenuous. If you are not presenting your views here akin to certainty then don't write 'it doesn’t dawn on them that there was life in heaven before humans were a twinkle in God’s eye' but the less affirmative, and clearer 'it doesn’t dawn on them that there might have been life in [any heaven before humans were a twinkle in an alleged God’s eye]'. But you have told about using positive language so casually before. To say that such instances don't reveal or intend your epistemological prejudices is trying to have your philosophical cake and eat it. But if you want to take such matters as complete fiction then you ought to know that that would be just as certain a view, just the opposite, where again knowledge there can be none. I hope that helps. I also have little interest in discussing agreed fiction, which is indeed all pretend, at least outside of literature classes. And I doubt if any atheists here would either.
|
|
|
Post by heeeeey on May 25, 2019 1:06:45 GMT
How do you think God would appear in a 3-dimensional world?
A spirit needs a body to appear in this material world.
Which 'god'? The real one.
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 25, 2019 3:55:04 GMT
According to whom? EVERY religion let alone denomination within religions claims that THEIRS is the 'real god'
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on May 25, 2019 8:07:01 GMT
Jesus is supposed to have said in John 14
“Do not let your hearts be troubled. You believe in God; believe also in me. 2 My Father’s house has many rooms; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you?"
So one could make the case that heaven did not exist before Jesus is supposed to have done his thing on earth.
This site
suggests that the gospel of John has Jesus saying that folks don't "go to heaven" when they die, but only go to heaven after Jesus returns and takes them there. But who knows what kind of crap they had Jesus saying since all this was written down decades after Jesus was supposed to have walked on earth.
Humans think so much of themselves it doesn’t dawn on them that there was life in heaven before humans were a twinkle in God’s eye What do you mean by heaven? Heaven in the sense of some other realm/existence with other kinds of beings than physical ones (animals, people) that occupy the natural world? So your comment would seem to be aimed at those who wrote John and put those words in Jesus' mouth.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 25, 2019 11:58:55 GMT
Humans think so much of themselves it doesn’t dawn on them that there was life in heaven before humans were a twinkle in God’s eye What do you mean by heaven? Heaven in the sense of some other realm/existence with other kinds of beings than physical ones (animals, people) that occupy the natural world? So your comment would seem to be aimed at those who wrote John and put those words in Jesus' mouth. I don't think John 14 gives any kind of context to how long heaven was around. To me and in context, it's clear he's simply saying there's a place for them there.
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on May 25, 2019 12:14:51 GMT
FilmFlaneurI will never understand why theophopbiacs feel it's disingenuous tro talk down to their level. I think it's respectful unless all they want to do is argue my beliefs so they can come up with zinger of "DERP! Prove it!" If you don't understand the Bible as fiction and cannot argue it as such, then what exactly changes when we turn it to my beliefs which just broadens the spectrum to something you already don't know that well? Get the basics down and then maybe you will be worthy to discuss it in context of my personal beliefs. Think about that as an atual challenge: You could become smart enough to move me to talking about my personal beliefs instead of whining about me not doing it now. But I'll throw you a cookie in this case since it should be obvious anyway: You know I'm a Christian and you know I have no reason to contradict my beliefs as a Christian, so any idiot can put two and two together and assume based on my statement that I believe heaven exists and that it has existed prior to humanity existing. I didn;t make my statement to address this: This is called changing the subject and if I have never discussed my beliefs with you before as if I have some kind of special requirement theophobiacs are not beholden to, why would it be upsetting to you now that I'm not? It's odd behavior.
|
|
|
Post by rachelcarson1953 on May 25, 2019 15:47:23 GMT
According to whom? EVERY religion let alone denomination within religions claims that THEIRS is the 'real god' And how many is that, I wondered? From Wikipedia: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_religions_and_spiritual_traditionsNo way could I post all that here, it would take up pages and pages. But I had no idea how many different variations there were.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 25, 2019 16:46:22 GMT
FilmFlaneur I will never understand why theophopbiacs [sic] feel it's disingenuous tro [sic] talk down to their level. Since I do not have a fear of theology then I assume this condescending comment is not aimed at me. But if it is aimed at me then the point (which you fail to address) stands: that, as you have done before, you talk in assertive absolutes and then row back when it is questioned. It doesn't look good. Now you just seem defensive. Not all atheists are verificationists, it ought to be said, although many are. But I think you really know this. Other objections apply. Some might argue on occasion that the deliberate deity of your choice is unlikely for reason of internal inconsistencies. I know I have. Moreover as I have mentioned before is quite logical for your most cherished beliefs to be true without empirical evidence ... for you, that is. That is why Muslims for instance are happy to accept that an illiterate Mohammed was dictated the Qu'ran by a angel in a cave, Mormons think Joseph Smith had golden plates from God to transcribe from before unfortunately losing them, or some Christians say, as with you, that heaven was necessarily empty or not before the advent of Christ. It is good enough for those who have faith to just think it so, with the best psychological reasons. But my point is exactly that: none of us really 'knows' the transcendental, although it is possible to hold strong convictions - such as those you have shown above in regards to whether heaven was ever empty or not, at least before abruptly rowing back. The reason why I lack belief in the claims of scripture is that there is no way of demonstrating certain key claims are fictitious or not, in regards to much of whatever religion one follows. The problem is, as I have said yes, such 'basics' are most likely to be true, and valid, for you; but the cherished certainty of the credulous alone is never enough to ensure a universal absolute. That's the context. But I simply raised the point that you made a claim ("there was life in heaven before humans were a twinkle in God’s eye") when as an absolute truth it is unknowable. It seems perfectly reasonable to raise this point when you immediately after say that "I'm not discussing this as if it’s a fact". Surely you see how such contradictory writing makes your coherency in disputation look. In which case which is it: that 'there was life in heaven before humans' or that you are 'not discussing it as a fact'? To hold the two claims at the same time reads as a contradiction. I am only assuming what you believe based on what you wrote, which was a clear affirmative. But is hard to understand what exactly you do mean when you row back, (or contradict yourself) in succeeding messages - probably due to the inconvenience you anticipated above: of inevitably being asked to provide evidence. Some things really need to be addressed, my friend - especially when one is making a sweeping, if rhetorical, comment about mankind and what it apparently thinks. Is this just a long winded way of saying you have your fingers in your ears? This is just the sort of thing a theophiliac would say when faced with questioning. But it is reasonable, if any major assertion is made, to expect that what follows is consistent. Indeed. First you make a statement as if it is a fact. Then it is, apparently, not after all. Now it appears you refuse to discuss your beliefs at all. Ah well.
|
|
|
Post by goz on May 25, 2019 21:19:40 GMT
FilmFlaneur I will never understand why theophopbiacs [sic] feel it's disingenuous tro [sic] talk down to their level. Since I do not have a fear of theology then I assume this condescending comment is not aimed at me. But if it is aimed at me then the point (which you fail to address) stands: that, as you have done before, you talk in assertive absolutes and then row back when it is questioned. It doesn't look good. Now you just seem defensive. Not all atheists are verificationists, it ought to be said, although many are. But I think you really know this. Other objections apply. Some might argue on occasion that the deliberate deity of your choice is unlikely for reason of internal inconsistencies. I know I have. Moreover as I have mentioned before is quite logical for your most cherished beliefs to be true without empirical evidence ... for you, that is. That is why Muslims for instance are happy to accept that an illiterate Mohammed was dictated the Qu'ran by a angel in a cave, Mormons think Joseph Smith had golden plates from God to transcribe from before unfortunately losing them, or some Christians say, as with you, that heaven was necessarily empty or not before the advent of Christ. It is good enough for those who have faith to just think it so, with the best psychological reasons. But my point is exactly that: none of us really 'knows' the transcendental, although it is possible to hold strong convictions - such as those you have shown above in regards to whether heaven was ever empty or not, at least before abruptly rowing back. The reason why I lack belief in the claims of scripture is that there is no way of demonstrating certain key claims are fictitious or not, in regards to much of whatever religion one follows. The problem is, as I have said yes, such 'basics' are most likely to be true, and valid, for you; but the cherished certainty of the credulous alone is never enough to ensure a universal absolute. That's the context. But I simply raised the point that you made a claim ("there was life in heaven before humans were a twinkle in God’s eye") when as an absolute truth it is unknowable. It seems perfectly reasonable to raise this point when you immediately after say that "I'm not discussing this as if it’s a fact". Surely you see how such contradictory writing makes your coherency in disputation look. In which case which is it: that 'there was life in heaven before humans' or that you are 'not discussing it as a fact'? To hold the two claims at the same time reads as a contradiction. I am only assuming what you believe based on what you wrote, which was a clear affirmative. But is hard to understand what exactly you do mean when you row back, (or contradict yourself) in succeeding messages - probably due to the inconvenience you anticipated above: of inevitably being asked to provide evidence. Some things really need to be addressed, my friend - especially when one is making a sweeping, if rhetorical, comment about mankind and what it apparently thinks. Is this just a long winded way of saying you have your fingers in your ears? This is just the sort of thing a theophiliac would say when faced with questioning. But it is reasonable, if any major assertion is made, to expect that what follows is consistent. Indeed. First you make a statement as if it is a fact. Then it is, apparently, not after all. Now it appears you refuse to discuss your beliefs at all. Ah well. I have always felt rather sorry for Cool. He is caught in the 'Christian trap'. He seems an intelligent poster who is actually able ( unlike many theists) to see a degree of logic, and then gets caught within that trap despite His modus operandi has always been to argue vehemently, then dissemble and change the subject 'emphasis' if not the actual subject. Just as certain things about religion are 'unknowable', certain things are also untenable as logical arguments. Many stupid theists just take a leap of faith....Cool ( and this is a compliment of sorts ) is too smart and aware for that. That is his dilemma, and it leaves him between a rock and a hard place.
|
|
|
Post by rizdek on May 25, 2019 23:23:12 GMT
What do you mean by heaven? Heaven in the sense of some other realm/existence with other kinds of beings than physical ones (animals, people) that occupy the natural world? So your comment would seem to be aimed at those who wrote John and put those words in Jesus' mouth. I don't think John 14 gives any kind of context to how long heaven was around. To me and in context, it's clear he's simply saying there's a place for them there. So you believe the "there" already existed, ie heaven, but it hadn't been "prepared" for them. Sounds reasonable. AFAIK, heaven isn't mentioned in the Old Testament. Do you think it's referred to by a different name or somehow inferred, or that it's unimportant that it wasn't mentioned in the OT?
|
|
|
Post by ninelives9 on May 26, 2019 11:36:57 GMT
Surely if God was omnipotent, omniscient and omnipresent, he could run his own show?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on May 26, 2019 15:46:24 GMT
Our holy God is absolutely without fault. He’s so perfect that no earthly man or woman can look upon Him and live (Ex. 33:20). Unfortunately for the idea of a Bible which never contradicts itself, God appears to humans several times in the Bible without them dropping dead EG: Jacob saw God face to face at Peniel. "And Jacob called the name of the place Peniel: for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved (Genesis 32:30). The Bible says that Moses saw God on a number of occasions. "So the Lord spoke to Moses face to face, as a man speaks to his friend" (Exodus 33:11). In Deuteronomy we read: "But since there has not arisen in Israel a prophet like Moses, whom the Lord knew face to face"(Deuteronomy 34:10). Isaiah the prophet records himself seeing God: "In the year that King Uzziah died, I saw the Lord, sitting on a throne, high and lifted up, and the train of His robe filled the temple (Isaiah 6:1). It is hard to special plead for all of these, i.e that such an occasion was just metaphorical. From discussions on this board it is clear that believers are divided whether such a 'death' in hell would be permanent or just temporary. It is philosophically difficult to consider being alive, then dead, then alive again as logically coherent. (A similar quandary affects the crucifixion, see below) Also one wonders why, if your deity cannot abide evil in general, He then admits to initially creating it in Isiah 45:7? Then the answer is simple: let your preferred deity appear unambiguously, and without any qualifications hedged about by the usual special pleading, before us all today. Oddly, this act of simple manifestation is apparently not something the Lord often does lately, when it would do most good (although apparently, as mentioned above, He has apparently appeared before a small handful in the past)... which is odd as it would represent a win-win. For those of us who do not know whether a deliberate deity exists and lack belief because of such doubt and the usual impossibility of ever really 'knowing' the transcendental, such an event would at least finally allow an informed choice which for many would prove fairly compelling. Leaving aside the fact that the Bible tell us that no one can know God except the Holy Spirit, if one says that God's nature is indeed revealed through scripture, say, then among his less appealing characteristics in the OT must be admitted jealousy, vengefulness, anger, and a willingness to abide rape as an act of war. It is a interesting question too that, if God has a nature which cannot be violated, then who or what made His nature that way? Is God controlled by his nature? These are the sorts of considerations which would keep Aquinas up at night... Some, as you know, insist that Jesus was God on earth - an idea started by John. In which case 'dying on the cross' would have been strictly speaking impossible, since an entity cannot be both alive and dead at the same time.
|
|