|
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
10-01-2006, 02:07 PM | #16 |
USER INFO »
Status: Illusion
Posts: 17
Joined: Sep 2006
Currently: Offline
|
Re: I found this interesting.
I imagine threatening death might be more effective, but I prefer the Biblical approach. |
10-01-2006, 07:38 PM | #17 |
USER INFO »
Status: A Melody
Posts: 340
Joined: Nov 2004
Currently: Offline
|
Re: I found this interesting.
You know, this little site reminds me of that one statement about God being able to do anything?
If so, is he able to make something that not even he could move? Ofcourse I don't expect to win souls by this obvious ploy, but neither will your obvious ploy!
__________________
And if you want my address, it's number 1 at the end of the bar Ralphy's Cool Music Site www.aowekino.nl |
10-01-2006, 08:41 PM | #18 |
USER INFO »
Status: Illusion
Posts: 17
Joined: Sep 2006
Currently: Offline
|
Re: I found this interesting.
God can only do that which is within the parameters of His nature. The proposition you site is a contradiction, and since God cannot contradict Himself, No God cannot make something that He could not move. If I could do miracles, I could walk through a wall. I could not however, both walk through a wall, and not walk through a wall at the same time. That would defy the law of non-contradiction. Again, winning souls is not up to me. I only relay the truth, and hope and pray that God uses it to draw people unto Himself. |
10-01-2006, 08:49 PM | #19 |
USER INFO »
Status: Wound Up
Posts: 1,255
Joined: Dec 2004
Currently: Offline
|
Re: I found this interesting.
Indeed.lol Indeed. I'd say it answeres a few things. I could get into the science of this and show that this is, if not impossible, nearly so. But that is unnecessary. Abiogenesis does not explain anything, really. It pushes the argument back one step. Admitting abiogenesis, the argument then says: okay, how did whatever we evolved from get here? I don't recall ever positing this, maybe you were responding to someone else. The argument from existance definitely does not prove God loves us. Indeed. I was not asserting that existance necessitated the Christian God, though I do believe that we can reach that conclusion eventually through similar means. First of all, I don't have a clue what these assumptions are that you are talknig about. The only thing I would say we assume, is our existance. I think you would agree that to get anywhere, we should assume that. After that, we make no more assumptions. The Atheist's assumption of "abiogenesis" is not only not their only assumption, but is also not only an assumption--its an invention. There is no evidence for it. Whereas, the evidence for a god, higher being, necessary being, etc. comes from... us. Being here.
__________________
Titans baby, Titans. |
10-01-2006, 11:14 PM | #20 |
USER INFO »
Status: Wound Up
Posts: 1,244
Joined: Jun 2005
Currently: Offline
|
Re: I found this interesting.
Do Tell
Agreed abiogenesis is an assumption that both sides make mine is with out involvment from a deity you is with involvment of a deity. so yes either of us arguing this is moot at this point no you never did post it I was jus trying to put up a few things to cover some of the bases rather than falling in to the either or fallacy... I was just trying to be thurough. and you are correct in your stament that the argument form existance does not prove gods love I would like to the the progressive steps in wich you reach such a conclusion. ok we will assume notting more than we are here.... that is the axiom of the discussion. the assumptions that I was refering to when it comes to christianity are a few.... 1. There is a god 2. He created the world and life on it and is involved in it 3. Jesus was his son and he was crucified. 4. everything in the bible is true (now I know that one may be different with you because the catholic church has said that some parts of the bible should be ignored and maybe you can outline that later) 5. that there is a heaven and hell 6. that prophacy (in the bible) has yet to happen there are others but there are some good one that christianity assumes. ummm..... no Abiogenis is not with out its questions true, but your jump form there to the necessity of a god is premature at this juncture in the discussion. and if you actually want to read up on abiogenesis and get the facts of it (Uncertian or anyone else reading) then feel free to read the link over at talk origins http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/ or the probability of it click here http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html
__________________
Lunar Shadow Last edited by Lunar Shadow : 10-01-2006 at 11:18 PM. |
10-02-2006, 12:01 AM | #21 |
USER INFO »
Status: Wound Up
Posts: 1,244
Joined: Jun 2005
Currently: Offline
|
Re: I found this interesting.
What so you want the privlage of having it both ways?? sorry it doen't work like that besides depening on the world view the person is probably gonna assume one way or the other wich makes it awfuly convienient for you doen't it?
A world view can be self refuting just as the bible is self refuting if you actually look and read the bible contradicts itself many many times over much as the christian world voew contradicts itself so you have a self refuting world view. Point of contention here Logic and science and natualistic morality are all observable so they are not tottaly abstract they only seem abstract to the laymen but with some study you will find they are observable things in our world therefore comming back to a materialistic world view.... you try to take it in to the abstract by twisting words to make it seem as such This is a moot point because I can not make you understand my world view but I understand your world view since I havve been there and I would have to go in favor of my world view when is comes to supporting logic and reason. I have the upper hand here because have held both world views in my life. I disagree I have read the book over and over and it does not explain science nor does it explain origins (tell me wich genesis account is true Genesis 1 or Genesis 2?) there are 2 sepperate stories there that in itself defies logic unless he made the wolrd twice. Where doe you get the foundations of logic?? please do tell Now as far as the human condition I am not gonna argue there the bible is a good book of myth and speaks of the human condition. You knwo what its the same on your side you stack the deck in gods favor even in the face of evidences that call him in to question you give him a couple extra so he can come ou on top. the finger can be pointed right back at you man. I am not asking to be convinced I am asking for proof there is a difference. but christians I have found rarley use the words "proved existance" they use words like "I am convinced" so that leaves out proof... a god argument can convince anyone of most anything. but when it comes down to hard core irrefutable proof there is somethign lacking... and come on lets just face it. you would hope for irrefutable proof when sitting on the jury for a muder trial when some one's life hangs in the balance... why not ask for the same in our lives? the most important question the god question. why not ask for irrefutable proof instead of beign asked to be convinced? no you don't get off that easy there... you're gonna have to prove the existance of god if you are gonna have me construct an arguemnt that big. but you will find this all pointless due tothe facttaht you can nto prove his existance just like his non existance can not be universally proven... you can pick off gods one by one but can notknock them all out in one fell swoop because all gods have different attributes. Why Christianity? why believe in jesus? he is not unique in any way his stroy is a rehash of many dying and rising god over 1000 years before him. but you wouldn't know anything about that would you? meaning Peace be with you I do not wish harm to come to anyone no matter how heated a debate gets I may get frustrated but I wish no harm on anyone... but I can not say the same about other religions who order the death of Atheists and blasphemers and disobedient children and so on and so on. I try to refrain from using ad-hom attacks in debate it is pointless and get the debate nowhere I hope the same form you.... but if I am not in a debate I will let my feelings of frustration be known. venting on a fourm where a debate between us is not happening is something I see as fair game.. sorry if you take offense to the language that is how I talk but per request for a few here I refrain form using it in debate and on most sections of the board. Peace be with you
__________________
Lunar Shadow |
10-02-2006, 05:22 AM | #22 |
USER INFO »
Status: A Melody
Posts: 340
Joined: Nov 2004
Currently: Offline
|
Re: I found this interesting.
So God cannot do anything? He is bounded by the law of non-contradiction. Well if he is bound by it, I surely am, therefore I cannot state absolutely that there is no absolute truth and therefore your whole site is meaningless. Btw if God is unknowable (for the most part) and works in mysterious ways, how are you able to define the parameters of his nature? If you are not able to define them, how do you know what lies within these parameters? Also, your supposition that atheists consider themselves gods is utter nonsense, we have non-belief in gods and we, humans, do not fall under any kind of definition for gods. We don't deny a higher authority, because we do not want there to be one, but because there simply is none.
__________________
And if you want my address, it's number 1 at the end of the bar Ralphy's Cool Music Site www.aowekino.nl |
10-02-2006, 09:08 AM | #23 |
USER INFO »
Status: Illusion
Posts: 17
Joined: Sep 2006
Currently: Offline
|
Re: I found this interesting.
God cannot contradict himself. That is all I said. You can state it but you would be contradiciting yourself. God cannot contradict Himself, we can. God cannot lie, we can. He has revealed them to us in His Word. What is your ultimate authority? You cannot prove a universal negative. You would have to be omniscient and omnipresent to be able to say there is NO God. You would have to be God to say there is no God. Hardly convincing. Thanks for your comments Ralph, Sye |
10-02-2006, 09:26 AM | #24 |
USER INFO »
Status: Illusion
Posts: 17
Joined: Sep 2006
Currently: Offline
|
Re: I found this interesting.
I realize that this was not addressed to me but if I may... The Christian only assumes (read - presupposes) 2 things, that God exists, and that the Bible is His word. The rest are contained in His word. The atheist assumes MANY things. 1. Matter from non-matter 2. Sentient matter from non-sentient matter 3. Intelligent matter from non-intelligent matter 3. Moral matter from non-moral matter 4. Universal, abstract, invariant laws exist (from randomness) 5. Nature is uniform (in a 'random' universe) 6. Human reasoning is valid on its own. I could go on and on, but I hope you get the point. Cheers, Sye |
10-02-2006, 09:44 AM | #25 |
USER INFO »
Status: Illusion
Posts: 17
Joined: Sep 2006
Currently: Offline
|
Re: I found this interesting.
Either they exist or they do not. People are free to choose what they believe. Merely stating this does not make it so. You will evaluate any apparent contradictions based on your presupposition that the Bible is NOT the infallible word of God. The Christian will evaluate any apparent contradictions based on their presupposition that the Bible IS the word of God. Your point is moot. We have to examine the validity of our presuppositions to reach any conclusion. Please show me a law of logic or science. http://www.proofthatgodexists.org/ho...ccount-for.php I have given you proof. The proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn't prove anything. You want to be CONVINCED that that proof is valid. I have shown you the proof of God's existence. Rather than suggest that the argument supporting the validity of your human reason, without using human reason, is going to be 'Big,' just think about it first. You cannot do it. You may try if you like though. For one, because Christianity is the ONLY worldview that provides a logical foundation for universal, abstract, invariant laws. You may posit another. I will be pleased to refute it. You realize that this is a nice sentiment but a meaningless statement coming from an atheist. How can an abstract concept 'be with' anybody in your worldview? You directed me to a forum where you called me a pretty low name. I have decided to answer some of your objections, but really after that, I certainly was not obliged to. Cheers, Sye |
10-02-2006, 10:18 AM | #26 |
USER INFO »
Status: A Melody
Posts: 340
Joined: Nov 2004
Currently: Offline
|
Re: I found this interesting.
Same difference. Question: God can do anything. Answer: God cannot contradict himself. Conclusion: God cannot do anything => God is not omnipotent => the God of the bible cannot exist. Another proof that the God of the bible cannot exist, if I can do something he cannot. It also goes to the question of 'free will', apparently we have 'free will', but God himself hasn't. Unproven assumption. There is no such thing as far as my knowledge goes. This is correct, but now we also have to assume that Santa Claus, unicorns, goblins, giants, elfs and any other fantasy figure are real, since I cannot disprove them either. Atheists have always stated that the burden of proof lies with those who make the positive assertation, namely that God exists. It is impossible to prove that something doesn't exist, unless your omniscient indeed, that does not stop us from intelligently deducing that some things do not exist. You're welcome.
__________________
And if you want my address, it's number 1 at the end of the bar Ralphy's Cool Music Site www.aowekino.nl |
10-02-2006, 10:20 AM | #27 |
USER INFO »
Status: Wound Up
Posts: 1,255
Joined: Dec 2004
Currently: Offline
|
Re: I found this interesting.
I certainly do not make such an assumption. I have God creating the universe. You have nothing creatign the universe. Hence, I am obeying the rules of science and you aren't. I'll do that when we come to an agreement about god existing in the first place Exactly. My answer to why we are here is God put us here. You don't really have an answer unless you have come up with somethign that millinos of atheists throughout history have failed to do. Okay let's see.... No an assumption. Here is the syllogism: We exist. An effect needs a cause. Hence, something had to cause us. This effect is called God. That he created the world is easy to show. That He is involved in it is not an assumption, and though might not be scientifically proveable (but then, plenty of things you take for granted aren't either), it is reasonable to assume He would create us for a purpose. Well, we seem to be getting way off-topic here, but this is not an assumption. Based on the evidence, many believe that Jesus was God. This is not an assumption, it is a deduction. The Catholic Church does not say anything in the Bible is untrue. Indeed, the Catholic Church wrote and compiled the Bible's lsit of inspired books and holds it all to be the inspired word of God. However, the Church also admits the metaphorical speaking of Genesis which I believe you are refering to (the Church does not hold any young earth notions, etc.). Well surely you understand this is not an assumption. This comes from many other things, i.e. Jesus, His apostles, the Church, etc. Huh? I dont understand this one. Seems fine to me. You haven't been able to show why god isn't necessary.
__________________
Titans baby, Titans. |
10-02-2006, 10:25 AM | #28 |
USER INFO »
Status: Wound Up
Posts: 1,255
Joined: Dec 2004
Currently: Offline
|
Re: I found this interesting.
Where do you get the idea that God can do anything? God can't perform an evil act. That is something very simple which He can't do. Sure He does. But He can't do anything contrary to His nature. That doesn't take away His will. You can't become invisible. Does that mean you aren't free? Well at least you recognize that one can't disprove God. As for the burden of proof, I would say it is on you. For one thing, we need to have been created by someone, i.e. God. Seems like you have to come up with an alternative possibility (i.e. that something can come from nothing, thus disproving every rule of science we have and making your positions even more untenable), or else God wins.
__________________
Titans baby, Titans. |
10-02-2006, 10:25 AM | #29 |
USER INFO »
Status: Wound Up
Posts: 1,255
Joined: Dec 2004
Currently: Offline
|
Re: I found this interesting.
oops. double post
__________________
Titans baby, Titans. Last edited by uncertaindrumer : 10-02-2006 at 10:28 AM. |
10-02-2006, 10:53 AM | #30 |
USER INFO »
Status: A Melody
Posts: 340
Joined: Nov 2004
Currently: Offline
|
Re: I found this interesting.
As far as I've always heard, God is besides omniscient also omnipotent, which means he can do anything, but please correct me if I'm wrong. I don't get it, God did create us in his image, didn't he. So if he cannot do anything against his nature, why can we do things against his/our nature. Or did he create us with a different nature? Why did he create us as sinners than? Isn't it against his nature to create something that can act against his nature? It's the question of the chicken and the egg. You say that nothing can come from nothing, but in the same sentence you state that God was the origin and therefore always was and therefore does not need a cause. This is circular logic, if every effect needs a cause, so does God, unless he was created by God's God. The problem with believing in God is, that God must be the answer to everything, but he isn't. While a non-believer can simply say, I do not know.
__________________
And if you want my address, it's number 1 at the end of the bar Ralphy's Cool Music Site www.aowekino.nl |
Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|