What proof do you have of God?

[Storm]

Please, if you know you can't debate well or have not looked into philosophy much, I ask that you do not post, no offense.

Anyone who has a basic grasp of debate, logic, and philosophy knows that there is none. So, one wonders the purpose of the question.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If you are looking for absolute proof of a deity that said specifically that faith is the necessary commodity then you will remain dissapointed.

I have no good idea what that sentence might mean. Sorry.

I'm way too wise to look for absolute proof for anything; I don't believe in deities who say specific stuff; I don't know what 'faith' might mean to you; and I have no clue why I'd be disappointed if I couldn't find a faith-requiring deity. I don't even know how to unpack that sentence.

May I make a careful, cautious, friendly suggestion? If you are going to debate in written English, might it be useful for you to review some of the mechanical issues regarding written English? For one small example, if you'd used a comma between 'commodity' and 'then', your sentence would be much clearer. I can explain the punctuation rule for you if you're interested.

You adopt many evidence based assumptions everyday. Many have far less evidence. In fact the majority or at least a large portion of science is faith based. Why is it only a problem for religion?

Ditto. Whatever you're trying to say to me just isn't surviving the journey between us. I adopt faith-based assumptions? Whatever could that mean to you? Science is faith-based? I have no idea what you might be trying to say. Scientists are like me. They reject faith altogether, by which I mean that they try to keep themselves tentative, uncertain, unassuming -- so that they can observe and test without presupposing the Truth beforehand, as the faithful do. Faith has nothing to do with science.

But I have noticed over the years that faithful people seem to assume the same 'faith' (certainty of beliefs) in others which they themselves feel. They don't seem to understand that many folks live just fine with ambiguity.

Maybe that has something to do with your claim that others are working by faith, I don't know.

Not for me. I can rule out by very simple methods most concepts of God.

Of course you can. And others rule out your concept of God using their simple methods. As I say, it's easy to convince oneself of most anything at all. The trick and the wisdom is to hold that conviction at bay, I think.

Any God worth believing in would not be self contradictory, inconsistent,

But the Christian God is self-contradictory and inconsistent, to most clear thinkers.

....have a self revelation that would for example render his ability to create the universe impossible....

Huh? Anyway, why do you assume that God is the creator of the universe? Where did you get that notion?

I assume that any God worth believing would not send down a Body of Words to humanity, since such a thing would only confuse people.

Why are your assumptions about a God-worth-believing-in better than my own assumptions? Are you smarter than me? Holier? What?

....his revelation must also be consistent, true, and philisophically consistent. With these simple methods alone most concepts of God are eliminated....

Only for true believers in objective consistency and truth. But those people are confused from the start, I'm pretty sure. They're language believers. Bibliolaters. They don't seem aware that language is simply a little tool which we smart apes have invented to help us get around. They think that consistency can exist in language, rather than understanding that it can only exist within a human mind. I tried to show you all that with my examples of language which appeared contradictory but which was not at all contradictory. If you'd addressed my Jaylo example, I think you would move forward in your understanding.

Jaylo, standing naked in Antarctica, is hot.

There's nothing inconsistent or contradictory about that sentence. It's just ambiguous, as is most all language.

A missused concept is no basis for a divine entity. They are simply ridiculous and illogical descriptions of things that do not exist. However there are a few that have no such problems. That explains why far more people and virtually every culture that has existed has believed in a God. Nothing that universal and impossible to dissprove justifies claiming that you know that God does not exist. In fact I think it impossible that he does not for many reasons.

I'm sorry, man, but I really can't follow your language most of the time. I've read your paragraph four times now, and I just don't know what you're trying to say to me.

We don't seem entirely synched up yet.

 

[Thief]

I ask again, which God? I expect no response.

Let's narrow the discussion, shall we?

And the answer to the question at hand would be....
The Almighty....the Creator....
The First in mind and heart.
The First in spirit.

Someone had to be first.

 

[1robin]

I have no good idea what that sentence might mean. Sorry.

I'm way too wise to look for absolute proof for anything; I don't believe in deities who say specific stuff; I don't know what 'faith' might mean to you; and I have no clue why I'd be disappointed if I couldn't find a faith-requiring deity. I don't even know how to unpack that sentence.

I was saying that if you are going to reserve judgement until you have absolute proof then you are going to miss the boat. Outside of actuall absolute proof the Bible contains far more information and evidence that is needed for faith. We all have more faith based on less evidence for many of the things be believe.

May I make a careful, cautious, friendly suggestion? If you are going to debate in written English, might it be useful for you to review some of the mechanical issues regarding written English? For one small example, if you'd used a comma between 'commodity' and 'then', your sentence would be much clearer. I can explain the punctuation rule for you if you're interested.

I appreciate the thought but the spell check on this server does not work. I am mathematics, physics, historical, and theologically oriented. I am in no shape or form a literary grammer guy. In fact I hate grammer as it is not based on any actuall thing. It is 100% arbitrary opinion. I do copy and review important posts with word and then recopy but time constraints do not allow that in most cases.

Ditto. Whatever you're trying to say to me just isn't surviving the journey between us. I adopt faith-based assumptions? Whatever could that mean to you? Science is faith-based? I have no idea what you might be trying to say. Scientists are like me. They reject faith altogether, by which I mean that they try to keep themselves tentative, uncertain, unassuming -- so that they can observe and test without presupposing the Truth beforehand, as the faithful do. Faith has nothing to do with science.

About 99% of the things claimed to be fact in evolution alone are simply educated guesses (faith). They can't be observed or reproduced. For example no one has ever seen a single dinosaur turn into a bird, etc..... We can't prove that family members love us, we make educated guesses. For that matter we can't be sure that reality was not made five minutes ago with the appearance of age. The point is Faith is necessary in all aspects of life but is only balked at when it concerns religion.

But I have noticed over the years that faithful people seem to assume the same 'faith' (certainty of beliefs) in others which they themselves feel. They don't seem to understand that many folks live just fine with ambiguity.

As I said everybody lives with a large reliance on faith. I made no claim about whether people can get along without faith. A person probably can do so, at least until they die. However the world would be immeasurabbly a worse place if it were not for Christianity. Even secular institutions operate from a moral framework that can only be justified by the assumption of a God. For example prove what Hitler did was actually wrong without God.

Of course you can. And others rule out your concept of God using their simple methods. As I say, it's easy to convince oneself of most anything at all. The trick and the wisdom is to hold that conviction at bay, I think.

There are no objective or meaningfull methods used for examining reliability in textual claims that can possibly prove Christianity wrong. Voltaire famously declared the death of Christianity in 50 years. 50 years later Voltaire was dead and his house was used to print Bibles. There was a prominent Roman who wrote a massive multi volume work that was, he said intended to actually render Christianity forgotten in a matter of years. The Bibles is still here, can you name that man or the title of a single work of his.

But the Christian God is self-contradictory and inconsistent, to most clear thinkers.

I actually love for people to give me their best shots concerning this. I have yet to see what stand up to scrutiny. Claiming something and demonstrationg is merits are two seperate issues. Add in that there are billions that claim to have subjective but personally tangable evidence of it truth. No other religion offers or demands spiritual proof in the form of being born again of every single adherent. Every actuall Christian who ever lived (including me) Has had an experience with a risen Christ.

Huh? Anyway, why do you assume that God is the creator of the universe? Where did you get that notion?

The philisophical laws of cause and effect make the creator to have necessary and inescapable characteristics. ie... independant of matter, space, and time. To be eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, personal, rational,and omnipresent. It strains credulity to believe people in the early bronze age could have invented a false God with exactly these necessary characteristics that were only determined thousands of years later. I can't say I know it but God is by miles the most likely candidate for the uncaused first cause.

I assume that any God worth believing would not send down a Body of Words to humanity, since such a thing would only confuse people.

I regard any deity that would not do so impersonal and impotent. A God that has no interest in our well fare and would not explain the reasons and causes of what we see as malevolent. Besides God actually sent his son in the flesh and that event has had more impact than any event in history. Here is what even a secular scholar said and a famous thealogian about that event and man.

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."
William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

He was the meekest and lowliest of all the sons of men, yet he spoke of coming on the clouds of heaven with the glory of God. He was so austere that evil spirits and demons cried out in terror at his coming, yet he was so genial and winsome and approachable that the children loved to play with him, and the little ones nestled in his arms. His presence at the innocent gaiety of a village wedding was like the presence of sunshine. No one was half so compassionate to sinners, yet no one ever spoke such red hot scorching words about sin. A bruised reed he would not break, his whole life was love, yet on one occasion he demanded of the Pharisees how they ever expected to escape the damnation of hell. He was a dreamer of dreams and a seer of visions, yet for sheer stark realism He has all of our stark realists soundly beaten. He was a servant of all, washing the disciples feet, yet masterfully He strode into the temple, and the hucksters and moneychangers fell over one another to get away from the mad rush and the fire they saw blazing in His eyes.
He saved others, yet at the last Himself He did not save. There is nothing in history like the union of contrasts which confronts us in the gospels. The mystery of Jesus is the mystery of divine personality.
Scottish Theologian James Stuart
THere never has been anything like this ever.

Why are your assumptions about a God-worth-believing-in better than my own assumptions? Are you smarter than me? Holier? What?

From what I can tell I am more theologically informed than you. I do not think smart has any bearing on it. I have also found what man has searched for, I have found God. I had an experience with Christ that removes doubt and verifies many things that non-Christians only guess at or look through a dirty lens for. It had nothing to do with any merit I posses, it was simply a string of correct choices that led to the event. I usually find that even the most mild mannered gnostic has precommitments to ideologies or against them that bedevil any thought or discussion on the issue. Lastly I am for some reason almost obsessed with debateing theses issues. I have seen or have transcripts of every proffessional debate I can find on the issue. If we get to specifics then that will become evident. You contrdiction claim might (if one is chosen to discuss) bare that out, my spelling withstanding.

Only for true believers in objective consistency and truth. But those people are confused from the start, I'm pretty sure. They're language believers. Bibliolaters. They don't seem aware that language is simply a little tool which we smart apes have invented to help us get around. They think that consistency can exist in language, rather than understanding that it can only exist within a human mind. I tried to show you all that with my examples of language which appeared contradictory but which was not at all contradictory. If you'd addressed my Jaylo example, I think you would move forward in your understanding.

Jaylo, standing naked in Antarctica, is hot.

No more silly word games. I just now realised who I was addressing so the post may sound a little unusual. If you will take these silly semantic things you like but give them subjects or application that actually effect the issues then maybe they would be worth addressing.

There's nothing inconsistent or contradictory about that sentence. It's just ambiguous, as is most all language.

As well as trivial and proving nothing.

 

[otokage007]

I was saying that if you are going to reserve judgement until you have absolute proof then you are going to miss the boat. Outside of actuall absolute proof the Bible contains far more information and evidence that is needed for faith. We all have more faith based on less evidence for many of the things be believe.

The point of being a christian is believing in God without any evidence at all. If you have evidence of His existance, where's the merit in believing in Him? :/

I don't think the Bible has any evidence at all, if it had, it should be very easy to believe.

About 99% of the things claimed to be fact in evolution alone are simply educated guesses (faith).

Untrue.

They can't be observed or reproduced.

Untrue.

For example no one has ever seen a single dinosaur turn into a bird, etc.....

That’s true. However you can see a bacteria turning into a quite different bacteria in little time. What’s the difference? And if evolution isn’t true, then you are suggesting all species were in this planet from the beginning? Did we live with the dinosaurs? Do you realize how ridiculous that is? :/

And BTW, you are suggesting that because you haven’t seen it, then it isn’t true. So basically you are saying 95% of people in prison are not criminals, because usually no one sees how someone commits a crime if the crime is a little planned. By your logic we should release them, because clearly we can not keep them in jail based on “faith”. So?

The point is Faith is necessary in all aspects of life.

Not at all.

As I said everybody lives with a large reliance on faith. I made no claim about whether people can get along without faith. A person probably can do so, at least until they die. However the world would be immeasurabbly a worse place if it were not for Christianity. Even secular institutions operate from a moral framework that can only be justified by the assumption of a God. For example prove what Hitler did was actually wrong without God.

Killing other people has always been wrong from Ramses II to Barack Obama. The only culture I’ve seen claiming killing other people is actually a good thing to do, are muslims killing in the name of Allah, and inquisiters killing in the name of Christ. And btw hitler was a fervent catholic, so I’m afraid your moral dogmas are worth less than nothing. Modern society’s morality have been perfectly reasoned and would never ever rely on an ancient book to find guidance.

There are no objective or meaningfull methods used for examining reliability in textual claims that can possibly prove Christianity wrong. Voltaire famously declared the death of Christianity in 50 years. 50 years later Voltaire was dead and his house was used to print Bibles. There was a prominent Roman who wrote a massive multi volume work that was, he said intended to actually render Christianity forgotten in a matter of years. The Bibles is still here, can you name that man or the title of a single work of his.

Voltaire crearly overestimated humankind’s potential.

I actually love for people to give me their best shots concerning this. I have yet to see what stand up to scrutiny. Claiming something and demonstrationg is merits are two seperate issues. Add in that there are billions that claim to have subjective but personally tangable evidence of it truth. No other religion offers or demands spiritual proof in the form of being born again of every single adherent. Every actuall Christian who ever lived (including me) Has had an experience with a risen Christ.

Strong claims. No substance on them though.

The philisophical laws of cause and effect make the creator to have necessary and inescapable characteristics. ie... independant of matter, space, and time. To be eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, personal, rational,and omnipresent. It strains credulity to believe people in the early bronze age could have invented a false God with exactly these necessary characteristics that were only determined thousands of years later. I can't say I know it but God is by miles the most likely candidate for the uncaused first cause.

Phylosphical claims are not laws and lack any value to science.

I regard any deity that would not do so impersonal and impotent. A God that has no interest in our well fare and would not explain the reasons and causes of what we see as malevolent. Besides God actually sent his son in the flesh and that event has had more impact than any event in history. Here is what even a secular scholar said and a famous thealogian about that event and man.

"The character of Jesus has not only been the highest pattern of virtue, but the strongest incentive to its practice, and has exerted so deep an influence, that it may be truly said, that the simple record of three short years of active life has done more to regenerate and to soften mankind, than all the disquisitions of philosophers and than all the exhortations of moralists."

William Lecky One of Britain’s greatest secular historians.

The Jesus u read about in the Bible is practically the invention of a Roman Emperor that lived 300 years after Christ and probably has nothing to do with the real Jesus.

THere never has been anything like this ever.

No offense, but Goku is far more impressive than Jesus. Just saying.

From what I can tell I am more theologically informed than you. I do not think smart has any bearing on it. I have also found what man has searched for, I have found God. I had an experience with Christ that removes doubt and verifies many things that non-Christians only guess at or look through a dirty lens for. It had nothing to do with any merit I posses, it was simply a string of correct choices that led to the event. I usually find that even the most mild mannered gnostic has precommitments to ideologies or against them that bedevil any thought or discussion on the issue. Lastly I am for some reason almost obsessed with debateing theses issues. I have seen or have transcripts of every proffessional debate I can find on the issue. If we get to specifics then that will become evident. You contrdiction claim might (if one is chosen to discuss) bare that out, my spelling withstanding.

Ten Stupid Things Smart Christians Believe
1. A mistranslated book written by cave people is a reliable guide to the modern world.
2. There’s an invisible man in the sky who likes to watch you while you’re showering.
3. Two thousand years ago, an alter ego of this invisible man knocked up a Jewess whose husband wasn’t satisfying her.
4. The progeny of this drunken coupling was both god and the son of god.
5. This son of god was killed (but not really, since he’s also god, and god can’t die) and then came back to life to seek revenge, just like J.D. Walker.
6. His killing was a necessary sacrifice in order that we might be forgiven for the sins of Eve, the first woman in the world, who lived 6000 years ago in a magical garden, where a talking snake convinced her to eat a forbidden apple.
7. To show our thanks for this sacrifice, we should put special crackers and wine in our mouths, where they will be magically transformed into his flesh and blood, which we should then swallow despite taboos regarding cannibalism.
8. If you don’t believe all the preceding items, then after you die you will be plunged into a lake of fire and tortured for all eternity.
9. If you do believe all the preceding items, then after you die you’ll get to go to heaven, which is a cloud in outer space connected to the earth with a dotted line bent into a heart-shape
10. Thomas Kinkade is an awesome painter.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I was saying that if you are going to reserve judgement until you have absolute proof then you are going to miss the boat.

Sure. It's the only way to wisdom. One must intentionally miss the boat. The boat sails for a known port, after all.

Outside of actuall absolute proof the Bible contains far more information and evidence that is needed for faith. We all have more faith based on less evidence for many of the things be believe.

I'm not sure that you understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that some of us are able to live without beliefs -- at least in the way that you seem to think of beliefs. For some of us every truth is tentative.

I appreciate the thought but the spell check on this server does not work. I am mathematics, physics, historical, and theologically oriented. I am in no shape or form a literary grammer guy.

But you are trying to argue using the written word. If you would excel at it, I think you will eventually be forced to study the mechanics of your chosen tool. At least you'll need to master the tool -- whether or not you consciously understand how it works.

In fact I hate grammer as it is not based on any actuall thing. It is 100% arbitrary opinion.

I studied transformational generative grammar at the postgraduate level, and I think you are mistaken. There are many quirks and illogicalities in grammar, but there is also a fundamental working machine underneath. In my opinion, a person can only think straight or do logic in direct proportion to his familiarity with that machinery and its parts. Logic is based in the language.

Just my two cents.

About 99% of the things claimed to be fact in evolution alone are simply educated guesses (faith). They can't be observed or reproduced. For example no one has ever seen a single dinosaur turn into a bird, etc.....

So you define a 'fact' as 'a thing which has been observed with human senses'? That doesn't seem to me a coherent definition. The world appears flat to the human senses, after all.

We can't stand back and see the earth orbiting the sun, and yet most of us call it a fact.

We can't prove that family members love us, we make educated guesses. For that matter we can't be sure that reality was not made five minutes ago with the appearance of age. The point is Faith is necessary in all aspects of life but is only balked at when it concerns religion.

But I have no faith that the world is older than five minutes. That's what you don't seem to understand. In other words I'm happy to say, "Well, I might be wrong. The world may be only five minutes old."

Now you. Say that God may not exist. Say that you could be wrong about the existence of the historical Jesus.

You can't say those things, can you? No, I think you can't say them. Therefore, I do not have the sort of faith which you have.

However the world would be immeasurabbly a worse place if it were not for Christianity. Even secular institutions operate from a moral framework that can only be justified by the assumption of a God. For example prove what Hitler did was actually wrong without God.

No problem: Doing unnecessary harm to others is immoral. Hitler did unnecessary harm to others. Therefore, what Hitler did was wrong.

Easy.

My proof is every bit as strong as your own. Yours looks like this: I believe that a supreme being called God exists and that God is the final arbiter of all morality. I believe that God hates people who do unnecessary harm to others. Hitler did unnecessary harm to others. Therefore God believes that Hitler was wrong. Therefore Hitler was wrong.

To me, my proof seems more elegant and easier to follow.

There are no objective or meaningfull methods used for examining reliability in textual claims that can possibly prove Christianity wrong.

If you believe it, then you believe it. But I can say with 100% authority that you are mistaken. After all, I myself have proven Christianity wrong using textual claims.

The philisophical laws of cause and effect make the creator to have necessary and inescapable characteristics. ie... independant of matter, space, and time. To be eternal, omnipotent, omniscient, personal, rational,and omnipresent.

Those are incoherent qualities for any single Being to possess. They prove that God cannot exist, I think.

I regard any deity that would not do so impersonal and impotent. A God that has no interest in our well fare and would not explain the reasons and causes of what we see as malevolent.

A god who would send down Holy Words would be making such a huge mistake and creating such havoc and discord among humanity that He could not possibly be a true God. Only a malevolent God would send down rigid, unchangeable words to us.

Besides God actually sent his son in the flesh and that event has had more impact than any event in history. Here is what even a secular scholar said and a famous thealogian about that event and man.

I think the gospels were written as fiction, based on earlier oral claims. I don't think Jesus existed in any form recognizable to us and not in first-century Judea. Sorry.

From what I can tell I am more theologically informed than you.

How interesting. From my perspective, you are not actually ready to discuss theology. I don't mean that in a mean way. I'm just saying.

Theologians fear no question. Theologians yearn to be challenged to think in new ways, to grapple with strange thoughts and claims, to reorganize the language in a way which more clearly expresses God and life. I'm talking here about really good theologians, of course. Any guy can call himself a theologian.

I do not think smart has any bearing on it. I have also found what man has searched for, I have found God.

OK. In my theology, that means that you have given up the theology game. Sorry, it's just how I see it.

No more silly word games. I just now realised who I was addressing so the post may sound a little unusual.

Yes, it sounded fairly civil for awhile there.

If you will take these silly semantic things you like but give them subjects or application that actually effect the issues then maybe they would be worth addressing.

As well as trivial and proving nothing.

But I see you've recovered yourself and have gotten back to the usual insult.

It's curious, why I seem to disturb you so. Don't you think?

 

[1robin]

The point of being a christian is believing in God without any evidence at all. If you have evidence of His existance, where's the merit in believing in Him? :/

This never has, isn't, and never will be what the nature of faith in the Biblical God is. It is what critics contrive to justify a false appeal to the obsurd as is their want.

"The evidence points unmistakably to the fact that on the third day Jesus rose. This was the conclusion to which a former Chief Justice of England, Lord Darling, came. In its favour as living truth there exists such overwhelming evidence, positive and negative, factual and circumstantial, that no intelligent jury in the world could fail to bring in a verdict that the resurrection story is true.' "

J. N. D. Anderson as "...a scholar of international repute and one eminently qualified to deal with the subject of evidence. He is one of the world's leading authorities on Islamic law...He is dean of the faculty of law in the University of London, chairman of the department of Oriental law at the School of Oriental and African Studies, and director of the Institute of Advanced Legal Studies in the University of London."The evidence for the historical basis of the Christian faith, for the essential validity of the New Testament witness to the person and teaching of Christ Himself, for the fact and significance of His atoning death, and for the historicity of the empty tomb and the apostolic testimony to the resurrection, is such as to provide an adequate foundation for the venture of faith."

In 1846, while still Professor of Law at Harvard, Greenleaf wrote a volume entitled An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists by the Rules of Evidence Administered in the Courts of Justice. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted [URL]http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html[/URL]
Tell that to three of the hundreds of experts who are infinately more qualified to make that determination than you or I. Starting out this bad it is hard to justify continuing.

I don't think the Bible has any evidence at all, if it had, it should be very easy to believe.

The fact that two thousand years later the most fantasic and unlikely events in history are believed in by 1/3 of the Earth's population many times at risk of death is testament to the varacity of those claims and your lack of understanding the issue.

Untrue.

True but not worth the effort.

Untrue.

I suppose you have observed dinosaurs becoming birds. You will swallow that without a single witness and claimed to happen millions of years ago. However you balk at eywitness recording of events two thousand years ago. Got double standards?

That’s true. However you can see a bacteria turning into a quite different bacteria in little time. What’s the difference? And if evolution isn’t true, then you are suggesting all species were in this planet from the beginning? Did we live with the dinosaurs? Do you realize how ridiculous that is? :/

I didn't say it wasn't true. The Bible said 4000 years ago that animals change after their king. Dog's get bibber and smaller they do not become horses and that has never been seen.

And BTW, you are suggesting that because you haven’t seen it, then it isn’t true. So basically you are saying 95% of people in prison are not criminals, because usually no one sees how someone commits a crime if the crime is a little planned. By your logic we should release them, because clearly we can not keep them in jail based on “faith”. So?

I never said any such thing. Remember you are the one that rejects faith and demands facts when it is convenient. I think things can be reasonably known concerning actions that were observed or have verifiable effects. That applies to criminals but not to pond scum gaining self awareness.

Not at all.

Virtually all.

Killing other people has always been wrong from Ramses II to Barack Obama. The only culture I’ve seen claiming killing other people is actually a good thing to do, are muslims killing in the name of Allah, and inquisiters killing in the name of Christ. And btw hitler was a fervent catholic, so I’m afraid your moral dogmas are worth less than nothing. Modern society’s morality have been perfectly reasoned and would never ever rely on an ancient book to find guidance.

Good night nurse. Do you guys all go to seminars? I am an amateur historian. I specialise in warfare. Hitler only associated with Catholicism in an attempt to gain their influnce. When they rejected him he reciprocated. He did use both evolution and some strange type of theology to justify his actions. The difference is that his claims are consistent with evolution but contrary to even his distorted theology. Stalin, Pol Pot, Mao and a long sad parade of mass murderers all had something in comon they rejected Christianity and by that the only justification of human worth and dignity. Claiming a book that says do not kill justifies killing or that survival of the fittest justifies peace is obsurd and rather comedic.

Voltaire crearly overestimated humankind’s potential.

He is one of countless idiots who declared the death of Christianity and the Bible. Some of the most powerfull empires in history actually declared the death of Christians. The Bible buried them all.

Strong claims. No substance on them though.

It is kind of difficult to prove when you critics refuse to name a single example that can be discussed.

Phylosphical claims are not laws and lack any value to science.

The worth of something is not determined by it's use to the narrow field of science. The entire field of law is based on philosophy and religion. Philosophy of law - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Jesus u read about in the Bible is practically the invention of a Roman Emperor that lived 300 years after Christ and probably has nothing to do with the real Jesus.

If I was this woefully ignorant of an issue I would not comment on it. Do you get your theological history from the Davinci Code? I have researched this many times, Constantine made very little direct input concerning doctrine. He made arguably no input on text. The texts essentially as we have them today predated him and 95% of the entire new testament can be found in the early church father's writings.

No offense, but Goku is far more impressive than Jesus. Just saying.

He is so impressive I have no idea who he is.

Ten Stupid Things Smart Christians Believe
1. A mistranslated book written by cave people is a reliable guide to the modern world.

Well this is pathetic and low even for a critic. The Bible is 99.5%accurate per theologian's and 95% accurate even by critics claims and it was never written by any cave dwelling culture. I just can't believe you are not emberassed by posting things this silly.

2. There’s an invisible man in the sky who likes to watch you while you’re showering.

There is invisible radiation that can kill you. Find a single verse to back up this pathetic shower garbage.

3. Two thousand years ago, an alter ego of this invisible man knocked up a Jewess whose husband wasn’t satisfying her.

My gosh is this ignorant. She was not married. There was no knocking of anything that went one. It was the immaculate reception, I mean conception.

4. The progeny of this drunken coupling was both god and the son of god.

Find a single verse that bears out drunken anything.

5. This son of god was killed (but not really, since he’s also god, and god can’t die) and then came back to life to seek revenge, just like J.D. Walker.

Born up by four witnesses who wrote detailed and complementary accounts said by the greatest experts in human history on law and history to meet every test of modern law and the historical method. You know the kind of things that say Ceaser existed. I can't do this anymore. The subject deserves better. If I had to rely on stuff this rediculous I would not bother.


Stupid things non Bible believing scientists believe.
Nothing exploded and created everything for no reason, with no purpose, and no meaning. Random chance violated the law of theromdynamics and abiogenesis and too many more to name, over and over trillions of times, to create a creature who's brain is the most complex arrangement of matter in the universe and that would require purpose, meaning, and morality and could not find it in that universe. The unconcious produced the concious, no intelligence produced intelligence, unintentionality produced specified order, the non moral produced morality and everything ends in a futile heat death. Now that is progress.

 

[1robin]

Sure. It's the only way to wisdom. One must intentionally miss the boat. The boat sails for a known port, after all.

Everyone knows that to sail into oblivion is preffereable to any known destination!! THat is why damaged ships avoid all ports and sail into the middle of the sea. If you were Christopher Columbus it would still be the stone age here. So I guess the one thing you know is that anything anyone else knows is wrong.

I'm not sure that you understand what I'm saying. I'm saying that some of us are able to live without beliefs -- at least in the way that you seem to think of beliefs. For some of us every truth is tentative.

If you want to live without beliefs which is impossible but anyway to say so is fine with me but then to debate someone on beliefs is an act of lunacy.

But you are trying to argue using the written word. If you would excel at it, I think you will eventually be forced to study the mechanics of your chosen tool. At least you'll need to master the tool -- whether or not you consciously understand how it works.

I have done nothing with you that even approaches actuall debating. I determined long ago that anyone who is so self contradictory can't be led down paths of logic and reason no more than cats can be forced to do water ballet. However I did find you friendly and amusing in a trivial way, but that does not mean I will not call something what it is.

I studied transformational generative grammar at the postgraduate level, and I think you are mistaken. There are many quirks and illogicalities in grammar, but there is also a fundamental working machine underneath. In my opinion, a person can only think straight or do logic in direct proportion to his familiarity with that machinery and its parts. Logic is based in the language.

Logic is based on reason and philosophy. That is why it is consistent regardless of language. Cause and effect are the same in every language. Language is based on nothing beyond preference.

Just my two cents.

That more than I got.

So you define a 'fact' as 'a thing which has been observed with human senses'? That doesn't seem to me a coherent definition. The world appears flat to the human senses, after all.

The world appears to be curved to me. It appeared to be curved to sailors of every age and the writers of the Bible. I did not define a fact a something that can be seen. A fact is something that is true. Our verification that a claim is a fact scientists have themselves determined must be observed or reproduced. They them proceede to violate that standard continuously but claim thaings are scientifically proven anyway. It is only in religion that balkers insist that it must be seen. That was the opposite of my claim.

We can't stand back and see the earth orbiting the sun, and yet most of us call it a fact.

See above, you missed the boat.

But I have no faith that the world is older than five minutes. That's what you don't seem to understand. In other words I'm happy to say, "Well, I might be wrong. The world may be only five minutes old."

Fine then you may never bring up a single claim older than five minutes.

Now you. Say that God may not exist. Say that you could be wrong about the existence of the historical Jesus.

I have said that countless times. Of course I can be wrong but the overwhelming weight of evidence suggests I am not. So?

You can't say those things, can you? No, I think you can't say them. Therefore, I do not have the sort of faith which you have.

Wrong yet again.

No problem: Doing unnecessary harm to others is immoral. Hitler did unnecessary harm to others. Therefore, what Hitler did was wrong.
My proof is every bit as strong as your own. Yours looks like this: I believe that a supreme being called God exists and that God is the final arbiter of all morality.
I believe that God hates people who do unnecessary harm to others. Hitler did unnecessary harm to others. Therefore God believes that Hitler was wrong. Therefore Hitler was wrong.

It is really remarkable how many mistakes you can cram into such a few words.
First this was the challenge (For example prove what Hitler did was actually wrong without God.) Mistake one, you used God.
Second, you have many times said that the God who told you he does not talk and all other Gods do not exist. Then you say he was wrong because of God. Mistake two, you said God does not exist.
Three even if God does exist you say he does not tell us anything . So mistake three you claim to have revelation of the specific morality of a God that you say does not reveal things to us. Mistake three.
Fourth, You have no way even with your mute God to know for sure that what Hitler did was unjustified (unlike with my God) and so you are assuming another opinion of a mute God. Mistake four.

One mistake persentence. Nice consistency.

To me, my proof seems more elegant and easier to follow.

I am sorry to say it probably does.

If you believe it, then you believe it. But I can say with 100% authority that you are mistaken. After all, I myself have proven Christianity wrong using textual claims.

You have not proven a single thing, of any type, at any time, with the exception of setting contradiction records.

Those are incoherent qualities for any single Being to possess. They prove that God cannot exist, I think.

They are logical necessities. No matter what incoherent is not the right word.

A god who would send down Holy Words would be making such a huge mistake and creating such havoc and discord among humanity that He could not possibly be a true God. Only a malevolent God would send down rigid, unchangeable words to us.

Is that why Jesus and the Bible has had a greater and more benevolent impact on mankind than any other and probably all other events combined in human history as said by even their critics?

I think the gospels were written as fiction, based on earlier oral claims. I don't think Jesus existed in any form recognizable to us and not in first-century Judea. Sorry

Is that why Simon Greenleaf and Lord Lynhurst among many of the greatest experts on testimony and history in human history say the opposite in no uncertain terms? If you become the Queen's Lord of law or write the multivolume set of books that are the standard by which these issues are determined in countless courtrooms then what you think may be relevant.

How interesting. From my perspective, you are not actually ready to discuss theology. I don't mean that in a mean way. I'm just saying.

I do not get a sence that you can resolve theological issues following reason, logic, or historical methods. I do not mean that in a mean way either, you are still amusing and somewhat polite.

Theologians fear no question. Theologians yearn to be challenged to think in new ways, to grapple with strange thoughts and claims, to reorganize the language in a way which more clearly expresses God and life. I'm talking here about really good theologians, of course. Any guy can call himself a theologian.

Countless theologians would rightly fear a chalenge to solve reimann. Or cure the common cold.

OK. In my theology, that means that you have given up the theology game. Sorry, it's just how I see it.

How can I give up what I never began?

Yes, it sounded fairly civil for awhile there.

This is about the time I ran into a word game about Jaylo in a theological thread and knew who I was dealing with.

But I see you've recovered yourself and have gotten back to the usual insult.

It's curious, why I seem to disturb you so. Don't you think?

It is not curious at all that contradiction and attepts to make the trivial momentus are disturbing. Take heart, I usually bail out on these things if they are not amusing.

 

[otokage007]

Nothing exploded and created everything for no reason, with no purpose, and no meaning. Random chance violated the law of theromdynamics and abiogenesis and too many more to name, over and over trillions of times, to create a creature who's brain is the most complex arrangement of matter in the universe and that would require purpose, meaning, and morality and could not find it in that universe. The unconcious produced the concious, no intelligence produced intelligence, unintentionality produced specified order, the non moral produced morality and everything ends in a futile heat death. Now that is progress.

That was great :biglaugh:

 

[1robin]

That was great :biglaugh:

It was better than that one you had about a drunken coupling. There isn't even a bad reference for that one. Glad you were entertained. It is about all that can be hoped for. Have you ever seen any one that had any belief concede any issue beyond a single point in here? I haven't. I justify doing this in that I learn just how reliable that the Bible is by addressing challenges and I am bored sometimes, but to hope anyone will ever change their mind about anything is futile. Have a good afternoon. I am vapor......

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

If you want to live without beliefs which is impossible but anyway to say so is fine with me but then to debate someone on beliefs is an act of lunacy.

So you imagine that 'beliefs' actually exist as real things? Oh my.

Here's a little challenge for you. Can you define the word 'belief'? I'm not asking you to copy and paste a dictionary definition. I'm asking if you are capable of defining a 'belief' in your own words and then to address questions about your definition. If you'll do this, we might be able to figure out which one of us is logical, non-contradictory, etc.

I have done nothing with you that even approaches actuall debating.

OK, thanks for the honesty. But I tend to be long suffering and rarely give up on anyone. And I've just given you a chance to demonstrate your debate skills. I look forward to hearing your definition of 'a belief'.

I determined long ago that anyone who is so self contradictory can't be led down paths of logic and reason no more than cats can be forced to do water ballet.

Ah. You are a genius of logic and reason and I am bumbling and confused. It must be difficult for you to bear with me. Thanks for that.

Logic is based on reason and philosophy. That is why it is consistent regardless of language. Cause and effect are the same in every language. Language is based on nothing beyond preference.

Yes, you must be a genius. It's all I can figure. Even though you don't write coherently and avoid difficult questions and admit to never reading literature and to hating 'grammer'... still you instruct the professionally-trained grammarian and linguist on the nature of language and logic.

You must be a genius who functions somewhere beyond the normal need for evidence, logic, training, argumentation and the other skills of a debater. An uberman, perhaps? A prophet?

I did not define a fact a something that can be seen. A fact is something that is true.

Oh, you do make me chuckle aloud sometimes. A fact is something which is true?

So tell me: To whom must a thing be true in order for it to be true? If you say that a thing is a fact (true), while your preacher declares the opposite to be the fact, which one of you actually owns the fact?

Please don't answer that it depends on which one of you is right. I couldn't bear that.

Fine then you may never bring up a single claim older than five minutes.

Forgive me yet again, but I have to opine that you really do seem to demonstrate significant difficulty with logic. At least to my understanding of logic.

I admit that the world could be younger (or older) than 5 minutes.

You conclude that in order for me to be consistent and non-contradictory, I must always behave and speak as if the world is younger than 5 minutes.

That's illogic. Logicality is often a matter of opinion, but I would guess that 99% of the people on this planet would see your conclusion as profoundly illogical. God certainly sees it as illogical. Of course there's nothing immoral about being distanced from good logic and reason, but if a person would try to correct that situation and grow into logic and reason... well, I think that person would do well to assert a bit less and listen a lot more. Just my opinion.

It is really remarkable how many mistakes you can cram into such a few words.
First this was the challenge (For example prove what Hitler did was actually wrong without God.) Mistake one, you used God.

I believe that you're confused. I did not use God in my proof that Hitler was wrong. Please re-read.

Second, you have many times said that the God who told you he does not talk and all other Gods do not exist. Then you say he was wrong because of God. Mistake two, you said God does not exist. Three even if God does exist you say he does not
tell us anything . So mistake three you claim to have revelation of the specific morality of a God that you say does not reveal things to us. Mistake three. Fourth, You have no way even with your mute God to know for sure that what Hitler did was unjustified (unlike with my God) and so you are assuming another opinion of a mute God. Mistake four.

If you'd ever like to know what I think about God -- rather than making up a Clown God, proclaiming that He is my God, and then slapping His big red nose around in public -- just let me know. I'm generous with my time.

You have not proven a single thing, of any type, at any time, with the exception of setting contradiction records.

But you are once again demonstrating a confusion and illogic here.

You have admitted that in order for a thing to be proven, it must be proven to an individual human mind. But I have proven all my points to my individual human mind. Therefore, it is illogical to claim that I have not proven things. Yes?

Is that why Jesus and the Bible has had a greater and more benevolent impact on mankind than any other and probably all other events combined in human history as said by even their critics?

Christianity to this point has been a primitive drag on human progress. I'm sorry to say that, but I have to correct your assertion. Without Christianity and other scripture-based religions, we'd probably be a thousand years advanced in our science, our wealth and our theology.

I do not get a sence that you can resolve theological issues following reason, logic, or historical methods. I do not mean that in a mean way either, you are still amusing and somewhat polite.

It's true that I can't help with theological issues and sound thinking if someone flees from questions and discussions. No one can learn to reason logically unless they are willing to engage the actual argumentation.

As for my politeness, thanks for saying so. I think that only those who are afraid and stressed will descend to insult during debate. The confident debater can't be wound up and pushed to anger and insult. Think of Superman. Can he be angered by some badboy
throwing a punch at him?

By the way, if you must name me, I prefer SuperLogicMan to Superman. I'm working on the costume now, trying to get the action figures into production well before the Christmas season. SuperLogicMan is always planning ahead. He's so boring.

Countless theologians would rightly fear a chalenge to solve reimann. Or cure the common cold.

Sorry, but English is my only language.

This is about the time I ran into a word game about Jaylo in a theological thread and knew who I was dealing with.

Jaylo, standing naked in the Antarctic, is hot.

Is that statement true or false or both? Is it inconsistent? Contradictory?

I understand that it's a daunting question, but we can't grow strong unless we exercise, you know. Give it a try.

Is it contradictory?

 

[1robin]

So you imagine that 'beliefs' actually exist as real things? Oh my.

Good night nurse, here we go again. Beliefs exist and there fore are. They do not even have to be true to exist. Fictional books exist, or maybe you do not believe that either.

Here's a little challenge for you. Can you define the word 'belief'? I'm not asking you to copy and paste a dictionary definition. I'm asking if you are capable of defining a 'belief' in your own words and then to address questions about your definition. If you'll do this, we might be able to figure out which one of us is logical, non-contradictory, etc.

THat has been determined long ago. However since word games seems to be your only interest. Beliefs are concepts we have faith in to varying degrees.

OK, thanks for the honesty. But I tend to be long suffering and rarely give up on anyone. And I've just given you a chance to demonstrate your debate skills. I look forward to hearing your definition of 'a belief'.

Done

Ah. You are a genius of logic and reason and I am bumbling and confused. It must be difficult for you to bear with me. Thanks for that.

I do what I can.

Yes, you must be a genius. It's all I can figure. Even though you don't write coherently and avoid difficult questions and admit to never reading literature and to hating 'grammer'... still you instruct the professionally-trained grammarian and linguist on the nature of language and logic.

I am gulity of hating grammer, but I only have avoided meaningless questions whos only difficulty is that they are not complete questions.

You must be a genius who functions somewhere beyond the normal need for evidence, logic, training, argumentation and the other skills of a debater. An uberman, perhaps? A prophet?

Slow down there ubercontradictarian.

Oh, you do make me chuckle aloud sometimes. A fact is something which is true?

If that makes you laugh then things are worse than I feared.
Fact: A thing that is the case.
Truth: the state of being the case
Logic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

So tell me: To whom must a thing be true in order for it to be true? If you say that a thing is a fact (true), while your preacher declares the opposite to be the fact, which one of you actually owns the fact?

Good night, you took a terrible question and made it worse. Facts are not owned. I have already answered the first part twice correctly here is another correct answer that will be forgotten in ten minutes and this tired questions carcass trotted out again. A truth is independant of who it is true to. Venus truly exists even if no one believed it did.

Forgive me yet again, but I have to opine that you really do seem to demonstrate significant difficulty with logic. At least to my understanding of logic.

Your conclusion explains the premise.

I admit that the world could be younger (or older) than 5 minutes.

However you believe that it is older based on faith and evidence.

You conclude that in order for me to be consistent and non-contradictory, I must always behave and speak as if the world is younger than 5 minutes.

No I said if you reject anything based in faith then you must.

That's illogic. Logicality is often a matter of opinion, but I would guess that 99% of the people on this planet would see your conclusion as profoundly illogical. God certainly sees it as illogical. Of course there's nothing immoral about being distanced from good logic and reason, but if a person would try to correct that situation and grow into logic and reason... well, I think that person would do well to assert a bit less and listen a lot more. Just my opinion.

Logic: a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotics; especially: syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of knowledge
Logic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
The word opinion does not appear in there anywhere.

I believe that you're confused. I did not use God in my proof that Hitler was wrong. Please re-read.

Oh I see you restated my case not your own. I stand corrected. So different mistakes aplly not the ones I listed you said ( Doing unnecessary harm to others is immoral. Hitler did unnecessary harm to others. Therefore, what Hitler did was wrong.) You simply declared something wrong based on preference. That has zero explanitory power. I said prove it wrong not state it is. You even said immoral, without God immoral nor wrong have any meaning beyond arbitrary preference. Nature which is all that is left a amoral. It is as if I said prove the moon exists, and you said the moon exists, done. Pathetic

If you'd ever like to know what I think about God -- rather than making up a Clown God, proclaiming that He is my God, and then slapping His big red nose around in public -- just let me know. I'm generous with my time.

You have already done so and yes you are very generous with your time unfortunantly.

You have admitted that in order for a thing to be proven, it must be proven to an individual human mind. But I have proven all my points to my individual human mind. Therefore, it is illogical to claim that I have not proven things. Yes?

Your mind (thank the Lord) is not the arbiter of the issues. What you left out is that I said if that mind is the arbiter of what is true.

Christianity to this point has been a primitive drag on human progress. I'm sorry to say that, but I have to correct your assertion. Without Christianity and other scripture-based religions, we'd probably be a thousand years advanced in our science, our wealth and our theology.

Then why are most of the major fields of science created by Christians. Or at least an dissproportion number of them. I guess the hundereds of hospitals and the existance of public education systems are also a step backwards.

It's true that I can't help with theological issues and sound thinking if someone flees from questions and discussions. No one can learn to reason logically unless they are willing to engage the actual argumentation.

I flee from irrationality in any form.

As for my politeness, thanks for saying so. I think that only those who are afraid and stressed will descend to insult during debate. The confident debater can't be wound up and pushed to anger and insult. Think of Superman. Can he be angered by some badboy throwing a punch at him?

I am not angry but do get frustrated by nonsence and bad arguments.

By the way, if you must name me, I prefer SuperLogicMan to Superman. I'm working on the costume now, trying to get the action figures into production well before the Christmas season. SuperLogicMan is always planning ahead. He's so boring.

How about Sir Lance-a-contradition.

Sorry, but English is my only language.

Jaylo, standing naked in the Antarctic, is hot.

Is that statement true or false or both? Is it inconsistent? Contradictory?

I understand that it's a daunting question, but we can't grow strong unless we exercise, you know. Give it a try.

Is it contradictory?

It is not a daunting question it is a trivial pointless waste of time.

 

[Vansdad]

That narrows it down a bit, but not enough. Deist, Abrahamic, etc.?

Why are you getting bogged down on religious type details?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Good night nurse, here we go again. Beliefs exist and there fore are.

OK. So can you tell me what a belief looks like? Or if it has no appearance, does it make a sound or a smell or anything else which is observable by human senses? Is it a particular electrical arc in our brains? Is it a particular crease in our brains, as memories supposedly are?

Or is it, as I believe, a string of words to which I'm willing to give assent?

Please tell me more about how a belief exists. When you claim that beliefs exist, are you simply saying that the word itself exists, as a 'unicorn' exists? Or are you saying that beliefs exist in a different way, a more 'real' way, than unicorns exist?

Beliefs are concepts we have faith in to varying degrees.

Thank you. I hereby admit, confess and concede that you have indeed answered the first part of my question. You have presented a string of words which you think of as equalling the word 'belief.' You say that a 'belief' = 'a concept which we embrace' if you don't mind a slight paraphrase.

Now for the rest of my question, which is a discussion of your definition:

What is a concept? If you can give a coherent definition of that word, I will bow to you, for I-my-own-exalted-self cannot define it coherently. The best I can define 'concept' is something like this:

A concept is a vague image or model in our heads which could not exist except that we are endlessly manipulating that image with our words. It is entirely dependent on our words. A chimp cannot conceive of 'scripture' for example. Only humans can own that concept and only if it has been explained to them in words. Those who have the strongest concept of 'scriptures' are those who are best able to use their words to explain that concept in an integrated way.

Whew!

Now you. If, as you claim, a 'belief' = a 'concept', then you must tell me what a concept is. I look forward to it.

I am gulity of hating grammer, but I only have avoided meaningless questions whos only difficulty is that they are not complete questions.

OK, I just disagree. I think that my questions sometimes intimidate those who are not ready for serious debate and discussion. Rather than gracefully withdrawing, some of those unready folk will curse the questions as meaningless, incoherent, half-baked... and various other such name-callings. Sorry. That's what I honestly believe.

If that makes you laugh then things are worse than I feared.
Fact: A thing that is the case.
Truth: the state of being the case
Logic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

Oh, put your Bible away. Don't you know that I will not bow to the lowly, overworked linguist who wrote it? Heck, I was in school with him, acing every test as he stumbled in late each morning and struggled to keep up with the reading. I know very well his every wart and weakness.

If you believe everything you read in a dictionary, you will be profoundly confused. It can be as bad as scriptural literalism so far as contorting a person's thought.

A truth is independant of who it is true to. Venus truly exists even if no one believed it did.

I see. So the Bible is false, since it is independently true that God did not send it to us. Hmm.... And it is independently true that I have proven all my points in our debate. How wonderful. All this time I was thinking it was only my opinion that I am smarter than you. Now that I realize it's independently true, I feel happier!

Anyway, let's say that an advanced space alien (or an actual prophet of God) is standing next to 1robin. The alien says, "It is a fact that Venus is an illusion which we have implanted into human minds. The rock itself doesn't exist."

1robin says, "It is a fact that Venus exists as a physical hunk of elements between the Earth and Sun."

Which one of you has the actual fact? And how do I determine that?

Logic: a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the
formal principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotics;
especially: syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of knowledge
Logic - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary
The word opinion does not appear in there anywhere.

Yeah, Bradley was his name -- the guy who sat behind me in Semantics 5020 was always popping his pimples in class and looking over my shoulder during the tests. He said he was gonna be a lexicographer one day. I see he made it.

Believe in Bradley as an actual prophet of God if you must, but I'm pretty sure that you're unlikely to become a theologian or logician while doing that.

You simply declared something wrong based on preference.

Sure. It's the same thing you do, except that you interpose others in an effort to pump up your moral certainty. You declare Hitler wrong based on your opinion that some other guy (a prophet) believed that God believed that Hitler was wrong. It's why the faithful have such trouble arguing morality, I think. Too many cooks in the kitchen.

I said prove it wrong not state it is.

I did prove it. I just left out a couple of the cooks. They're unnecessary and reason-corrupting. Since I have access directly to the recipes, why should I go through those guys?

You even said immoral, without God immoral nor wrong have any meaning beyond arbitrary preference.

That's a fine opinion. You're mistaken, but I support your right to say false things.

Your mind (thank the Lord) is not the arbiter of the issues. What you left out is that I said if that mind is the arbiter of what is true.

Yes, a regurgitation of your earlier word salad.

So which mind is the arbiter of what is true? Here in this thread, I say it's true that I have proven all my points. You say it's false that I've proven all my points. So which is it, true or false? Which mind is the arbiter of truth here?

I flee from irrationality in any form.

Um, you might want to take a second look next time. I think that might be a mirror receding behind you.

It is not a daunting question it is a trivial pointless waste of time.

You must admit that I prophesized very early in our discussion that folks who are unready for serious debate will curse my questions while refusing to address them.

It's uncanny, the way SuperLogicGuy can predict behavior well before it happens. It really is.

 

[1robin]

OK. So can you tell me what a belief looks like? Or if it has no appearance, does it make a sound or a smell or anything else which is observable by human senses? Is it a particular electrical arc in our brains? Is it a particular crease in our brains, as memories supposedly are?

Why would any of that matter or be necessary to prove something exists?

Or is it, as I believe, a string of words to which I'm willing to give assent?

Ok, let's use this. You just proved what I claimed.

Please tell me more about how a belief exists. When you claim that beliefs exist, are you simply saying that the word itself exists, as a 'unicorn' exists? Or are you saying that beliefs exist in a different way, a more 'real' way, than unicorns exist?

You just described a possible way of showing they exist and then ask me to show you how they do. Why, you did?

Thank you. I hereby admit, confess and concede that you have indeed answered the first part of my question. You have presented a string of words which you think of as equalling the word 'belief.' You say that a 'belief' = 'a concept which we embrace' if you don't mind a slight paraphrase.

Sounds fine.

What is a concept? If you can give a coherent definition of that word, I will bow to you, for I-my-own-exalted-self cannot define it coherently. The best I can define 'concept' is something like this:

A concept is a vague image or model in our heads which could not exist except that we are endlessly manipulating that image with our words. It is entirely dependent on our words. A chimp cannot conceive of 'scripture' for example. Only humans can own that concept and only if it has been explained to them in words. Those who have the strongest concept of 'scriptures' are those who are best able to use their words to explain that concept in an integrated way.

I do not care but let's adopt this so we may continue to circle the drain.

Whew!

Now you. If, as you claim, a 'belief' = a 'concept', then you must tell me what a concept is. I look forward to it.

Once again you define something and then demand that it be defined. Or try this: An idea or notion. Is there a bottom to any of this? I do not get you.

OK, I just disagree. I think that my questions sometimes intimidate those who are not ready for serious debate and discussion. Rather than gracefully withdrawing, some of those unready folk will curse the questions as meaningless, incoherent, half-baked... and various other such name-callings. Sorry. That's what I honestly believe.

I do not care or know what others do but I assure you that is not the case with me. I am the world's leading expert on me by the way.

Oh, put your Bible away. Don't you know that I will not bow to the lowly, overworked linguist who wrote it? Heck, I was in school with him, acing every test as he stumbled in late each morning and struggled to keep up with the reading. I know very well his every wart and weakness.

Please!!!

If you believe everything you read in a dictionary, you will be profoundly confused. It can be as bad as scriptural literalism so far as contorting a person's thought.

Yea, dictionaries are notoriously bad for defining things. Everything you know about what any word means came from someone else.

I see. So the Bible is false, since it is independently true that God did not send it to us. Hmm.... And it is independently true that I have proven all my points in our debate. How wonderful. All this time I was thinking it was only my opinion that I am smarter than you. Now that I realize it's independently true, I feel happier!

Starting with the next occurance I will simply delete anything that is simply a snide unproven and most likely wrong mere assertion.

Anyway, let's say that an advanced space alien (or an actual prophet of God) is standing next to 1robin. The alien says, "It is a fact that Venus is an illusion which we have implanted into human minds. The rock itself doesn't exist."

Illusions no not reflect light of have probes effected by their gravity. Venus was not the issue. The fact that facts are facts independant of belief in whether they are facts is a fact. Make a sentence that makes sence that has the word fact in it more times than that one.

1robin says, "It is a fact that Venus exists as a physical hunk of elements between the Earth and Sun."

I never said that but agree with it.

Which one of you has the actual fact? And how do I determine that?

It passes every test by which that can be determined. If you deny the tests then I deny you exist.

Yeah, Bradley was his name -- the guy who sat behind me in Semantics 5020 was always popping his pimples in class and looking over my shoulder during the tests. He said he was gonna be a lexicographer one day. I see he made it.

Believe in Bradley as an actual prophet of God if you must, but I'm pretty sure that you're unlikely to become a theologian or logician while doing that.

Who is Bradley and how do you know he went to the same jr high you did?

Sure. It's the same thing you do, except that you interpose others in an effort to pump up your moral certainty. You declare Hitler wrong based on your opinion that some other guy (a prophet) believed that God believed that Hitler was wrong. It's why the faithful have such trouble arguing morality, I think. Too many cooks in the kitchen.

You are confusing an intellectual hypothesis with somekind of absolute claim to knowledge. Hitler can be said to be actually wrong if God exists and he can't outside of that.

I did prove it. I just left out a couple of the cooks. They're unnecessary and reason-corrupting. Since I have access directly to the recipes, why should I go through those guys?

Saying that something is wrong is proof that it is is to leave out all necessary ingredients that make the statement worth making.

That's a fine opinion. You're mistaken, but I support your right to say false things.

And you prove it so well by not even attempting to.

Yes, a regurgitation of your earlier word salad.

Which was a response to a word garbage heap.

So which mind is the arbiter of what is true? Here in this thread, I say it's true that I have proven all my points. You say it's false that I've proven all my points. So which is it, true or false? Which mind is the arbiter of truth here?

God or reality would both work.

Um, you might want to take a second look next time. I think that might be a mirror receding behind you.

Your sarcasm isn't even coherent.

You must admit that I prophesized very early in our discussion that folks who are unready for serious debate will curse my questions while refusing to address them.

That is easy to do when the triviality and irrationality of your questions always produce the effect to which you invent a cause.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Why would any of that matter or be necessary to prove something exists?

It is incoherent for you to assert that 'beliefs exist' if you can say nothing about the way in which beliefs exist. Unicorns exist. Bigfoot exists. Beliefs exist. Those are all just a bunch of useless assertions if you can't say anything about the nature of their existence.

You just described a possible way of showing they exist and then ask me to show you how they do. Why, you did?

Yikes. I asked you to define your term and provided you my own definition as a courtesy... and you respond by refusing to define your term and wondering why I've asked, since I'm able to provide my own definition.

You've never engaged in debate before now -- before you began attempting it here?

Once again you define something and then demand that it be defined.

Yeah. It's how we theologians act. We understand that words mean different things to different people, so we tend to ask people what they mean by their words and to generously offer our own definitions when asked.

Or try this: An idea or notion.

I was pretty certain that you wouldn't/couldn't attempt your own defintion of your terms, but I wanted to check. It's easy to sling words around. Much harder to describe what those words mean to us.

I am the world's leading expert on me by the way.

Forgive my doubt. Some people know themselves well and others don't seem to know themselves at all. That's been my experience anyway.

Yea, dictionaries are notoriously bad for defining things. Everything you know about what any word means came from someone else.

And you want to do theology. Have you ever looked into what real theologians do? They manipulate the language in order to search for and express God. They don't sit and copy holy words from Bibles and Dictionaries. Maybe you are thinking of scribes? I'm not sure there's much call for scribes anymore.

Illusions no not reflect light of have probes effected by their gravity.

So God isn't powerful enough to deceive you into thinking that you see light reflection or the effects of gravity? I thought you considered Him omnipotent.

Who is Bradley and how do you know he went to the same jr high you did?

How curious. 190 hours of college and you don't seem to recognize a common numbering system for college courses. How very odd. Would you mind saying what kind of college you attended? Was it by chance a bible college?

God or reality would both work.

Wow. So in order for a thing to be proven, it must be proven to God. Wow.

And if I say that my points have been proven to God, and you deny that my points have been proven to God, I wonder whether my points have been proven.

Just kidding. As an actual prophet of God, I already know the answer to that one, of course. Just ask me. I'll tell you which one of us God loves best and considers the finest logician, theologian and debater.

Your sarcasm isn't even coherent.

190 hours of college credit and you can't seem to parse some pretty simple statements which I make here. It is most curious to me.

(Read my 'sarcasm' again. It was fairly clever, if simple. You said that you run from incoherence. I implied that you were then running from yourself -- that it might be a mirror receding behind you. Read it again. Think about it.)

 

[RedJamaX]

Intelligent Design is Religion's Trump-Card, used as their own definitive reasoning to prove that God does exist. It claims all current, and future, scientific discoveries are simply the way we are able to interpret the work of God in our physical world.

Take this hypothetical situation if you will...

Even if Science is able to prove the following, beyond the shadow of a doubt.... (and I mean to say that all unknowns are known and easily duplicated through lab experiments)
1. The Big Bang event of Universal Expansion
2. The infinitely repetitious cycle of explosion and implosion of the Universe
3. The evolution of intelligent life from the basic elements of the Universe
4. A being's level of consciousness is directly proportionate to it's level of intelligence which, in turn, is controlled by the complexity of it's brain and genetic structure, which stemmed from evolution.

Even If all of those are proven to be absolute, no missing links, no question's unanswered, with a doubt, and Science is able to provide the exact chain of events to provide the answer the the question "Where did we come from?"....

Those who believe in God will simply use the theory of Intelligent Design to say "That's how God designed it to work."

This argument is pointless.

 

[Storm]

Why are you getting bogged down on religious type details?

I'm really not. I'm pointing out that the arguments are not universal.

 

[Storm]

Intelligent Design is Religion's Trump-Card, used as their own definitive reasoning to prove that God does exist. It claims all current, and future, scientific discoveries are simply the way we are able to interpret the work of God in our physical world.

It really isn't. It's YEC stripped of Scriptural support, making it even dumber. YEC is not representative of Christianity, and Christianity is not representative of religion.

Please don't lump me in with those jerks.

 

[RedJamaX]

It really isn't. It's YEC stripped of Scriptural support, making it even dumber. YEC is not representative of Christianity, and Christianity is not representative of religion.

Please don't lump me in with those jerks.

My intent is not to generalize or associate groups of peoples together. I only infer that the idea of Intelligent Design allows for all religions to say "God did it", thus substantiating the existence of their God. I didn't specify Christianity. Intelligent Design didn't just start now since it became popular in the 90s. It was a concept during the rule of the Roman Empire as well and was simply re-adopted, perhaps re-invented maybe, so that the theory can fall in line with our current understanding of the Universe.

Just like all religions claim that other religions are counterfeit, fakes, copies, or just plain and simply... WRONG. They could also claim that another religion's view of Intelligent Design is a copy, or a fake, or just plain wrong. And that their view of what Intelligent Design is and how it works is the only true view of Intelligent Design because why... well, there God is the ONLY true God of course...

It doesn't matter how something truly originated, or what it might have meant during that time, it only matters how it is interpreted and manipulated by those who use it to justify their faith. Just as there are thousands of sects of Christianity, I propose that, soon there will be just as many "versions" of Intelligent Design.

The circular reasoning and self justification just never ends...