Oof... Salty loser... Spamming is not cool, mkay
(media.conspiracies.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (111)
sorted by:
It's not a fallacy to want to proceed slowly and deal with foundations first before getting to the complexities. But the link I provided shows the whole chain to the essential deep claims for those who jump ahead.
The first foundation is the argument for the Cosmos being a greatest thing, which is fundamental to how Christians describe God (technically the Christian panentheist route). Then we discern the Cosmos contains all reality, activity, order, life, etc. If you want to divert to a specific feature of "God", go ahead; but we've resolved the point you raised, showing that the Greatest Thing is not "supernatural" according to the totality of known and unknown laws of nature. Great atheist James Randi proved this, saying: if a so-called "miracle" or "magic" occurs in scientific testing, it isn't truly supernatural but something about which newly known laws can be proposed.
The fact that a "most convincing" argument against deity must exist does not prove that argument is valid: I understood "convincing" in the sense of indeterminate probabilism. If I had said valid arguments for and against deity both exist, that would be invalid and false. The student of truth listens reasonably to all arguments for and against deity before selecting tentative or firmer conclusions. One argument eventually overpowers another by preponderance of evidence, and disagreements get resolved.
TLDR: The Cosmos contains all power and thought and life. Do you acknowledge, with great atheist Carl Sagan, that it exists and contains all that was, is, or will be? Would you decline to answer that question in colloquy with that fellow atheist? The rest is just refining evidence about this greatest thing, which we can get to as soon as we agree on the foundation.
I was being satirical trying to help you notice the absurdity in using mental masturbation to define something into existence without having to describe it, identify it, or even show that it's real.
Also, you seem to think science is merely agreeing with the opinions of someone who is a scientist. It's not... Science is the scientific method. I could care less what Carl Sagan's random opinions are.
Anyways, I'll just end by saying this... I don't believe you are a real Christian. And what I mean by that is I don't think you actually believe in Jesus Christ as your savior, I don't think you actually believe in heaven and hell, and I don't think you actually believe in the Christian God.
Real Christians don't shy away from citing the bible as THE one and only authoritative source that Trumps everything else. Real Christians are proud to claim the label "supernatural" on behalf of their God and they are happy to argue directly for the blood of Christ washing away your sins. They don't make arguments where they equate god to the universe or a force of nature.
You my friend, are not a Christian. You are transitioning to an atheist, you're just not all the way there yet.
And belief is not voluntary. You never chose to be a Christian. And you never chose to start having doubts. And if and when you stop believing entirely, that won't be by choice either. It will simply be the natural result of your growing doubts.
And I will say this... Losing your religion is like going through the five stages of grief, and that's why many atheist's have a reputation for being angry. It's because they are.
Myself, I'm already on acceptance, and personally I like Christianity (real Christianity not fake internet Diest-christianity) and think it's a force for good in the world. I can see how it provides benefits to it's believers.
But like I said belief is not a choice. Once an illusion has been shattered there's no putting it back together even if you wanted to. I wish you luck on your journey and please remember this comment when you enter the anger phase. Remember you'll come out of it just fine in the end and trying to cling to something you know isn't true will only prolong your misery.
Good luck on your journey.
Given your length, I outline so you can read selectively.
a. I don't define into existence, which would indeed be fallacy. I observe real things, compare things, and judge one to be the greatest thing, by scientific method. I then further observe this greatest thing. By that process I confirm all the core Christian truths listed in my link https://scored.co/c/Atheist/p/141reluACp/-burden-of-proof-is-on-the-one-m/c/4OUfR2Rkd1Q (thank you for asking specifically about them).
b. I quote Sagan because he used scientific method (observation) to determine meaningful definitions (nature of Cosmos). I think you haven't once engaged with these basic truths by affirming that things exist and that we can refer meaningfully to the sum of all being by a name such as Cosmos. I'm glad you recognize what it's like to be transitioning in belief, you'll need that.
You think I'm not a real Christian because I respect you enough not to overload you with detail (as in fact you asked) until you're ready. So here's the paths from basic panentheism to real, full Christianity:
"Jesus Christ as your savior": Most atheists agree Cosmos implies right and wrong and that they have done wrong. Reviewing all systems of righting wrongs, I've concluded Jesus's system ("salvation") is the best.
"heaven and hell": Recognizing the Cosmos contains consciousness, found in informatic selves (minds), I ask whether consciousness can be restored once lost by the self (resurrection). Both historical testimony and modern experience with millions of NDEs indicate so, so I've concluded everlasting destiny exists, and has at least two characters based on one's system of righting wrong.
"the Christian God": I proved the Cosmos was infinite (limitless); so I conclude the basic definition of Christian God by proving the Cosmos is also personal. Since I proved the Cosmos contains the sum of all consciousnesses (persons), the immediate conclusion is that it too has every characteristic of person, in which human persons subsist. The Cosmos, being limitless, also contains the unknown, so it's sufficiently transcendent to be identified with the Christian God (i.e. not impersonal panentheism but consistent with the other creeds).
"the bible as THE one and only authoritative source that Trumps everything else": I think so, but to prove this I would first define standards of authority, then determine which historical documents have authority for comparison, then realize the Bible has at least a high standard, then realize the Bible's statements if given a high standard demand instead an ultimate standard. That's outlined in my link.
"the label 'supernatural' on behalf of their God": "Supernatural" is not in the Bible, "miracle", "magic", "marvel", and "wonder" are. If these mean that which makes people marvel and wonder (the unexplained), good; if these mean nature contrary to nature, they would be contradictory. Again, C. S. Lewis, Miracles. I quibble about supernature because God cannot contradict his own nature; but if this quibble is accepted the word can then be used.
"the blood of Christ washing away your sins": Yes, that's Jesus's salvation all right. Blood proves commitment unto death, proving by the highest possible standard that Jesus's commitment to save was genuine and pure and his right to everlasting life was unimpeachable. Resurrection proves his power to share that life with us, purging our corruptions. Seems very reasonable given that atheists agree right and wrong exist.
"They don't make arguments where they equate god to the universe or a force of nature": They do, but they don't ignore his personhood either. I respect you enough not to overwhelm you with personhood while we deal with other attributes. Christians say God is All Being, not just the (observable) universe, but the whole (known and unknown system) Cosmos: his name is "I Am", implying All Being, personally. Christians say God is many impersonal things, Light, Love, Spirit, Way. "Force" is not used this way Biblically, but Power and Authority are, Energy is used in Orthodoxy the same way, and LORD of Hosts means "I Am of Forces". So when theologians inquire in colloquy with atheists, they agree with atheists that "In him we live, and move, and have our being" (Acts 17:28 quoting Epimenides, also Aratus).
I did have minor "grief" or "anger" on realizing my parents' system of Christianity, while sufficient, was incomplete. I "accepted" losing the imperfections because of the much greater joy on finding further completions and on anticipating the process continuing forever. That's scientific method. I did choose Christianity:
If true, you admit you might become a Christian without any choice; great! If false, you would need to accept the responsibility of choice and investigate both your former faith and the attack that removed certain illusions from it but left you to doubt the solid part of it. Just because you recognized that your original system was imperfect doesn't mean the system needs total discarding: rather, the scientific method is that we refine theories and surgically remove imperfections by greater observation and experiment. In this, I don't wish people luck, I wish you blessing. You're free to share about "trying to cling to something [what thing?] you know [how?] isn't true".
No you don't.... Because you wouldn't be citing mental gymnastics and sophistry to convince me god is real, you would you use the bible, the way countless real Christians have in previous debates with me.
The fact that you know you cant use the bible in a debate tells me what you think of it's validity.
Possible? Yes.... Something drastic would have to happen to demonstrate to me the truth of Christianity. Then I would believe it again, Involuntarily.
But right now, my brain is telling me it was all an illusion. And shattered illusions can never be put back together no matter how hard you try.
If you present as an atheist, it would be rude of me to shove an unaccepted Bible or unaccepted God down your throat. It's more important to me to know what you do believe about e.g. why Christianity is good for people and what to do about right and wrong (plan of salvation). Then we have grounds for comparing paths. Christianity doesn't say "You must convince of God's existence by the Bible", we didn't have the whole Bible for most of the covenant people's existence. Plus, why should I repeat what others have shown you in the Bible, which hasn't worked, when something else might work as pre-evangelism (in the Bible, Jesus implies ground must be broken up sometimes before something can be planted).
In our whole conversation, you've left me in the dark about your current stance. So I ask specifically: What is your brain saying was the illusion? Who told you this first? Why do you believe that voice, and throw out everything from the voices of Christianity in your life? Why not build on (synthesize) what you leaned both then and now? How come you imply you have no responsibility for either belief, when you do believe in responsibility?