Posted on 05/01/2011 7:24:18 AM PDT by Ethan Clive Osgoode
No dear, your mission is not to prove to me and others there is no God, your mission is to prove to yourself there is no God.
ooops......
:)
placemarker
I'll use that comment to launch my latest opus.
Yes, I don't know if your standards are too high in the main or if maybe some aim away too low, doesn't matter because most of us resist argumentation that leads to conclusions that do not and/or cannot fit our world of how things are.
And the more so if the strongly held beliefs represent a heavy investment of that ever precious commodity, time.
For example, My neighbor my almost fictitious neighbor, Max Skepticus says he wants proof God exists. Fair enough, I ask what he'll accept as convincing proof. Writing across the sky? No, an unseen drone could do that. Maybe some illustrious being with a phalanx of angels suddenly appearing in front of Max? No, Max says he would suppose he'd been drugged or maybe even burst a vein in his head first. And besides magicians can pull off some pretty impressive stunts too.
So I ask the Max just what WOULD be good and sufficient evidence and he says it's up to me to make the case I'm asserting.
O.K., but I can never meet the level Max demands because it is infinite, and constantly receding.
That is why the Max cannot put a name to what he will accept as convincing proof contra his belief or lack of it or uncertainty of which it is.
A small side note....Max, a.k.a. Maximilian Verner Karl Von something or other did exist but not as a neighbor and I did have a very similar conversation with him back in the early seventies. The real Max was an ex prisoner of war and an unrehabilitated Nazi. When I asked why he lived the U.S. instead of Germany he said he could make good money here.
Talking to Maximilian one had the feeling Orwell's character Winston had, that of talking to a person of superior intelligence who was insane.
Anyway attempting to “prove” to others something that cannot be proved to them is futile but the debate may sharpen the mind.
“And since we are fallible (or we should know that we are fallible) then our opinions, beliefs and personal truths, for the sake of good character, ought to be taken with a grain of salt and humility, always mindful that we may be even a tiny bit wrong.”
What??? And give the liberal atheist enemies an opening???
bttt
Dan, Am I the only one that finds your comment....um...Bizarre? But maybe ole Dan is having a go at us, eh?
Do you not see that the atom is a perfect representation of the Trinity?
Do you not see that 6 is the number of man?
Is the second beast not given the power to give breath to the image of the first beast so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed?
Does the second beast not call down fire from heaven?
Do you not see that a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic?
I'd try the recipe; but where can I get the ingredient, "220 g Quark, lean (Magerquark)?"
Thus you are still suggesting that what humans observe constitutes Reality: Nothing is real until it has been "observed."
Or do I misunderstand you?
“Do you not see that the atom is a perfect representation of the Trinity?”
I thought an egg was that. Since the hydrogen atom only has one proton and one electron what does it represent?
“Do you not see that 6 is the number of man?”
In Revelation it is so used but outside of the symbolism of Revelation I see no such connection. For example the “days” of God’s creating were six and then a sabbath in Genesis.
“Is the second beast not given the power to give breath to the image of the first beast so that the image could speak and cause all who refused to worship the image to be killed?”
“Does the second beast not call down fire from heaven?”
And this fits into atomic theory how?
“Do you not see that a sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic?”
I see that taking cliche’s as cosmic truths is dangerous.
The egg has 3 distinct parts, always. The parts of an atom can exist separately, but when combined they form an indivisible entity. This corresponds to Biblical teaching where each member of the Trinity can be separate but are always one. But, if you can't see the atom as the representation of the Trinity, then you can't see it.
"For example the “days” of God’s creating were six and then a sabbath in Genesis."
See Bullinger, "Number in Scripture". The number of creation is 4. In 4 days all of the material of the universe was created. All matter exists in 4 natural states. Solid, liquid, gas and plasma corresponding to the ancient earth, water, air, fire. There are 4 forces, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electro-magnetic and gravity. 4 seasons, 4 cardinal directions, etc. The number of creation (4) is indelibly present in creation.
All life was created on days 5-6. 6 is the number of man because he was created on day six but if you look, all life is carbon-based. Carbon is element number 6 and has 4 bonds. This speaks to life being created. There again, we see that creation conforms to biblical numbers.
"And this fits into atomic theory how?"
The power of the second beast in Revelation is definitely technological but apparently magic. He calls down fire from heaven and gives breath to an image so that it speaks. The point there is that technological advance eventually becomes indistinguishable from magic. We see technological advance (quarks do not exist naturally), it has the number of man on it (6) and the calls itself by magical names (strange, charm).
"I see that taking cliche’s as cosmic truths is dangerous."
Ah, what I'm saying is 'dangerous'. Yeah, ok.
There are German foodstores here and there in larger cities, and I have seen quark.
It’s close to Yogurt, so substitute plain yogurt and you should be all right.
For later reading.
If you've ever spent time with someone who is dying, "Ice Cold" can be a few degrees under the body's normal temperature. The term "ice cold" is a judgement statement by the person holding the dying person's hand. And yes the body loses heat right away. Don't be silly.
If you don't believe in God, fine. Just don't create a story to which you have no experience in to justify your doubts.
Man is not the measure of God.
The metaphor for the thought experiment is useful - but it is only a metaphor.
Thank you so much for all of your wonderful essay-posts, dearest sister in Christ!
Just one thought, FWIW, I'm less inclined to "snap" at atheists than "Christians" in heated discussions because I figure the atheists don't know better.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.