# Unreason



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2017)

_"The reach of science has inherent limitations; so does mathematics; so does every branch of philosophy.  But if you believe that there are bounds on the domain in which reason is the proper arbiter of ideas, then you believe in unreason or the supernatural." _

     --David Deutch, _The Beginning of Infinity; Explanations That Transform the World_

It just struck me as odd this morning, as it occasionally does, that most of the people in the world believe in the supernatural; luck, ghosts, Karma, Fate, Voodoo...  

What is the most compelling argument for the existence of the supernatural?


----------



## Madman (Apr 27, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> What is the most compelling argument for the existence of the supernatural?



Ex nihilo, nihil fit


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2017)

Madman said:


> Ex nihilo, nihil fit



"...except just this one thing".  (Which many claim to "know").  Willard is a no go.

Your explanation opens the door to all the other things I mentioned: luck, ghosts, Karma , Fate, Voodoo....


----------



## Madman (Apr 27, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> "...except just this one thing".  (Which many claim to "know").  Willard is a no go.
> 
> Your explanation opens the door to all the other things I mentioned: luck, ghosts, Karma , Fate, Voodoo....




My "supernatural" has no room for "luck, Karma , Fate, Voodoo...."  only an eternal, self sustaining, being that created everything that was created.

P.S. who is Willard?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2017)

Madman said:


> My "supernatural" has no room for "luck, Karma , Fate, Voodoo...."  only an eternal, self sustaining, being that created everything that was created.
> 
> P.S. who is Willard?



How do you limit yourself to which kind of supernatural?  That's Pandora's Box you open.  Not only do you claim a being but you claim to know what it thinks about masturbation.  Odd. 

Search "Willard".  He has a long sordid history in here and he agrees with you and I don't agree with him.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 27, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> _What is the most compelling argument for the existence of the supernatural?_


_

Your post._


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 27, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> "...except just this one thing".



Straw Man alert.  If that's how you counter Willard, it's childishly silly.


----------



## Madman (Apr 27, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> How do you limit yourself to which kind of supernatural?


  That is a long process but you have to start with an eternal, self sustaining being.  If you believe that exists then you have to move to the next step



ambush80 said:


> That's Pandora's Box you open.



The real Pandora's Box is the belief that effects created themselves.




ambush80 said:


> Not only do you claim a being but you claim to know what it thinks about masturbation.  Odd.



That was crude, rude, offensive and not called for.



ambush80 said:


> Search "Willard".  He has a long sordid history in here and he agrees with you and I don't agree with him.



Don't care who Willard is or what he says, I already know you don't agree with me and I don't agree with you


----------



## Madman (Apr 27, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> How do you limit yourself to which kind of supernatural?



This is a problem with the non-believers.  You want immediate answers from everyone and every world view except your own.

You are allowed "I have not finished this train of thought" but no one else is.

You want an immediate answer to "god" but refuse to give a definitive answer to any of our questions.  They are flippantly disregarded as non-starters, and we should be willing to accept any and/or all of the websites you throw out.

Yet you limit yourself to the non-supernatural.


----------



## Madman (Apr 27, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> _
> What is the most compelling argument for the existence of the supernatural?_


_

What is the most compelling argument for the non-existence of the supernatural?_


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Straw Man alert.  If that's how you counter Willard, it's childishly silly.



I'm unconvinced you actually understand Willard's argument nor my rebuttal of it.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2017)

Madman said:


> That is a long process but you have to start with an eternal, self sustaining being.  If you believe that exists then you have to move to the next step
> 
> The real Pandora's Box is the belief that effects created themselves.




No one here claims to know what caused material or if it was caused at all.  No one.  Not anyone except believers.  And it's not a coin flip, not when you've narrowed it down to one specific scenario.  





Madman said:


> That was crude, rude, offensive and not called for.



I disagree.  It's completely germane to the discussion.  First you suppose a being.  Then you suppose you know what it wants including what it thinks about masturbation.  If you think that's as idiotic as I do then your problem is the source.





Madman said:


> Don't care who Willard is or what he says, I already know you don't agree with me and I don't agree with you



You don't have to care about Willard.  Just know that believes the same thing you do, that is: "It's turtles all the way down until you get to the Mack Daddy turtle".


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2017)

Madman said:


> What is the most compelling argument for the non-existence of the supernatural?



Lack of evidence.  Take any supernatural claim and I can give ANY reason for it including but not limited to  witchcraft.  That's pretty useless.


----------



## Madman (Apr 27, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> No one here claims to know what caused material or if it was caused at all.  No one.  Not anyone except believers.  And it's not a coin flip, not when you've narrowed it down to one specific scenario.



Sure you do. An infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters, shot guns and stop signs, billions and billions of years can make anything happen, string theory, watch this video, it could be, it might be.  

What you believe has no more substance than "turtles all the way down". 






ambush80 said:


> I disagree.  It's completely germane to the discussion.  First you suppose a being.  Then you suppose you know what it wants including what it thinks about masturbation.  If you think that's as idiotic as I do then your problem is the source.



It's not germane because it is false, the being I am discussing does not give an opinion on masturbation, He gives an opinion on obedience.

That is why you don't understand Christianity you can't understand the Book it believes.






ambush80 said:


> You don't have to care about Willard.  Just know that believes the same thing you do, that is: "It's turtles all the way down until you get to the Mack Daddy turtle".



Don't believe anything about turtles except that they exist.


----------



## Madman (Apr 27, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Lack of evidence.  Take any supernatural claim and I can give ANY reason for it including but not limited to  witchcraft.  That's pretty useless.



The introduction of new information in macroevolution.


----------



## Madman (Apr 27, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Lack of evidence.  Take any supernatural claim and I can give ANY reason for it including but not limited to  witchcraft.  That's pretty useless.



where does matter come from?


----------



## Madman (Apr 27, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Lack of evidence.  Take any supernatural claim and I can give ANY reason for it including but not limited to  witchcraft.  That's pretty useless.



If you believe in science then you know that "code" is only written by a "Code writer" someone or something of higher intelligence.

explain the human gnome.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2017)

Madman said:


> Sure you do. An infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters, shot guns and stop signs, billions and billions of years can make anything happen



Lets do this one first; all the way through.

What can happen in infinity?  Do you know?  Me neither.  I read ideas that people come up with like "Matter will necessarily arise out of nothing".  I look at how they come to those hypotheses and try to understand the math.  I usually fail to understand it completely but I understand the utility of math.  There allot of scientific theories born out of math that I don't understand but I understand the utility of math.  

I take a concept like "There must be an un-caused cause".  I don't see it grounded in anything like math.  It doesn't even make sense philosophically.  "Everything has a cause except the un-caused cause."  If that doesn't strike you on it's face as a logical contradiction then I don't know what else to say.  

Lets get through this then I'd love to discuss the rest of what you posted.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 27, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I'm unconvinced you actually understand Willard's argument nor my rebuttal of it.



I'm unconvinced you actually understand YOUR rebuttal.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> I'm unconvinced you actually understand YOUR rebuttal.



Oh boy.....


----------



## Madman (Apr 27, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Lets do this one first; all the way through.
> 
> What can happen in infinity?  Do you know?  Me neither.
> 
> ...



Sure I understand. NO matter how long is eternity is or if I can understand it, the second law of thermodynamics states that everything moves from a state of order to a state of disorder.  Everything is winding down, wearing out, just "like an old garment". 

Nothing comes from nothing, let's start there.  Everything moves from a state of order to a state of disorder.

What set the order?  Where did it come from?


----------



## Madman (Apr 27, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I take a concept like "There must be an un-caused cause".  I don't see it grounded in anything like math.  It doesn't even make sense philosophically.  "Everything has a cause except the un-caused cause."  If that doesn't strike you on it's face as a logical contradiction then I don't know what else to say.



You did not make a philosophical statement you made a logical statement.  Logically a cause does not need a cause, only an effect needs a cause.

Somehow that keeps eluding you.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2017)

Whatever chemistry set that was available to set the order came from the available chemistry set before it. Whatever currently is in existence or was in existence was able to exist because the conditions were right for it to exist during those times. Humans and the gods they created are late to the existence game.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2017)

Madman said:


> Sure I understand. NO matter how long is eternity is or if I can understand it, the second law of thermodynamics states that everything moves from a state of order to a state of disorder.  Everything is winding down, wearing out, just "like an old garment".
> 
> Nothing comes from nothing, let's start there.  Everything moves from a state of order to a state of disorder.
> 
> What set the order?  Where did it come from?



Are we using science _now_?  Woefully incomplete and subject to constant refinement science?    Ok.

Science has now theorized that matter can arise and indeed MUST arise even from nothing.  How did they get to that conclusion?  Would it be useful for us to read the paper and analyze it ourselves.  I would be willing to do that.  Your in the sciences, right?  I'll admit I'll need allot of help getting through a paper like that. 

http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/can-a-universe-create-itself-out-of-nothing

I painstaking read through Max Tegmark's book _Our Mathematical Universe: My Quest for the Ultimate Nature of Reality _  Where he tries to explain Multiverse theory.  I didn't understand much of it but it did finally help me understand The Uncertainty Principle (kind of).  Maybe if we read it together you could help me understand what he's talking about. 

What I absolutely did get is that people theorized about this thing, built a contraption and found it to be true.  Can we do that with your proposition?


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2017)

Madman said:


> You did not make a philosophical statement you made a logical statement.  Logically a cause does not need a cause, only an effect needs a cause.
> 
> Somehow that keeps eluding you.



I admit it, that does elude me.  Can you explain it to me?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2017)

http://www.vexen.co.uk/religion/universe.html


----------



## Madman (Apr 27, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Are we using science _now_?  Woefully incomplete and subject to constant refinement science?    Ok.
> 
> Science has now theorized that matter can arise and indeed MUST arise even from nothing.  How did they get to that conclusion?  Would it be useful for us to read the paper and analyze it ourselves.  I would be willing to do that.  Your in the sciences, right?  I'll admit I'll need allot of help getting through a paper like that.
> 
> ...




and you have become a science denier.


----------



## Madman (Apr 27, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Are we using science _now_?  Woefully incomplete and subject to constant refinement science?    Ok.
> 
> Science has now theorized that matter can arise and indeed MUST arise even from nothing.  How did they get to that conclusion?  Would it be useful for us to read the paper and analyze it ourselves.  I would be willing to do that.  Your in the sciences, right?  I'll admit I'll need allot of help getting through a paper like that.
> 
> ...



"If you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero (or close to zero) net matter/energy. So, in some sense, universes are for free."


Keep reading.  they still start with matter.

NO where do they start with nothing.


and here hawking reveals his true reason for this non since.

"But Hawking goes one step farther and says that therefore here is no need of God,"

He does not want there to be a god.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2017)

Madman said:


> "If you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero (or close to zero) net matter/energy. So, in some sense, universes are for free."
> 
> 
> Keep reading.  they still start with matter.
> ...


That makes more sense that there always was something and never nothing.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2017)

Madman said:


> and you have become a science denier.



Not so.  I understand the limitations of science.  I know it describes the universe to the best of our abilities.  I just find it interesting that you would want to use science in your apologetic argument knowing full well the reach of science is incomplete.  It's like people who try to use science to explain the Ark miracle.  Well, was it a miracle or can it be explained by science?  I asked a long time ago for people to try to explain walking on water using science. They said "It's a miracle.  It needs no further explanation nor is any further explanation possible". Don't you see that that's where this will eventually lead?  Is that good science?  Is that good reasoning or logic?  

If I said "Multiverse is true because it's in Max Tegmark's book and he was revealed the truth of it by God"  you wouldn't but that for a nickle.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2017)

Madman said:


> "If you do the math, you find out that the sum total of matter in the universe can cancel against the sum total of negative gravitational energy, yielding a universe with zero (or close to zero) net matter/energy. So, in some sense, universes are for free."
> 
> 
> Keep reading.  they still start with matter.
> ...




Maybe.  You want there to be one.  How are you different.  (Psst.  He's using science.)


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2017)

bullethead said:


> That makes more sense that there always was something and never nothing.



Just not a "guy".  That would be very weird.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 27, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Just not a "guy".  That would be very weird.



Yep.
It took a heck of a long time for a guy that looks like us and thinks like us and made us in his likeness to actually get around to making us.  Billions of years go by until he can develop a "fine tuned" place for us and coincidentally the first we hear about him is 4000 years ago which is about a million years after we have already been around. 
I sure these apologists have it covered though.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 27, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Yep.
> It took a heck of a long time for a guy that looks like us and thinks like us and made us in his likeness to actually get around to making us.  Billions of years go by until he can develop a "fine tuned" place for us and coincidentally the first we hear about him is 4000 years ago which is about a million years after we have already been around.
> I sure these apologists have it covered though.



Even as a philosophical proposition the notion of a guy is still weird.  And it reeks of anthropocentrism.  We have a very good track record of being wrong about things when we adopt that perspective.


----------



## Madman (Apr 27, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/can-a-universe-create-itself-out-of-nothing



you have yet to address the fact that this article in no way even remotely leaves room for something from nothing.

it gives new solar systems from old solar systems and new soap bubbles from other soap bubbles and then, 

wallah!!!  soap bubles from nothing.

Typical junk "science".  nothing over hear, don't look at this hand.


----------



## Madman (Apr 27, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Lets do this one first; all the way through.
> 
> What can happen in infinity?  Do you know?  Me neither.  I read ideas that people come up with like "Matter will necessarily arise out of nothing".  I look at how they come to those hypotheses and try to understand the math.  I usually fail to understand it completely but I understand the utility of math.  There allot of scientific theories born out of math that I don't understand but I understand the utility of math.
> 
> ...




One more time only and effect needs a cause.  Logic 1001

Logic is not grounded in math it is grounded in logic.

by the way, love isn't grounded in math either.


----------



## Browning Slayer (Apr 28, 2017)

Madman said:


> One more time only and effect needs a cause.  Logic 1001
> 
> Logic is not grounded in math it is grounded in logic.
> 
> by the way, love isn't grounded in math either.



You are trying to use logic with him?? Good luck...


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 28, 2017)

Browning Slayer said:


> You are trying to use logic with him?? Good luck...



Well, atheism is inherently illogical so those left defending it eventually, at least secretly are forced to acknowledge that.  They then either accept that or are left repeating illogical arguments, voicing disparaging comments or both.  Personally I've grown tired of watching them sacrifice their intellectual integrity and dignity on the alter of atheism.  It's monotonous and for some of them there's no bottom as evidenced by Ambush's crude comments above.

The more I witness it here, the less sad I find it.  I have come to see their fate as simply 'justice'.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 28, 2017)

Madman said:


> One more time only and effect needs a cause.  Logic 1001
> 
> Logic is not grounded in math it is grounded in logic.
> 
> by the way, love isn't grounded in math either.



What are you calling an "effect"?   The existence of matter?  We can discuss the logic of your answer to the these questions.  

There are properties of the experience that we call love that can expressed scientifically, chemically, and neurologically using math.  

After we get through hashing this out:

_"An infinite number of monkeys on an infinite number of typewriters, shot guns and stop signs, billions and billions of years can make anything happen, string theory, watch this video, it could be, it might be."_

I'd like to discuss what your basis for the the belief that love is anything more than electricity moving through  meat.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 28, 2017)

Browning Slayer said:


> You are trying to use logic with him?? Good luck...



I can't even spell logic.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 28, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well, atheism is inherently illogical so those left defending it eventually, at least secretly are forced to acknowledge that.  They then either accept that or are left repeating illogical arguments, voicing disparaging comments or both.  Personally I've grown tired of watching them sacrifice their intellectual integrity and dignity on the alter of atheism.  It's monotonous and for some of them there's no bottom as evidenced by Ambush's crude comments above.
> 
> The more I witness it here, the less sad I find it.  I have come to see their fate as simply 'justice'.



Bring your Plantinga down here.  You're asking the wrong people to explain it to you upstairs.


----------



## formula1 (Apr 28, 2017)

*re:*



ambush80 said:


> _What is the most compelling argument for the existence of the supernatural?_


_

I found it interesting that you entitled your post 'unreason'!

The most compelling argument is indeed 'unreason'!  For the purpose of my argument one must assume (or believe) something about God is true, that is, something He has revealed is fact.  

The only thing I submit to you as a revealed fact is this excerpt from Genesis 1:1 'In the beginning, God'.  I'll take it no farther than that into scripture.  Now if we assume that is true,  here is how I would think of it:

1) God made no attempt to explain himself to you or me!
2) He was the beginning or at least everything began with Him.

But you can't see Him so how do you know He is! Well, as you said, you exercise that part of you that is in everyone, that 'unreason' or we would call it 'Faith'!

I understand that to the reasonable, the scientific, the knowledgeable, those who are learned men and woman and even those who are not, "Faith" is completely unreasonable!  Yet exactly "Faith" is what is required to know the God I speak of.  "Faith" takes us to a place where it is possible to experience that which see cannot see or know otherwise. It works just like a natural law (like gravity for example) only it is a spiritual law that pertains to knowing and understanding God.

How much study would you have to undertake to fully understand all the natural laws of the earth?

How much study would it require to fully understand the spiritual law of 'Faith'? ( Assuming its existence)

Many lifetimes for both would be accurate!

The proof of the supernatural is the unreasonable, that is that Faith exists, just as gravity exists, and men and women all over the world are trying to come to either understand it as true or discount it as a fairy tale!  That everyone wrestles with this dilemma is proof of its reality, at least in my view!

So wrestle on my friend!  But the truth can be found and known!!!_


----------



## Browning Slayer (Apr 28, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well, atheism is inherently illogical so those left defending it eventually, at least secretly are forced to acknowledge that.  They then either accept that or are left repeating illogical arguments, voicing disparaging comments or both.  Personally I've grown tired of watching them sacrifice their intellectual integrity and dignity on the alter of atheism.  It's monotonous and for some of them there's no bottom as evidenced by Ambush's crude comments above.
> 
> The more I witness it here, the less sad I find it.  I have come to see their fate as simply 'justice'.



That just about covers most post's..


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 28, 2017)

formula1 said:


> I found it interesting that you entitled your post 'unreason'!
> 
> The most compelling argument is indeed 'unreason'!  For the purpose of my argument one must assume (or believe) something about God is true, that is, something He has revealed is fact.
> 
> ...



Thanks for that honest, eloquent, and insightful response.  

I agree that faith is the lynchpin of belief.  I also agree that faith cannot be acquired by the exercise of logic.  Madman disagrees.  He believes that his faith is rooted in logic as far as I can tell.  Maybe if you and he discussed that it would help me to see how you both arrived at belief.


----------



## SemperFiDawg (Apr 28, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Bring your Plantinga down here.  You're asking the wrong people to explain it to you upstairs.



You know.  I think you would agree with my thesis up there.  If free will doesn't exist, the God of the Bible doesn't exist.  I've been a bit disappointed with the response so far.  You are free to comment up there.  I welcome it as long as you keep it within the scope of the thread.


----------



## Madman (Apr 28, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I agree that faith is the lynchpin of belief.  I also agree that faith cannot be acquired by the exercise of logic.  Madman disagrees.  He believes that his faith is rooted in logic as far as I can tell.  Maybe if you and he discussed that it would help me to see how you both arrived at belief.



Where did I say I disagree?  I would argue that you have given a prime example of why you are an "atheist".  

You either by choice or simply out of ignorance CHOOSE to read into what is written that which fits YOUR worldview.

A view that you will not be governed by anyone other than yourself.

If you want to know how I came to faith ask me but don't put words in my mouth.

In college, the people and professors that I met who held your beliefs, I found to be intellectually dishonest.  They made up non-sense like multi universe theories and green wombats, but in doing so left out crucial elements and had the nerve to say that those of us who asked deeper questions were "flat earthers".  

You are so determined that there not be a god you will sacrifice everything on the alter of humanism.  You are will to throw proven laws under the bus in attempt to show that soap bubbles can make themselves.

I believe it was you that posted a video sometime last year that was supposed to show how molecules could come together because of their shape and chemistry.  I would have believed it if the god you follow, Hawkins, would have thrown the pieces in a box and let them assemble themselves, instead he had students put them together and they were so "amazed".

I am Christian because what I see in the Bible plays itself out everyday, and you are yet another example.

_*"19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.

20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.

22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Romans 1*_

Here is a piece of advice that I would give to anyone, even an enemy or God of which I once was.

*"Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near."

Isaiah 55:6*


----------



## Madman (Apr 28, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Maybe if you and he discussed that it would help me to see how you both arrived at belief.



Why should I discuss this with formula?  Are you admitting that you don't have the capacity to have the discussion yourself?

Science deniers, like you, fit into the category of what Thomas Nagel and the Bible is describing, this is why I believe atheism is a moral decision not an intellectual one.

“I speak from experience, being strongly subject to this fear myself: I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that. My guess is that this cosmic authority problem is not a rare condition and that it is responsible for much of the scientism and reductionism of our time. One of the tendencies it supports is the ludicrous overuse of evolutionary biology to explain everything about human life, including everything about the human mind …. This is a somewhat ridiculous situation …. It is just as irrational to be influenced in one’s beliefs by the hope that God does not exist as by the hope that God does exist.”   Thomas Nagel


----------



## Madman (Apr 28, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> It's like people who try to use science to explain the Ark miracle.  Well, was it a miracle or can it be explained by science?






http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/could-noahs-ark-float-theory-yes-180950385/


----------



## Madman (Apr 28, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Maybe.  You want there to be one.  How are you different.  (Psst.  He's using science.)



Still can't handle the first part can you?  Only snarky responses.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 28, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> You know.  I think you would agree with my thesis up there.  If free will doesn't exist, the God of the Bible doesn't exist.  I've been a bit disappointed with the response so far.  You are free to comment up there.  I welcome it as long as you keep it within the scope of the thread.



I don't like going up there.  It's scary.  I might get infracted for saying something heretical.  

My position on the subject hinges on God's omniscience, which is closely related to God's sovereignty.

To me, the logical argument goes as follows:  

If there exists an omniscient being then all events for all eternity are known by this being.  In a sense they are written down like in a book.  The words of books never change.  Goldilocks will ALWAYS sleep in Baby Bear's bed.  The reader could be said to be omniscient of all the goings on in the world of Goldilocks.  What seem to be choices to her in the story are not in reality.  

Sovereignty is similarly compelling, especially when paired with omniscience.  It's like the one-two punch against Freewill:

If God has sovereign control over everything then no one does anything that he doesn't want to happen.  You might argue that he relinquishes his sovereignty occasionally or maybe even his omniscience but that changes the definition of those terms entirely.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 28, 2017)

Madman said:


> Where did I say I disagree?  I would argue that you have given a prime example of why you are an "atheist".
> 
> You either by choice or simply out of ignorance CHOOSE to read into what is written that which fits YOUR worldview.
> 
> ...



Ultimately one must choose for one's self what model of reality they want to believe in.  My model is less concrete than you suggest.  I am open to the possibility of a God, so are all the other guys on here.  We don't see evidence for one more specifically the one in the Bible.  

The Hawkins experiment illustrated how pieces can come together when energy is applied.  It didn't say anything about where the pieces or the energy came from.  

I think you're assuming nefarious intent to the inquiries of non-believers.  That's just my opinion.



Madman said:


> I am Christian because what I see in the Bible plays itself out everyday, and you are yet another example.
> 
> _*"19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them.*_


_*

This is a bad statement because it can't be shown to be false.  It's like Implicit Bias.  Are you familiar with the term?  It asserts that all people have subconscious racism.  How can you prove it?  How can you disprove it?  



Madman said:



20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Click to expand...


"The invisible things are clearly seen"  Whoa, Nellie.  I don't even know where to start chewing on that. 



Madman said:



			21 Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened.
		
Click to expand...


That's pretty declarative with not much to back it up. It assumes that "They knew God".  You declare it, too. You say "Ambush,  you know God is real.  You just deny it."  Insert any other thing in there besides God.  "Ambush, you know voodoo is real.  You just deny it".  How am I gonna counter that?  "No.  I really don't believe it's real."  "See I told you you're in denial".  



Madman said:



22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,

Click to expand...


Professing not to know for sure they became wise.



Madman said:



			23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
Romans 1
		
Click to expand...

*_
"You have angered the Volcano"



Madman said:


> Here is a piece of advice that I would give to anyone, even an enemy or God of which I once was.
> 
> *"Seek the LORD while he may be found; call on him while he is near."
> 
> Isaiah 55:6*



I'm looking as we speak, aren't I?  What the Bible REALLY says is "Believe, then you will believe".  

"There will be people that hate others for their opinions."  I just made a prophesy.  Watch how the truth of it will bear our every single day.  "The bass will bite which He himself has willed them to bite."  I'm kinda good at this.


----------



## Madman (Apr 28, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Lack of evidence.  Take any supernatural claim and I can give ANY reason for it including but not limited to  witchcraft.  That's pretty useless.



Here's a little supernatural for you.

http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/science-has-finally-proven-that-scientifically-there-is-a-god/


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2017)

Madman said:


> http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/could-noahs-ark-float-theory-yes-180950385/


Those figures would have animals stacked on top of each other in order to fit.

And two of each becomes "kinds". That is a bit of dishonesty.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2017)

Madman said:


> Here's a little supernatural for you.
> 
> http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/science-has-finally-proven-that-scientifically-there-is-a-god/



Was interesting until the spam ad popped up.


----------



## Madman (Apr 28, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> "The invisible things are clearly seen"  Whoa, Nellie.  I don't even know where to start chewing on that.



Again here-in lies the problem.  This is why your grasp of the scientific, physical, and metaphysical is so lacking.  You CHOOSE, or are incapable of grasping what is written.

So on this one occasion I'll flesh it out for you.

20 For the invisible things of him (That means we can look at other things and see certain aspects of Him) from the creation of the world are clearly seen, (That means that we can look at nature and understand some things about Him)  being understood by the things that are made, (What can we look at?  The things that are made, that would be the "effects" for those who are logically challenged) even his eternal power and Godhead; (That would be defining Him as the "cause".)so that they are without excuse:


----------



## Madman (Apr 28, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Was interesting until the spam ad popped up.



No other reaction!  Typical


----------



## Madman (Apr 28, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I think you're assuming nefarious intent to the inquiries of non-believers.  That's just my opinion.



I do.  

Here is an honest one.

"I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers.

I want atheism to be true and am made uneasy by the fact that some of the most intelligent and well-informed people I know are religious believers. It isn’t just that I don’t believe in God and, naturally, hope that I’m right in my belief. It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”(”The Last Word” by Thomas Nagel, Oxford University Press: 1997)”


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2017)

Madman said:


> No other reaction!  Typical



It only played less than 2 minutes into the video and a spam ad popped up.
I will check it out on youtube in full before I make a theists typical reaction by coming to a  conclusion without seeing it all the way through.


----------



## Madman (Apr 28, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Was interesting until the spam ad popped up.



I would enjoy to engage you if you EVER had ANYTHING of your own, that made any sense, to add to the conversation.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2017)

Madman said:


> I do.
> 
> Here is an honest one.
> 
> ...


If you are going to hold every atheist to the statements of just one is it ok if we lump you in with the statements of whatever theist we choose to quote?


----------



## Madman (Apr 28, 2017)

bullethead said:


> If you are going to hold every atheist to the statements of just one is it ok if we lump you in with the statements of whatever theist we choose to quote?



"It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”

Does this statement not apply to you?


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2017)

Madman said:


> I would enjoy to engage you if you EVER had ANYTHING of your own, that made any sense, to add to the conversation.



Aww shucks, my apologies for not adhering to your strict conversational standards. I am really upset that you choose to not include me in with your pinnacle style of conversation.

I offer plenty on my own and last I checked you have posted multiple links to the words, thoughts, theories and works of someone else in order to further your own high standard of "self works".

Dont be a hypocrite.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2017)

Madman said:


> "It’s that I hope there is no God! I don’t want there to be a God; I don’t want the universe to be like that.”
> 
> Does this statement not apply to you?



Heck
No
I am open to a god existing.
I want nothing more than a god to contact me and I will be the first to come on here and retract everything I've ever said (well I guess I can't do that since you claim everything that I type is not my own)...but yes, I would shout for everyone to hear of my experience.

I don't want a god to exist.
I don't want a god to not exist.
I do not know either way for sure and nothing,  so far, that I found written by man has convinced me that a god...let alone ONE specific god exists.

I need a divine intervention.
Im prime for one.
I look forward to one.
I am the right person for a god to reveal itself to.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 28, 2017)

Madman said:


> Here's a little supernatural for you.
> 
> http://www.israelvideonetwork.com/science-has-finally-proven-that-scientifically-there-is-a-god/



_"But it’s not so easy to prove G-d’s involvement in the world that He created. What some like to call “divine intervention”. That is just a matter of faith. And it’s good that there’s room left for faith. That not everything can be proven. There is a dimension of the world and of our lives that is not based on fact, no matter how hard we try to make sense and reason of everything…And that is something good. Grappling with belief in G-d and the will to do the right thing is part of the challenge of living in this world. It’s what gives our lives meaning."_

_
"There is a dimension of the world and of our lives that is not based on fact, no matter how hard we try to make sense and reason of everything…And that is something good."_

That's pretty declarative.  I can't see any way to refute it.  That kind of makes it a non-starter.  Reasons why it is NOT good:

1. I say the dimension is like 'this'.  You say the dimension is like 'this'.  Lost of fights get started over a thing that can't be proven.

2. Let's sort out #1 first....


----------



## Madman (Apr 28, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Aww shucks, my apologies for not adhering to your strict conversational standards. I am really upset that you choose to not include me in with your pinnacle style of conversation.
> 
> I offer plenty on my own and last I checked you have posted multiple links to the words, thoughts, theories and works of someone else in order to further your own high standard of "self works".
> 
> Dont be a hypocrite.




Let’s see, here are some of your intellectual attempts:

Was interesting until the spam ad popped up.
Yep. 
It took a heck of a long time for a guy that looks like us and thinks like us and made us in his likeness to actually get around to making us. Billions of years go by until he can develop a...
Whatever chemistry set that was available to set the order came from the available chemistry set before it. Whatever currently is in existence or was in existence was able to exist because the...

The thought elevator does not go all the way to the top.
There is no meaningful conversation with him. These threads are just a platform for him to blog his thoughts. He asks himself questions and answers them. Rarely either having anything to do with the...
God seems to favor the Free Will of himself and other Evil Doers over the Free Will of their victims.

Liquid Plumber and Draino work as good on similar substances.
He/we are relying on you to explain it all to us.


----------



## Madman (Apr 28, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Ultimately one must choose for one's self what model of reality they want to believe in.  My model is less concrete than you suggest.  I am open to the possibility of a God, so are all the other guys on here.  We don't see evidence for one more specifically the one in the Bible.
> 
> The Hawkins experiment illustrated how pieces can come together when energy is applied.  It didn't say anything about where the pieces or the energy came from.
> 
> ...



yep,  you are really, seriously looking.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2017)

Madman said:


> Let’s see, here are some of your intellectual attempts:
> 
> Was interesting until the spam ad popped up.
> Yep.
> ...


Again, typical theist to cherry pick in order to fit a claim and ignore when it directly refutes your claim.

My post meter must be broken because it shows a few more than 3 from me.

And I call them like I see them. I got by this far without checking to you for my style, my thoughts or when I choose to use my words or the words of someone else that backs up the example I am making.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 28, 2017)

Madman said:


> Again here-in lies the problem.  This is why your grasp of the scientific, physical, and metaphysical is so lacking.  You CHOOSE, or are incapable of grasping what is written.



I've been told that I can't understand the word because I wasn't given the gift of discernment.  Discernment comes when you believe and in believing will give you discernment.  I'm sure you see the problem here.



Madman said:


> So on this one occasion I'll flesh it out for you.
> 
> 20 For the invisible things of him (That means we can look at other things and see certain aspects of Him)



No other interpretation possible?  Not any?  What are the invisible things?  Is there a list?  



Madman said:


> from the creation of the world are clearly seen, (That means that we can look at nature and understand some things about Him)



Again, No other interpretation is possible?  What can we take from nature that might give us some insight into what God is like?  He doesn't particularly like us.  He want the world to kill us and he wants us to mostly suffer.  I tell ya, we can stay on this one for several dozen posts.  



Madman said:


> being understood by the things that are made, (What can we look at?  The things that are made, that would be the "effects" for those who are logically challenged) even his eternal power and Godhead; (That would be defining Him as the "cause".)so that they are without excuse:



You are presupposing things were made.  You use the word 'effect' to insert causality.  It's unconfirmed. That's fine.  You can't prove it.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 28, 2017)

Madman said:


> yep,  you are really, seriously looking.



Don't just flippantly throw that out.  Respond to my responses.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2017)

Madman said:


> yep,  you are really, seriously looking.



That is upper echelon quality posting right there.
I may adopt that style.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 28, 2017)

bullethead said:


> That is upper echelon quality posting right there.
> I may adopt that style.




It's kinda SemperFi.  (SemperFi,  don't forget we're talking about freewill)


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 28, 2017)

Madman said:


> I do.
> 
> Here is an honest one.
> 
> ...



Is he me or Bullet?  I would prefer that if there were a God that it not be the one from the Bible.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Those figures would have animals stacked on top of each other in order to fit.
> 
> And two of each becomes "kinds". That is a bit of dishonesty.


I admit, I called Hawking and Harris for the reply above. I just couldn't think of anything on my own.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 28, 2017)

SemperFiDawg said:


> Well, atheism is inherently illogical



How so?



SemperFiDawg said:


> so those left defending it eventually, at least secretly are forced to acknowledge that.



How do you know that?



SemperFiDawg said:


> They then either accept that or are left repeating illogical arguments, voicing disparaging comments or both.



Which arguments are illogical?



SemperFiDawg said:


> Personally I've grown tired of watching them sacrifice their intellectual integrity and dignity on the alter of atheism.  It's monotonous and for some of them there's no bottom as evidenced by Ambush's crude comments above.
> 
> The more I witness it here, the less sad I find it.  I have come to see their fate as simply 'justice'.



If you could condemn anyone to eternal suffering who would it be?  Anyone from the past or present.  I don't think you have it in you.  I don't think you're that cruel.


----------



## WaltL1 (Apr 28, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Heck
> No
> I am open to a god existing.
> I want nothing more than a god to contact me and I will be the first to come on here and retract everything I've ever said (well I guess I can't do that since you claim everything that I type is not my own)...but yes, I would shout for everyone to hear of my experience.
> ...





> I don't want a god to exist.
> I don't want a god to not exist.
> I do not know either way for sure and nothing,  so far, that I found written by man has convinced me that a god...let alone ONE specific god exists


Its just that simple.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2017)

WaltL1 said:


> Its just that simple.



It would seem so Walt but in reality I am being intellectually dishonest and incoherent. I probably didn't even write that myself.


----------



## Madman (Apr 28, 2017)

bullethead said:


> That is upper echelon quality posting right there.
> I may adopt that style.



just call'em like I see 'em.


----------



## Madman (Apr 28, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I've been told that I can't understand the word because I wasn't given the gift of discernment.  Discernment comes when you believe and in believing will give you discernment.  I'm sure you see the problem here.


All I see is someone who has a desire to twist what they see.




ambush80 said:


> No other interpretation possible?



What do you think it says?



ambush80 said:


> Again, No other interpretation is possible?  What can we take from nature that might give us some insight into what God is like?  He doesn't particularly like us.  He want the world to kill us and he wants us to mostly suffer.  I tell ya, we can stay on this one for several dozen posts.



I look at my wife and children and don't see a God who wants to kill me.  I see a God that gave his life for mine.  I see a God that continues to call His creation back to him, even though it curses Him and throws rocks.





ambush80 said:


> You are presupposing things were made.  You use the word 'effect' to insert causality.  It's unconfirmed. That's fine.  You can't prove it.



Game, set, match.  If you can't see from what is evident in His creation then you you have made your decision.
You claim to have everything you believe set scientifically and mathematically, but you know you don't, you know this is a heart condition and not an intellectual decision.

I'd like to meet the "Christian" that wounded you so badly.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 28, 2017)

Madman said:


> All I see is someone who has a desire to twist what they see.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



No one wounded me.  You should go to the PF and vote to keep me on or have me leave.


----------



## Madman (Apr 28, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> No one wounded me.  You should go to the PF and vote to keep me on or have me leave.



I could not care less either way.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 28, 2017)

Madman said:


> I could not care less either way.




Fair enough.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 28, 2017)

Madman said:


> All I see is someone who has a desire to twist what they see.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



His creation is no different than the creation credit 10,000 other gods get. The obvious points you make are obvious for every believer in every god of every religion.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 28, 2017)

Madman said:


> All I see is someone who has a desire to twist what they see.



So unless I see your God then I'm twisting what I see? 






Madman said:


> What do you think it says?



First of all I can't see invisible things.

If we can see aspects of Him in us or how the Universe is arranged I would say that he can be jealous, murderous, kind, indifferent, brutal, destructive, creative.  Probably some other stuff.





Madman said:


> I look at my wife and children and don't see a God who wants to kill me.  I see a God that gave his life for mine.  I see a God that continues to call His creation back to him, even though it curses Him and throws rocks.



If you look at how unkind the elements are and how most of the world and the universe is inhospitable to us i don't see how you come to the conclusion that God doesn't want to kill you.  You would have to do some mental gymnastics and say something like "His ways are not our ways and we can't judge his actions based on our limited knowledge"  Like I've said before, you can apply that to any other Cause you choose.  

I've heard that  some believers say that God eventually just gives up and lets unbelievers have their unbelief.  Is He still calling them then?  Which is it? 







Madman said:


> Game, set, match.  If you can't see from what is evident in His creation then you you have made your decision.
> You claim to have everything you believe set scientifically and mathematically, but you know you don't, you know this is a heart condition and not an intellectual decision.
> 
> I'd like to meet the "Christian" that wounded you so badly.



It's just your interpretation.  It's not self evident or everyone would believe it.  Is it hard or easy to believe?  Did he make it clear or confusing?  Clearly it's not something as universally understood as "Hot stove".


----------



## Israel (Apr 29, 2017)

> If we can see aspects of Him in us or how the Universe is arranged I would say that he can be jealous, murderous, kind, indifferent, brutal, destructive, creative. Probably some other stuff.



With the kind You show Yourself kind; With the blameless You show Yourself blameless; With the pure You show Yourself pure, And with the crooked You show Yourself astute. For You save an afflicted people, But haughty eyes You abase.…

That He would ever show Himself at all is what is most often called...grace.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 29, 2017)

Israel said:


> With the kind You show Yourself kind; With the blameless You show Yourself blameless; With the pure You show Yourself pure, And with the crooked You show Yourself astute. For You save an afflicted people, But haughty eyes You abase.…
> 
> That He would ever show Himself at all is what is most often called...grace.



I contend that you have "seen" Him only in your imagination.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2017)

Israel said:


> With the kind You show Yourself kind; With the blameless You show Yourself blameless; With the pure You show Yourself pure, And with the crooked You show Yourself astute. For You save an afflicted people, But haughty eyes You abase.…
> 
> That He would ever show Himself at all is what is most often called...grace.



Israel, ambush has asked you at least a dozen times to explain what god looks like and sounds like. Ambush asks you personally because you often refer to seeing god and hearing god.

Is it that you have never seen or heard god but just use those adjectives to romanticise  your writings?

If you have seen and heard god what does he look like? What does he sound like? How has he appeared to you and what did he say?


----------



## formula1 (Apr 29, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> Thanks for that honest, eloquent, and insightful response.
> 
> I agree that faith is the lynchpin of belief.  I also agree that faith cannot be acquired by the exercise of logic.  Madman disagrees.  He believes that his faith is rooted in logic as far as I can tell.  Maybe if you and he discussed that it would help me to see how you both arrived at belief.



You're welcome!

I really don't know what Madman believes but I am relatively sure that initial step toward God sure doesn't seem logical. It just gets easier with time and experience.

I rarely discuss things in this forum but I for one wanted you and others like you to know I do understand your dilemma.  I simply want you and anyone who reads this to know you are infinitely more valuable to the God you do not know than you realize. I'm not one who comes here to prove anything to you. That is His doing and he doesn't need my help!  I will just say that I will pray for that encounter you seek and also that you recognize it when it comes.

Wishing you only the best!


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 29, 2017)

formula1 said:


> You're welcome!
> 
> I really don't know what Madman believes but I am relatively sure that initial step toward God sure doesn't seem logical. It just gets easier with time and experience.
> 
> ...



Best wishes to you too!


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 29, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Israel, ambush has asked you at least a dozen times to explain what god looks like and sounds like. Ambush asks you personally because you often refer to seeing god and hearing god.
> 
> Is it that you have never seen or heard god but just use those adjectives to romanticise  your writings?
> 
> If you have seen and heard god what does he look like? What does he sound like? How has he appeared to you and what did he say?




At this point I would even appreciate "There's a feeling I get when I look to the West and my spirit is crying for leaving." as an answer.


----------



## bullethead (Apr 29, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> At this point I would even appreciate "There's a feeling I get when I look to the West and my spirit is crying for leaving." as an answer.



He has kind of committed himself to more than that and I am very interested to see if we get a straight answer or a self question and answer forum.


----------



## Israel (Apr 29, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> I contend that have "seen" Him only in your imagination.



It is as simply contended that you only see me in yours.
But then, as to all.
Even yourself.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 30, 2017)

Israel said:


> It is as simply contended that you only see me in yours.
> But then, as to all.
> Even yourself.



In my imaginings there is enough room for both us.

And Him.


----------



## Israel (Apr 30, 2017)

ambush80 said:


> In my imaginings there is enough room for both us.
> 
> And Him.








That's me laughing with joy, not derision.


----------



## ambush80 (Apr 30, 2017)

Israel said:


> That's me laughing with joy, not derision.


----------



## bullethead (May 1, 2017)

bullethead said:


> Israel, ambush has asked you at least a dozen times to explain what god looks like and sounds like. Ambush asks you personally because you often refer to seeing god and hearing god.
> 
> Is it that you have never seen or heard god but just use those adjectives to romanticise  your writings?
> 
> If you have seen and heard god what does he look like? What does he sound like? How has he appeared to you and what did he say?


Israel?


----------



## StriperAddict (May 13, 2017)

*amen*



ambush80 said:


> In my imaginings there is enough room for both us.
> 
> And Him.



Yes.  I would hope 'His' goodness comes your way far greater than I've experienced myself... I really mean that


----------



## ambush80 (May 13, 2017)

StriperAddict said:


> Yes.  I would hope 'His' goodness comes your way far greater than I've experienced myself... I really mean that



That's a very nice sentiment.  Thank you.  I'm glad you have a way to feel like your life is meaningful despite hardships.


----------

