That's what you just said? Why do you have to believe the universe came from nothing? You can also believe in the ultimate of no beginning and no end.
Nietzsche died alone. He alienated his closest friends and family. He suffered a mental breakdown in his final years. They mocked him at his own funeral. Whether you believe in God or not, don't adopt this man's life. And whether you believe in God or not, show some respect to other people who might disagree with you. The condescencion is unbecoming and it's exactly what you argue against with rocketfat in the Astros forum.
My context was if the universe has a beginning. The universe having no beginning would certainly be another alternative to God creating it out of nothing.
Believing in God and having faith that He alone can save are the same thing to you? I don't understand how you can say they are the same. I don't doubt I had a Slim Fast for breakfast and I don't doubt what happened that night. You may, but I don't.
My theory is that God exists in a differnt realm, dimension, plane of existence then this universe. God created this universe along with the laws of nature for which all things must adhere to. I don't believe the Earth was created in seven Earth days on Earth, but what about seven days if traveling at the speed of light from the center of creation of the universe? If the universe is expanding out from the point of the "Big Bang". Then, I read this somewhere, we are still in the seventh day of creation. Time would have advanced faster on Earth then time would have for the actual creation. Since I'm not Einstein or Hawking, I can't explain what I read somewhere better then this.
The details of his personal life have no bearing on the validity or veracity of his work. I don't plan on adopting his life, I have no intention of becoming a philosopher. I think I have been showing respect... The only condescencion was directed at the poster that stated belief in God follows from logical deduction. This is, in a very absolute sense, incorrect. It's not even necessary to have studied logic at all to know that.
There is no God, so this is nonsensical. Apparently you do, since you are able to assign values to this "power", and then worship it. Circular reasoning. He doesn't have to prove he exists because he said he exists. Not necessarily. I don't claim to know where the universe came from, I don't have the information necessary. "That faith makes blessed under certain circumstances, that blessedness does not make of a fixed idea a true idea, that faith moves no mountains but puts mountains where there are none: a quick walk through a madhouse enlightens one sufficiently about this." - F.N.
Burzmali, I don't know how to do much with quotes so I will use corresponding numbers. Thanks for your reply, here's mine- 1. If you had complete and the absolute and the totality of all knowledge of all there is to be known then your statement 'there is no God' would be more sensible. Otherwise I think it somewhat haughty and not nonsensical. In the Bible God said He put a knowledge of God in every human conscience and doesn't accept denial of His existence as a legitimate excuse for wrong moral choices, so I was just paraphrasing what God said- He doesn't believe in atheists. 2. No I have little if any comprehension of such power and intelligence, I stand in awe of it. 3. It is not circular reasoning unless God does exist. It is a statement that God chose not to prove His existence to skeptics. If God wanted to prove His existence to skeptics He could perform an incredible miracle, but miracles have no impact on the moral character of a human heart. God does not desire to prove He exists, He desires to prove His character and plan of salvation for all mankind. 4. If you believe there was an origin, a first cause then what ever that was is what I will say is God and you will say whatever you believe in. Since you said you don't know where the universe came from you have as much faith that there is no God as I do that there is. 5. That quote is applicable to the world we live in. Anyone who tries to define God by the circumstances around him misses the point. The madhouse we call life can be best viewed as lost men and women trying to build their own 'heaven' or 'happiness', experiencing the suffering and shame of moral choices that aren't anchored in truth. It takes very little faith to understand that the greatest evil in the world in man's relationship to his fellow man; without God this is the consequence. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
Burzmali (what the hell does this mean, anyway? "Nomar" was self-evident)- I assume you ask about anti-semitism because of the Nazis? No, I don't think he was. I am pretty sure he wrote about it specifically somewhere but don't feel like looking. I do know that during the whole Dreyfus Affair, many supporters of Dreyfus were "Nietzscheists". Max- Mozart died penniless, sick, and in mental despair and was ridiculed. Rembrandt died penniless and was considered a failure. The list goes on and on. Are you going to say we should think less of them? As I said Nietzsche most likely had some kind of mental disease but he was also a genius whose impact, as with most geniuses, was not felt/understood until after he died. His thought and writing laid the foundation for a huge number of 20th century advancements in philosophy, psychoanalysis and politics (I am not talking about the Nazis here). His thought is also enjoying a bit of a revisitation now in the 21st century as people have grown weary of postmodernism. Obviously the Burz will not emulate his life because the Burz is not such a genius. But that doesn't mean Nietzsche cannot be of value because he was consumed by his own genius. Such was his lot in life.
1. True. IMO i should have said. 2. You stand in awe of something that you cannot comprehend? And then you want to worship it? 3. More flawed reasoning. If he wanted to prove that he exists, he would. But he doesn't. So there. It's just very neatly packaged. 4. I don't have "faith" that there is no God. I simply believe that there is no God, based on available information. It is possible that there is God, but logically such an assumption cannot be made. 5. The madhouse he speaks of isn't an analogy to life.. at least that's not how I read it. He's just saying that faith is absolutely, absurdly, CRAZY. To believe in something that you have no logical reason to believe in.
I'm Teg trained, duh. Entrusted with the defense? I ask because he speaks alot of Jews in A-C. He says that Christianity is just the eventuality of Judaism, and that Christians have taken the ability to delude from the Jews and honed it to a previously unheard of level of skill. I just can't tell whether he's anti-Jewish, or admiring them.
rim -- i didn't say he was of no value. and if you know my beliefs well, you know i think he had immense value. that's not my point. i'm saying i wouldn't trade lives with him. he can have all the slices of genuis he wants. i'll say this about him though...his grasp of anything spiritual is base and simplistic. he, like many, imparts beliefs, thoughts and attitudes on all Christians which simply aren't there. it has been a long time...since college..since i read anything he wrote, other than bits and pieces here and there. but that was my impression of him. existentialism came and went...modernism came and went...post-modernism will go, as well. this too, shall pass. i far prefer Solomon in Ecclesiasties, and I suspect if Nietzsche read it, he would like it too. but it would be bad business for Phil Jackson and the Zens in America if post-modernism went away.
Thanks for the clarification. Figured it had to be a slip, but I just felt like being snotty I just want to add this, though: We can bandy terms such as tolerance, harmony, understanding; but at the root of it all everyone is saying "I am right, you are wrong". This, in my opinion, is our greatest failing.. the inability to live with uncertainty, and accept the possibility that perhaps the human mind simply isn't equipped to deal with what we term Truth and Reality. The collective consciousness of humanity is always growing, yes, but at the same time it is always confined.. and we HAVE to realise that, and stop being so damned sure of ourselves If we're going to be scientific about it, there is a difference: Empirical evidence exists for love among humans. The things we do and say, the physiological reactions.. all of this takes on shared meaning when observed, leading you to "know" that your spouse loves you, for example. Similarly, love among humans is also falsifiable - once the evidence is removed (spouse stops being concerned about your welfare), or contradictory evidence (spouse has an affair) surfaces, it is not unreasonable to "know" that your spouse no longer loves you Whereas the theory that the biblical God exists is neither backed by empirical evidence (no booming voice from the heavens, no clear message written in nature, nothing); nor is it falsifiable by any stretch of the imagination (whatever new evidence surfaces, it can never contradict the concept of a first cause). Hence the theory requires unfounded belief, which can be a very dangerous thing as far as I'm concerned - because then anything, and everything, goes Footnote to religious debaters everywhere: Please stop bringing science into the discussion with all the weak comparisons.. it reeks of desperation
