Religion II

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But no one was around to observe the beginning. Therefore, the only thing intellect can do is make inferences.

The big bang can be observed today. It's called the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation.

What's wrong with inferences? I bet you infer a lot of things as you go about your daily life.

You are simply denying science while simultaneously enjoying the comforts it provides you.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The big bang can be observed today. It's called the Cosmic Background Microwave Radiation.

What's wrong with inferences? I bet you infer a lot of things as you go about your daily life.

You are simply denying science while simultaneously enjoying the comforts it provides you.

Inferences can often be wrong. Look at how often your own logic has run off the rails? Or Hcap's? Or Light's, as he's been working hard to surpass both of you put together in the off-the-rails department.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

If you are going to inject the word "analogous" into it then I refer you to the works of Simon Stevin, Galileo Galilei, Christiaan Huygens, Gottfried Leibniz and Isaac Newton. I'm fairly certain you can find their books on Amazon.

What's so difficult to understand about an analogy? Now you counsel me to read books on analogies -- written by fools who love to multiply words? What's so hard to understand about "likeness" or "similarity?

I have forgotten more about analogies than you probably will ever know; for scripture is full of them! Read Rom 5:12ff. someday.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Now you counsel me to read books on analogies -- written by fools who love to multiply words?

Straw man! I'm counseling you to read books on science written by greater men than you or I.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Inferences can often be wrong.

Anything can be wrong. The Bible for example.

I would venture that a great many diagnoses by medical doctors are inferences. Would you reject a doctor's diagnosis simply because his diagnosis is based on an inference and he could be wrong? After all he can't actually see viruses. Their existence is inferred by wave patterns from electron microscopes.

And of course your belief in God could be wrong.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Straw man! I'm counseling you to read books on science written by greater men than you or I.

If you want to know what an analogy is, look the term up in a dictionary. If you want examples of analogies, there are plenty on the web. I don't have to buy books in either case. If you can't understand what likeness, similarities or parallels are then a book would probably far reaching for you.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

Anything can be wrong. The Bible for example.

I would venture that a great many diagnoses by medical doctors are inferences. Would you reject a doctor's diagnosis simply because his diagnosis is based on an inference and he could be wrong? After all he can't actually see viruses. Their existence is inferred by wave patterns from electron microscopes.

And of course your belief in God could be wrong.

That's why people often get multiple opinions from doctors. And the bible is never wrong in anything pertaining to Faith or Practice. Never.

And I know God exists in various ways.

So...I'm still waiting. Can you point to anything in the universe that is in motion and does not consume or generate energy?

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

So you're light years ahead of your "best friend" in the spiritual enlightenment department since he so ignorantly held the written word of God in highest esteem, and very often quoted from the OT?

Now you are showing how ignorant you are of the Bible. Jesus many times overrode the so called written laws such as working on the Sabbath when he said “Who among you has a sheep that falls into a pit on the Sabbath and will not take hold of it and pull it out? Or telling those who are without sin to cast the first stone. In these and other cases, Jesus did NOT hold the written word in the highest esteem.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And if Good and Evil don't exist, neither does God for it written about him that he is GOOD in his essence. Your "best friend" said, that God alone IS good! But Good compared to what!?

First, define "good" and you will find that is a matter of opinion. Another illusion.
Second I am not saying good and evil don't exist. They exist but only in the mind, not the Divine.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

An inquiring mind is dying to ask the "most spiritual enlightened" one on this entire forum a burning question. Ready, Freddie? Since Good and Evil are not real in your world, explain to us why you vented your venom, like some escaped madman from an insane asylum, at Trump (or per your newly revised story of Trump's immigration policy) when that policy is neither good or evil in nature?

It is your illusion that I was venting like an escaped madman from an insane asylum over Trump's immigration policy. It is disingenuous of you to try to get an advantage on this by painting me as a raving lunatic. It shows me you are quite insecure about backing such an insane treatment of human beings.

It is Mr trump who is debasing himself before God with a policy that separates loved ones on the most sensitive level. I am not speaking in a political sense now. I am speaking on a spiritual sense. It's one thing to not allow people illegally into this country. It is quite another to cause them unnecessary pain and harm beyond what is normal for the circumstances by separating parents and children. I guarantee you when Mr. Trump passes, he will have to face the consequences of those actions.

Originally Posted by boxcar

And since I'm on a roll, I have another question for you: Since the ultimate measure of all reality and what is true and what is false to you is apparently your personal, subjective feelings and experiences, then you obviously must believe that there is no such thing as objective truth? In your world, truth and falsehood must be purely relative?

What roll are you on? You answered your own question by showing that personal truth is quite subjective. You think you're on a roll and I believe you are incredibly immature.

But to answer your question, just look at history and you can see that "truth" has been defined by various cultures and times. At certain times in history, certain things were a serious crime or not appropriate, now they are not. The Doors Jim Morrison was banned just for saying the word "higher" in a song on the Ed Sullivan show. Now Ed Sullivan must be turning over in his grave because the language used today in the media is 100 times stronger. That is because when the "truth" of what is right and wrong is based on materialism, there is no "truth" because it does not exist in that realm.

Divine truth is the only true truth. It is not subjective. It is not written. It is who you are and you cannot deny it because it is in your heart. Deny that and you deny yourself and will not be at peace. It is what you need to learn here in this life. It is fine to read the Bible. But you must enter your own Divine connection to the truth within.

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Can you point to anything in the universe that is in motion and does not consume or generate energy?

The entire universe, as a whole, does not consume or generate energy? That's everything that is, that ever was, that ever will be. Are you saying that's not enough for you?

Any subset of the universe either consumes or generates energy. Stars generate energy but any given star will not do so forever. Cosmic dust consumes energy but will not do so forever. But any energy consumed comes from some other subset of the universe which generates an equivalent amount. Conversely any energy generated is consumed by some other subset. This applies only to energy which crosses the boundary. Internal energy (energy which does not cross the boundary) remains constant and the system remains in balance.

Of course the universe in its entirety has no boundary, ergo, all the energy is internal and the universe remains in balance.

Understand?

[Actor]

Originally Posted by boxcar

That's why people often get multiple opinions from doctors.

And if two doctors do not agree then the people have to make a decision about which doctor's advice to follow. Will their decision be free of inference?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Actor

The entire universe, as a whole, does not consume or generate energy? That's everything that is, that ever was, that ever will be. Are you saying that's not enough for you?

Any subset of the universe either consumes or generates energy. Stars generate energy but any given star will not do so forever. Cosmic dust consumes energy but will not do so forever. But any energy consumed comes from some other subset of the universe which generates an equivalent amount. Conversely any energy generated is consumed by some other subset. This applies only to energy which crosses the boundary. Internal energy (energy which does not cross the boundary) remains constant and the system remains in balance.

Of course the universe in its entirety has no boundary, ergo, all the energy is internal and the universe remains in balance.

Understand?

How do you know the universe has no boundary? Have you traversed the span of the universe?

So, then since "any subset of the universe consumes or generates energy", the universe is a perpetual motion machine.

And if the universe is eternal, then why can't any given star generate energy for ever. How can the energy of that star be finite in an infinite universe?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

It is your illusion that I was venting like an escaped madman from an insane asylum over Trump's immigration policy. It is disingenuous of you to try to get an advantage on this by painting me as a raving lunatic. It shows me you are quite insecure about backing such an insane treatment of human beings.

It is Mr trump who is debasing himself before God with a policy that separates loved ones on the most sensitive level. I am not speaking in a political sense now. I am speaking on a spiritual sense. It's one thing to not allow people illegally into this country. It is quite another to cause them unnecessary pain and harm beyond what is normal for the circumstances by separating parents and children. I guarantee you when Mr. Trump passes, he will have to face the consequences of those actions.

But listen to yourself. You're still ranting like a raving madman. Explain to us in coherent terms how Trump can debase himself before God when his immigration policies are amoral in nature. Why are you making a moral judgments of Trump for his amoral acts? Since his immigration policy is neither good or evil, how can you possibly rail against perceived "harm" or "pain" to others, when these too are neither good or evil? [b]Why are YOU under the illusion that Trump's policies are evil!?

And what consequences enacted by whom will Trump have to face? Since Evil doesn't actually exist, what does Mr. Trump or anyone else in this world, for that matter, have to fear. PLUS...Everyone is covered by God's unconditional love. God loves Trump no matter what he does!

Furthermore, Mr.wanna-be expert on Love, since Good and Evil don't exist, then the very nature of all this love you say you feel and experience must be amoral in nature, as well. Explain to us why you don't love Trump unconditionally like God loves everyone and everything in this world. How is it that your love is so judgmental against purely amoral acts? If you can't explain yourself coherently, then what other conclusion can be reached other than you are really a "raving lunatic"?

What roll are you on? You answered your own question by showing that personal truth is quite subjective. You think you're on a roll and I believe you are incredibly immature.

But to answer your question, just look at history and you can see that "truth" has been defined by various cultures and times. At certain times in history, certain things were a serious crime or not appropriate, now they are not. The Doors Jim Morrison was banned just for saying the word "higher" in a song on the Ed Sullivan show. Now Ed Sullivan must be turning over in his grave because the language used today in the media is 100 times stronger. That is because when the "truth" of what is right and wrong is based on materialism, there is no "truth" because it does not exist in that realm.

Divine truth is the only true truth. It is not subjective. It is not written. It is who you are and you cannot deny it because it is in your heart. Deny that and you deny yourself and will not be at peace. It is what you need to learn here in this life. It is fine to read the Bible. But you must enter your own Divine connection to the truth within.

Yes, and you emulate history quite nicely. Truth to you is as you personally and subjectively feel it to be or experience it. Truth is all relative. What is true for you is not true for someone else and vice versa. And there is no truth in inherently evil hearts. The heart of men are deceitful above all else, so much so it cannot be understood (Jer 17:9)!

And if divine truth is not written, then your "best friend" was a blathering idiot -- in fact in far worse psychological, emotional, mental and spiritual condition than you are -- because he held the written word in the highest possible esteem, always quoting the OT and appealing to its authority. Jesus didn't come to replace the written Word of God or to nullify it or to set it aside. Quite the contrary! The eternal Written Word of God is of such inestimable value that he told us that he came to FULFILL the Word of God. He came to fulfill the Law and the Prophets (i.e. the OT). He had such high esteem for his own Written Word that he told his disciples that scripture cannot be broken (Jn 10:35). And then before he went to Cross ,Jesus told his disciples, that more divine revelation would be forthcoming by the Holy Spirit after he left them (Jn 16:13).

So, tell us, when did you discover that you, a "disciple" of Jesus, became greater than your Master? Do you disciple Jesus now? Do you instruct him?
Have you told Jesus that his eternal written Word has become obsolete and has been replaced by the much cooler written traditions of the Eastern religions of the world? Have you told your "best friend" how much cooler and smarter and more spiritual Buddha is than he is?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Now you are showing how ignorant you are of the Bible. Jesus many times overrode the so called written laws such as working on the Sabbath when he said “Who among you has a sheep that falls into a pit on the Sabbath and will not take hold of it and pull it out? Or telling those who are without sin to cast the first stone. In these and other cases, Jesus did NOT hold the written word in the highest esteem.




First, define "good" and you will find that is a matter of opinion. Another illusion.
Second I am not saying good and evil don't exist. They exist but only in the mind, not the Divine.

You're lying! You have denied that God and Evil exists. You have clearly told us that Good and Evil are illusions.

And Jesus never "overrode" the bible. What Jesus did was LIVE the scriptures and correct those who misunderstood and/or abused the scriptures. Jesus never told anyone to NOT keep the sabbath, for example. But many needed to be instructed on HOW to keep it!

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

No, the question at hand is can science identify a First Mover? I never said the First Mover has to be God. All I'm looking for is an uncaused cause. Therefore, since God created the universe, I'd say he's in a great position to give an account to his prophets. But many eyewitnesses does scientism does have, again?

On the other hand, if you and your bud Actor do not accept the definition of "universe" and wish to substitute your own, then Actor cannot be talking about the universe as commonly defined and understood. He's talking about his own limited version of what he thinks the universe is. And the only reason he wants to reinvent what the universe is is due to what I just said in the foregoing paragraph. You and he would both be equivocating to try to avoid the force of the two above mentioned laws of logic.

You did not address Aquinas and Aristotle's, and your faulty argument of a first mover or "uncased cause", which caves in under the fallacy of composition' and other logical tests. If you remember....

Logical Form:

A is part of B.

A has property X.

Therefore, B has property X.

You would rather deflect and misdirect as usual