Why follow God and what makes it moral?

Based on objective reasoning I have come to the conclusion that even if one wanted to follow God there would be no path that one could be sure of.

Even if one did believe in the Bible .. there would still be multiple paths.

 

How do you know he has a court? You told me God is not comprehensible, now you say you comprehend even his system of judgment? You're a total hypocrite mate!

LOL No the contradiction is in your logic. What you are essentially saiyng is 'only I know everything because I say so.' You're a joke, and your petty philosophizing is even more hilarious.

 

All you are proving is that you have not read the Bible at all.
"Eze 10:5 And the sound of the cherubims' wings was heard [even] to the outer court, as the voice of the Almighty God when he speaketh.

Eze 46:1 Thus saith the Lord GOD; The gate of the inner court that looketh toward the east shall be shut the six working days; but on the sabbath it shall be opened, and in the day of the new moon it shall be opened."

There you have it... an inner court where the angels attend God and the outer court where the worshipers come to worship. Both belonging to God. You really should study more instead of thinking that you know all there is to know.

There is no contradiction in my logic. There may well be a contradiction existing between the logic and philosophy that I utilize and that which you utilize. Now the real contradiction exists when you are attempting to apply the logic and philosophies of the temporal world to subject matter relating to God. But hey... that choice of logic which causes you to imagine contradictions is a personal choice of yours. Though your choice of a form of logic makes you think there are contradictions, it does not mean that there are contradictions within the framework of the philosophy and logic which I utilize.

 

What you are saiyng is, by claiming to work in the abstract you can justify anything, claim anything, and not have to answer to anyone but yourself. You site the Bible, which is tangible, yet discuss concepts that really only exist in your mind - and no one agrees with you.

 

Is that what you perceive that I am saying? Oh Well. That perception belongs to you. Not me, so deal with it.

Using absolutes is a no no. "no one" is an absolute. You cannot prove your claim.

This computer screen is also tangible, but I often see on this screen things written by non-theists which did not exist in my mind prior to reading them on this monitor screen. So, based on the logic you are presenting, you and all the others appearing in name format on this screen are really just 'in my mind'.... a figment of the imagination..? You see, I don't know 'factually' that you exist,, therefore, you are merely a figment of my imagination. Can you prove to me that you exist? Show yourself to me in a vision here in my study without the aid of a computer monitor. Appear here so that I will know that you exist. You are merely a 'concept' that is under discussion at this point in time. Are you real? If yes, then prove it. Are you more than just a 'concept'? Prove it.

 

You have no principles of deducing your theories on God etc. All you have is opinion and baseless opinion at that. Your stance is as justifiable as a mad man's. Your position is not only illogical its also impractical. How can you expect people to believe you when you give no evidence, simply opinion - in the same way a mad man proves his case?

 

Gee... you must have been in contemplation of 'self' when you wrote all of the above. Has science developed any principles of deducing any theory on God, etc.? Does science have anything other than OPINION and baseless opinion at that? The stance of science as a generalized field is as justifiable as a mad mans. The position of scientists is not only theologically illogical its also impractical. How can scientists expect people to believe them when the scientists give no evidence, just opinion. - in the same way a mad man proves his case?

Yes! I redirected all of your points right back at you, just to let you know that your position, stance, opinion and the philosophy that you have decided to follow is dubious at best.

 

Yes.

Yes.

No, more so.

Now I get it. You dont believe in reality. You're a religious post modernist. That's really interesting because virtually every church on the planet, including most Christians, believe in rational thought, objective truth and science.

Not at all, its logical and can be comprehended by annoy one. Your position however is just mindless mental masturbation that is both incomprehensible and illogical.

 

Wow... that would mean that the scientists are in a worse position than the mad man.

More of your unsubstantiated presumptions based on a biased and prejudicial perspective. BTW: Most churches are 501c3 here in the united states, therefore, those churches are no longer following Jesus and the teachings of Jesus, but instead are bowing down to their new king, the State.

Can you prove that I don't believe in reality? Where is the PROOF?

More of your looking in the mirror and telling everyone what you are viewing. That is regrettable. You should take your mind off of self and vanity and for goodness sake, stay away from those mirrors. They are causing you to reveal too much about yourself.

 

You read my reply incorrectly. A scientist's position is more valid than a mad man's because he (the scientists) operates on object observation which the mad man does not. The mad man's truth is his own and no one else's, and can be no one elses - like you.

So you do believe in objective standards of reasoning? WHy do you deny them then?

haha, here we go. So the only Christian in the world - is you! haha classic.

Certainly the proof is in your comments above. You dont believe in reality - you dont base any of your beliefs on objective reasoning or truth. You claim everything is opinion - this is a post modernist opinion - you dont believe in reality, just what the mind thinks is reality.

What I said is completely correct. You have no principle of thought that can logically allow others to share your beliefs or validate your conclusions. You operate entirely in the abstract - in a state of denial of the real.

 

No!I applied my choice of philosophy and its system of logic, thus causing you (using a different philosophy and subsequent system of logic) to perceive that my reading was in error.

Resorting to personal attacks again. I will have to bring notice of this to the moderators. At any rate:

The validity of a scientists position is relative to the subject matter that is being discussed or observed. But of course, when scientists resort to making claims about things that they cannot see and cannot otherwise prove to exist, then they are also equally sharing the title of 'mad man'. Such as the scientist who declares that 'electrons' moving through a wire in sufficient quantity will cause the wire to emit light. That claim cannot be validated because no-one (not even the greatest of scientists using the most advanced laboratory equipment) have ever been able to observe 'electron flow' through a wire. They can only speculate and make theories about it. Yet scientists believe it is 'electrons' which cannot be seen ... talking about mad men....

Well of course I do,,, when dealing with objective things. However those rules pertaining to objectivity do not apply when the focus is turned to subjectivity. So what is your point?

Did I say that, or are you having another episode of hallucinations?

Remember now,,,, beliefs belong to that area called subjective... subjectivity is not bound by objectivity. Or have you not learned that yet through science? No my beliefs are not based upon or founded upon 'objective reasoning'. You should take note of what you are saying, and you would then realize that your claims are ridiculous because of separation that exists between objectivity and subjectivity. You are really dense.

Can you prove that 'reality' is anything more than what the mind perceives reality to be?

Can you prove that claim regarding my 'principle of thought'? Can you prove that I 'operate entirely in the abstract'? Can you prove that I am "in a state of denial of the real"? I would venture to say that you cannot prove any of those claims which totally destroys any credibility that you might have been holding. But for the record, I will say... Prove your claims using empirical evidence relating to my psyche.

 

What system of logic is that? Objective truth? No you say God is out of its boundaries. Rational observation? You say rational blinds necessary faith etc. Logical reasoning? But you say we cannot reason of God. Thus what is your system of logic? All I see is a complete denial of ALL things logical.

It wasnt a personal attack. I said your thoughts are as grounded as a mad man's. I explained my position. It wasnt an insult, it was a valid description of your thoughts here. That is far different to an attack on your person which is meaningless, ie an insult.

No it is relative to his objective observations.

No here they make a theory - HOWEVER the difference between this theoretical work and the thoughts of a mad man is the scientist still deduces such theories from his limited rational knowledge. CONVERSELY a mad man simply invents what he does not know with no basis other than the fact he can, which is essentially your position.

Wrong again, If you had a high density electron microscope that was powerful enough, you could see them. Your understanding if so poor is laughable. As I said, science is based on reason and truth - your position is not.

So God is subjective? Thus God is not objective, thus God is not real. End of debate.

So how does one determine a "true" Christian?

So God is subjective? Thus God is not objective, thus God is not real. End of debate.

You complained of alleged insults?

Yes. Here's a sure fire way. Take a gun, load it, shoot yourself in the head, and tell me what happened. I guarantee you wont be able to. According to you, you should be able to because reality is "all in the mind"

See your comment above. You deny reality - thus you do not believe in reality, hence you can imagine anything - it wont mean anything or be something autonomous - just a thought.

Yes, because you dont use objective reasoning or data just mental masturbation. I already went through this.

Yes, because as you say in your own words: " 'reality' is (no) more than what the mind perceives"

See above. You're on your last legs here.

 

Tell me why I should submit my being to any of your infidel inquiries?

Making reference to me or anyone else on this forum as a madman is an assault against that person, regardless of the quality or number of your rationalizations (excuses).

What objective observations were observed?

Theory is work of the imagination. Theory has not been proven as factual. Subsequently.. scientists making claims regarding things that don't exist is the rantings of mad men.

"If" grasshoppers carried 45's, birds wouldn't mess with them. Speculation on your part and no proof of claim.

 

MDF: you still have not proven that you are anything more than a concept. Where is your proof of your own existence in what you call reality?

 

MDF:

Where is your proof of this claim:
"Wrong again, If you had a high density electron microscope that was powerful enough, you could see them. " ?

Does your claim have any validity of being anything more than a wild imagination or the ranting of a 'mad man'? If it does have more validity, then prove your claim.

 

MDF: why did you not provide proof when proof was required to substantiate your claim?
"Can you prove that I don't believe in reality? Where is the PROOF? It is a known fact among notable scientists that science cannot prove anything. So, where is your empirical PROOF?

 

Again, take a gun and shoot yourself and, by the laws of physics and everything else we have determined about reality, you will die.

 

"infidel inquiries"? What are you a radical now? Seems logical - your madness has deepened. Oh and to answer your question - unless you want to look like MORE of an idiot, you should answer, but yeah its your choice.

But I wasnt referring to you - I was referring to your ideas. Besides you insulted me below so I dont see what your problem is, unless you are a hypocrite.

Well, take your electron example. You could observe the electron and their activity.

WRONG. Scientific theory is based on limited knowledge. Religion is based on NO knowledge. Science also incorporates reason and practical application - religion, and you, do not.

How is this relevant?

You just said he is subjective, thus he is not objective. You cant be both.

My proof is taken from YOUR comment! LOL

Because you said all the mainstream churches, which would say your thinking is insane, are not 'true'.

You have yet to actually respond to that point: You say God is subjective? Thus God is not objective, thus God is not real. End of debate

Like I said, you're a hypocrite.

Actually the line I put in quotations is a direct quote from your comment.

Oh, so you dont think reality is all in the mind?

So you believe that reality exists outside the mind? You can answer that at least.

How sad. 62 and going mad.

 

Year 12 Chemistry. I'm not going to explain how such technology operates. You asked the question, I've given you an answer. If you dont know how or what a high density microscope is I frankly dont care, but I'm sure as hell not going to explain how it works. The fact remains if it were powerful enough you could see what you want to - ie the movement of electrons.

Do you know anything about electrons etc?

 

Do you believe that reality exists outside the mind? If yes, then you would know one can understand how reality operates by observation of it - this is the fundamental principle of science.

 

I obtain my information and thought process from my life experiences, which are different from those of every one else that has ever existed. I have studied many things and loved most of them, one exception is philosophy. I have never understand why anyone would want to follow someone else,s belief, instead of formulating their own beliefs. Over and over and over and over and over, I have seen people take "philosophy 101" and suddenly know all there is to know about everything. These people are idiots. Until YOU can tell me why you believe the way you do, about specific things, you do NOT have a clue (you is a general you, meaning all people). I know and understand what I believe and why, few do.
YES my understanding includes, but is far from limited to, long dead humans. And most often, I find the beliefs of long dead humans, to be idiotic, foolish, nonsensical, and plain stupid.

 

What nonsense, lol, no atheist needs to say anything about jesus but the real facts. Since there are no gods, one does not have to say that Hercules, Jesus nor any other was fathered by something that does not exist.

What is factual about the biblical Jesus, is we do not even have any factual evidence to support his existence. There is evidence that Pilate existed, but there is NO evidence that Jesus did. Seems like Jesus and all gods are in the same boat, with no real valid evidence for their existence. Only supposition, myth, superstition, fabrication and the beliefs of ignorant savage, violent, primitive "humans".

 

Atheists are NOT a group, they have no code of ethics, no moral code, no rules. What makes one an atheist is ONE simple thing, a lack of belief in any god or gods. Other than that ONE fact, there is seldom any similarity between atheists, one can be Buddhist, one can be Unitarian, one democrat, one republican, and on and on. The have only ONE thing in common. Unlike members of most religions who have a set of idiocies they must accept, this does NOT hold true for atheists.

By the way, I am NO ONES fellow anything, I am an individual and not a member of any crazy group, other than this forum.
If I am a fellow of anyone it is other tea pack specialists, there are only about a hundred of us in the world. They are my fellows by dint of their knowledge, experience and skills in a very specialized field.

 

Sorry, mate. History is against you on this one. Secular history confirms Jesus was in fact a real person.

 

Ok please name me any living, modern, well educated by todays standards, men or women for that matter, that partook in the formation of the Bible, NT or OT, Qur'an, Vedas or any other written religious foundation. Just one will do? Did anyone who wrote the bible have even a bachelor's degree? Did they know how to drive a car? Are any of them still alive? hmm, if not, then my statement stands and is NOT a miss-characterization. The creators of all the major religions are dead, were a part of primitive societies and were quite ignorant, even by 1st grade standards today. My remark was both accurate and honest and factual, and without malice.