This is a MUSIC forum. Irrelevant or disrespectful posts/topics will be removed by Admin. Please report any forum spam or inappropriate posts HERE.

All users can post to this forum on general music topics.

Moderators: bandmixmod1, jimmy990, spikedace

#103050 by Ryan_Strain
Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:16 pm
I don't remember if I ever posted this here, but my friend David sent this to me:

THE NECESSITY FOR GOD
Preached at the University of Birmingham Alabama

During my second day on campus I decided to start at square one and talk about the existence of God. I explained that there was a metaphysical necessity for God, an axiological necessity for God, and an epistemological necessity for God.

The metaphysical necessity for God is that the finite cannot exist without the existence of the infinite, since only the self-existent can cause that which is not self-existent. Every effect must have a cause. That which is not self-existent must have a cause. If the infinite did not exist, the finite could not exist, because nothing could have ever caused it. The nature of reality (metaphysics) requires the existence of God.

The axiological necessity for God is that, apart from an infinite transcendent mind, there can be no moral absolutes. Without a superior and infallible mind who governs over us, the final court of appeal would be our own finite thinking and understanding. We could not be absolutely sure of moral law, since the views and opinions of men’s minds differ and vary so widely. There must be an infinite, infallible, superior, transcendent mind that governs over us, that gives us moral revelations through our conscience, if we are to have any certainty regarding absolute moral law. Axiology (morality) requires the existence of God.

In one of my dialogs with an atheist I asked him, “were the crusades wrong? He said, “Yes”. I asked, “Where the witch hunts wrong?” He said, “Yes”. I asked, “Where the inquisitions wrong?” Again he said, “Yes”. Then I asked, “Where does morality come from?” He didn’t know what to say. If he said morality comes from the minds of individuals, how could these individuals have been wrong if they thought this was the right thing to do? If he said morality comes from society, how could these societies be wrong since this is what they thought was right to do? If there is no transcendent God, who infallibly knows what is right and what is wrong, who writes His law upon our very own conscience, all we can have is relative or subjective morality, but nothing that is absolute or objective. We all know right from wrong because God, who infallibly knows what’s right and what’s wrong, has revealed it to us.

Besides, if we are random accidents of the Universe, instead of precious and valuable creations of God, what would make our well-being absolutely valuable? We could arbitrarily say that we are valuable, but this is not the same as being intrinsically valuable. The object of moral law is to secure the well-being of the governed. The foundation of moral law itself is the intrinsic value of well-being. If you take away the intrinsic value of well-being, you take away the very foundation of moral law.

The epistemological necessity for God is that, if we are not created and designed by God, how can we trust the accuracy of our five senses, or believe in the reliability of our reason or conscience? Apart from the presupposition of Divine Design, we cannot put any confidence in the accuracy of these means of acquiring knowledge. They could be flawed, inaccurate, and completely deceptive, if we are the result of mere “time and chance”. One atheist told me, “I don’t believe in the accuracy of my five senses.” I said, “You don’t stop at red lights?” I went on to say, “Every time you get up in the morning and go to the mirror brush your hair, you are believing in your sense of sight and the sight of others.” Everyone believes in the accuracy of their five senses, but apart from Divine Design, we cannot account for them. Epistemology (study of knowledge and justified belief) necessitates the existence of God.

#103053 by jimmydanger
Tue Mar 09, 2010 8:32 pm
None of these things require the existence of God.

The finite universe does not require the infinite to exist. In fact, there is no such thing as the infinite; the universe has an edge (boundry) which expands into the Nothing as we speak (and most scientists agree that that this universal expansion is accelerating).

We don't need God for morals either. Morals are the result of man being a social creature; if man was not, there would be no need for morals. Non-religious people can be just a moral as religious, and maybe more. We (the non-religious) can't have our "sins" absolved or forgiven; we are the same everyday.

As far as needing God to believe in your senses, the truth is you cannot depend on your senses for the truth. People have failing eyesight, hearing, and the other senses, yet as long as they have a rational, well-functioning brain they don't need these senses. And they don't need religion to have a productive, fulfilled life either. If you do have the need, fine, but millions of people are happy without it.

#103057 by philbymon
Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:03 pm
On the one hand, the author claims that every effect must have a cause, i.e., everything has a beginning. On the other, he claims the necessity of the infinite.

How or when did god begin? Is this the exception that proves the rule he first stated?

There are many moral absolutes, once a society begins to take form. You see this in animal behaviors as well as human. Certain behaviors will cause the ousting of the individual from many mammalian societal units. Other behaviors wil end in daeth. Was it god that taught them these rules of behavior, &, if so, does this mean that they, too, have souls?

Glittering generalities rarely work to truly explain anything.

Some rules of behavior vary widely from tribe to tribe, from society to society. The judeo/christian/moslem model finds grandiose lavish displays of wealth to be rather distasteful, even "sinful." Some Polynesian cultures, however, thrive on it, & even prefer thier rulers to be hugely fat examples of, if not depravity, certainly decadence. In some cultures, the homosexual is thought to possess magical powers, while in the Abrahamic models, they are considered "abominations."

Nope, you can't tell me that all rules of behavior, or even most, come from a divinity. What you consider right & wrong will be something quite different to other ppl with other backgrounds.

Even in our own culture, loosely based on the Abrahamic model, our own gov't is allowed to take life, to kill, though it is plainly printed out that this is wrong.

Your Ten Commandments are probably only a mere sample of what Moses was supposed to have brought down from the mountain, btw. What happened to the rest of those rules? What happens if we should break them unknowingly?

Rules of behavior, the concepts of "right" & "wrong," are most likely just another step in the evolution of a society, Ryan, & not the result of divine intervention. Ppl, even ancient ppl, aren't that stupid. They see the results of certain actions, & learn what is right or wrong from experience.

The author has yet to prove anything to me, & I don't even consider myself an atheist.

#103065 by Slacker G
Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:36 pm
I wish I had the faith required to be an atheist. From the largest object in the universe to the smallest particle of matter, we find one thing. Consistency and order. From the waves of light from the sun, to the waves in an electron, to waves studied from formations millions of galaxy's wide, there are waves. Some we can see, others we hear through radio telescopes.

There is order, there is purpose, even though man is incapable of understanding it and tries to explain it all away. Even in string theory, the smallest single substructure in matter, there is consistency. Yet only theory at this point in time, theorists see the strings as oscillating in waves.

Where could I obtain such faith as you? The faith that all is random, faith that all order came into being from disorder and chaos. Faith that chaos somehow managed itself into purposeful being. The faith that chaos somehow built relationships to all known matter in the universe, to every substance that we have come to understand.

An atheist has the faith to believe it is all haphazard and random. If I had that kind of faith, I could do anything.

#103067 by jimmydanger
Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:43 pm
Faith is the belief in something for which there is no evidence. Atheists do not need faith, only evidence. You could call this anti-faith.

Being an agnostic (not an atheist) I do conceed that it is possible that God exists, or once existed. But I also believe that it's something we can never verify and is therefore pointless to discuss.

#103070 by Slacker G
Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:54 pm
Believe me Jimmy. When you take your last breath, you too will also believe in God.

God has proven His existence to me in everything.

But at one time I also did not believe. When I asked God to reveal himself to me, He did. But He did it by having me get into witchcraft and the occult.

When it came to the point where I believed in the supernatural, only one thought crossed my mind.

If there are spirits, and they are real, then there must be a spiritual order. There could also be a God and a Devil. And if there is a God, then I'm on the wrong side.

Not a nice thought, but it changed my life for the better.

#103077 by gbheil
Tue Mar 09, 2010 11:50 pm
Gee

You'd think being the guitarist for a GodRock band I would jump in the middle of all the "religious debate" threads.

I however, other than my music, find it rather pointless to "debate" God with those whom choose not to believe.

Why? You may ask ... because they have chosen not to believe, and therefore not what I can say will sway opinion.
That is not my job.
My job is to spread the word of the love and forgiveness that is all mankind's though the death of our blessed Savior Jesus Christ.

As Slacker G stated

God has proven His existence to me in everything.

That is where I stand personally.

Those whom have heard but choose not to believe, are not at issue in my heart.
Those whom have not heard or those whom have and are seeking after Jesus ... allow me to share the glory of what Jesus has change in me with you.
The rest, I leave in the hands of the SPIRIT.

I am a sinner Christ Lord Jesus ! Take my hand and guide me to walk in YOUR glory.
AMEN

#103124 by CraigMaxim
Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:24 am
jimmydanger wrote:
Faith is the belief in something for which there is no evidence.



That's a narrow definition. Faith has multiple meanings.

But even accepting that definition, faith is also PARADOXICAL.

The more evidence one has for something, the more deeply and firmly they believe in something or someone.

For example, a spouse can extend a measure of faith to their new husband, but not surprisingly, as time goes on, and that initial faith is proven worthy, the more faith the spouse will develop in the person who honors that agreement of fidelity. In other words, as someone PROVES their faithfulness to you, it INCREASES your faith in them.

Slacker has had this experience, as have I, and many others on this forum.

The difference here, is that our "evidence" is of a personal and spiritual nature, as opposed to being based on PHYSICAL matter, which can be handled, contained, photographed, measured, etc...

God being SPIRITUAL, it would make sense that our relationships with him, are also spiritual, and thus not able to be photographed, contained, subject to physical senses, measured, etc...

If God could be proven through scientific means, it would mean that He was a physical entity, existing in time and space, and CONTAINED by his own creation.... namely... the Cosmos, the physical world.

Humans on the other hand, exist in TWO worlds SIMULTANEOUSLY, physical AND spiritual, except that many of us, are unaware of the existence of the latter state of our being.

Why does God create a physical environment?

It enabled Him to create beings (humans) with God like powers... FREE WILL, and yet all of the bad choices, or evil we could commit because of that gift, is limited to THIS physical world. And yet He, being PERFECT and SINLESS, can still relate to our SPIRITUAL nature, without subjecting God to the presence of sin directly. The Bible teaches that there is no evil or sin, in the presence of God, and this is PRECISELY how that is accomplished!

Humans in a DUAL existence, in between two worlds, two existences.

When we call to God, in purity, the spiritual goodness in us, IMMEDIATELY relates with the goodness in God, WHERE IT ORIGINATED! Similarly, whenever selfishness or evil enters our beings, or thought process, feelings, etc... it IMMEDIATELY removes us from the presence of God.

Interestingly, the Bible talks about Satan being THROWN down from Heaven to Earth, when he sinned, and again, when Adam and Eve sinned, the Bible explains that they were "cast out" of the garden, and the way was blocked. What I am telling you, is that this is figurative and illustrative language, to express something SPIRITUAL that was not well understood when those words were written.

It is NOT that God casts us out.... SIN casts us out. Selfishness casts us out! WE CAST OURSELVES OUT, by a natural process, as sure as the force of gravity.

SIN "REMOVES" us, from the presence of holiness, from the PURITY of God's environment... from God himself!

Both Satan, and Adam and Eve, REMOVED THEMSELVES from "heaven" from the existence and presence of God, by sinning. HEAVEN where Lucifer was before rising against God, and THE GARDEN, where Adam anb Eve were, before disobeying God, ARE THE SAME PLACE! Not a PHYSICAL PLACE, but a SPIRITUAL STATE OF BEING, of oneness, and direct communication with God. Without sin, they were in HEAVEN "spiritually". When they sinned, they IMMEDIATELY found themselves OUTSIDE that state of being, outside of "heaven". No one had to remove them, or throw them out... SIN CAUSED THAT "AUTOMATICALLY"!

It occurred IMMEDIATELY and AUTOMATICALLY.

And just as it occurred AUTOMATICALLY for them, it occurs AUTOMATICALLY for us now... today!

If you have no need for God, to even seek Him out.... if you live in doubt, if you are GODS of your OWN lives... you are immediately making the statement that you HAVE NO USE for God. Not only will NONE of the things I say make sense, but you will COMPLETELY outside the presence of God, as you maintain that heart, that selfishness, that behavior, of being Lords of your own lives.

You are not forever and completely REMOVED from God for ALL TIME, but you are allowing for VERY FEW windows, through which God can shine in your life. When you behave in a TRULY loving manner, it is a moment where you have allowed God's love in, and THROUGH you. For example, you see a small child, and you risk your life to jump in front of the car that is about to run her over.... you are not THINKING about God, but your defenses were down... you saw a need... a child, that is innocent in your mind, that needs help RIGHT NOW! In that moment, that you felt compassion toward this stranger in need, you opened your heart.... not to God Himself... but to the potential victim... the innocent child. And God flooded in at that moment, allowing LOVE to dominate your heart, and rescue that child. But you were almost SHOCKED into that situation. When you are free to think again, more deliberately, perhaps you return to a state where you believe we are merely animals, who are selfish by nature, and so you are merely being natural by putting your needs well above the needs of others.... survival of the fittest.

What I am suggesting, is that YOU ARE having a relationship with God, without being aware of it, but only in spurts and limited measure. God "IS" love, and so ALL LOVE has it's origin in God. When you LOVE, unselfishly, it is God's heart, loving THROUGH YOU, functioning THROUGH YOU.

If you were to believe in this principle, perhaps you (meaning whoever this applies to) would realize that LOVE is the preferable state of existence, and behavior, and your heart would be WITHOUT FEAR and WITHOUT DOUBT, to trust in that love, obey it, and ALLOW MUCH MORE of it, into your existence here!

THAT would be, in very real terms... Deepening your relationship to the SOURCE of love, which is God Himself.

Last edited by CraigMaxim on Wed Mar 10, 2010 6:02 am, edited 2 times in total.

#103126 by ANGELSSHOTGUN
Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:56 am
All this just proves the existance of God, because when Addam took the first bite of the proggressive ,socialist , apple,,,,,
All Hell broke loose :lol: :lol:

#103127 by ANGELSSHOTGUN
Wed Mar 10, 2010 3:57 am
HUH...... :lol:

#103134 by mistermikev
Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:27 pm
this is a weak argument at best...
"how could those societies be wrong if that's what they thought they should do"... " where do morals come from"

ah, empahathy? You see these things being done to others and think "gee, I rather not be flogged myself... therefore... in order to avoid that... perhaps I shouldn't flog someone"

still, I look at it like this... if you think it matters that god exists in terms of making your decision to follow the teachings of the bible/koran/budah/etc then you are one of the folks who would simply 'go thru the motions just to be on the winning team' and have missed the point. You will also be the type to use it to justify immorality.

Follow ANY religion because of it's potential to force you into a better person and these things become irrelevant.

I think people use arguments that disprove literal existence of things in a religion to distract themselves from doing the hard work that they know is right... ie do your best to not kill, not steal, not lie etc. It's easier to just say "see noahs ark doesn't exists so I can simply discount the entire bible"

#103183 by Shapeshifter
Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:07 pm
:roll:


This post feels to me like someone is trying to prove (and failing) that they no more than anyone else. Sorry, Ryan, I don't mean to be an ass, but I disagree with your beliefs. I (like Jimmy) am an agnostic. I believe in certain possibilities. Some college prof isn't going to change that-those "educated people" are the same ones that said the world was flat-and we all just went along with it until they were proven wrong.

On the other hand, if you could ask whomever is preaching this at the U of B Ala. to unravel a certain other secret of the universe (next week's powerball #-tell 'em to send it to me in an e-mail), then maybe I'll have a little more...FAITH.

#103187 by jimmydanger
Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:14 pm
LOL Joe. Send me the powerball number...too funny.
#103188 by Cretindilettante
Wed Mar 10, 2010 9:22 pm
Ryan_Strain wrote:I don't remember if I ever posted this here, but my friend David sent this to me:

THE NECESSITY FOR GOD
Preached at the University of Birmingham Alabama

During my second day on campus I decided to start at square one and talk about the existence of God. I explained that there was a metaphysical necessity for God, an axiological necessity for God, and an epistemological necessity for God.

The metaphysical necessity for God is that the finite cannot exist without the existence of the infinite, since only the self-existent can cause that which is not self-existent. Every effect must have a cause. That which is not self-existent must have a cause. If the infinite did not exist, the finite could not exist, because nothing could have ever caused it. The nature of reality (metaphysics) requires the existence of God.

The axiological necessity for God is that, apart from an infinite transcendent mind, there can be no moral absolutes. Without a superior and infallible mind who governs over us, the final court of appeal would be our own finite thinking and understanding. We could not be absolutely sure of moral law, since the views and opinions of men’s minds differ and vary so widely. There must be an infinite, infallible, superior, transcendent mind that governs over us, that gives us moral revelations through our conscience, if we are to have any certainty regarding absolute moral law. Axiology (morality) requires the existence of God.

In one of my dialogs with an atheist I asked him, “were the crusades wrong? He said, “Yes”. I asked, “Where the witch hunts wrong?” He said, “Yes”. I asked, “Where the inquisitions wrong?” Again he said, “Yes”. Then I asked, “Where does morality come from?” He didn’t know what to say. If he said morality comes from the minds of individuals, how could these individuals have been wrong if they thought this was the right thing to do? If he said morality comes from society, how could these societies be wrong since this is what they thought was right to do? If there is no transcendent God, who infallibly knows what is right and what is wrong, who writes His law upon our very own conscience, all we can have is relative or subjective morality, but nothing that is absolute or objective. We all know right from wrong because God, who infallibly knows what’s right and what’s wrong, has revealed it to us.

Besides, if we are random accidents of the Universe, instead of precious and valuable creations of God, what would make our well-being absolutely valuable? We could arbitrarily say that we are valuable, but this is not the same as being intrinsically valuable. The object of moral law is to secure the well-being of the governed. The foundation of moral law itself is the intrinsic value of well-being. If you take away the intrinsic value of well-being, you take away the very foundation of moral law.

The epistemological necessity for God is that, if we are not created and designed by God, how can we trust the accuracy of our five senses, or believe in the reliability of our reason or conscience? Apart from the presupposition of Divine Design, we cannot put any confidence in the accuracy of these means of acquiring knowledge. They could be flawed, inaccurate, and completely deceptive, if we are the result of mere “time and chance”. One atheist told me, “I don’t believe in the accuracy of my five senses.” I said, “You don’t stop at red lights?” I went on to say, “Every time you get up in the morning and go to the mirror brush your hair, you are believing in your sense of sight and the sight of others.” Everyone believes in the accuracy of their five senses, but apart from Divine Design, we cannot account for them. Epistemology (study of knowledge and justified belief) necessitates the existence of God.


The biggest flaw in every argument for the existence of God is that the God in question is OUR God. We're assuming that God is a being with features similar to us, and that is a very narcissistic thing to do. I personally believe there is no 'Intelligent' God as defined in every myth and holy book man has ever written, God to me is a series of actions and interactions that occur in the universe. When I touch my face, and the particles in my hand interact with the particles in my forehead, a signal is sent to my brain to let me know that such an interaction occurs. This is what "feeling" is, a series of actions and interactions, and thus God. God is a collective of all the energy in the universe, it is not a separate omnipotent entity that has nothing better to do than spend it's time judging and scaring us into doing things for it's own entertainment.
#103196 by Ryan_Strain
Wed Mar 10, 2010 10:01 pm
Cretindilettante wrote:We're assuming that God is a being with features similar to us, and that is a very narcissistic thing to do.


Gen 1:26 - "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests