scratch my last argument as it lost the meaning of my ealier arguments
Printable View
scratch my last argument as it lost the meaning of my ealier arguments
It's no easier when your interlocuter is a pretty girl in a coffe bar, she won.:laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by kamikhaan
I thought that you might appreciate that your own conclusions can be turned on their heads.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
Congratulations on completely and utterly missing the point. I agree that belief in God is not rational but given that rationality is inherently a human concept and really nothing more than a concept it is as flawed as faith. I'm not too keen on rationality as a yardstick for that reason, just because it's rational doesn't mean it's right.Quote:
You concur, therefore there is no or little reason to use 'but' and so forth.
I can't and I don't need to. I'm okay with not being able to prove it because I know it's true, no I can't why explain to you either.Quote:
Then explain and elaborate why it is certain. Use logic. You are aware your claim looks very ugly next to your previous one regarding your AGREEMENT?
As I said, logic is a bit crap. Try to prove God you get a paradox, try to disprove Him and you get a paradox.
Live with it, you'll be happier and you might live longer.
Newton's "Laws" of Physics seem mathematically sound, don't they? Oh, wait, they just look right, they're actually wrong when you get down to the atomic level. Your faith in science is the same as my faith in religion, you're just as biased as I am.Quote:
Logic, science, physics, mathematics, etc., are there for a good reason. They explain reality. Based on reality. Based on objective thought. They observe and then conclude when possible with valid premises: they don't conclude first and be done with it like religion does. Biased? I don't think so :laugh4:
You should learn to live with that as well, just like Dawkins should.
Belief, schmelief.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
No, I stated it in response to your phrase "Yes I would still believe, as God still alows good too doesnt he?"Quote:
3rd "First of all His goodness or evil are not necessarily requirements to believe in Him."~:rolleyes: did I say that? Yeah why not creat the perfect world? maybe it was perfect before adam and eve ate the apple and caused us to have original sin....(if you get to talk from a religious point of view to explain your argument ie. "He could've made everything perfect" so can I, with the adam and eve thing ~D )
You mean... GOD created imperfect humans in the first place who then messed things up? Great going, God. Even with all Your ultimate powers you manage(d) to **** up.
That first phrase looks too sensational to me. Please refrain from that in the future.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ph
You are saying rationality is as flawed as faith? You are forgetting some important things, though, which seem necessary to repeat: faith is blind and not critical as it does not observe fairly; rationality does observe fairly and is minimally not as blind as faith. Regard simple everyday examples you encounter and you have your proof. Rationality more or less does not go around making claims like a bunch of madmen. At least it can admit it does not know or know, while belief is just.... belief.
No, you DO NOT know if it's true. You just believe it to be true.Quote:
I can't and I don't need to. I'm okay with not being able to prove it because I know it's true, no I can't why explain to you either.
To Kage:
What matters is that it is logically consistent. It works. Water starts boiling at some point due to certain rules of physics/nature. It has been discovered, it has been recorded, etc. And so there are many examples available. You observe and make proper conclusions and systems that are TRUE. These true correct findings are later redone consistently. The argument that it is ALL subjective is useless. Try believing you won't fall and get seriously injured when you jump off a high cliff and there's no safety at all, then jump. You will get injured or even die because the rules of nature/physics are like that. I welcome anyone to try and believe in something that doesn't make sense and then perform the action and observe the outcome. Let yourself get hit by a bus driving at highspeed... what do you think the result would be?
To BG:
Yes, I thought it was something in that direction.
Dont blame God for your misfortunes. Your fellow man AND yourself has caused misfortune. God gave you and you still have the power to do good, but with you God has to do everything, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
And I can tell you're getting angry, because your points arent getting the better? ...and blame evil inthe world on God, remember God isnt evil, its humans, every misfortune that has happened, WE did it (to better answer your last thread doubting God).
Besides these arguments are bringing dowm my credibilty and making me sound like a preacher than a debater. :crowngrin:
The topic is God, not man alone. The argument stays. And you are making quick assumptions that I am blaming God for my SUPPOSED misfortunes. Refrain from it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Boyar Son
That is just.... your perception.Quote:
And I can tell you're getting angry, because your points arent getting the better? ...and blame evil inthe world on God, remember God isnt evil, its humans, every misfortune that has happened, WE did it (to better answer your last thread doubting God).
You are forgetting an important thing once more: God is supposedly the almighty allpowerful one; if man is evil it is because God -- who has ultimate supreme power, 'cause, like... it's GOD, you know -- made man like that in the first place. What is so difficult to understand about it? Don't you WANT to understand?
You already looked like a preacher, illogical one :laugh4:Quote:
Besides these arguments are bringing dowm my credibilty and making me sound like a preacher than a debater. :crowngrin:
Since it seems you cannot overthrow my arguments, and since you use emotionally loaded sensational language, and irrelevant false observations about my person, and using illogic, our discussion ceases at once. -3 for you on my list.
You are making the mistake of ascribing percieved evil to God. You are judging some actions as evil, and therefore others as good presumabely. So you are making a judgement. Being human your judgement is obviously flawed because humans are far from perfect. So since you are making the judgement the question arises, "Are you right about what is good and what is evil?"Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
You may be wrong, there may be no evil save what you percieve to be evil. Humans are responsible for their own actions, at that point the question becomes why does God allow evil.
The usual answer is that God allows us to make our own mistakes just like any parent. That's just another flawed human arguement though, you can choose to take it or leave it.
Personal attacks don't help your own case nor does laughing at people.Quote:
You already looked like a preacher, illogical one :laugh4:
Since it seems you cannot overthrow my arguments, and since you use emotionally loaded sensational language, and irrelevant false observations about my person, and using illogic, our discussion ceases at once. -3 for you on my list.
Lets not over simplify matters. So are you saying that what you cant observe is irrelevant and thus does not exist? Human perception is very limited. For example there are lot of very low and high frequencies that human ear cant register, still while you cant register those frequencies, the sounds can have effect on you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
You cant witness the dance of atoms with your eyes, but still whole universe is built of them.
Science has helped us understand these phenomenas and in the future there is little doubt it will reveal more and more about the universe to us. Science is not ready, its not complete like you seem to argue. What you are saying is that because right now science cant prove or disprove your perception of God, there fore God cant exist. Why so? What do we know about God as humans?
We only have the word God and our perception what this word is supposed to mean. I think what lead to many scientist to make breakthroughs was that they believed on phenomenas before they could prove them to be accurate. By dismissing fate as irrelevant we will only stagnate ourselves and thus became irrelevant ourselves. I believe that there is not and will not be one moment when we know everything and its futile to think that there ever will be, thus belief and fate on things that we cant perceive is very important for us to develop.
Only if you desist in calling me a fool, or my beliefs foolish. This:Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
didn't help your case either. You should also stop using the laughing smiley if you want to avoid offending people.Quote:
Belief, schmelief.
Rationallity is flawed in a different way I'll grant you. It's still flawed, you place the burdan of proof on the theists, yet atheism is the new belief. You challenge ancient established belief and then say the burdan of proof lies on my side, not yours. Is that rational? Rationality is a human concept, not an inherrent truth. You make claims based on rationality as though that inherrently made them correct.Quote:
You are saying rationality is as flawed as faith? You are forgetting some important things, though, which seem necessary to repeat: faith is blind and not critical as it does not observe fairly; rationality does observe fairly and is minimally not as blind as faith. Regard simple everyday examples you encounter and you have your proof. Rationality more or less does not go around making claims like a bunch of madmen. At least it can admit it does not know or know, while belief is just.... belief.
Was it rational for Newton to claim that gravity existed before he had proved it? Was it rational for Pastur to claim that boiling milk would preserve it?
Based on the evidence they began with, prevailing scientific opinion etc. arguably it wasn't. Rational does not equal right.
You've also called me a madman here, not only is that another attack by proxy it is also merely another perception, even today if you walk into a room in parts of the world you will be deemed "mad" or even possessed for espousing atheism.
You do not know my beliefs are foolish, you just believe they are foolish. You are increasingly resorting to persoanl attacks and complaints obout your adversaies' posts.Quote:
No, you DO NOT know if it's true. You just believe it to be true.
Your arguement is as weak and unsupportable as mine, nor does the burdan of proof necessarily lie with me. In fact, if the Bible were any other historical text, or the existence of God were any other theory the burdan of proof would lie on you.
While you can disprove certain elements of the Bible, and prove that others do not exactly fit the available facts there is, for example, no way for you to prove Jesus did not walk on water.
You can prove no one living now can do it but Jesus claimed to be unique and unlike anyone living now, so that doesn't constitute any form of proof.
I'll give you a definition and prove you wrong in one go: I declare you God.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
There is, of course, no way that you can prove to me that you are not God. Hence, believe in God is not illogical and the atheist pack in this thread has failed. And unless the Christians can prove that Adrian isn't God they have failed too, and their worship of the Biblical God must be considered idolatry.
I worship Thee, Adrian, divine Master of Heaven and Earth. Blessed be Thy name. Bow, sinners, to your new God. http://matousmileys.free.fr/anbet2.gif
If we can get the "Does God exist?" debate going, I shall prove that God exists and that God is a personal creator.
I guess this thread had a sudden death...
:thumbsdown:
Just like God! MUHAHAHA :devil:Quote:
Originally Posted by Sigurd Fafnesbane
sorry
You would just as soon declare me a pompous, arrogant piss, you Gallic whippersnapper, you. :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat
The issue here is that God can only be defined in one of two ways. Either as an entity beyond the grasp of human reason, in which case it can be subject to no proposition and is therefore heuristically empty. Or as an entity that is within the grasp of human reason, in which case it is subject to propositions that can be tested and will be refuted because, largely speaking, 'the universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil and no good, nothing but blind pitiless indifference' (Richard Dawkins).
Dawkins has not produced a concrete arguement against God, he is also and atheist and anti-deist who is opposed to existence of God because he sees God as a negative influence. This in itself is interesting because that suggests he see God as evil, a concept he proffesses not to recognise.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
He has become as entrenched as a Southern-Baptist fruitcake preacher.
Now, two things:
1. God is ultimately responsible for the Big Bang. Can you refute this?
2. I think you are incorrect because "God" falls into the same catagory as love. Love is not within human comprehension (I can't believe I'm using the clichè), we feel it, but we can't actually explain it. Dawkins might try to break it down into evolution and endorphins but that's just, lust euthoria etc. He has no way to explain why two people will choose to spend their lives together, in defiance of the biological imperative.
God is imherently outside the physical world, like love, and therefore beyond scientific testing.
As a final point, I have yet to see a proposition about God actually refuted.
Can we drop all the references to "love"? There is no magic or mystery to the emotion. Science (which describes but does NOT explain) continues to improve our understanding of that emotion. Comparing "love" to the singularity or the dimensions which supposedly sparked it makes me :rolleyes2:.
If you want proof of God's existence learn his laws, the ones revealed by science.
I agree it's a tired arguement but I don't recall science expalining love, passion, lust, attraction yes.Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
I don't believe they amount to love.
Correct. I disagree with both tone and content of his latest book, which is counterproductive. But he is right about the issue I quoted him on.Quote:
Originally Posted by Philipvs Vallindervs Calicvla
Is that meant to be a definition? Cause I don't think it is. Like I said, I can only discuss propositions concerning God if you define God for me.Quote:
1. God is ultimately responsible for the Big Bang. Can you refute this?
The definition 'God is love' is just obscure language. It defines one vague entity by equating it to another vague entity. I mean, is 'love' ultimately responsible for the Big Bang?..Quote:
2. I think you are incorrect because "God" falls into the same catagory as love. Love is not within human comprehension (I can't believe I'm using the clichè), we feel it, but we can't actually explain it.
The word 'love' does not refer to a clearly defined entity. It is shorthand for a collection of human experiences. Religious experiences may constitute another such collection, referred to with the semantic shorthand 'God'. But that does not mean that it refers to a reality outside the experiences.
Elsewhere in your post, you define God as something 'inherently outside the physical world', which means that it does not exist. Otherwise, the words that you use no longer mean anything. I don't have to prove the non-existence of a thing that, by definition, does not exist.
By the way, a God that has created the physical world can not be 'inherently outside the physical world'. That, too, is gobbledigook, if I may be so bold.
And definitions must not be obscure or circular.
I suppose you have a problem with quantum physics then. :book: Did you know that 'strange' is a scientific term?Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Yes, and it is strictly defined. Scientists work that way. They observe a phenomenon and give it a label. The label could be 'X', but since scientistst are mostly repressed romantics they prefer funnier names, sometimes even the names of their spouses. Calling a meteorite 'Maria', for instance, does not really imply that it is female...Quote:
Originally Posted by Vladimir
Thankyou, you know, he would have written almost the same book if he was a theist. I have to be honest, I don't believe the universe, or hummanity for that matter, is without an inherrrent justice but that's really another topic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Adrian II
Well "creator of the universe" would be a definition. "God is love" though is more a description. Boethius wrote on this, God is "love" or "justice" because he is these things in the very essence of his being, he embodies them, rather than having the charactaristic of them.Quote:
Is that meant to be a definition? Cause I don't think it is. Like I said, I can only discuss propositions concerning God if you define God for me.The definition 'God is love' is just obscure language. It defines one vague entity by equating it to another vague entity. I mean, is 'love' ultimately responsible for the Big Bang?..
So, my definition would be ancient, "God is the First Cause."
That does not mean that it does not refer to something outside the experiences. Do I exist beyond my words written here? Do you?Quote:
The word 'love' does not refer to a clearly defined entity. It is shorthand for a collection of human experiences. Religious experiences may constitute another such collection, referred to with the semantic shorthand 'God'. But that does not mean that it refers to a reality outside the experiences.
Ok, well in that sense God does not exist, He is nowhere, but everywhere because He is in all things, while being in no one thing. He does not exist as a concrete being within our physical reality but his influence is manifest everywhere.Quote:
Elsewhere in your post, you define God as something 'inherently outside the physical world', which means that it does not exist. Otherwise, the words that you use no longer mean anything. I don't have to prove the non-existence of a thing that, by definition, does not exist.
Stepped into a pretty obvious trap there. If he's God he doesn't follow your rules, because he's all powerful. See, if he exists then he can do whatever he likes, he can halve the speed of light should he so choose. Only if you except that he does not exist does he become subject to rules and criticism.Quote:
By the way, a God that has created the physical world can not be 'inherently outside the physical world'. That, too, is gobbledigook, if I may be so bold.
See above, you cannot place requirements on the existence of your creator.Quote:
And definitions must not be obscure or circular.
Yes, I realise everything I have just written is dependant on the existence of God, but everything you write is dependant on Him not existing.
Back!Quote:
Originally Posted by Bijo
(warning, I had to answer bijo's question biblicaly-please disregard as this is not part of my original arguments)
Not being able to overthrow your arguments? how arrogant....I will tell you ONE last time (for the sake of my credibility as a debater, and not as a preacher). Man was not evil when God created them, adam and eve is to blame for their disobediance (thats evil too?) then after them, the children of man had the power to do evil, hence the answer to "If God is this and that, why arent I those and these?"
(/warning)
Thank you, now I'm a preist. You must be happy that I got of the subject to answer this question of yours, care to move on?
meh original post was stupid and crass, hope no one saw it.
This is why we used to have good old fashioned wars, none of this sissy debating. Wars always seem to have finality to them.
If Boyar defeated Adrian in battle then cut his head off, I feel Adrian's argument would be badly hindered.
That depends, Adrian might have God on his side.
If we all died then that would end the arguement, and give us a definite answer.
Oh well, I suppose we'll just have to wait and do something else in the meantime.
Well lets test your credibility as either .Quote:
I will tell you ONE last time (for the sake of my credibility as a debater, and not as a preacher).
God created man right , like he created everything apart from him/her/itself , so where did this evil come from ?Quote:
Man was not evil when God created them
It cannot have come from anywhere but god since he made everything , it cannot have come from nowhere since there is nowhere as all is gods work .
Now if it came from god then that means that evil was part of him/her/itself since it cannot have come from anywhere else as there isn't anywhere else, and since man is created in the image of god then that image must contain the evil that is present in god .
So Cossack where do you seek to establish your credibility on the subject ?
Image tribes IMAGE! not personality!
The tree with the apples God said not* to eat which contains the knowledge of how we act now as a people,your evil could be there.
2nd- really I dont want to debate the bible
BOPA-meh original post was stupid and crass, hope no one saw it
Who's?
Well, the arguement is that if I create a sword then I am not by extension a killer, nor am I steel. However, a better answer might be that the human conception of evil is in error.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tribesman
I don't know though, and I'm ok with that.
Weird, isn't it?
"the fool takes no delight in understanding,
but rather displaying what he thinks"
Hahaha, the thread in summary.
The backroom in summary. :beam:Quote:
"the fool takes no delight in understanding,
but rather displaying what he thinks"
Hahaha, the thread in summary.
And I dismiss Adrian II as my God. All hail Gregoshi in his temple of shrimps!
Well Cossack to start at the second .
Since the basis for your belief is held within those books don't you think that is a little closed minded ?Quote:
2nd- really I dont want to debate the bible
But hey lets get on to the real stuff .
Image hmmmm...whats the other word generally translated as ? Likeness isn't it :yes:Quote:
Image tribes IMAGE! not personality!
Image and Likeness , now you can go with the hebrew or you can go with the vulgate it makes no difference , what attributes do theologans include in the second word ?what are the essences of gods nature that are built in (in a serious christian understanding) to the nature of man taken (or given) from the creator ?
certainly not inherited from God, because adam and eve werent evil to start off with.
yes I believe but no one will respect someone that uses the bible for all arguments. i just argued it because bijo kept bringing it up.
besides, argueing against God is easier than argueing for him. I'm gaining much skill.