Just because the processes of “social evolution” exceed the boundaries of classical scientific models and theories does not make them “supernatural”. There is no need for speculative analysis here.
Nothing exists that was not created.
To deny that fact is illogical.
The nature of the Universe is spiritual there can be no other satisfactory explanation.
This is not speculative, this is logical fact.
If something exists something created it.
If an infinite Universe it its entirity exists, which it does (the only thing that exists is infinite existence; to state otherwise is illogical), then something which possesses all the perfections of infinite materiality, while being at the same time something infinitely outside infinite materialty must also exist. The only thing that can possess all the perfections of infinite materiality, while being at the same time something infinitely outside infinite materialty, can be an infinitely perfect spiritual existence i.e. God.
This is entirely logical and is not speculative in any sense of the word.
This is deduction based on the fact the infinite material Universe exists.
Don’t even try to tell me the Universe is finite.
Non-existence cannot exist.
The only existence is absolute existence.
Unity, to clarify, if something happens, does that mean it was ordained by god, or gods will?
Perhaps not directly all of the time.
He would allow a certain amount of freedom/randomness to exist in the material Universe.
However He is the Ultimate Cause of everything.
So behind everything is God, and He can ‘tweak’ whatever suits Him as and when.
It would be like a school full of young kids who sometimes place nice/half-nice and at other times attempt to burn the school down.
The teachers will leave them alone when they play nice, or even half-nice, but will intervene when they climb up on the roof and pour petrol down the chimney.
Ultimately the school exists because other teacher-types required its construction, and so ultimately everything happens because of and is controlled by the teacher-types.
The kids are free to a certain extent within the school and are responsible for their own actions, for example whether they choose to obey the rules or not, but are not free in the sense that they can make the rules, or in the sense that the rules do not form and shape their very existence and exactly who they are (which would happen whether they understand/obey the rules or not).
What are your reasons for thinking this?
I don’t think it I see it.
It is obvious.
Ah, okay then.
What would be your reasons for thinking otherwise?
One of my reasons is that due to our finite nature we cannot understand god or gods motives or even be sure if god exists.
I wanted to know how you justified your belief that if something happens then it is God’s plan. In other words, what’s your evidence for thinking this? You answered something crazy, so I backed away…slowly…politely…I don’t want no trouble, mister.
I don’t need to have reasons for thinking otherwise, because I don’t think your reasons are sufficient to begin with.
Our finite nature would stop us from fully comprehending God because He is infinitely more than us, but this would not stop us from understanding His motives or stop us knowing of His existence (depending on the perceiver’s capacity for this type of knowledge).
It is true for some people that God does not exist.
It is true for them, so their view of reality as they find it is true.
However my view of reality is more adequate because it accepts and includes the truth of the atheists view, while the atheists view denies and excludes the truth of mine.
The more inclusive view is a more adequate because it is more complete description of reality.
I have answered the question, ‘if something happens then it is God’s plan’. The nature of the material universe is spiritual. Logically it can be no other way. Look back over my posts if you want.
My reasons are entirely sufficient.
You may not think you need reasons personally for your life, maybe you don’t, but to prove me wrong you certainly need very good reasons.
I urge you not to walk down this road, especially with a seasoned veteran of anti religious rhetoric.
The more inclusive view is a more adequate because it is more complete description of reality.
[/quote]
I’m agnostic. My views accomodate atheists and theists alike. Basically it goes like this.
God has not shown up, at least not to me. God has never performed miricles in front of me. There is no reason to believe that the bible was written by god or through men by god.
There is no evidence that God exists.
Now on the flip side, there is no evidence that god does NOT exist. I do not deny that Christianity might be “Gods Truth”, i just find it to be really really unlikely. There is no reason to believe, no evidence that Christianity is divine, nor any other claim about the nature of God.
To claim that Gods agenda is to make certain things happen, and to let others things play themselves out. To claim that gosd even wants to teach us is an asssumption.
There is no eidence either way. Any absolute claims are forever lacking evidence; they are at best guesses.
Sure my denial of evidence is an absolute claim, but if there was proof, or is proof comming, let it come and let me repent if God gives me that option.
If you claim to understand why god exists, yet cannot share that understanding, then there is no evidence, and your word is just as valueable as my own.
Human advancement has always depended upon the physical evolution of the brain, not only its size but its structure and propensity for handling abstractions and complexity,in turn this has depended upon changes in other parts of the skull, and very possibly the body as well. The trigger for the relatively recent advances in human cultures may have been caused by humans living in close proximity to each other, developing complex social systems and economic sciences.
That is not to say any human phenotype was capable of producing this, the physical conditions must exist whereby the organism has the physical potential for intellectual growth of this kind. When the time was right, everything simply clicked into place.
That very much depends on the definition of “universe” and “finite” that is deployed. There may be some semblance of logic in what you say, but I see nothing to suggest it is other than speculative: it is very difficult for it to be otherwise when one is positing an arche.
Worth a read if you are into that sort of thing. It presents a pretty compelling (and lay) case for how ‘more is different’ and ‘emergent properties’ that can inform a lot of the assumptions you are bringing to the table.
As for the old apologetic saw about the ‘uncaused cause’ . . . let’s accept that premise for a moment. How does that, in any way, relate to the divinity that you are describing without referring back to an authority that your target audience, by definition, doesn’t accept? It can be used as a tactic to reinforce faith amongst those who have it, but in terms of convincing those without a theistic paradigm to accept one, well, it is literally nonsensical.
You do realize that you’re making a very sweeping general statement about the world right? Some might even think that they’re dogmatic…not me, off course…but sure some might think that.
For any event that happens in the world, I have reasons to believe that it was caused by, and intended as it’s own end by God.
Not only do you need to show that god exists, and that he causes all events, but you also have to get into the mind of God and show intention…at best you’re going to reach for some first cause argument, which even if granted wouldn’t satisfy the requirements of the consequent of your conditional, and at worst you’ll cite the bible as an authority, which I don’t even need to get into…if you were honest, you’d admit that you can’t do it…that you’re stuck in the realm of faith, which as far as I’m concerned leaves your beliefs unjustified and about as relevant as the FSP (blessed be his noodly appendages) to philosophic discussion. But you’re not honest, granting that you’re intelligent enough to see that your beliefs stand on faith. You’re arrogant, and maybe even BSing us by telling us you have sufficient evidence. Though maybe you’re not. We’ll see when you show us your proof, and back it up by the evidence…
I’m agnostic. My views accomodate atheists and theists alike. Basically it goes like this.
God has not shown up, at least not to me. God has never performed miricles in front of me. There is no reason to believe that the bible was written by god or through men by god.
There is no evidence that God exists.
Now on the flip side, there is no evidence that god does NOT exist. I do not deny that Christianity might be “Gods Truth”, i just find it to be really really unlikely. There is no reason to believe, no evidence that Christianity is divine, nor any other claim about the nature of God.
To claim that Gods agenda is to make certain things happen, and to let others things play themselves out. To claim that gosd even wants to teach us is an asssumption.
There is no eidence either way. Any absolute claims are forever lacking evidence; they are at best guesses.
Sure my denial of evidence is an absolute claim, but if there was proof, or is proof comming, let it come and let me repent if God gives me that option.
If you claim to understand why god exists, yet cannot share that understanding, then there is no evidence, and your word is just as valueable as my own.
[/quote]
I don’t care if you are a seasoned veteran of Seattle Mud Wrestling.
I am glad your view accomodates mine, which makes it more adequate in itself.
There is no evidence that God exists to you. this does not mean there is no evidence. Everything tiny little thing that exists proves there is a creator. Simple as that.
It is true. It can be no other way. This is absolute evidence.
Just because it is not evidence to you does not mean it is evidence.
There is plenty of evidence God exists and no evidence He doesn’t.
My view is more inclusive and adequate for the larger part of reality than the atheists view because I can materially prove athesit truth and the truth of creation to exist at the same time (whether the atheist recognises this truth or not is irrelevant).
Why are you talking about Christianity.
Tell me what you think I have assumed and I will tell you why it is not an ‘assumption’.
There is plenty of evidence in favour of God and none against him.
No guesses here.
The proof is all around you, you just don’t recognise it.
I didn’t claim to know why God exists. I claimed to know his purpose for Humanity.
I have much evidence.
You view is just as valuable as mine.
Everyone finds their own truth.
There is only absolute logic in the phrases:
only absolute existence exists
non-existence doesn’t exist
Tell me precisely what you think is speculative and I’ll tell you why it is not.