Really? I'm here every damn day. Later, QD.Originally Posted by TIGERJC
Really? I'm here every damn day. Later, QD.
FOR MORE INFO, CLICK THE PIC!!!
I think I understand you and I apologize for the complexity. It is very hard to try to discuss this kind of stuff on a forum. I am just approaching the problem of proof as it is asked for all the time. We ask for something we can touch and grasp but people have done that. Christ was real, he was touched, he ate, we was physical and spiritual and universal all at once. He has a specific purpose in our history and he served that purpose and he left. But people ignore the evidence that is Christ.
Also an understanding of the art of proof in debate would tell us that there is another problem with a request for proof. If believers believe that everything is of God and from God then for any skeptics of non-believers these things are not acceptable as reason to prove his existence because they are ruled out as "having come from that which is to be proved" because anything God creates points to his existence and cannot be used to prove it. I don't believe this, but that is the way that many non-theists or atheists approach the discussion.
This is based off of debate theory. You cannot use anything that has a predisposition that says something is real to prove that thing real...So the Bible would not be sufficient enough to prove that God is real, because it presupposes that God is real. I cannot logically tell anyone otherwise because I presuppose that God is real. In fact, no one who believes in God can prove his existence because presuppositions are always there if you are trying to prove his existence. You would not seek to prove that which you do not believe exists and, you would not seek to prove what you do not believe is there.
My earlier post is about the physical proof. We believe God exists in three forms. The physical, Christ. The spiritual, The Holy Spirit, and the universal, God (The Father (Creator)). The only one that can be argued reasonably through physical means is Christ and *possibly the Father (as presented to Moses, who saw his back on Mount Sinai)
so if you want physical proof of God's existence look at the person of Christ. Look at his life, death, and resurrection. He exists in history, only retards can deny that, so look at his claims and start there. Based on what we have already said, it is going to be hard to determine what is a suitable resource for you to go to, because as people who do not believe investigate many of them become believers, and we have already said that the believer is not a suitable source. So the act of asking for proof for some, only exists to substantiate their non belief because the only proof that is acceptable is the proof that agrees with a single side of the argument.
Tangibility is not always an option in making a case for something. There are things that we know are real but cannot touch. History and the study of archaeology and culture is proof of that. We have to be able to look at the compilation of evidence and make reasonable claims. those claims become our faith and they are substantiated in reasons that we have to believe. This is our study of God, our Theology which should be just as grounded in logic and observation as any other science. So belief should never be based on just blind uninformed faith this is where all the misunderstanding and misconceptions come from about the Christian faith.
is that more clear?
BTW...what I am saying to you is strongly demonstrated in posts from d993s. I could introduce him to Christ and he would not believe him. Just as the world did not know Christ when he was here, what make us think that him being here now would be convincing enough for all. this goes to show that lack of proof and evidence is not the problem. It is something in the individual who either cant or refuses to believe or is in denial.
Sorry QD I am talking about d993, jealous
2006 Evo IX - Bolt ons
Lolol. I knew. I was just interjecting a funny. Later, QD.
FOR MORE INFO, CLICK THE PIC!!!
I was wondering if your mind was starting to go.
2006 Evo IX - Bolt ons
My personal beliefs based on evidence. If you believe in anything related to science it is based off of evidence. You believe your car will start in the morning, thats why you will not call a friend and ask for a ride to work. And yes, I elaborated, but as you can see in my last post, proof doesn't exist for those who are looking to dismiss it, it can't. Even before you ask for proof, your intent is to dismiss whatever comes out, to find a way to make the argument NOT work for your POV. So why do you ask for proof? Do you believe proof exists? If you don't why ask for it or harp on it when it is presented. I gave reason for my beliefs. Thats all I need to do. You have no real response to the reasons. All that you have is YOUR personal bias to argue because you have not studied or read of looked at the authors that I have read. I have read books by atheists, non-theists, and theists alike, and I do not agree with All of any of them, yet I have enough information to make a reasonable statement of my faith. You have nothing, but attacks on my beliefs as if you know me and know what I have been through or my experience with and before I came to faith.
The reason you will NOT be satisfied with evidence or reason to believe right now is that in your heart you don't want it. You can argue against just about anything that you want (and almost everything).
I don't understand how anybody can believe in the bible which is equivalent to the Harry Potter book series (Magic tricks, Interesting tales and other shit that only happens in your dreams). Man is all about power, and back then religion was used to control peasants by the wealthy and nobles of that time. It's still used today for that exact reason
2006 Evo IX - Bolt ons
but religious faiths existed within the groups of nomadic men. Even before governments and large societies. I would agree that in the last several hundreds of years, men have used faith to control people but no more or less than government, money, property, and brute force. All things can be turned upside down if you have the wrong person acting on things. So looking at a bigger picture I can agree that man is about power, but I don't believe that at the onset of our existence there was nothing. I believe that God and many other things predate human origins which means that we somehow have to find out how we fit into this grand picture.
The Bible should not be looked at as a HP book. Its not even the same type. The bible is written in a very different literary style, time and culture. If you read it like a HP book then of course it would be ridiculous. But there are many secular journals on the history of the Bible. Its just hard to find legitimate reads with all the garbage that has been posted by fanatics on both sides of the equation.
This is not fair. FAITH is the substance of things HOPED for - the "evidence" of things NOT seen. So in your example FAITH would be me thinking that my 12.50 Honda will outrun a 11.50 Viper just b/c I pray really hard. The "laws" of horesepower production w/ respect to traction doesn't require FAITH. If I injest more air and fuel at the proper time w/ the spark at the right time i WILL make more horsepower. That does not require FAITH at at all, it just requires precison of all of the elements. These "elements" do not exist w/ a walk w/ God. You can see this in your explanations b/c you always factor in a "copout" w/ phrases like "Tangibility is not always an option in making a case for something" You set it up perfectly to where you get to a point that you are not held to the standard to PRODUCE - and that's a shame - really, it is.
All the reason for the Church to steal his DEAD body before others did to propagate this crap. I mean there are people trying to steal Michael Jackson's body. The popularity of the Christian church is DEFINITELY not proof of anything. When are you going to learn that people are fickle - people ride the hype for the moment. Look at MJ record sales -- people who never gave a FUCK about him are buying his shit like he is anew artist... all of a sudden we all are MJ fans. So you can imagine in a time when there is no internet, no radio, no TV, and all is word of mouth --- some quack who is more suited for a Circus act makes rediculous claims to get free foot rubs and food wherever he goes will be big news.
[QUOTE=sport_122Second, There are plenty of first Century Roman historians who have written about the man of Christ and about his death and his followers and the miracles that they were known to have worked.[/quote]
Come on man. Look at IA. Look at the guys that were FAST (quick) well before it was supposed to be popular to do it in a FWD Honda. The stories you hear are RETARDED. I've had people walk up to me after they realize I am "Baby J" and say "I've heard about you man --- didn't you have like a 200 shot on single cams back in the day and were outrunning turbo Vettes?" LOL. I laugh and say - "yeah, I was def one of the only guys pushing Nitrous limits on stock D series Civics, but it was nowhere NEAR 200 and I wasn't raping boosted vettes." Was I fast - you bet!! Was I pushing limit - YOU BET. But that was only in the 90s, and you see how convoluted the stories about me have gotten ALREADY!!! Now set yourself back in bible times and imagine how popular a "magician" or "side-show freak" could get IN A HURRY. 2000 years later the guy was walking on water and then dying and then being ressurected.
And since we are on writing --- why does "the church" pick and choose what books/stories were included in the final cut? What about entire BOOKS about how no matter what every1 goes to heaven that were magically not included?? These books were authored by some of the same people that have books in "your bible" already. You know why those were not included? Control.
[QUOTE=sport_122
Third, did you know that after his resurrection he is said to have been on this earth for no less than 40 days. At that time there were hundreds of witnesses who saw him, and his physical body and his ascension.[/quote]
You know how many MLK, Elvis, Michael Jackson, JFK sightings there have been? People see what they want to belive and I KNOW you know this. People that are star-struck or fanatics will ALWAYS see what they want to see. I am a D series fan FOR LIFE. Even now I think that no matter WHAT kinda power you make w/ a K series, I can build a D that will outrun it - LOL. For the churches benefit he HAD to rise --- whether he rose or whether the church wanted to make it look like he did. Just add water and you have your instant hero.
You are in a place where you are trying to ignore mortality - that is a MUCH slicker slope IMO.
I thi
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
But how is Christ evidence of God? If Jesus was a miracle worker, maybe he was just born that way. Who's to say that God gave him that "power?"
Archaeology is perfect proof of history, dude. You can touch the results of archaeological digs. The pottery, bones and multitudes of other items found can be touched and seen.
Belief in God is strictly faith based. There's no other way to put it or show otherwise. I wish there was.
Yes, it was.
Because, as I stated a minute ago, I don't see Christ as being evidence. There is no proof that he is of God. Later, QD.
FOR MORE INFO, CLICK THE PIC!!!
Sounds like you're promoting Ch-Ch-Ch-Chia Jesus. Later, QD.
FOR MORE INFO, CLICK THE PIC!!!
I like to throw this in all the religious threads.
Found this one funny too
The person of Christ would be evidence of God in that at his resurrection he demonstrated his ability to overcome that which the laws of our universe do not suggest that anyone or anything could overcome that was subject to such laws.
The very claims made by Christ that he was the Messiah, God in the flesh, and the connections with the prophecies that he would be the Lord of Lords. There are also claims of his origin existing during the process of creation, but that is going to be too much for this discussion.
Basically, in simple terms, Jesus said, He was God, and the people who didn't believe him or tried to stone him said prove it, and he said okay. I will die and i will be resurrected after three days. And he did.
Now the problem with the stolen body argument is that Christ was witnessed in the flesh by hundreds of people after he was buried and entombed. So to say the body was taken does not counter his physical living presence sitting next to you or speaking to crowds or knocking at your door.
Not exactly true. You cannot always touch and feel everything. There are fragments of things that are remaining and there are drawings of things that are remaining. In the case of drawings or paintings, you don't know if something never existed or not. Just because you find a picture or schematic of something doesn't mean it was built. In fact, to prove that archaeology is not exact, just look at the number of archaeologists who will say that human civilizations cannot be traced back more than 7 or 8 thousand years, versus the ones who say, 10, and the onese who say 12 and so on. This shows that even in their fields there is a place of where evidence is not always accepted and does not necessarily lead to conforming views. This is also big with the evolution discussions. There are at least 8 or 9 different versions of evolution out there. One person presents evidence for their differing view and some don't like it and some do, does it mean that person is wrong, nope, it just means their evidence was not suitable for the person who viewed it.Archaeology is perfect proof of history, dude. You can touch the results of archaeological digs. The pottery, bones and multitudes of other items found can be touched and seen.
So what to you constitutes good evidence. As said before, if I said well, their are numerous witnesses of events and things that God did, and they wrote their accounts on scroll and passed them down from generation to generation, you would say this is not acceptable, even though we still have several of the original scrolls.
If I point out the writings of first century historians like Josephus and mentioned the claims he made in regards to the followers of Christ and the things that people said on the street about Jesus and that he was seen after his death, you would simply dismiss that.
I could say the very laws as they are demonstrated in our universe are examples of a transcendent God. but you would dismiss that. so what is suitable?
[QUOTEBelief in God is strictly faith based. There's no other way to put it or show otherwise. I wish there was.][/QUOTE]
This argument reversed is a game on semantics because everything is based on faith. You demonstrate faith every day in your life. But it is not BLIND faith if I can tell you that I have much reason to believe my sources and my investigation into this to be validated by every form of study I have ever taken. And I am a firm believer that when discussing something of this importance that if I cannot see God in EVERYTHING then he is not the God that I believe him to be, but I can see him in everything and I can understand (within reason and my human rational) his purpose or place with regards to everything I have ever researched.
another breif example is people who say they think evolution is real. There are some who couldn't even tell you what evolution is, and then there are some who have spent countless hours researching it to come to their conclusions and their beliefs. This is the same on just about any institution I can think of where subjective thought comes into play.
funny one.Sounds like you're promoting Ch-Ch-Ch-Chia Jesus. Later, QD.
Your example is not the same as what i said. In your address you have the evidence to show that you will NOT win. the faith that you are discussing is called blind faith. I do not believe that belief in a transcendent God is built off of Blind faith.This is not fair. FAITH is the substance of things HOPED for - the "evidence" of things NOT seen. So in your example FAITH would be me thinking that my 12.50 Honda will outrun a 11.50 Viper just b/c I pray really hard. The "laws" of horesepower production w/ respect to traction doesn't require FAITH. If I injest more air and fuel at the proper time w/ the spark at the right time i WILL make more horsepower. That does not require FAITH at at all, it just requires precison of all of the elements. These "elements" do not exist w/ a walk w/ God. You can see this in your explanations b/c you always factor in a "copout" w/ phrases like "Tangibility is not always an option in making a case for something" You set it up perfectly to where you get to a point that you are not held to the standard to PRODUCE - and that's a shame - really, it is.
You are in a place where you are trying to ignore mortality - that is a MUCH slicker slope IMO.
I thi
I commented on this in my last post.All the reason for the Church to steal his DEAD body before others did to propagate this crap.
Also, 2000 years have not separated the texts. as I have said before we have many of the originals still. maybe 50-300 years ish.
Also, the documents that are written in the bible are presented for a reason. they looked to include people who gave first hand accounts, and at the time of text selection one of the biggest discussion were the validity of the texts. By the time they selected texts they decided to include only those texts which were being used and verified by numerous churches of the time. so lets say you had a church in France, I had one in Germany, and maniacc had one in the U.K. When we came together we would find that as individual churches we had already accepted some of the same books. That is the simple version, but there is a lot more that goes on this topic as well. This stuff is not what people make of it on the surface. it wasn't flip a coin book selection and the only time something was omitted was when King James made his version and started the Anglican church (in this case it was control). Other than that we have always had access to original documents. And the books that are included are included to their fullness. But again, there is LOTS of history that goes with this. I don't think it was about, I think it was about unification.
Remember that there was no Church at that moment. The church wasn't established until he rose. At that time Jesus had worked enough miracles for the few who believed in him to be satisfied. Its the resurrection that commissioned them to go out. Without the resurrection and the witnesses to Christ (he claimed openly and was seen openly) there would be no church. these people would have disappeared much like our modern day cult followers.For the churches benefit he HAD to rise --- whether he rose or whether the church wanted to make it look like he did. Just add water and you have your instant hero.
But do you think that these men would have died for something they new was fake? I mean, if you had hoaxed a "resurrection" would you have died for it, when they were given all sorts of opportunity to dismiss their claims? That tells me that something very real was going on for them and that very real thing was not sparked by Christs life or death, but it was sparked by his resurrection. Even at his death we see that Christ was alone. Peter had denied him and his followers were scattered.
Sorry Sport, you speak as if anyone here has any indication of what you're really talking about biblically.
They demand proof of existence but dismiss things that are written by men. They demand proof of birth, death, and resurrection but dismiss written testimonies of witnesses and deny the accounts of Acts of the latter visitations of Jesus to Peter and the early church.
The proof that they seek is that in which cannot be proven by anything tangible in their eyes (besides the Bible... but that's been dismissed). The only other proof is that of their own personal faith... but of course, that can't be proven from one person to another... afterall... its "personal" + "faith"
My assumption of most people here is that they've not done a true in-depth study of the Bible and it's information but rather a general or broad overview of the origins of Christianity and perhaps other religions. So to actually use the Bible as a reference is null and void to many here, being that its just a "story book full of contradictions" to them. (not calling anyone dumb or unintelligent by any means, quite the contrary) but the things we accept as truths are relevant from one person to another. (ie: what's true for me may not be true for you... so on and so forth)
Whoa there buddy, I just asked for evidence.....which you still haven't provided, since I don't believe there to be any.
No fiction please.
I mean focken aye, look at L.R. Hubbard, he wrote fiction....apparently he got the attention of many interested people.....who became followers.....who started scientology. Now how fucking stupid is that?????
BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Come on now, admit it. Gotta have faith.....and you will believe...associate everything positive as a blessing from god, and everything negative as a curse or result of not worshipping god.
This guy has a pretty strong faith: http://news.aol.com/article/father-p...-help%2F496034
One of the funniest things is how some people (quite a few actually), come up with bullshit excuses on behalf of god, allah, whatever fictional book of bullshit it may be; bible, torah, koran, wicca, dianetics, pinocchio, etc.
Never a straight honest answer backed up with evidence, only a belief.
Believe their own lies and others' which have been passed on for hundreds of years.
Modify their beliefs and adjust accordingly so that it fits their current lifestyle and comfort zone.
Are guilty of all their "sins" which they themselves invented but passed off as "laws from god"
Now that is real unbiased truth about believers in imaginary beings.....whether they are..... christians, muslims, jews, satan worshippers, whatever, they all have these things in common!
you actually stated the same thing very well. I just go into different details. Thanks
So again: IT'S ALL A BELIEF THAT CAN NOT BE PROVEN. VERY STUPID IMO.
you need to re-read my posts. I have posted my evidence. Or how about you tell me what constitutes evidence for you?
I have given my reasons. You just haven't taken the time to read them obviously.
I am not sure you are even reasonably enough to be trying to have this type of conversation. If you have never done any research or reading on this (youtube doesn't count) then please go try to get a grip on it before you post.BLAH BLAH BLAH.
Come on now, admit it. Gotta have faith.....and you will believe...associate everything positive as a blessing from god, and everything negative as a curse or result of not worshipping god.
This guy has a pretty strong faith: http://news.aol.com/article/father-...g-help%2F496034
Your statements are a poor representation of what I believe. And its a very immature and undeveloped view of my faith in God. It just shows that you only THINK you know something about my beliefs and my experiences. But you are so far off that its rather sad.
tell me when I have said that it doesn't take faith. You assume that all faith/belief is the same. I am telling you that faith in God does not and should not be blind and for me it is not. If you want to know some of my reasons you need to read previous posts as I have stated them and I wont repeat because you are lazy. If you want to ask specifics about what I believe I will tell you what and why.
but simply put, without the existence of a transcendent mind there is nothing universal to creation. There is no law, there is no ground for morals, there is not a reason to believe in anything scientific, no reason to believe in logic, or rational, and there is no reason to question our universe because there would be no universal pattern to question. The very nature of our universal laws of physics tells us that they existed before the universe did. If something existed before existence then what would you call it? There had to be reasoning, law, and I believe it also included morality. I could elaborate much more on this, but you haven't taken the time to investigate anything I have said thus far so I am really considering it a waste of time. And as I said before, if you are only out to try to say that there is nothing to faith or that all faith is blind then you can go run with that thought because you've made your point, its wrong. Its understood, but its wrong.
Everyone has faith in something...period. Whether your faith (as demonstrated by your asking for proof) is in what you use your immediate senses to gain understanding of, or whether its through scholarly research or just plain ignorance, everyone demonstrates faith in their lives. Hell, even Richard Dawkins one of the most well known atheists in the world and a evolutionary biologists says that somehow mankind is wired to believe. he doesn't understand it, but there is no denying it. Yet you try to make it seem as though the faith demonstrated by people who believe in a transcendent God is not as valid as any other faith, but your reasoning is only based on the senses. You dont seem to grasp the fact that NOT ALL THINGS ARE DEMONSTRATED BY PLACING THEM IN YOUR HAND.
.....
Why don't you man up and tell us something you believe in?
Science, tell me one scientific theory you believe in and I will tell you why your belief is unsubstantiated.
My point is that your concept of proof is illogical. You don't understand how philosophical and theoretical proof work. I mentioned some of the rules in a previous post which you have not read or did not understand.
But simply put, nothing that comes from "X-object or idea" can be used to define "x" as real. When people belive that ALL things come from God, then what is suitable to make proof.
A person can only present evidence for their faith. Just like in science. You can only present evidence for your conclusions. That does not mean that your conclusions are proven or accepted.
If you can't get that, then I think you need to go find a collegiate professor because that is a very juvenile concept on discussion.
And like I said, why don't you tell me any one thing that I cannot argue its very existence by dismissal of evidence? I mean what is real to you? I don't think you understand the place that you put your very own arguments when you run the dismissal of evidence racket.
Your posts are as long as they are meaningless.
In short, your faith in imaginary beings constitutes absolute ignorance.
Let me know where it gets you.
I believe in everything that had been proven to exist. Evidence.
Your beliefs are not evidence, its as simple as that.
like I said man up!
Answer the questions or NOBODY should respect a single thing that comes off of your keyboard on this topic again, because YOU have NO FOUNDATION FOR YOUR NON BELIEF. You post a bunch of childish nonsense but you can't step up to the plate and show that your own way of thinking works with your anit-God worldview.
Typically I can respect people who are different in opinion, but you just seem to be in the wrong place trying to discuss something that you know absolutely nothing about. Stop making yourself seem ignorant by posting childish pictures, and making 5 year old comments, put up something that makes sense or leave. You have not presented a single logical rebuttal to anything. I don't even have to agree with you, I just want to know that you can actually think...but I guess I will give up on that. I guess I just lost faith in you as a person worth discussing anything with.
Good luck, because you won't be able to dodge this topic forever. Sorry, thats just a fact, it will come up again in your life and i hope you can formulate mature sentences based on whatever it is you have faith in as truth.
What? All evidence is based off of belief.
what has been proven to exist? Name something...don't be scared. Historical data is not evidence...? Philosophical principles are not evidence? Laws of physics, not evidence? What is then.
I mean based on your reasoning the only thing YOU can believe in is what is in your hand or right in front of you. You don't believe in any history, you don't believe in any writings, you don't believe in other peoples testimony, so you only believe in what is right in your hand? And even then, how can you prove to me that what is in your hand is in your hand?
My point is if you are going to ask for evidence the only thing you can reasonably do, is decide whether or not someone has come to there conclusion based on a compilation of evidence. There is no proving anything to anyone who really does not want something proven to them. What you don't know is that I was a nonbeliever first. It took a very long time for me to really start to understand things the way I do now. I didn't set out to disprove, I set out to validate. i wanted to find validity in the things that people of different faiths believe. I found validity in the person of Christ, the Bible (because of the historical links to secular writings) and in the sciences. If I wanted to make arguments for non belief I could only do so by ignoring evidence that I have come across which I believe is valid. But believe me. there had to be a very strong case for Christ for me.
Last edited by sport_122; 08-03-2009 at 03:40 AM.
faith is belief that is not based on proof. faith is belief despite proof
some may say that science requires faith as well -- thing is that it does not. i'm not sure if i'd consider an attempt to reveal an answer as a leap of faith.
in the simplest kind of an experiment, you expect it to succeed or fail, but either result is an answer. even an unexpected result is still an answer.
the thing is that nobody on this planet is qualified to answer these questions about god, unless they're one of either of these:
1) a high-ranking member of the secret government who knows the whole story, or
2) a regular person channeling a highly-evolved extraterrestrial intelligence.
the most logical way of thinking though is not believing in a person that you've never seen. for those that claim to have experienced his touch,
are only experiencing chemical reactions in their brain
just like love, hate, greed... ect. those are things we cant see but know they are emotions created by your brain
also... this is an interesting vid:
flaws in the bible
Nope.
But men DEFINITELY die for something that they THINK is real. Do I have to mention the MANY events (Waco, Jones?) where this is so? I know that you don't need the examples.
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
sport you just have to see the big picture. some people are given the truth and deny it. the bible speaks of the end times when men will be decieved...sounds pretty accurate to me. like the bible says if they will not hear then exit the city and wipe the dust from your feet. remember, many are called but few are chosen
riding for God crew member #1
IA Domestic Alliance
LMFAO!!! MAN UP!!!!???? (sorry, was tired and fell asleep early this morning)like I said man up!
Answer the questions or NOBODY should respect a single thing that comes off of your keyboard on this topic again, because YOU have NO FOUNDATION FOR YOUR NON BELIEF. You post a bunch of childish nonsense but you can't step up to the plate and show that your own way of thinking works with your anit-God worldview.
Typically I can respect people who are different in opinion, but you just seem to be in the wrong place trying to discuss something that you know absolutely nothing about. Stop making yourself seem ignorant by posting childish pictures, and making 5 year old comments, put up something that makes sense or leave. You have not presented a single logical rebuttal to anything. I don't even have to agree with you, I just want to know that you can actually think...but I guess I will give up on that. I guess I just lost faith in you as a person worth discussing anything with.
Good luck, because you won't be able to dodge this topic forever. Sorry, thats just a fact, it will come up again in your life and i hope you can formulate mature sentences based on whatever it is you have faith in as truth.
Anyway, your evidence......I see it now....it's all in your head, so I guess that's enough!
The bible is as vague as any horoscope, however, if there are enough psychopath diehard believers.....they can actually take all that fictional nonsense and turn it into reality thru their actions.
Actions do have consequences, and depending on what level and how many people get involved, yes, humanity CAN wipe itself out if it wanted to. Yes, it's a very stupid idea; that's why people should wake up and grow up and out of their religion and all its bullshit teachings which are nonsense and should be done away with.
Please stop using a document to prove itself. The only place the bible makes sense is in the bible... do you not think that there is something wrong w/ that?
"I'm not a gynecologist... but I'll take a look."
I guess mankind is more intelligent than god.....god thinks the earth is flat and has 4 corners LMFAO!
Come on people, if you're going to invent an imaginary being, at least make sure their credibility isn't questioned.
Wait, maybe we haven't received the latest REVISED version of the bible..haha
Yes, there is something terribly wrong with that- when millions of people use it as a tool for destruction of other people (non-believers) and human advancement while trying to justify it as THE WAY. FUCK THAT!!!!
Yojimbo, good chime in.
Do you believe in evolution? Do you believe in the stars and moon, and planets? Why? Have you ever touched them? I am assuming the answer is no. So if you have never placed your hand on them then you are in the same place as a believer. You have to believe based on the evidence presented by the accounts and the work of others. This is how we live. This is how you pic a car, a house, a college, a job, a bar, a route to get to your next destination etc etc.
In science, there is faith that our universal laws are active and have not or will not change. Science is a compilation of research. Which is why it has a margin of error. Because it is not 100% on anything. When you start an experiment its not the attempt its the belief that the experiment will yield results.
Faith is not bad. Blind faith is not scientific. but faith is ALL over science. And just be sure to understand that I am using faith as simply the belief in something that is not right in front of you.
Richard Dawkins even says that his faith is in science and that he approaches scientific study with faith because he believes that science can eventually yield answers to all of our questions concerning our universe. I don't agree with his statement, but even scientists will tell you that part of their work is based on faith. Faith in the results and study coming from earlier scientists who paved the way to current scientific horizons.
In this statement you sort of contradict yourself. Faith is a part of expectation.in the simplest kind of an experiment, you expect it to succeed or fail, but either result is an answer. even an unexpected result is still an answer.
One reason is that scientific experiments do not always yield a pass fail result. You miss the place where scientific experiments are not about pass fail, but they are about answering a question posed by a hypothesis and then Identifying the variable that causes that result.
If either of these two write down their info, is it still valid in 2000 years as history?the thing is that nobody on this planet is qualified to answer these questions about god, unless they're one of either of these:
1) a high-ranking member of the secret government who knows the whole story, or
2) a regular person channeling a highly-evolved extraterrestrial intelligence.
1. if this was the case, how are they validated to know the whole story. Where would their information come from? God? E.T.s? any other source is not valid because they are then in the same position as anyone who seeks to learn from provisional resources. The people of the Bible claimed their information about God came from Him. Are they validated now?
2. is exactly what the people who are in the Bible and some who are not have claimed to be doing. Why is Moses not suitable enough? His life is validated outside of writings in the Bible. But we dismiss ALL of this as evidence because some make false claims? That to me is illogical.
This a very bad statement for me. How are you qualified to assume that peoples claims are reduced to their (misguided) chemical reactions? Have you spoken to them, read their accounts, spoken to their doctors, their family, or have you experienced what they have? Especially when even before organized religion, people have been claiming these same experiences. an estimated 17 thousand+/- years of civilizations and we have ALWAYS had more people believing in things than not, yet we dismiss the belief phenomenon away even though over our history I would argue that over 99% or more of human population historically has believed in something. How is this illogical. This alone is reason enough to say that there is something more to humanity because we don't see this in any other life form on our planet.the most logical way of thinking though is not believing in a person that you've never seen. for those that claim to have experienced his touch, are only experiencing chemical reactions in their brain
just like love, hate, greed... ect. those are things we cant see but know they are emotions created by your brain
Why do you believe Lincoln, MLK, Jesus, or anyone in history whom you have read about really existed? Even if you don't the origins of any of your evidence is going to be coming from resources that do validate history as a suitable tool. and historical claims are worthy of respect and understanding. And this goes back to an earlier point, the only way to dismiss God is to ignore certain things that we have at our disposal. How is it logical to ignore witness testimony that is validated by thousands upon thousands of eye witnesses of specific events. aren't your two valid resource listed above witnesses?
Also, the argument of emotions simply being chemical rxns is also a very illogical to me. Everything that you compute in your brain is a chemical reaction, so now do we have no grounds for anything to be real? Touch, taste, smell, sight, hearing, and your emotions are all based off of the human brain reducing them down so that you can compute them with reason and logic. I believe this is something God gave us that allows us to see him. It would be illogical to have a God create us and not give us the ability to use reason. Then i do not understand how we would be able to know him at all. and we cannot assume that our universe is the origin of reason, as our universe demonstrated that it is subjected to law even before it was created. Universal laws of physics, gravity, etc had to have logically been aroung before the universe or the Big bang would not have produced expansion.
lastly I have heard the chemical reaction statement said about morality too. If these things are chemical reactions then how are they validated. How do you validate the thing in you that says its wrong to kill, if someone else says, well the chemicals in my brain say its okay? Is that sufficient for you?
*lots of hte questions I asked are just for you. My world view answers these questions. I have tried, but I can't answer them logically without God in the equation.
There are only so many ways to try and make a valid point. And although they might be interesting, they become irrelevant and off-topic due to your focus on everything being based on fictional characters in the storybook called the bible.
I have to give it to you, you are quite the strawman.
Okay...LMFAO!!! MAN UP!!!!???? (sorry, was tired and fell asleep early this morning)
Anyway, your evidence......I see it now....it's all in your head, so I guess that's enough!
BTW this is probably your funniest post yet.
Geoff, in arguments of debate and proof, he is 100% right. ***edit*** about using the document to prove itself.Please stop using a document to prove itself. The only place the bible makes sense is in the bible... do you not think that there is something wrong w/ that?
But, I can't agree on the only place it makes sense is within itself.
Baby J
His statements are even true philosophically and psychologically and socially and they make perfect sense. The Bible and these social sciences are only validating one another. As I believe they have to.
psychologically a person who chooses to reject belief in anything can make reasons up or ignore evidence to believe. and on this topic, seeing as how I believe that ALL things come from God, as he created the universe, and directed all laws to govern it, nothing is suitable enough to prove his existence because my world view is that ALL things presuppose his existence because they have to. Basically what you said married with, I believe in a God who created ALL things. And you and I know there is a difference between proof and evidence.
for those who don't understand this. Our courts system works on an abundance of evidence to prove something. So evidence is intent or motivation for the crime, fingerprints, witness testimony, etc etc, and a compilation of evidence can be interpreted as proof. we have all seen the evidence, philosophically it can't be called proof, until the individual decides that the case is made.
Last edited by sport_122; 08-03-2009 at 12:20 PM.
Did you ride the short bus?
BTW...i really didn't want to do this but i am blocking you now. You just having nothing constructive to add to this conversation and frankly I am considering you a waste of screen and laptop battery power.
good luck on life.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
