God is responsible for all the bad stuff that happens

[Dr.Who]

Dr.Who;80062]

Also called no accountability for a made up premis...

As one would expect miracles are only proof for those who have actually seen them. One would expect that people who actually saw miracles might be willing to, say, die for what they believe. After one has added up the various evidences for Christianity with an open mind it has good support but in the end it is still based on faith.

Well then we are in half agreement. Every Evangelical that gets up and spews that BS about God going after a certain group is a (as to probably be expected) liar.

It appears that you are talking about TV evangelists. And yes we are in agreement. I no of none except Billy Graham whom I would lend any credence to. And BG is still a man prone to error as much as anyone else.

My friend... I can argue the credibility of the Bible with you up, down, backward or sideways. I simply point to the flaw as you bring it to me. It's a "FAITH" document (not proof) written by men none of which were even close to being alive in Jesus time. Add to that the Catholic Church had hundreds of other "holy" writings of the time that it picked and choose from to make the book turn out as it wanted...

It is a faith document. Have I ever claimed otherwise? Whereas in contrast the believers of the scientific method have forgotten that it too is a faith document. It does have a greater number of recent observations that support it which is no doubt why I am a proponent in science and am glad that it is not in contradiction with my religious faith.

Thee are plenty of historical facts that no one doubts and are supported by data that is equally far removed. Also the canon was well established long before the a church made it official.



I'd say if I were in the Holy Roller crowd and felt only my particular sect was always correct I'd look at it that way too. But it's still not true nor provable.

You do not know it is not true (based on your later statement that one cannot prove a negative) and it is provable. God need only appear to you or everyone for it to be proved. He obviously has not done so - yet.

Are you trying to say that people can get into heaven by worshiping a God and not accepting Jesus Christ? Because if true that my be the Christian world's best kept secret & very good news to a whole lot of people.

Yes that is what I am saying. If one worships God then even not knowing the name Jesus one would still be worshiping Jesus since they are one and the same. It is right there in the bible for all to see so it is no secret. Abraham was credited with faith and saved. Yet there is no record of him knowing the name Jesus. Jesus said that the true Jew would recognize God when they saw him and be saved. And Paul says that a saving knowledge of God is presented to all men through nature and through the holy spirit - no mention of the name Jesus. Failing to hear the name of Jesus does not prevent one from recognizing God and his love. But rejecting Jesus means that one did reject God and his plan of love. When someone says that you can only get into heaven through Jesus they have just told you about his name. Therefore being aware of it you must either reject Jesus or accept Him and it would be true for the listener that he can only get into heaven by accepting Jesus.

I respect the fact you're invested in this particular theology. We could realistically go back and forth forever because one cannot prove a negative nor prove that someone's faith in the supernatural is a false believe... that's why it's called supernatural.

More or less in agreement. But just for sake of clarity since there may be some day when the details are important. One can prove a negative if one has all the data available to them. If I examine all the marbles in a box I can prove that none of them are green by showing that all of them are red. But when it comes to God none of us has all the data so, yes, His non-existence cannot be proven.

And yes one cannot prove a faith to be false, unless it is self-contradictory in in contradiction to other known facts.

But if you believe that a faith cannot be proven false then why did you say a few paragraphs up that Christianity is not true? This contradiction would prove that your believe system is false. And in need of some minor tweaking.

Still there's no proof of any of this and a whole lot of contradiction and alternatives if you study all world religions of all times. Add to that the many changes included that form today's most popular religions...

I remain in the Christian/agnostic camp and look forward to any proof.

I would encourage you to keep examining the evidence.

And I would comment that if you are agnostic then you can't logically say things like it is "not true and nor provable".

 

[top gun]

Dr.Who;80401]

Dr.Who;80062]

Also called no accountability for a made up premis...

As one would expect miracles are only proof for those who have actually seen them. One would expect that people who actually saw miracles might be willing to, say, die for what they believe. After one has added up the various evidences for Christianity with an open mind it has good support but in the end it is still based on faith.

These posts are too elongated but I'll try to hit all the quotes one more time...

We are in agreement... it's faith and not proof.

It appears that you are talking about TV evangelists. And yes we are in agreement. I no of none except Billy Graham whom I would lend any credence to. And BG is still a man prone to error as much as anyone else.

Together again but I exclude nobody.

It is a faith document. Have I ever claimed otherwise? Whereas in contrast the believers of the scientific method have forgotten that it too is a faith document. It does have a greater number of recent observations that support it which is no doubt why I am a proponent in science and am glad that it is not in contradiction with my religious faith.

Thee are plenty of historical facts that no one doubts and are supported by data that is equally far removed. Also the canon was well established long before the a church made it official.

Faith document... correct. But on the other historical facts we have some way to test and show some proof. If not it becomes the something like the story of Atlantis... we withhold final; judgment and continue to look for proof.

And the Church picked and chose what it wanted... I'm with ya.

I'd say if I were in the Holy Roller crowd and felt only my particular sect was always correct I'd look at it that way too. But it's still not true nor provable.

You do not know it is not true (based on your later statement that one cannot prove a negative) and it is provable. God need only appear to you or everyone for it to be proved. He obviously has not done so - yet.

I'm saying that's why I'm withholding judgment. I don't rely completely on some type of faith... some obviously do.

Yes that is what I am saying. If one worships God then even not knowing the name Jesus one would still be worshiping Jesus since they are one and the same. It is right there in the bible for all to see so it is no secret. Abraham was credited with faith and saved. Yet there is no record of him knowing the name Jesus. Jesus said that the true Jew would recognize God when they saw him and be saved. And Paul says that a saving knowledge of God is presented to all men through nature and through the holy spirit - no mention of the name Jesus. Failing to hear the name of Jesus does not prevent one from recognizing God and his love. But rejecting Jesus means that one did reject God and his plan of love. When someone says that you can only get into heaven through Jesus they have just told you about his name. Therefore being aware of it you must either reject Jesus or accept Him and it would be true for the listener that he can only get into heaven by accepting Jesus.

That's not really true you're mincing words here (for many years I worshiped and went to Bible study at Our Saviour Lutheran Church). Let's break it down this way to be more precise. If someone (and a Rabi would be such a person) out front does not believe and to his death states Jesus is NOT the son of God he cannot by Christian faith get into heaven.

More or less in agreement. But just for sake of clarity since there may be some day when the details are important. One can prove a negative if one has all the data available to them. If I examine all the marbles in a box I can prove that none of them are green by showing that all of them are red. But when it comes to God none of us has all the data so, yes, His non-existence cannot be proven.

As I said.

And yes one cannot prove a faith to be false, unless it is self-contradictory in in contradiction to other known facts.

As I said.

But if you believe that a faith cannot be proven false then why did you say a few paragraphs up that Christianity is not true? This contradiction would prove that your believe system is false. And in need of some minor tweaking.

Because we're talking on what could be two completely different planes. One plane is... is there a God. The other planes is... is Christianity the true and complete religion of God.

I would encourage you to keep examining the evidence.

And I would comment that if you are agnostic then you can't logically say things like it is "not true and nor provable".

Thank you... I will of course continue my whole life to keep examining and researching and I'm always open to changing my opinion per what I discover. That's actually how I got here where I am now. I had no major incident or traumatic problems with the church that drove me away screaming or anything.

It was very steady much like if I was always told frogs were born as frogs and later on in life I suddenly found out... no frogs start out as tadpoles.

As far as the whole agnostic position I can be open and willing to look for or at any evidence of a God... even want that to be true... and still be agnostic. When I say things aren't true in IMO about a certain religious belief that's about man made religion here on earth. Not the possibility of a God.

Like I said I'm even more provocative than that. I'd say I'm a Christian agnostic... or probably more correctly stated an agnostic Christian. From what I understand if I were to pick a particular religion it would likely be Christianity. But then again that's what I was indoctrinated into for the first 20-30 years of my life so that may be a skewed observation as well.

Bottom line I respect everyone's religious beliefs. I just fiercely protect mine and anyone else's right not to be engulfed and pressured by the beliefs of others... any others.

 

[VicSmith]

If I was taught correctly, I believe that God isn't responsible for everything. We are able to make our own choice, but it is He who molds the big picture to his liking. So I think it is that we make the bad decisions, and God has to do all the cleaning up.

 

[numinus]

Hey Numinus - why are you shying away from my request fro you to apply your chain of causality argument to sin?

Where did sin comr from?

Clue: it didn't come from anywhere but I will indulge you as I like a good laugh.

I have explained this a number of times. Apparently, you are just to dumb to understand it.

We know that there is a relationship between cause and effect -- hence causation.

We know that the relationship between cause and effect is defined within the dynamics of deterministic natural law and the undeterministic principle of volition or will. Some people do things simply because they WILL them -- often despite rational principles. So do animals. In fact, even sub-atomic particles are deterministic only up to a certain limit called heisenberg's uncertainty. Beyond that, the probability field of its motion simply becomes indeterminate.

That, in a nutshell, is how the REAL, COMMON-SENSE, MATERIAL WORLD works.

So, going back to your stupid question, where in this dichotomy do we find the cause of sin? It comes from the principle of volition or WILL.

Understand? I very much doubt it but I'm still obliged to ask.

BTW I don't know how many times I have to explain this but free will was made by god so he is responsible for free will (if you can overcome the illogicality of free will being made).

Of course free will was made by god. That is the common-sense meaning of the creator of EVERYTHING IN EVERYTHING, isn't it? Duh?

As for god being responsible to every effect arising from the exercise of free will -- well that is another of your boneheaded claims.

Responsibility, in the truest sense of the word, is one's 'ABILITY TO RESPOND'. One's ability to respond is hinged on one's ability to DISCERN THE LOGICAL RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN CAUSE AND EFFECT AND ACT ACCORDINGLY.

When you do an action using your personal power, and having the ability to discern the consequences of your own actions, whether you choose to discern them or not, MAKES YOU, AND YOU ALONE, RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT ACTION.

Is that simple enough for you?

I know you christians keep banging on about free will as though it matrerialised out of nothing but it didn't and you would seem far less desperate and stupid if you took on this point rather than ploughing on regardless.

As far as anyone is concerned, the only people banging about something coming from nothing are you atheists. The various cosmological arguments clearly demonstrate the illogic of such a thing. And I'm glad you realize the stupidity of such a claim.

So, the atheists got it wrong and the agnostics are simply too dumb to make up their minds.

Capice?

 

[numinus]

Dr.Who;80401]

These posts are too elongated but I'll try to hit all the quotes one more time...

We are in agreement... it's faith and not proof.




Together again but I exclude nobody.




Faith document... correct. But on the other historical facts we have some way to test and show some proof. If not it becomes the something like the story of Atlantis... we withhold final; judgment and continue to look for proof.

And the Church picked and chose what it wanted... I'm with ya.




I'm saying that's why I'm withholding judgment. I don't rely completely on some type of faith... some obviously do.



That's not really true you're mincing words here (for many years I worshiped and went to Bible study at Our Saviour Lutheran Church). Let's break it down this way to be more precise. If someone (and a Rabi would be such a person) out front does not believe and to his death states Jesus is NOT the son of God he cannot by Christian faith get into heaven.



As I said.



As I said.



Because we're talking on what could be two completely different planes. One plane is... is there a God. The other planes is... is Christianity the true and complete religion of God.



Thank you... I will of course continue my whole life to keep examining and researching and I'm always open to changing my opinion per what I discover. That's actually how I got here where I am now. I had no major incident or traumatic problems with the church that drove me away screaming or anything.

It was very steady much like if I was always told frogs were born as frogs and later on in life I suddenly found out... no frogs start out as tadpoles.

As far as the whole agnostic position I can be open and willing to look for or at any evidence of a God... even want that to be true... and still be agnostic. When I say things aren't true in IMO about a certain religious belief that's about man made religion here on earth. Not the possibility of a God.

Like I said I'm even more provocative than that. I'd say I'm a Christian agnostic... or probably more correctly stated an agnostic Christian. From what I understand if I were to pick a particular religion it would likely be Christianity. But then again that's what I was indoctrinated into for the first 20-30 years of my life so that may be a skewed observation as well.

Bottom line I respect everyone's religious beliefs. I just fiercely protect mine and anyone else's right not to be engulfed and pressured by the beliefs of others... any others.

I've had enough of your cheeky, agnostic nonsense.

You believe all sorts of things with neither evidence nor proof (at least, in the way you define evidence or proof). In fact, I cannot imagine human existence proceeding without them.

You believe in the superiority of your political system, the justice of your legal system, the professional integrity of other people you don't personally know, the love of your spouse and your children, the equality of human existence in whatever form it manifests, the inherent goodness of telling a truth as opposed to telling a lie, etc. etc.

And the inescapable truth is, the assertion that god exists is logically stronger than any of the above. In fact, there simply isn't any reason to believe any of the above if god, does not at all, exist.

 

[numinus]

Let me help you with an example.

God made Eve with a brain that would be more receptive to the charms of a talking snake than to his own voice.

It is then a bit rich to blame Eve being for seduced by a talking snake especially when all he was saying was 'would you like to eat one of the apples that god made for you to eat?' and God made her brain and the talking snake.

Altough I have to say that I think I am starting to be persuaded by such an obviously true and reasonable biblical story.

What an incredibly naive mind you've got. Certainly below the level of a 10-yr old.

Eve partook of the fruit of knowledge of good and evil in defiance of the divine imperative, regardless of who or what seduced her. Adam partook of the same, regardless of who or what seduced him. As such, they both suffered the logical consequences of their own actions equally.

Do we blame the existence of this particular appetite for food (or whatever human inclination such appetite allegorically represents)?

Of course not. The appetite to eat something is NECESSARY to maintain our material constitution.

Do we blame the creator for imbuing this appetite in us?

Most certainly not, since the appetite itself is necessary for human existence.

And because we put our faith in our own ability to know good from evil (which is what the 'apple' represents, and which, itself is an immutable function of free will), instead of simply following the divine imperative, then we become subject to the consequences of our own fallibility.

Does it make sense to simply remove our appetite for knowledge, thereby preventing human downfall?

Of course not. What absolutely prevents human failure ALSO absolutely prevents human success. In such a case, we have an infinitely vast universe DEVOID of the dimension of love.

Capice?

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

You are spectaculalrly good at avoiding the issue.

God gave Eve her brain with all the attrbutes that it had including susceptibility to persuasion. He made her brain more susceptible to the seduction of a talking snake than to a talking beardy guy.

I love the fact that you are arguing your heart out here about a talking snake story.

If this isn't ridiulcous I don't know what is.

Oh yes I do. The notion that god didn't make sin is utterly ridiculous.

If he had the decency to exist that is.

 

[numinus]

You are spectaculalrly good at avoiding the issue.

God gave Eve her brain with all the attrbutes that it had including susceptibility to persuasion. He made her brain more susceptible to the seduction of a talking snake than to a talking beardy guy.

I love the fact that you are arguing your heart out here about a talking snake story.

If this isn't ridiulcous I don't know what is.

Oh yes I do. The notion that god didn't make sin is utterly ridiculous.

If he had the decency to exist that is.

LMAO.

You think that standard catholic catchism fit for 10 year olds is 'arguing my heart out', eh?

Or that your silly post hides the fact that you can't understand what millions of 10 year old catholics understand?

Tell you what -- why don't you save your rants for your equally boneheaded atheist friends. That way, you'd be a chair short of a picnic.

Duh?

 

[top gun]

I've had enough of your cheeky, agnostic nonsense.

Well Mr. Wizard you're just gonna have to get used to it.

You believe all sorts of things with neither evidence nor proof (at least, in the way you define evidence or proof). In fact, I cannot imagine human existence proceeding without them.

You believe in the superiority of your political system, the justice of your legal system, the professional integrity of other people you don't personally know, the love of your spouse and your children, the equality of human existence in whatever form it manifests, the inherent goodness of telling a truth as opposed to telling a lie, etc. etc.

And the inescapable truth is, the assertion that god exists is logically stronger than any of the above. In fact, there simply isn't any reason to believe any of the above if god, does not at all, exist.

So following your train of thought EVERYTHING man hasn't been able to scientifically prove at that particular time in history was simply MAGIC! That's obviously head in the sand witchcraft type thinking, that over and over again has been proven just plain historically & factually incorrect.

You try to also connect human emotions and the ability for the human brain to do cognitive thinking and say... HEY! No way a person could figure these things out on their own.

But of course they can and here's the TEST... THE PROOF. What happens when a person or group of people are totally isolated from a society of religious indoctrination? Let's say as in a desert island tribe.

Do they miraculously come up with one of major world religions? That would be NO.

Do they have no order in their society and no sense of right and wrong? Also a NO.

Like I've said numerous times now I have zero problem with you believing that there is one God that created everything. I'm totally open to the "concept". But there are a lot of things I'm open to that I see no evidence of now.

I'm open to a ray gun that can sap a tornado and make it immediately dissipate saving property & lives... but I don't believe in it as we speak.

So my intent here is simple to say what we do know and not call supposition and religious speculation FACT. In this particular thread a good point was made that if as the Radical Evangelical types would say things like... Katrine was brought upon the people of New Orleans by God because the next week there was a Gay Pride Parade planned (we're all a little dumber for having even just read that)...

then when a trailer park full of devoted born again Christians is wiped out by a tornado... then that's obviously God as well.

I speak to the glaring hypocrisy and self serving nature here. Nothing more... nothing less.

 

[numinus]

Well Mr. Wizard you're just gonna have to get used to it.

I have ample experience of your nonsense. Do you expect me to suffer them quietly as well?

So following your train of thought EVERYTHING man hasn't been able to scientifically prove at that particular time in history was simply MAGIC! That's obviously head in the sand witchcraft type thinking, that over and over again has been proven just plain historically & factually incorrect.

Is this some sort of agnostic logic no one has ever heard of?

I'm saying that NOT ALL EMPIRICAL TRUTHS ARE NECESSARILY QUANTIFIABLE IN SCIENCE.

And going a step further -- NOT ALL EMPIRICAL TRUTHS ARE NECESSARILY SENSORY.

And if we can assert the above regarding empirical truths with a fair amount of certainty, what more do you expect from a metaphysical or ontological truth, hmmm?

You try to also connect human emotions and the ability for the human brain to do cognitive thinking and say... HEY! No way a person could figure these things out on their own.

Eh? Not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Must be some obscure agnostic logic that can only be written in very fine print.

Are you suggesting that your belief in your political or judicial system, for instance, is an emotional thing? Perhaps it gives you a hard-on speculating it?

But of course they can and here's the TEST... THE PROOF. What happens when a person or group of people are totally isolated from a society of religious indoctrination? Let's say as in a desert island tribe.

You mean the way judaism began? Or buddhism? Or any of the animistic religion we see presently?

Do they miraculously come up with one of major world religions? That would be NO.

You mean the way two people will never see the same thing in an ink blot? Or perhaps different ways to write a computer program to do the exact same thing? Or perhaps using different symbols to express the same mathematical theorem?

Do they have no order in their society and no sense of right and wrong? Also a NO.

Different manifestations of a singular immutable truth. What's so hard to understand, hmmm?

Like I've said numerous times now I have zero problem with you believing that there is one God that created everything. I'm totally open to the "concept". But there are a lot of things I'm open to that I see no evidence of now.

I'm open to a ray gun that can sap a tornado and make it immediately dissipate saving property & lives... but I don't believe in it as we speak.

So my intent here is simple to say what we do know and not call supposition and religious speculation FACT. In this particular thread a good point was made that if as the Radical Evangelical types would say things like... Katrine was brought upon the people of New Orleans by God because the next week there was a Gay Pride Parade planned (we're all a little dumber for having even just read that)...

Did you think I was criticizing you for maintaining an open mind?

What the cosmological argument say -- that there must be a first cause -- is entirely consistent with the assertions of physical cosmology -- that the universe started from a finite point in time.

What ontology says about the nature of the first cause is no more or less than what physical cosmologists say about the nature of the space-time singularity they believe the universe came from.

So, we have proven the EXISTENCE of the same thing (by two very different routes) whose nature, is largely indeterminate.

Now, try employing your 'open mind' to that and just shove your agnosticism where the sun doesn't shine.

then when a trailer park full of devoted born again Christians is wiped out by a tornado... then that's obviously God as well.

And the trailer park analogy didn't make sense the last time.

I speak to the glaring hypocrisy and self serving nature here. Nothing more... nothing less.

I speak to boneheads who don't know their head from their a$$, and consistently confuse their respective functions.

Certainly nothing more. Hopefully, nothing less.

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

''Or that your silly post hides the fact that you can't understand what millions of 10 year old catholics understand?''

Hey Numnuts, do you mean like how to take it in the ass from the priest after choir practice?

Or how Jesus' body is eaten 2000 years after his death by millions of idiots?

How does that one work cannibal?

Apart from the fact that the meat would be off, how fat was Jesus that his flesh can feed all these cannibals?

Do 10 year old catholics understand this ghoulsih pactise?

 

[Dr.Who]

So, the atheists got it wrong and the agnostics are simply too dumb to make up their minds.

Capice?

While I would agree that atheism is an untenable position unless one maked the cliam of atheis based on faith, I disagree that agnosticism is a result of being dumb. Some people simply do not have enough evidence yet to convince them. The Bereans searched the scriptures to see if what they heard from Paul was true. Certainly they must have thought what they heard might not be true or there would have been no sense in searching the scriptures. And Paul comended them for their honest and thorough skepticism. It is still worth noting that they approached it with an open mind and not a closed one. I find that an open minded agnostic would be worthy of comendation as well. A closed minded agnostic however would'nt really be an agnostic would he?

 

[Dr.Who]

[




That's not really true you're mincing words here (for many years I worshiped and went to Bible study at Our Saviour Lutheran Church). Let's break it down this way to be more precise. If someone (and a Rabi would be such a person) out front does not believe and to his death states Jesus is NOT the son of God he cannot by Christian faith get into heaven.

Well now we are in a lot of agreement on much. Aint life grand?

And yes I would agree that a rabbi who states that Jesus is not the son of God has failed to recognize God and therefore does not have the one quallity that is necessary - faith.

But this is entirely different that what you first proposed which was a rabbi who was God fearing. Obviously from a Chrstian perspective since Jesus is God then to reject Jesus he was not God fearing/revering.

 

[top gun]

numinus;80471]I have ample experience of your nonsense. Do you expect me to suffer them quietly as well?

How you handle things is of no concern of mine.

Is this some sort of agnostic logic no one has ever heard of?

I'm saying that NOT ALL EMPIRICAL TRUTHS ARE NECESSARILY QUANTIFIABLE IN SCIENCE.

And going a step further -- NOT ALL EMPIRICAL TRUTHS ARE NECESSARILY SENSORY.

And if we can assert the above regarding empirical truths with a fair amount of certainty, what more do you expect from a metaphysical or ontological truth, hmmm?

Nope... just plain old fashion regular logic looking for enough information to base a conclusion. You can "assert" anything you like... assertions are not truths nor fact. Your whole case is based on the supernatural. I'm fine with you saying you believe in the supernatural be it voodoo, witchcraft, fairies or anything else.

I could say it all started with an entire race of aliens that are just too mentally & scientifically advanced and too far out of our reach for us to begin to understand how they bend time and space.

You couldn't "prove" that wasn't true anymore than you can "prove" your own story is true.

Eh? Not quite sure what you are trying to say here. Must be some obscure agnostic logic that can only be written in very fine print.

Are you suggesting that your belief in your political or judicial system, for instance, is an emotional thing? Perhaps it gives you a hard-on speculating it?[/

1st... Google cognitive thinking it's not that difficult.

2nd... Belief in a political or judicial system is a learned response to trial and error that brings a wanted conclusion. There's nothing mystical about it.

3rd... The hard-on quote is kinda creepy dude...

You mean the way judaism began? Or buddhism? Or any of the animistic religion we see presently?

I mean like they simply come up with their own interpretations to explain what they would not be able to understand lacking scientific abilities. As in Native American Indians or the Mayans who had over 190 different "Gods".

You mean the way two people will never see the same thing in an ink blot? Or perhaps different ways to write a computer program to do the exact same thing? Or perhaps using different symbols to express the same mathematical theorem?

The differences over history are striking different especially considering that you promote the that the real answer is an absolute. Hindus believe you are reincarnated as a good or bad thing depending on your past life. Scientologist believe it was all about aliens. Ancient Greeks had all their various Gods... on and on and on...

However I give you props on the ink blot analogy... in an ink bolt test there actually is no picture. It's just a random spot meaningless spot that people themselves read into. EXCELLENT comparison to your supposition.

Different manifestations of a singular immutable truth. What's so hard to understand, hmmm?

Yep and that truth is nothing more than basic survival with confusion and guessing about causes of the unknown. Often they go to magic... witch doctors, medicine men and such.

Did you think I was criticizing you for maintaining an open mind?

What the cosmological argument say -- that there must be a first cause -- is entirely consistent with the assertions of physical cosmology -- that the universe started from a finite point in time.

What ontology says about the nature of the first cause is no more or less than what physical cosmologists say about the nature of the space-time singularity they believe the universe came from.

So, we have proven the EXISTENCE of the same thing (by two very different routes) whose nature, is largely indeterminate.

Now, try employing your 'open mind' to that and just shove your agnosticism where the sun doesn't shine.

Yada, yada, yada, even a "first cause" theory doesn't explain a "God". Because as we've already established if it was a "God" where'd he come from? And then he'd be coming from nothing. Get off the hamster wheel my friend you're just going to get dizzier.

My friend my mind is open... only unlike yours just not so open that it flops out on the table from the magic only explaination.

And the trailer park analogy didn't make sense the last time.

I've used the littlest words I could think of but I can see it's still hard for ya.

I speak to boneheads who don't know their head from their a$$...

Maybe that's your problem... you're part of the wrong group.

 

[top gun]

Well now we are in a lot of agreement on much. Aint life grand?

And yes I would agree that a rabbi who states that Jesus is not the son of God has failed to recognize God and therefore does not have the one quallity that is necessary - faith.

But this is entirely different that what you first proposed which was a rabbi who was God fearing. Obviously from a Chrstian perspective since Jesus is God then to reject Jesus he was not God fearing/revering.

I'm sorry if my first example was misleading.

I'm glad we agree on something and I respect the fact that you are a person of faith. The bad thing about these religion based debates is it often pits well intentioned people against each other both just calling 'em like they 'em.

I want everyone to find in life whatever makes them content, happy and at peace.