Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 129 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jun 2012 21:21:57 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"We talk about perfection here.
Perfect love.
Perfect truth.
Perfect justice.
Perfect freedom."
No, you just keep insisting your god is this things and repeating them as if they reference anything.

"You rarely if at all see them in day to day life. Just flashings from time to time, which those with a heart for God spot and appreciate and those with stone hearts do not."
Nonsense. Believing in god or not makes little to no difference in your ability to reason morally.

"Evidence from human nature, state of the world, general natural world... they are all crying for the perfect explanatory, meaningful and resolving solution. Anything without God is ultimately poorly explained, meaningless and problematic with respect of harmony. And these are human terms."
You're terrible at reasoning and argument. The lack of perfection in the world doesn't mean you can assume them.

"Christianity is too common a designation. I would prefer Biblical (culturally explained) Christianity."
I have no idea what distinction you think you are making.

"Well many people choose "Hell", so its free after all."
No one chooses Hell it's the option Christian's leaves them if they don't prostrate themselves at the Christian's feet. It's dishonest to pretend this is a choice, it's a game you rigged.

"I would not hesitate to include any suggested phenomenon, showing the explanatory and well fitting any genuine seeker of truth power of the God-centred understanding."
Again, what are you saying here? You keep using words your arguments don't justify you using yet. All these things remain to be demonstrated.

"What have I not included?"
For starters, definitions for what you mean and intend to provide evidence for.

Posted on 24 Jun 2012 21:22:35 BDT
Withnail says:
They speak to you about intelligent and spiritual beginning. You have found sufficient evidence for yourself. Others require something more grounded.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jun 2012 21:32:55 BDT
Fatman says:
but that's just crap, your understanding is limited so you resort to 'goddidit'.
stop underestimating the readers here, please

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jun 2012 21:34:41 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Energy could have not turned into matter anyway, let alone being organised so intelligently as it is."
What does an unintelligently organised universe look like? Or an unorganised universe? Seems like you have a lack of data to make this a valid consideration.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jun 2012 21:38:42 BDT
He is a fiction, and you sound barely sane.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jun 2012 21:39:02 BDT
MBen says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jun 2012 21:44:06 BDT
MBen says:
What is the alternative? I have looked the alternatives: unknown origins of the Universe, aliens, unknown origins of the Universe...
Bear in mind, the most widely cited in peer reviewed papers hypothesis - the Big Bang hypothesis, (which by the way started off as derogatory term produced by the anti-theistic scientists, because to them it sounded too much like the Creation Account in Genesis) only explains how God did not how it originated altogether.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jun 2012 21:44:18 BDT
Drew Jones says:
""God did it" is the most plausible hypothesis."
It's barely a hypothysis let alone able to be considered plausible, as it doesn't advance our knowledge of what took place at all. It doesn't even address the question properly, no one (even you) is asking who did it but what happened.

How do you know it was *your* god?

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jun 2012 21:47:02 BDT
Withnail says:
Please see Drew's reply, as it covers my reply as well.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jun 2012 21:49:39 BDT
MBen says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jun 2012 21:52:43 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 8 Mar 2013 09:12:43 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jun 2012 21:58:43 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Jun 2012 22:01:02 BDT
MBen says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jun 2012 21:59:07 BDT
MBen says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jun 2012 22:01:51 BDT
Withnail says:
Have you heard of god of the gaps? Might be worth googling the term because it helpfully describes what you are doing.

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jun 2012 22:11:26 BDT
MBen says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jun 2012 22:12:57 BDT
Last edited by the author on 24 Jun 2012 22:15:01 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Did you read my remark in brackets about the Big Bang? How come the scientists I value so much have gotten down to (albeit in modern scientific language) the first verses of Genesis?"
It's quite simple, they haven't. Genesis is so naive and basic that it can not compete with modern scientific knowledge. It can however be simplified for the understanding of lay people who themselves are intent in presuming themselves able to discern what is valid from what is basic and wrong.

"Ex-nihilo (out of nothing) , so talked about today in modern physics and science, has been proposed by the theologians for thousands of years, based on the Biblical account and the enlightened view of the Natural Law which it (the Bible) terms revelation."
Physicists don't mean the same thing when they say nothing, the conversation is taking place above your head. It is certainly not the Bible that is pushing forward modern scientific theory. It's far to deficient in detail to be of use.

"What do you mean "my God"?"
I mean your *god* as in your's is one among many and not to be assumed to be the sole candidate if science can not explain everything to your satisfaction.

"He is mine because I seek Him and love Him. But for the purposes of science and philosophy, lets say for the time being, he is the One, the Objective Absolute."
No let's to say that until you can support the positive elements and rule out all other possibilities.

"Which image of God is greater than the God I described?"
One that fulfils your wishes for him rather than contradicts them leaving you to reinterpret love, respect, freedom or any other rhetoric you raise for him.

"Lets reason:"
I wish you would. Engaging a little more with what said to you than reasserting your own rhetorical agenda.

Posted on 24 Jun 2012 22:49:28 BDT
"Did you read my remark in brackets about the Big Bang?"

Your remarks amount to little more than the garden variety response of 'la la la I'm not listening goddidit so there la la la la'.

Tedious. Very tedious.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jun 2012 11:08:19 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 8 Mar 2013 09:12:45 GMT]

Posted on 25 Jun 2012 11:11:47 BDT
Isobel Ayres says:
Has Simon "The Fount" Boyd opened a second account, do we think?

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jun 2012 11:38:34 BDT
Pendragon says:
Either Somin, or, more likely, J Guest. Jim did refer to himself on Saturday (23 June 2012) as the "Guestapo", after all. Maybe he has the rank of Brigadier there?

Alternatively the Trolls have been breeding, and MR B Lott is the progeny of their union (ugh, makes one shudder just thinking about it). With the addition of some punctuation, his name can be rearranged to read: M. tRol, Bt.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jun 2012 11:55:32 BDT
Do you suppose they have a troll division in the army? Scary as all anything at night but useless during the light of day...

...like students.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jun 2012 12:00:56 BDT
[Deleted by Amazon on 8 Mar 2013 09:12:46 GMT]

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jun 2012 12:10:42 BDT
Last edited by the author on 25 Jun 2012 13:32:40 BDT
Acts5v29 says:
Good morning MBen,

===
There is more objective reasons to believe in this God than any other or not believe at all. That's a topic worth writing a book.
...
I say: " If there is no better explanation at the minute lets stick to God hypothesis and keep on doing our science". Again, science is explaining how God did it. It limits itself to that. Theology and science point at Who did it. "How He did it", the field of science, bears traces of the Intelligence which started it. It tells us a lot about God's creation which was initially good and then got distorted
===

The Scientific mentality is ever searching - that is its nature - whereas with God existing, all of the answers are already there.

There is a point worth bearing in mind: while science itself has ancient roots, this agressive scientific mentality is a newcomer, merely a few hundred years old, with a boost from the dawn of the "age of enlightenment". But God existed - and was acknowledged to exist - for millennia before that. This mentality isn't the wisdom it supposes it to be, rather it is a belligerent teenager which doesn't want to respect the experiences of its parents. It isn't the Lord of the Manor, but a squatter in history. Science is beautiful, but it only grows ugly when its more aggressive practitioners presume to have dethroned the King. That is the context in which it exists - for proof, see the generations of Hebrews and Jews who never for a moment doubted the existence of the God Who was active - active - in their history.

Science and God - not religion, not doctrine - are both relevant in the times we live in. I'm sure we can do more in mutual respect than in endless battle.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jun 2012 14:48:41 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Mben ""God did it" is the most plausible hypothesis" ; I'm glad you think so and it makes you happy. But it isn't.

In reply to an earlier post on 25 Jun 2012 14:51:29 BDT
C. A. Small says:
Sam- sounds like Prachett.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


More Customer Discussions

Most active community forums
Most active product forums

Amazon forums
 

This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  22
Total posts:  129
Initial post:  17 Jun 2012
Latest post:  25 Jun 2012

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 2 customers

Search Customer Discussions