20 questions

Discuss arguments for existence of God and faith in general. Any aspect of any orientation toward religion/spirituality, as long as it is based upon a positive open to other people attitude.

Moderator: Metacrock

Superfund
Posts: 237
Joined: Mon Jan 12, 2009 8:33 am

Re: 20 questions

Post by Superfund » Sun Oct 15, 2017 9:47 pm

From question 1, "No it does not, the question does not assume nothing is normal it assumes it's the only alternative to being."

I found it curious and unless someone knows otherwise that there doesn't seem to be a 'nothing' in the physical universe, something like a total vacuum no particles etc.
But it seems that you can demonstrate 'nothing in terms of human being via anaesthetics as when someone goes under, their cognition and brain activity continue, but consciousness gets shut down. This is still considered a medical mystery by scientists and some believe there is something that happens at a quantum level with anaesthesia that shuts consciousness off.

So anaesthesia might be an example of a ontological nothingness?

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: 20 questions

Post by met » Mon Oct 16, 2017 7:56 pm

.
Really? That is surprising. When I go past churches, I see big posters say "God loves you!". Maybe I should stop to read the small print where ot makes it clear that it is metaphorical love.

Can you find a web site where a Christian says this love is metaphorical?
Well, no one here is responsible for church signs either, Px..... ;) :roll:

But I think that's in reality just a way of saying something more like, "it'll be okay, don't give up hope!"

Really, it's pretty obvious that when, say, a spouse or parent believes in "love" despite bad circumstances - even if perhaps their loved one has an incurable illness - it means a different thing. Most Xians and other theists, since they are neither as stupid as doors nor believe themselves to be exempt from tragedies, are fully aware that, if God "loved" their loved one in the exact same way they do, that loved one would always be cured of distress in every situation.

....such a "belief" at a critical point, then, which seems to be where atheists tend to misunderstand and maybe even ridicule it, is instead rhetorical, single-minded determination, maybe a bit of desperate "faith" and a "hoping against hope" - even a way of "continuing to hope past the point of all hopelessness" - and is far more emotive than cognitive: "Going on anyway when there's no more point in going on" and such.... Thats the reason, the talking at cross purposes that happens when such parts of people's faith like "God loves you" are brought into question that these debates have the potential to raise so much ire. :roll: :roll: :roll:
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

The Pixie
Posts: 852
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 12:54 pm

Re: 20 questions

Post by The Pixie » Tue Oct 17, 2017 12:25 pm

Exactly a third of a year later...
met wrote:Well, no one here is responsible for church signs either, Px..... ;) :roll:
You guys represent Christianity, and Christianity is responsible for the signs, so...
But I think that's in reality just a way of saying something more like, "it'll be okay, don't give up hope!"
Is it? I think Christians make a big deal about God loving us - everyone personally.

See here:
https://www.projectinspired.com/god-lov ... ividually/

Or here:
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

Are you saying these are really saying "it'll be okay, don't give up hope!"? I could probably get an atheist bumper sticker saying that.
Really, it's pretty obvious that when, say, a spouse or parent believes in "love" despite bad circumstances - even if perhaps their loved one has an incurable illness - it means a different thing. Most Xians and other theists, since they are neither as stupid as doors nor believe themselves to be exempt from tragedies, are fully aware that, if God "loved" their loved one in the exact same way they do, that loved one would always be cured of distress in every situation.
And yet Christians still say it!

I suggest a better reason is cognitive dissonance.
....such a "belief" at a critical point, then, which seems to be where atheists tend to misunderstand and maybe even ridicule it, is instead rhetorical, single-minded determination, maybe a bit of desperate "faith" and a "hoping against hope" - even a way of "continuing to hope past the point of all hopelessness" - and is far more emotive than cognitive: "Going on anyway when there's no more point in going on" and such.... Thats the reason, the talking at cross purposes that happens when such parts of people's faith like "God loves you" are brought into question that these debates have the potential to raise so much ire. :roll: :roll: :roll:
Hmm, maybe the solution is for Christianity to stop lying about God loving us. That is the reason for talking at cross purposes. Christians saying God loves us each when actually they do not believe it, and then they go all :roll: :roll: :roll: when atheists take them at their word.

Jim B.
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: 20 questions

Post by Jim B. » Tue Oct 17, 2017 3:53 pm

Superfund wrote:From question 1, "No it does not, the question does not assume nothing is normal it assumes it's the only alternative to being."

I found it curious and unless someone knows otherwise that there doesn't seem to be a 'nothing' in the physical universe, something like a total vacuum no particles etc.
But it seems that you can demonstrate 'nothing in terms of human being via anaesthetics as when someone goes under, their cognition and brain activity continue, but consciousness gets shut down. This is still considered a medical mystery by scientists and some believe there is something that happens at a quantum level with anaesthesia that shuts consciousness off.

So anaesthesia might be an example of a ontological nothingness?
That depends on whether or not you think that consciousness is ontologically real. A reductionist would say that the period of anaesthesia would be epistemic nothingness, not ontological nothingness.

Jim B.
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: 20 questions

Post by Jim B. » Tue Oct 17, 2017 4:04 pm

The Pixie wrote:Exactly a third of a year later...
Hmm, maybe the solution is for Christianity to stop lying about God loving us. That is the reason for talking at cross purposes. Christians saying God loves us each when actually they do not believe it, and then they go all :roll: :roll: :roll: when atheists take them at their word.
I can't speak for met but I think that God does love us but that we can't fully understand how this human attribution cashes out in regards to God. God also knows stuff but without a brain. If quantum events are or could be exempt from the law of excluded middle, why couldn't God?

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: 20 questions

Post by met » Tue Oct 17, 2017 5:09 pm

The Pixie wrote:Exactly a third of a year later...
met wrote:Well, no one here is responsible for church signs either, Px..... ;) :roll:
You guys represent Christianity, and Christianity is responsible for the signs, so...
See here:high
https://www.projectinspired.com/god-lov ... ividually/

Or here:
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.

First, I think you got us confused with the Pope.....

Second, the "everyone personally" emphasis is a Prot theology thing (for some Prots, ie those who don't buy the Calvinistic limited atonement spin) extending basically from Martin Luther's "every man his own priest" kind of concept. The emph Prots give there has theo-historical roots, you see?

And even the famed John quote you just quoted, you might have noticed, says "the world" and not "everyone personally."

That is not necessarily the same thing...
Hmm, maybe the solution is for Christianity to stop lying about God loving us. That is the reason for talking at cross purposes. Christians saying God loves us each when actually they do not believe it, and then they go all :roll: :roll: :roll: when atheists take them at their word..
Jim gave a good answer! :o

I think maybe the more sophisticated and direct NT scripture might be the famed "God is love" from 1 John. But it's given in a context of emphasizing love within an early Xian community, so while God is in that relation, the direct recommended objects of that relation are solider, more concrete actual human individuals and/or the community itself.

... & prolly, if Xians did this better, we'd have to stand for less of these kinds of a-theological grillings, so..., but well, now, maybe I sound a little like the pope.... Sorry!
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Jim B.
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: 20 questions

Post by Jim B. » Wed Oct 18, 2017 2:35 pm

Jim gave a good answer! :o

You thought I gave a good answer? You feelin' okay? ;)

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: 20 questions

Post by met » Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:51 pm

What??? :shock: I didn't even know u ever read my posts! :o
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

User avatar
met
Posts: 2813
Joined: Mon Jun 16, 2008 1:05 pm

Re: 20 questions

Post by met » Wed Oct 18, 2017 5:54 pm

It's good to be back on here, btw..... I love my byline here so much! Makes me laugh every time I see it! :o :lol: :o

:oops:
The “One” is the space of the “world” of the tick, but also the “pinch” of the lobster, or that rendezvous in person to confirm online pictures (with a new lover or an old God). This is the machinery operative...as “onto-theology."
Dr Ward Blanton

Jim B.
Posts: 1440
Joined: Fri Aug 23, 2013 2:36 am

Re: 20 questions

Post by Jim B. » Fri Oct 20, 2017 2:45 pm

met wrote:What??? :shock: I didn't even know u ever read my posts! :o
I try to, unless I'm involved in a real protracted debate of my own, usually with Pixie. Then if you're also into a long, in-the-weeds discussion yourself, it's hard to keep track of both. With someone else's discussion, I genreally have to follow it from the beginning and all the way through to understand what the f*&k is being said!

Post Reply