What will you be doing
Comments
-
LouisErard wrote: »there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:
1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.
So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.
Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.
Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:
• Something exists.
• Nothing cannot create something.
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?
To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.
Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.
Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:
• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.
Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”
But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (exceedingly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).
These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).
One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.
nice google skills. -
LouisErard wrote: »there are four possible answers to why we have something rather than nothing at all:
1. Reality is an illusion.
2. Reality is/was self-created.
3. Reality is self-existent (eternal).
4. Reality was created by something that is self-existent.
So, which is the most plausible solution? Let’s begin with reality being simply an illusion, which is what a number of Eastern religions believe. This option was ruled out centuries ago by the philosopher Rene Descartes who is famous for the statement, “I think, therefore I am.” Descartes, a mathematician, argued that if he is thinking, then he must “be.” In other words, “I think, therefore I am not an illusion.” Illusions require something experiencing the illusion, and moreover, you cannot doubt the existence of yourself without proving your existence; it is a self-defeating argument. So the possibility of reality being an illusion is eliminated.
Next is the option of reality being self-created. When we study philosophy, we learn of “analytically false” statements, which means they are false by definition. The possibility of reality being self-created is one of those types of statements for the simple reason that something cannot be prior to itself. If you created yourself, then you must have existed prior to you creating yourself, but that simply cannot be. In evolution this is sometimes referred to as “spontaneous generation” —something coming from nothing—a position that few, if any, reasonable people hold to anymore simply because you cannot get something from nothing. Even the atheist David Hume said, “I never asserted so absurd a proposition as that anything might arise without a cause.” Since something cannot come from nothing, the alternative of reality being self-created is ruled out.
Now we are left with only two choices—an eternal reality or reality being created by something that is eternal: an eternal universe or an eternal Creator. The 18th-century theologian Jonathan Edwards summed up this crossroads:
• Something exists.
• Nothing cannot create something.
• Therefore, a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
Notice that we must go back to an eternal “something.” The atheist who derides the believer in God for believing in an eternal Creator must turn around and embrace an eternal universe; it is the only other door he can choose. But the question now is, where does the evidence lead? Does the evidence point to matter before mind or mind before matter?
To date, all key scientific and philosophical evidence points away from an eternal universe and toward an eternal Creator. From a scientific standpoint, honest scientists admit the universe had a beginning, and whatever has a beginning is not eternal. In other words, whatever has a beginning has a cause, and if the universe had a beginning, it had a cause. The fact that the universe had a beginning is underscored by evidence such as the second law of thermodynamics, the radiation echo of the big bang discovered in the early 1900s, the fact that the universe is expanding and can be traced back to a singular beginning, and Einstein’s theory of relativity. All prove the universe is not eternal.
Further, the laws that surround causation speak against the universe being the ultimate cause of all we know for this simple fact: an effect must resemble its cause. This being true, no atheist can explain how an impersonal, purposeless, meaningless, and amoral universe accidentally created beings (us) who are full of personality and obsessed with purpose, meaning, and morals. Such a thing, from a causation standpoint, completely refutes the idea of a natural universe birthing everything that exists. So in the end, the concept of an eternal universe is eliminated.
Philosopher J. S. Mill (not a Christian) summed up where we have now come to: “It is self-evident that only Mind can create mind.” The only rational and reasonable conclusion is that an eternal Creator is the one who is responsible for reality as we know it. Or to put it in a logical set of statements:
• Something exists.
• You do not get something from nothing.
• Therefore a necessary and eternal “something” exists.
• The only two options are an eternal universe and an eternal Creator.
• Science and philosophy have disproven the concept of an eternal universe.
• Therefore, an eternal Creator exists.
Former atheist Lee Strobel, who arrived at this end result many years ago, has commented, “Essentially, I realized that to stay an atheist, I would have to believe that nothing produces everything; non-life produces life; randomness produces fine-tuning; chaos produces information; unconsciousness produces consciousness; and non-reason produces reason. Those leaps of faith were simply too big for me to take, especially in light of the affirmative case for God's existence … In other words, in my assessment the Christian worldview accounted for the totality of the evidence much better than the atheistic worldview.”
But the next question we must tackle is this: if an eternal Creator exists (and we have shown that He does), what kind of Creator is He? Can we infer things about Him from what He created? In other words, can we understand the cause by its effects? The answer to this is yes, we can, with the following characteristics being surmised:
• He must be supernatural in nature (as He created time and space).
• He must be powerful (exceedingly).
• He must be eternal (self-existent).
• He must be omnipresent (He created space and is not limited by it).
• He must be timeless and changeless (He created time).
• He must be immaterial because He transcends space/physical.
• He must be personal (the impersonal cannot create personality).
• He must be infinite and singular as you cannot have two infinites.
• He must be diverse yet have unity as unity and diversity exist in nature.
• He must be intelligent (supremely). Only cognitive being can produce cognitive being.
• He must be purposeful as He deliberately created everything.
• He must be moral (no moral law can be had without a giver).
• He must be caring (or no moral laws would have been given).
These things being true, we now ask if any religion in the world describes such a Creator. The answer to this is yes: the God of the Bible fits this profile perfectly. He is supernatural (Genesis 1:1), powerful (Jeremiah 32:17), eternal (Psalm 90:2), omnipresent (Psalm 139:7), timeless/changeless (Malachi 3:6), immaterial (John 5:24), personal (Genesis 3:9), necessary (Colossians 1:17), infinite/singular (Jeremiah 23:24, Deuteronomy 6:4), diverse yet with unity (Matthew 28:19), intelligent (Psalm 147:4-5), purposeful (Jeremiah 29:11), moral (Daniel 9:14), and caring (1 Peter 5:6-7).
One last subject to address on the matter of God’s existence is the matter of how justifiable the atheist’s position actually is. Since the atheist asserts the believer’s position is unsound, it is only reasonable to turn the question around and aim it squarely back at him. The first thing to understand is that the claim the atheist makes—“no god,” which is what “atheist” means—is an untenable position to hold from a philosophical standpoint. As legal scholar and philosopher Mortimer Adler says, “An affirmative existential proposition can be proved, but a negative existential proposition—one that denies the existence of something—cannot be proved.” For example, someone may claim that a red eagle exists and someone else may assert that red eagles do not exist. The former only needs to find a single red eagle to prove his assertion. But the latter must comb the entire universe and literally be in every place at once to ensure he has not missed a red eagle somewhere and at some time, which is impossible to do. This is why intellectually honest atheists will admit they cannot prove God does not exist.
http://www.gotquestions.org/argument-existence-God.html -
Saying there is a god doesn't help us answer the fundamental uncertainties of our universe.
If the only explanation you can find as to the creation of our universe is that of god, than who created god?
god doesn't need a creator or god wouldn't be god, but if there is no god, then who created everything? -
aTastyCookii wrote: »Google it.
Technically, if the dude didn't invent the leap years...the world would have ended a few months ago.......
GG.
yeah lol i saw that as well, we're like a year ahead or some ****, world is going to end regardless 2012? no -
-
AwfulFallout wrote: »lol Einstein even said it was impossible for there to be no god
What does that proove sir?
Are you in the assumption to believe just because his name is Einstein that everything and everything he comes up with is valid and true?
Is he a one of a kind soul with gifted artificial intelligence from a god beyond this galaxy to tell you that there indeed is a god?
Please. Don't flatter me son. -
aTastyCookii wrote: »What does that proove sir?
Are you in the assumption to believe just because his name is Einstein that everything and everything he comes up with is valid and true?
Is he a one of a kind soul with gifted artificial intelligence from a god beyond this galaxy to tell you that there indeed is a god?
Please. Don't flatter me son.
no, i find it funny when atheist resort to calling people who believe morons when they won't even dare to say that about Einstein or his religious views
son you're 12 don't call anyone son pls -
AwfulFallout wrote: »no, i find it funny when atheist resort to calling people who believe morons when they won't even dare to say that about Einstein or his religious views
son you're 12 don't call anyone son pls
In fact Einstein believed there was a god because he believed in the notion that everything in our universe maintains order, a phenomenon possible only by cohesion, which would be evidence of the existence of god. He even proclaimed famously: "God doesn't play with dice"
However, after Einstein passed away, the uncertainty principle was proven. -
AwfulFallout wrote: »no, i find it funny when atheist resort to calling people who believe morons when they won't even dare to say that about Einstein or his religious views
son you're 12 don't call anyone son pls
Please correct that grammatical sentence so it makes some sense and connects to what you're try to say. Thanks, SIR. Is that better for you? And I love arrogant trolls who assume's people's age at a lower stance to make themselves sound more mature and more intelligent.
I didn't fully understand what you've said, but I didn't say or imply anything that Einstein is not worthy or is unintelliegent. Sir, please. Read.
My point was that just because you use Einstein's words does not mean he or you can proove that a god exists in this world.
You are simply using Einstein to conclude certain things just because Einstein said so himself am I right?
This is just for instance, but if Einstein comes back at you and says you're adopted, do you automatically assume it is 100% true with no denial?
Sir..........
Please. -
Saying there is a god doesn't help us answer the fundamental uncertainties of our universe.
If the only explanation you can find as to the creation of our universe is that of god, than who created god?
I think about that all the time. God's a spirit. People tell me if I have questions , the bible has the answer to most of your questions and the rest will be revealed once he comes.
I look at it as since we have a god, why are these things happening to people? Natural disasters, "special people", people over in islands, tribes , not knowing about the world. If there is no god what happens when we die? Are we reborn not knowing anything of our past? -
i have a question, why were things like cars and electronics not created over billions of years, those things required a designer to get where they are today, yet the eye ball is 1 billion more times complex then any of those things, and was somehow created through random chance?
-
aTastyCookii wrote: »Please correct that grammatical sentence so it makes some sense and connects to what you're try to say. Thanks, SIR. Is that better for you? And I love arrogant trolls who assume's people's age at a lower stance to make themselves sound more mature and more intelligent.
you're calling people bad names and attacking grammar
jimmies rustled -
So what is beneficial from believing in any religion? Everyone will live the same life, we will die around the same age, have similar jobs, probably marry, possibly have children, drive a vehicle to work, go to the same schools, have the same education, ect..
I find it extremely hard to believe in a God. This world lives with terrorism, fear, war, murders, weapons, violence, poverty, hunger every single day. How come it's supposed to be right to believe in someone who hasn't been proven to exist? If I pursue Christianity do I live a good "afterlife" in a non-existent place high up above the clouds? I think the main reason is because since we are all conscious every second of our life we cannot know what it's like when the functions of our body stops (ie. when we die).
This is one of those arguments that will never have a winner. It is just like the Canada vs USA arguments you see. -
BlackNasty19 wrote: »I think about that all the time. God's a spirit. People tell me if I have questions , the bible has the answer to most of your questions and the rest will be revealed once he comes.
I look at it as since we have a god, why are these things happening to people? Natural disasters, "special people", people over in islands, tribes , not knowing about the world. If there is no god what happens when we die? Are we reborn not knowing anything of our past?
The bible along with the Qur'an has been notoriously purposely and accidentaly misinterpreted throughout the ages. If you wish to seek knowledge with ancient scriptures, i encourage you to read it yourself and not let the opinions and teachings of others cloud your judgement. -
aTastyCookii wrote: »Please correct that grammatical sentence so it makes some sense and connects to what you're try to say. Thanks, SIR. Is that better for you? And I love arrogant trolls who assume's people's age at a lower stance to make themselves sound more mature and more intelligent.
I didn't fully understand what you've said, but I didn't say or imply anything that Einstein is not worthy or is unintelliegent. Sir, please. Read.
My point was that just because you use Einstein's words does not mean he or you can proove that a god exists in this world.
You are simply using Einstein to conclude certain things just because Einstein said so himself am I right?
This is just for instance, but if Einstein comes back at you and says you're adopted, do you automatically assume it is 100% true with no denial?
Sir..........
Please.
honestly, i am not trying to be rude or anything but can you comprehend anything? i quoted your response which was a question, with a "no" in the beginning, which means anything you stated in your entire post was disregarded with that no and stated my reason for my post earlier after, you complain about grammar yet your ability to comprehend it suffers..my post did not even imply anything about you being right or wrong just the reason i posted what i posted -
AwfulFallout wrote: »i have a question, why were things like cars and electronics not created over billions of years, those things required a designer to get where they are today, yet the eye ball is 1 billion more times complex then any of those things, and was somehow created through random chance?
Because cars and electronics were developed over a period of 100 years and our bodies are the cumulative result of billions of years of evolution.
Look I don't have anything against you believing in god or not. In fact, it's scientifically impossible to prove at the moment that he doesn't exist.
You believe in god, that's cool and all. But why is it that you worship him? I mean, didn't god create everything, ins't he aware of everything at any given moment.
If he is, then why should I worship someone who created poverty, war, genocide, terrorism, starvation, cancer, AIDs, disparity, global warming, WMDs, ETC. if this is all Gods' doing, then why should we be worshiping him. -
Because cars and electronics were developed over a period of 100 years and our bodies are the cumulative result of billions of years of evolution.
Look I don't have anything against you believing in god or not. In fact, it's scientifically impossible to prove at the moment that he doesn't exist.
You believe in god, that's cool and all. But why is it that you worship him? I mean, didn't god create everything, ins't he aware of everything at any given moment.
If he is, then why should I worship someone who created poverty, war, genocide, terrorism, starvation, cancer, AIDs, disparity, global warming, WMDs, ETC. if this is all Gods' doing, then why should we be worshiping him.
read on the concept of "free will" and you will understand why those things are there
also that doesn't answer my question, that just states what happened lol... -
You're still not making any sense.AwfulFallout wrote: »you're calling people bad names and attacking grammar
jimmies rustled
I encourage you to practice more english, SIR.
What did I call you?
Are you offended by "ignorant troll" as you still keep on doing?
Don't blame me your asking for it.
Btw, edited post on this page, just for you.
Wnd please explain to me how you can attack grammar. Please and thank-you wise one.
^^^S-N-I-P-E-S wrote: »So what is beneficial from believing in any religion? Everyone will live the same life, we will die around the same age, have similar jobs, probably marry, possibly have children, drive a vehicle to work, go to the same schools, have the same education, ect..
I find it extremely hard to believe in a God. This world lives with terrorism, fear, war, murders, weapons, violence, poverty, hunger every single day. How come it's supposed to be right to believe in someone who hasn't been proven to exist? If I pursue Christianity do I live a good "afterlife" in a non-existent place high up above the clouds? I think the main reason is because since we are all conscious every second of our life we cannot know what it's like when the functions of our body stops (ie. when we die).
This is one of those arguments that will never have a winner. It is just like the Canada vs USA arguments you see.
Man this thread turned into a discussion about god.
Just drop it.
There's no god.
Live with it.
There is no realistic evidence given that a god exist in this universe. Nothing. You're born, you live, you die. If there is a god, please explain to me why this world functions like this today. Don't bring up paranormal activities as a reason.
End of discussion. You're points are not valid at all, sir.
I like the way you think.
You're still a ditcher though.
Categories
- All Categories
- Z8Games
- 1 Z8 Forum Discussion & Suggestions
- 15 Z8Games Announcements
- Rules & Conduct
- 2.6K CrossFire
- 746 CrossFire Announcements
- 745 Previous Announcements
- 2 Previous Patch Notes
- 333 Community
- 13 Modes
- 401 Suggestions
- 16 Clan Discussion and Recruitment
- 89 CF Competitive Forum
- 1 CFCL
- 17 Looking for a Team?
- 536 CrossFire Support
- 10 Suggestion
- 16 CrossFire Guides
- 38 CrossFire Off Topic