Religion II

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by boxcar

If God indeed created the heavens and the earth by his infinite wisdom and power, and owns the entire universe, then does that make his "clay pots" (human beings) equal to or greater than the Potter (God) who created those pots? Should the clay pots rise up and demand equality with or superiority to their Potter?

I am almost certain that I played a major role in the "creation" of my son. Does that mean that I am justified in asking him to "worship" me...and should I dish out severe punishment whenever my "commands" are disobeyed?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Sure why not? The Hindu Rig Veda and the high priests of scientism probably sing out the same hymnal quite often. After all...both groups trace their spiritual roots to the same spiritual father.

Who is to say your "spiritual father" is any better than mine, Actor's or theirs? Very tough having a discussion when you when you damn others even before you are able to understand what they are saying. You sure as hell do not.

You condemn others because we, are thankfully NOT YOU

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I have often shown how either the finite or infinite model of atheistic materialism, violate the laws of logic.

In what post?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Actor

In what post?

I would also be interested. But I doubt he will be able to find that post.

Memory issues.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by thaskalos

I am almost certain that I played a major role in the "creation" of my son. Does that mean that I am justified in asking him to "worship" me...and should I dish out severe punishment whenever my "commands" are disobeyed?

You didn't create your son, you procreated to get him.

As a father, raising your son, did you expect him to honor and obey you, or did you owe him honor and obedience?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

In what post?

You have zero credibility with me. Actually, less than zero.

Many times I have demonstrated how your eternal universe theory violates the Laws of Identity and Noncontradiction. And in the finite version, how a thing cannot create itself because that would violate the latter law. See 9299 to Hcap, another senile airhead with a selectively poor memory.

Have a nice night.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Who is to say your "spiritual father" is any better than mine, Actor's or theirs? Very tough having a discussion when you when you damn others even before you are able to understand what they are saying. You sure as hell do not.

You condemn others because we, are thankfully NOT YOU

I haven't condemned anyone. All unbelievers have the same spiritual father; just as believers have the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob for their Father; for my God is not the God of the dead, but only of the living.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Post #9299 ... we constantly observe in this universe things that go out of existence, and things that come into existence; ...

No, we do not. That would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy. Things do not "go out of existence" and "come into existence." When an electron and a positron collide they become two photons with the same energy and momenta as before. Burn natural gas in an oxygen atmosphere and you get water and carbon dioxide. Energy and momentum are conserved. The list of such phenomena is virtually endless. If you want an example on a more worldly level, houses are built of wood, nails, etc. None of these components magically wink into existence. If the house is demolished we are left with a pile of trash. It does not magically disappear.

Can you give an example of something that has been observed going out of existence or going out of existence?

Originally Posted by boxcar

... therefore, we see immediately that Actor's proposition violates two laws of logic: The Law of Identity and the Law of Noncontradiction.

I have just demonstrated that it does not.

Originally Posted by boxcar

On the other hand, if you and your bud Actor do not accept the definition of "universe" ...

From M-W

postulate verb: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary.

If you delete the word postulated then your definition is acceptable. Not very elegant since the definition of postulate uses the word assume, but acceptable.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

I haven't condemned anyone. All unbelievers have the same spiritual father; just as believers have the God of Abraham, Issac and Jacob for their Father; for my God is not the God of the dead, but only of the living.

In which case how do you know, the Rig Veda , Carl Sagan, and Stephan Hawking are not speaking for "it" (him, or her)?

Yet you have condemned them all for being guilty of your catch all idiocy of "scientism"

[VigorsTheGrey]

Originally Posted by boxcar

What part of the definition of "supernatural" don't you get?

Also, the bible's primary focus is on the spiritual not the physical, therefore, divine revelation is not a science book.

The bible is the most important book in the world; for in it are the words of eternal life. You choose to reject the words of life, then by default you have chosen the path to the second death.

Yeah, right...SECOND deaths by burning in a lake of sulfur and fire for all those who do not believe in THE HOLY ONE...! For my wrath is GREAT against those who would deny me......! Geez...as of one death wasn't enough...now you got to kill us twice...? You actually expect us to believe this non sense...?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

No, we do not. That would violate the Law of Conservation of Energy. Things do not "go out of existence" and "come into existence." When an electron and a positron collide they become two photons with the same energy and momenta as before. Burn natural gas in an oxygen atmosphere and you get water and carbon dioxide. Energy and momentum are conserved. The list of such phenomena is virtually endless. If you want an example on a more worldly level, houses are built of wood, nails, etc. None of these components magically wink into existence. If the house is demolished we are left with a pile of trash. It does not magically disappear.

Can you give an example of something that has been observed going out of existence or going out of existence?

I have just demonstrated that it does not.

From M-W

postulate verb: to assume or claim as true, existent, or necessary.

If you delete the word postulated then your definition is acceptable. Not very elegant since the definition of postulate uses the word assume, but acceptable.

So, you're going to live forever, heh? Or did you always exist, so that you never came into existence?

The components of house don't disappear but the house can! A house can become a NON-HOUSE in a hurry any number of ways.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, you're going to live forever, heh? Or did you always exist, so that you never came into existence?

Living is not the same as existing. I began to live at some time in the 20th century and will cease to live at some time in the 21st century. Living is a process. Existence is not.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Living is not the same as existing. I began to live at some time in the 20th century and will cease to live at some time in the 21st century. Living is a process. Existence is not.

Life is existence. Death is not! When your life ceases, you cease to exist.

In fact, note the second definition in the M-W:

2 a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence b : the manner of being that is common to every mode of being

Have a nice night.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Life is existence. Death is not! When your life ceases, you cease to exist.

And your point?

Originally Posted by boxcar

In fact, note the second definition in the M-W:

2 a : the state or fact of having being especially independently of human consciousness and as contrasted with nonexistence b : the manner of being that is common to every mode of being

And your point?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

And your point?

And your point?

Are you that dense!? Things that go in and out of existence cannot be eternal, according to the definition of "eternal". AND...since the universe by definition is the totality of the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated, then this means the universe itself cannot be eternal, nor can we arbitrarily omit any thing or aspect of the universe observed or postulated, for then this would amount to equivocation by altering its definition. Additionally, what is eternal in its essence (or nature) is by definition timeless, having no beginning or end. Therefore, to say that the universe is eternal or infinite flies in the face of reality, as we all know it to be, and violates the laws of logic, specifically the Laws of Identity and Noncontradiction.

Have a nice morning.