Introducing The Universal Religion

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#104 Mar 2, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Mikko,
I'll prove God again:
There are imperfect man-made laws - violable i.e. they can be disobeyed, have exceptions i.e. they don't apply to everybody,and are not permanent i.e. they can be changed or cancelled.
There are perfect natural laws - inviolable i.e. they cannot be disobeyed, permanent i.e. cannot be changed or cancelled, and have no exceptions i.e. they apply to everybody and everything equally.
We know that the imperfect man-made laws are the necessary products of man's imperfect intelligence. and if so, the perfect natural laws must be the necessary products of a perfect intelligence.
In the latter case, there are three things involved: the PERFECT INTELLIGENCE that functions through the PERFECT NATURAL LAWS to control EVERYTHING.
The perfect intelligence which is the necessary source of the laws that control everything, we consider as the eternal energy that manifests itself through the laws in everything,
This energy, the laws and everything trinitarianly put together, constitute GOD.
I remain puzzled as to why you believe that this argument proves God. It is based on tow questionable assertions that you have yet to defend, perfect natural laws (not those that relate to the principles of physics, biology, and the other hard science, but of such abstract and abstruse ones that are faith-based), and a perfect intelligence (presumably no-corporeal and eternal). you cannot accurately state that a thesis has been demonstrated until the premises upon which argument for it depends have first been incontrovertibly demonstrated.

Still no QED.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#105 Mar 3, 2014
I have stated before that scientific laws are natural laws too.
No natural law is abstract or abstruse. They are all easily understandable through human experience and observation.
Even the non-scientific natural laws are very simple and easily observable, even to a stark illiterate.
The natural laws come handy for explaining many of the knotty happenings that make the distraught earthly man fail to see the hand of God at work.
I am very optimistic that, with time, I will be able to convince all and sundry of the perfect character of all the natural laws.
Let me state here and now that any law said to be of God, must be as naturally simple as possible. This simplicity therefore accounts for why the NightSerfs have been disappointed that God is not as inscrutable as they have anticipated.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#106 Mar 3, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Mikko,
I'll prove God again:
There are imperfect man-made laws - violable i.e. they can be disobeyed, have exceptions i.e. they don't apply to everybody,and are not permanent i.e. they can be changed or cancelled.
There are perfect natural laws - inviolable i.e. they cannot be disobeyed, permanent i.e. cannot be changed or cancelled, and have no exceptions i.e. they apply to everybody and everything equally.
We know that the imperfect man-made laws are the necessary products of man's imperfect intelligence. and if so, the perfect natural laws must be the necessary products of a perfect intelligence.
In the latter case, there are three things involved: the PERFECT INTELLIGENCE that functions through the PERFECT NATURAL LAWS to control EVERYTHING.
The perfect intelligence which is the necessary source of the laws that control everything, we consider as the eternal energy that manifests itself through the laws in everything,
This energy, the laws and everything trinitarianly put together, constitute GOD.
Nothing in that text proves the existence of god

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#107 Mar 3, 2014
jide oni wrote:
I have stated before that scientific laws are natural laws too.
No natural law is abstract or abstruse. They are all easily understandable through human experience and observation.
Even the non-scientific natural laws are very simple and easily observable, even to a stark illiterate.
The natural laws come handy for explaining many of the knotty happenings that make the distraught earthly man fail to see the hand of God at work.
I am very optimistic that, with time, I will be able to convince all and sundry of the perfect character of all the natural laws.
Let me state here and now that any law said to be of God, must be as naturally simple as possible. This simplicity therefore accounts for why the NightSerfs have been disappointed that God is not as inscrutable as they have anticipated.
If that''s the case, it should be a simple matter to report on that human experience comprehensively enough to lift it out of the realm of a collection of personal tales from those so predisposed to believe as to be disqualified due to their bias.

There is a problem, though, with "natural laws" that " come handy for explaining many of the knotty happenings that make the distraught earthly man fail to see the hand of God at work." their existence is circular--the explain God's work and God's work confirms their existence. For a logician of any merit, that relationship between the "proof" and the "proven" invalidates both as logical conclusions.

And again, the laws' simplicity shows hem to be God's work and They in turn prove God. Same problem.

There is only one NightSerf as far as I know, and I have no preconceptions of God, simple, inscrutable, or anything else. I simply see no reason to believe that any exist at all. To persuade me to consider the one you advocate will require more evidence and logic than you have thus far been able to muster. So far, you have been unequal to the task.

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#108 Mar 3, 2014
nightserf,
it will be somehow funny if you are truly ignorant of what 'the nightserfs' means.
you keep dodging the real pragmatic approach in favor of dry, eristic argument.
let me repeat myself again:
whoever suffers in whatever form must either be paying for his past unpleasant actions or making progress through self-sacrificing self-application.
Thinking

Sidmouth, UK

#109 Mar 3, 2014
Why does your god rely on others to make scientific progress?
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
Without such problems, scientific progress wouldn't have been made.

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#110 Mar 3, 2014
Thinking wrote:
Why does your god rely on others to make scientific progress?
<quoted text>
Which 'others'?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#111 Mar 3, 2014
jide oni wrote:
nightserf,
it will be somehow funny if you are truly ignorant of what 'the nightserfs' means.
you keep dodging the real pragmatic approach in favor of dry, eristic argument.
let me repeat myself again: whoever suffers in whatever form must either be paying for his past unpleasant actions or making progress through self-sacrificing self-application.
I was referring to NightSerf as an internet personality. It's a made-up word. I should know--I'm the one who made it up. It refers to my lifelong role as a night worker. A serf is a medieval worker who is not free to leave the estate to which he belongs. He is not a slave, per se, because, while he serves the owner of the estate, he belongs to the estate itself and cannot be bought or sold. In the same way, I, in a sense, belong to the night shift that I've worked for almost the entirety of my working life. I also enjoy the subtle puns--night/knight, serf/surf, and all of the wordplay that they open up.
At any rate, NightSerf refers specifically to me. If you google it, nearly all of the returns will refer to me or to someone who got the idea for the name from me. You won't find any references that go back beyond the mid-eighties, when I coined the word and adopted it as my internet handle.

Eristic argument? You opened this up as a debate. Quite aside from the phrase's inherent redundancy, what other kind of argumentation would you expect?

As to your statement, "whoever suffers in whatever form must either be paying for his past unpleasant actions or making progress through self-sacrificing self-application," that is not a universal truth but a statement of belief. If you want others to believe it as well, you must support of with evidence and logic, especially if you want to build further argument on it.

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#112 Mar 3, 2014
Nightserf,
Considering the very good command of English at your disposal, I least expected that the principle of proper noun pluralization could be strange to you.
At any rate,'the Nightserfs' unequivocally means all those persons of the same mindset as that of Nightserf - i.e. any particular trait in question.
If eristic argument simply means argument for its own sake with no thoughts for any benefits derivable from such an argument, then let any stylistician do a comparative analysis of our posts, if you will not be found wanting in this regard.
www.lulu.com/spotlight/karma867

Since: Jan 14

Ashburn, VA

#113 Mar 4, 2014
NightSerf,
Natural laws operate on everybody and everything alike, whoever or whatever may be the case.
It is left for each and everyone of us to substantiate the reality of the natural laws with our respective personal experiences;
But where an individual's experience runs foul of any of the laws, he simply has to examine the situation more closely, to discover the underlying intervening variables at play; or let me know, and I will show him that what he calls yellow is pure white, but that he is either jaundiced or he is having on yellow-tinted glasses.

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#114 Mar 4, 2014
Universal Religion Aims And Objectives:

To develop the mind and brain of man for a better appreciation of God and His laws, such that the earthly man will be so refined and conscientious in his understanding, thoughts and deeds, and thereby enabling the human race to attain perfect peace of mind here on earth.
To enable man to apply the laws for gaining an insight into the human nature, and to enable man to see the natural in all the so-called supernatural.
To dispel from the human race the clouds of inhibitions of fear, ignorance, superstitions, religious and cultural slavery.
To bring about a lasting world peace through the unification of all the world religions under one universal religion, and thereby making the lone religion simply a natural way of life for all.
And finally, to lead individuals to the attainment of Illumination or God Consciousness; such that our conscience, understanding, thoughts and actions will be one with those of God Himself.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#115 Mar 5, 2014
jide oni wrote:
NightSerf,
Natural laws operate on everybody and everything alike, whoever or whatever may be the case.
It is left for each and everyone of us to substantiate the reality of the natural laws with our respective personal experiences;
But where an individual's experience runs foul of any of the laws, he simply has to examine the situation more closely, to discover the underlying intervening variables at play; or let me know, and I will show him that what he calls yellow is pure white, but that he is either jaundiced or he is having on yellow-tinted glasses.
With all due respect, this argument is utterly laughable.

You begin a discussion on the atheist forum about a universal religion. When challenged, you state that the universal religion is supported and substantiated by the existence and operation of natural laws.

When challenged to list these laws and provide evidence that they do, in fact, exist and operate, you list them without even describing their properties or how they operate. On further challenge, you describe them only briefly. Challenged a few more times, you begin to describe how they operate, but still fail to provide evidence that the actually do exist or operate.

After many rounds of this tangled tango, you now say that it is up to your challengers to substantiate your assertions and allegations--to do your work for you. Even Tom Sawyer could not have gotten away with such a shim-sham in this company of skeptics. What makes you think you can?

"Oh, what a tangled web we weave when first we practice to deceive." You may fool a few in less skeptical, less analytical assemblages, but most here can untangle your little fantasies. You are over-matched. You are accomplishing nothing. Nothing at all.

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#116 Mar 5, 2014
jide oni wrote:
Universal Religion Aims And Objectives:
To develop the mind and brain of man for a better appreciation of God and His laws, such that the earthly man will be so refined and conscientious in his understanding, thoughts and deeds, and thereby enabling the human race to attain perfect peace of mind here on earth.
To enable man to apply the laws for gaining an insight into the human nature, and to enable man to see the natural in all the so-called supernatural.
To dispel from the human race the clouds of inhibitions of fear, ignorance, superstitions, religious and cultural slavery.
To bring about a lasting world peace through the unification of all the world religions under one universal religion, and thereby making the lone religion simply a natural way of life for all.
And finally, to lead individuals to the attainment of Illumination or God Consciousness; such that our conscience, understanding, thoughts and actions will be one with those of God Himself.
To attain any of these goals, your universal religion must first win adherents. To win over adherents from existing religions and sects, you have only to show that your set of beliefs is compatible with and/or superior to the ones that they already hold.

Here your task is different. You must instead convince a group of skeptics who have rejected religion altogether that your religion is valid by their standards and holds up to their standards of evidence and logic. Instead, you expect them to accept your ideas without having met that burden--you have even made a failed attempt to shift that burden onto them. Even you should know better, that such an approach will lead to challenge from those who are courteous enough to continue the discussion and ridicule from any others who don't ignore you altogether.

The rationales that you use to convince yourself simply won't work here. You may think of yourself as a skeptic, but you are not. You are a believer. No arguments based on belief will work here. Those who gravitate to this forum and who stay do so because they appreciate the company of peers who have also given up faith and belief as a means of understanding the world around them, but instead search for evidence and employ logic. If you cannot do the same--and you have thus far shown no sign that you can--you can never communicate with them on the level on which they communicate with each other, and you would do better to scuttle back to forums that are filled with other believers.

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#117 Mar 5, 2014
NightSerf,
Many thanks for your incisive posts.
As I earlier stated, scientific laws are also natural laws, because they exhibit the same perfect characteristics as the purely natural laws, except that the latter cannot be a subject of laboratory experimentation like the scietific ones.
For example, the man-made law of death can be cancelled for a particular person, can be evaded or abrogated all the same; whereas, the natural law of death operates on all humans with equal force wherever the target may run to, and with an unfailing constant and permanency.
Unlike with the scientific laws, one doesn't need the lab test-tube to be aware of the immanency of the broader natural laws.
What other evidence would you require for the actual existence of death than of its ever-unfailing eventuation in the life of our fellow humans and of other living things?
As to the parameter for the natural laws' perfect status, I listed, among others, omnipotence i.e. having an over-riding power over all living things etc.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#118 Mar 5, 2014
Not you, clearly.
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
Which 'others'?

“It's just a box of rain...”

Since: May 07

Knoxville, TN

#119 Mar 5, 2014
jide oni wrote:
NightSerf,
Many thanks for your incisive posts.
As I earlier stated, scientific laws are also natural laws, because they exhibit the same perfect characteristics as the purely natural laws, except that the latter cannot be a subject of laboratory experimentation like the scietific ones.
For example, the man-made law of death can be cancelled for a particular person, can be evaded or abrogated all the same; whereas, the natural law of death operates on all humans with equal force wherever the target may run to, and with an unfailing constant and permanency.
Unlike with the scientific laws, one doesn't need the lab test-tube to be aware of the immanency of the broader natural laws.
What other evidence would you require for the actual existence of death than of its ever-unfailing eventuation in the life of our fellow humans and of other living things?
As to the parameter for the natural laws' perfect status, I listed, among others, omnipotence i.e. having an over-riding power over all living things etc.
You have had every opportunity to make your case, and I have gone so far as to help you understand what you would need to provide to even begin to make your case. I didn't have to do that--you began by asserting that you could substantiate your claims unequivocally on your own. With each attempt to do so, I explained exactly how your argument was incomplete and insufficient and tried to point you in a more constructive direction. After continuing with the same failed approaches, you then tried to place responsibility for validating your assertions on those who disagreed with it. Now you insist that I tell you what evidence is required, but it is up to you to find and present your evidence. If you can't find that evidence, it is your failure, not mine.

Omnipotence? overriding power? More unsupported statements of faith.

I am done. I'll continue to read this thread, but unless I see something that hasn't already been presented and refuted, i.e. evidence and logic, I see no reason to continue this conversation.

I wish you well.

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#120 Mar 5, 2014
I think 'omnipotent' means all-powerful, the power that nobody can resist. No matter how powerful any living thing can be, no matter how fortified medically, militarily, spiritually, financially, materially, physically or otherwise, death will still over-take and over-power him/it.
Thinking

Poole, UK

#121 Mar 5, 2014
If an all powerful being can make an object so massive it can't move it, it is not all powerful.

If an all powerful being can't make an object so massive it can't move it, it is not all powerful.
jide oni wrote:
I think 'omnipotent' means all-powerful, the power that nobody can resist. No matter how powerful any living thing can be, no matter how fortified medically, militarily, spiritually, financially, materially, physically or otherwise, death will still over-take and over-power him/it.

Since: Jan 14

Europe

#122 Mar 6, 2014
Thinking wrote:
If an all powerful being can make an object so massive it can't move it, it is not all powerful.
If an all powerful being can't make an object so massive it can't move it, it is not all powerful.
<quoted text>
The all-powerful Being never created anything.

“There is no god!”

Since: Jun 12

Södertälje, Sweden

#123 Mar 6, 2014
jide oni wrote:
<quoted text>
The all-powerful Being never created anything.
There is not all-powerful being!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Atheist inmate wins right to practice his faith... 3 min serfs up 14
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 17 min dollarsbill 247,507
Proof of God for the Atheist 20 min thetruth 129
News In America, atheists are still in the closet (Apr '12) 41 min thetruth 47,825
News Atheists Aren't the Problem, Christian Intolera... (Oct '14) 48 min thetruth 12,790
News As an atheist, how do I maintain my relationshi... 2 hr Thinking 25
News Atheism, the Bible and sexual orientation 3 hr thetruth 12
More from around the web