Shop now Shop now Shop now Shop All Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Shop now Learn More Shop now DIYED Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Oasis Listen with Prime Shop now Shop now
Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

A Challenge to Atheists: Your Coherent View or Vision of Reality, without Almighty God... What's It All About Then?

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 26-50 of 1000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2013 19:09:59 BDT
Hi AJ

You wrote:
>>>Paul, You seem to think that endless repetition of an already answered question is a virtue. You asked what my coherent view was, I answered that it was (as you question implies) coherent. ... ... ...

Oh dear AJ... Do you really want to play such silly word games as a means of evasion?

Of course, IF you have a coherent view... it is coherent!

But, as you well know, what I am suggesting to you is that, without Almighty God, you have no coherent view or vision of Reality to offer.

.1. The intelligible universe is reality, but what is your coherent view concerning the origin of this reality?

.2. The intelligible matter or energy in the universe is reality, but what is your coherent view concerning the origin this reality?

.3. The intelligible laws of the universe are reality, but what is your coherent view concerning the origin of this reality?

.4. The Big Bang is reality, but what is your coherent view concerning the origin of this reality?

.5. The intelligible evolution of the universe from the Big Bang to the formation of the elements of the periodic table all over the universe according to universal laws is reality, but what is your coherent view concerning the origin of this reality?

.6. The intelligible universal constants, without which the universe would not exist are reality, but what is your coherent view concerning the origin of this reality?

.7. Intelligible life on earth according to universal laws is reality but what is your coherent view concerning the origin of this reality?

.8. The intelligible evolution of life on earth, again according to universal laws is reality, but what is your coherent view concerning the origin of this reality?

.9. You and all the rest of us are reality, but what is your coherent view concerning the origin of this highly complex reality, so like the rest of the animal kingdom in so many ways but so different in so many others?

.10. Your spiritual faculties, such as free will, reason, understanding, consciousness, conscience, concepts of goodness, beauty, truth, science, art, philosophy, theology... are reality, but what is your coherent view concerning the origin of this reality?

What is your coherent explanation of the cause, or reason for, all such Reality?

In other words, what is your coherent view or vision of Reality?

Best wishes

Paul

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2013 19:15:25 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jun 2013 19:23:12 BDT
##### says:
This is just the same tried old fallacious god of the gaps argument, isn't it?

Posted on 10 Jun 2013 19:19:25 BDT
Judi says:
So, who's going to answer the question? No one has so far!

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2013 19:19:37 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2013 19:31:22 BDT
"So, who's going to answer the question? No one has so far! "

Helps if you read with your eyes open, first...

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2013 19:31:46 BDT
AJ Murray says:
Paul,

-"Oh dear AJ... Do you really want to play such silly word games as a means of evasion?"

You reap what you sow.

-"But, as you well know, what I am suggesting to you is that, without Almighty God, you have no coherent view or vision of Reality to offer."

We know, but the fact is that your deity is incoherent, leads only to contradiction, and is superfluous to understanding. No-one needs your deity, and the majority of the world can manage just fine without. It is not nearly as necessary as you would like everyone to believe.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2013 19:36:35 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2013 19:41:21 BDT
Kleist says:
I will.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2013 19:41:33 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jun 2013 19:45:47 BDT
Hello Paul.

Well, a lot of questions from you!

It doesn't seem possible to quote easily on these forums, but I will have a go:

P: I'm sorry to hear that, but I thought that that might be the case.
- Well, that's a bit rude! Why should you be sorry to hear that?

P: I mean that it consists of intelligible matter or energy and has evolved intelligibly over the last 13.7 billion years or so, through intelligible laws... and not blind chance. Don't you agree?
- You use the word 'intelligible' as if you are investing it with a lot of meaning, over and above that it is able to be understood. I think I would need to know what that meaning was before I could comment. 'Blind chance' sounds pejorative, also. Do I take it that you are a creationist? I don't see why you separate 'intelligible laws' and chance. Why cannot an intelligible law come about by chance?

P: Do you believe it may have such a meaning or purpose?
- 'believe it may' seems somehow to be an oxymoron. It's possible that the universe might have a purpose.

P: Independent of the human beholder... i.e. not subject to human opinion.
- is it possible for a human to see anything as independent of themselves, and not subject to themselves/their opinion?

P: [objective] To man.
- Again, is it possible?

P: Don't you?
- not really, no. I don't think so.

P: Maybe most things have meanings.
- maybe. How could we know? How could we step outside our humanness and find out whether the meaning was something we invested or whether it is there independently of us?

P: Do you believe it could be?
- I don't believe it could be, but it is possible it could be.

P: If it does have meaning, do you think it might be something that we could comprehend?
- I think that's unlikely. The human mind cannot really comprehend the universe, its size, how it came to be. It seems ambitious to think we could understand why, when we don't yet understand what.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2013 20:41:24 BDT
Snowyflake says:
Hi Henry

Then you know what the Selfish Gene is all about :)

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2013 20:45:45 BDT
Snowyflake says:
Hi again Henry

One does not need a doctorate in theology to understand religion. Blind faith, unlike knowledge, does not require anyone to think, critically analyse, question, observe and make rational conclusions. Any idiot can be a believer (as we know from this forum). That's why governments like religion. It keeps stupid people stupid and keeps them from asking too many questions and keeps them faithfully paying their taxes.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2013 20:49:46 BDT
Henry James says:
I was being ironical Mrs Shaw.
Parodying those who think a doctorate in theology is worth anything.
Who say Dawkins is wrong because he doesn't have one.
I think theology is a bunch of clever and involuted arguments for things that don't exist.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2013 20:50:09 BDT
##### says:
This one has always puzzled me as well, do theists think only post graduate theologians, and a few lucky guessers, will be saved? I am picturing St Peter at the pearly gates with a copy of your dissertation in theology,

p**s p**r Binladen, that's an F for you, now **c* **f where you belong.

Posted on 10 Jun 2013 20:51:55 BDT
Snowyflake says:
Hi Paul

My 5 senses tell me what's going on around me. My brain analyses and navigates through this world. In all my years, I have not witnessed any reality that has supernatural causes or operates through magic. I don't believe that anything supernatural exists since there isn't any evidence for it. The best that we can do with this one life, is live it as fully, happily and with as much love for our family and friends as we can. There is no reward at the end of it. When your brain dies, so does your consciousness.

We are all going down for the dirt nap at some point. :) Dying isn't the scary part. It's not really living that's the biggest sin. So don't waste it worshipping pretend people.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2013 21:01:12 BDT
Snowyflake says:
Hi Henry

Are you still dead? :)

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2013 21:03:42 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jun 2013 21:04:37 BDT
##### says:
Eruditely put if I may say so, and with so many people so keen to prove the existence of anything metaphysical, yet failing to produce any empirical evidence, incredulity has to be the default position of any objective individual. As for death , well that's the price of admission for this ride, so enjoy it while it lasts, try not to be too hard on each other, and then it's hello darkness my old friend.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2013 21:06:05 BDT
Henry James says:
I just took my pulse,
and the answer is yes.

Posted on 10 Jun 2013 21:07:56 BDT
##### says:
I have the answer, here's a link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flvGmVgwkWk

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2013 21:09:47 BDT
Henry James says:
There is a most touching song by Bob Franke (a religious man) called For Real. The chorus is
There's a hole in the middle of the prettiest life
So the lawyers and the prophets say
Not your father nor your mother
Nor you lover's gonna ever make it go away
And there's too much darkness in an endless night
To be afraid of the way we feel
Let's be kind to each other
Not forever but for real

if you go to youtube and enter Franke For Real you can hear it.
Warning: it's spiritual.

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2013 21:13:24 BDT
Last edited by the author on 10 Jun 2013 21:18:48 BDT
##### says:
Awesome, thank you.

I also like this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y8AWFf7EAc4

Ooh, this too

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FtK-QCiD-FE

In reply to an earlier post on 10 Jun 2013 21:23:07 BDT
##### says:
I remembered this from the film Apocalypto, really enjoyed it..

a Man sat alone, drenched deep in sadness. And all the animals drew near to him and said, "We do not like to see you so sad. Ask us for whatever you wish and you shall have it." The Man said, "I want to have good sight." The vulture replied, "You shall have mine." The Man said, "I want to be strong." The jaguar said, "You shall be strong like me." Then the Man said, "I long to know the secrets of the earth." The serpent replied, "I will show them to you." And so it went with all the animals. And when the Man had all the gifts that they could give, he left. Then the owl said to the other animals, "Now the Man knows much, he'll be able to do many things. Suddenly I am afraid." The deer said, "The Man has all that he needs. Now his sadness will stop." But the owl replied, "No. I saw a hole in the Man, deep like a hunger he will never fill. It is what makes him sad and what makes him want. He will go on taking and taking, until one day the World will say, 'I am no more and I have nothing left to give.'"

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jun 2013 06:12:49 BDT
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jun 2013 06:58:23 BDT
Drew Jones says:
The point of life is to go on the internet to prop up your beliefs with repeated questions and support from your sock puppet accounts.

Posted on 11 Jun 2013 07:33:49 BDT
The greater portion of this argument lies on the presumption that mankind has a way of verifying whether what he perceives of reality is true, and in fact his internal content (the self) completely and absolutely corresponds with the content stored within his external reality (the cosmos excluding the self). I think that the entire existence of God circumvents this very dilemma- that the lack of information within one reality that is due to man's inability to perceive the whole definition of the external reality requires for the advent of an additional doctrine that will somehow clarify this conflict of duality.
I think that the existence of God complements reality in the sense that it complements mankind's existence as well. One of the irrefutable facets of man is that he seeks certainty where there is ambiguity as he strives to grasp the truths of the universe to gain mastery over it. God, whether he exists or not, is a solution to the problem- not the problem itself.
I am personally a supporter of the existence of the God and am thoroughly an agnostic theist who does not subscribe to the notion of an organised religion.
To get my bearing forward, I reiterate some of the few key points.
The principal argument put forward in this discussion is that the existence of an intelligible universe that is structured with a degree of apparent order requires for the presence of an inherent meaning, a deity or natural sentient force. The crux of the matter is that such a universe could only come by intent and not blind chance. This is blindly irrational though. We cannot issue a thesis that the universe is either intended or chanced because to do so we would have to bring forward a base for comparison i.e. an alternate extant universe that lies within man's sensory range. The universe's origin is largely separate from mankind and is in fact unknowable as mankind exists on the physical plane that comes forth from the existence of the universe and therefore has no access to the 'before' before the universe. I would like to point out that is a fallacy since time was created with the advent of the universe, hence there cannot be a before. Whether the universe is the product of chance or true intent is an argument that inspires no logical developments since all we are attributing a definition to this very origin- something which does not exist as a point in space and time- therefore the definition itself has no chance of existence since a logical definition, to my prejudice, must have a relevant link to something physical in our realm- with the definition being a model of internal content that subscribes to a piece of external content.
I can only say that it is absurd to decide upon the nature of the universe with its origin. With this in mind, the universe is either chanced or intended in this aspect. And I do not think that there is any way to verify the nature of the universe. Man can know things but cannot know whether what he knows is right. Therefore, man cannot accurately know, or to be more precise, he cannot know of the accuracy of what he knows. We consider the human being as being largely separate from animals and other existences when there is a great deal of us that is respectively common within our domain. Free will, consciousness, morality and all ideals in our world are apparent things we have attributed definition to- but we do not know or have a way of precisely knowing what it is. I am an absurdist in this notion, it is perhaps impossible for mankind to have an objective meaning of something if his own internal reality lies upon a different plane that the external reality lies on. I think that knowledge itself, or at least human knowledge, is an emulation of information within the external plane. Perhaps if mankind cannot perceive the full extent of information in the cosmos, he seeks to create his own interpretation of it with the idea that he could stumble upon it eventually if he is adamant in his persistence. To understand God, we must first understand humanity and his own fallibilities. We liken ourselves to be original and markedly unique and wondrous- when we might be either the exception that soils the truly magnificent rule or the rule itself in that we are common but we do not know it yet- hence we perhaps should not revere ourselves and our facilities as much as we do.
My idea is that God is the unavoidable solution to the problem at hand. That his existence, his creation- the belief of his existence is the most appropriate, if not best, solution to the conflict of duality. What is my coherent view or vision of Reality? I root myself to my absurdist ideals and say that there isn't really one- or rather it is impossible to achieve coherency from two planes of existence that are mismatched in content. It is pure logistics at the end of the day. The universe's existence by itself is not a creation of God. It is rather that the conflict arising from the universe's existence lends itself to the ideal that there is a God. Hence when we speak of God, we speak of not the universe but of man's universe.
I would take it for granted that there are quite a few fallacies in my argument. I am only a high school graduate at the moment and am therefore limited in mental foresight in comparison to more learned figures such as the commenters in this discussion. I would like to add that I have written this so that I could further myself on the approach towards the realisation of a resolution to this argument. It is a stump in the woodland yes, but there is no other point in discussion other than in devising the most coherent argument.

In reply to an earlier post on 11 Jun 2013 07:56:51 BDT
Bellatori says:
You sound like an Epicurian... good for you... he thought exactly that about dying...
Discussion locked

Recent discussions in the religion discussion forum

  Discussion Replies Latest Post
Announcement
Important Announcement from Amazon
154 12 Aug 2015
Christopher Hicthens 2700 11 minutes ago
Book (Snapping of the American Mind) shows Harvard tests showing parental neglect causes homosexuality 759 23 minutes ago
Why God is not good for morality by Žižek 246 1 hour ago
The odds on a planet developing life put in perspective. 652 1 hour ago
The stupidity of all those Brits who marched of to war in WW2 because they were told to. At least Islamic fighters do it for themselves, because they want to. 0 1 hour ago
The Power of Prayer. 1155 1 hour ago
Christians outnumbered in UK 83 1 hour ago
Today's most intelligent and outspoken atheist is .... 175 1 hour ago
Cure found for homosexuality. 567 2 hours ago
Blasphemy vs freedom of speech. 1041 2 hours ago
What makes homosexuality 'normal behaviour'. Is religious intolerance of it acceptable today has it was yesterday. Is homosexuality inhumaine and should it be made illegal once again. 22 3 hours ago

More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  97
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  10 Jun 2013
Latest post:  17 May 2014

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 4 customers

Search Customer Discussions