Religion Ask a Christian - Continued in Part 2

[Chief]

Continued in Part Two:

https://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/ask-a-christian-part-2.1295001/unread

 

[Roylion]

Do you have any ideas on the before and after?

No-one has any idea. Why must it be 'God' though? Define 'God'.

 

[sdfc]

Well yes. But the standard line is "God always was, and always is, and always will be".

What is your theory? The Big Bang? That's what I go with. Do you have any ideas on the before and after?

A probability field.

 

[Pessimistic]

In other words, 42

 

[sdfc]

In other words, 42

Not at all. I stand to be corrected but from memory, the probability of something happening at a particular point in time is unsolvable.

 

[travelli]

Nope, none the wiser, just pointless proselytising.
I asked you 2 very specific questions and all I took from your vague pontifical jabber was, “but our understanding is limited”.
On that point I’d agree that yours definitely is.

Sorry I couldn't give you a 1 paragraph answer to God and the meaning of existence on bigfooty.

So my understanding is limited, what was your theory?

 

[Number37]

Define 'God'.

For someone who has written novels in this thread about other how other people's beliefs are wrong you must be F'ing kidding asking that stupid question, again.
Seriously, how the F can you on the one hand trash talk someone else's beliefs about God then pretend you can't discuss God without a definition??

 

[travelli]

No-one has any idea. Why must it be 'God' though? Define 'God'.

God is the before and the after.

And the in between.

The is and the always was.

I know that is annoying, but you are asking for for a definition of the undefinable.

The quote from the Catechism that I put in a page back explains the Catholic position. Essentially we can't understand it. But the message from Jesus is that God is real, God loves us and wants us to do well and love ourselves and each other.

 

[Roylion]

For someone who has written novels in this thread about other how other people's beliefs are wrong

I've merely asked them to provide supporting evidence for claims they present as 'truth'. I've questioned the robustness of the sparse evidence when it has been provided or their interpretation of the evidence, especially when it appears to be solely sourced from a collection of texts that make up what we know as the Bible. For example, there is absolutely NO supporting evidence for the historicity of Adam and Eve, a global flood or the Exodus, all claimed as truths at various times by posters in this very thread.

you must be F'ing kidding asking that stupid question, again.

Its a perfectly reasonable question to ask of those claiming that the existence of "God' is truth. What do they mean by "god"?

Seriously, how the F can you on the one hand trash talk someone else's beliefs about God

I've asked for evidence for claims presented / advanced / claimed as 'truth'.

then pretend you can't discuss God without a definition??

If a discussion is to be held about the truth of "god", (as claimed by some) then a definition of what 'god' is or what they mean by 'god' should be the starting point. I'm merely asking for those claiming 'god' as 'truth' to define what they mean by 'god'.

 

[Roylion]

I know that is annoying, but you are asking for for a definition of the undefinable.

Then if "god"is "undefinable", does "god" merely refer to that which is unknowable?

But the message from Jesus is that God is real, God loves us and wants us to do well and love ourselves and each other.

How do you know this if "god" is "undefinable"? Why should you believe Jesus - a mortal who was claimed by some to be the 'son of god'? How do they know?

By that very description of "undefinable" that you use, surely the nature of 'god' (whatever god is) is unknowable and as such it is unknown by anyone both past and present whether 'he' "loves us", "wants us to do well and love ourselves and each other." Who would know the desires of this "undefinable" god?

 

[Number37]

I've merely asked them to provide supporting evidence for claims they present as 'truth'. I've questioned the robustness of the sparse evidence when it has been provided or their interpretation of the evidence, especially when it appears to be solely sourced from a collection of texts that make up what we know as the Bible. For example, there is absolutely NO supporting evidence for the historicity of Adam and Eve, a global flood or the Exodus, all claimed as truths at various times by posters in this very thread.



Its a perfectly reasonable question to ask of those claiming that the existence of "God' is truth. What do they mean by "god"?



I've asked for evidence for claims presented / advanced / claimed as 'truth'.



If a discussion is to be held about the truth of "god", (as claimed by some) then a definition of what 'god' is or what they mean by 'god' should be the starting point. I'm merely asking for those claiming 'god' as 'truth' to define what they mean by 'god'.

Why doesn't the absence of a definition stop you from rabbiting on and on and on about how their beliefs are wrong?

Another very simple question that you will, as you ALWAYS do, answer by answering some other question that you conveniently make up. Your made up question sounds similar to the question asked, but it isn't similar. Without fail, every time.

 

[Opine]

No-one has any idea. Why must it be 'God' though? Define 'God'.

Your repeated insistence on an evidence-based definition of God as a precedent for discussing belief in God is dogmatically circular and counterproductive. Moreover, it assumes that your seemingly rational position is, by default, worthy of placing the burden of proof on those advancing a contrary belief.

It would also be rational, albeit similarly dogmatic and unhelpful, for creationists in this discussion to insist that the official historical Preamble to your and their nation's very birth has already supposed the presence of God. Consequently, they might insist, unhelpfully similar to yourself, that the burden rests with those arguing otherwise to define and prove otherwise.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Your repeated insistence on an evidence-based definition of God as a precedent for discussing belief in God is dogmatically circular and counterproductive. Moreover, it assumes that your seemingly rational position is, by default, worthy of placing the burden of proof on those advancing a contrary belief.

How is automatically labelling the unknowable as “god” and applying all sorts of subjective, human attributes to it any more satisfactory?

It would also be rational, albeit similarly dogmatic and unhelpful, for creationists in this discussion to insist that the official historical Preamble to your and their nation's very birth has already supposed the presence of God. Consequently, they might insist, unhelpfully similar to yourself, that the burden rests with those arguing otherwise to define and prove otherwise.

Well then, as I said a few pages back, if that is “rational”, words would be meaningless, and why even bother to agree on their definition?

 

[carltonchelsea]

Sorry I couldn't give you a 1 paragraph answer to God and the meaning of existence on bigfooty.

So my understanding is limited, what was your theory?

I don’t have a theory, nor working hypothesis for “the divine” because it doesn’t exist.
The entire concept is childish and pointless to me amd should be to any rational sane individual.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

God is the before and the after.

And the in between.

The is and the always was.

I know that is annoying, but you are asking for for a definition of the undefinable.

This type of thinking is a capitulation to religion. This is like the conversation with my grandson I mentioned on here a while back:

Grandson: I think I’m a Christian

Me: Oh, why is that?

Grandson: Well, we don’t know who made the world, so it must have been Jesus.

Surely the sensible path when confronted with the unexplainable, is to simply accept and acknowledge that some things are unexplainable as things currently stand?

The quote from the Catechism that I put in a page back explains the Catholic position. Essentially we can't understand it. But the message from Jesus is that God is real, God loves us and wants us to do well and love ourselves and each other.

So it is about The Vibe.

(And I don’t say that mockingly; as I said the other day, I have absolute respect for believers who freely admit they can’t explain their belief. My issue is with the ones who claim a logic and rationality to their faith and then proceed to display anything but.)

 

[Roylion]

Why doesn't the absence of a definition stop you from rabbiting on and on and on about how their beliefs are wrong?

I'll repeat, seeing you didn't comprehend the first time I said it.

I've merely asked them to provide supporting evidence for claims they present on here as 'truth'.

Another very simple question that you will, as you ALWAYS do, answer by answering some other question that you conveniently make up.

I've asked them to provide supporting evidence for claims they present on here as 'truth'.

I've questioned the robustness of the sparse evidence when it has been provided or their interpretation of the evidence, especially when it appears to be solely sourced from a collection of ancient texts that make up what we know as the Bible.

For example, there is absolutely NO supporting evidence for the historicity of Adam and Eve, a global flood or the Exodus, all claimed as truth at various times by posters in this thread. If there isn't any supporting evidence why shouldn't I question their claims as to the historicity of these events / personages and then provide evidence to support why the opposite is thought?

Your made up question sounds similar to the question asked, but it isn't similar. Without fail, every time.

Then perhaps you should post what I actually have done more accurately instead of making it up.

 

[Roylion]

Your repeated insistence on an evidence-based definition of God as a precedent for discussing belief in God is dogmatically circular and counterproductive.

I'm not asking for "an evidence-based definition of God". I'm asking when people refer to "God" what is it they actually mean by "God"?

Moreover, it assumes that your seemingly rational position is, by default, worthy of placing the burden of proof on those advancing a contrary belief.

Certainly when people make claims about the nature of God and assign desires and feelings to this 'god' that 'he' "loves us" and "wants us to do well and love ourselves and each other" then they are envisaging god in a certain manner. I am asking what this manner is.

It would also be rational, albeit similarly dogmatic and unhelpful, for creationists in this discussion to insist that the official historical Preamble to your and their nation's very birth has already supposed the presence of God.

Then surely it is them making a claim to the existence of 'god'. What do they mean by the term?

In a debate, there is an implicit burden of proof on the party asserting a claim, since the default position is generally one of neutrality or unbelief.

Consequently, they might insist, unhelpfully similar to yourself, that the burden rests with those arguing otherwise to define and prove otherwise.

I cannot prove that 'god' does not exist. Well I don't think I can. Maybe it depends on what you mean by 'god'.

So it merely comes down to asking why I should believe the truth of claims that 'god' does exist. It is very reasonable to ask firstly before even considering the possibility of 'god', what does one mean exactly by 'god' when they refer to 'god'.

 

[Opine]

How is automatically labelling the unknowable as “god” and applying all sorts of subjective, human attributes to it any more satisfactory?

…Well then, as I said a few pages back, if that is “rational”, words would be meaningless, and why even bother to agree on their definition?

I don’t necessarily disagree with what you’ve written above. Hence, is the only rational position open, therefore = Agnostic?
Which brings us back to the need for continued scientific exploration, and or for those of faith to continue believing?

 

[Boston tiger]

I'm not asking for "an evidence-based definition of God". I'm asking when people refer to "God" what is it they actually mean by "God"?



Certainly when people make claims about the nature of God and assign desires and feelings to this 'god' that 'he' "loves us" and "wants us to do well and love ourselves and each other" then they are envisaging god in a certain manner. I am asking what this manner is.



Then surely it is them making a claim to the existence of 'god'. What do they mean by the term?



I cannot prove that 'god' does not exist. Well I don't think I can. Maybe it depends on what you mean by 'god'.

So it merely comes down to asking why I should believe the truth of claims that 'god' does exist. It is very reasonable to ask firstly before even considering the possibility of 'god', what does one mean exactly by 'god' when they refer to 'god'.

Why ask what does God exactly mean again ? Last time this was addressed you changed the subject to … show me evidence of God.

Why not just say what does God look like ? Because that is where you are at .

“"God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.”

Now the evidence of that is everywhere.

God is the infinite big picture . Fortunately humans ( well most of them ) are big picture primates and we are the perfect match .” Is that you father ? Yes yes yes comes back the answer .

Atheism is basically can’t see the forest because of all the trees “ sort of guys . Great for looking down a microscope or up a telescope all day. Not good for finding evidence of God though.

How does an atheists find evidence for God ? Start looking.

I’ve paragraphed the points for you. This could be a good big picture exercise for you Roy. Can you answer the big picture that a paragraph presents or will you have to revert to addressing each sentence . That in its self could be your first step in finding the evidence.

Know your strengths Roy. I trust the science guys you may just have to trust the big picture guys . We are all in this together and God loves you just as much as he loves me.

 

[freo99]

God loves you just as much as he loves me.

I never use to believe that, but God had to give me a big lesson on it.

 

[Total Power]

Why ask what does God exactly mean again ? Last time this was addressed you changed the subject to … show me evidence of God.

Why not just say what does God look like ? Because that is where you are at .

“"God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.”

Now the evidence of that is everywhere.

God is the infinite big picture . Fortunately humans ( well most of them ) are big picture primates and we are the perfect match .” Is that you father ? Yes yes yes comes back the answer .

Atheism is basically can’t see the forest because of all the trees “ sort of guys . Great for looking down a microscope or up a telescope all day. Not good for finding evidence of God though.

How does an atheists find evidence for God ? Start looking.

I’ve paragraphed the points for you. This could be a good big picture exercise for you Roy. Can you answer the big picture that a paragraph presents or will you have to revert to addressing each sentence . That in its self could be your first step in finding the evidence.

Know your strengths Roy. I trust the science guys you may just have to trust the big picture guys . We are all in this together and God loves you just as much as he loves me.

What does the Bible say about unbelievers? Yeah yeah, love thy neighbour (not an original quote anyway) etc, what does it say about having unbelieving friends? i am not even going to the OT (i know you don't want to go there too), but that Paul was a nasty campaigner. God is love, nek minit, unbelievers are a dogs vomit. Where are you getting your stuff from? Making claims and cherry picking verses while ignoring the terrible ones? Oh yeah you are a Catholic, the nasty organisation that protected and promoted peods for centuries. I suggest you read your book and when you are ready we can discuss, not loaded statements but actual theology.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

Why ask what does God exactly mean again ? Last time this was addressed you changed the subject to … show me evidence of God.

Why not just say what does God look like ? Because that is where you are at .

“"God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.”

Now the evidence of that is everywhere.

God is the infinite big picture . Fortunately humans ( well most of them ) are big picture primates and we are the perfect match .” Is that you father ? Yes yes yes comes back the answer .

Atheism is basically can’t see the forest because of all the trees “ sort of guys . Great for looking down a microscope or up a telescope all day. Not good for finding evidence of God though.

How does an atheists find evidence for God ? Start looking.

I’ve paragraphed the points for you. This could be a good big picture exercise for you Roy. Can you answer the big picture that a paragraph presents or will you have to revert to addressing each sentence . That in its self could be your first step in finding the evidence.

Know your strengths Roy. I trust the science guys you may just have to trust the big picture guys . We are all in this together and God loves you just as much as he loves me.

See this is what I mean. We're talking about evidence. You're talking about "evidence". What's the point of agreeing on the meaning of words if someone just comes along and shows that they don't care what some words mean?

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I never use to believe that, but God had to give me a big lesson on it.

And what was this lesson that the putative force behind the creation of billions of stars more powerful than our own sun shared with you, personally?

 

[Roylion]

Why ask what does God exactly mean again ?

Because I'm yet to read a consistent definition. 'God' is "infinite power and love" you claimed last time.

Last time this was addressed you changed the subject to … show me evidence of God. [/QUOTE]

I asked how you knew that 'God' is "infinite power and love" as you claimed.

“"God is a Spirit, infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth.”

So 'god' is a non-corporeal essence of a being or entity outside time and space?

Now the evidence of that is everywhere.

Where is this evidence that 'god' is "infinite, eternal, and unchangeable in his being, wisdom, power, holiness, justice, goodness, and truth."?

” Is that you father ? Yes yes yes comes back the answer .

"Is that you father?" Why do you refer to 'god' as father? What does that mean?

Is 'god' male? Does he have male genitalia?

Atheism is basically can’t see the forest because of all the trees “ sort of guys . Great for looking down a microscope or up a telescope all day. Not good for finding evidence of God though.

Evidence of "infinite power and love"?

God loves you just as much as he loves me.

How do you know this? How do you know that 'god; is infinite power and love' as you claimed earlier? You make the claim, but in essence that's all it is. An unfounded claim.

 

[Roylion]

See this is what I mean. We're talking about evidence. You're talking about "evidence". What's the point of agreeing on the meaning of words if someone just comes along and shows that they don't care what some words mean?

Yep. Let's define "evidence" at least.

"the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid."

 

[Total Power]

See this is what I mean. We're talking about evidence. You're talking about "evidence". What's the point of agreeing on the meaning of words if someone just comes along and shows that they don't care what some words mean?

I guess these believing types need to see how brutal evolution is and how cruel nature is. Death, decay, killing is rife in nature. We didn't get here by chance, it was 4 billion years of evolution and extinction that got us here. When they say look around you, i mean the 'subjective' cherry picking views.

"All loving" is such a poorly defined term, that it this discussion is near futile. God condemns us from creation (since the apple in the garden of eden). We have to magically stumble upon his good news (free will), not think it's nonsense, and then you get to enjoy his "love".