| |
> In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Christopher L. Weeks writes:
> I want to start by acknowledging a significant resistance to the idea that an
> ultimate creator exists at all. That would certainly color my acceptance of
> evidence. I'm only saying this so that you don't feel the need to point it
> out. But I also believe that I'm open to taking in any reality that turns
> out to be actual. So...
Okay, that's interesting to me that you would acknowledge a resistance the idea
of the existence of a Creator. Taken all the way to the beginning, one needs
to agree on *some* starting point. Either you believe it all just started from
nothing, or a Creator (whose origin is inexplicable) started it all. Seems to
me that both require the same leap of faith, and are equal. You just choose;
neither one is any more plausible than the other. Both by definition are the
starting point to me.
> A serious start would be to demonstrate _any_ kind of paranormal experience
> that didn't have a simpler (by my reckoning) alternative explanation. I
> currently see no evidence of ghosts, spirits, witchcraft, magic, dieties,
> ESP, etc. If any of these things were demonstrated to me, it would (I think)
> open a chink in my reasoning for any of the others.
I don't know about the other things you listed, but aren't some examples of ESP
actually documented?
But again I caution-- maybe the ability to demostrate such things would be
possible, but they wouldn't necessarily point to the existence of a God. Being
a good skeptic, you would want more proof, and all of the sudden you are down
the road to trying to *prove* the existence of God, which is completely a
faith-based issue.
> As to what would prove the existence of specifically the Christian God, I
> guess I'd want Him to show up, explain some stuff, show me some miracles, and
> most specifically explain ethics and His grand purpose. It would probably be
> easier for Him to just change my mind and give me faith.
lol God would never rob you of the greatest gift He ever gave you-- the ability
to exercise free will. But even if He did show up as you would wish, would
that *really* convince you? Wouldn't you maybe wonder if it were some
elaborate deception-- what would be the odds of the Creator of the Universe
doing such a thing? Personally, I think miracles are overrated as
believer-getters. Even *I* would be skeptical;-)
> Honestly John, I live for the kind of cause of goodness that such a
> revelation would give me. I would probably make an obnoxious Christian.
:-)
> But I'm not willing to simply believe in something because it would be nice.
> And Larry has represented my current understanding in describing his
> preference to burn in hell before bowing to such a bastard.
I believe that was Tom's characterization of God:-)
Personally, I believe that the correct understanding of God's nature came from
Jesus. He taught of a loving and forgiving God (through word and deed), One
who desired to be in direct relationship with us. God is not a vindictive
bastard-- I believe God knows each and every one of us *intimately*-- we may
think we have secrets and we may think we know ourselves (and maybe we do if we
are honest), but God knows us *better* than we know ourselves, and God loves us
*more* than we love ourselves.
> Of course, if He could explain to me why He's good even though He seems bad,
> I might reconsider.
Perhaps you are referring to His followers who seem bad. Fair enough. I will
be the first to admit that Christians specifically aren't perfect-- they are
still human and prone to making stupid mistakes like anyone. In that respect
they are no different than anyone else.
And why God chooses to act through the deeds of His believers is a mystery, but
that's the way it is AFAIK.
We are all on a journey called life and are searching to live it as
meaningfully as we can. I believe that Christians have a map that shows the
way. Is my map the only map? I can't say, except that it is for me and anyone
else who cares to use it. I know I've got a good map.
Since I'm now pretty much witnessing and not debating, I'll offer to quit and
take this to email if you wish.
-John
|
|
Message has 3 Replies:
 | | Re: slight
|
| (...) idea (...) from (...) The existence of a creator, to me, implies that he's still hanging around. Since there is no evidence to support that, and it seems like there would have to be if He were really there, I choose to go with spontaneous (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: slight
|
| (...) Actually, He already did that, if one accepts the notion of original sin. The predisposition to sin (ie, an inherent tendency toward evil) is hardly a tabula rosa for free will. If God has inflicted upon us (or allowed to be inflicted) a (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
| | | Re: slight
|
| (...) You are defining an incorrect starting point then. Who/what created the Creator? A correct starting point for the Creator view would be when/how the Creator came to be. Otherwise, you are STILL left with the question of "how did it all begin"? (...) (22 years ago, 15-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: slight
|
| (...) evidence (...) I want to start by acknowledging a significant resistance to the idea that an ultimate creator exists at all. That would certainly color my acceptance of evidence. I'm only saying this so that you don't feel the need to point it (...) (22 years ago, 12-Jul-02, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
225 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
