NationStates Jolt Archive

No offense, but that's not a savable post.

- ...no evidence on which to base any rules on the ability or disability of a being unbound by the laws in which we reside.
That's actually just an argument in favour of a dimension of reality or the universe that we cannot experience. And it is over-simplified; your retro-experienced dimension does not actually reflect any dimension of reality or the universe that is "not experiencable". We don't actually "have" these extra dimensions that you speak of; we only have the ones we have the language to talk about.

Based on what? You can't say we don't have those dimensions just because you haven't experienced them. Does a tree not exist simply because you've never seen it? Subjectively no, it doesn't. However, objectively, your ignorance of it doesn't make it not exist.

Based on what? You can't say we don't have those dimensions just because you haven't experienced them. Ignorance doesn't negate reality.
Isn't that what they call the argument from ignorance?

Isn't that what they call the argument from ignorance?

Yes, and it can be a fallacy if I'm claiming it must be true. I'm not. I'm saying that we can't argue that either is illogical. Before you accuse you should really look that kind of stuff up.

Actually, you're guilty of the fallacy here. You're suggesting that if I can't prove it true or if you haven't seen it that it must be false.

http://skepdic.com/ignorance.html
"The argument to ignorance is a logical fallacy of irrelevance occurring when one claims that something is true only because it hasn't been proved false, or that something is false only because it has not been proved true."

Yes, and it can be a fallacy if I'm claiming it must be true. I'm not. I'm saying that we can't argue that either is illogical. Before you accuse you should really look that kind of stuff up.

Actually, you're guilty of the fallacy here. You're suggesting that if I can't prove it true or if you haven't seen it that it must be false.
No; I'm claiming that if I haven't experienced it, or heard of anyone experiencing it, I have no reason to believe in it.

No; I'm claiming that if I haven't experienced it, or heard of anyone experiencing it, I have no reason to believe in it.

Certainly fine. I'm not suggesting anyone has to believe it. He was claiming it was impossible. I said it's not and showed why. There is a difference between stating you don't believe something is true and saying that it is objectively false.

Certainly fine. I'm not suggesting anyone has to believe it. He was claiming it was impossible. I said it's not and showed why. There is a difference between stating you don't believe something is true and saying that it is objectively false.
Right; and that's the reason why it's not a savable post. On my part, at least, I am encouraging Upward Thrust to save posts that are logical.

Right; and that's the reason why it's not a savable post. On my part, at least, I am encouraging Upward Thrust to save posts that are logical.

So it's illogical to believe it's possible? We are talking about absolute reality and many claim on either side that one or the other can be objectively proven. One of their arguments that you cannot exist ouside of time and within it, to be unbound by time. I gave a logical argument for how it would be possible. Your argument against it is "you can't prove it so it's false." Read the link, it actually lists the point you're attempting to make as the logical fallacy you accused me of.

So it's illogical to believe it's possible? We are talking about absolute reality and many claim on either side that one or the other can be objectively proven. One of their arguments that you cannot exist ouside of time and within it, to be unbound by time. I gave a logical argument for how it would be possible. Your argument against it is "you can't prove it so it's false." Read the link, it actually lists the point you're attempting to make as the logical fallacy you accused me of.
It's illogical to think it's rational that there are invisible unexperiencable dimensions. And I would hold this stance against quantum physicists too.

It's illogical to think it's rational that there are invisible unexperiencable dimensions.

Most people would think it's irrational to think the only things that can objectively exist are those we are capable of experiencing. I would call that hubris. The source I quoted would call that argument from ignorance fallacy. Absolute reality is not qualified by my ignorance or your ignorance or the ignorance of the human race as a whole. I'm sure someone at some point said it was illogical to suggest there are these invisible components of matter called atoms.

It's illogical to think it's rational that there are invisible unexperiencable dimensions. And I would hold this stance against quantum physicists too.

Really? Quantum physics disproved a creator that is not limited by the laws of the universe? When did that happen? I would think that would be considered big news.

Most people would think it's irrational to think the only things that can objectively exist are those we are capable of experiencing. I would call that hubris. The source I quoted would call that argument from ignorance fallacy. Absolute reality is not qualified by my ignorance or your ignorance or the ignorance of the human race as a whole. I'm sure someone at some point said it was illogical to suggest there are these invisible components of matter called atoms.
Really? So it's hubris to think that the dimensions we experience are all that is? Because it's not hubris to believe that there are special dimensions that are "made" just for us, to account for our unexplainables?

And if I say, "Absolute reality is irrelevant. What we experience is all that counts," and side with the idealists, does that make the unknowable any more or less known?

The only logical position is "I don't know"; something certainly not suggested in your post: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9407684&postcount=1849

Originally Posted by Willamena
It's illogical to think it's rational that there are invisible unexperiencable dimensions. And I would hold this stance against quantum physicists too.
Really? Quantum physics disproved a creator that is not limited by the laws of the universe? When did that happen? I would think that would be considered big news.
I sure as hell said nothing of the sort. You certainly have a way of re-wording things to mean something they are not.

Really? So it's hubris to think that the dimensions we experience are all that is? Because it's not hubris to believe that there are special dimensions that are "made" just for us, to account for our unexplainables?

And if I say, "Absolute reality is irrelevant. What we experience is all that counts," and side with the idealists, does that make the unknowable any more or less known?

The only logical position is "I don't know."

Only you're not claiming you don't know. You're claiming that to accept the possibility of more is illogical. This suggests that you think you know and that anyone who disagrees is illogical.

And the only one who ascribed "made just for us" is you. I just said I believe it exists and that you can't suggest such a belief is inherently illogical since you can't show it doesn't. To claim otherwise is exactly the fallacy you condemned.

Only you're not claiming you don't know. You're claiming that to accept the possibility of more is illogical. This suggests that you think you know and that anyone who disagrees is illogical.
No! It doesn't! Logic is not the be-all-to-end-all!

And the only one who ascribed "made just for us" is you. I just said I believe it exists and that you can't suggest such a belief is inherently illogical since you can't show it doesn't. To claim otherwise is exactly the fallacy you condemned.
To not show it doesn't is NOT logical! Logic is demonstrating things to be TRUE.

*prays for Jacobia to accept this*

Yeah, there's a level of nerdy that just can't be faked :).

But, it's a good thing.....

I think. :)

There's also more scientific evidence proving Intelligent Design.

1) No, there isn't.

There is NO scientific evidence 'proving' Intelligent Design.

In fact:

2) If you think ANY amount of scientific evidence can EVER 'prove' anything, you don't really understand the basic principles of science.

You can't force a theory down anyone's throat. If a school wants to teach both sides they should be able to.

There NEED to be things that are NOT devolved to individual schools. The legality of Child-abuse, for example... for an example at the gratuitous end of the spectrum.

If schools want to be able to give out an accredited qualification, they MUST reach some minimal levels.... teaching ONLY science in science classes, should be one of those criteria.

They weren't this thread, but I searched them out since you're interested.

The first was to show how God being unbound by time, yet capable of entering a time-bound world is not illogical (as the poster I was replying to was arguing).
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9407684&postcount=1849

I can't search out the other one right now because Jolt sucks.

That poster was me! Yay! Fame... vicariously. :)

Actually... I still think my point (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9404012&postcount=1817) remains unanswered by your argument anyway.... :p

No! It doesn't! Logic is not the be-all-to-end-all!


Heretic!

May Logic have mercy on your soul....

For me, yeah.

For an omnipotent being that can (by virtue of being omnipotent) place limits upon its own power, they really are the same thing.

I don't see how. The omnipotent being simply has a certain ability to limit his power that I lack. Much like how I have the ability to lift a chair that my 18-month-old godson does not have the ability to lift.


God could choose to limit God in such a way that God COULD NOT lift that rock. Why? God is omnipotent, and can thus place such limits.

Unless God would make Himself PERMANENTLY un-omnipotent, those limits are as meaningless as me choosing not to lift something. The limitations would have nothing to do with His abilities, it would simply be a decision on his part to restrict his own actions.


I don't think you can place the word "only" on the will of an omnipotent being. It's a bit like saying, "It's only infinity."

There are certain flaws to language, I admit. The definition of "omnipotent" is, perversely, somewhat limiting. An omnipotent being is a being capable of everything and anything, and therefore an inherent paradox because it is not capable of being incapable of anything.


The difference being, of course, that you are not omnipotent (as far as I know).
Shows what you know. Mwah ha ha

Exactly, that's the logical falicy of the "God can't be omnipotent, because he cannot create a rock he cannot lift" argument.
It's not a falacy, it simply points out that omnipotence is a paradox. It's not my fault that the people who invented the concept of omnipotence did such a shoddy job!

You can't force a theory down anyone's throat. If a school wants to teach both sides they should be able to. Now I don't think that only one side should be taught, school kids are smart people, they would be able to make up their own minds. Give them the information, and they can take with it what they will.

As others have pointed out, science isn't some warm-and-fuzzy place where everybody's opinion is equal. If I hold the opinion that the world is flat, and you hold the opinion that it's somewhat spheroid, then science isn't going to look at the two of us and say, "Gee, you both make such nice points. Good work, you both get a sticker and a piece of candy! We'll teach both your theories and let the children decide!"

The whole point of having science class is to teach SCIENCE. This includes the rigors of the scientific method. We can't possibly teach kids to apply scientific principles and standards while simultaneously telling them that superstitious creation myths are "just another side" of the evolution "debate." There's no debate, as far as science is concerned, and the only reason Creationism should be brought into a science classroom is to fascilitate a discussion of why Creationism isn't scientific.

It's not a falacy, it simply points out that omnipotence is a paradox. It's not my fault that the people who invented the concept of omnipotence did such a shoddy job!

Actually, it's not a paradox....

Omnipotence is an infinite application, it's (literally) all power.

Now, as soon as the initial premise is supplied; any argument attached to the attribute, must match it.

Since omnipotence itself is "limitless" ["If God is omnipotent"]... Positing a question of something omnipotence CAN NOT do ["can he create a rock he CAN NOT lift?"] means you have constructed the sentence wrong. The Paradox exists by the failure of the author of the question to actual posit a valud point.

The logical fallacy of the question, in the first plays, exists wherein the one positing the question does not actually understand the concept of "omnipotence" in the first place. Easily established by the fact that one is so willing to violate grammar rules to construct an invalid sentence, to try to proove their non-existant logic.

Actually, it's not a paradox....

Omnipotence is an infinite application, it's (literally) all power.


It is curious to me, that people talk about 'omnipotence', and they talk about the 'infinite', and they don't realise that the two must be mutually exclusive.

ALL power cannot be an infinite value, any more than the universe is 'infinitely big'.

It is curious to me, that people talk about 'omnipotence', and they talk about the 'infinite', and they don't realise that the two must be mutually exclusive.

ALL power cannot be an infinite value, any more than the universe is 'infinitely big'.

MUST be mutually exclusive? Actually, the two would be mutually inclusive.

Omnipotence is, at least in the language we are presently conversing in, synonymous with immeasurably powerfull and infinitely powerful. The words are synonyms of one another.... Thus, to posit they are mutually exclusive, indicates you do not actually know the meaning of the word under the present language.

Simple fact is, positing a boundry upon the omnipotent; is constructing an argument where you impose a limit upon the limitless; thus, the question itself is a logical fallacy; not a paradox....

It would be like asking a question such as, "How many degrees below 0 degrees Celsius is the boiling point of water at sea-level?".... or "How long do have have to walk on the surface of a sphere to reach its edge?"... The question is constructed in a contradictory manner by the author, to attempt to assert validity to the logical invalidity, and push his audience to the answer he wants them to give.... The question [much like the earlier one], however, is still not logically valid.... The proper anser to either question is to rebuke the asker about his logical error, not to give the answer he wants to give.

You can't force a theory down anyone's throat. If a school wants to teach both sides they should be able to. Now I don't think that only one side should be taught, school kids are smart people, they would be able to make up their own minds. Give them the information, and they can take with it what they will.

while i agree with what you say in principle, the reality of this situation is that doing such a thing implies - or requires - that both taught points of view are equally valid or true.
now, whats the point in teaching something that is wrong and is complete nonsense? the two 'theories' are not of equal value, and hence one should be taught over the other as the truth (because, flatly, it is just that).


but in school in general, i go back to agreeing with you in that both should be taught - just one as the truth in science classes, and the other as a popular mythology in religious studies classes. simple.

Actually, it's not a paradox....

Omnipotence is an infinite application, it's (literally) all power.

Now, as soon as the initial premise is supplied; any argument attached to the attribute, must match it.

Since omnipotence itself is "limitless" ["If God is omnipotent"]... Positing a question of something omnipotence CAN NOT do ["can he create a rock he CAN NOT lift?"] means you have constructed the sentence wrong. The Paradox exists by the failure of the author of the question to actual posit a valud point.

The logical fallacy of the question, in the first plays, exists wherein the one positing the question does not actually understand the concept of "omnipotence" in the first place. Easily established by the fact that one is so willing to violate grammar rules to construct an invalid sentence, to try to proove their non-existant logic.
*Sigh*

This debate never goes anywhere. Look, a being capable of ANYTHING cannot be capable of being incapable of anything. It's part and parcel. If you want to claim that anybody pointing this out "doesn't understand the concept of omnipotence" then that's fine...because I can just as easily claim that you don't understand it, either :).

I don't see how.

Omnipotent means "capable of anything", thus, even "capable of limiting omnipotence."

Unless God would make Himself PERMANENTLY un-omnipotent, those limits are as meaningless as me choosing not to lift something.

Placing limits would not actually make God any less omnipotent. God would simply be omnipotent with limits placed by an omnipotent power. And since God is omnipotent, God's will is absolute. If God were to choose to raise those limits, it would be changing God's mind. If we posit a God who is both omnipotent and omniscient (as many do), then God cannot be wrong - and thus cann't change God's mind. Thus, if God chooses to place limits upon what God will and will not do, they are either permanent, or were put there with some sort of limit to when they would be used anyways.

The limitations would have nothing to do with His abilities, it would simply be a decision on his part to restrict his own actions.

If an omnipotent being decides to restrict its action, those limits, created by an omnipotent being, do limit the abilities they are meant to limit.

There are certain flaws to language, I admit. The definition of "omnipotent" is, perversely, somewhat limiting.

Sort of. Much like the concept of "infinity", or "before time", or "without time", they are concepts that human existence simply isn't capable of fully understanding. Our own experiences are so entrenched in limits, finite spaces, and definitely in the concept of time, that we can conceive of the barest idea of not having those things - but can't really understand what it would mean to not have them.

Shows what you know. Mwah ha ha

Ooopsie. Can you make my dog start using the actual toilet? I'm really sick of walking him and dealing with doggie poo. =)

Omnipotent means "capable of anything", thus, even "capable of limiting omnipotence."

But omnipotence is, by definition, power without limit. Thus one cannot limit omnipotence and still have it be omnipotent. Now are we seeing the paradox? :)


Placing limits would not actually make God any less omnipotent. God would simply be omnipotent with limits placed by an omnipotent power. And since God is omnipotent, God's will is absolute. If God were to choose to raise those limits, it would be changing God's mind. If we posit a God who is both omnipotent and omniscient (as many do), then God cannot be wrong - and thus cann't change God's mind. Thus, if God chooses to place limits upon what God will and will not do, they are either permanent, or were put there with some sort of limit to when they would be used anyways.

And, as I have said, this is where the paradox comes in. This is why the omnipotent/omnicient idea of God is so very silly.


If an omnipotent being decides to restrict its action, those limits, created by an omnipotent being, do limit the abilities they are meant to limit.

But only so long as its will dictates. In other words, it's the same as me using my will to not buy chocolate so that there will not be chocolate in my house that I can eat. I have limited my ability to have chocolate after dinner tonight, since I haven't got any in the house and therefore cannot go to the cupboard and have some chocolate, but I can change the situation if I so desire (by going out and buying some chocolate). Thus, I do not lack the ability to eat the chocolate, I've just interposed a "middle man" between my chocolate-eating abilities and the chocolate itself. Your God situation is the same thing.

Sort of. Much like the concept of "infinity", or "before time", or "without time", they are concepts that human existence simply isn't capable of fully understanding. Our own experiences are so entrenched in limits, finite spaces, and definitely in the concept of time, that we can conceive of the barest idea of not having those things - but can't really understand what it would mean to not have them.

Hmm, I dunno if I agree with that. I don't feel I have any particular trouble grasping "infinity," any more than I have trouble grasping "nothing." Sure, it's a little harder to understand these than, say, "more" and "fewer," but they're pretty simple once you get the hang of it.


Ooopsie. Can you make my dog start using the actual toilet? I'm really sick of walking him and dealing with doggie poo. =)
I can...I just don't want to. *sticks out tongue*

No! It doesn't! Logic is not the be-all-to-end-all!


To not show it doesn't is NOT logical! Logic is demonstrating things to be TRUE.

*prays for Jacobia to accept this*

Um, no. Logic is a way to demonstrate things make sense. It's nearly impossible to demonstrate things are true. It is actually possible to use logic to demonstrate something makes sense that can NEVER EVER be proven true. You do it all the time. And if we are discussing theism (that's what UT's saved post center around) I would really like to see all of your logical posts that "demonstrate things to be true". When it comes to absolute reality, you can't demonstrate anything to be true. We simply don't have the right perspective.

That poster was me! Yay! Fame... vicariously. :)

Actually... I still think my point (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9404012&postcount=1817) remains unanswered by your argument anyway.... :p

Not being able to address it is the point. Simply because I can't 'prove' you wrong doesn't mean that you're right. It simply means that our ability to examine such a thing is limited, the point of my post. I still maintain that our ability to examine anything logically that exists outside of time is fairly limited by our inability to see things as unbound by time. Either way, you have to admit it was a pretty good analogy (I forgot it was you). I really enjoyed that discussion.

I'll tell you what draw a six-dimensional figure on a sheet of paper and send it to me and then I'll be a lot more willing to accept your ability to examine things we can't fully grasp.

Not being able to address it is the point. Simply because I can't 'prove' you wrong doesn't mean that you're right. It simply means that our ability to examine such a thing is limited, the point of my post. I still maintain that our ability to examine anything logically that exists outside of time is fairly limited by our inability to see things as unbound by time. Either way, you have to admit it was a pretty good analogy (I forgot it was you). I really enjoyed that discussion.

I'll tell you what draw a six-dimensional figure on a sheet of paper and send it to me and then I'll be a lot more willing to accept your ability to examine things we can't fully grasp.
http://www.sonic.net/aquatint/ART/art9prehistory/art9pages/art9_d_6dcube.html

MUST be mutually exclusive? Actually, the two would be mutually inclusive.

Omnipotence is, at least in the language we are presently conversing in, synonymous with immeasurably powerfull and infinitely powerful. The words are synonyms of one another.... Thus, to posit they are mutually exclusive, indicates you do not actually know the meaning of the word under the present language.

Simple fact is, positing a boundry upon the omnipotent; is constructing an argument where you impose a limit upon the limitless; thus, the question itself is a logical fallacy; not a paradox....

It would be like asking a question such as, "How many degrees below 0 degrees Celsius is the boiling point of water at sea-level?".... or "How long do have have to walk on the surface of a sphere to reach its edge?"... The question is constructed in a contradictory manner by the author, to attempt to assert validity to the logical invalidity, and push his audience to the answer he wants them to give.... The question [much like the earlier one], however, is still not logically valid.... The proper anser to either question is to rebuke the asker about his logical error, not to give the answer he wants to give.

Dang, I'm about to agree with Tekania. The world is ending as we know it.

Let's look at a similar concept is infinity + 2 greater than infinity? Nope. Infinity by definition is not a number, it's a concept. But we use it in mathematical formulas so people misuse that concept. You can't use infinite to disprove basic mathematical equations like x + 2 > x. You can use infinity to prove other equations. When dealing with an infinite concept the limitations that it holds are due to our own limitations. They are not inherent to the concept itself.

http://www.sonic.net/aquatint/ART/art9prehistory/art9pages/art9_d_6dcube.html

By definition it's not a cube, however, demonstrate that the drawing actually represents six-dimentional.

(pretty good, UT. I laughed at that.)

By definition it's not a cube, however, demonstrate that the drawing actually represents six-dimentional.

(pretty good, UT. I laughed at that.)
Lol I knew I had seen it before just thought I would randomly post it lol was not attempting to refute or argue anything lol

But omnipotence is, by definition, power without limit. Thus one cannot limit omnipotence and still have it be omnipotent. Now are we seeing the paradox? :)

I think you're missing something here. Let's say I'm omnipotent and I create a stone that I make it so I cannot and never will be able to lift. Am I still omnipotent? Not any more. But I was omnipotent and I was capable of creating the stone. I simply have chosen not to limit my omnipotence.

Um, no. Logic is a way to demonstrate things make sense. It's nearly impossible to demonstrate things are true. It is actually possible to use logic to demonstrate something makes sense that can NEVER EVER be proven true. You do it all the time. And if we are discussing theism (that's what UT's saved post center around) I would really like to see all of your logical posts that "demonstrate things to be true". When it comes to absolute reality, you can't demonstrate anything to be true. We simply don't have the right perspective.
If A = B and A = C, then it is true that B = C.

I think you're missing something here. Let's say I'm omnipotent and I create a stone that I make it so I cannot and never will be able to lift. Am I still omnipotent? Not any more. But I was omnipotent and I was capable of creating the stone. I simply have chosen not to limit my omnipotence.
I think we're agreeing...but I'm not sure...

If you are omnipotent your power has no limit. That's the definition of the word. The only way for you to create a stone you could not lift would be to change YOURSELF so that you were no longer omnipotent. Put it another way: your omnipotence and the unliftable stone cannot coexist. The instant that stone exists, your omnipotence ceases to exist (by definition of the term).

So if (and that's a big IF) God is defined as being omnipotent, then God could create an unliftable stone...but only by ceasing to be God. God could create a situation in which a non-omnipotent derivative form of God would be unable to lift the stone, but if God is defined as omnipotent then this non-omnipotent derivative would be distinct from God. Hence the paradox: the omnipotent God cannot create a limit on omnipotence, because omnipotence cannot be limited (by definition). The only way to limit an omnipotent being is to render it non-omnipotent. Sure, God could do that, but if God is omnipotent by definition then it wouldn't be God once omnipotence was stripped away.

This is why I think it's stupid to define God as omnipotent; it's unnecessary AND logically flawed, so why not simply content yourself with believing that God is really farking powerful but at least one hair shy of utter all-powerfulness? He's still more than able to kick any human ass around, so why get greedy? :)

Dang, I'm about to agree with Tekania. The world is ending as we know it.

Let's look at a similar concept is infinity + 2 greater than infinity? Nope. Infinity by definition is not a number, it's a concept. But we use it in mathematical formulas so people misuse that concept. You can't use infinite to disprove basic mathematical equations like x + 2 > x. You can use infinity to prove other equations. When dealing with an infinite concept the limitations that it holds are due to our own limitations. They are not inherent to the concept itself.

Watch out for those plagues of locusts... Scary ain't it?

Mathmatical infinity [as a concept] is not mutally inclusive with philosphical infinity [the actual concept itself].... Infinity in math is just, for no better use, a representation of a number or value which we cannot measure [but not necessarily something which is in fact immeasurable]... The philosophical idea of "inifinity" however, is something without any limit what-so-ever.... By definition any aspect of philisophical infinity is mathmatically infinite; but not all which is mathmatically infinite is in fact philosophically infinite.

Hense the problem with the question....

The questions conclusion: "Can He create a rock which He cannot lift?"

Is logically contradictory to the premise: "If God is omnipotent"...

Because the conclusion is constructed in away to presume denial of the premise.... The question itself, being logically invalid, has no "right" answer, because the question itself is wrong.... Literally wrong... by its own construction.

If A = B and A = C, then it is true that B = C.

Mathematical logic is different than real world logic and you know it. By definition math can have things that are proven, in life that is hardly the case. We were arguing math? Nope. Try again.

I think we're agreeing...but I'm not sure...

If you are omnipotent your power has no limit. That's the definition of the word. The only way for you to create a stone you could not lift would be to change YOURSELF so that you were no longer omnipotent. Put it another way: your omnipotence and the unliftable stone cannot coexist. The instant that stone exists, your omnipotence ceases to exist (by definition of the term).

So if (and that's a big IF) God is defined as being omnipotent, then God could create an unliftable stone...but only by ceasing to be God. God could create a situation in which a non-omnipotent derivative form of God would be unable to lift the stone, but if God is defined as omnipotent then this non-omnipotent derivative would be distinct from God. Hence the paradox: the omnipotent God cannot create a limit on omnipotence, because omnipotence cannot be limited (by definition). The only way to limit an omnipotent being is to render it non-omnipotent. Sure, God could do that, but if God is omnipotent by definition then it wouldn't be God once omnipotence was stripped away.

This is why I think it's stupid to define God as omnipotent; it's unnecessary AND logically flawed, so why not simply content yourself with believing that God is really farking powerful but at least one hair shy of utter all-powerfulness? He's still more than able to kick any human ass around, so why get greedy? :)
No, the point is that He is capable of limiting his omnipotence though I hardly think He would do so just to prove he can.

Watch out for those plagues of locusts... Scary ain't it?

Mathmatical infinity [as a concept] is not mutally inclusive with philosphical infinity [the actual concept itself].... Infinity in math is just, for no better use, a representation of a number or value which we cannot measure [but not necessarily something which is in fact immeasurable]... The philosophical idea of "inifinity" however, is something without any limit what-so-ever.... By definition any aspect of philisophical infinity is mathmatically infinite; but not all which is mathmatically infinite is in fact philosophically infinite.

Hense the problem with the question....

The questions conclusion: "Can He create a rock which He cannot lift?"

Is logically contradictory to the premise: "If God is omnipotent"...

Because the conclusion is constructed in away to presume denial of the premise.... The question itself, being logically invalid, has no "right" answer, because the question itself is wrong.... Literally wrong... by its own construction.

Actually, mathematical infinity is the exact same concept. You can't say that infinity + 2 > infinity even in math because it doesn't make any sense. You can't add a number to infinity. In equations where we use it, it is used to representing A HUGE NUMBER but it the concept is still intact.

Actually, mathematical infinity is the exact same concept. You can't say that infinity + 2 > infinity even in math because it doesn't make any sense. You can't add a number to infinity. In equations where we use it, it is used to representing A HUGE NUMBER but it the concept is still intact.

You can't, in fact, add infinity at all... infinity + 2 = [an incorrect equation]... might as well ask what love + 2 is...

Mathmatical infinity only exists, within equations, as a definition of sets...

Ex: there are an infinite number of integers greater that 0.... There are also an infinite number of integers greater than four... If I subtract the infinite number of integers greater than 4, from the infinite number of integers greater than 0, I get a finite amount [4]... However, infinity is in no way actually being "operated" in the equation.

Mathmatically it is a "HUGE NUMBER", philosphically however, a "HUGE NUMBER" is not necessarily infinite.

Hense the real question: "If God is omnipotent, how can a question attempt to impose a limit upon Him?"

You can't, in fact, add infinity at all... infinity + 2 = [an incorrect equation]... might as well ask what love + 2 is...

Mathmatical infinity only exists, within equations, as a definition of sets...

Ex: there are an infinite number of integers greater that 0.... There are also an infinite number of integers greater than four... If I subtract the infinite number of integers greater than 4, from the infinite number of integers greater than 0, I get a finite amount [4]... However, infinity is in no way actually being "operated" in the equation.

Mathmatically it is a "HUGE NUMBER", philosphically however, a "HUGE NUMBER" is not necessarily infinite.

Hense the real question: "If God is omnipotent, how can a question attempt to impose a limit upon Him?"
Yes, that's the point. In equations it is often used as A HUGE NUMBER but it is also used as a concept and the two should not be confused. When x approaches infinity in mathematics it actually means infinity and that it will never reach it. However it is substituted into the equation as a huge number because you can't address a concept within the equation. So it's both.

Hey if it was in the thread and I missed it being pointed to it is enough but I have NO idea where thoes good argumments he likes are located lol

:) not so much lazy as intrested

I took a bit of looking but here is another I like. It addresses the point that people can not possibly have evidence that is not emperical.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9806521&postcount=229

I also like the point before that one where Brenchley said if something exists we must have evidence of it.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=448627&page=16&highlight=prove

Willamena might not like these posts because in them I don't prove God exists and by his definition this makes them illogical, but I am of the impression that God cannot be proven logically or otherwise and thus we have reason for faith.

I took a bit of looking but here is another I like. It addresses the point that people can not possibly have evidence that is not emperical.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9806521&postcount=229

I also like the point before that one where Brenchley said if something exists we must have evidence of it.
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=448627&page=16&highlight=prove

Willamena might not like these posts because in them I don't prove God exists and by his definition this makes them illogical, but I am of the impression that God cannot be proven logically or otherwise and thus we have reason for faith.

On the last part I agree.... I may contend more against those attempting proove God's logical existance in the negative... Only because logical proofs are only ever constructed by those attempting to disproove his existance, at least from what I've seen on these forums... The opposing side never attempts to invoke logic [lucky for them] as a form of "proof"...

I actually think there are more rabid materialists in these forums than rabid fundamentalists.

On the last part I agree.... I may contend more against those attempting proove God's logical existance in the negative... Only because logical proofs are only ever constructed by those attempting to disproove his existance, at least from what I've seen on these forums... The opposing side never attempts to invoke logic [lucky for them] as a form of "proof"...

I actually think there are more rabid materialists in these forums than rabid fundamentalists.

And, thus, the universe has righted itself and we avoid oblivion. I disagree with nearly every word of that post. I think your view on this is colored by wishful thinking.

Banning creationism is equally as bad as banning a religion. Although I disagree with them, it is better they influance us then atheists

Although I disagree with them, it is better they influance us then atheists

Oh, I want to hear the reasoning behind this. Please elaborate.

Oh, I want to hear the reasoning behind this. Please elaborate.
Whoa?! You really want to know that? I don't. I loathe discovering just how crazy some people are

If A = B and A = C, then it is true that B = C.

Proove it.

MUST be mutually exclusive? Actually, the two would be mutually inclusive.

Omnipotence is, at least in the language we are presently conversing in, synonymous with immeasurably powerfull and infinitely powerful. The words are synonyms of one another.... Thus, to posit they are mutually exclusive, indicates you do not actually know the meaning of the word under the present language.

Simple fact is, positing a boundry upon the omnipotent; is constructing an argument where you impose a limit upon the limitless; thus, the question itself is a logical fallacy; not a paradox....

It would be like asking a question such as, "How many degrees below 0 degrees Celsius is the boiling point of water at sea-level?".... or "How long do have have to walk on the surface of a sphere to reach its edge?"... The question is constructed in a contradictory manner by the author, to attempt to assert validity to the logical invalidity, and push his audience to the answer he wants them to give.... The question [much like the earlier one], however, is still not logically valid.... The proper anser to either question is to rebuke the asker about his logical error, not to give the answer he wants to give.

I couldn't disagree more.

Omnipotent is omni-potent.... ALL powerful.

Take it to mean "infinite", if you wish... but that's like taking "dog" to mean "the Moon is made of cheese".

Omni-potent means ALL power, thus, there is a (theoretical) limit to omnipotence.

There is no such limit on 'infinity'.

I couldn't disagree more.

Omnipotent is omni-potent.... ALL powerful.

Take it to mean "infinite", if you wish... but that's like taking "dog" to mean "the Moon is made of cheese".

Omni-potent means ALL power, thus, there is a (theoretical) limit to omnipotence.

There is no such limit on 'infinity'.

That's interesting. Never thought of it that way before. It would basically say that omnipotent means you are capable of doing everything possible which of course must have a limit.

Not being able to address it is the point. Simply because I can't 'prove' you wrong doesn't mean that you're right. It simply means that our ability to examine such a thing is limited, the point of my post. I still maintain that our ability to examine anything logically that exists outside of time is fairly limited by our inability to see things as unbound by time. Either way, you have to admit it was a pretty good analogy (I forgot it was you). I really enjoyed that discussion.


Me too. Yes, It was a perfectly good analogy... however, I don't see why you feel we can't see things as unbound by time.

We can see as things as BOUND by time, and something UNBOUND by time would have the (effectively) counter properties.


I'll tell you what draw a six-dimensional figure on a sheet of paper and send it to me and then I'll be a lot more willing to accept your ability to examine things we can't fully grasp.

Just because I can examine it, doesn't mean I can draw it...

That's interesting. Never thought of it that way before. It would basically say that omnipotent means you are capable of doing everything possible which of course must have a limit.

Well, the way I see it.... if you cut down ALL the trees on Earth... there will eventually be a limit to 'all'. If you kill ALL the Lemmings, eventually, there is a limit to 'all'.

"All" carries an explicit implication of finite-ness.

So - if God is ALL-powerful.... he's got ALL the power... and that is the boundary. Not infinite.

Well, the way I see it.... if you cut down ALL the trees on Earth... there will eventually be a limit to 'all'. If you kill ALL the Lemmings, eventually, there is a limit to 'all'.

"All" carries an explicit implication of finite-ness.

So - if God is ALL-powerful.... he's got ALL the power... and that is the boundary. Not infinite.

How about all the numbers?

Anyway, I like the argument. It really kicks the rock he can't lift argument in the butt.

Me too. Yes, It was a perfectly good analogy... however, I don't see why you feel we can't see things as unbound by time.

We can see as things as BOUND by time, and something UNBOUND by time would have the (effectively) counter properties.

I do think there can see things as unbound by time. Remember you were the one saying you must be either within time or without, I was arguing something could be both - unbound. I don't find them to be counter. That's the point. They are not contrary or contradictory.

Just because I can examine it, doesn't mean I can draw it...
Ha.

Wouldn't be nice if more people could interact in such a way while disagreeing? Politics is killing debate, IMHO. Everyone acts like to disagree is automatically illogical or stupid. A shame, that is.

How about all the numbers?

Anyway, I like the argument. It really kicks the rock he can't lift argument in the butt.

"All" the numbers is a non-existent quantity though, is it not? Infinity must be the upper (and lower) limit of numerical progressions... so you can never reach 'all' the numbers...

Whereas, when you have really cut down EVERY tree, that really is IT for trees.

I do think there can see things as unbound by time. Remember you were the one saying you must be either within time or without, I was arguing something could be both - unbound. I don't find them to be counter. That's the point. They are not contrary or contradictory.


Ah - I think I see where you are headed. I'm not saying that an entity bound by time can ever literally experience 'unbound' time... just that they can conceptualise it... from the 'holes left' (if you will) around the criteria of time-bound things.

I still don't literally accept that the UNBOUND entity can ever really be aware of causality, or that the casual entity can ever truly experience UNBOUND-ness.


Ha.

Wouldn't be nice if more people could interact in such a way while disagreeing? Politics is killing debate, IMHO. Everyone acts like to disagree is automatically illogical or stupid. A shame, that is.

It's not so much politics... it is something that AFFECTS politics... and, I'm afraid, it is all America's fault. :) (Didn't see THAT coming...?)

I think what we are seeing, is the fundamental selfishness of humanity, as codified in the American Dream - the desire (basically) to be 'better' than anyone else.

So - for MANY people, it isn't about debate... hearing answers, debating logic. For many, it is about WINNING.

Now, myself... I'm not perturbed about making friends or converts, I'm not concerned about 'winning' a debate. What I AM concerned about, is giving a good investment of my time in debate, and learning from that.

And, if I make friends while I'm doing that, it's good.... but I'm NOT here to seduce or preach. I'm MORE THAN aware of how 'only human' I am. :)

If you kill ALL the Lemmings, eventually, there is a limit to 'all'.
Grrrr! Lemmings are God! Leave the Lemmings alone you bloody heathen!

Grrrr! Lemmings are God! Leave the Lemmings alone you bloody heathen!

Heretic! With your suicidal rodents!

The ONLY true rodent 'god' is the Phoberomys pattersoni!

(http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000EDB52-1E0F-1F6A-905980A84189EEDF)

Ah - I think I see where you are headed. I'm not saying that an entity bound by time can ever literally experience 'unbound' time... just that they can conceptualise it... from the 'holes left' (if you will) around the criteria of time-bound things.

I still don't literally accept that the UNBOUND entity can ever really be aware of causality, or that the casual entity can ever truly experience UNBOUND-ness.



It's not so much politics... it is something that AFFECTS politics... and, I'm afraid, it is all America's fault. :) (Didn't see THAT coming...?)

I think what we are seeing, is the fundamental selfishness of humanity, as codified in the American Dream - the desire (basically) to be 'better' than anyone else.

So - for MANY people, it isn't about debate... hearing answers, debating logic. For many, it is about WINNING.

Now, myself... I'm not perturbed about making friends or converts, I'm not concerned about 'winning' a debate. What I AM concerned about, is giving a good investment of my time in debate, and learning from that.

And, if I make friends while I'm doing that, it's good.... but I'm NOT here to seduce or preach. I'm MORE THAN aware of how 'only human' I am. :)

I couldn't agree more. I want to start a thread about this actually. We have two kinds of people in debate who are dangerous in my opinion. People who are only trying to win, right or wrong, and people who are just trying not to be wrong and thus never really take a stand. I have to say people are far more accepting of the second type, but I'm annoyed by both. I find nothing profound about making a really pretty paragraph up that says nothing.

Originally Posted by Willamena
If A = B and A = C, then it is true that B = C.
Proove it.
Sure. *opens her dictionary*

Equal: adjective. of the same measure, quantity, amount, or number as another; identical in mathematical value or logical denotation

snip

And, if I make friends while I'm doing that, it's good.... but I'm NOT here to seduce or preach. I'm MORE THAN aware of how 'only human' I am. :)
Well you always have a friend in me
(or on again off again lover ... whatever)

I couldn't agree more. I want to start a thread about this actually. We have two kinds of people in debate who are dangerous in my opinion. People who are only trying to win, right or wrong, and people who are just trying not to be wrong and thus never really take a stand. I have to say people are far more accepting of the second type, but I'm annoyed by both. I find nothing profound about making a really pretty paragraph up that says nothing.

To me, anyone who is SURE they are right, might as well not bother debating... since they are missing half the point. If you have a CONVICTION you are absolutely RIGHT, debate serves no purpose, since you can never accept evidence that goes against your belief.

Mathematical logic is different than real world logic and you know it. By definition math can have things that are proven, in life that is hardly the case. We were arguing math? Nope. Try again.
It utilizes mathematical symbols, but addresses real truth.

Heretic! With your suicidal rodents!

The ONLY true rodent 'god' is the Phoberomys pattersoni!

(http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa003&articleID=000EDB52-1E0F-1F6A-905980A84189EEDF)
... Thankfully, the divine essence has been inherited by the lovely little suicidal ones, so bow before the lemming goodness... Err.. Godess.. Godship?

Screw it. Lemmings rule, and you know it. Now stop threatning the only other mammal prone to mass-suicide & let them sort it themselves :p

Well you always have a friend in me
(or on again off again lover ... whatever)

Actually.... this means a lot to me. I have made some very good friends on the Forum... people I consider TRUE friends.

And, you are SUCH a bad boy...! You'd better make sure your girlfriend is okay with 'us', before we get a place together, though... ;)

Actually.... this means a lot to me. I have made some very good friends on the Forum... people I consider TRUE friends.

And, you are SUCH a bad boy...! You'd better make sure your girlfriend is okay with 'us', before we get a place together, though... ;)
Haha, what does it take to get invited to that party?

It utilizes mathematical symbols, but addresses real truth.

I'm inclined to agree with Jocabia, here.... 'casual' math allows a concept of 'proof', which is something of anathema in other science disciplines.

... Thankfully, the divine essence has been inherited by the lovely little suicidal ones, so bow before the lemming goodness... Err.. Godess.. Godship?

Screw it. Lemmings rule, and you know it. Now stop threatning the only other mammal prone to mass-suicide & let them sort it themselves :p

If, by Lemmings, you mean the cute little fuzzy dudes, with the population control issues... I agree, they rock AND roll, all night, baby.

If however, you mean the annoying little blue dudes with green hair, in the computer game of the same name... I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE them!

Haha, what does it take to get invited to that party?

Well, it's UT's party, so he's the one to ask.... I'd advise something uber-geeky or a four-wheel-drive offroader, though... :D

Actually.... this means a lot to me. I have made some very good friends on the Forum... people I consider TRUE friends.

And, you are SUCH a bad boy...! You'd better make sure your girlfriend is okay with 'us', before we get a place together, though... ;)
She is fine with it as long as she gets to join us sometimes :p :fluffle:

If, by Lemmings, you mean the cute little fuzzy dudes, with the population control issues... I agree, they rock AND roll, all night, baby.

If however, you mean the annoying little blue dudes with green hair, in the computer game of the same name... I HATE HATE HATE HATE HATE them!
I meant the real ones, of course. But thank you so much for reminding me of that other horrible atrocity :(

About the party though, UT, how about I borrow the company car? We can fit a couple of matresses in the back & such. Done it before :D

Well, it's UT's party, so he's the one to ask.... I'd advise something uber-geeky or a four-wheel-drive offroader, though... :D
Lol I thought no one really read that thread :) hehehe everyone bitched bout the pictures lol

It utilizes mathematical symbols, but addresses real truth.

You're not another one of these that claims you can actually 'know' anything, are you? Math is a perfect science, because it's defined by us like language is. However, the real world doesn't work that way. It is what it is with or without our approval. To pretend like math is anything like the world is just an unbelievable lack of awareness of the nature of reality.

To me, anyone who is SURE they are right, might as well not bother debating... since they are missing half the point. If you have a CONVICTION you are absolutely RIGHT, debate serves no purpose, since you can never accept evidence that goes against your belief.

Yeah, both types annoy. When I have more time to participate, I'm gonna start that thread.

She is fine with it as long as she gets to join us sometimes :p :fluffle:

Hmmm... and I've NEVER been to Minnesota yet..... ;)

Lol I thought no one really read that thread :) hehehe everyone bitched bout the pictures lol

I'll admit I didn't look at ALL the pictures.... what with my crappy computer, and marginally crappy connection.

:)

Lol I thought no one really read that thread :) hehehe everyone bitched bout the pictures lol

So did you look at the links I gave you. I took me a long time to find them again.

So did you look at the links I gave you. I took me a long time to find them again.
Yup but if you would be most kind to tg them to me as well :) I want to make sure I get them on my work computer with the others as well

I couldn't disagree more.

Omnipotent is omni-potent.... ALL powerful.

Take it to mean "infinite", if you wish... but that's like taking "dog" to mean "the Moon is made of cheese".

Omni-potent means ALL power, thus, there is a (theoretical) limit to omnipotence.

There is no such limit on 'infinity'.

It meant a couple of millenia ago under Classical latin.... However, we're not speaking Classical Latin, and I'm not paying taxes to Rome....

Omnipotent, in english, is a synonym of immeasurable/infinite ability.

Once you've made it through the dark ages, reformation, enlightenment, and into the modern age... Give me a ring.

In all logic, the only limit the Omnipotent God has, is Himself.... And even from your view, the question still fails.... Because only the Omnipotent can answer "No" to that question, using your outdated definition.

You're not another one of these that claims you can actually 'know' anything, are you? Math is a perfect science, because it's defined by us like language is. However, the real world doesn't work that way. It is what it is with or without our approval. To pretend like math is anything like the world is just an unbelievable lack of awareness of the nature of reality.
So... we're not a part of the real world?

I'm inclined to agree with Jocabia, here.... 'casual' math allows a concept of 'proof', which is something of anathema in other science disciplines.
And 'truth' is a concept.

It meant a couple of millenia ago under Classical latin.... However, we're not speaking Classical Latin, and I'm not paying taxes to Rome....

Omnipotent, in english, is a synonym of immeasurable/infinite ability.

Once you've made it through the dark ages, reformation, enlightenment, and into the modern age... Give me a ring.

In all logic, the only limit the Omnipotent God has, is Himself.... And even from your view, the question still fails.... Because only the Omnipotent can answer "No" to that question, using your outdated definition.

Wow... patronising much?

Curious, anyhow... I looked up definitions for 'omnipotent'... and found "almighty" as a strong contender. Which, of course, means 'ALL - mighty'.

I also found definitions that said "having virtually unlimited authority or influence", "all-powerful", "Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful" and "having the power to do anything".

It is worth pointing out that: having VIRTUALLY unlimited influence... or having UNIVERSAL power, both imply limits. ALL-powerful still brings us to the definition of the word 'all'... as, really, does "power to do anything".

You can make all the 'Rome' or 'Dark Ages' jokes you wish. It will do nothing to affect the etymology of the word, or explain why I should take some colloquial definition you favour, as relevent.... no?

Wow... patronising much?

Curious, anyhow... I looked up definitions for 'omnipotent'... and found "almighty" as a strong contender. Which, of course, means 'ALL - mighty'.

I also found definitions that said "having virtually unlimited authority or influence", "all-powerful", "Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful" and "having the power to do anything".

It is worth pointing out that: having VIRTUALLY unlimited influence... or having UNIVERSAL power, both imply limits. ALL-powerful still brings us to the definition of the word 'all'... as, really, does "power to do anything".

You can make all the 'Rome' or 'Dark Ages' jokes you wish. It will do nothing to affect the etymology of the word, or explain why I should take some colloquial definition you favour, as relevent.... no?


om·nip·o·tent
adj.

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.


n.

1. One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
2. Omnipotent God. Used with the.

in·fi·nite
adj.

1. Having no boundaries or limits.
2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.
3. Mathematics.
1. Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.
2. Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length.
3. Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.

Creationists are leading the world into the dark ages of superstition. How will we deal with the problem?

Ugh! Why must every forum have one of these topics! First off, this statement presupposes that it is more reasonable to accept Evolution as a theory, than that of Creationism. The truth is, Evolution has as much potential to being a superstition, as creationism. But many Evolutionists tend to ignore this blindspot.

Ugh! Why must every forum have one of these topics! First off, this statement presupposes that it is more reasonable to accept Evolution as a theory, than that of Creationism. The truth is, Evolution has as much potential to being a superstition, as creationism. But many Evolutionists tend to ignore this blindspot.
What makes that statement true?

So... we're not a part of the real world?

We don't define it. Nice that you think we do, but I don't engage in that level of hubris.

And 'truth' is a concept.

Not in the way we use it, it's not. There is a way that things are. Period. We don't have access to that level of truth. Whether or not I or every human believes that there is a Yeti running around the world, there either is or isn't one. What humans believe or how humans define it doesn't change the truth of it.

Ugh! Why must every forum have one of these topics! First off, this statement presupposes that it is more reasonable to accept Evolution as a theory, than that of Creationism. The truth is, Evolution has as much potential to being a superstition, as creationism. But many Evolutionists tend to ignore this blindspot.

HAHAHA! I'll tell you what. You present your evidence for creation without using the Bible or faith, in other words scientific evidence. And we'll present ours for evolution. You go first and if you can fill up one post I'll be impressed.

And before you get started evolution and creation (as you mean it) are not contradictory, they are contrary. Contradictory means that one of them must be true and one must be false like the statements "I was in Chicago last night" and "I was not in Chicago last night". Contrary means that only one of them can be true but both could be false like "I was in Chicago last night" and "I was in Miami last night". So evidence against evolution whether we agree with that evidence or not will never be evidence for creation. So again, what evidence for creation do you have?

om·nip·o·tent
adj.

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.


n.

1. One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
2. Omnipotent God. Used with the.

in·fi·nite
adj.

1. Having no boundaries or limits.
2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.
3. Mathematics.
1. Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.
2. Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length.
3. Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.

It appears (since this is just one of several sources I quoted from), that you hunted down a definition to match your bias.... and yet, even THIS source contains "all-powerful" amongst it's definition text.

It is also worth noting that 'unlimited' power, and 'universal' power are entirely disparate concepts... and yet you blithely accept them in the text, with no qualm.

Sorry, my friend, but picking the first lowest-common-denominator generic catalog of colloquial interpretation, really does NOT finish the matter.

om·nip·o·tent
adj.

Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful. See Usage Note at infinite.


n.

1. One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents.
2. Omnipotent God. Used with the.

in·fi·nite
adj.

1. Having no boundaries or limits.
2. Immeasurably great or large; boundless: infinite patience; a discovery of infinite importance.
3. Mathematics.
1. Existing beyond or being greater than any arbitrarily large value.
2. Unlimited in spatial extent: a line of infinite length.
3. Of or relating to a set capable of being put into one-to-one correspondence with a proper subset of itself.

Interesting. So does the "One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents." have as unlimited of power as God does? Seems like they say unlimited but they gave an example that is clearly limited. Maybe that don't mean 'unlimited' but 'effectively unlimited'. You do realize the difference between the two is HUGE. Generally, it's important to look for this kind of hints in a source because it saves you from looking silly. This source supports GnI's point more than any source presented so far.

Interesting. So does the "One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents." have as unlimited of power as God does? Seems like they say unlimited but they gave an example that is clearly limited. Maybe that don't mean 'unlimited' but 'effectively unlimited'. You do realize the difference between the two is HUGE. Generally, it's important to look for this kind of hints in a source because it saves you from looking silly. This source supports GnI's point more than any source presented so far.

Indeed! I'd not thought that part out, but you are quite right... we are expected to accept several different (even mutually exclusive) definitions of 'omnipotent-ness'.

Praise be to GOD allmighty! Jesus saves! The Holy Spirit guides you to rightgeousness! Long live Christianity! Amen brothers and sisters!

Indeed! I'd not thought that part out, but you are quite right... we are expected to accept several different (even mutually exclusive) definitions of 'omnipotent-ness'.

Well, I'm just looking at the one he underlined since that appears to be the one he thinks supports his point. The one he underlined gave an example and it was a limited example. He could have handed your point to you on a silver platter but this was almost as good and this way we got to point and giggle.

Praise be to GOD allmighty! Jesus saves! The Holy Spirit guides you to rightgeousness! Long live Christianity! Amen brothers and sisters!

Bah! Nothing better to do than to troll?

Bah! Nothing better to do than to troll?
There, there, Jocabia. It's the only sentences it can type. I bet it just wanted a bit of attention from us strange beings, a couple of steps higher up on the evolutionary ladder. No need to call it a troll, it's just not that very highly evolved yet :p

There, there, Jocabia. It's the only sentences it can type. I bet it just wanted a bit of attention from us strange beings, a couple of steps higher up on the evolutionary ladder. No need to call it a troll, it's just not that very highly evolved yet :p

Regardless of what one's beliefs are, if they lack the faith to not be bitter about contrary beliefs then one should reexamine their faith. If I see a bunch of people out in a field waiting for a UFO to land (comparing how he looks at theists not how I look at them) I don't feel a need to run into the field and say, "Beep, boop, beep." I simply laugh and maybe take some pictures, perhaps shake my head, but I feel no bitterness toward their particular brand of belief.

Regardless of what one's beliefs are, if they lack the faith to not be bitter about contrary beliefs then one should reexamine their faith. If I see a bunch of people out in a field waiting for a UFO to land (comparing how he looks at theists not how I look at them) I don't feel a need to run into the field and say, "Beep, boop, beep." I simply laugh and maybe take some pictures, perhaps shake my head, but I feel no bitterness toward their particular brand of belief.

You, my friend, are in a peculiarly cruel humour, this morning.... :)

I like it. :D

I couldn't disagree more.

Omnipotent is omni-potent.... ALL powerful.

Take it to mean "infinite", if you wish... but that's like taking "dog" to mean "the Moon is made of cheese".

Omni-potent means ALL power, thus, there is a (theoretical) limit to omnipotence.

There is no such limit on 'infinity'.

Seems to me like this might be more a semantic problem with the language than a real issue. Seems like there may be an infinite possibility of things that one might do. Thus, being able to do them all would mean involve infinity....

Actually.... this means a lot to me. I have made some very good friends on the Forum... people I consider TRUE friends.

And, you are SUCH a bad boy...! You'd better make sure your girlfriend is okay with 'us', before we get a place together, though... ;)

=( Grave, I live much closer to you, and I haven't gotten an invitation to move in yet....

=)

=( Grave, I live much closer to you, and I haven't gotten an invitation to move in yet....

=)

Ah yes... but UpwardThrust swept me off my feet, with the 'lovers' comment. If only you'd been a little more forward, a little earlier....

Of course... he hasn't tabled the notion of kebabs yet....

:D

Ah yes... but UpwardThrust swept me off my feet, with the 'lovers' comment. If only you'd been a little more forward, a little earlier....

Of course... he hasn't tabled the notion of kebabs yet....

:D

Ok, now it's my turn. LALALALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!

Seems to me like this might be more a semantic problem with the language than a real issue. Seems like there may be an infinite possibility of things that one might do. Thus, being able to do them all would mean involve infinity....

Indeed, good point... however, there can (surely) only be a finite amount of 'power' within the confines of our meager reality... certainly, one would imagine there must be a limit at which no more power can be expressed.

Thus, the 'all-powerful' entity is endowed with the capacity to harness ALL of the potential for power, which still carries a realistic limit of 'real' expression.

I think... :)

Ok, now it's my turn. LALALALALALA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU!!!

Ha ha! That quite made my morning. :D

Interesting. So does the "One having unlimited power or authority: the bureaucratic omnipotents." have as unlimited of power as God does? Seems like they say unlimited but they gave an example that is clearly limited. Maybe that don't mean 'unlimited' but 'effectively unlimited'. You do realize the difference between the two is HUGE. Generally, it's important to look for this kind of hints in a source because it saves you from looking silly. This source supports GnI's point more than any source presented so far.

inclusive, not exclusive example....

Once again, unlimited, itself does not need to imply a limit.

GnI presupposes a limit. That does not make his unfounded presupposition true.

"Omnipotent bureaucratic" implies a limit... merely "Omnipotent" does not necessitate one.

The only implied limit upon the Omnipotent God, is God.... because there is no further limitation implied. Such, it really does not back up GnI [only if you also presuppose in the same manner he does, adding unknown undeclared qualifiers, and hoping your audience adopts the same ones].

Even if you imply a limit to the infinite [all numbers greater than 0; all numbers greater than 0 and less than 4], you still end up with an infinte set. Thus, God is still infinite, even limited by Himself.

Indeed, good point... however, there can (surely) only be a finite amount of 'power' within the confines of our meager reality... certainly, one would imagine there must be a limit at which no more power can be expressed.

Thus, the 'all-powerful' entity is endowed with the capacity to harness ALL of the potential for power, which still carries a realistic limit of 'real' expression.

I think... :)

Some things are impossible and thus is a limit regardless of the number of things that are possible. To suggest otherwise would place us as omnipotent since there is an unlimited number of things we can do as well, technically. The point is not is the number of things one can unlimited but is their power unlimited. If anything is impossible, then omnipotent represents being able to do all things that are possible and thus has limits.

inclusive, not exclusive example....

Once again, unlimited, itself does not need to imply a limit.

GnI presupposes a limit. That does not make his unfounded presupposition true.

"Omnipotent bureaucratic" implies a limit... merely "Omnipotent" does not necessitate one.

The only implied limit upon the Omnipotent God, is God.... because there is no further limitation implied. Such, it really does not back up GnI [only if you also presuppose in the same manner he does, adding unknown undeclared qualifiers, and hoping your audience adopts the same ones].

Even if you imply a limit to the infinite [all numbers greater than 0; all numbers greater than 0 and less than 4], you still end up with an infinte set. Thus, God is still infinite, even limited by Himself.

The point is they use the word unlimited and then they use a limited example. This evidences that they were intending unlimited to mean effectively unlimited. As in the effectively unlimited power of the bureaucrats. Your trying to twist the definitions. The definition that applies to God even in your example was set aside. Admit it. You can't find an example that is ACTUALLY unlimited.

Ha ha! That quite made my morning. :D

Where do you guys live? You, Dem, etc. I was under the impression that Dem was from the midwest, but I think that's just because she's so backwards.

inclusive, not exclusive example....

Once again, unlimited, itself does not need to imply a limit.

GnI presupposes a limit. That does not make his unfounded presupposition true.

"Omnipotent bureaucratic" implies a limit... merely "Omnipotent" does not necessitate one.

The only implied limit upon the Omnipotent God, is God.... because there is no further limitation implied. Such, it really does not back up GnI [only if you also presuppose in the same manner he does, adding unknown undeclared qualifiers, and hoping your audience adopts the same ones].

Even if you imply a limit to the infinite [all numbers greater than 0; all numbers greater than 0 and less than 4], you still end up with an infinte set. Thus, God is still infinite, even limited by Himself.

I have no pre-supposition... but casual examination of the word 'omnipotent', or the phrase 'all-powerful' seems to strongly suggest an internal implicit limitation.

Also - your assertion "The only implied limit upon the Omnipotent God, is God", is just plain untrue. The 'implied' limit on 'god' would have to be a factor of 'omnipotent'.

Where do you guys live? You, Dem, etc. I was under the impression that Dem was from the midwest, but I think that's just because she's so backwards.

Huh! Don't be mean to Dem! She's LOVELY! :o

And, she's from just down our way, in the heart of the Bible Belt. :)

Huh! Don't be mean to Dem! She's LOVELY! :o

And, she's from just down our way, in the heart of the Bible Belt. :)

If you guys find a way to make it to Chicago, I'll take us all to dinner. That's right, I said I'm buying. I think it would be really fun to have a conversation in real time. Imagine a conversation that would take days here, taking just a couple of minutes. *dreams* Dem, UT, GnI and anyone else in the area is invited.

Huh! Don't be mean to Dem! She's LOVELY! :o

And, she's from just down our way, in the heart of the Bible Belt. :)

You mixed metaphors, by the way. And Dem knows I love her in a "wants to throttle" her sort of way. I think Dem and I both realized (though I can't speak for her) that because of our particular styles of thinking and debating that there are certain things that we will never settle and thus we try to gain what we can from each other without going down that particular path. It's been fairly effective of late and it's been months since we ended up at each other's throats. Now, we find ourselves on the same side of the argument much of the time. I like to pretend that back in the day many nights of angry, monkey sex were a result of me getting her all riled up in a debate.;)

If you guys find a way to make it to Chicago, I'll take us all to dinner. That's right, I said I'm buying. I think it would be really fun to have a conversation in real time. Imagine a conversation that would take days here, taking just a couple of minutes. *dreams* Dem, UT, GnI and anyone else in the area is invited.

Sounds more than good to me. :) (Especially the not-buying part...lol)

I agree... it would be nice to maybe have a 'real-life' event at some point... but we seem pretty far apart.... you in Chicago, UT in Minnesota, and Dem and I in sunny Jaawja.

Not that I'm ruling anything out, of course. I mean... dinner IS dinner. :D

Sounds more than good to me. :) (Especially the not-buying part...lol)

I agree... it would be nice to maybe have a 'real-life' event at some point... but we seem pretty far apart.... you in Chicago, UT in Minnesota, and Dem and I in sunny Jaawja.

Not that I'm ruling anything out, of course. I mean... dinner IS dinner. :D

What's Jaawja?

EDIT: ne'ermind. You're phonetically spelling a mispronounced Georgia. I actually make my way down there fairly frequently. We'll just have to leave UT out.

You mixed metaphors, by the way. And Dem knows I love her in a "wants to throttle" her sort of way. I think Dem and I both realized (though I can't speak for her) that because of our particular styles of thinking and debating that there are certain things that we will never settle and thus we try to gain what we can from each other without going down that particular path. It's been fairly effective of late and it's been months since we ended up at each other's throats. Now, we find ourselves on the same side of the argument much of the time. I like to pretend that back in the day many nights of angry, monkey sex were a result of me getting her all riled up in a debate.;)

LOL. Yeah - that's right, I said "LOL". :)

Like I said earlier, you ARE in a curious mood today.

You can't be mean to Dem, she's one of my very favourite people on the Forum, and I've learned a lot from her. We may not ALWAYS agree, but isn't that part of the beauty of the thing?

LOL. Yeah - that's right, I said "LOL". :)

Like I said earlier, you ARE in a curious mood today.

You can't be mean to Dem, she's one of my very favourite people on the Forum, and I've learned a lot from her. We may not ALWAYS agree, but isn't that part of the beauty of the thing?

Yes, my team leader said the same thing. Can't a guy walk down the hall singing "Chicks dig it" and dancing without people wondering if he's flipped? I'm really tired and sometimes I get a little slaphappy when that happens. I'm not really that different inside it's just all that stuff that usually bound up in my head is oozing out my mouth (or, in this case, fingers) today. Most days I have a song in my head and I feel like dancing (rough life, huh?). Today I'm just doing it.

"Pain hurts, but only for a minute.
Life is short so come on and live it.
Cuz the chicks dig it!"

What's Jaawja?

EDIT: ne'ermind. You're phonetically spelling a mispronounced Georgia. I actually make my way down there fairly frequently. We'll just have to leave UT out.

That's not mispronounced! That's EXACTLY how they say it, down our way!

Poor UT... deprived of dinner. And, poor us, deprived of UT. :(

Yes, my team leader said the same thing. Can't a guy walk down the hall singing "Chicks dig it" and dancing without people wondering if he's flipped? I'm really tired and sometimes I get a little slaphappy when that happens. I'm not really that different inside it's just all that stuff that usually bound up in my head is oozing out my mouth (or, in this case, fingers) today. Most days I have a song in my head and I feel like dancing (rough life, huh?). Today I'm just doing it.

"Pain hurts, but only for a minute.
Life is short so come on and live it.
Cuz the chicks dig it!"

Ah... I get like that when I'm the wrong side of tired... :)

However, I've never yet reached the point where I sing Chris Cagle...

Ah... I get like that when I'm the wrong side of tired... :)

However, I've never yet reached the point where I sing Chris Cagle...

It was on the radio when I drove in this morning. I have a short drive so I get one song every morning unless I get blocked by the train.

By the way, I started the debate thread.

Bah! Nothing better to do than to troll?


Then you should stop trolling! I suggest you take a walk and smell the roses.

Then you should stop trolling! I suggest you take a walk and smell the roses.

Do you have anything to add to the thread besides trolling and then saying, "I know you are, but what am I?" when someone calls you on it?

Perhaps I'm wrong though. Explain it to me. What did your post add to the thread? What was your goal when you posted

Praise be to GOD allmighty! Jesus saves! The Holy Spirit guides you to rightgeousness! Long live Christianity! Amen brothers and sisters!

How did this add to the thread? What did it have to do with the thread topic? You know if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck...

It served as a counter balance to the original thread filled with nothing but flamebait, trolling and hatred to people of faith, such as myself. Or do I not have a right to defend my beliefs? I will reply to anything at anytime if I so desire. If you or anyone has a problem with that, then simply IGNORE me, as I IGNORE many here as well. It's that SIMPLE! You have your views and I have mine. Do you still have a problem undertanding? If so, you can always unsuccessfully try and stop me!

It served as a counter balance to the original thread filled with nothing but flamebait, trolling and hatred to people of faith, such as myself. Or do I not have a right to defend my beliefs? I will reply to anything at anytime if I so desire. If you or anyone has a problem with that, then simply IGNORE me, as I IGNORE many here as well. It's that SIMPLE! You have your views and I have mine. Do you still have a problem undertanding? If so, you can always unsuccessfully try and stop me!

I am a person of faith. Feel free to express your views. You didn't do that at all. You came and spouted a lot of crap that had nothing to do with the thread. I don't think anyone here would discourage you from expressing your views on the topic at hand. Yes, the thread started as flamebait, but read it. There has been a very reasonable discussion going on here. That is until you joined in and offered... I don't know what you offered. It appears you were just angry and decided to just spout off.

It served as a counter balance to the original thread filled with nothing but flamebait, trolling and hatred to people of faith, such as myself. Or do I not have a right to defend my beliefs? I will reply to anything at anytime if I so desire. If you or anyone has a problem with that, then simply IGNORE me, as I IGNORE many here as well. It's that SIMPLE! You have your views and I have mine. Do you still have a problem undertanding? If so, you can always unsuccessfully try and stop me!

Actually, I'd say there IS a difference between a 'defence', and a random preach-attack...

Actually, I'd say there IS a difference between a 'defence', and a random preach-attack...

I think he should of read the thread. It has developed into a discussion of a lot of good points. I like the points that Dem, Tekania and you have brought up lately. I have to say I'm interested in hearing a reply from Tekania on the omnipotent. I'm sure Tekania feels a little ganged up on, but I think it's a good discussion and his points aren't unreasonable.

I would like to have heard Arnburg state a position or offer some information, but he appears to be upset. It's unfortunate because I've enjoyed some of his posts in the past.

I will express MY Opinions and views MY way, just as you express YOURS in YOUR way. And guess what? In the end, only MY opinion will matter for ME as will only YOUR opinion matter for YOU! Now go chew on a cowchip and mellow out.


You think you have the right to correct someone but GOD forbid if anyone tries to correct you? Well you have much to learn in life my little grasshopper! In other words, I'll gladly think and speak for you, but don't you dare EVER think or speak for me. I WILL BURY YOU EVERY TIME! DO we have an understanding? Good day!

I think he should of read the thread. It has developed into a discussion of a lot of good points. I like the points that Dem, Tekania and you have brought up lately. I have to say I'm interested in hearing a reply from Tekania on the omnipotent. I'm sure Tekania feels a little ganged up on, but I think it's a good discussion and his points aren't unreasonable.

I would like to have heard Arnburg state a position or offer some information, but he appears to be upset. It's unfortunate because I've enjoyed some of his posts in the past.


Read the options on this skewed poll once again. How about having the choice and the right to teach CREATIONISM in schools as an option? I guess that would be politically incorect and taboo.

Want to be fair? Then answer this? Why should one supersede the other?

Read the options on this skewed poll once again. How about having the choice and the right to teach CREATIONISM in schools as an option? I guess that would be politically incorect and taboo.

Nope, it would just violate the first amendment. That's why the option isn't offered. Teaching creation to your children is your right, however you don't have a right to teach your faith to my children. I believe God created the universe but he did so in the exact way being discovered by scientists. My children will learn this in my home like they will learn all of their faith. They will go to school to learn secular education.

Want to be fair? Then answer this? Why should one supersede the other?

Why should one supercede the other? Do you think that Creation and Evolution are the only options? There is the scientific point of view that is taugh in a class called Science and there are dozens upon dozens of faith-based views. Those views are perfectly reasonable views but they are religious and thus no public entity can teach them without teaching all of them. So unless you want to be teaching that people came from Sipapu, then you can't have creation in any public classroom. Teaching all faiths is logistically impossible so we have to settle for teaching no faiths and figure that parents are quite capable of educating their children on their particular faith.

For you maybe, definately not for MY CHILDREN! They only go to schools that teach creationism. No SECULARISM allowed in my childrens minds!


And you are entitled to interpret the constitution your way as I interpret it my way. Not only the 1st amendment, but all 27. Just like the Holy Bible and any other documents.

Where do you guys live? You, Dem, etc. I was under the impression that Dem was from the midwest, but I think that's just because she's so backwards.

The midwest? Their backwardness pales in comparison to the grand ole' state of Georgia! ((Luckily, I work in Atlanta, which most people in Georgia think is a "Yankee town")) =)

For you maybe, definately not for MY CHILDREN! They only go to schools that teach creationism. No SECULARISM allowed in my childrens minds!


And you are entitled to interpret the constitution your way as I interpret it my way. Not only the 1st amendment, but all 27. Just like the Holy Bible and any other documents.

I can't tell if you're joking or not, but your interpretation of the first amendment actually has no weight. There is an entire branch of government that has that job.

Regardless, you are absolutely welcome to avoid the secular world, but you won't do so in a public school. The government must be agnostic. They must not take a stand as to the validity of any religion or atheism. They must take the stance of the government does not know and takes no sides.

The midwest? Their backwardness pales in comparison to the grand ole' state of Georgia! ((Luckily, I work in Atlanta, which most people in Georgia think is a "Yankee town")) =)

I head down there all the time. We all really should have dinner so long as you promise not to throttle me.

The midwest? Their backwardness pales in comparison to the grand ole' state of Georgia! ((Luckily, I work in Atlanta, which most people in Georgia think is a "Yankee town")) =)

I lived in the midwest and I consider this offensive. They are in no way backwards.

I lived in the midwest and I consider this offensive. They are in no way backwards.

I hope you recognize that we were kidding. For the record, I started it and I'm from Chicago. And... back to the debate.

And Dem knows I love her in a "wants to throttle" her sort of way.

My favorite sort of love! =)

I think Dem and I both realized (though I can't speak for her) that because of our particular styles of thinking and debating that there are certain things that we will never settle and thus we try to gain what we can from each other without going down that particular path. It's been fairly effective of late and it's been months since we ended up at each other's throats. Now, we find ourselves on the same side of the argument much of the time.

I think the problem, often, was that we actually really were on the same side of the general argument, and got caught up in the details. It seems you can always have a much more heated discussion with someone you essentially agree with than someone you are diametrically opposed to.

I like to pretend that back in the day many nights of angry, monkey sex were a result of me getting her all riled up in a debate.;)

Hmmmm, perhaps. If so, I'm sure my boyfriend thanks you. =)

Arnburg It served as a counter balance to the original thread filled with nothing but flamebait, trolling and hatred to people of faith, such as myself. Or do I not have a right to defend my beliefs? I will reply to anything at anytime if I so desire. If you or anyone has a problem with that, then simply IGNORE me, as I IGNORE many here as well. It's that SIMPLE! You have your views and I have mine. Do you still have a problem undertanding? If so, you can always unsuccessfully try and stop me!

I am a person of faith, and I haven't been flaming (at least not much), trolling, or hating anyone in this thread. Willamena is a person of faith, or at least a spiritual person (however she likes to put it). Jocabia is a person of faith, as he pointed out. Tekania is a person of faith. Grave isn't a person of faith, but does have respect for those who are. Any flaming, trolling, or hatred for those of faith hasn't been a part of this thread for quite a while, so I would say it has been counterbalanced quite well. Of course, I wouldn't say a post that added nothing to the discussion ecept to basically dare someone to flame you really counts as a "counterbalance."

Read the options on this skewed poll once again. How about having the choice and the right to teach CREATIONISM in schools as an option? I guess that would be politically incorect and taboo.

You could do it, in a comparative religions class, or maybe even a philosophy class, in which no one religion was placed in any precedence above another. You simply can't teach it in a science class, as it is not science.

I head down there all the time. We all really should have dinner so long as you promise not to throttle me.

Ok, I won't throttle you, unless you make me really, really mad! =)

Seriously though, let me know when you'll be in town. It could be fun! =)

*You aren't a serial killer, are you?*

I lived in the midwest and I consider this offensive. They are in no way backwards.

Well if they aren't backwards at all, then it would really pale in comparison to other places then, wouldn't it? =) :fluffle:

I can't tell if you're joking or not, but your interpretation of the first amendment actually has no weight. There is an entire branch of government that has that job.

Regardless, you are absolutely welcome to avoid the secular world, but you won't do so in a public school. The government must be agnostic. They must not take a stand as to the validity of any religion or atheism. They must take the stance of the government does not know and takes no sides.



Then EVOLUTION must be removed from public schools as well. For it is a theory and not fact. If Creationism is religious theory, then evolution is atheistic theory. No place for either according to your views. Teach children REALITY not SPECULATION/THEORIES from either side. Fair?

Then EVOLUTION must be removed from public schools as well. For it is a theory and not fact. If Creationism is religious theory, then evolution is atheistic theory. No place for either according to your views. Teach children REALITY not SPECULATION/THEORIES from either side. Fair?
uh no evolution is a scientific theory and, a scientific theory is completely different than any other type of theory, a scientific theory certainly belongs in science class, a religious theory does not.

Then EVOLUTION must be removed from public schools as well. For it is a theory and not fact. If Creationism is religious theory, then evolution is atheistic theory. No place for either according to your views. Teach children REALITY not SPECULATION/THEORIES from either side. Fair?

First of all, I am a Christian and evolution does not conflict with my view of creation, so it is hardly atheist. It doesn't preclude the creation of the forces that guided evolution by God/gods.

Second, evolution is a scientific theory in a scientific classroom. Creation is not a scientific theory. If it were it would belong in a science classroom. Now you might equate science with atheism, but remember that when you're taking medicine the next time you're sick or when you type on your computer. All of those are fruits of the poisonous tree you're claiming science is.

By the way, what qualifies as a fact, in your eyes? Do you realize that you are making the same arguments that were made against teaching people that the earth revolved around the sun because it went against the prevailing faith beliefs at the time? Which one do you hold to be true?

Third, we can't teach our children reality or facts because we are fallible. We teach our children the best theories based on the evidence available. This is true in history classes, science classes, reading comprehension classses, etc. Evolution is the best theory for the evidence we have. If you have a better one present it, but the emperical evidence doesn't appear to support a 7-day literal (sort of) translation of the story of creation. I'm sorry this upsets you, but like I said, if you want to teach religious theories in school then kids are going to need to be there for about a century because there are a number of them. Do you teach your children about Sipapu?

Then EVOLUTION must be removed from public schools as well. For it is a theory and not fact.

If you are opposed to teaching scientific theories, we will have to stop teaching anything in science classes then (except for maybe the scientific method). We can just leave our children with no knowledge whatsoever of science, since you don't like the backbone of science - theory.

If Creationism is religious theory, then evolution is atheistic theory.

Hardly. There is nothing at all in evolution that claims there is no God.

Teach children REALITY not SPECULATION/THEORIES from either side. Fair?

Only if you want people to be completely and totally uneducated in the area of science, since theory is as good as it gets in science. Even something called a "law" is merely a theory that has so much support that people have almost, but not quite, stopped questioning it.

I have no pre-supposition... but casual examination of the word 'omnipotent', or the phrase 'all-powerful' seems to strongly suggest an internal implicit limitation.

Also - your assertion "The only implied limit upon the Omnipotent God, is God", is just plain untrue. The 'implied' limit on 'god' would have to be a factor of 'omnipotent'.

Suggest? Where? It assumes "ALL" power... Unless you have a specific limitation on what "All" can possibly be, you can't really suggest any limit outside of Himself.

"All" can possess, or not possess a limit....

A limited set, All whole integers between 0 and 4, is still "All" of the particular set.

A limited set, All whole integers greater than 0, is an "All" but of an infinite set.

A limited set, All real numbers between 0 and 1, is an "All" and also of a infinite set...

All neither requires nor necessitates that the set is limited, unless constrained by other external data... Since absolute "power" cannot be observed, no upper bound can be implied. Thus All power (none added, none removed) is a boundless power, and like the concept of infinity, it is only limited by itself...

Limiting infinity, still leaves you with the infinite... And it is only the infinite that is, in effect, self constrained... Effectively leaving the "limit" as no limit at all... No external bound.

Ugh! Why must every forum have one of these topics! First off, this statement presupposes that it is more reasonable to accept Evolution as a theory, than that of Creationism. The truth is, Evolution has as much potential to being a superstition, as creationism. But many Evolutionists tend to ignore this blindspot.
Please provide an explanation of why the theory of evolution qualifies as a superstition? There appears to be a great deal of evidence for it.
You Jesus freaks keep reverting to this argument, and none of you ever makes the slightest effort to defend it. Put up or shut up.

Suggest? Where? It assumes "ALL" power... Unless you have a specific limitation on what "All" can possibly be, you can't really suggest any limit outside of Himself.

"All" can possess, or not possess a limit....

A limited set, All whole integers between 0 and 4, is still "All" of the particular set.

A limited set, All whole integers greater than 0, is an "All" but of an infinite set.

A limited set, All real numbers between 0 and 1, is an "All" and also of a infinite set...

All neither requires nor necessitates that the set is limited, unless constrained by other external data... Since absolute "power" cannot be observed, no upper bound can be implied. Thus All power (none added, none removed) is a boundless power, and like the concept of infinity, it is only limited by itself...

Limiting infinity, still leaves you with the infinite... And it is only the infinite that is, in effect, self constrained... Effectively leaving the "limit" as no limit at all... No external bound.

In every case you limited it. He is making the point that it is limited. And it actually defends better against the goofy omnipotent arguments. It just means that God is capable of all things that are possible, so no God can't make something be itself and the inverse of itself because it's impossible. This doesn't say God is weak, it just said that God's power is limited by things that are automatically impossible. Can God make a flat one-sided object that is three-dimensional, yet has no depth? No. Because it makes no sense. Does that mean God isn't omnipotent? Nope.

Oh, and when you told GnI to become current, do you know when people starting to refer to God using the word omnipotent? I'll give you a hint. It wasn't recently. It is very important to look at the meaning of the word when it first began being used to examine what its meaning is in regards to God. GnI did that. That contemporaries have confused the term doesn't change the meaning that was intended when the label was stamped on God.

Please provide an explanation of why the theory of evolution qualifies as a superstition? There appears to be a great deal of evidence for it.
You Jesus freaks keep reverting to this argument, and none of you ever makes the slightest effort to defend it. Put up or shut up.

Please avoid the term "Jesus freaks" as it's unnecessary and flame-bait. It also lumps all people who believe in Jesus as having the same beliefs which is simply fallacious.

uh no evolution is a scientific theory and, a scientific theory is completely different than any other type of theory, a scientific theory certainly belongs in science class, a religious theory does not.



And who said Creationism belongs in a science class? Not I, it's a different class all it's own.

And who said Creationism belongs in a science class? Not I, it's a different class all it's own.

Not in public schools it's not.

Now, we're still waiting for you to tell us what 'facts' qualify for teaching in public schools?

Please avoid the term "Jesus freaks" as it's unnecessary and flame-bait. It also lumps all people who believe in Jesus as having the same beliefs which is simply fallacious.
Like referring to proven scientific principles as a superstition and implying that anybody who takes them seriously is retarded, you mean?

Like referring to proven scientific principles as a superstition and implying that anybody who takes them seriously is retarded, you mean?

Yep. That would be wrong as well. Their breach of the rules and/or good debate doesn't justify yours.

They called it superstition if their belief is also considered superstition and they made no reference to retarded.

And who said Creationism belongs in a science class? Not I, it's a different class all it's own.

Creationism belongs in a theology class.... Along with all other particulars:

Young Earth Creationism [Literal Creationism]
Old Earth Creationism [The Day-Age Theory]
Progressive Creationism
Evolutionary Creationism
-and-
Theistic Evolution..

As soon as you begin invoking a philosophical aspect to it; it no longer should be taught with the empirical sciences [Biology, Physics, Chemistry, etc.]

The Philosophical views of Theistic Evolution, Evolutionary Creationism and Progressive creationism have no problem sailing the oceans of modern biology; because none of them exist in denial of the established and observed processes within the evolutionary theory...

Old Earth and Young Earth Creationism, on the otherhand, is contending against established and observed processes.

The former is philosophy united with the empirical; the later is philosophy in combat with the empirical.

Creationism belongs in a theology class.... Along with all other particulars:

Young Earth Creationism [Literal Creationism]
Old Earth Creationism [The Day-Age Theory]
Progressive Creationism
Evolutionary Creationism
-and-
Theistic Evolution..

It's going to be a looooooong class, since there are a LOT of creation theories, many of which you've never heard of and are still believed. The myths surrounding Sipapu appear to come much closer to abiogenesis and evolution than Creation does by a far sight. However, a theology class is better reserved for college where people have more ability to compare religions and more space in their curriculums.

As soon as you begin invoking a philosophical aspect to it; it no longer should be taught with the empirical sciences [Biology, Physics, Chemistry, etc.]

The Philosophical views of Theistic Evolution, Evolutionary Creationism and Progressive creationism have no problem sailing the oceans of modern biology; because none of them exist in denial of the established and observed processes within the evolutionary theory...

False. They invoke an untestable aspect to the theory and whether they are in line with evolution or not, the religious aspect of it must be left out. If those theories have no problem with evolution then evolution can be taught in a science class and the added religious elements can be taught in the home. Scientific theories have a requirement to be the simplest possible theory. It should have no extra elements that do nothing to further explain the phenomenon, particularly untestable elements.

Old Earth and Young Earth Creationism, on the otherhand, is contending against established and observed processes.

The former is philosophy united with the empirical; the later is philosophy in combat with the empirical.

It's a good point, but philosophy is really only permitted in rare occasions in science and usually only when it is REQUIRED to explain observed phenomena, another word would be speculation, but the intent is to validate this philosophy. Philosophy that does nothing but inject religion or personal beliefs into science has no purpose in science and would serve to degrade it.

they made no reference to retarded.
No, they merely talk in an aggressively condescending tone that implies as much.
They called it superstition if their belief is also considered superstition
This one in particular is absolutely laughable. If they can't cite any evidence disproving evolution or proving creationism, then they should stop claiming that this drivel is anything other than a superstition. On the other hand there's quite a lot of evidence for the other theory, so it isn't a superstition. If one of these twerps would have the decency to address this, I might have a bit more respect for their point of view. As things stand, they're having pretty much the opposite effect and leaving me with a suspicion that they don't have a single clue what they're talking about.

Please avoid the term "Jesus freaks" as it's unnecessary and flame-bait. It also lumps all people who believe in Jesus as having the same beliefs which is simply fallacious.
yeah I was going to say that too, you should replace it with creationists.

No, they merely talk in an aggressively condescending tone that implies as much.

This one in particular is absolutely laughable. If they can't cite any evidence disproving evolution or proving creationism, then they should stop claiming that this drivel is anything other than a superstition. On the other hand there's quite a lot of evidence for the other theory, so it isn't a superstition. If one of these twerps would have the decency to address this, I might have a bit more respect for their point of view. As things stand, they're having pretty much the opposite effect and leaving me with a suspicion that they don't have a single clue what they're talking about.

And not having a single clue what they're talking about doesn't give you the right to call them names. They said that evolution and Creation could equally be called superstition (the old 'theory' argument) which I don't agree with. However, it's hardly aggressive or intentionally insulting. They expressed their belief which you found insulting. You intended to insult their belief. See the difference?

Now unless their beliefs have any chance of knocking the legs out of yours, then why respond in such a way? What difference does it make to you if choose to be wrong (according to you)? As far as the classroom, they won't succeed. There is an evident and clear scientific consensus and I suspect that if a school or state tries to inject religion into the science classroom it will reach federal courts where it will be summarily struck down. So why are you so angry? Why are you flaming and flame-baiting? Doesn't your argument stand strong enough that you shouldn't have to resort to schoolyard tactics? Have a little faith in your argument and make your points without the unnecessary name-calling that will only serve to shorten your experience here at Chez NationStates.

yeah I was going to say that too, you should replace it with creationists.

Yes, exactly.

And who said Creationism belongs in a science class? Not I, it's a different class all it's own.
I didn't say that you did say that, I am wondering why you want scientific theory thrown out of schools when they are being taught in a science class. that is the logical place right? and it isn't an atheistic theory, it is a scientific theory, if it was an atheistic theory I wouldn't want it in school either, just like I don't want creationism in school or ID for that matter. It doesn't belong there.

yeah I was going to say that too, you should replace it with creationists.
There are a lot of far more apt and descriptive terms I have also refrained from using. Swings and roundabouts, I'm afraid.

There are a lot of far more apt and descriptive terms I have also refrained from using. Swings and roundabouts, I'm afraid.
as a "jesus-freak" though I take offense in being lumped together with the people you were talking about.

First of all, I am a Christian and evolution does not conflict with my view of creation, so it is hardly atheist. It doesn't preclude the creation of the forces that guided evolution by God/gods.

Second, evolution is a scientific theory in a scientific classroom. Creation is not a scientific theory. If it were it would belong in a science classroom. Now you might equate science with atheism, but remember that when you're taking medicine the next time you're sick or when you type on your computer. All of those are fruits of the poisonous tree you're claiming science is.




I never said Creationism being a scientific theory. Also, I never take drugs or medicines of any kind. I only use vitamins and natural herbs. I am 46 years old and have not been sick since I was 14 with the flu. My mother's remedy: 1 6oz. cup of hot water with a teaspoon of cayenne pepper, a good nights rest and 8 hours later, cured and like new. Drugs/medications either kill you or debilitate and destroy your immune system. Only GOD given natural remedies for me, thank you. But you are free to believe in whatever you want, as I am as well.





By the way, what qualifies as a fact, in your eyes? Do you realize that you are making the same arguments that were made against teaching people that the earth revolved around the sun because it went against the prevailing faith beliefs at the time? Which one do you hold to be true?





Not faith beliefs, scientific beliefs of their time. Big difference!





Third, we can't teach our children reality or facts because we are fallible. We teach our children the best theories based on the evidence available. This is true in history classes, science classes, reading comprehension classses, etc. Evolution is the best theory for the evidence we have. If you have a better one present it, but the emperical evidence doesn't appear to support a 7-day literal (sort of) translation of the story of creation. I'm sorry this upsets you, but like I said, if you want to teach religious theories in school then kids are going to need to be there for about a century because there are a number of them. Do you teach your children about Sipapu?



That's your opinion, not mine. The best PROVEN and only LOGICAL theory by far is CREATIONISM in my opinion. Creationism is EMPIRICAL evidince and EVOLUTION is mere Speculation in my view, the one that counts the most when teaching MY CHILDREN. And we can spend the rest of our lives trying to prove our distinct views, and most likely in vain. I teach my children what I hold to be true, as I'm sure you do with yours. Have a nice day!

And not having a single clue what they're talking about doesn't give you the right to call them names. They said that evolution and Creation could equally be called superstition (the old 'theory' argument) which I don't agree with. However, it's hardly aggressive or intentionally insulting. They expressed their belief which you found insulting. You intended to insult their belief. See the difference?

Now unless their beliefs have any chance of knocking the legs out of yours, then why respond in such a way? What difference does it make to you if choose to be wrong (according to you)? As far as the classroom, they won't succeed. There is an evident and clear scientific consensus and I suspect that if a school or state tries to inject religion into the science classroom it will reach federal courts where it will be summarily struck down. So why are you so angry? Why are you flaming and flame-baiting? Doesn't your argument stand strong enough that you shouldn't have to resort to schoolyard tactics? Have a little faith in your argument and make your points without the unnecessary name-calling that will only serve to shorten your experience here at Chez NationStates.
The main reason is that I'm a little narked at the failure of any of these creationists to cite any of the evidence they're stating disproves the evolutionary theory, and I'm even more offended that they feel they can pass off this nonsense as a science while being in opposition to the whole of the scientific method.

That's your opinion, not mine. The best PROVEN and only LOGICAL theory by far is CREATIONISM in my opinion. Creationism is EMPIRICAL evidince and EVOLUTION is mere Speculation in my view, the one that counts the most when teaching MY CHILDREN. And we can spend the rest of our lives trying to prove our distinct views, and most likely in vain. I teach my children what I hold to be true, as I'm sure you do with yours. Have a nice day!

However, you suggested that only fact should be taught in school. What qualifies as fact in your eyes? Why are you avoiding the question?

That's your opinion, not mine. The best PROVEN and only LOGICAL theory by far is CREATIONISM in my opinion. Creationism is EMPIRICAL evidince and EVOLUTION is mere Speculation in my view, the one that counts the most when teaching MY CHILDREN. And we can spend the rest of our lives trying to prove our distinct views, and most likely in vain. I teach my children what I hold to be true, as I'm sure you do with yours. Have a nice day!
you have empirical evidence for the proof of God?

I would really really like to see that.

as a "jesus-freak" though I take offense in being lumped together with the people you were talking about.
A reasonable objection, actually. I beg your pardon.

Arnberg:
That's your opinion, not mine. The best PROVEN and only LOGICAL theory by far is CREATIONISM in my opinion.
Proof? I'll settle for a vague paraphrase of somebody else's argument at this point. Leaving logic out of this, if you're going to insist that something is a proven fact, you're obliged to provide some proof. neither you nor any other creationist posting in this thread has.
Creationism is EMPIRICAL evidince and EVOLUTION is mere Speculation in my view
Again, evidence. There is (at the very least) circumstantial evidence for evolution. Creationism, on the other hand, is based on blnd faith, and faith denies proof, as anyone who's read the bible knows. How do you reconciile this paradox?

Not in public schools it's not.

Now, we're still waiting for you to tell us what 'facts' qualify for teaching in public schools?


As I said before, if Evolution is allowed to be taught then so should Creationism. Both or none at all. Simple and fair enough for me!

A reasonable objection, actually. I beg your pardon.
pardoned. ;)

I never said Creationism being a scientific theory. Also, I never take drugs or medicines of any kind. I only use vitamins and natural herbs. I am 46 years old and have not been sick since I was 14 with the flu. My mother's remedy: 1 6oz. cup of hot water with a teaspoon of cayenne pepper, a good nights rest and 8 hours later, cured and like new. Drugs/medications either kill you or debilitate and destroy your immune system. Only GOD given natural remedies for me, thank you. But you are free to believe in whatever you want, as I am as well.

Good, it's not a scientific theory so it won't be considered to compete with a scientific theory. So we'll teach the scientific theory in the classroom and people can teach whatever they like at home.

I suspect that you were immunized, but no matter. You are using a computer, another poisonous fruit. Probably wearing fibers created using other poisonous processes. I sure hope you're not wearing two different ones.

Not faith beliefs, scientific beliefs of their time. Big difference!

Faith. They were based on faith and faith alone. People don't burn people at the stake for offering new evidence to scientists. Galileo was burned at the stake by the church for blaspheming. Could you define blasphemy for me? I'm pretty sure it has nothing to do with science, but that's just my belief.

As I said before, if Evolution is allowed to be taught then so should Creationism. Both or none at all. Simple and fair enough for me!
it isn't simple or fair. Creationism relies on God, and unprovable by humans God, it is therefor religious, and the public school system is niether equipped or allowed to teach religion.

If you are opposed to teaching scientific theories, we will have to stop teaching anything in science classes then (except for maybe the scientific method). We can just leave our children with no knowledge whatsoever of science, since you don't like the backbone of science - theory.



Hardly. There is nothing at all in evolution that claims there is no God.



Only if you want people to be completely and totally uneducated in the area of science, since theory is as good as it gets in science. Even something called a "law" is merely a theory that has so much support that people have almost, but not quite, stopped questioning it.



Evolution states that we came from apes. That in itself is claiming their is no GOD. Man made in the image of GOD. Your GOD might be an ape, not mine!

As I said before, if Evolution is allowed to be taught then so should Creationism. Both or none at all. Simple and fair enough for me!

You admitted that Creationism is not scientific. And it's not both, there are dozens of theories for the creation of the universe that are not scientific. So it's spend the rest of your life in school or learn no science. That's the choice you're offering. Fortunately, we don't have to make that call. We offer science in a class called, incidentally, science and show children exactly what evidence has been collected and faith-based theories can be taught at home at the discretion of the parents and their chosen influential adults.

You think it would be fair. So would you be comfortable if a teacher started teaching your children that there is no God and that it's all a bunch of nonsense or that life started from Sipapu (the life-giving hole)? I mean these are just alternative theories. You support giving all the alternatives, don't you?

As I said before, if Evolution is allowed to be taught then so should Creationism. Both or none at all. Simple and fair enough for me!
Let's try this again: on what grounds do you feel that the two theories are comparable, given that one has a lot of evidence supporting it and the other doesn't and is considered a bad joke by most biologists?
(Please note that: "I believe the theory with no basis in fact to be true" does not count as evidence or proof, merely that it accords with your personal goblins. You'd hardly be propounding it if you didn't.)

Smunkeeville: that's good of you.

As I said before, if Evolution is allowed to be taught then so should Creationism. Both or none at all. Simple and fair enough for me!

I agree w/ you. We should also include Hindu, Native American, and other tribal creation beliefs. All or none.

Please provide an explanation of why the theory of evolution qualifies as a superstition? There appears to be a great deal of evidence for it.
You Jesus freaks keep reverting to this argument, and none of you ever makes the slightest effort to defend it. Put up or shut up.


Same with you! Here, ball back in your court. Provide me with your evidence and convince me. I assure your failure in attemptig to do so.

Evolution states that we came from apes. That in itself is claiming their is no GOD. Man made in the image of GOD. Your GOD might be an ape, not mine!

Really? Can you cite the text that came from? I've thoroughly studied the theory and that is mentioned nowhere.

And no, it makes no such claim. Is God only capable of making man the way you say he did? Interesting that you would limit God so. I do no such thing. God is completely able to create a universe and set things into motion that he knew from the very moment of inception would lead to this conversation we're having. I'm sorry you don't ascribe enough power to God to do such a thing. But then again, God could have planted all that evidence there to test us. As a human being, I know what I believe, but as a scientist I take no position on it at all. I analyze the evidence and explain it with the understanding that every explanation is only based on the available evidence. It is an accepted part of science that tomorrow you could step out your door and float upward, but the position of science is to base its theories on evidence until that stops working.

Same with you! Here, ball back in your court. Provide me with your evidence and convince me. I assure your failure in attemptig to do so.

Are you willing to actually consider the evidence, because I'll provide it?

Evolution states that we came from apes. That in itself is claiming their is no GOD. Man made in the image of GOD. Your GOD might be an ape, not mine!
you seem to have both limited knowledge of evolution and a limited veiw of God.

evolution does not say we came from apes

and in God's image doesn't make sense to be a physical thing anyway because God has no use for a physical image.

Evolution states that we came from apes. That in itself is claiming their is no GOD. Man made in the image of GOD. Your GOD might be an ape, not mine!
That isn't actually true. Evolution states that we evolved from a now extinct hominid that diverted from the rest of the great apes long before they reached their present forms.
(I have shown great restraint in not posting a big picture of that statue of the Lawgiver from Planet of the Apes, btw.)

I didn't say that you did say that, I am wondering why you want scientific theory thrown out of schools when they are being taught in a science class. that is the logical place right? and it isn't an atheistic theory, it is a scientific theory, if it was an atheistic theory I wouldn't want it in school either, just like I don't want creationism in school or ID for that matter. It doesn't belong there.


All science is not atheistic in it's teachings. Evolution however, certainly is.

Same with you! Here, ball back in your court. Provide me with your evidence and convince me. I assure your failure in attemptig to do so.
You're the one insisting that something is a proven act despite the lack of any evidence for it, and that a widely accepted theory with a great deal of evidence to support it is a superstition, so I feel you should start this ball rolling.
Provide a solid case for creationism, or an explanation of why the fossil record, molecular biology, research into genetic structure and foetal devlopment in no way constitute a case for the theory of evolution. I'll settle for either.

All science is not atheistic in it's teachings. Evolution however, certainly is.
That's an interesting statement and probably the nub of your whole problem. Atheism, and incompatibility with Genesis being the literal truth aren't actually synonyms. I'd suspect you're also likely to have a problem with cosmology as well.

It's going to be a looooooong class, since there are a LOT of creation theories, many of which you've never heard of and are still believed. The myths surrounding Sipapu appear to come much closer to abiogenesis and evolution than Creation does by a far sight. However, a theology class is better reserved for college where people have more ability to compare religions and more space in their curriculums.

I did not state where the class was, or everything the class should entail. I only said where the particulars were.


False. They invoke an untestable aspect to the theory and whether they are in line with evolution or not, the religious aspect of it must be left out. If those theories have no problem with evolution then evolution can be taught in a science class and the added religious elements can be taught in the home. Scientific theories have a requirement to be the simplest possible theory. It should have no extra elements that do nothing to further explain the phenomenon, particularly untestable elements.

Try reading only WHAT I said... I said they have no problem "sailing" (travelling along) the ocean (processes) of the established (and observed) processes of evolution... Nowhere did I say that that they should be taught as a fucking empirical science... In fact, the opposite..

In fact, your post is even more ignorant when the first part of your quote of me says specifically.. "As soon as you begin invoking a philosophical aspect to it; it no longer should be taught with the empirical sciences..."

Shall I bring up my point out presupposition again? Or are you going to deny it?


It's a good point, but philosophy is really only permitted in rare occasions in science and usually only when it is REQUIRED to explain observed phenomena, another word would be speculation, but the intent is to validate this philosophy. Philosophy that does nothing but inject religion or personal beliefs into science has no purpose in science and would serve to degrade it.

You must have missed, again, the entire first part of my post...

However, you suggested that only fact should be taught in school. What qualifies as fact in your eyes? Why are you avoiding the question?


I am not avoiding the question. I quoted what you said. It is apparent that you and all others that hold evolution to be fact as avoiding the question. My facts are based on Creationism and others here on Evolution. And both sides say: Prove me wrong! I also stated that if you wanted to be fair by removing speculation from the public classrooms, you should remove EVOLUTION THEORY as well. Did you somehow conviniently miss that. Scroll back a bit, I'm sure you will be able to find it. Please don't misquote, I can do the same. It's quite simple! And I have also stated what I BELIEVE as being FACT. Here, I'll say it again: CREATIONISM IS FACT! Now try and prove me wrong. IMPOSSIBLE!

I did not state where the class was, or everything the class should entail. I only said where the particulars were.

Fine.

Try reading only WHAT I said... I said they have no problem "sailing" (travelling along) the ocean (processes) of the established (and observed) processes of evolution... Nowhere did I say that that they should be taught as a fucking empirical science... In fact, the opposite..

What you said that it has no problem being included in modern biology. If you weren't attempting to say that, then what is your point? Everyone knows some theories are not contrary to evolution. Were you adding anything?

In fact, your post is even more ignorant when the first part of your quote of me says specifically.. "As soon as you begin invoking a philosophical aspect to it; it no longer should be taught with the empirical sciences..."

Hey, if you contradict yourself and I call you on it, don't start swearing at me. It's much simpler if you just don't contradict yourself in the first place.

Shall I bring up my point out presupposition again? Or are you going to deny it?

See above.

You must have missed, again, the entire first part of my post...

Hey, you would do well to be more consistent and then you won't have these kinds of misunderstanding. Or just start swearing and getting upset. Either one.

Your post very much seems to make the point that diametrically opposed beliefs with no evidence belong in a philosophy classroom but those that coincide with science can ride along the ocean of it.

That's your opinion, not mine. The best PROVEN and only LOGICAL theory by far is CREATIONISM in my opinion. Creationism is EMPIRICAL evidince and EVOLUTION is mere Speculation in my view,

Whether or not something is empirical is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of definition. Saying, "This is empirical, in my opinion," is like saying, "In my opinion, 2+3=88, and you can't dispute it because it is just my opinion!"

If you have empirical evidence for God, then two things must be true:

(a) God is not omnipotent, but is actually bound by the rules of the Universe, and can therefore be measured.

(b) You can provide said evidence to all of us. I'll be waiting....

Evolution states that we came from apes. That in itself is claiming their is no GOD.

Wow, does the word logic mean nothing to you?

This is like me saying, "Collard greens taste bad. That in itself is claiming there is no GOD!"

Man made in the image of GOD. Your GOD might be an ape, not mine!

THere are many ways that you might interpret the statement that humankind was made in the image of God. Any none of them lead to your second statement. If humankind was made in the image of God, that doesn't mean that the ancestors of humankind were equally the image of God. By your logic, if the Genesis account that says Adam was made from clay is true, then God is clay.

All science is not atheistic in it's teachings. Evolution however, certainly is.

No, it isn't. Evolution does not, in any way, state, "There is no God," any more than any science does. Science can state nothing at all about God - and can rely on neither the existence nor the non-existence of any deity. Belief in God is perfectly amenable with science - including evolutionary theory. Belief in most forms of Creationism is not. The two are not the same.

Here, I'll say it again: CREATIONISM IS FACT! Now try and prove me wrong. IMPOSSIBLE!


And that, by the very definition of scientific theory, is what make creationism unscientific and therefore should not be taught in a science classroom.

Let's try this again: on what grounds do you feel that the two theories are comparable, given that one has a lot of evidence supporting it and the other doesn't and is considered a bad joke by most biologists?
(Please note that: "I believe the theory with no basis in fact to be true" does not count as evidence or proof, merely that it accords with your personal goblins. You'd hardly be propounding it if you didn't.)

Smunkeeville: that's good of you.


I'll ask the biologists and you ask the Theologists. Let's see what happens, any briliant guesses? Where to now?

I'll ask the biologists and you ask the Theologists. Let's see what happens, any briliant guesses? Where to now?
To the firm suspicion that you can't cite a scrap of evidence and are incapable of constructing a coherent argument, I think.

I'll ask the biologists and you ask the Theologists. Let's see what happens, any briliant guesses? Where to now?

So if I asked a Hindu theologist they would give the same reasons as you?

Really? Can you cite the text that came from? I've thoroughly studied the theory and that is mentioned nowhere.

And no, it makes no such claim. Is God only capable of making man the way you say he did? Interesting that you would limit God so. I do no such thing. God is completely able to create a universe and set things into motion that he knew from the very moment of inception would lead to this conversation we're having. I'm sorry you don't ascribe enough power to God to do such a thing. But then again, God could have planted all that evidence there to test us. As a human being, I know what I believe, but as a scientist I take no position on it at all. I analyze the evidence and explain it with the understanding that every explanation is only based on the available evidence. It is an accepted part of science that tomorrow you could step out your door and float upward, but the position of science is to base its theories on evidence until that stops working.


And the position of Theology is to base it's theories on the evidence of history and written scriptures/documents until that stops working.

I am not avoiding the question. I quoted what you said. It is apparent that you and all others that hold evolution to be fact as avoiding the question. My facts are based on Creationism and others here on Evolution. And both sides say: Prove me wrong! I also stated that if you wanted to be fair by removing speculation from the public classrooms, you should remove EVOLUTION THEORY as well. Did you somehow conviniently miss that. Scroll back a bit, I'm sure you will be able to find it. Please don't misquote, I can do the same. It's quite simple! And I have also stated what I BELIEVE as being FACT. Here, I'll say it again: CREATIONISM IS FACT! Now try and prove me wrong. IMPOSSIBLE!

Wow, someone doesn't remember what they said. Let's retread, shall we?

Then EVOLUTION must be removed from public schools as well. For it is a theory and not fact. If Creationism is religious theory, then evolution is atheistic theory. No place for either according to your views. Teach children REALITY not SPECULATION/THEORIES from either side.

Now, it would seem here that you claim that both creationism and evolution are theories and that only fact/reality should be taught to children.

So I asked what would pass the litmus test for you, unless you're claiming that every belief that anyone has EVER held be taught.

See, we don't think evolution is fact or that science has access to fact. Creation could be fact even according to science, but science doesn't deal in facts. It only deals in theories that can be reached by available emperical evidence (that is evidence that can be reached either directly or indirectly through experimentation or observation). Science doesn't claim that any conclusion it has ever reached is infallible or necessarily represents absolute truth.

I'll state it again, NO SCIENTIST BELIEVES THAT EVOLUTION IS A FACT.

Theories are allowed in the classroom provided there is observed evidence for them. If there is observed evidence fo Creation then it should be included in that classroom, but I haven't yet seen it.

So now, I'll ask again, what qualifies Creation as a fact? Can you try be a little calmer this time when you reply.

you seem to have both limited knowledge of evolution and a limited veiw of God.

evolution does not say we came from apes

and in God's image doesn't make sense to be a physical thing anyway because God has no use for a physical image.


Then tell me: Where did the first man and woman come from? How were they born?

That isn't actually true. Evolution states that we evolved from a now extinct hominid that diverted from the rest of the great apes long before they reached their present forms.
(I have shown great restraint in not posting a big picture of that statue of the Lawgiver from Planet of the Apes, btw.)


They might have been your decendents and part of your family tree, but certainly not mine!

They might have been your decendents and part of your family tree, but certainly not mine!
You don't share 99% of your DNA with chimpanzees then? You're some sort of mutant freak of nature?
I'd have thought as a creationist you'd oppose the idea of mutation as being ideologically unsound.

And the position of Theology is to base it's theories on the evidence of history and written scriptures/documents until that stops working.

Okay, again, then you've admitted that it is not science. Fair enough. Then we don't have a problem. Theology will be taught in theology classes and science will be taught in science classes. Everyone here agrees.

Quick question can you tell me what the possible translations are for the word that is translated to day in modern texts? You did read it in the original language right?

And the position of Theology is to base it's theories on the evidence of history and written scriptures/documents until that stops working.

So do you accept that your view is fallible? What would you do if you found scripture that counters the scripture you believe? The dead sea scrolls for example? What if you found evidence that certain translations were obscured by the church because they felt it gave individuals too much power? Would you care if you found out that in the early days of the church their beliefs were different than yours? Is your faith based on a true analysis of the text or is it blind?

Can you tell me the place where Paul says he is not an authority and that his views on virgins are as a man of education and not under the authority of God? I mean I'm sure you've read it dozens of times.

They might have been your decendents and part of your family tree, but certainly not mine!

So you're not a Homo-sapien?

An interesting snippet from the National Academy of Sciences:

Science cannot comment on the role that supernatural forces might play in human affairs. But scientific investigations have concluded that the same forces responsible for the evolution of all other life forms on Earth can account for the evolution of human beings.

Whether or not something is empirical is not a matter of opinion, it is a matter of definition. Saying, "This is empirical, in my opinion," is like saying, "In my opinion, 2+3=88, and you can't dispute it because it is just my opinion!"

If you have empirical evidence for God, then two things must be true:

(a) God is not omnipotent, but is actually bound by the rules of the Universe, and can therefore be measured.

(b) You can provide said evidence to all of us. I'll be waiting....



Wow, does the word logic mean nothing to you?

This is like me saying, "Collard greens taste bad. That in itself is claiming there is no GOD!"



THere are many ways that you might interpret the statement that humankind was made in the image of God. Any none of them lead to your second statement. If humankind was made in the image of God, that doesn't mean that the ancestors of humankind were equally the image of God. By your logic, if the Genesis account that says Adam was made from clay is true, then God is clay.



No, it isn't. Evolution does not, in any way, state, "There is no God," any more than any science does. Science can state nothing at all about God - and can rely on neither the existence nor the non-existence of any deity. Belief in God is perfectly amenable with science - including evolutionary theory. Belief in most forms of Creationism is not. The two are not the same.




No, it seems that LOGIC means nothing to you. We could both beat around the bush all day. You are doing a fine job of misquoting the Bible however. Good job! Opinions, aren't they marvelous? I'm still waiting on your evidence as well. Did we come from apes? How about micro organisms from the sea? Maybe alians created us? Maybe we where droped on Earth by a Comet or Meteor? Hmmm.... a Stork perhaps?

No, it seems that LOGIC means nothing to you. We could both beat around the bush all day. You are doing a fine job of misquoting the Bible however. Good job! Opinions, aren't they marvelous? I'm still waiting on your evidence as well. Did we come from apes? How about micro organisms from the sea? Maybe alians created us? Maybe we where droped on Earth by a Comet or Meteor? Hmmm.... a Stork perhaps?

This is the best argument ever from a Creationist. Can you tell what the difference is, in quality, between being dropped on the Earth by aliens or a stork and God? What makes one theory more valid? Now we know that one of the theories that people ascribe to has actual physical evidence, but it's not any of the three I just mentioned, so tell me what is the quality difference between the theories you just made fun of and yours?

Has anyone else here noticed that Arnburg has offered not one shred of support even scriptural? Dem references a fairly common translation and he says she quoted wrong, but doesn't actually correct her.

Arnburg, would you care to quote your evidence, which you said is scripture, so we can analyze it? That's why you're having a discussion, right? Or is it just to shout and type in all caps and get upset? Let's try to have an actual discussion. Give us something to actually discuss rather than a bunch of made up stuff about evolution.

To the firm suspicion that you can't cite a scrap of evidence and are incapable of constructing a coherent argument, I think.


As you have ultimately failed at as well. Keep trying though, even if it's to no avail.

As you have ultimately failed at as well. Keep trying though, even if it's to no avail.

So you have twice admitted that you will accept no evidence for evolution but have yet to produce ANY empirical evidence for creationism.

So if I asked a Hindu theologist they would give the same reasons as you?


What do you think? Of course not, they would give us their VIEWS and OPINIONS just like all of us here. Ding ding ding!

Again, I have to call troll. Between the lack of anything substantive, the caps, the exclamation points, the insults, the silliness, the smilies, one can't, just can't, take you seriously. I have several times asked you for serious answers and you've thoroughly avoided answering those questions, preferring instead to construct strawman and other silliness.

So you have twice admitted that you will accept no evidence for evolution but have yet to produce ANY empirical evidence for creationism.

I'd be interested to see the scriptural evidence, since he has made claims that Dem is using a botched translation.

No, it seems that LOGIC means nothing to you. We could both beat around the bush all day. You are doing a fine job of misquoting the Bible however. Good job! Opinions, aren't they marvelous? I'm still waiting on your evidence as well. Did we come from apes? How about micro organisms from the sea? Maybe alians created us? Maybe we where droped on Earth by a Comet or Meteor? Hmmm.... a Stork perhaps?
Sunshine, you do LOGIC like I've done Rachel Weisz...

As you have ultimately failed at as well. Keep trying though, even if it's to no avail.
No, I'm perfectly capable of dicussing the theory of evolution, and I suspect I have trashed your ludicrous statement about not having descended from a common ancestor shared with the rest of the great apes. You, on the other hand don't even seem capable of stating which parts of the (apparently erroneous) theory you have a problem with.

What do you think? Of course not, they would give us their VIEWS and OPINIONS just like all of us here. Ding ding ding!

So you would accept their origen theory alongside Xtian creationism and evolution?

I'll ask the biologists and you ask the Theologists. Let's see what happens, any briliant guesses? Where to now?

Okay. Let's do that. I think what you'll find is that the biologists will all agree and the theologists will rarely agree. In fact, many theologists actually believe in evolution and agree the evidence for it is emperical. How many biologists do you think will agree that your evidence is emperical?

I'd be interested to see the scriptural evidence, since he has made claims that Dem is using a botched translation.

Since I've read several quite different translations, I want to see the claimed empirical evidence for creationism. Since I have never seen any before,I like to learn new things .

And who said Creationism belongs in a science class? Not I, it's a different class all it's own.

You're correct. It belongs in Mythology.

You're correct. It belongs in Mythology.

Are you being intentionally insulting? You have nothing to fear from us so no need to be bitter. We are called Christians not Xtians. And generally if you're trying to have a real conversation we use terms like theology rather than mythology because of the connotations.

Wow, someone doesn't remember what they said. Let's retread, shall we?



Now, it would seem here that you claim that both creationism and evolution are theories and that only fact/reality should be taught to children.

So I asked what would pass the litmus test for you, unless you're claiming that every belief that anyone has EVER held be taught.

See, we don't think evolution is fact or that science has access to fact. Creation could be fact even according to science, but science doesn't deal in facts. It only deals in theories that can be reached by available emperical evidence (that is evidence that can be reached either directly or indirectly through experimentation or observation). Science doesn't claim that any conclusion it has ever reached is infallible or necessarily represents absolute truth.

I'll state it again, NO SCIENTIST BELIEVES THAT EVOLUTION IS A FACT.

Theories are allowed in the classroom provided there is observed evidence for them. If there is observed evidence fo Creation then it should be included in that classroom, but I haven't yet seen it.

So now, I'll ask again, what qualifies Creation as a fact? Can you try be a little calmer this time when you reply.


No! That was a reply to your previous response. You will need to scroll back a bit furthur to retrieve what you posted. Happy hunting!

I'll counter your above response with this: NO THEOLOGIAN OF A SPECIFIC FAITH BELIEVES IN CREATION THE SAME WAY AS A THEOLOGIAN OF A DIFFERENT FAITH.


I could get real cute with your statement and add more, but I won't.

Also, I repeat, if Creationism should not be taught in schools, because as you say, there are to many religious views, then Evolution should not be taught as well. Why do you keep bringing this up? Fair is fair, you can't have it both ways.

What qualifies Creation as fact you ask? I'll answer that one more time for you: History, scriptures and documents and geographical locations. Evidence of Jesus and all other persons in the Bible abound. Or was Jesus just a make believe charachter in your opinion?

Are you being intentionally insulting? You have nothing to fear from us so no need to be bitter. We are called Christians not Xtians. And generally if you're trying to have a real conversation we use terms like theology rather than mythology because of the connotations.

For the mythology thing yes. I'll delete it.

The Xtian thing is just a common shortening that is used (Xmas, etc. ) No insulting meant there.

For the mythology thing yes. I'll delete it.

The Xtian thing is just a common shortening that is used (Xmas, etc. ) No insulting meant there.

Well, just so you know, it's insulting. The Xmas thing wasn't to make it shorter, it was to make it more secular. It offends Christians when you replace the name of their savior with an X.

No! That was a reply to your previous response. You will need to scroll back a bit furthur to retrieve what you posted. Happy hunting!

I'll counter your above response with this: NO THEOLOGIAN OF A SPECIFIC FAITH BELIEVES IN CREATION THE SAME WAY AS A THEOLOGIAN OF A DIFFERENT FAITH.?

So do you think they should ALL be included in a school curiculum?


I could get real cute with your statement and add more, but I won't.

Also, I repeat, if Creationism should not be taught in schools, because as you say, there are to many religious views, then Evolution should not be taught as well. Why do you keep bringing this up? Fair is fair, you can't have it both ways.

Evolution is not a "religion". It is based on science and therefore belongs in a science class. You have stated that there is empirical evidence for creationism but have yet to present it. Creationism can be taught in school, just not in science and along w/ the beliefs of other faiths.

What qualifies Creation as fact you ask? I'll answer that one more time for you: History, scriptures and documents and geographical locations. Evidence of Jesus and all other persons in the Bible abound. Or was Jesus just a make believe charachter in your opinion?

Source them. BTW, Your arguement would qualify the Epic of Gilgamesh as a factual event.

Well, just so you know, it's insulting. The Xmas thing wasn't to make it shorter, it was to make it more secular. It offends Christians when you replace the name of their savior with an X.

For politeness sake, I'll avoid doing it here. My wife and in-laws (all very devout) don't mind it though.

No! That was a reply to your previous response. You will need to scroll back a bit furthur to retrieve what you posted. Happy hunting!

I read what I posted. I've never used fact in any post. The point is that you claimed it wasn't fact and only theory and then you claimed it was fact. Your inconsistency has nothing to do with me or my posts unless you would like to show where I was inconsistent. Show some evidence. I know how you hate to do that.

I'll counter your above response with this: NO THEOLOGIAN OF A SPECIFIC FAITH BELIEVES IN CREATION THE SAME WAY AS A THEOLOGIAN OF A DIFFERENT FAITH.

How does this counter anything? You keep claiming we think they are facts and we don't. The only one claiming fact is you. So the burden of 'fact' is on you. You've avoided it. No one denies the bolded sentence above, but you've created the strawman that people are claiming evolution is fact several times.

I could get real cute with your statement and add more, but I won't.

I suspect you can't.

Also, I repeat, if Creationism should not be taught in schools, because as you say, there are to many religious views, then Evolution should not be taught as well. Why do you keep bringing this up? Fair is fair, you can't have it both ways.

Evolution is not a religious view. History, reading comprehension and science are all analysis of available emperical evidence and taught as such. If you can show how your theories are emperical then you're right they should be taught in school as well. Or if you would like to remove Evolution from school as you say, then tell us what you would leave in and what would be your basis for keeping it in? I've asked you this a number of time and your response every time is that "fair's fair comment". Do you actually have any reasoning behind your opinions or no?

What qualifies Creation as fact you ask? I'll answer that one more time for you: History, scriptures and documents and geographical locations. Evidence of Jesus and all other persons in the Bible abound. Or was Jesus just a make believe charachter in your opinion?

Really? There are geographical locations for Creation? Can you please post some of the scripture behind your version of Creation? I've asked this several times and you've ignored my request.

And as far as your rather poor point, I believe that Christ was my personal Savior. I also believe God created the Earth and that the evidence that science finds is evidence of how he did it. When one properly reads the Bible, one can find that it is not in contradiction with science unless you put the same type of interpretation into effect about how the universe revolves around the Earth and that the Earth is flat and on pillars, etc. Except, nearly all theologians take that these were descriptive forms much like creation, but I'm willing to hear your side. Would you post the scripture please?

So do you accept that your view is fallible? What would you do if you found scripture that counters the scripture you believe? The dead sea scrolls for example? What if you found evidence that certain translations were obscured by the church because they felt it gave individuals too much power? Would you care if you found out that in the early days of the church their beliefs were different than yours? Is your faith based on a true analysis of the text or is it blind?

Can you tell me the place where Paul says he is not an authority and that his views on virgins are as a man of education and not under the authority of God? I mean I'm sure you've read it dozens of times.


I'm sure you own a Bible as do I, and believe me I could post and debate scripture all day. But we each have a different understanding and interpretation of it. So what's the point you are trying to make?

I'll answer your question with a question. Adam and Eve had children (Cain and Abel and......)? Now how did life continue from there? I asked this question to my 4th grade teacher (a Catholic nun). Till this day, no one has ever given me her response. Not one! An I value and believe her opinion above all others I have asked. 50% of who I've asked have failed to give me an answer at all, might I add. They simply have told me: They don't know. In the Bible it states: That there are many things that GOD does not want us to know nor understand. Why? To test our faith!


In the past, I have posted many scriptures here, at politics.com (no longer go there) and at fullpolitics.com and people still will rebuke and distort the writtings to fit their immoral lifestyles. Clear and straight forward scriptures proclaiming prostitution, sodomy and homosexuality as sins, and yet there are those that say it's not true. We as humans can't keep and follow 10 commandments, so what is to be expected?

So you have twice admitted that you will accept no evidence for evolution but have yet to produce ANY empirical evidence for creationism.


Sorry, I only speak Eglish and Spanish. What language might you be speaking?

Again, I have to call troll. Between the lack of anything substantive, the caps, the exclamation points, the insults, the silliness, the smilies, one can't, just can't, take you seriously. I have several times asked you for serious answers and you've thoroughly avoided answering those questions, preferring instead to construct strawman and other silliness.


Your words are harmless to me. My faith is in GOD allmighty.

So you would accept their origen theory alongside Xtian creationism and evolution?

No! I have my views and beliefs (Creatinism only), just like you or anyone else. Everyone believes in someone or something.

In the past, I have posted many scriptures here, at politics.com (no longer go there) and at fullpolitics.com and people still will rebuke and distort the writtings to fit their immoral lifestyles. Clear and straight forward scriptures proclaiming prostitution, sodomy and homosexuality as sins, and yet there are those that say it's not true. We as humans can't keep and follow 10 commandments, so what is to be expected?
And from my point of view it is you who distort the writings to fit your immoral viewpoints

Care to prove me wrong?

Your words are harmless to me. My faith is in GOD allmighty.
And why would you come to a debate forum only to proclaim your unshakable faith?

Go ahead be my guest! Provide me with some of my immoral viewpoints.

Go ahead be my guest! Provide me with some of my immoral viewpoints.
Personaly I find intollorence (meaning trying to restrict) of other lifestiles as long as they dont directly and positivly interfere directly with others rights to do the same to be imoral
You using your book to attempt to do just that is absolutly against my morals

And why would you come to a debate forum only to proclaim your unshakable faith?


And why do others come to this forum just to mock Jesus? Perhaps because GOD has given us all free will?

And why do others come to this forum just to mock Jesus? Perhaps because GOD has given us all free will?
I did not ask why you COULD post on the forum I asked why DO you

Seems kind of stupid to me

Personaly I find intollorence (meaning trying to restrict) of other lifestiles as long as they dont directly and positivly interfere directly with others rights to do the same to be imoral
You using your book to attempt to do just that is absolutly against my morals


And vice-versa! So what makes you any better by mocking my faith and my book?

And vice-versa! So what makes you any better by mocking my faith and my book?
I said nothing about mocking

You can mock me and my lifestyle as much as you want, ane me yours

Trying to force your lifestyle on me is what I find imoral, not your opinion of it

I'm sure you own a Bible as do I, and believe me I could post and debate scripture all day. But we each have a different understanding and interpretation of it. So what's the point you are trying to make?

You do realize there are different version of scripture? What version of the Bible do you use and I'll quote it.

I'll answer your question with a question. Adam and Eve had children (Cain and Abel and......)? Now how did life continue from there? I asked this question to my 4th grade teacher (a Catholic nun). Till this day, no one has ever given me her response. Not one! An I value and believe her opinion above all others I have asked. 50% of who I've asked have failed to give me an answer at all, might I add. They simply have told me: They don't know. In the Bible it states: That there are many things that GOD does not want us to know nor understand. Why? To test our faith!

Um, you do realize how nonsensical it is to ask that question of someone who doesn't believe in a 7-day creation but believes God created the universe through natural processes, no? God tests our faith by allowing us to accept that evidence exists for some things but not for God. However, the evidence that avails itself to us it not to misdirect us, but to direct us.

In the past, I have posted many scriptures here, at politics.com (no longer go there) and at fullpolitics.com and people still will rebuke and distort the writtings to fit their immoral lifestyles. Clear and straight forward scriptures proclaiming prostitution, sodomy and homosexuality as sins, and yet there are those that say it's not true. We as humans can't keep and follow 10 commandments, so what is to be expected?

So you're saying that you don't have faith in your evidence enough to post it? And the reason people question such things is because many of these things weren't the intent when the Bible was written (including the books of the New Testament), which is evidenced by the early actions of the Church. So were they wrong or are contemporary Christians?

Sorry, I only speak Eglish and Spanish. What language might you be speaking?

Amusing in that we can actually quote you saying exactly what he said.

Your words are harmless to me. My faith is in GOD allmighty.

And yet you don't have the faith to present support for your statements. I asked for scripture and you said it's not worth it. What are you doing in this thread if not attempting to convince anyone? You're not presenting information or offering evidence or even saying specifically what you find wrong, so what is your point here, if not as a troll?

I did not ask why you COULD post on the forum I asked why DO you

Seems kind of stupid to me


That's your opinion. To each his/her own, and because through free will, I can.

That's your opinion. To each his/her own, and because throw free will, I can.

He didn't ask how, he asked why. See this is why I think you're a troll. You're working so hard to not answer a single question, which doesn't really coincide with a person who claims to want the world to be a better place. I really am willing to openly look at your evidence and to openly offer you mine if you're interested. Otherwise you're just hijacking the thread.

And yet you don't have the faith to present support for your statements. I asked for scripture and you said it's not worth it. What are you doing in this thread if not attempting to convince anyone? You're not presenting information or offering evidence or even saying specifically what you find wrong, so what is your point here, if not as a troll?
Like I said I dont understand it either ... it seems so pointless specialy in a debate forum

He didn't ask how, he asked why. See this is why I think you're a troll. You're working so hard to not answer a single question, which doesn't really coincide with a person who claims to want the world to be a better place. I really am willing to openly look at your evidence and to openly offer you mine if you're interested. Otherwise you're just hijacking the thread.
Exactly I already said free will was not the question
Motivation was my question not why he has the ability to

You do realize there are different version of scripture? What version of the Bible do you use and I'll quote it.



Um, you do realize how nonsensical it is to ask that question of someone who doesn't believe in a 7-day creation but believes God created the universe through natural processes, no? God tests our faith by allowing us to accept that evidence exists for some things but not for God. However, the evidence that avails itself to us it not to misdirect us, but to direct us.



So you're saying that you don't have faith in your evidence enough to post it? And the reason people question such things is because many of these things weren't the intent when the Bible was written (including the books of the New Testament), which is evidenced by the early actions of the Church. So were they wrong or are contemporary Christians?


You refute my views and I refute yours. What else is new? How old are you? You must be a New Age Christian! How can anyone claiming to be Catholic or Christian not accept the writtings and teachings of Jesus and the Holy Scripture? You just got through throwing Genesis right out the window. Any other books you would like to remove from the Holy Bible? Unbelievable!

He didn't ask how, he asked why. See this is why I think you're a troll. You're working so hard to not answer a single question, which doesn't really coincide with a person who claims to want the world to be a better place. I really am willing to openly look at your evidence and to openly offer you mine if you're interested. Otherwise you're just hijacking the thread.


Again, yet another opinion of yours. Mine differs greatly! I'm still waiting for everyone to answer my questions. So I guess we are even. Hi troll, do you have any useful information you would like to share? Read the Bible thouroughly and then get back to me. Otherwise we are wasting each others time.

Exactly I already said free will was not the question
Motivation was my question not why he has the ability to


You want me to explain Catholic dogma to you? Sure..... just by looking at your signature, this should be a breeze.

You want me to explain Catholic dogma to you? Sure..... just by looking at your signature, this should be a breeze.
Go for it I was a RC for 10 years before my priest molested me and for another 5 years after untill I started to see the light

I would be happy to hear and give my opinions on "catholic dogma"

You refute my views and I refute yours. What else is new? How old are you? You must be a New Age Christian! How can anyone claiming to be Catholic or Christian not accept the writtings and teachings of Jesus and the Holy Scripture? You just got through throwing Genesis right out the window. Any other books you would like to remove from the Holy Bible? Unbelievable!

I accept the teaching of Jesus. You haven't presented any. You haven't refuted anything. You haven't offered anything to the thread. I live and teach according the teachings of Jesus. Jesus wasn't rude to people as you've been. Jesus taught. He didn't just go, "no, what's the point of telling you anything cuz you won't want to hear it." You've waste a ton of thread space to not say anything.

Again, yet another opinion of yours. Mine differs greatly! I'm still waiting for everyone to answer my questions. So I guess we are even. Hi troll, do you have any useful information you would like to share? Read the Bible thouroughly and then get back to me. Otherwise we are wasting each others time.

Ask me a question. I'll be glad to answer. I told you I'd be glad to answer your question of you actually care to hear the answers. But when I'm done you have to answer mine.

Ask me a question. I'll be glad to answer. I told you I'd be glad to answer your question of you actually care to hear the answers. But when I'm done you have to answer mine.
Makes sense ... being standard debating style :)

You want me to explain Catholic dogma to you? Sure..... just by looking at your signature, this should be a breeze.

Catholic dogma is the reason you're here. Does it say be careful not to give any information to anyone.

Point is: Relegion Sucks

No, it seems that LOGIC means nothing to you.

So 2 +3 = 88 really is just an opinion?

You are doing a fine job of misquoting the Bible however. Good job!

Oh really? Where did I do that?

I'm still waiting on your evidence as well.

I'm not the one claiming my faith to be absolute fact backed up by empirical evidence. That is all you, my friend. If you are going to claim faith to have empirical evidence, you are going to have to produce that evidence. Of course, actually having empirical evidence of God would make God part of and subject to the universe, meaning that the idea of God as creator of the universe would be disproven.....

Did we come from apes?

No, but evidence does seem to suggest that we share a common ancestor with them. Fun things, like DNA.

How about micro organisms from the sea?

Evidence does seem to suggest it.

Maybe alians created us?

Possibly, but we have no empirical evidence of any such occurrence, at least not that anyone in the scientific community has presented.

Maybe we where droped on Earth by a Comet or Meteor?

Possibly, but we have no empirical evidence of any such occurrence, at least not that anyone in the scientific community has presented.

Hmmm.... a Stork perhaps?

Possibly (although very improbably), but we have no evidence of any such occurrence, at least not that anyone in the scientific community has presented.

Also, I repeat, if Creationism should not be taught in schools, because as you say, there are to many religious views, then Evolution should not be taught as well.

That doesn't follow. There is one accepted scientific theory, accepted by all of those who follow the scientific method. If there wasn't, we would be teaching more than one in the schools (or skipping that, as we would figure that more than one theory would be too much to teach in introductory classes).

Meanwhile, the reason that you cannot teach religion in schools is the 1st Amendment. The government cannot establish one religion above the others. Thus, it must teach all of them completely equally, or none at all. That has nothing at all to do with evolutionary theory, as evolutionary theory has nothign at all to do with religion.

What qualifies Creation as fact you ask? I'll answer that one more time for you: History, scriptures and documents and geographical locations. Evidence of Jesus and all other persons in the Bible abound. Or was Jesus just a make believe charachter in your opinion?

How do you prove that your Scriptures are any better than anyone else's? Pretty much every religion has Scriptures of a sort. Where in written history is there a first-hand account of creation? Where in any document is there a first-hand account of creation? What geographical location proves Creationism?

Then tell me: Where did the first man and woman come from? How were they born?
God created everything, I was not around to see where exactly they came from.
I am not sure how it all went down, never will be able to prove it.

All science is not atheistic in it's teachings. Evolution however, certainly is.
I don't really think so, at least not how I was taught evolution anyway, it had nothing to do with God at all because science (and that is what evolution is) is in no position to comment on God at all because he is untestable by human means.

I wonder why so many creationists limit God, I mean really you say you believe in an "all mighty do whatever he wants because he can" God, but then when things are presented that are not how you assume they happened they are anti-God.

God is limitless, I am not going to be the one to say that he couldn't have guided evolution.