I'm interested as to where this revelation originated?
The Seven Types of Atheism
- Thread starter Ahanu
- Start date
Good question. Tricky to answer, it was so different from my usual experience.
I'm tempted to say it had no origin, no cause, it was not provoked, and in that sense, it was grace. In a related sense, I was only able to receive it in surrender, but surrender by its nature can not coerce or provoke anything.
But you do get my drift? If it didn't come from outsude yourself, from 'God' -- a higher spititual intelligence -- how do you know it's true? The mind plays crazy tricks, we all know?
Last edited:
Of course I get your drift. The thing is, the intelligence vis-a-vis me collapsed along with everything else. Crazy tricks or no, it was contingent upon something, a mental state of mine or grace or whatever. As I said it is tricky to talk about, so as not to give the wrong impression.
I actually agree with this, the argument for person is based on an anthropological premise.
However ...
The classic definition of 'person' is usually based on Boethius, the 6th century Roman philosopher: "A person is an individual substance of rational nature."
This definition states:
a) Individuality
b) Substance
c) Intelligence and Will
I think this philosophical definition is a safer premise to discuss the idea of God as Person.
Yes, it's a big issue.
Many accept the notions they were raised on (blind faith) and many refute the notions they were raised on (a kind of 'blind faith' belief in science, eg the whole religion v science debate).
What many fewer do is interrogate the notions without prejudice ... and in many cases their upbringing has impaired their capacity to do so, many simply cannot get beyond early experiences. As Larkin said:
"They ******** up, your mum and dad.
They may not mean to, but they do.
They fill you with the faults they had.
And add some extra, just for you."
Anyone, not just parents, who teach ought to live under that maxim.
OMP!
This kind of logic lead the US declare corporations as people.
Would clearly include dolphins, elephants, ant colonies, and some forms of algae!
It is not how I explain it to myself, it is how I see it.
One says miracle, I say science. Saying a miracle happened, 'to me' is like saying magic happened. I simply believe that eventually science will discover the trap door.
My disbelief in the gods of religion as described to me includes the devils, and miracles as described to me. I am simply saying I believe there is another explanation.
I'd like to introduce you to Fred and his sister...
Well, not 'clearly', as you get into complex debates according to metaphysics, philosophy, morality, law, ethics, etc. at which point it broadens to discuss entities other than human, ie animals, or even non-corporeal entities such as corporates, nation states, etc.
But as a yardstick, the Boethius definition still holds, and the ancient understanding of 'rational' excludes animals, etc.
Humans are a land based animal. We have placed ourselves at the top if the food chain in the animal kingdom, not separate from it.
Or have I got that entirely wrong?
Or have I got that entirely wrong?
Same thing.
I know, there's your error, right there. It's a prolongation of the 'religion v science' non-debate.
OK, but that's not what anyone else says, so really it's irrelevant, or only relevant in that you're working from a flawed premise. Only in a very loose sense does anyone equate miracles and magic, and certainly not in serious discussion. It is conveniently if you want to a priori disallow other explanations, but then that is itself a sleight-of-hand, in that it says 'this' is the same as 'that' and then explains 'that' away.
For instance, one could equally say 'wonderful' or 'mystical', etc., but that does not mean 'wonderful', 'mystical' and 'magical' are all the same class of thing.
I know, but that is rather a 'blind faith' declaration in science, and a misunderstanding of what constitutes a miracle. It's a belief that both science and theology rejects, by the way, so you're really on your own there.
OK. And what we are simply saying is that explanations you've offered above are more flawed than the explanations you disallow.
And Polkinghorne generally, which at the beginning explains the relationship between science and religion
Nice because:
A) He mentions carbon, of which we are, is stardust and,
B) Fred Hoyle, on realising just how 'Goldilocks' organic life on this planet is, declared the Laws of Nature to be 'a put up job'. He was an atheist and could not accept the idea of a creator God, but was assured by his scientific discoveries that there is evidence to suggest an architect ...
And I like Polkinghorne's dismissal of the idea that our universe is conducive to life simply because it's the one, out of all the zillions of universes, that happens to have all the decimal points in the right places — and dismisses it because good scientific theories have a mathematical and inherent beauty, whereas that assertion has nothing of that order going for it ...
Nice because:
A) He mentions carbon, of which we are, is stardust and,
B) Fred Hoyle, on realising just how 'Goldilocks' organic life on this planet is, declared the Laws of Nature to be 'a put up job'. He was an atheist and could not accept the idea of a creator God, but was assured by his scientific discoveries that there is evidence to suggest an architect ...
And I like Polkinghorne's dismissal of the idea that our universe is conducive to life simply because it's the one, out of all the zillions of universes, that happens to have all the decimal points in the right places — and dismisses it because good scientific theories have a mathematical and inherent beauty, whereas that assertion has nothing of that order going for it ...
Last edited:
The Kalam Argument
1) Whatever begins has a cause. (Nothing comes from nothing.)
2) The universe had a beginning.
3) Therefore the universe had/ has a cause.
The only way to defeat the argument is to disprove one of the the three points.
1) Whatever begins has a cause. (Nothing comes from nothing.)
2) The universe had a beginning.
3) Therefore the universe had/ has a cause.
The only way to defeat the argument is to disprove one of the the three points.
Last edited:
No, he doesn't debunk it. He merely observes that it is not an argument for deity. Particulatly the Christian deity. But nowhere does it say that:
1) Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) Premise: The Universe began to exist.
3) Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
If the argument stopped there, well all's well that ends well. Relatively few people would have problems with the cosmological argument as given above. But, and there is always a “but” to have to consider, theists like William Lane Craig immediately leap to one further conclusion.
4) Conclusion: Therefore the cause behind the existence of the Universe was God* because the entity behind the creation of the Universe had to have been itself uncaused, beginning-less, changeless, eternal, timeless, space-less, an immaterial all powerful being who is a personal agent, endowed with freedom of the will. [To be quite honest, this is yet another pure leap into a philosophical God-of-the-gaps conclusion. If the cause is unknown, if there is a gap in our knowledge needing to be filled, the unknown must be God.]
... The effect (resulting from the cause) of the Universe coming into existence or coming into being is called the Big Bang event, so the cause of the Universe (i.e. - the cause of the Big Bang event) was something prior to the Big Bang event. If the Universe had a cause then that cause was obviously pre-Universe or before the Big Bang event ...
No- one's disputing the Big Bang. Or any other current scientific knowledge.
Sorry. You'll have to try harder, lol
Kalam Cosmological Argument ...
1) Premise: Whatever begins to exist has a cause.
2) Premise: The Universe began to exist.
3) Conclusion: Therefore, the Universe has a cause.
If the argument stopped there, well all's well that ends well. Relatively few people would have problems with the cosmological argument as given above. But, and there is always a “but” to have to consider, theists like William Lane Craig immediately leap to one further conclusion.
4) Conclusion: Therefore the cause behind the existence of the Universe was God* because the entity behind the creation of the Universe had to have been itself uncaused, beginning-less, changeless, eternal, timeless, space-less, an immaterial all powerful being who is a personal agent, endowed with freedom of the will. [To be quite honest, this is yet another pure leap into a philosophical God-of-the-gaps conclusion. If the cause is unknown, if there is a gap in our knowledge needing to be filled, the unknown must be God.]
... The effect (resulting from the cause) of the Universe coming into existence or coming into being is called the Big Bang event, so the cause of the Universe (i.e. - the cause of the Big Bang event) was something prior to the Big Bang event. If the Universe had a cause then that cause was obviously pre-Universe or before the Big Bang event ...
No- one's disputing the Big Bang. Or any other current scientific knowledge.
Sorry. You'll have to try harder, lol
Last edited:
Lol, one thing I don't have to do...is try.