NationStates Jolt Archive

Jesus was "spreading his beliefs" (recruiting) AND making a point about peace.
What if Jesus was like Hilter and just wanting to spread his filth?

About the pony issue, maybe he had his reasons? Maybe it was better for you not to have a pony. Your right, it doesn't prove anything.

And that is why you do not hear the truth for you do not believe. He who have ears to hear, let him hear.

Quite a few people here "hear" different "truths" than you.

Well, I am only going to say I believe in God. I might not be able to bring definite proof for Gods existence, but that is rather difficult. Guess it is part of the way, even Thomas doubted.

What if Jesus was like Hilter and just wanting to spread his filth?

:rolleyes:

And that is why you do not hear the truth for you do not believe. He who have ears to hear, let him hear.

Have any of your professor's helped explain to you that a "truth" that can only be supported to those who already "believe" is fine for a belief, but its not really proof?

What if Jesus was like Hilter and just wanting to spread his filth?

If you think making a point about peace is filth, my condolences, but again thats another belief you choose to believe.

Quite a few people here "hear" different "truths" than you.

The truths I speak of come from His Holy Word.

The truths I speak of come from His Holy Word.

Thats a mere version of the truth.

The truths I speak of come from His Holy Word.

Back to the circular logic.

:rolleyes:
I'm seruious. What if Jesus was just an attention whore?

Thats a mere version of the truth.

No it is not a version for the Holy Word is the truth.

Well, comparring Jesus with Hitler is quite... well, something. I beg to differ. Whatever you think, wheter Jesus was the Son of God, Messiah or just a human prophet, he certainly was not like Hitler and you cannot throw all his teaching as filth.
The only good comparrision in historical times is Mahatma Ghandi.

I'm seruious. What if Jesus was just an attention whore?

Thats what Romans thought, and they didn't like it. But Jesus, was one of the many people trying to spread their own ideologies.

No it is not a version for the Holy Word is the truth.
The truth is, you're making an ass out of yourself.

No it is not a version for the Holy Word is the truth.

And which one of the hundreds of "versions" in English alone is the "truth"?

Yours is "a" version of "a" truth.

The truth is, you're making an ass out of yourself.

You have already done that by denying the Lord our God.

And which one of the hundreds of "versions" in English alone is the "truth"?

Yours is "a" version of "a" truth.

The Word of the Lord is the truth above all things.

Thats what Romans thought, and they didn't like it. But Jesus, was one of the many people trying to spread their own ideologies.
Hm.

I'm familiar with purgery.

And your plea is specifically relieved from such prosecution, under your right to avoid incriminating statements. If you don't have that in your country, my condolensces.

EDIT: Seriously, in your country, you can be charged with purgery for your plea? That would mean that it would be a crime to not forfeit your defense.

I dont think you quite understand. Your plea can only be purgery if you are found to be guilty after pleaing not guilty.

@corn
I think you should stop flaming people. We all respect your beliefs in [whatever].

The Word of the Lord is the truth above all things.

Translation: I'm not going to answer the question.

You have already done that by denying the Lord our God.
Oh, little boy, that's not true.

I think we should put this thread under "The Thousand Year Debates"

Translation: I'm not going to answer the question.
:p

I think we should put this thread under "The Thousand Year Debates"
"It is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend"

"It is the thread that never ends, yes it goes on and on my friend"

I believe this calls for another forum section. "The Heated Debates" "Never-ending Threads"

No.

And even if there was a God, she wouldn't deserve our worship.

Cat, you've got a lot of experience and training in argument, I'd like your opinion on this.

I've pointed to some actions, orders, and laws attributed to God in the Old Testament, as evidence that, if the Bible contains no falsehoods, God has done terrible things. I then point out that if one beileves in the Bible as without falsehood and still obey it, they are shown to abide by doing horrible things in the name or religion.

However, some claim that since I'm an athiest, it's "totally illogical" for me to use the Bible as evidence.

Is it not reasonable to examine the opposing side's information and examine its ramifications?

However, some claim that since I'm an athiest, it's "totally illogical" for me to use the Bible as evidence.


Using the Bible as evidence is something like using alibi's for evidence, with no offence.

I dont think you quite understand. Your plea can only be purgery if you are found to be guilty after pleaing not guilty.

Oh really? In what country?

Please name one instance where a prosecution of purgery has succeeded against someone's plea.

If you don't have access to LexisNexis, any citation from any accepted legal register would be fine.

If this has happened in a country other than the U.S., please tell me where.

Using the Bible as evidence is something like using alibi's for evidence, with no offence.

Please explain.

A confirmed alibi, or one for which there is corroborating evidence estblashing your presence elsewhere at the time of a crime, is actually quite sound evidence. It can sometimes even get charges dropped out of hand, depending on whether the crime requires the perpetrator to be present.

Ideally, thats purgery. You would never know.

Please explain.

A confirmed alibi, or one for which there is corroborating evidence estblashing your presence elsewhere at the time of a crime, is actually quite sound evidence. It can sometimes even get charges dropped out of hand, depending on whether the crime requires the perpetrator to be present.

An "un-confirmed alibi" how about that.

An "un-confirmed alibi" how about that.

So we are comparing the veracity of the Bible to that of an unconfirmed alibi. I have no problem with that, but I'm not sure Corneliu would agree..

Ideally, thats purgery. You would never know.

Making a plea of not guilty if you're guilty is purgery? In what country?

Does anybody understand why that would make it a crime to excercise the right to a defense?

You would never know what?

Making a plea of not guilty if you're guilty is purgery? In what country?

None that I know of.

Does anybody understand why that would make it a crime to excercise the right to a defense?

And a violation of the US Constitution if its occuring in my nation.

None that I know of.


And a violation of the US Constitution if its occuring in my nation.

Does anybody know where Adriatica II is from? Maybe they have no such protections there.

Does anybody know where Adriatica II is from? Maybe they have no such protections there.
I believe it is the UK.

Others who have been saved have not rejected God...

a) ..yet

b) ...as far as you know.

God's grace is everlasting...

I agree, that is why I am still saved

Humans can't reject God's call...

I agree, which is why I was saved in the first place

Hold on, I may be arguing this wrong.

Are you, right now, an atheist?

I was not saved, I just thought I was...

Then, logically, the same must feasibly be true for you, and anyone else?

Technically correct.



Well, of COURSE you believe YOU are elect. No one comes up with, or buys into, a system which makes them the reject.

Well, duh. :D

I am a little worried that you think you may have been seduced by Satan, though. Especially since scripture is quite clear that once we are saved, we are always saved.

No, I don't think that. I said that if I, for some unimaginable reason, reject God totally and fully (although I have no intention of ever doing so), then I was never truely saved in the first place, and the feeling of salvation was a satanic trick. I never said I AM being seduced. I am simply using myself as a hypothetical example, that is all.

Cat, you've got a lot of experience and training in argument, I'd like your opinion on this.

I've pointed to some actions, orders, and laws attributed to God in the Old Testament, as evidence that, if the Bible contains no falsehoods, God has done terrible things. I then point out that if one beileves in the Bible as without falsehood and still obey it, they are shown to abide by doing horrible things in the name or religion.

However, some claim that since I'm an athiest, it's "totally illogical" for me to use the Bible as evidence.

Is it not reasonable to examine the opposing side's information and examine its ramifications?
To point to "actions, orders, and laws attributed to God", one must first postulate an actual existence for God. For the atheist, isn't that forfeiting your side, rather than examining the opposing side?

To point to "actions, orders, and laws attributed to God", one must first postulate an actual existence for God. For the atheist, isn't that forfeiting your side, rather than examining the opposing side?

Eh? So, what, you have to believe in something to talk about it?

To point to "actions, orders, and laws attributed to God", one must first postulate an actual existence for God. For the atheist, isn't that forfeiting your side, rather than examining the opposing side?

Not at all. Its just saying "If your position is true, the following things are thus also true, and these would be the implications therof. Please address them".

Its a simple use of propositional logic.

Suppose Albert says "I should be able to do anything I want without interference".

and Bob replies "Well, if that were true, you'd be able to rob banks and hurt people if you wanted, without interference. What are the implications of that?"

So, Willamena, is Bob saying its okay to rob banks? Or is he pointing out the results of Albert's statement?

EDIT: Note, I was careful to say "attributed to God". Can I can not point out and examine things attributed to Buddha without being a buddhist?

Eh? So, what, you have to believe in something to talk about it?

That's my point. It in no way surrenders the athiest position to examine the implications of considering the bible to be true.

Seriously, that kind of examination of the results of the opposing axioms is a long-standing and time-honored means of analysis.

Do they honestly not teach it anymore?

The Socratic Method in philosophy, proof by contradiction in Discrete Math, even basic debate or public speaking classes should be introducing this kind of thing, even before the undergraduate level.

I believe it is the UK.

Can you be charged with perjury in relation to your plea in the UK?

What about Commonwealth countries?

Can you be charged with perjury in relation to your plea in the UK?

What about Commonwealth countries?
I dunno. I was pointing out Adriatica's location.

I dunno. I was pointing out Adriatica's location.

I see, I'll have to ask him/her later.

Not at all. Its just saying "If your position is true, the following things are thus also true, and these would be the implications therof. Please address them".

Its a simple use of propositional logic.

Suppose Albert says "I should be able to do anything I want without interference".

and Bob replies "Well, if that were true, you'd be able to rob banks and hurt people if you wanted, without interference. What are the implications of that?"

So, Willamena, is Bob saying its okay to rob banks? Or is he pointing out the results of Albert's statement?

EDIT: Note, I was careful to say "attributed to God". Can I can not point out and examine things attributed to Buddha without being a buddhist?
Well, that's not a good analogy, as "it's okay to do..." is not the same argument as "it exists..."

At one point (before my life got WAY too busy), I was actually going to work up full versions of some of those arguments, and dedicate a website to them... :(

I think this (http://www.jewsforjudaism.com/) place has a lot of stuff like that.

The first obligation on the person is to know about Allah. Allah is the Creator of all the existent things and is the One Who manages all the creation. If, with our sound mind, we carefully think about all the creations and ponder about their existence, we must know that they have a Creator Who created them.


The mental proof that Allah exists :

With the sound mind, we know irrefutably that every writing has to have a writer, the act of hitting has to have a hitter, and that a building has to have a builder. Therefore, it follows that this universe with all the creations in it has to have a creator Who is Alive, attributed with Will, Knowledge, and Power, and this is Allah. He is clear of all imperfections. He is the One Who does not resemble any of His creations, and nothing resembles Him. The sound mind does not accept the existence of an action without someone who carried it out.

It is not conceivable for nature to be the Creator, because nature has no will. So, how would nature create? It is also not permissible for something to create itself. Finally, something cannot create something that resembles it.

For example, the child is born small; he does not talk or walk. Then he develops. He starts gradually and slowly to talk and walk. Then he matures and becomes a young man, then middle-aged, then old, after which he dies. Who changed him and transformed him from one state to another? Allah is the One Who created and changed him, and willed for him to die.

A story of a man who denied the existence of Allah:

It is related that a man who denied the existence of the Creator came once to one of the caliphs and told him: "The scholars of your time say that there is a creator for this universe, and I am prepared to prove to them that this universe has no creator."

The caliph sent for one of the top scholars telling him of the man's claim and ordering him to come. The scholar was purposely late; then he came. The caliph welcomed him and seated him in the center of the session. Present at this meeting were many scholars and important people. So the man said: "Why were you late in your arrival?" The scholar said: "What if I tell you that a very strange matter occurred to me, and because of it I was late? My house is behind the river of Dijlah (Tigris). I came to cross the river, but I did not find anything other than an old boat with broken planks. When my gaze fell onto it, the planks moved, came together, and reassembled so that the boat became seaworthy. All this happened without the work of a carpenter or a worker. I sat in it, crossed the river, and came to this place.”

The man said: "O people, listen to what your scholar says. Have you heard anything more absurd than this? How can a boat exist without a carpenter to build it? This is an explicit lie."

The scholar said: "O blasphemer, if the mind does not accept the existence of a boat without a builder or carpenter, then how do you say that this entire universe exists without a creator?" The man became silent. He was refuted. The caliph punished him because of his bad beliefs.:)

Eh? So, what, you have to believe in something to talk about it?
If, by talking about something you are required to lend it credence, and your position is that it does not exist, isn't that arguing from a disadvantage?

Prove it :D


It has been proven. Many many times. All you need to do is find the rate of change of temperature in the cosmic background ratiation, take that back 14 billion years, and bingo, initial temperature of the universe. The attempt to get a tepmerature as big as this in a particle accelerator and view the effects it has on the particles. This is called "scientific proof". Also known as "fact".

Well, that's not a good analogy, as "it's okay to do..." is not the same argument as "it exists..."

Well let's try a better analogy.

Let's say Bob believes that the Brahma exists, and that the tenets of that religion state that there are castes, with some people being higher in value than others (supposing that is in fact what some of them believe).

If athiest Albert says "Bob, if Brahma exists, then that would establish that not all people are equal in the eyes of the supreme being. What are the implications of that?"

Is Bob surrendering his athiest position?

Prove that he doesn't.
I know you're not going to pay a word of attention to this, but allow me to address your request.

Do you believe God is omnipotent? That in itself is an impossibility, since for a thing to be all-powerful implies superior power even over itself, which is a contradiction.

However, that doesn't in itself prove the non-existence of all Gods that could possibly be. God could, for instance, simply have complete power over this reality.

This notion has a foil when we consider that God is entirely benevolent (read both universally good intentioned and with the personal virtues to actively seek to resolve any problems), where this reality is not. If God had complete power and was entirely benevolent, the reality he controlled would also be.

The same argument applies more strongly on a local scale to planetary matters. If God had complete power over the affairs of this world and was also entirely benevolent then the world we lived in would be an entirely benevolent one.

Thus, we come to the notions that either God is not entirely benevolent or he does not have complete control over the affairs of this planet.

One of the prerequisites for your God is that he embodies all that is Good, yes? I personally do not believe this to be the case, and can entirely accept that the world may be the result of a fully-powerful God who got lazy or has some sort of abnormal disrespect for his creations in playing around with them. However, this is not the God we are talking about. (Or is it? If you're wishing to argue that the globally powerful God sets its own standards of Benevolence then it is reasonable to lump it in with this section as a God who is lacking in some virtue and/or some power that would enable it to create an empathetic world from its creation's perspective over and above its own)

Anyway, if God does not have full control over the world, the next question to ask is "What control could it have?" This is essentially the problem of how harm happens in God's presence. If we assume benevolence, as above, it is reasonable to speculate that God cannot directly control
The free human mind (wars, murder, famine, poverty etc.)
The earth's current geographical and physical structure (earthquakes, tsunamis, global warming, peak oil et al.)
The nature of causality
This one is important. God does not change the past for you once it has been lived. God didn't just go back and remove the tree from eden, for instance (as a hypothetical example), even though that would be the ethical thing to do for a time-surpassing deity. Once the past has been and gone, that's it. God is not capable of reversing the process.

This has grand repercussions in the notion of physical behaviour. A cause will always have a predeterminable effect. If we then suppose that God predetermined all of the possible effects before the causes were put into place then we achieve yet another contradiction through benevolence. Thus, the benevolent God cannot be physically capable of changing anything without himself being tied within the wheel of fate of creation, which in turn implies that it is itself either a freeform cause (one with an initial cause outside of this reality's timespan but that nonetheless has an effect) or an effect of the physical world.

Here, things start to get really interesting. If it is a freeform cause, it requires a little more analysis. We have already determined that it cannot be the sole cause of its type, since it is a benevolent one. One of the properties of God is, however, its uniqueness; its "One True"ness. Thus, we have another contradiction. Either there are more than one of them, God is not benevolent or it is an effect of creation rather than a cause of it.

I'm going to stop this now. Either God is not completely benevolent, there are more than one of them or it is something within reality itself and not its direct creator.

If it is an effect, what is it? At this point, it delves into the realm of systemic philosophy, and now I feel like I'm on the home stretch. God as a benevolent entity created within reality must be a living thing. It is, I deduce, a systemic, emergent being. And so do we arrive at Pantheism as the ultimate destination of speculation of benevolent higher powers.

So, yeah. Some Gods might exist. There might even be A God. But not Monotheism's.

It has been proven. Many many times. All you need to do is find the rate of change of temperature in the cosmic background ratiation, take that back 14 billion years, and bingo, initial temperature of the universe. The attempt to get a tepmerature as big as this in a particle accelerator and view the effects it has on the particles. This is called "scientific proof". Also known as "fact".

And where did this 14 billion year number come from? It has already been proven that Carbon Dating is worthless so where did the 14 billion year number come from and who came up with it?

Does anybody know where Adriatica II is from? Maybe they have no such protections there.

I'm from the UK. While it is not specifcly purgery the point of it is that if you are found guilty the purgury is implicit and thus your sentence is adjusted acordingly.

This question is quite arguably unlike any other. It has been the subject, to some degree, of the most hotly debated topics in the history of mankind. Everyone has an opinion on the matter, including agnostics. Even those that seem the share the same idea of there being a God differ to some degree. Most of the major religions are quite similar in their beliefs, but there are distinct key differences between them all that separates them on this issue. Let's just focus briefly on the more popular ones.

Followers of Islam believe in a single God who is equalled and unsurpassed in his qualities. He is the Creator of all that he we know, and we are his slaves. Nothing is beyond his knowledge or ability.

Followers of Christianity have a slightly more complicated opinion about God. They believe that God exists, but as three separate entities: the Father, the Son (Jesus) and the Holy Spirit. When they use the term God, they actually mean the "father" part. This is evidenced by their belief that Jesus is the son of God, and is currently in Heaven, reigning alongside his Father.

Followers of Judaism along with Muslims also believe that there is only one God, but along with Christians, they refer to God as their "father", a term Muslims consider blasphemous in this respect. However, they don't believe in the Holy Trinity aspect as Christians do.

Hindus are often misunderstood on the issue of their belief in God. They are often labeled as believing in multiple Gods, but, in fact, they actually only believe in one supreme God. The multiple Gods are simply different personas of the same one God, rather than distinct entities outright. However, unlike the Abrahamic religions, they believe that God lives within each and every one of us. This gives rise to the basis of their belief in reincarnation, which they believe is the process everyone undertakes before they can attain perfection and be at one with God.

Sikhism is very similar to Hinduism, which perhaps isn't surprising as the founder, Guru Nanak, was born into a Hindu family. The perceived difference between Sikhs and Hindus is the belief in one and multiple Gods due to the misconception of Hinduism. In reality, they believe in the same thing. The key difference between the two is the idea of castes that Hindus hold firmly.

Even those who don't follow any religion have an opinion on whether there is a God or not. Agnostics believe that it's not possible to determine whether or not God exists. Their opinion is that there isn't a definite answer either way, so they can't rule out any possibility. There is inconclusive evidence on both sides, and ultimately, God cannot be perceived by our senses.

Atheists believe that God does not exist, often quoting science in some form as evidence of this. Scientists have made many theories on the creation of the universe and our origin, and since none of these include a God, it is used as a basis for believing that God does not exist and is not necessary. Others use logic and personal belief of what God should be to derive whether God exists or not. The most common argument is that since God is not evil, and evil exists in this world, God cannot exist because he is not able (or willing) to remove evil and thus contradicts himself.

As can be seen, there is a wide diversity of opinion on whether there is a God, and exactly what God is. The question is, which, if any, is correct?

:rolleyes:

You kow we all agreed that smileys alone aren't valid comebacks. :headbang:

If, by talking about something you are required to lend it credence, and your position is that it does not exist, isn't that arguing from a disadvantage?

In what way does saying "If A is true, B is thus true, so how do you address the implication of B?" give credence to A being true?

Seriously, you can't understand how one can show where the opposing argument leads (and its percumbent implications) without somehow thus subscribing to the opposing argument?

I'm intrigued by the idea of circular logic and circular arguments. I would like to address this.

But first,

Corneliu, I know you are witnessing and defending the position of God and those who believe in him, but please note that you are being baited. I think that among them, IL Ruffino is the master-baitor (Sorry IL Ruffino - I just really wanted an opportunity to use that one - hope you don't offend easily ;-) ) Stand your ground, but recognise when they're yanking your chain!!

Now, I think I get where you're coming from Corneliu. I can see too why it becomes an infuriating, self feeding argument to those who oppose your position regarding acknowledging sin and requiring proof for your faith.

The way I see it, the burden of Proof is not on Corneliu as he is demonstrating faith. If you cannot believe in something without pouring over the evidence first, then you cannot seriously believe you have faith.

Have any of you ever seen, piled up infront of you, $10,000,000,000,000? I'm guessing that if there are any, they are few! Can you believe that $10,000,000,000,000 exists somewhere in the world? I'll bet that you can. Infact, I'd bet $10,000,000,000,000 that you can. Congratulations!!! You have faith in SOMETHING!!

That's a pretty old example and one you've probably heard before....but how's about this:

If you had $10,000,000,000,000 infront of you in $1 bills... how would you know you were looking at $10,000,000,000,000? If you saw 3 bills infront of you then you'd know you had $3. I think it's considered that we can count upto about 7 items without actually counting them out when they're placed infront of us. So how would you KNOW that 10,000,000,000,000 $1 bills infront of you was indeed that amount? You'd have to have faith that the bank counted it properly, would you not? You'd have faith that the big stack infront of you was your $10Bn. You wouldn't need it proven, and if you really insisted on seeing it counted out and doing it yourself, you are still subject to your inability as a human being to see ten billion things at once.

In terms of God, the proof if you care to find it is all about us. But so vast is it you have no way of comprehending it.

Opening one's ears to hear, or indeed simply openning ones senses to experience God negates a need for proof. Infact, proof in these terms almost begins to leave a nasty taste in your mouth because seeking proof becomes absurd. Like saying "give me proof that water is wet, that the sky is blue, that the night is dark...."

Sadly, saying this to those who are not in the place to understand the feeling, simply sounds unfounded and rediculous. You don't want to embark on any such mission to find God because you've made your mind up and it is a waste of your time. And I'd ask you to consider the possibility that perhaps it is frightening incase you make a fool of yourself....and worse still, that there might be a God and you begin to need him. I ask you to consider it becasue I know the temptation will be to spit back with "No that's not the reason" without entertaining the possibility for a moment.

I was told recently of a man (I can't recall who but I think he was a minister) who toted a sandwich-board saying on the front "I am a FOOL for GOD" and on his back: "Who's FOOL are YOU?"



You don't have to like my position, but I'd request you give the words a little consideration before dismissing them out of hand.




Kin Wicked

The issue of which idea of God, if any, is correct is very important because ultimately there can be only one truth, e.g. there cannot be one God for Muslims, and a separate God for Hindus. If there is a Creator, then this Creator will be God of all mankind, not just part of it. Therefore, there can be, at most, only one correct ideology.

However, due to the diversity of current opinion among mankind, this issue becomes a separating factor. For most people, the question is subjective, and as such, it is held onto very strongly. Many hold their opinion so strongly that they are prepared to give their life in order to defend and propagate it.

Due to mankind separating into groups based on their beliefs in God, with each thinking they are correct, this has in the past given rise to many conflicts between these groups. Although the issue of which ideology is correct isn't the primary basis for the war, there is usually some religious motive as well. Many war leaders in the past have claimed to have God on their side and that they are doing God's work. This has even been known to be claimed by parties on both sides of war. Clearly they all cannot be correct.

A famous example of religious persecution is during World War II. Under Adolf Hitler, approximately 11 million people were killed. Although some were killed on the basis of imperfection (the physically handicapped, psychiatric patients, etc), there were many of religious background. This includes dissenting Roman Catholics and Protestants, Jehovah's Witnesses and Jews who made up over half.

Another example is the recent "War on Terror", conducted primary by the United States. Although the initial premise for the war was 9/11, instigated by al-Qaeda according to the official Commission Report, the war quickly moved to the Middle East. The basis of the war was to rid the world of terrorists, many muslims would contest that it is actually a religious war against Muslims. A "War on Islam" if you will. There have been many instances where the U.S. can be said to have persecuted Muslims in the Middle East during this war, and this warfare is even being conducted through the media back in the Western world. Every time an incident is reported involving a Muslim, regardless of the circumstances, Islam's name is dragged in by the media as though Islam was the cause of the incident, and it is therefore no surprise that most non-Muslims now associate Islam with terror.

Regardless of your personal opinion on the matter, the politics of the situation are outside the scope of this discussion. They have been briefly mentioned as illustration of events and perceptions that continue to shape the world we live in today, and a large basis for this is the question of God.

You kow we all agreed that smileys alone aren't valid comebacks. :headbang:

And where in the name of the Lord did I agree to that?

Why is it the question of God that is more important than any other. Why have more people died for this question than for any other? Why is the issue of politics not as important, or world peace, or some other noble cause?

The answer to this question lies in our nature. As will be discussed later, there are certain characteristics of man that separate us from everything else that we know. They separate us from the animals, plants, and other in-animate matter itself.

The one characteristic in particular at play here is reverence, the admiration of something greater than yourself. Everybody experiences and expresses this characteristic, but for many different things.

Reverence is most commonly expressed today as admiration for celebrities. Movie and pop stars collectively have millions of fans all around the world, all wanting to meet them, or be like them, or share in their success or somehow be associated with them.

Reverence has also been expressed for ideas, rather than for individuals. Many look up to the ideals of democracy, free speech and freedom.

Whatever or whomever the subject of reverence, there is always something that mankind looks up to. Even the staunchest atheists, such as the communists, show this by their devotion to personalities such as Engel and Marx, and concepts such as the Proletariat.

The reason that the question of God is more important than any other is because God is considered to be the most powerful. Ideas of democracy and free speech, etc, are all man made and susceptible to the fallacies of man. God is not man made and beyond fallacy, and thus is regarded as the ultimate entity for whom to display reverence.

Note: We have not proven the existence and nature of God yet. We are just indicating the foundation of beliefs of those who do believe in religion. But we will come back to this concept in the end.

I'm from the UK. While it is not specifcly purgery the point of it is that if you are found guilty the purgury is implicit and thus your sentence is adjusted acordingly.

Sorry, you said the plea itself was purgery.

Now, you're saying that the sentence for the crime is increased if you don't forfeit your right to a defense by pleading guilty?

Sounds more like plea-bargaining than an issue of perjury.

If I speak with a UK legal professional, would they support this idea of "implicit perjury"?

Its nothing personal, Adriatica II, you're entitled to your view and I know things are different from country to country, but do you see the problem with attaching perjury, implicit or otherwise, to a person's plea?

Why is it that much of mankind actually believe in God? Sure, we have religious text saying to believe in God, but do we always believe what we read? What makes these texts so unique and powerful that they are able to influence the minds of millions? Although in our second discussion we will look at the Qur'an specifically, the Qur'an isn't alone in the respect that man follows its teachings. The Bible, Torah and other religious books all have followers.

The common feature between all these books, and indeed religions, is the issue of God. All refer to a deity greater than mankind itself. But the majority of mankind has never known this deity on a personal level. They have never met the deity, or seen it directly. So why is this concept of a deity so believable? The answer is that many believe it to be a satisfactory answer to the question of the great unknown.

Consider the following scenario. After a particularly uneventful day's work, you return home for the day. You perform your usual routine and pass the time in one way or another. As per routine, you later fall asleep in your own bed.

When you wake, you find that you are no longer in your own bed. You are not even in your own house. You find yourself in a magnificent palace, or a cave, or any other remote location that you do not recognise as familiar. What would you first reaction be?

It is safe to say that your first reaction will quite possibly be that of surprise. All sorts of questions would fly to your mind. Where are you? How did you get here? Who brought you here? These are all natural questions.

At some point you will reach the conclusion that someone or something more powerful that yourself was able to cause you to be transported away without you noticing. However, this in itself does not imply a Creator. People can be drugged and kidnapped, or perhaps faint and lose consciousness. There are a few reasonable explanations available for why you have been moved.

However, when we consider life, we realise that we are brought into this life without choice, and inevitably we will leave this life without our choice. The natural question is where did we come from, and where do we go? What was there before life and what is there after we die? Is there purpose to our lives? Is there reason for us to be here? These questions need to be answered in a definitive way to give mankind tranquility

And where did this 14 billion year number come from? It has already been proven that Carbon Dating is worthless so where did the 14 billion year number come from and who came up with it?


Oh, I see what's happening here. I learn about your stupid religion so that I at least know what I'm talking about when I try to refute it, yet you choose to deliberately ignore science, and yet ask for scientific proof when somebody makes a claim. This is called "ignorance".

The 14Billion number was found by studying the Gravitational Red Shift. I presume you know what that is? Using equations from General Relativity we managed to show that in order for the universe to be expanding the Bang must have happened aroung 14Billion years ago.


I can't imagine why you'd refute Big Bang. It's a scientific fact and if you like you can force it to imply God's existence.

I'm going to stop this now. Either God is not completely benevolent, there are more than one of them or it is something within reality itself and not its direct creator.


Maybe God is completely benevelont but your understanding of completely benevelont is flawed. Pain and suffering define us as much as love and happiness do.


Do you believe God is omnipotent? That in itself is an impossibility, since for a thing to be all-powerful implies superior power even over itself, which is a contradiction

Its a contradiction of language, not an imposiblity of God to exist. Can God create four sided pentegons. No. Not because he isnt omnipotent, but because we have selected the meaning of the word Pentegon to mean five sided shape.


This one is important. God does not change the past for you once it has been lived. God didn't just go back and remove the tree from eden, for instance (as a hypothetical example), even though that would be the ethical thing to do for a time-surpassing deity. Once the past has been and gone, that's it. God is not capable of reversing the process.

Have you considered that the reason that God doesnt go back in time and do what you suggest is that it would remove our element of responsability if he did.


I'm going to stop this now. Either God is not completely benevolent, there are more than one of them or it is something within reality itself and not its direct creator.

The last of these points is most accurate. Sin entered the world as a result of our actions and so destroyed the perfect nature of God's creation

And where in the name of the Lord did I agree to that?


So what your saying is that debating rules don't apply to you?

And secondly, you have to remember the Gospels are 4 accounts, not one.

Guess you've never heard of the Synoptic Problem? Methinks you should stop reading tired apologetics and try reading the works of some reputable scholars.

It is generally agreed that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark, while John was written separately, so you only really have two accounts.

They corroberate each other.

Apart from all of the contradictions.

My favourite is the zombie invasion in Matthew. Weirdly no other writer noticed the incursion of the living dead, not even the other Gospel writers. Maybe they were too busy hiding in cellars with their shotguns eh?

Not to metntion the fact they were written within the same generation as those whos saw Jesus so when the others who saw him heard about the gospels they knew it to be true as they had seen it.

Are you kidding me? The average life expectancy was 35, 40 given the high infant mortality rate. Mark was written somewhere between 65 and 80AD with the others coming later. This isn't 'within the same generation' by any stretch of the imagination.

Yay! 300th post!

Anyway, I'd say 'no' but I think there's better things to muse over than religion. Maybe we live in a world that was never meant to make sense...

In what way does saying "If A is true, B is thus true, so how do you address the implication of B?" give credence to A being true?

Seriously, you can't understand how one can show where the opposing argument leads (and its percumbent implications) without somehow thus subscribing to the opposing argument?


Isn't it odd how many people these days are completely inept when it comes to debate strategy.

Well let's try a better analogy.

Let's say Bob believes that the Brahma exists, and that the tenets of that religion state that there are castes, with some people being higher in value than others (supposing that is in fact what some of them believe).

If athiest Albert says "Bob, if Brahma exists, then that would establish that not all people are equal in the eyes of the supreme being. What are the implications of that?"

Is Bob surrendering his athiest position?
You can point to specific attributes of God and question them, but to do so you must first postulate the existence of God: "...if Brahma exists..." That's putting yourself temporarily in the opponent's shoes. It surrenders your atheist position, though not your (lack of) belief.

What I see in most posts is people adopting such a pseudotheist position and attempting to argue from that position, "as if" a theist, "as if" they knew what they were talking about. (This is what serves to piss off the opposition, because they then proceed to attribute things to God that make no sense.) I am saying that without that base belief in God, they are arguing from a disadvantaged position.

The basis for rational logic is the knowledge gained directly through our five senses. These senses are available to everyone, and work in an identical manner. Everyone also interprets information received in the same manner. Therefore, the same conclusions can be reached by all.

Using our sense of sight, we can see the world around us. We can see things near and far, and where objects are relative to one another. From this we can also determine what objects are in front of other objects. We can see many different colours at the same time, as well as the hue, saturation and brightness of each colour, and the level of contrast with other colours.

We can also see through certain objects, such as glass. We can see clear glass by virtue of reflections or marks on it, and we can also see through glass to what is beyond it. We can also see an object's state. We can determine whether it is still like a house, or moving like a car. We can even track down motion to a specific part of an object such as ripples on a pond, or the moving blade within a blender.

Our other four senses also provide information about the world around us. We can feel temperature and pain through our sense of touch. We can use this sense to feel whether something is pressing against us, and how heavily. We can determine the hardness or softness of objects, and what is sharp or dull. Using the other three senses we can determine yet more information about the world around us.

Using this information is known as rational logic. Everyone can experience the exact same conditions under the same conditions. Two people standing side by side will both be able to determine the relativity of the same objects, and see what is in front of another. They will perceive the same colours, the same temperature, and as far as can be determined by our senses, the same properties of objects in the world around them.

If any of these two people were to make a statement based on exclusively on their observations, the other person would have to agree. If person A said that object X was in front of object Y, person B would have to agree. As per the earlier disclaimer, this is assuming that person A is of sound capability and is not lying (if they were, then his statement would not be based exclusively on observation, it would include motive to falsify the truth).

Rational logic therefore can be used to derive truth. However, it's extremely restrictive and relies on our senses for information in the first instance. It also can't do very much with this information. Because the Creator is not detectable by our senses (if it were, many would have discovered direct conclusive evidence of this), we need to extend this definition slightly to allow use to carefully increase the scope of what can be accepted as undisputable truth.

Followers of Judaism along with Muslims also believe that there is only one God, but along with Christians, they refer to God as their "father", a term Muslims consider blasphemous in this respect. However, they don't believe in the Holy Trinity aspect as Christians do.

This is inherently wrong, you may think Christians believe in three Gods, but we actually believe in one God, but as three parts, like you say Father, Son, and Holy Spirit. When we talk about God we're refering to all three as one. Not just the one part (the Father), otherwise to do that would make Christians polytheists.

Also unlike Muslims, we believe God is a God who you can know personally, whereas your Koran states Allah is unknowing. Among many other traits which differentiate the two. But, I'm not going into that at the moment.

Sorry, you said the plea itself was purgery.

Now, you're saying that the sentence for the crime is increased if you don't forfeit your right to a defense by pleading guilty?

Your working from some absurd principle that the verdict is somehow known before the trial begins. It is not. If the person is not guilty then the plea of not guilty will not do anything to them. If they are found guilty after having pleaded not guilty then there sentence is duely adjusted


Its nothing personal, Adriatica II, you're entitled to your view and I know things are different from country to country, but do you see the problem with attaching perjury, implicit or otherwise, to a person's plea?

No I dont. The way I see it is this. When a trial begins there is no certianity about whether or not the person has commited a crime, at least in a democratic system. Thus it is only when the verdict has been reached after deliberation of the trial that it is known. The way you are saying it implies that the outcome is already known before the trial begins

Isn't it odd how many people these days are completely inept when it comes to debate strategy.

I don't think one even has to be a great strategist to understand how its effective, and sometimes necessary, to show where the opposing position leads to (and that this in no way endorses the opposing position).

Even outside a context of adversarial discourse, analysis by illustrating contradiction of alternatives is one of the most fruitful means of thought.
Take that out of your mental tool box, and you've limited yourself terribly...

I'm intrigued by the idea of circular logic and circular arguments. I would like to address this.

But first,

Corneliu, I know you are witnessing and defending the position of God and those who believe in him, but please note that you are being baited. I think that among them, IL Ruffino is the master-baitor (Sorry IL Ruffino - I just really wanted an opportunity to use that one - hope you don't offend easily ;-) ) Stand your ground, but recognise when they're yanking your chain!!

I kinda figured they were hence why I have not gotten mad.

Now, I think I get where you're coming from Corneliu. I can see too why it becomes an infuriating, self feeding argument to those who oppose your position regarding acknowledging sin and requiring proof for your faith.

The way I see it, the burden of Proof is not on Corneliu as he is demonstrating faith. If you cannot believe in something without pouring over the evidence first, then you cannot seriously believe you have faith.

I am humbled beyond words.

*snip*

Ain't that the truth.

In terms of God, the proof if you care to find it is all about us. But so vast is it you have no way of comprehending it.

Amen!

Opening one's ears to hear, or indeed simply openning ones senses to experience God negates a need for proof. Infact, proof in these terms almost begins to leave a nasty taste in your mouth because seeking proof becomes absurd. Like saying "give me proof that water is wet, that the sky is blue, that the night is dark...."

That's actually not a bad analogy.

Sadly, saying this to those who are not in the place to understand the feeling, simply sounds unfounded and rediculous. You don't want to embark on any such mission to find God because you've made your mind up and it is a waste of your time. And I'd ask you to consider the possibility that perhaps it is frightening incase you make a fool of yourself....and worse still, that there might be a God and you begin to need him. I ask you to consider it becasue I know the temptation will be to spit back with "No that's not the reason" without entertaining the possibility for a moment.

*hands Wikaedia a cookie*

I was told recently of a man (I can't recall who but I think he was a minister) who toted a sandwich-board saying on the front "I am a FOOL for GOD" and on his back: "Who's FOOL are YOU?"

HAHA! I haven't heard it put quite that way before but yea. I like that.

In what way does saying "If A is true, B is thus true, so how do you address the implication of B?" give credence to A being true?

Seriously, you can't understand how one can show where the opposing argument leads (and its percumbent implications) without somehow thus subscribing to the opposing argument?
Saying "If A is true..." lends it necessary credence to continue with the statement/observation.

I'm not implying the argument should not proceed.

Oh, I see what's happening here. I learn about your stupid religion so that I at least know what I'm talking about when I try to refute it, yet you choose to deliberately ignore science, and yet ask for scientific proof when somebody makes a claim. This is called "ignorance".

The 14Billion number was found by studying the Gravitational Red Shift. I presume you know what that is? Using equations from General Relativity we managed to show that in order for the universe to be expanding the Bang must have happened aroung 14Billion years ago.


I can't imagine why you'd refute Big Bang. It's a scientific fact and if you like you can force it to imply God's existence.

Just because it came from red shift radar signatures, does not mean that it is 14 billion years old.

I don't think one even has to be a great strategist to understand how its effective, and sometimes necessary, to show where the opposing position leads to (and that this in no way endorses the opposing position).

Even outside a context of adversarial discourse, analysis by illustrating contradiction of alternatives is one of the most fruitful means of thought.
Take that out of your mental tool box, and you've limited yourself terribly...


Last time I used that tactic I think I was debating with some punk kid about how he wasn't economically smarter than adults. He seemed to think I was 'stupid' for showing him why he was wrong from his poit of view as opposed to my point of view. He in some way interpreted it as me conceding the debate.:headbang:

So what your saying is that debating rules don't apply to you?

Didn't say that but I'm asking you where you got what you got when I :rolleyes: at you.

Rational logic is not just limited to the information and interpretation of what we receive directly from our senses, it can also be extended slightly through experimentation or other means to derive conclusive results.

Some of our senses are capable of enhancement. No matter how closely we look at our hands with the naked eye, all we will see is skin. This is not to say there is nothing beyond the skin however, it's just that our sight just can't penetrate it. There is nothing to say that our skin is not made up of something smaller. By using microscopes, we can see our cells, and what is internal to them. Although we are being aided in our sense of sight, the conclusions are still the same. It is rational to say that our hand is made up of cells, and these cells contain various components (mitochondria, nucleus, cytoplasm, etc). Although not everyone will have witnessed this, it does not change the truth of the matter. Those who have witnessed it will all agree on what they observed, and the tests can also be repeated for the skeptics.

Another example of rational logic is knowledge and application of natural laws. If I was holding something (such as a book) above the ground, I know that if I should let go, it will fall down immediately. I would not have seen this happen before I let go, but I know that there is no other possibility than it will fall. This information is based on countless tests performed by myself and many others on various objects during the course of our lifetimes. As of yet, this rule of gravity has not been broken.

As a final example, we can also predict changes in state to matter (compound or element) when heat is applied. Materials can sometimes exist in three states: solid, liquid and gaseous. When we apply heat to these materials, solids usually turn to liquids, and liquids usually turn to gas. Using water as an example, it exists as ice in the absence of heat (up to about 0°C). Beyond this temperature, water is a liquid. If we continue to apply heat the water would start to boil. At 100°C the water will then reach its maximum boiling point, and continue to be converted to gas and expand so long as heat is received. If we were to remove this heat, then the process would reverse. The water vapour would condense to liquid, and this liquid would eventually solidify.

We know this through experimentation, and through measurement we also know exactly how much heat (energy) is required to transform water from one state into another. We also know how this measurement changes with natural law. We know that should we rise up to a higher plane above sea-level, the boiling point of water is decreased. This is because we know it is air pressure keeping water as a liquid, and there is less pressure the higher up we go.

We also know of materials that do not conform to the above transformations. As mentioned, the normal process is solid, to liquid, to gas, to vice-versa. Many materials can break this process. Eggs (the organic part, not the shell) for example are (frozen) solid in the absence of heat. When heat is applied, they become a thick liquid which is how we perceive its natural state. With the application of more heat however, it becomes a solid again. Carbon dioxide does not even exist as a liquid at normal atmospheric pressure. It can only be converted to a liquid under exceedingly high pressure. As a solid, it's known as dry ice because it sublimes directly to gas.

Note: Cold is often regarded as the opposite to heat. Strictly, this is not true. Cold is merely the absence of heat. Once you reach -271°C, you cannot make anything colder, but there is no limit to how hot you can make things. The same applies to light and darkness. Darkness is merely an absence of light.

In summary, that which is rational is that which can be appreciated and agreed upon by all people with similar levels of sense perception.

Just because it came from red shift radar signatures, does not mean that it is 14 billion years old.



See. Here's that scientific ignorance I was talking about. Please, learn a little physics before you try debating it. :rolleyes:

Guess you've never heard of the Synoptic Problem? Methinks you should stop reading tired apologetics and try reading the works of some reputable scholars.

It is generally agreed that Matthew and Luke borrowed heavily from Mark, while John was written separately, so you only really have two accounts.

Generally agreed by who?

Generally speeking skeptics who are consistantly trying to prove the Bible wrong.


Apart from all of the contradictions.

My favourite is the zombie invasion in Matthew. Weirdly no other writer noticed the incursion of the living dead, not even the other Gospel writers. Maybe they were too busy hiding in cellars with their shotguns eh?.

That isn't a contradiction, thats an omitance. And secondly

http://www.geocities.com/athens/delphi/8449/harmonize.html

http://www.answering-islam.org/Andy/Resurrection/harmony.html


Are you kidding me? The average life expectancy was 35, 40 given the high infant mortality rate. Mark was written somewhere between 65 and 80AD with the others coming later. This isn't 'within the same generation' by any stretch of the imagination.

Funny. Simeon who met Jesus as a boy when he was going to be registered was far older than that.

Propositional logic extends rational logic. It uses information that is available rationally, and tries to extrapolate this information to derive new possible conclusions. Until these conclusions are verified, they cannot become rational conclusions. This means that there is a possibility that the conclusions may not be verified, indicating either the proposition is beyond our ability to verify at the moment, or the proposition was wrong.

Using the earlier court example involving the murder trial, if there wasn't any direct evidence available against the accused, such as a video, the court will look to other forms of evidence and try to determine guilt on a basis of probability. Factors considered would be whether the accused is capable of committing the crime, and whether they were actually able to. The accused proximity to the crime scene will also be taken into consideration, as well as forensic evidence.

After all the evidence has been examined, guilt will be established if the majority of the jury is satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that the proposition put forward by the prosecution is true. However, as mentioned before, this process is not foolproof. There have been several miscarriages of justice in recent years for various reasons. Some have been freed on the basis that their trial was unfair (regardless of the issue of guilt) whereas some have been freed because new evidence proves their innocence conclusively. An example is Stefan Kiszko, who was convicted on flawed forensic evidence.

As such, guilt decided by the legal system cannot be considered rational in cases where the guilty has not voluntarily confessed to the crime. Even those who confess have been known to lie about it, some people actually confess to crimes that they did not commit. Unless there is direct undisputable unquestionable evidence available to prove guilt, guilt will always remain a proposition. Although the legal system will accept a degree of probability as a basis for conviction, it still doesn't change the truth. Convicting a truly innocent person does not make that person guilty.

This is not to say that which is propositioned cannot become rational. A good example of how propositional logic can be converted to rational logic is the periodic table used by chemists. The table was developed in 1869 with a slight amendment in the 1940's. The structure of the table is made up by arranging elements by mass which ensured regular variations in chemical properties across the table. At the time the table was developed, there were only a few known elements which meant gaps in the table. It was proposed that these elements could exist, but were simply undiscovered at the time. As such, the gaps were left in.

However, until the elements are discovered and tested, even scientists agree that there is no guarantee that the periodic table will hold true. They cannot even guarantee the properties of these elements by looking at trends, because this would be a proposal, albeit a fair one. As history will tell, between then and now many of the unknown elements have been discovered, tested and found to support the proposition given by the periodic table. We can now rationally refer to these elements as we know for definite what their properties are.

There are still gaps in the table today. Currently, the table does not recognise any elements which have more than 7 electron shells. There are also two unknown elements in the current table that have yet to be discovered. As they have not been seen naturally yet, scientists agree that there is no guarantee that they even exist naturally. So for the moment, their existence is regarded as propositional, but once discovered it will be rational to refer to them.

Propositional logic is more than guesswork. To be truly logical, the proposition has to be completely based on rational evidence. But the problem is, there is no 100% guarantee that the proposition is entirely correct. But it is useful in that it allows us to see possibilities that were not there before. How far can we rely on propositional logic?

Your working from some absurd principle that the verdict is somehow known before the trial begins. It is not. If the person is not guilty then the plea of not guilty will not do anything to them. If they are found guilty after having pleaded not guilty then there sentence is duely adjusted

In no way do I suppose the verdict is known prior to trial. My statement was that punishing someone for not pleading guilty (which forfeits the right to a defense) presents a serious problem.


No I dont. The way I see it is this. When a trial begins there is no certianity about whether or not the person has commited a crime, at least in a democratic system. Thus it is only when the verdict has been reached after deliberation of the trial that it is known. The way you are saying it implies that the outcome is already known before the trial begins

How does it imply that? Please quote me where I said anything about the outcome being known and I'll clarify for you.

I ask you again, if I spoke with a legal professional or judge in the UK, would they consider your premise of "implicit perjury" to be consistent with UK law?

In our daily lives we regularly use both rational and propositional logic. Both are different in scope and the information gained from them. This can be illustrated by an example.

Imagine you are at home, with a quiet night ahead of you. Your family has gone out so you invite some friends over to watch a film, and also order a pizza for yourselves for home delivery. Shortly afterwards, you hear a knocking on the door, and guess it is probably the pizza delivery guy because it's too early for your friends to arrive. What thought process have taken place here?

When the knocks were made on the door, they were heard by your ears and recognised as the sound of knocking. Taking into account your position from the door and any obstacles in the way (walls, doors, etc), you can deduce the knocking came from the direction of the door. By also considering the particular sound the knocking made, you can deduce not only that something knocked against the door, but something knocked against the outside of the door. Again, using this information in conjunction with the regularity and consistency of the knocking, you can conclude that the knocking was deliberate, rather than being caused by something knocking against the door accidentally. If the knocking was of a rhythmical kind, particularly of a famous tune, you can even deduce that a person caused the knocks since nothing that else exists naturally would naturally be able to do that. That's as far as rational logic can take you.

Using what we have learned through rational logic as a foundation, we can extrapolate this to come up with propositions. Given that the knocking was deliberate, it's assumed that it was a person which caused the knocking if there wasn't a specific recognisable rhythm. As there was knocking, it can be assumed that it's not your family at the door because it's not time for them to be back yet, and they have a key giving them no reason to knock. Your friends said that they'd be a while, and it's currently too early for them to arrive which can only leave the pizza delivery guy as the final option for who is at the door.

The problem with propositional logic as discussed earlier is the lack of guarantees that it provides. It could literally be anyone at the door, a neighbour, or a salesperson, or anyone else you may not have been expecting. It could even be people that you dismissed earlier. It could be your family who saw your car in the drive guessing you were open, and knocking to get you to open the door as they were too lazy to find their key. It could even be your friends who managed to make it earlier than they originally said they would.

See. Here's that scientific ignorance I was talking about. Please, learn a little physics before you try debating it. :rolleyes:

Just as carbon dating is flawed, so is trying to estimate something that far out using nothing but radar.

Isn't it odd how many people these days are completely inept when it comes to debate strategy.
Insulting people who are trying to learn something also weakens your position.

Although we have discussed the differences between the two types of logical thought, we need to make a final formal definition of the differences between the two in order to make a judgment on what is acceptable when discovering the truth.

Rational logic relies primarily on the senses for information, and it is also able to make some small irrefutable conclusions about the information. If a sound is heard, something must have caused that sound, and it must have been in proximity to your hearing range. The problem is that it doesn't tell us very much. By using rational information alone we cannot make advances in technology and civilisation. Our knowledge becomes limited to the point where we cannot refute anything, but cannot think up something new and use our imagination.

Propositional logic on the other hand extends our ability to come to conclusions based on information we already know. Science has benefited greatly from propositional logic. In science, before an experiment is performed, a hypothesis is made. This hypothesis describes what the scientists hopes to achieve, and is concluded by propositional logic. The scientist then tests the theory to determine whether the theory holds up or not. In some instances this means trying to prove that the theory is true, and in others it is done by trying to prove the theory false and failing. The failure to prove the theory false implies that it must be true. This only works for certain experiments, such as mathematical proofs.

However, propositional logic is not immune to errors, indeed as humans are not. Many theories have been discredited after they were once believed to be true (but still not rationally), and many more have been discredited through research into them. The actual amount of successful theories still remains very small. In order to validate a theory, scientists these days perform a huge number of steps in order to verify results and to make sure their theory works in practice Research can take years to complete and often require a lot of adjustments and fine tuning to obtain an optimal result.

In short, rational logic is extremely restrictive, but it does give guarantees about the truth. It is reliable, and everyone can come to the same conclusion from the same information. It is undisputable. Propositional logic on the other hand is not restrictive at all, we are only limited by our imagination. However, there is no guarantee that what can be logically proposed is true. It is almost speculation or guessing.

Another flaw with propositional logic is that it needs to be tested. As we are discussing the subject of a Creator, in order for propositional logic to come up with some accurate rational answer, scientists would need to perform tests directly on the Creator, or something directly linked to the Creator to establish his presence. If a Creator did exist, this entity could not be experimented upon if it existed beyond the sensed universe. Hence, we could not prove or disprove its existence using propositional logic. This is a major limitation of science in relation to this question.

Rational conclusions are those that have already been tested and proven to be true, and therefore must be the sole source for the truth. In order to prove the existence of a Creator, only rational information, observation and logic can be relied up.

As we have picked rational logic to be the sole source for the truth, we can now apply it to the world around us in our quest to determine if there really is a Creator or not. However, any observations we make need to be universal. We cannot use just a snippet of our universe to prove there is a Creator, because another snippet somewhere else may disprove it. So whilst observing the universe, we need to use observations that are applicable to the entire universe. If a Creator exists, then it would have an effect on all things, thus making universal tests is not inappropriate.

Please also bear the earlier disclaimer in mind. When we talk about the universe, rationally we are only talking about the areas we have explored and tested. Discussing others (such as other galaxies, black holes etc) is purely speculation and propositional. Propositional logic cannot be relied upon in any form.

Behold! in the creation of the heavens and the earth; in the alternation of the night and the day; in the sailing of the ships through the ocean for the profit of mankind; in the rain which Allah Sends down from the skies, and the life which He gives therewith to an earth that is dead; in the beasts of all kinds that He scatters through the earth; in the change of the winds, and the clouds which they Trail like their slaves between the sky and the earth;- (Here) indeed are Signs for a people that are wise.

Sura Al-Baqara (The Cow) [2:164]

Whilst observing the universe, and everything we know within, we can begin to sub-divide everything into groups, and observe properties specific to everything, and properties specific to certain groups. The universe can be divided into animate objects, and inanimate objects. Animate objects can include man, animals, plants as well as various micro-organisms. Inanimate objects can be divided into small items (things found on earth) or large, such as celestial bodies (stars, planets, galaxies, etc).

We can also see that there are two traits common to everything. These traits are limitations, and dependencies. Nothing is free from these.

Insulting people who are trying to learn something also weakens your position.


I wasn't insulting you Willamena. I was insulting the people who call you stupid after you explain to the how debating works.

The limitations of an object can also be termed as its characteristics, properties or features. It is any trait that the object itself cannot break, this trait can be used to define the object, and separate it from any other. Even things that appear unlimited in one sense are limited in another. Light can travel at high speeds over great distances. The distance it can travel seems unlimited through space, but it is still subject to other limits. Light cannot bend around corners naturally, it relies on something pulling it. Light also slows down in dense materials, and opaque materials can prevent light from passing through them completely. In this sense, light is limited in where it can travel.

We know that several different types of metals exist. But what makes one metal different from another? There are several characteristics that can be used to define particular types of metal. These characteristics include colour, natural state, conductivity (heat and electrical), susceptibility of corrosion, malleability, weight, etc. Whilst most metals exist naturally as solids, mercury and gallium both exist naturally as liquids. Most metals are silver in colour, but copper and gold are not. Silver offers the best conductivity of all the metals.

These properties are limitations of metals. Each type of metal will have the same limitations, regardless of where it originated. Copper found in the United Kingdom, and copper found in Australia are known to have the same properties. The origin is irrelevant. The metals are also unable to change these properties. Silver cannot decide to take a break and let copper lead in the conductivity race for a while. Mercury cannot decide to give up its rivalry with gallium and start existing naturally as a solid. Even though metals are inanimate, and lack decision making capability, even animate objects are not able to change their limits.

Using ourselves as examples we can see many limitations. Human beings are not able to fly, we cannot generate the energy to break the earth's gravitational pull for more than a few seconds. This is not something we can change naturally. We cannot will the ability to fly. In a similar sense, we are limited by our senses. We cannot see over large distances, even though the path may be clear. We cannot hear that which is beyond our hearing range, both in proximity and in frequency. There is a limit to how much we can grow, how tall we can become. These are limitations we live by and accept. And no matter how hard we try, this is not something we can change naturally. Even if we develop machines to assist us, these machines will have their own limitations.

There are countless examples of objects having limitations. The best way to appreciate this is to try and think of something rational that has no limitations, does such a thing exist? We can safely and rationally say no. If you disagree with this, then please feel free to present us with something that is limitless and prove us wrong.

Saying "If A is true..." lends it necessary credence to continue with the statement/observation.

I'm not implying the argument should not proceed.

So, if I were to say "If there is a mouse in my refrigerator without means of breathing, it is in danger of suffocating", you think that means I put credence in the idea that there is a mouse in my refrigerator?

Also, when I say "examing the opposing argument to show where it leads", I don't mean that the argument between the two people should or shouldn't continue, I mean showing where the opposing argument would necessarily lead by its nature.

Seriously, Willamena, I have nothing against you personally, but do you really not follow how you can show a LACK of credence in a position by showing where the position would lead?

Another thing we can see about everything in the universe is dependency. Everything has some form of a dependency or reliance on something else, and again there is no exception to this trait. The Dependencies can also be separated into internal and external Dependencies Everything is internally dependant on something, and also externally dependant on something else, again without exception.

As humans, we are dependant on many things. Internally, we need our organs to function. If the function of a major organ is removed, we die. We are also dependant on our internal structure to maintain our shape and for mobility, among other reasons. Without our skeleton, we would simple be a mass of flesh on the floor and would also not be able to move. Externally, we are dependant on nourishment, water and oxygen to name but a few. Without food and water, we die. The same applies to oxygen, it's absence will ensure our death. We are also dependant on our parents, if it were not for them, we would not exist. These Dependencies also apply to animals, and with slight modification, to plants as well. For life to exist, these requirements need to be met, hence there are Dependencies for life itself.

These Dependencies can be seen be seen with everything else. A wooden table was dependant on the tree that grew the wood, and the carpenter that shaped it. Cushions are dependant on the cotton being grown, picked and processed, as well as other manufacturing processes that go on. Celestial bodies are dependant on their internal structure for this size, and externally on space (room) for their presence. They are also dependant on something else not bringing about their end, as everything else is.

The list of examples is quite long, but the quality of dependency can be seen in each example. As before, try to think of something that is completely independent. Something that never had any reliance on anything else. Something that was never influenced by anything else. You will find that no such example exists. Again, this is rational, but if you think you can provide an example of a completely independent object then feel free to let us know and prove us wrong.

Maybe God is completely benevelont but your understanding of completely benevelont is flawed. Pain and suffering define us as much as love and happiness do.
Remember, a perfectly sympathetic God in a position of perfect control can create a world where we do not suffer and still become perfectly well defined. Benevolency, by my books, is an attitude that encourages development and desires to prevent any unnecessary harm; the likes of which the current state of our world has definately reached. Where is the justice, fairness, kindness and openness of the divine to reams of children orphaned by Aids while some weapons dealers in the 'States earn enough money to grow fat off of an overabundance of food selling firearms to the oppressive African dictatorships?

Its a contradiction of language, not an imposiblity of God to exist. Can God create four sided pentegons. No. Not because he isnt omnipotent, but because we have selected the meaning of the word Pentegon to mean five sided shape.
I broke the power aspect of it down later based on the benevolence argument. If God can create a world without suffering and doesn't, it is not being benevolent. If it can't, it is not omnipotent.

Have you considered that the reason that God doesnt go back in time and do what you suggest is that it would remove our element of responsability if he did.
I have considered and rejected it. If he went back and removed it, we won't have been responsible because it won't have happened, you see?

The last of these points is most accurate. Sin entered the world as a result of our actions and so destroyed the perfect nature of God's creation
*Prods above*

"God's" creation can't have been perfect if it had the propensity to be destroyed. That's all there is to it. I might write the most awesome program to allow people to walk over a virtual version of my home town, chat with others they meet, even do their shopping online, but if someone else can get in with some sort of modified client or scripting tool and do things they shouldn't be able to, I've not made the best possible piece of software I could have.

Alkhilafah, you are wasting your time. No one is listening.

Now that we have identified two traits present in everything we know of, we can begin to examine why these particular items or objects show these characteristics. Again, we will just examine a small number of examples to illustrate what is happening in reality.

We will examine water as this is a substance everyone has frequent contact with. We know that water has limitations. It cannot take on its own shape, it forms the shape of its container. It can also exist as different states within a recognise range of temperatures and air pressures. Water is also dependant on the hydrogen and oxygen atoms that make it up. Specifically, due to covalent bonding, it requires two hydrogen atoms for every one oxygen atom. It also depends on temperature and air pressure to exist as a liquid.

The question is, why does temperature and air pressure affect water. Why are the limitations and Dependencies governed by these two factors? We know that water will evaporate naturally, and that if we supply heat, we can increase the rate of evaporation to a maximum. We also know that by decreasing air pressure, we can increase the rate of evaporation, and vice versa. To get water to retain a higher temperature than that at which it would normally boil, we can heat it in a pressurised container. But where is the relationship being made between temperature and air pressure with boiling rate?

The answer is natural law. There are many laws in existence and govern everything we know, and many laws can apply to the same objects. With regards to the boiling or evaporation of water, there are many factors that influence the rate. Each of these factors is governed by a law that dictates the properties exhibited based upon the surrounding environment. Once all these laws are recognised, they can be invoked. Mountain climbers can now enjoy hot water. Whereas before with the low air pressure the water would evaporate quickly, they can use a pressure container to allow them to boil water at higher temperatures.

One factor of boiling water is the surface tension, and it can be exhibited and exploited in different ways. Surface tension causes the surface of a liquid to behave slightly differently to the molecules beneath the surface. The surface layer forms a kind of sheet that not only keeps the liquid's molecules in, but other objects out. Water striders are able to actually walk on water. They can do this because they are sufficiently light enough to not break the surface tension, and can thus walk on top of it. For humans, this would be impossible because our weight would easily overcome the surface tension. Again, natural law is at work here, not only in creating the surface tension, but by also governing the amount of energy required to break it.

Just as carbon dating is flawed, so is trying to estimate something that far out using nothing but radar.


Damn it. Stop being ignorant. Red Shift and 'radar' are two completely different things. Carbon dating is upto certain lengths of time inaccurate yes. But Carbon dating relies on the constant decay of carbon atoms. It is inaccurate because after a certain period of time, all of the carbon will have decayed. Motion on the other hand doesn't stop after a period of time. It continues forever. So by measuring the motion and accelertion of the universe we can know a rather accurate approximation of how old it is.

Insulting people who are trying to learn something also weakens your position.

If you're really trying to learn, I respect that, Willamena.

Maybe I'm unqualified to teach you; are there people in your area that might have some formal training in logic, such as philosophers or mathematicians, who might be able to give you a better introduction to these methods?

Bear in mind, logic isn't the end all/ be all to the world, but we all benefit a great deal from understanding its use in discussion.

Although we have concentrated specifically on water, there are many more laws that govern all other known aspects of our universe. Even that which is considered chaos is governed by laws. Consider Brownian motion, the process by which particles in a freely moving environment can move around completely at random. Although paths taken by particles seem chaotic, there is a definite pattern to them. These particles are still following Newton's laws of motion.

All the particles travel in a straight line unless it is compelled to change direction by an external force. This can be either another particle bumping into it, or perhaps some form of invisible pull, such as gravimetric or magnetic attraction. Even in the rare instances where it appears the particles are following a curved path, the curves are still made up of a series of straight lines. The momentum and acceleration of the particles are also proportional to the net force acting upon it. If a slow moving particle was hit by a faster moving particle, part of the energy would be transferred to the slower moving particle to affect its speed. The speed may increase or decrease depending on the angle of collision. Lastly, when two particles collide, both particles exert equal and opposite forces upon each other by virtue of their presence. If two particles of equal speed were involved in a direct collision, both would cause the other to slow down equally as they would exert equal energy upon each other. If one particle caught another from behind, the particle caught would have a speed increase of the same rate as the decrease in speed of the original faster particle. Due to the direction of force applied and the direction of travel.

As demonstrated, natural law is present everywhere, even in chaos. Natural law also encompasses the limitations and Dependencies of objects. Its existence is the one universal truth that we can derive through rational logic about our known universe.

No, there is no such thing as God. And even if there was, he definitely didn't write the Bible. I doubt God would really hate gays and tell us to live like bums.

Damn it. Stop being ignorant. Cosmic Background radiation and 'radar' are two completely different things. Carbon dating is upto certain lengths of time inaccurate yes. But Carbon dating relies on the constant decay of carbon atoms. It is inaccurate because after a certain period of time, all of the carbon will have decayed. Motion on the other hand doesn't stop after a period of time. It continues forever. So by measuring the motion and accelertion of the universe we can know a rather accurate approximation of how old it is.

actually...noyou can't measure an acurate approimation of how old something is for we do not have that technology yet.

We know now that natural law exists everywhere, but what we have not considered is the source. Since this is the only known truth we have been able to derive about our universe, a critical examination of the laws is required to understand their origin which may then give further clues regarding the existence of a Creator.

The source of natural law can either be through chance, or from within objects themselves, or from something external. We will examine each of these to see which is not rationally possible.

Damn it. Stop being ignorant. Red Shift and 'radar' are two completely different things. Carbon dating is upto certain lengths of time inaccurate yes. But Carbon dating relies on the constant decay of carbon atoms. It is inaccurate because after a certain period of time, all of the carbon will have decayed. Motion on the other hand doesn't stop after a period of time. It continues forever. So by measuring the motion and accelertion of the universe we can know a rather accurate approximation of how old it is.

Commie, seriously, do you really think its reasonable to hold Corneliu to a high standard of scientific background? We've all seen his posts.

When we talk about chance, we talk about probability. What is the likelihood that a certain event can happen? The issue of chance is also one that is recognised in both rational and propositional logic, so we need to be careful in what we can actually consider

Consider the following example. You have a opaque bag into which you insert 10 identical small objects. These objects are identical in every way, except that one is a different colour to the others. You then reach into your bag and draw one out at random. What is the chance that you grab the unique object? Mathematically you have a one in ten chance, and this is rational too. If you were to perform this experiment over and over, the actual probability witnessed will draw closer to a 10% chance of picking the unique object. Experiments of this type have been conducted many times and this always turns out to be the case. The reason this is rational is because there are no external factors to interfere with the test. We have considered and controlled all the variables, and as such this is a completely controlled test.

However, in some cases, what should happen in theory is not always what happens in practice. This is because in certain experiments, we are not able to calculate the variables, or even include all the variables within our calculations. So for the sake of theory, we simplify the situation in order to get an acceptable answer rather than an accurate one. But these types of tests don't always work, and are thus considered to be within the realm of propositional logic.

With regards to propositional probability, the infinite monkey theorem is a perfect example. The basic premise of this theorem is that if you had an infinite number of monkeys, each with a typewriter that they used constantly, after a period of time these monkeys would eventually reproduce existing text. The theory is that there is a probability that one monkey at one point will hit all the correct keys to produce the works completely at random.

Without dealing with issues of how to acquire, maintain and train an infinite amount of monkeys and experiment over an infinite amount of time, the theorem still has a huge flaw. The probability of success is worked out on the basis that all errors are unique. If a monkey makes an error, it will be one that no other monkey has made or will make. The idea is that there are no duplicated events, each event is given an equal chance of success.

In reality this is not rational. Due to the nature of chaos, there is a higher chance of monkey creating the same mistakes multiple times than there is of monkeys never duplicating mistakes between them. This article deals with various calculations on this theorem, and the numbers are saying that it is impossible. There is an incredibly small chance. The calculations also assume that errors occur only once, if at all. If we increased this factor to something more realistic, the chances of success of the theorem would diminish even further.

actually...noyou can't measure an acurate approimation of how old something is for we do not have that technology yet.


Have you ever read "A Brief History of Time"? If you haven't, I suggest you do. It's a good starting point for people like you.


We're indirectly measuring it's age. We accurately measure the consequences of it's age, which we DO have the technology to do, and use mathematical equations of motion to solve for the age of the universe.

Lets consider a more realistic proposal, if we can say that. Take a mobile phone, almost everyone has one these days. In the U. K. especially it's hard to find someone who doesn't own one, such is their popularity.

Consider what a mobile phone is primarily made of. Plastic for the casing, and silicon for the circuitry. Plastic is made from oil, and silicon is made from sand. Lets set our scenario in the Sahara where there is an abundance of sand and oil. Consider a storm raging there since the beginning of time. You have lightening providing electricity and heat. You have rain providing water, and possibly a solution into which compounds can be dissolved or mixed. You also have wind blowing everything up and around, mixing things together.

Would you at any point expect to see a working, charged, mobile phone capable of connecting to the GSM networks lying in the desert, waiting for someone to claim it. If you happened to be walking along in the desert and you saw a working mobile phone there, would you think to yourself that it must have appeared naturally?

We can safely say the answer would be no. Although mathematically its possible, in reality it could never happen because the mathematical model would fail to take into account all the variables and only present a simplified version of events.

actually...noyou can't measure an acurate approimation of how old something is for we do not have that technology yet.

Corneliu, I must ask: How thorough is your knowledge of science and technology?

While mine is certainly not expansive, I have daily access to several accomplished physicists, including some who are globally recognized as experts in Astrophysics.

On the subject of what can be done with technology, do you posture yourself as more knowledgeable than them or not?

Order is the emergence of an event or pattern that fits a prescribed form. The pattern is such that is it recognisable, and can be communicated. Chaos is the absence of order, and is favoured by probability, where order is practically unknown. Given an experiment where a random occurrence takes place, although mathematically order is still possible, in reality it would never occur.

Consider a new deck of cards, ordered by suit and value. This represents a specific recognisable order. With the introduction of chance, this order can be destroyed. We can throw the deck up in the air, and be sure that as the cards fall, they will land randomly. Unless we were to cheat by tying the cards together, we would never expect to see all the cards land neatly in an ordered pile on the floor.

What about introducing a small amount of coloured substance to a transparent liquid in which it's soluble. We would naturally expect it to filter out in some random manner, dispersing from the point of introduction. But what if we saw the substance forming shapes and patterns in the liquid. Although there would be some form of visible order, it would be completely unexpected, and perhaps unbelievable.

Alternatively, further to the phone and desert example earlier, consider walking along a path through a forest. Instead of seeing something like a mobile phone which we regard as man-made, imagine that you saw some stones. Nothing unusual, there are lots of stones in lots of forests, and other areas. You wouldn't pay it a second thought. But imagine the stones were arranged in some form of geometric pattern. Imagine the stones formed a pyramid, or even something simpler like a circle or quadrilateral with perfectly straight edges. Seeing the stones arranged perfectly in order would arouse your curiosity, because it is such an unusual sight. The possibility that they happened to randomly be like that would be instantly dismissed, because never has this been seen. Something must have influenced this order.

Consider another example, back in the desert. You're walking along the sand and you spy a message written in the sand. It's a perfect example of language. Because you don't see anyone around, would you attribute this writing appearing to chance? What if it's a language you don't understand? Would this make any difference?

In explanation of these events, some might cite human interference, some may cite supernatural influence. Regardless of the source cited, nobody could rationally state that there was no outside influence in creating these patterns. We would never expect to see any form of order occurring naturally outside the scope of natural law. We would only expect to see chaos.

Have you ever read "A Brief History of Time"? If you haven't, I suggest you do. It's a good starting point for people like you.

Petty insults does nothing for your points.

We're indirectly measuring it's age. We accurately measure the consequences of it's age, which we DO have the technology to do, and use mathematical equations of motion to solve for the age of the universe.

Indirectly? That leaves room, lots of room actually, for error.

If the laws were created by chance, then rationally we would expect to see them in total chaos. However, there is definite order in natural law. There are many laws all acting on different things in different manners, yet there is no contradiction or chaos. Using water cycle as an example we can see the perfection in how fresh water is constantly being replenished. The same can be said for the oxygen cycle.

Everywhere we look, we can see order in natural law where there should be chaos. Even if we accept the negligable possibility that our natural law was created by chance, there would exist somewhere evidence of chaos to support the theory of law arising through chance. As far as we as mankind have explored, we have yet to come across a single example where the laws are in chaos and contradict other laws.

As there is absolutely no evidence of natural law arising through chance, we can safely and rationally eliminate this as a source for law.

Have you ever read "A Brief History of Time"? If you haven't, I suggest you do. It's a good starting point for people like you..


Oh, Commie, c'mon now, you're killing me.

You think Corneliu is going to read Stephen Hawking? If he does, I'd pay $50 USD for his review of the book, I'd love to see it.

Another possibility to consider is that the laws are created from matter itself, that everything has the power to make its own rules and abide by them. Man creates his own laws and abides by them to maintain order and prevent his civilisation plunging into chaos. It has also been seen that various unstable elements prefer to bond with other elements or compounds in an attempt to stabilise themselves.

If matter could make laws, there isn't any particular reason why these laws have to be harmonious. The matter could make up any laws they like. It also stands to reason that if matter has the ability to make law, it should also have the ability to break law. So let us consider these possibilities.

Since matter can make its own laws, this implies that matter is not bound to specific actions, thus the laws can be of any nature, and even contradictory. However, as discussed earlier, it's plainly clear that all of natural law is harmonious. There are no known conflicts at all. This means that either something is restricting the ability of matter to create law, or that the matter concerned is not creating the laws at all in the first place.

As matter would have the power to break laws, we should be able to see some form of chaos from this power is invoked. Essentially, we're dealing with the same issues as chance again. As of yet, we have never witnessed the laws in chaos, so this is not a rational possibility.

Even if we consider the possibility that all matter is obeying the laws they set for the sake of order, this still is not rational. Why would matter restrict itself on purpose? Why do elements with incomplete electron shells strive to complete them by bonding with others? Why can they not just be happy with what they have? There are no answers to these questions, as our understanding of natural law is that they are compelled to complete their shells. This implies that there is something else forcing them to comply with the law.

Another issue to consider is the consistency of laws. We have seen from various biological cycles that various laws work together to achieve a purpose and work in harmony in this fashion, but what about the consistency of the laws. If matter was creating its own laws, then the laws of water in one area of the universe could conceivably be different to the laws governing water in another area. The same applies to any other form of matter. But again, we have never come across this phenonmenon. If we begin to consider that these laws may be consistent by chance, then we automatically enter the same argument and conclusion as previously discussed.

The final ultimate test is our own efforts. No matter how hard we try, we cannot break the law keeping us from flying. In fact, we have not been able to create or break any laws, we have only managed to use existing laws to our benefit.

Again, there is no evidence that matter creates law itself, there is only evidence that it is bound by law. Therefore, we can safely and rationally exclude internal creation as a potential source for natural law.

This is the final possibility for the source of natural law. From our observations of the previous two possibilities we saw how there must have been an external influence at work. This influence is undeniable, and as such we can safely establish that the source of the influence is the Creator of natural law. All of our observations thus far support this idea, and we have found nothing to contradict it. Although we can't conclusively test this theory to establish the truth directly, we have proved it to be true through refutation of all other possibilities.

AlKhilafah AlIslamiah, no one is listening to you. Please stop. If you have a point to make, make it.

Wife's calling, gotta run.

CanuckHeaven, if you happen to see this, my invitation is open to you for a quid pro quo new thread on our disagreement. I'm sure we can reach some kind of agreement on rules for discussion, so long as we are both free to ask what we want and we both answer.

TG me with a thread name and whatever conditions you would like to propose. I may not agree to all of them, but we can reach some kind of compromise.

Petty insults does nothing for your points.



Indirectly? That leaves room, lots of room actually, for error.


What insult? You clearly have no knowledge whatsoever of modern physics so I suggested a book made specifically for the lamen as a beginning to your enlightenment. I read your stupid Bible. The least you could do is get a reasonable education in modern physics.


Did you even do high school physics? All you need to find the age of a system is the verticle accleration and initial velocity. That's it. I can do a worked example of an 11th grade physics question if you like?

Generally agreed by who?

Generally speeking skeptics who are consistantly trying to prove the Bible wrong.

Nice character assassination.

Given that most Biblical scholars are Christians I think your claim is fairly empty.

That isn't a contradiction, thats an omitance. And secondly

http://www.geocities.com/athens/delphi/8449/harmonize.html

Ouch, it fails on the very first claim, that:

"STONE ROLLED AWAY.(1) There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

WOMEN COME TO THE TOMB.(2) [Mk] When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, [Lk] Joanna, [Mk] and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away."

Matt 28:1-2
1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.

Note the tenses, the angel came down after the women arrived. Given that it can't even manage the very first contradiction I see little reason in reading more of your link.

Funny. Simeon who met Jesus as a boy when he was going to be registered was far older than that.

*sigh* A life expectancy of fourty obviously doesn't mean that everyone will die the moment they reach 40, it means that most of the population will be dead by about 40. The Crucifiction supposedly happened in 30AD, most of the witnesses (assuming they were 10 or older at the time) would have been dead by 65AD (the earliest date for Mark, probably the first Gospel).

Therefore your claim that all of the Gospels were written in the same generation of the witnesses is wrong, the vast majority of witnesses would have been dead by the time John was written.

Oh, Commie, c'mon now, you're killing me.

You think Corneliu is going to read Stephen Hawking? If he does, I'd pay $50 USD for his review of the book, I'd love to see it.


Well considering his ignorance so far I doubt he'd know about the number of times Hawking has changed his mind.:D

AlKhilafah AlIslamiah, no one is listening to you. Please stop. If you have a point to make, make it.
Hey Corneliu... Don't be nasty. I was actually reading it. Maybe this is not the right place to post this long "story" but don't say "no one is listening". You are not everyone.

Now apologise... :D please...

What insult? You clearly have no knowledge whatsoever of modern physics so I suggested a book made specifically for the lamen as a beginning to your enlightenment. I read your stupid Bible. The least you could do is get a reasonable education in modern physics.

Truth be told, I have gotten excellent grades in the realm of physics.

Did you even do high school physics?

yes I did. Got a very good grade in it.

the rest of the post is belittling and childish.

Hey Corneliu... Don't be nasty. I was actually reading it. Maybe this is not the right place to post this long "story" but don't say "no one is listening". You are not everyone.

Now apologise... :D

Europa also said in case you missed it ass.

Europa also said in case you missed you ass.
Yes I did miss it but, in any case, since when what Europa says excuses you from being polite? Now you're reverting to name calling? Thought you were better than that...

Just as carbon dating is flawed, so is trying to estimate something that far out using nothing but radar.

Apparently I didn't use large enough text when I explained this to Adriatica.

We don't use Carbon 14 dating for very old things because it's ineffective. Critiqing Carbon dating in this context is a strawman. We use different isotopes, such as Uranium, for very old things. Some isotopes have half-lives of up to 4.5 billion years.

As nobody seems to be reading this basic flaw in their reasoning I'm going to repost it in a larger font everytime someone makes the claim. I'm on size 3 at the moment but it could go up to 7.

Yes I did miss it but, in any case, since when what Europa says excuses you from being polite? Now you're reverted to name calling? Thought you were better than that...

I abbreviated your name. I didn't call you an ass Assis.

At this point we have identified the source for natural law to be the Creator, but that is not all. Through rational examination of the evidence, we can also come to further conclusions regarding the properties of the Creator.

The first quality that we can deduce is that the Creator is Unlimited in ability. Limitations, as discussed previously, are imposed by natural law, and we have also deduced that natural law was created by the Creator. Therefore, the Creator is not bound by natural law, and thus completely free of limitations.

The second quality that we can deduce is that the Creator is completely Independant of needs. As the Creator is not bound by natural law, there are no dependancies that the Creator has. Thus the Creator is truly independant.

The third quality that we can derive is that the Creator must be Eternal. For something to be exist over a finite period of time, they must be brought into existence by something, and also removed from existence by something else (or even the original source). Thus there is an external dependancy for creation, and an external dependancy for termination.

As the Creator is beyond dependancies, there is nothing that could have brought it into existence and there is also nothing that can remove it from existence. As such, the Creator is eternal. The Creator is not subjected to time, the Creator is the master of time.

The final quality is that of Oneness. There is only one Creator. Again, this is derived from issue of independance. Since the Creator is truly independant, there can be no other to impose dependancies and limitations. If there were two entities of equal power, each would be limited by the other, which is a contradiction to what we have already derived, thus cannot be true.

If the Creators chose not to be limited by each other, then they could create contradictory natural law. We would see laws in a state of chaos. But this is not rational because we have never seen this. Thus we are back to there being just one Creator.

ALLAH

Apparently I didn't use large enough text when I explained this to Adriatica.

We don't use Carbon 14 dating for very old things because it's ineffective. Critiqing Carbon dating in this context is a strawman. We use different isotopes, such as Uranium, for very old things. Some isotopes have half-lives of up to 4.5 billion years.

As nobody seems to be reading this basic flaw in their reasoning I'm going to repost it in a larger font everytime someone makes the claim. I'm on size 3 at the moment but it could go up to 7.

And if you go larger, it'll make it look like you are shouting which I will ignore if you decide to do that. Point it, it is still not very reliable.

Truth be told, I have gotten excellent grades in the realm of physics.



yes I did. Got a very good grade in it.

the rest of the post is belittling and childish.


I then presume you did the equations of motion. Finding the amount of time it takes for a ball to hit the ground? Same principles, but in 3 dimensions, can be applied to the universes age.

I then presume you did the equations of motion. Finding the amount of time it takes for a ball to hit the ground? Same principles, but in 3 dimensions, can be applied to the universes age.

Passed it with flying colors. Was one reason why I wanted to be a meteorologist was that I was good with science. Alwell

I abbreviated your name. I didn't call you an ass Assis.
Well sorry but "you ass" doesn't sound like an abbreviation to me...

Well sorry but "you ass" doesn't sound like an abbreviation to me...

I meant to type the word it not you.

And if you go larger, it'll make it look like you are shouting which I will ignore if you decide to do that. Point it, it is still not very reliable.

Yes it is. You're just claiming it's not, without any evidence might I add, so that you can ignore all of the anti-creationist natural evidence. Please tell us, using scientific reasoning, why it is inacurate.

And if you go larger, it'll make it look like you are shouting which I will ignore if you decide to do that. Point it, it is still not very reliable.

It's not reliable for VERY OLD THINGS which is why we don't use it for very old things. We use completely different isotopes for these old things. If you actually listened to people we wouldn't have to shout.

Tell me if I'm going to fast for you.

Passed it with flying colors. Was one reason why I wanted to be a meteorologist was that I was good with science. Alwell



I'm sorry. There seems to be some confusion. I'm under the impression you've done equations of motion. And if you have done the equations, you'll know how it is possible to find the age of a system. Yet you say that it can't be done with the universe. There are some inconsistencies here. Anyone else spot them?

Parent Isotope l Daughter Product l Half-Life
Uranium-238 l Lead-206 l 4.5 billion years
Uranium-235 l Lead-207 l 704 million years
Thorium-232 l Lead-208 l 14.0 billion years
Rubidium-87 l Strontium-87 l 48.8 billion years
Potassium-40 l Argon-40 l 1.25 billion years
Samarium-147 l Neodymium-143 l 106 billion years

See? All of these isotopes have lovely long half lives so they're accurate for very old things. Now can we please give these mindless attacks on Carbon 14 dating a rest?

*snip*

I will assault C-14 if I choose to for they are not mindless.

Oh and thanks for showing what most people with a back ground in science already know.

Hope I'm not too far behind as I write this - I like to know I've read upto the most recent comment before I post - but for some reason I've felt compelled up until now to give AlKhilafah AlIslamiah's comments my full attention, until they turned into a somewhat remedial science class and looking at the times posted it appears they're just being ripped out of another document (so why he doesn't just link to it is beyond me!)

Anyhow, that's not why I write.

I address Kamsaki and Adriatica II

I'm opposed to your position Kamsaki but certainly enjoyed reading your post. Equally, I enjoyed Adriatica II's response. I wish I could be so succinct!

Before I get embroiled in anything though, Kamsaki, I can see you're willing to talk about your opinions and naturally defend them, but are you open minded to other possibilities? I ask this of you because you seem utterly cock-sure of yourself to the point of holding the answers rather than expressing an opinion. Is that a fair comment, or are you open minded on these subjects, because I'd definitely like to talk about the omnipotence issue with you and Gods benevolence.

Incidentally, Adriatica II - I very much enjoyed your four sided pentagon. Put's me in mind of Ludwig Wittgenstein.


Kin Wicked

I will assault C-14 if I choose to for they are not mindless.

Oh and thanks for showing what most people with a back ground in science already know.

If you already knew about these isotopes then why do think Carbon dating is even relevant unless we're discussing relatively recent events?

We were arguing this in the thread "Does GOD have faith in you?". I'm moving it here not to hijack the original thread and here is more appropriate.

You're the one who's trying to claim that people are calling you stupid, and are trying to prove that you aren't. Flawed English isn't helping you.


People? Why do you call yourself people? And you suggested not believing is what smart people do. Believing is the opposite of not believing. And the opposite of smart is stupid/not smart. So you were quite clear, why are you backing now? Oh and I only mentioned this to highlight your unneccesarry arrogance. I dont really care to "answer" your "claims" about me. Dont flatter yourself.



You were arguing about the speciality of yourself. You're so special, you need a wizard in the sky.


In your second sentence, why did you use a comma? We usually use comma if the first and second part of the sentence is related. Do only special people "need" a "wizard"?



"I don't understand something, so it must be Tiamat who made it so!"


I understand about probability calculations in math, but it seems you dont, since you believe universe is the result of coincidences.


Again, prove it! Oh, but here again you can't. Why? Because your deity is unfalsifiable. It is not provable or disprovable. It is thus pointless to regard with any sort of reason. Also, it's funny how all of those things need an "intelligent designer," but the intelligent designer doesn't. How do you explain that? How can the universe need "an intelligent designer," but the intelligent designer, who by the very nature of your argument must be even more complex than the universe, not need a designer? And his designer, who's his designer? Here is the true hypocrisy of "intelligent design." It doesn't answer any question in its idiotic statement "god did it, because I like there to be a god" - in fact it raises even more.


Not provable? What do you mean by prove it? You need a GODmeter? Many aspects of science is actually not proven completely, yet we accept them. Theory of Gravity for example. Are you going to argue against gravity too? Besides we can prove some stuff by looking its results. The highly organised state of universe suggest an itelligent design.
If you are going to argue that intelligence designer (ID) needs another id and another etc...you'll go on forever. So this suggest at some point there must be an ID that was always there, without a beginning. So why not this ID be "the" id (GOD). Of course you might argue it was universe that was always there but we know that universe has got a beginning.
It is you who has to prove "everything" was a result of some "explosion".



More than you, it seems, since I can actually spell symmetry. And, no, it doesn't mean what you seem to think it means, and yes, your usage of it is incorrect. I recommend you purchase on OED.


Your english is better than me but I doubt your math is, since you still can not comprehend my point. The religious zealots is far right of the political spectrum (x coordinate axis). They label any counter argument as blasphemy, which shows their dogmatic thinking and close mindedness. Their symmetry (according to y axis) would be you who are in far left. You label any counter argument as stupid or "idiotic statement" which shows YOUR dogmatic thinking and close mindedness. So I was applying this symmetry thing to political spectrum, and hence my usage my correct. Now get it?


Do run along, as you don't seem to be accomplishing anything, really.

:rolleyes:

I believe that the gods are not all-loving, all good beings but are just like people with personalities and stuff (but they also have supernatural powers and are immortal which makes them extra special). Some are nice, some are not so nice but you just have to keep on their good side somehow...

Well, my country has Holy Empire in the name, and my flag is a giant cross. Any guesses?

I haven't read the whole topic, nor do I intend to, but, let's just say, if there is a God. He abandoned us long ago.

I haven't read the whole topic, nor do I intend to, but, let's just say, if there is a God. He abandoned us long ago.

Which is false for he has not at all abandoned us.

Again, quite the feat!



Believing in fairy tales and pixies and four-armed man-elephants or magical wizards in the sky is stupid. It's astonishing that you don't realise that. It's astonishing so many people don't.



While religion is stupid, it doesn't automatically render people stupid. In your case, racism, rather than religion, would be the bigger culprit, should one choose to entertain your straw man of me having called you stupid.



I'm sorry that you seem to see clarity as arrogance.

It's astonishing that you can not recognize the stupidity of your definition of racism and faith. Who said I or most believer believe in pixies or four armed man-elephants or magical wizards or etc...?
The last sentence was arrogant itself. Clarity huh? :rolleyes:

Nice character assassination.

Given that most Biblical scholars are Christians I think your claim is fairly empty.


Well thats what my experiance of it is.


Ouch, it fails on the very first claim, that:

"STONE ROLLED AWAY.(1) There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it. His appearance was like lightning, and his clothes were white as snow. The guards were so afraid of him that they shook and became like dead men.

WOMEN COME TO THE TOMB.(2) [Mk] When the Sabbath was over, Mary Magdalene, Mary the mother of James, [Lk] Joanna, [Mk] and Salome bought spices so that they might go to anoint Jesus' body. Very early on the first day of the week, just after sunrise, they were on their way to the tomb and they asked each other, "Who will roll the stone away from the entrance of the tomb?" But when they looked up, they saw that the stone, which was very large, had been rolled away."

Matt 28:1-2
1After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb.
2There was a violent earthquake, for an angel of the Lord came down from heaven and, going to the tomb, rolled back the stone and sat on it.

Note the tenses, the angel came down after the women arrived. Given that it can't even manage the very first contradiction I see little reason in reading more of your link.

There is no contradiction there at all. The Mark section describes to seperate events. Its the day that Mary Magdalene and the other Mary go to see Jesus tomb. And there was a viloent earthquake. There is no suggestion in the Mark passage that it happens after the women arrive. It couldnt have anyway, since the women would have been stopped by the Roman guards.


*sigh* A life expectancy of fourty obviously doesn't mean that everyone will die the moment they reach 40, it means that most of the population will be dead by about 40. The Crucifiction supposedly happened in 30AD, most of the witnesses (assuming they were 10 or older at the time) would have been dead by 65AD (the earliest date for Mark, probably the first Gospel).

Therefore your claim that all of the Gospels were written in the same generation of the witnesses is wrong, the vast majority of witnesses would have been dead by the time John was written.

No, but for someone to be as old as Simeon would suggest your life expentency details are flawed, not to mention some of the other older people described in the gospels. Also, it is widely accepted that John was written by an eye witness to Jesus's life so its obvious that one was written within the same generation.

It's astonishing that you can not recognize the stupidity of your definition of racism and faith. Who said I or most believer believe in pixies or four armed man-elephants or magical wizards or etc...?
The last sentence was arrogant itself. Clarity huh? :rolleyes:

Two people from Scandanavia fighting? I thought they were peaceful people! I guess I was wrong.

Oh and Ny? Fass is always like this. Its nothing new.

Two people from Scandanavia fighting? I thought they were peaceful people! I guess I was wrong.

Oh and Ny? Fass is always like this. Its nothing new.

We are not fighting, we are arguing...

We are not fighting, we are arguing...

Sounds like a fight the way he is dismissing everything that contradicts him. :D

Remember, a perfectly sympathetic God in a position of perfect control can create a world where we do not suffer and still become perfectly well defined.

You forget, he did create a world where we could become perfectly defined without suffering. We mucked it up so now we do suffer.


Benevolency, by my books, is an attitude that encourages development and desires to prevent any unnecessary harm; the likes of which the current state of our world has definately reached. Where is the justice, fairness, kindness and openness of the divine to reams of children orphaned by Aids while some weapons dealers in the 'States earn enough money to grow fat off of an overabundance of food selling firearms to the oppressive African dictatorships?

Please don't use the African Orphans argument. Its a pathetic plea to emotionality

The fact is that the current state of world affiars suffering is quite accurately not nessecary, and God does not want it. However he allowed it to happen because he gave us free will. Free will means we have the choice to obey God or not. The reason he gave us free will is because he wanted us to love him. Love cannot be given without free will.


I broke the power aspect of it down later based on the benevolence argument. If God can create a world without suffering and doesn't, it is not being benevolent. If it can't, it is not omnipotent.

He can and did create a world without suffering, but we screwed it up.


I have considered and rejected it. If he went back and removed it, we won't have been responsible because it won't have happened, you see?

No, it would have happend but he would have gone back in time and fixed it. Don't avoid the issue by using flawed temporal mechanics.


"God's" creation can't have been perfect if it had the propensity to be destroyed. That's all there is to it. I might write the most awesome program to allow people to walk over a virtual version of my home town, chat with others they meet, even do their shopping online, but if someone else can get in with some sort of modified client or scripting tool and do things they shouldn't be able to, I've not made the best possible piece of software I could have.

You seem here to misunderstand the notion of perfection. As so many often have. Let me demonstratre it to you

I am a master craftsman. I have created the perfect chisel. It is absloultely fantastic. It cuts off precisiely the ammount of stone the sculpter requires of it and does it with the minimum ammount of effort on the part of the sculpter. It is the perfect chisel. No other one could ever beat it because it is perfect in every way*

I am a master chef. I have created the perfect childs birthday cake. It combines vibrant artisticly pleasing designs with a perfectly scrumptious taste. No cake in the world could ever be better than this cake. It is the best cake ever*

* It may be that the qualities here described are not what makes the perfect chisel or cake, but thats not whats important. For the purposes of this analogy assume they are perfect.

Does the fact that the chisel would not taste very good at a party or the cake be of no use to Michaelangelo when carving David mean that either of them are any less perfect? No. It just means they cannot be what they are not.

In the same way Humans were created perfectly, but that definition of human ment they had free will which in turn meant that they could destroy the perfection via free will.

Then be careful with your words Corneliu ....
You have not been judged yet.
Pwned.
:)

You won't be having a reasoned discussion with him if you are not a believer.
That's where you're wrong:
You won't be having a reasoned discussion with *it* if you ARE a believer.
Pretty straight up. This has been covered enough now about what faith does and doesn't do for someone.

<snip>

Thank you. It was an interesting journey through your reasoning.

That's where you're wrong:
You won't be having a reasoned discussion with *it* if you ARE a believer.
Pretty straight up. This has been covered enough now about what faith does and doesn't do for someone.

Wrong. If you accept the Lord Savior Jesus and recognize that you are a sinner and repent, you will enter the kingdom of Heaven and be with Jesus. if you do not recognize that you are a sinner and do not accept the Lord Savior Jesus you will not enter the Kingdom of heaven.

Please use the correct context and/or translation. :)

Judges 1:19
ADONAI was with Y'hudah, and they took possession of the hillcountry, because they could not drive out the inhabitants of the valley, since they had iron chariots.

The above text mentions nothing about God driving out the inhabitants of the valley, only that He was with Judah. You have obviously read a mistranslation.
Obviously, so have you ... as well, you've missed the context.

Mark 6:5
So he could do no miracles there, other than lay his hands on a few sick people and heal them.

Again you should probably read the verse in context with the rest of the chapter. Jesus went to his home town where he went to teach in the synagogue. Verse 3 says that the people took offense to him. Verse 6 says 'He was amazed at their lack of trust.' That strikes a tone here too for some reason..
So you're saying it was his choice to give up on people, instead of fulfilling a responsibility? Wrong again.

Hebrews 6:18
so that through two unchangable things, in neither of which God could lie, we, who have fled to take a firm hold on the hope set before us, would be strongly encouraged.

Obviously there's more to that in the preceeding verses, but since you only quoted verse 18, I thought I'd just type it out in it's correct context for you. ;) Nonetheless it is a limitation of the ability of "god". Your spinning won't change that. Perhpas it's worth your while to address these issues with someone else, since you want to put so much work into making me see it your way.

You perhaps don't seem to understand what the nature of "translation". Perhaps you have "the flawed" translation.
Where did you take it from, praytell .. KJV, NIV, NISV, Living, or what?

Wrong. If you accept the Lord Savior Jesus and recognize that you are a sinner and repent, you will enter the kingdom of Heaven and be with Jesus. if you do not recognize that you are a sinner and do not accept the Lord Savior Jesus you will not enter the Kingdom of heaven.
Corny, you have a fragile "grasp" on the subject matter as it is, to say nothing of this specific issue. I'm talking about having a reasoned discussion.
You yourself and many others, when pressed about the nature of faith, recognize it's a hopeful form of self-delusion, and thus, NOT GROUNDED in REASON. Further, with no evidence of any said "god" other than words on a page, NOT UNLIKE THESE, you HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO GO ON - thus again evading a firm base in reason.
Do you understand yet or should you just change the subject?

BBL - sunny out, et cetera. Just don't spam the f*cking thread, 'kay?

*snip*

You can continue to tell me I am wrong however it is written "Unless a man be born again, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

It is also written that "he who believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live."

It is also written that "For God so love the world, he gave his only begotten Son to die for us, for whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life."

The truth is clear to those who have the ears to hear the truth. Unless you repent to the Lord Savior and recognize that you are a sinner and ask for forgiveness of your sins, you will not be with Jesus or God.

:rolleyes: There is only 1, repeat 1, creation story.
Try again ....

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html

Yet again. This isn't a good topic for you to argue about either, even for what you make up for reason with fervor and zeal.
If you truly hold these things important, you shouldn't spend so much exposure to people like me and a few others here. It's not working out for you.

*snip*

I am not a skeptic so what would I need a skeptic annotated bible for? Oh wait. I don't for I am a believer of the Truth.

You can continue to tell me I am wrong however it is written "Unless a man be born again, he cannot enter the Kingdom of Heaven."

It is also written that "he who believeth in me, though he were dead, yet shall he live."

It is also written that "For God so love the world, he gave his only begotten Son to die for us, for whosoever believeth in him shall not perish but have everlasting life."

The truth is clear to those who have the ears to hear the truth. Unless you repent to the Lord Savior and recognize that you are a sinner and ask for forgiveness of your sins, you will not be with Jesus or God.
This is exactly what others and myself are telling you.
This is not a reasoned conversation - and by being a "believer" you are already precluding rational discourse with your own preoccupation of belief. Are you TRULY that daft to not understand that?
You're backing your example with the same erroneus source. Not a good ploy.
Save yourself the trouble and think it out a bit. That's what your soul is worth.

*snip*

I already know where I am going. Do you?

I am not a skeptic so what would I need a skeptic annotated bible for? Oh wait. I don't for I am a believer of the Truth.
The very nature of capitalizing a word that means clearly something else shows exactly what the nature of your belief is. Strangely appropriate that you also argue so fervently for the Bush administration. They change the meaning of words too and have *taxpayers* suck them off as well, respitting the same bilge.

Shame on you.

I already know where I am going. Do you?
I know where i am.

YOU can only GUESS where you're going.
And you're backing your ideas up with gullibility and hope instead of sensibility and reason.
And you're not taking a few people with you. Good thing too.

As the song goes....

The B-I-B-L-E. Yes that's the book for me. I stand alone on the word of God. The B-I-B-L-E.

Corny, you have a fragile "grasp" on the subject matter as it is, to say nothing of this specific issue. I'm talking about having a reasoned discussion.
You yourself and many others, when pressed about the nature of faith, recognize it's a hopeful form of self-delusion, and thus, NOT GROUNDED in REASON. Further, with no evidence of any said "god" other than words on a page, NOT UNLIKE THESE, you HAVE NOTHING ELSE TO GO ON - thus again evading a firm base in reason.
Do you understand yet or should you just change the subject?

Do you deny yourself the opportunity to express any form of faith? Must ALL things be reasoned? I know it sounds weak to those who rely on proof like the lame would rely on a crutch, but there are some things you simply know through experience.

Many (including yourself from the sound of things) see that Christian people open the Bible and become saturated in this alien and entirely inadequate form of reasoning called faith. But perhaps you might consider that a Christians faith doesn't come from a book but comes from their spiritual standing with God. The Bible becomes an aide. A reminder of where it came from and the message that God apparently intended us to have to use and interpret with his guidance.

I am hypocritical. I'm very poorly read in the Bible and so am utterly out of my depth when people begin to quote from it. However, I do attempt to take my cues from God where I can. My faith is in him.... not a book... not a religion... but in God.

There is more to existance than the eye sees and the ear hears. Many have been speaking of Scientific facts and theories during this debate, but even science supports the notions that there is more out there than we can see with out natural senses, and there is more out there than can be explained by science (though a scientest would add the word 'yet', I'm certain).

Just a thought, anyhow.



Kin Wicked

I am not a skeptic so what would I need (whatever) for.Translation: Why would i ever want to research anything that challenges my most insecure beliefs? Why would i want to season my emotional rationale with evidence to the contrary?

I know where i am.

Oh heck. I know where I am at too.

YOU can only GUESS where you're going.
And you're backing your ideas up with gullibility and hope instead of sensibility and reason.
And you're not taking a few people with you. Good thing too.

I am going to be with the Lord. Do not wait to long for time is running short.

As the song goes....

The B-I-B-L-E. Yes that's the book for me. I stand alone on the word of God. The B-I-B-L-E.
Now i know you're joking. You're doing good this time. :p

Now for the other shoe ...
Which one?

Oh heck. I know where I am at too. No, you're the frog in the proverbial jacuzzi, or at least you argue well like one.



I am going to be with the Lord. Do not wait to long for time is running short.Why wait at all? Just go alone. Everyone else will slow you down.

EDIT: Good joke, btw about "oh heck". :D

Straughn? go out into the sun. So far you are lying about stepping outside and enjoying the day.

Anyways....continue to attack me for I forgive you for your attacks on me and my faith.

Do you deny yourself the opportunity to express any form of faith?Per strict wording, no.
Must ALL things be reasoned? All important things, yes. Your soul, for example :rolleyes:

I know it sounds weak to those who rely on proof like the lame would rely on a crutch, but there are some things you simply know through experience.Since i sincerely doubt anyone on here right now, including yourself, have any experience to qualify "the afterlife".


Many (including yourself from the sound of things) see that Christian people open the Bible and become saturated in this alien and entirely inadequate form of reasoning called faith. But perhaps you might consider that A Christians faith doesn't come from a book but comes from their spiritual standing with God. The Bable becomes an aide. A reminder of where it came from and the message that God apparently intended us to have to use and interpret with his guidance.There are variances. Scrutiny must be applied if you are talking about the fate of humanity, in ANY instance.

I am hypocritical. I'm very poorly read in the Bible and so am utterly out of my depth when people begin to quote from it. However, I do attempt to take my cues from God where I can. My faith is in him.... not a book... not a religion... but in God.I have, perhaps to your surprise, little problem with this. It's not really the issue you were replying to, IME.

There is more to existance than the eye sees and the ear hears. Many have been speaking of Scientific facts and theories during this debate, but even science supports the notions that there is more out there than we can see with out natural senses, and there is more out there than can be explained by science (though a scientest would add the word 'yet', I'm certain).

Just a thought, anyhow.No problem with that. The problem is dogma without reason, and certainty without experience or proof. Really, that's all.

continue to attack me for I forgive you for your attacks on me and my faith.Attack? Self-defence more like.

You claim your god wants to torture people like Straughn & me, for not believing it exists. You're the one threatning us.

Straughn? go out into the sun. So far you are lying about stepping outside and enjoying the day.I know, for which i apologize. My mother decided to call me right as i finished up a response, to tell me about things i wasn't really involved with for about 15 minutes or so.

Anyways....continue to attack me for I forgive you for your attacks on me and my faith.Where's the fun in that?
As i posted much earlier in either this or the 2nd L/T thread, DON'T forgive me. Use the experience for what it's worth. You stand still and the real world moves around you otherwise.
Which one of us is trying to help whom?

Attack? Self-defence more like.

You claim your god wants to torture people like Straughn & me, for not believing it exists. You're the one threatning us.

No I didn't threaten. If I was threatening, I would issue a threat. I have made no threats.

Attack? Self-defence more like.

You claim your god wants to torture people like Straughn & me, for not believing it exists. You're the one threatning us.
Word. *bows*
Saint Curie has gone on at great length, obviously, to show you that as well, Corny.

I know, for which i apologize. My mother decided to call me right as i finished up a response, to tell me about things i wasn't really involved with for about 15 minutes or so.

Ah sorry to hear that. Have fun outdoors :)

Where's the fun in that?

None for you I guess.

As i posted much earlier in either this or the 2nd L/T thread, DON'T forgive me. Use the experience for what it's worth. You stand still and the real world moves around you otherwise.
Which one of us is trying to help whom?

I'm trying to help you.

I was thinking about a friend I lost to breast cancer awhile back and how she didn't deserve to die. She had an asshole husband for many years. He was abusive, and when they got divorced, he would go to their sons wrestling meet.. with his bimbo girlfriend.

She was always kind and a good listener to anyone who talked to her. Since she was a teacher, when she died, everyone lost a good friend. We all were affected by her.

Her son is graduating soon, her daughter is getting married this summer. She was happy and upbeat, even with cancer and going through chemo.

Well.. I started thinking why would God let her die? She was a good person. She shouldn't have been taken, it wasn't her time.

I wasn't relisios to begin with.. but I thought there was some sort of higher being (God). But I don't feel that way anymore. What God would do that to someone?

Do you think there is a God?

EDIT: And why do you feel that way?
If you beleive in reincarnation, as I do, you'd know she did SOMETHING somewhere along hte line, even if it's not in this lifetime. God is the greatist justice. Otherwise, why not be a psycho-path if you could get away with it.

Ah sorry to hear that. Have fun outdoors :)

That's okay - sometimes that's the only interaction some people have.
For example, if anyone were to read MOST of our interaction, they'd think we have it in for each other. There's a few posts that lean otherwise ...
thanks though.
:)

None for you I guess.Oh come on, you have fun with it too, and YOU KNOW IT. :p



I'm trying to help you.Follow the $ trail. :D
"I'm from the government. I'm here to help."

Yeah, gotsa go.
I'm just SERIOUSLY behind in pages, so try not to spam too much, 'kay?

Do you deny yourself the opportunity to express any form of faith?Define faith, and I'll tell you if I think it's possible to refrain from expressing it.Must ALL things be reasoned?Define "All things". I don't take a very rational approach to love, for example.I know it sounds weak to those who rely on proof like the lame would rely on a crutch, but there are some things you simply know through experience.How can proof be a crutch? Don't you think it's at least a mild form of language-molesting, to define an irrational belief as "experience"?

From where I'm sitting, relying on evidence means one will either base one's opinions on the most probable possibility, or refrain from adopting an opinion, due to lack of evidence.

Understanding & accepting evidence found by others, is simply one way to learn from the experiences of others. Even if I'd never stepped outside my front door, I'd know enough about the findings of others, not to have any reason to tie myself to the doorknob, out of fear of a lacking gravitational pull.Many (including yourself from the sound of things) see that Christian people open the Bible and become saturated in this alien and entirely inadequate form of reasoning called faith.Is reasoning involved in faith? If so, you must be able to explain how it works & I should like to hear it.But perhaps you might consider that a Christians faith doesn't come from a book but comes from their spiritual standing with God. The Bible becomes an aide. A reminder of where it came from and the message that God apparently intended us to have to use and interpret with his guidance.I've not seen an overwhelming amount of bashing of religion. What I have seen, is a lot of religious people trying to rationalise litteralist faith & divine viciousness.

You believe in God? Good for you. You believe your God is good & rightious, and wilol forever torture me for failing to believe the same thing? Well fuck off then. I don't submit to threats from terrorist deities, and I'm not just going to shut up & let you glorify your daemon-deity for it's vicious cruelty.I am hypocritical. I'm very poorly read in the Bible and so am utterly out of my depth when people begin to quote from it. However, I do attempt to take my cues from God where I can. My faith is in him.... not a book... not a religion... but in God.To be perfectly honest, I see religion as a coping-mechanism. Something people adopt, in order to deal with a reality lacking in absolutes. I suspect we all do to some degree, in one way or another - and though I think religion is a strange thing, I see nothing wrong with seeking refuge in the imagination... To some degree.There is more to existance than the eye sees and the ear hears. Many have been speaking of Scientific facts and theories during this debate, but even science supports the notions that there is more out there than we can see with out natural senses, and there is more out there than can be explained by science (though a scientest would add the word 'yet', I'm certain).The great thing about the imagined, is that it's always possible to move the goal-posts. Once people thought God looked down on people from the clouds. We've explored the atmosphere, and that just doesn't look very likely. Then people imagined God's abode was somewhere among the stars. Now we've had a pretty good look at the closer ones, and we've not noticed any divine dwellings. Now people usually believe God dwells beyond the boundries of the universe, and there it can continue to exist for eternity, because it is a logical impossibility to check out if it's there.

As long as manking have the capacity to dream & imagine, there'll always be room for deities, daemons, ghosts & goblins.

That's okay - sometimes that's the only interaction some people have.
For example, if anyone were to read MOST of our interaction, they'd think we have it in for each other. There's a few posts that lean otherwise ...
thanks though.
:)

Nah we don't. We just like to give one another a hard time. I do respect you Straughn.

Oh come on, you have fun with it too, and YOU KNOW IT. :p

Bah! I have to say guilty as charged to this.

Follow the $ trail. :D
"I'm from the government. I'm here to help."

Yeah, gotsa go.
I'm just SERIOUSLY behind in pages, so try not to spam too much, 'kay?

LOL! Have fun Straughn. Don't do something stupid :p

Hi Straughn, this one's a response to you, but rather than slip in a long quote I'll just try and make my point and run. It's late here and I must rest soon!!

Anyhoo,

You may not have taken my argument this way, but just to be sure I'll cover my back. I'm not saying that we must abandon reason, logic, science etc. But what I am saying is that if we try to put God under a microscope, we'll get nowhere. I'd said in a (much) earlier post that God cannot be understood in the way you would like to. The Nature of God is simply too vast and too complex. We have no true understanding of his motives and we cannot conceive of his compassion for his creation. It is simply beyond us. It feels from the perspective of the Christian as though your (as in those of your stand point - not simply YOUR) desire and subsequent inability to scrutinise all things, to categorise and label, is fated. With faith you can accept that you cannot scrutinise God in this way. Furthermore it is not your place to. AND furthermore that if you found out anything to your advantage you would be faced with an infinite array of new questions to ask.

Sorry - I'm babbling - it's late - let me try and get to my point without giving anyone any more of a head ache than they already have.

Reason - that's good.
Faith - that's good too.
You cannot reason all things, and relying on faith is no weakness.

You talk of experience - no I have not experienced the afterlife. But I have experienced God in this life. I could testify to you, but while your heels are dug in, my testimony would be attributed to all manner of physicall and psychological phenomena, so such testimony serves no function at this time.

If I believe in God, and have faith in God, then I also trust in God and know that the basic elements of my faith are true including the afterlife.

I suppose that what I'm saying... or trying to throw a haze of drowsiness... is athiests place the burden of proof on the faithful. So while an athiest awaits the delivery of proof (because unless personally motivated, athiests don't seem to seek evidence of God deliberately) they rely on impirical data. Data which by it's nature will not prove the existence of God or any higher power. It's like having a maths problem and trying to answer it like it was an English Literature question.

Plus as I've kind of hinted at, it's my impression that an athiests will not seek that which they would prefer to disprove. And if they seek evidence pointing toward a lack of God, then they'll find it - you can find any answer you want if you look hard enough.

Maybe that's not fair, but I'm too tired to think any more. I'll try to be more awake and more rational the next time I post.


Good night from Kin Wicked,
Leader of the Community of Wikaedia

Similization, thanks for the reply - I'll get back to you too when I'm more awake and Language is slightly more in my grasp.

Would it be stating the obviouse to say I disagree? Of course it would, but that's the best you'll get from me until I'm back at the computer with more of my wits about me.


Kin

Similization, thanks for the reply - I'll get back to you too when I'm more awake and Language is slightly more in my grasp.

Would it be stating the obviouse to say I disagree? Of course it would, but that's the best you'll get from me until I'm back at the computer with more of my wits about me.


Kin

Sleep well Kin. :)

Similization, thanks for the reply - I'll get back to you too when I'm more awakeNite nite.

Attack? Self-defence more like.

You claim your god wants to torture people like Straughn & me, for not believing it exists. You're the one threatning us.

Perhaps I should repost the comment I made in Bushanomics's George W. Bush thread...

Corneliu, like many people I knew at my old high school, is an excellent example of a Religious Literalist, a subset of humanity marked by belief in a single, "inerrant" religious text (from any religion) and a tendency to ignore or otherwise eliminate any argument or evidence that even challenges the Religious Literalist's beliefs. In debates, the Religious Literalist's attacks are almost always ineffective against a non-Religious Literalist opponent, as said attacks are invariably based on the Religious Literalist's preferred religious text. Unfortunately, the same traits that make the Religious Literalist an ineffective attacker also make him almost impossible to defeat (indeed, the Religious Literalist is unlikely to recognize defeat even when it is staring him or her in the face); in fact, attacking the Religious Literalist is likely to prove counter-productive, as the Religious Literalist may interpret any attack as an attack against his or her "sacred" text and respond by clinging more closely to said text in the future. As a result, the best tactic to stop a Religious Literalist in his or her (usually his) tracks is to deny the battle in the first place.

The Religious Literalist is often referred to as "Deacon"/"Atheist" or "Issues" in common Flame Warrior guides.

[/encyclopedia_voice]

So, if I were to say "If there is a mouse in my refrigerator without means of breathing, it is in danger of suffocating", you think that means I put credence in the idea that there is a mouse in my refrigerator?
Yes. That's what the "if" is for.

Also, when I say "examing the opposing argument to show where it leads", I don't mean that the argument between the two people should or shouldn't continue, I mean showing where the opposing argument would necessarily lead by its nature.

Seriously, Willamena, I have nothing against you personally, but do you really not follow how you can show a LACK of credence in a position by showing where the position would lead?
No; the method of "if this is true..." is necessarily supporting.

Perhaps I should repost the comment I made in Bushanomics's George W. Bush thread...Unfortunate, but true.

Yet you miss something quite fundamental; is it desirable not to challenge those who preach hatred, prejudice, segregation & violence?

Unfortunate, but true.

Yet you miss something quite fundamental; is it desirable not to challenge those who preach hatred, prejudice, segregation & violence?

1) I do not "preach" hatred

2) I do not "preach" prejudice

3) I do not "preach" segregation

and

4) I do not "preach" violence

1) I do not "preach" hatred

2) I do not "preach" prejudice

3) I do not "preach" segregation

and

4) I do not "preach" violenceWell, your gleeful condemnations of people like myself, would seem to indicate otherwise. The "Burn baby, burn!" attitude is rather revealing.

Well, your gleeful condemnations of people like myself, would seem to indicate otherwise. The "Burn baby, burn!" attitude is rather revealing.

There's a difference between preaching hatred than preaching what is going to happen if you do not come to the Lord Savior Jesus.

If I was preaching hate, I would be sinning against the Lord.

If I preached segregation, that too would be a sin

As is preaching violence and prejudice.

For me there is one...Yet things have to happen, things die for others to born... Death is sad, really, but you can't blame anyone...

There's a difference between preaching hatred than preaching what is going to happen if you do not come to the Lord Savior Jesus.

If I was preaching hate, I would be sinning against the Lord.

If I preached segregation, that too would be a sin

As is preaching violence and prejudice.

That's note entirely true about Hate, Corneliu. If you preached about hating your fellow man, yes. However, God instructs us to hate sin.

And Similization, you have to remember that while yes, Corneliu and I believe that if Christ is not in your life as He's supposed to be, you will be damned, do not think that it is us who are damning you, it is not US who is threatening you. We are simply speaking our religious beliefs. WE are not damning you.


OH, and Corneliu is not a literalist. I am. I'm one of those OMG T3H EVIL 6 DAY CREATIONISTS!!111 people (Yet I support evolution?). Part of the reason I don't get involved is the only thing we're going to do is thing the other person is an idiot (to varying degrees, add your own modifiers at will), and nothing happens.

one of the interesting things about humanity is that if enough people believe something, it tends to happen.

that's the basis of the modern economy, consumer confidence:
we BELIEVE the economy is good, so we buy things, and it is good.
we BELIEVE the economy is bad, so we don't spend, and it is bad.

millions Bible-wavers, like Corneliu for instance, BELIEVE the world will end soon, and everything IS getting fubar lately.

on that idea then, isn't it technically true that whoever wrote the bible in effect destroyed the world?

That's note entirely true about Hate, Corneliu. If you preached about hating your fellow man, yes. However, God instructs us to hate sin.

True true!

There's a difference between preaching hatred than preaching what is going to happen if you do not come to the Lord Savior Jesus.

If I was preaching hate, I would be sinning against the Lord.

If I preached segregation, that too would be a sin

As is preaching violence and prejudice.Really?

Well Corney, if you do not wortship me, you'll be gang-raped by 600lbs homosexual hippies for all eternity, upon your death.

When/if your family & friends die, it is by my design. You shall eat their bodies upon their death, because I say so. Otherwise it's off to gang-rape land for eternity.

I - your deity - dislike lefthanded people. There's about as many lefthanded as thereare homosexuals. You will do your very best to prevent these people from breeding, living normal lives, getting married & so on. And you will speak out against them in public, whenever you get the chance.

You will spread my decrees, and not take no for an answer. If anyone accosts you for preaching hatred, prejudice, segregation & violence, you will deny it. Roll your eyes, and tell the misguided ones, that doing so would be a sin agains me, your deity. It doesn't matter that this is self-contradicting. I say it is right & true, thus it is right and true. Question this, and it's off to gang-rape land forever, and ever, and ever...

we all of course realize that if a GM wandered in, we would probably all get banned in a heartbeat?

*snip*

very nice sarcasm Similization.

Unfortunate, but true.

Yet you miss something quite fundamental; is it desirable not to challenge those who preach hatred, prejudice, segregation & violence?

Those who preach intolerance gain power and influence through counter-arguments (the Religious Literalist will claim that the existence of counter-arguments "proves" that they have a valid argument in the first place, as the "ID movement" here in the United States so aptly shows), as well as through their (comparatively small) base of devoted followers. When involved in a war of words, it is best to ignore them completely, as by ignoring them you strip them of the power they gain from notoriety.

Those who preach intolerance gain power and influence through counter-arguments (the Religious Literalist will claim that the existence of counter-arguments "proves" that they have a valid argument in the first place, as the "ID movement" here in the United States so aptly shows), as well as through their (comparatively small) base of devoted followers. When involved in a war of words, it is best to ignore them completely, as by ignoring them you strip them of the power they gain from notoriety.

And those who fail to hear the words of the Lord will be condemned which saddens God who wants us all to be with Him.

When involved in a war of words, it is best to ignore them completely, as by ignoring them you strip them of the power they gain from notoriety.

even recently that would have been true, but with the modern political media and the EXTREME weak-mindedness of voters, if you remain silent, you effectively cease to exist now.

and lets not kid ourselves, this IS political.

I have faith in a God, a God that talks to ME.

I have no faith in the organized religions that have only corrupted God's words to their own ends and have caused the the deaths of more people than all the other reasons for human conflict.

And those who fail to hear the words of the Lord will be condemned which saddens God who wants us all to be with Him.

wait wait wait.

God wants everyone to be with him, so he shuns those who don't profess undying loyalty to Him without any proof?

go over that again, 'cause i think i missed something.

i apologize for any mis-capitalization.

And those who fail to hear the words of the Lord will be condemned which saddens God who wants us all to be with Him.It doesn't sadden me in the least. I always enjoy watching the unbelievers squirm as they're raped to death, over & over, and over... Especially since they invented the digicam for me. Nice irony there, haha!

wait wait wait.

God wants everyone to be with him, so he shuns those who don't profess undying loyalty to Him without any proof?

go over that again, 'cause i think i missed something.

God wants us all to be with him. That is why he sent his Son to die for us so that through Him, our sins will be washed away for whosoever believes in Him will not perish but will be with Him in heaven and have ever lasting life.

i am confused about something though.

when religious people need a argument, they usually just chuck a few bible quotes about until their "enemies" give up and leave, because they consider the Bible to be "proof".

What if i was to write a book that says: "the universe was created by a gigantic teal squid 45 minutes ago." and put it in a nice leather binding stamped "the holy book of KaminoBob", and give it to millions of people.

if then i were to claim that book i wrote is proof that i am right about everything, is there anyone on Earth that would listen to me?

i am confused about something though.

when religious people need a argument, they usually just chuck a few bible quotes about until their "enemies" give up and leave, because they consider the Bible to be "proof".

What if i was to write a book that says: "the universe was created by a gigantic teal squid 45 minutes ago." and put it in a nice leather binding stamped "the holy book of KaminoBob", and give it to millions of people.

if then i were to claim that book i wrote is proof that i am right about everything, is there anyone on Earth that would listen to me?

truth be told, some will listen and others will call you nuts.

God wants us all to be with him.Dear little insignificant follower, I do not desire your company. This is why I made it impossible for you not to sin.


That is why he sent his Son to die for us so that through Him, our sins will be washed away for whosoever believes in Him will not perish but will be with Him in heaven and have ever lasting life.Actually, that's not completely true. I sent the kid to Earth, because he was a no-good lazy hippie. When I saw all the fuss, I decided to have him killed, so all my little followers would forever feel guilty for being the cause of my son's death.

What can I say? I just love watching you lot squirm.

God wants us all to be with him. That is why he sent his Son to die for us so that through Him, our sins will be washed away for whosoever believes in Him will not perish but will be with Him in heaven and have ever lasting life.

no, you went over the part i got. go over the OTHER part

also, just as a little question, can you make an argument that is still in English, yet is completely devoid of capitalized pronouns?

truth be told, some will listen and others will call you nuts.

then, with ABSOLUTLY no offence intended toward you, why is no-one allowed to call people who follow "normal" religions nuts?

no, you went over the part i got. go over the OTHER part

also, just as a little question, can you make an argument that is still in English, yet is completely devoid of capitalized pronouns?

The proof is all around us. It is solely up to you if you want to accept the proof.

then, with ABSOLUTLY no offence intended toward you, why is no-one allowed to call people who follow "normal" religions nuts?

They are allowed to.

They are allowed to.I think it's more relevant to ask why anyone should pay attention to you?

The proof is all around us. It is solely up to you if you want to accept the proof.

i have found as much proof that your god exists as that my giant-teal-squid-deity exists.

there is existence, and so my god exists, because He/She/It created existence.

They are allowed to.

if i were to go on national television and call your religion "nuts", a lynch mob would burn me at the stake.

if i were to do the holy book 'o' KaminoBob thing, and demand that all those who mock me be fed to giant squid, no dice.

I was visited late last spring by two powerful Archetypes. One was a very, very old and tired man sitting by a small fire. The other was the fire itself, who spoke as well as the man, in fact nearly shouting him down at times. The man told me that he was known to me by name but insisted on referring to himself as 'the giver of the gift', while the fire described itself to me as 'the gift, who was not his to give'. I had quite the revelatory experience, one which it's taken the better part of a year to fully digest.

However, these Archetypes weren't God; they were, to my way of thinking, 'Gods' - but I do believe in God, my God, the Supreme Deity with whom I have a deeply personal relationship. And I'll tell you - my God doesn't care about the stuff that you, me, and the other six billion hairless apes on this rock care about; It's not about books, or priests, or tall little buildings with belltowers on them - what it's really about is nearly everything else there is in the cosmos other than books, or priests, or tall little buildings with belltowers on them.

Want to get closer to God? There's more of God to be found in - well, name it - than you'll ever find in some stale old book sitting on a dusty pew.

Oh, and of course there's Bob, but he's a Sex God.

actually, cornilieu, i just had a thought...

if we were both to live for 10,000 years, neither of us would ever have any hope of persuading the other to alter their beliefs, and yet we persist in arguing the point.

do you know why, 'cause i sure don't?

Oh, and of course there's Bob, but he's a Sex God.

damn skippy.

I think it's more relevant to ask why anyone should pay attention to you?

I could say likewise. I did like your sarcasm though. Well done on that.

if i were to go on national television and call your religion "nuts", a lynch mob would burn me at the stake.

Actually....that would be a massive violation of 1) Federal law, 2) State Law, 3) Local Law and 4) violates one of the 10 Commandments.

if i were to do the holy book 'o' KaminoBob thing, and demand that all those who mock me be fed to giant squid, no dice.

As I said. Some will believe you and others won't. *shrugs*

actually, cornilieu, i just had a thought...

if we were both to live for 10,000 years, neither of us would ever have any hope of persuading the other to alter their beliefs, and yet we persist in arguing the point.

do you know why, 'cause i sure don't?

Because we are humans and humans love to bicker :p

even recently that would have been true, but with the modern political media and the EXTREME weak-mindedness of voters, if you remain silent, you effectively cease to exist now.

and lets not kid ourselves, this IS political.

As long as a sufficient percentage of the population decides to ignore the Religious Literalist's rhetoric, the Religious Literalist becomes marginalized and can no longer affect politics without resorting to means that are socially unacceptable in the Western world (namely, acts of violence).

Indeed, the very weak-minded voters you referred to are a strong argument against trying to debate the Religious Literalist, as weak-minded voters are more likely to buy the Religious Literalist's claim that "if the scientific/liberal/atheist/etc. community is arguing against my claims, then that means that I have a valid claim". Remember, I spend a good portion of my year in East Texas, where creationism and the "ID movement" run rampant - I have seen the above "argument" hauled out by creationists on numerous occasions to try to garner (additional) public support for their beliefs.

Edit: http://redwing.hutman.net/~mreed/warriorshtm/issues.htm (yep, that's a Flame Warriors page)

Actually....that would be a massive violation of 1) Federal law, 2) State Law, 3) Local Law and 4) violates one of the 10 Commandments.

and yet if they were told it was the will of god, they would.
they have before, and unless the apocalypse comes real soon, they will again.

I think it's more relevant to ask why anyone should pay attention to you?

Exactly.

and yet if they were told it was the will of god, they would.
they have before, and unless the apocalypse comes real soon, they will again.

I wouldn't participate in something like that for I believe in tolerance.

I wouldn't participate in something like that for I believe in tolerance.

you belive in tolerance, and yet you belive that i am damned to eternal brimstone and oblivion for not believing like you do.

reminds me of a fake newpaper article i saw one time: "Pope calls on followers to improve ties with the unholy and damned"

regardless, thank you for being human enough to not join a new crusades.

on an unrelated note, did you ever watch the movie Dogma?

I wouldn't participate in something like that for I believe in tolerance.Tolerance as in condemning all who doesn't share your beliefs..

you belive in tolerance, and yet you belive that i am damned to eternal brimstone and oblivion for not believing like you do.

reminds me of a fake newpaper article i saw one time: "Pope calls on followers to improve ties with the unholy and damned"

regardless, thank you for being human enough to not join a new crusades.

on an unrelated note, did you ever watch the movie Dogma?

Truth be told, no I haven't watched it.

maybe you should.
also, watch MiB, the first one.
i think its its amazing how much of human nature is reflected in our movies.

quoth MiB's K: "a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, violent animals, and you know it"

maybe you should.
also, watch MiB, the first one.
i think its its amazing how much of human nature is reflected in our movies.

quoth MiB's K: "a person is smart. people are dumb, panicky, violent animals, and you know it"

I have both MiB movies :)

common ground between the zealot and the damned: Mib

(i like to insult all sides of an issue from a non-party viewpoint)

Yes. That's what the "if" is for.

No; the method of "if this is true..." is necessarily supporting.

Oh really?

Let's try yet another analogy.

Bob: I possess all the money in the world.

Albert: If this is true, there would be no money that doesn't belong to you.

Bob: Yes, so?

Albert: Well, let's address that. I have something in my wallet here that belongs to me...


So, Williamena, Albert used an "if this is true statement". Do you believe he is supporting Bob's position?

i have found as much proof that your god exists as that my giant-teal-squid-deity exists.

there is existence, and so my god exists, because He/She/It created existence.

If you want proof of his existence then ask Him for it in a sincere and humble manner. Call upon Him through his son Jesus Christ and I believe He will answer.

If you want proof of his existence then ask Him for it in a sincere and humble manner. Call upon Him through his son Jesus Christ and I believe He will answer.

alrighty then, lemme try this...

i call upon god, humbly, to prove his existence.

i call upon lord zoltar, giant teal squid creator of all, to prove It exists.

nothing happened for either...

And that is why you do not hear the truth for you do not believe. He who have ears to hear, let him hear.

And I do not believe for I have not heard. This is not so hard to understand.

alrighty then, lemme try this...

i call upon god, humbly, to prove his existence.

i call upon lord zoltar, giant teal squid creator of all, to prove It exists.

nothing happened for either...Heh, I was almost expecting someone to log on with a "Lord Zoltar, Giant Teal Squid Creator of All" puppet :p

I Think There Is Definately A God. The Complex Fabric Of The Universe Was Not Made Randomly. Think Of What It Takes For A Living Thing To Function. I Find It Hard To Believe That Life And Existence Itself Was Generated By Chaos Without An Intelligence Controling It. I Think That Bad Things Happen Because Man Has Free Choice. Think What Life Would Be Like If God Forcefully Controlled Every Aspect Of It. We Would Have No Free Will. If He Took Away Death Life Would Have No Meaning. He Made Us And Gave Us Everything We Need, Then He Stepped Back And Let Us Decide Our Own Fate. I Think He Probably Intervenes In Some Of The Larger Things But Expects Us To Live Our Lives. I Don't Blame God When Something Bad Happens. I Thank Him When Something Good Happens. Just this One Guy's Philosophy.

Heh, I was almost expecting someone to log on with a "Lord Zoltar, Giant Teal Squid Creator of All" puppet :p

that would actually make a pretty fun religion.
the central icon: a 40-foot tall teal squid plushie.
houses of worship: zepplin hangars painted blue.
secret password: wooooob.

Hey Corneliu... Don't be nasty. I was actually reading it. Maybe this is not the right place to post this long "story" but don't say "no one is listening". You are not everyone.

Now apologise... :D please...

I was reading it too. There's flaws in his arguments, but since he apparently keeps posting there's no way I can wriggle my way between them.

Yes, I believe in God.

well Iam sorry to hear that but how can we really say there is no proof of God and there is no proof he does not exist. We only us such a small portion of our brain that we do not really know what his reasoning is Iam sure if we used more and thought outside the box we would understand and we need to not let pain make us not believe cause what doesn't kill you makes you stronger remember that.

That's my point. It in no way surrenders the athiest position to examine the implications of considering the bible to be true.
What does the atheist accomplish by considering the Bible to be true?

Seriously, that kind of examination of the results of the opposing axioms is a long-standing and time-honored means of analysis.
And what have been the results of this "time-honored means of analysis" in regards to the existence of God?

The Socratic Method in philosophy, proof by contradiction in Discrete Math, even basic debate or public speaking classes should be introducing this kind of thing, even before the undergraduate level.
As I stated earlier, your "proof by contradiction" will not disprove the existence of God.

You have made 349 posts in this thread. What exactly do you hope to accomplish?

What does the atheist accomplish by considering the Bible to be true?The theist & atheist alike, "accomplish" an insight into the morality of the proposed religion & its deity.And what have been the results of this "time-honored means of analysis" in regards to the existence of God?I wouldn't know. I don't see how this sort of reasoning can be applied to the existence of a deity.As I stated earlier, your "proof by contradiction" will not disprove the existence of God.Nor has that been attempted. What it can do, however, is to demonstrate what sort of ethics the deity promotes - and that's what SC has been doing. Perhaps you should re-read his posts.You have made over 350 posts in this thread. What exactly do you hope to accomplish?If I had to speculate, I'd say a mixture of fun, killing time & hilighting how absurd religion is.

Oh really?

Let's try yet another analogy.

Bob: I possess all the money in the world.

Albert: If this is true, there would be no money that doesn't belong to you.

Bob: Yes, so?

Albert: Well, let's address that. I have something in my wallet here that belongs to me...


So, Williamena, Albert used an "if this is true statement". Do you believe he is supporting Bob's position?
When he proposed that this was true, he was supporting Bob's position in order to make his point. Yes.

I would like to give to you a quote from the Most Extrodinary Geroge Carlin

"'All the kings horses and all the kings men couldn't put Humpty Dumpty back together again.' That is because there is no Humpty Dumpty. And there is no God. None, not one, never was. No God. Sorry"
-George Carlin.

With a George Carlin quote, all other points become moot and you win.

What does the atheist accomplish by considering the Bible to be true?

You obviously haven't listened to anything SC has said. Perhaps you should go back several pages and brush up on your knowledge of debate tactics. Proof by contradiction is an extremely useful tool. There's even a worked example of a proof by contradiction so that you can see the affect assuming the converse of your argument has.


And what have been the results of this "time-honored means of analysis" in regards to the existence of God?

Few people seem to be educated on the tactic. Makeing sure everyone knows how a proof by contradiction works must be done before you can actually use it on someone. But a lot of people on this thread seem only to want to state their uneducated opinion and not to learn.


As I stated earlier, your "proof by contradiction" will not disprove the existence of God.

No. But it will force the christians to modify their position. This counts as a loss on their side.

You have made 349 posts in this thread. What exactly do you hope to accomplish?

It's an intellectual excercise. Some people find challenges fun.