Got a bible? Grab it and look at this.

To all the agnostics out there,
Are any of you familiar with the law of non-contradiction as it relates to coming to an understanding of anything? I know that "belief" and "understanding" are not the same thing, but to believe in something you have no understanding of is to be credulous and to understand something you have no belief in? well I guess that can be termed as willful blindness in many cases. Anyway one cannot look at the cosmos and see no order in them, and order implies design and design requires a designer. Just a thought

0 Replies

JohnB: Well Done, Welcome Look forward to reading future posts from you. Smile

0 Replies

"With God we Live Eternal and He's right in his previous post.. It's the Only Way. "

thats your opinion, and just an opinion at that.

0 Replies

Order requires design? i hope you have some evidence to back this up because i dont see that.

0 Replies

JohnB wrote:

To all the agnostics out there,
Are any of you familiar with the law of non-contradiction as it relates to coming to an understanding of anything? I know that "belief" and "understanding" are not the same thing, but to believe in something you have no understanding of is to be credulous and to understand something you have no belief in? well I guess that can be termed as willful blindness in many cases. Anyway one cannot look at the cosmos and see no order in them, and order implies design and design requires a designer. Just a thought

I fail to see your point JohnB, if anything, your argument agrees with me, or at least makes my point. I do agree with you that to believe in something which you do not comprehend is utter foolishness. Also understanding something you don't believe in can be rather pointless; I wouldn't coin it willful blindness though, it doesn't apply. The fact is that one can look at the cosmos and see no order, yet others will see a divine design. Like I said earlier what a person understands to be truth, it's still not fact.

0 Replies

Etruscia wrote:

"but still call themselves Christians to achieve their own goals"

Isnt your goal "salvation" (i dont know what you want to be saved from but . . . regardless)

Arent you just using Christianity for salvation. What im saying is, if there was no way for you to be saved, would you still love your god?

I understand the teachings of Jesus the Christ to mean that everyone on the planet has been saved by the actions he took 2000 years ago. He sacrificed himself to save us (all of humanity). Maybe the word "save" means we were allowed to continue to exist so we may someday be able to understand, grow to be perfect.

Now, salvation, that could mean something else, or possibly "grow to be perfect" instead of our life being "poof" after we die.

0 Replies

etruscia.
question: If beauty is determined in the eye of the beholder, does it follow that truth is determined in the mind of the discerner? or that reason is completely subjective? or that order is the hallmark of chaos?

0 Replies

I get this, after wanting some evidence to back up your satement that order requires a designer.

Sure, itll be subjective, but that is irrelevant as i want to see what you think. I already know what i think, and i know that what i think may mean nothing to you.

0 Replies

etruscia,
I was just trying to figure out what type of evidence would be meaningful to you. If your idea of evidence is totally subjective then I nor anyone else would have the ability to convince you of anything you did not believe already. On the other hand if you have some concept of objective reason, that there is a world out there that exists whether you are in it or not or whether you believe in it or not then it might be possible to present to you evidence outside your experience that would change your paradigm and actually make a difference in your life.

0 Replies

etruscia,
The only proof I can offer is "ex nihilo, nihil fit" from nothing, nothing comes. The fact that there is something demands that we recognize that something brought it about. That something obviously has a sense of order because we can discern order in everything because everything that has being IS the result of some sort of systematic agregation of the components that give it its being whether it is an atom or the universe or anything in between. Also that Something has the power, wisdom, and presence to cause everything we percieve directly to be. And since that Something has told us Who He is and that He is, isn't it rational to believe Him? or to put it the other way, isn't it irrational NOT to believe Him?

0 Replies

Ex nihilo, nihil fit.

This is not a scientifically proven theory, that alone, renders your whole argument superfluous.

0 Replies

Ah, a true impirisist!
Let's see where is your scientific proof that ANYTHING DOES proceed from nothing? Just because you want something to be true (like the existance of God) does not necessarily make it so, and just because you want something not to be true (like the existance of God) certainly does not make it so either!!

0 Replies

Exactly my point John. Very Happy

I am not an atheist, I am agnostic.

0 Replies

There are two ways I know of to be agnostic. One, is to be ignorant of any fact that would make a person morally certain of the truth of a given situation through simply not being exposed to that truth and never having to have had the subject come up before him to cause him to seek to come to any true understanding of it. and two, is to willfully ignore what is right in front of him all the time and claim to be agnostic to justify to himself that there is no truth other than that which he is willing to recognize. Both are recognized in Scripture (the Bible). Neither is approved as a morally upright condition or attitude. To be willfully agnostic is to be in rebellion against the truth that the heavens show forth the glory of the Creator. If you admit that there is a Creator and refuse to seek to know Him in a world where to do so (that is where we are free to persue knowledge on most any subject we choose) is, I hope you will agree, a willful act.
In pursuing conversation on this web site you are obiously not lazy of mind, so why do you choose to be agnostic (not knowing)?

0 Replies

I am agnostic because I have no reason to believe there is/isn't a god. Your first reason just doesn't apply to me, since I've been bombarded by religious propaganda since I could understand what the words meant; therefore I'm not ignorant. The second reason just doesn't add up.

Quote:

and two, is to willfully ignore what is right in front of him all the time and claim to be agnostic to justify to himself that there is no truth other than that which he is willing to recognize

Let me begin with this; to ignore something, you have to be certain that it is there. Your god has never presented itself to me, therefore I haven't ignored him.

I don't use agnosticism as a scapegoat, and I think you need to be taught what being agnostic means. I don't deny the existence of a higher entity, I just recognize the fact, for it is a fact, that there is not enough evidence to confirm it exists.

I believe my reply, just made your last post ineffective. I'm highly disappointed of your last three posts, you keep going in circles, and jumping from one burning rope to the next.
Your replies to Etruscia were so ineffective that they clearly support and agnostic position.

Please, next time you post, choose your argument a bit more wisely.

0 Replies

JohnB wrote:

I know that "belief" and "understanding" are not the same thing, but to believe in something you have no understanding of is to be credulous and to understand something you have no belief in? well I guess that can be termed as willful blindness in many cases.

There is a difference between understanding the concept of God, and understanding God itself.

Agnostics may not believe in God itself, but we certainly believe in the concept of God.

JohnB wrote:

Anyway one cannot look at the cosmos and see no order in them, and order implies design and design requires a designer. Just a thought

Our understanding of the effect of Natural Selection on biological evolution shows us clearly that order can arise as a natural process without a "designer" as we normally think of the process of "design". So when we see similar order evolving in the cosmos, why would we conclude that anything other than an natural process was required?

0 Replies

JohnB wrote:

etruscia,
The only proof I can offer is "ex nihilo, nihil fit" from nothing, nothing comes.

I don't find this type of proof compelling because you rely on too many unproven assumptions...

JohnB wrote:

The fact that there is something demands that we recognize that something brought it about.

Cause and effect apply within the Universe we perceive, but they are not necessarily in effect outside of this Universe.

JohnB wrote:

That something obviously has a sense of order because we can discern order in everything because everything that has being IS the result of some sort of systematic agregation of the components that give it its being whether it is an atom or the universe or anything in between.

Just because a crystal grows in a solution, I don't assume that some unseen entity has a sense of order to things. Likewise, when atoms coalesce from quarks and aggregate into stars, I'm impressed with the natural process, but not convinced of a designer.

JohnB wrote:

Also that Something has the power, wisdom, and presence to cause everything we percieve directly to be.

Now you're building on the previous assumptions and applying human qualities to it, like "wisdom". Your argument is getting weaker.

JohnB wrote:

And since that Something has told us Who He is and that He is, isn't it rational to believe Him? or to put it the other way, isn't it irrational NOT to believe Him?

If someone walking down the street told you he was God, would you believ him? What if he wrote it down in a book, would that make it easier to swallow? What if he was a wild-eyed old fellow with a long beard who convinced a group of people who wrote it down in a book, would that do it?

Claims from peole or books are not compelling evidence.

0 Replies

Quote:

I don't find this type of proof compelling because you rely on too many unproven assumptions...

Yes, awesome! Now you know how I feel about things like evolution. Very Happy

0 Replies

Rex the Wonder Squirrel wrote:

Quote:
I don't find this type of proof compelling because you rely on too many unproven assumptions...

Yes, awesome! Now you know how I feel about things like evolution.

Come on Rex, you know better than that. Evolution is based on evidence, and lots of it.

In the post above, I specified the assumptions which are unproven. Can you do the same for the areas of evolution which you feel are unproven? At least then we could have a meaningful discussion.

0 Replies

John B: what to say. you talk as if your god is in plain sight, and has presented himself, and that im being a dummy for not believing in him. Well for one, i dont think your or anyone's god has presented themselves? As people above me have said, your using evidence, which are just excerpts from you beliefs, to try and convince me are ridiculous.

AS for the evidence, me being unable to convince, because of subjectivity, and what not is absurd. You just say that, so you never have to give me any evidence whatsoever. Tell me something, and give your version of evidence to back it up. Ill tell you if i do, or dont accept your evidence and why.

As for the reasons why were agnostic, i laughed, and i laughed. Either ignorant, or willingly blind. Ill take neither.i know much about the different theist theories, religions etc. as for willingly blind, well no god has ever given me a revelation, or any evidence whatsoever to make me believe in it, so that isnt an option either.

0 Replies

Got a bible? Grab it and look at this.

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know