Relying on God is taking responsibility, Nick. You are the runaway in this analogy.
Yes.
1 Like
Nothing disingenuous in it.
But my characterization was right on.
Basically its, " i choose a definition that makes your question as invalid"
So never actually an atheist. See why we donāt shares yourfeelings?
I choose a definition that has been common for millennia. I (he) did not just make it up.
1 Like
My only effort has been to try to help you see what most Christians think (which doesnāt match how you think). And thatās fine. But it just means that the āproblemā you think weāre trying to dodge is a problem that we never had in the first place [apart from some Creationists who very much have imbibed the modernist bait and in that regard think much more like you do]. You can define it in such a way as to try to create that problem for Christians, but that remains nothing more than a curious intellectual exercise as it doesnāt actually touch on the classical Christian understanding of God - something I would think you would be interested in understanding if youāre hoping to engage with Christian argument. But ā¦ whatever.
So what words of yours specifically that Iāve failed to read or respond to? I will read and try to engage it using whatever definitions you would like to stick to.
2 Likes
Well, it never hurts to see both sidesā¦but the data in my previous post suggests, at very least, the odds are rather dicey when it comes to things just working out ājust rightā and all by chanceā¦or luckā¦the supposition that things could happen ājust randomly or without design or planā is somewhat like that old theory ā something I read in a school science book long ago ā which held (back in the day when it was believed) that if you put a rag and some sticks in a box and leave the box in a dark corner, magically (yes, randomly for no purpose), within a short time the combined ingredients of that box will erupt in the form of a mouse. This apparently WAS a belief at one time ā the twigs and such in a small box in a dark corner mysteriously and accidentally became a living mouseā¦
Ridiculous, you say? WElllā¦
āThe chance that higher life forms might have emerged by chance is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from materials therein.ā ā rgi.com/story/life/2021/06/24
If you see a parking lot full of cars, you do not assume that they just popped up randomly with no purpose or intention behind their being there.
1 Like
Pretty presumptuous of you to tell me what I was or wasnāt with a complete lack of information about me and my life. Is that the type of fuzzy thinking that leads you to atheism? Iāll pass.
Vinnie
3 Likes
As if i said you did.
Whatevs. Nothing to discuss.
1 Like
Later. I want to give my best response, not texting from ( sorry) the beach.
2 Likes
This reminds me of the three body problem.
1 Like
How so? You rely on someone for your life . Im not. How is that taking reaponsibility?
Or maybe ball lightning
Iād like to buy a clue as to where this comes from and how it fits here.
1 Like
āno general closed-form solution existsā, the three bodies maybe being Astrid, Merv and myself not coming to agreement about a definition?
2 Likes
I will keep it simple. If you want to address things i brought up esrlier, fine, but they are peripheralā¦
First, i dont accept that there is a god, second, if there is, i dont accept the Christian version.
Starting premise that assumes a conclusion doesnt work, convincing me.
The kalam cosmology thing however expressed, only convinces
the believers.
To me its no better than a too cute by one half way of begging
the question.
Nobody knows. Is Tegmark correct with his Mathematical universe(s)?
At the very least, its based on math / science that one can work
through and make sense of it.
Hoary " philosophy" and things said to have been revealed in some
alien culture just fall flat with me.
Three Body Problem is a sci fi novel. Likewise, Ball Lightning u Any connection is obscure to me.
ā¦but in lowercase, itās not.
Working out the orbital mechanics of two similar gravitationally linked objects around their barycentre is Newtonian childās play. Three. The above fruitā¦fulness is on its way to n-bodies. Yeats also comes to mind.
Very well. I was just wanting to make sure that I hadnāt missed something that you then thought I was ignoring or unaware of. Of the summary remarks you made, the Mathematical universe(s) of Tegmark is the only thing Iām unfamiliar with (or at least I donāt know anything about Tegmark specifically - though Iāve certainly heard of the multiverse). As to the rest, they are all good to remain peripheral. I donāt put much weight on (or start with) the kalam cosmology either - at least not as a lone starting point.
I do recognize there are many who may have started there. And the Christian God (if such exists) may indeed use those inroads toward belief for many. God may also use a charlatan preacher to bring faith to a particular needy and receptive soul. Itās just that God doesnāt leave us there. So it isnāt so much a matter of finding that āindisputable starting placeā as it is the realization that we all will start [have started] somewhere, and that starting point will, by definition, be some sort (or set) of unsupportable premise(s). Itās where we go from there that counts (at least on the Christian view). If thatās true of Math (which it is - shown by Godel) then it will be true of science, philosophy, religion, and everything else(!). Thatās why I donāt accept that anybody has everything āall sewn upā so-to-speak.
All that just to affirm that it is understandable that you donāt find any of those starting points towards theism to be adequate in and of themselves. They wonāt be, and never were.