Faith in Christ is Completely Logical

[Cephus]

As I said in my initial post, I have spent many years trying to disprove so your statement here is a falsehood. It makes no difference whether the plan is proved or not the idea of the thread is to find discrepancies in a plan. That you cannot makes that plan plausible and rational. Thank you

No, it is only plausible and rational if you can demonstrate that it actually is. You cannot even prove there *IS* a plan to begin with. You're just making unsubstantiated assertions and when people cannot disprove your unproven assertions, you claim victory. That is the antithesis of plausible and rational. You lose.

 

[Sapiens]

As I said in my initial post, I have spent many years trying to disprove so your statement here is a falsehood. It makes no difference whether the plan is proved or not the idea of the thread is to find discrepancies in a plan. That you cannot makes that plan plausible and rational. Thank you

It seems to me that you wasted may years on a try that failed. Better luck next time.

 

[Serenity7855]

I know that there are a few cases (nowhere near "thousands") in which an AIDS like condition has been detected and the conventional tests for the HIV have been negative. These are interesting cases and indicate that there is more work to be done, but this hardly falsifies the hypothesis that AIDS is caused by HIV, it just indicates that there may, in rare cases, be other possible causes. I don't know what Science World you live in, but here are the findings from the real one: The Evidence That HIV Causes AIDS

Most people believe they know what causes AIDS. For a decade, scientist, government officials, physicians, journalists, public-service ads, TV shows, and movies have told them that AIDS is caused by a retrovirus called HIV. This virus supposedly infects and kills the "T-cells" of the immune system, leading to an inevitably, fatal immune deficiency after an asymptomatic period that averages 10 years or so. Most people do not know-because there has been a visual media blackout on the subject-about a longstanding scientific controversy over the cause of AIDS. A controversy that has become increasingly heated as the official theory's predictions have turned out to be wrong.

Leading biochemical scientists, including University of California at Berkeley retrovirus expert Peter Duesberg and Nobel Prize winner Walter Gilbert, have been warning for years that there is no proof that HIV causes AIDS.

Robert Gallo, the leading exponent of the HIV theory, stomp away from the microphone in a rage when asked to respond to the views of Gilbert and Duesberg. Such displays of rage and ridicule are familiar to those who question the HIV theory of AIDS.

First, after spending billions of dollars, HIV researchers are still unable to explain how HIV, a conventional retrovirus with a very simple genetic organization, damages the immune system, much less how to stop it

Second, in the absence of any agreement about how HIV causes AIDS, the only evidence that HIV does cause AIDS is correlation. The correlation is imperfect at best, however.

There are many cases of persons with all the symptoms of AIDS who do not have any HIV infection. There are also many cases of persons who have been infected by HIV for more than a decade and show no signs of illness.

Third, predictions based on the HIV theory have failed spectacularly. AIDS in the United States and Europe has not spread through the general population. Rather, it remains almost entirely confined to the original risk groups, mainly sexually promiscuous gay men and drug abusers.

Duesberg on AIDS- What Causes AIDS?

 

[Serenity7855]

No, it is only plausible and rational if you can demonstrate that it actually is. You cannot even prove there *IS* a plan to begin with. You're just making unsubstantiated assertions and when people cannot disprove your unproven assertions, you claim victory. That is the antithesis of plausible and rational. You lose.

Before the military make an assault on any target a plan is devices that gives the greatest likelihood of success. The same strategy is used in business. Are you suggesting that their plans are unsubstantiated assertions as well. Perhaps you are looking for anything that contradicts rather then admit that the plan is a sound plan, as likely to succeed as any military campaign is, as to wriggle and writhe is embarrassing you.

Oh, the plan can be found in scripture. That is sufficient proof that it exists. To fail in disproving it is evidence that it works.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Which part of "I do not know" is hard to grasp?

None of it. If you do not know, you can't argue, because you can't say it is wrong, because you don't know. Though you can ask if you wish.

I am confident that the Truth about where it all came from is beyond our current ability to understand.

Presumably ''our'' means science. They will never understand God, science is limited.

Using words like natural and supernatural as though they encompassed every possibility doesn't mean that they do.

I don't use supernatural... it is misleading

Much of the history of human thought and advancement is finding out true things that couldn't have been imagined until somebody actually found out.

Tom

I think it is mostly the other way round. We get ideas that things might be right, and then look for evidence to back it up... that is science theory is it not?

 

[Robert.Evans]

That paragraph is a genuine non sequitur, I don't know if I've been agreed with in a backhanded fashion or insulted. In any case, if you require belief to make it through the day that's your limitation, don't try to put it on those of us who don't. When you grow up you will hopefully come to see that the universe is probabilistic and really does not care what your child-like beliefs are. Then you will be ready to take real responsibility for your own actions, but you will lose the ability to place the blame on others, real and supernatural.

So if you stand waiting for a bus, and it is late, you don't believe that it is not coming and walk off? Whether it is probable or not makes little difference ultimately. It is what you believe that will dictate your actions. I can't ''believe'' that you don't know that.

 

[Robert.Evans]

Well ... could it be that you are hijacking the post? Naw ... that's too rational.

But may be you believe it

You will note that I have been bringing it back to that for some time.

No you have not. I think this is the second time you mention the title but say nothing about it. I think that is called trying to get the upper hand.

Why? Because your side lost this one badly and I enjoy watching you try to squirm out of the the fact that you have failed miserably to make a case for the claim that "Faith in Christ is Completely Logical."

It is logical to anyone who has received the spirit of Christ. Why wouldn't it be. I am comfortable with my position sir thankyou.

 

[nazz]

As I said in my initial post, I have spent many years trying to disprove so your statement here is a falsehood. It makes no difference whether the plan is proved or not the idea of the thread is to find discrepancies in a plan. That you cannot makes that plan plausible and rational. Thank you

Translation: I simply won't consider any real challenges to my beliefs. I will simply ignore them and claim victory.

 

[savagewind]

Translation: I simply won't consider any real challenges to my beliefs. I will simply ignore them and claim victory.

I think he is saying the opposite. He WANTS to be challenged. So far the only challenge I have seen from them is 'that's stupid' and 'we don't believe it so it can't be true'.

 

[Sapiens]

There is no longstanding controversy, the cause of AIDS is well known, and the introduction of highly active antiretroviral therapy (HAART) in 1996–1997, clinched it. WIth HAART the survival and general health of people with HIV improved significantly, that would not have been the case if HIV had not been the cause. This positive response to treatment with anti-HIV medication cemented the scientific acceptance of the HIV/AIDS paradigm, and prominent HIV/AIDS denialists changed their tune. Finding their arguments increasingly discredited by the scientific community, denialists took their message to the popular press. A former denialist wrote:

Scientists among the HIV dissidents used their academic credentials and academic affiliations to generate interest, sympathy, and allegiances in lay audiences. They were not professionally troubled about recruiting lay people—who were clearly unable to evaluate the scientific validity or otherwise of their views—to their cause. - He was talking about you, Serenity!

In addition to elements of the popular and alternative press, AIDS denialist ideas are propagated largely via the Internet.

A 2007 article in PLoS Medicine noted:

Because these denialist assertions are made in books and on the Internet rather than in the scientific literature, many scientists are either unaware of the existence of organized denial groups, or believe they can safely ignore them as the discredited fringe. And indeed, most of the HIV deniers' arguments were answered long ago by scientists. However, many members of the general public do not have the scientific background to critique the assertions put forth by these groups, and not only accept them but continue to propagate them. - He was talking about you, Serenity!

With thanks to: Wiki - HIV/AIDS denialism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[nazz]

I think he is saying the opposite. He WANTS to be challenged. So far the only challenge I have seen from them is 'that's stupid' and 'we don't believe it so it can't be true'.

That's not what I am seeing. That does not describe my challenges.

 

[savagewind]

That's not what I am seeing. That does not describe my challenges.

It does not describe your challenges. It describes theirs. I suppose I should read it again to find your disagreement about it. I don't agree or disagree either way. I hope to have learned not to settle on what I do not know. Perhaps settling means touching and I have read the warning "quit touching the unclean thing". They say it means the unclean things of the world should not be touched. I think 2 Corinthians 6:17 means do not rest on lies and misunderstandings.

 

[Cephus]

I think he is saying the opposite. He WANTS to be challenged. So far the only challenge I have seen from them is 'that's stupid' and 'we don't believe it so it can't be true'.

Except he simply dismisses any challenge and continues to put forth a belief system based on blind faith and unsupported assertions. In fact, the only position most religious people have is "we want to believe it, therefore it's true". That's not worth challenging because it's not something that can be rationally argued.

 

[FollowTheWay]

Seems like you are saying the creator of this thread is a false christian

Yes, it looks like I am, doesn't it?

 

[savagewind]

I'd be real careful who I call false and I wouldn't.

 

[FollowTheWay]

More pretentious, hyperbolic malarkey.

More meaningless opinions.

 

[Sapiens]

So if you stand waiting for a bus, and it is late, you don't believe that it is not coming and walk off? Whether it is probable or not makes little difference ultimately. It is what you believe that will dictate your actions. I can't ''believe'' that you don't know that.

Once an apologist always an apologist. Belief, as usual, fails ... leaving you with the best you can muster (also as usual) a rather weak and tepid semantic argument.

 

[George-ananda]

He said that he found himself in the presence of God. Now, anyone who knows scriptures would know that it is impossible for a Spirit to be in the presence of God, pre-judgement.

Have you considered that he may nave been in the presence of a great being or energy he didn't understand and used the word 'God'.

 

[Sapiens]

Have you considered that he may nave been in the presence of a great being or energy he didn't understand and used the word 'God'.

Or he was just outside his normal frame of reference. There is the old saw about "god" being that which is greater than the greatest that can be imagined. Sounds like he got a firm kick in his imaginator.

 

[Sapiens]

Or he was just outside his normal frame of reference. There is the old saw about "god" being that which is greater than the greatest that can be imagined. Sounds like he got a firm kick in his imaginator.

He wasn't really dead, if he had been we'd not be discussing his report ... duh!