It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Creationists Will Destroy ATS

page: 20
43
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 08:39 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Your entire reasoning is based on a single assumption. On that fact alone, everything you say afterwards is a theoretical exercise, not anything that relates to our reality.




posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 09:16 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


i disagree with you that one needs faith to believe in science...it's the exact opposite.....

a theory is put forward by presenting a plausible explanation with logical, reasonable, and measurable proof. then, scientists in that field, research the work done, and present evidence on whether that explanation (theory) can be measured, and that the measurement is accurate, if it is, then it will stand, until further scientific work, providing some sort of contradictive proof or evidence on that theory, proves it to be false, where then, the whole process starts over. it's called peer review. faith...requires no measurable proof, only that you believe in what has been told to you.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 09:36 AM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by JPhish
 


Your entire reasoning is based on a single assumption. On that fact alone, everything you say afterwards is a theoretical exercise, not anything that relates to our reality.


* now we're getting somewhere
^_^

However, let’s delve deeper . . . if my tract as you say, does not apply to our reality. Then that in turn makes my conjecture intangible. Now, since intangible things are possibly the only things that are truly un-falsifiable . . . are you saying that my reasoning is un-falsifiable? Or does my reasoning actually have substance and can be measured?


Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by JPhish
 
i disagree with you that one needs faith to believe in science...it's the exact opposite.....


are you proposing that you do not have confidence or trust in science?

[edit on 6/10/2008 by JPhish]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
The only things that are un-falsifiable are intangible. It appears you are mistaken.


No, in fact through logic we can falsify the intangible by knowing that it is eternally unknowable thus completely irrelevant to our physical reality. Physical reality: that which we exist of. There are also many tangible things that are falsifiable. Your logic is corrupt and your knowledge is limited and illusional.


personally do not believe this to be true.


You also said God is not associated with sin, along with many other references to God and its properties.


Do you think that what i personally believe means anything??? because i certainly don't.


No, so don't state them. They're the same as God, irrelevant. Eternally unknowable. God is simply your opinion and your opinions have shown to be entirely devoid of sound logic thus far.


Something that can eternally not be proven to exist is completely irrelevant. By default of that line of logic we can conclude that this thing will never suffice evidence, ever, therefore it does not exist.


See this quote? You don't seem to understand it. I'll clarify below.


Wait a minute. .. this sounds familiar!


Not quite.


Originally posted by JPhish concurrently impossible to verify or refute.


No, it is completely able to be refuted.


Only apparent fault, is with your last assumption that lack of evidence is proof of somethings non existence.


No, eternal lack of evidence is proof of something's non-existence. You said that God is eternally unknowable. You can't follow my logic? Why are you trying to twist my words into your own thinking? I said nothing of what you just stated.


have no back to break.


Well I've shown that I've broken the back of the intangible.


There’s nothing to follow, I’ve been quite ahead for some time now, I’m waiting for you to catch up . . . take your time.


Oh, here we go, the games. You must have something to defend. In fact you didn't follow and as lucidly demonstrated above, and AGAIN, you still aren't following. Rather you are attempting to mix your logic with mine and they are immiscible ideas.


I have not judged you.


"To sit here and talk about my judgements and my ability only further reveals your judgement of me."

Yeah, you have judged me already.

[edit on 10-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 01:12 PM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 


Science does not take faith.

Science speaks for itself and always has through the universe.

I dont put faith in the force known as gravity. I know it's there. There's a difference.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 01:51 PM
link   
I have found that it is best to understand that the religious literalists mean well, however they have been conditioned to do what they do.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 06:28 PM
link   
Well it looks like you can all relax. Creationists will NOT be "destroying" ATS anytime soon. You have officially silenced the most active and well spoken creationists on the board.



The funny thing is that you have done so NOT by debunking their beliefs or winning in a debate with them. Oh no. You have done so by means of dishonesty and censorship.

Because you were UNABLE to debunk their beliefs...Because you were UNABLE to prove yourselves to be more intelligent...Because you COULD NOT prove them wrong, you decided that the brightest among them needed to be silenced. And by CRYING and COMPLAINING...you suceeded. So much for denying ignorance. You have just promoted it. You should be ashamed of your pathetic selves. Seriously.

:bash:



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 07:21 PM
link   
replying anonymously because i can't sign up for bts. i only have 1 email address.

anyway, Lightmare, this is undo. who was silenced?

it may just be a fluke of the login system. that's happened to me before.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 07:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Lightmare
 


How can you debunk fantasies and allegorical myths?



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 08:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal No, in fact through logic we can falsify the intangible by knowing that it is eternally unknowable thus completely irrelevant to our physical reality. Physical reality: that which we exist of. There are also many tangible things that are falsifiable. Your logic is corrupt and your knowledge is limited and illusional.


If something is intangible, you can not touch it or necessarily even perceive it at all. Hence you can never prove its existence or non existence. You can’t see your biased blindspot, and you never will. It’s impossible. Does that mean it is not there? Do you believe that you are devoid of a biased blindespot??? You might not have one, but that would be impossible to prove. Realize that if you even challenge this concept, you fall into a paradoxical trap.


You also said God is not associated with sin, along with many other references to God and its properties.


Actually, the “definition” of what sin is, seems to state that G*d is incapable of sin, because the act of sinning, is deviation to G*ds will.


No, so don't state them. They're the same as God, irrelevant. Eternally unknowable. God is simply your opinion and your opinions have shown to be entirely devoid of sound logic thus far.


Eternally unknowable? Tell me, what do you believe the word unknowable implies? I was pretty sure that something unknowable can neither be verified nor refuted. These are your words yet again.

Unknowable Impossible to know, often because of being beyond human experience or understanding.


Something that can eternally not be proven to exist is completely irrelevant. By default of that line of logic we can conclude that this thing will never suffice evidence, ever, therefore it does not exist.

See this quote? You don't seem to understand it. I'll clarify below.


Do you see this quote??? If it is completely irrelevant, then why are you arguing for its non existence when in fact you are stating that it has no power/relevancy to reality?

My notion would be, that anything which possesses any sort of power to affect another, or to be affected by another, if only for a single moment, however trifling the cause and however slight the effect, has real existence; and I hold that the definition of being is simply power – Plato, 247E

It seems that Plato disagrees with your logic.


Originally posted by JPhish concurrently impossible to verify or refute.



No, it is completely able to be refuted.


I don’t see this, so let’s start with something easier for you to disprove. Tell us, do you or do you not have a biased blindespot? It’s supposedly inside your own head and part of your consciousness. This should be easy right?


No, eternal lack of evidence is proof of something's non-existence. You said that God is eternally unknowable. You can't follow my logic? Why are you trying to twist my words into your own thinking?


I never said that there was an eternal lack of evidence for G*d. Nor did I say that G*d is eternally unknowable. I said it is impossible to disprove G*d and that he is un-falsifiable. They are 4 completely different things. If it is not hot outside, it does not mean it is cold. This is the logic you are using here, which is not applicable.

Could you please actually read my posts? because I’m reading yours . . . half of your queries are either imbalanced or already answered within my previous posts.


I said nothing of what you just stated.


How can you claim you have not said what I’ve quoted you saying?. I’ve quoted everything you’ve said verbatim and responded to each quote as decisively as I could. I’m not twisting your words. I’m critically examining your claims and speculating their veracity through conjecture.


Well I've shown that I've broken the back of the intangible.


I rest my case . . . you’ve just declared that you’ve broken something that you claim yourself does not exist in reality. It would appear that you are the one playing make believe at the moment.


Oh, here we go, the games. You must have something to defend. In fact you didn't follow and as lucidly demonstrated above, and AGAIN, you still aren't following. Rather you are attempting to mix your logic with mine and they are immiscible ideas.


Are you only now beginning to realize that this is a game and you’ve essentially been arguing with yourself? I would hope that in retrospect it is evident that I’ve followed your rational. Questioning someone’s logic does not entail that one must agree or disagree with it.


"To sit here and talk about my judgements and my ability only further reveals your judgement of me." Yeah, you have judged me already.


Have I? I’ve merely pointed out possible flaws in your logic. You could easily rebut any of my allegations if you’d actually address them.


Science does not take faith


I can say that I’m amazinly good at basketball all I want, it won’t make it true


Science speaks for itself and always has through the universe.


Science is now a conscious entity that speaks for itself and always has, within the eternity of the universe? Woa, I didn’t know that.~


I dont put faith in the force known as gravity. I know it's there. There's a difference.


The existence of gravity is not dependant upon your believe in it. Trust me, if every living creature in the universe was obliterated. The planets, stars etc. would keep moving.

If no one was alive to believe in science, it would cease to exist.



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 08:53 PM
link   
woot, i figured out how to log in to BTS hey this BTS has different smilies than ATS.

anyway, in response t LastOutfinite:

I'm not going to stray into arguing that with you on this forum. I'm more than willing to discuss with you on a different one that covers the topic, but this one is not for that topic. So if you wouldn't mind, quit takign free pot shots at me when I've clearly indicated I will not discuss it with you here? I'm not going to get myself kicked out or post banned on this difference of interpretation. Suffice to say, I disagree with you on that topic and leave it at that unless you wish to pursue it elsewhere. You're an okay guy but taking advantage of my situation is not very cool. Do you understand or do we have a language barrier problem?



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 09:00 PM
link   

Science does not take faith.

Science speaks for itself and always has through the universe.

I dont put faith in the force known as gravity. I know it's there. There's a difference.


Wow.. I cannot believe I am going to venture into this thread since it is well known I am not a follower of Christianity.

However, let me quote this from a PHILOSPHY book I am reading right now.

Excerpt from "Evil in Modern Thought" by Susan Neiman

" Science was viewed not as a rival but as a servant of faith, since every new discovery was a discovery of law. Any advance of science was proof of more order in the universe. Even better, our ability to make discoveries was evidence of our own powers, and of the fit between those powers and the natural world. Wonder upon wonder, God had created human minds and a natural world that were exactly and perfectly balanced to respond to each other. Each new discovery could confirm the glory of each. In his Religious within the Limits of Reason Alone, written at the close of the eighteenth century, Kant wrote that King David could never have adored the Creator as we can, for he knew too little of the wonders of Creation. Thus his psalms must pass as empty sound, for the emotion we feel on contemplating the work of God's hand, now manifest in modern science, is too great to express. Such views were present in literature as in philosphy, in French as in German. The eighteenth-century best-seller L'An 2440 was a utopian tract depicting Enlightenment fantasies of a future without the injustice and misery of the old regime. Despite all his radicalism, its Rousseau-inspired author imagined religious education that required future generations to look through the telescope and microscope in order to reveal God's presence and glory through this "communion of two infinities. If, by some aberration, an atheist were to appear among them, the Parisians would bring him around with an assiduous course in experimental physics." (quoted in Darnton, 130)

With that said, let me weigh in here with this simple question for all those that scream "SCIENCE DISPROVES GOD"....

Ever considered that in actuality.. it proves God? After all - the Creator created everything... including our ability to make scientific discoveries.

VV


[edit on 10/6/08 by ValhallasValkyrie]

[edit on 10/6/08 by ValhallasValkyrie]



posted on Jun, 10 2008 @ 09:49 PM
link   
reply to post by eye open doors
 


Do you have evidence they are allergories and myths, is the question some of us have. I'm not so sure you do. Perhaps the way some of them or all of them, are interpreted is inaccurate, or perhaps they are occassionally strewn with dramatic or poetic license, but that is not a surefire indication that the entirety of those old historical texts are allergory or myth.

This reminds me of the argument regarding the Great Pyramid of Giza. One side says it's supernatural. Another says it's ALIEN created. Another says it's just the construct of a bunch of smart humans. And yet another says it's the construct of a bunch of hybrid humans (this is my position currently). Overall, though, the mainstream approach is to assume a bunch of humans with human intellects and human bodies and so on, created it and that to say otherwise, is an insult to those people who created it. Oddly, this stance also believes those same very smart and industrious people were lying threw their priestly teeth about the gods or their own hybridization.

It's all in your perspective, isn't it?

[edit on 10-6-2008 by undo]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 02:59 AM
link   

Originally posted by JPhish
If something is intangible, you can not touch it or necessarily even perceive it at all. Hence you can never prove its existence or non existence.


This is incorrect. Your fallacy is that you forget that we exist of a physical existence, where al things, whether perceptive or not, are tangible and seeable through some method or another. Elecromagnetic light is not a good argument, as it is not invisible, we know it's there.

When you admit that something is eternally unknowable and eternally intangible relative to a physical existence, you have just submitted and defined the exact definition of non-existence.


You can’t see your biased blindspot, and you never will. It’s impossible. Does that mean it is not there? Do you believe that you are devoid of a biased blindespot??? You might not have one, but that would be impossible to prove. Realize that if you even challenge this concept, you fall into a paradoxical trap.


No, I won't fall into a trap because I don't have a biased blindspot. You just have extremely weak arguments a lack of acuity at understanding them and mine relative to reality, which you seem to be detached from.


Actually, the “definition” of what sin is, seems to state that G*d is incapable of sin, because the act of sinning, is deviation to G*ds will.


Well, -g-od as an omnipresent diety must exist within all things. People sin and God exists everywhere and within those people. Simple logic. The Bible and the religious dogma contradicts. Either god is omnipresent or god isn't. So, what is it?


Eternally unknowable? Tell me, what do you believe the word unknowable implies? I was pretty sure that something unknowable can neither be verified nor refuted. These are your words yet again.


Actually, if you read back to your first post you stated that God is beyond Human capability of understanding, that is a BLARING contradiction for one to state, for if God was beyond Human comprehension you'd have no way of ever knowing that it was beyond Human comprehension.

The fact that you ever typed the words that god was "beyond Human comprehension" (paraphrase) shows me that you have the capability of understanding exactly what god is (beyond human comprehension) and that you use this flat out lie (because it is a lie to say that something is beyond comprehension, and yet to know that it is beyond comprehension, and if you can not know whether it is beyond comprehension, because as stated by you it IS beyond any comprehension, then why did you state that you comprehended that it was beyond comprehension? Or is this just another worthless opinion?) for your rag tag argument that YOU don't even understand, and this would make any book or bible created about this God and its attributes utterly irrelevant, and any statements made about what this god that can not be known or comprehended, again according to you, completely irelevant and detestable and only mere opinion about an eternal insipid invisibility.


Do you see this quote??? If it is completely irrelevant, then why are you arguing for its non existence when in fact you are stating that it has no power/relevancy to reality?


It's only relevancy to reality is that this mass delusion and schizophrenia effects 90% of the people on my home planet rendering them 100% insane and fanatical, robbing them of all logic and all intellect, and creating war drones and irrational emotionally impulsive robots.

As far as physical reality is concerned, this eternally intangible is irrelevant. Unfortunate for you and anyone arguing for god, you don't realize that you are explaining the non-existent and the non-physical, the intangible and the unknowable.

It's rather ignorant to explain what the unknowable is if you have no knowledge of it, is it not? It's not ignorant or arrogant to explain away the labels that people have placed on the unknowable, because the unknowable needs to be left alone. The unknowable can not be labeled or explained as to what it is, only defended as to what it is not against those who would claim to know what it is.


My notion would be, that anything which possesses any sort of power to affect another, or to be affected by another, if only for a single moment, however trifling the cause and however slight the effect, has real existence; and I hold that the definition of being is simply power


So you're now using this as your argument for god after saying that god is beyond human comprehension?

This is a good thread to reveal the flying spaghetti monster. Although it doesn't exist, it also effects me if I believe it to be so. It's called delusion.


It seems that Plato disagrees with your logic.


Plato is old and outdated. It's not that plato disagrees with my logic, I disagree and contest plato's logic. It's nearly 2000 years old now. I could care less about that man.

The purple gatoraide in the oceans makes me go insane, don't you all see it?! It must has real existence because it effects me!
Hello, 21st century logic, please.


I don’t see this, so let’s start with something easier for you to disprove. Tell us, do you or do you not have a biased blindespot? It’s supposedly inside your own head and part of your consciousness. This should be easy right?


We're talking about god. Follow the evidential logic and stop trying to change the subject. Thank you.


No, eternal lack of evidence is proof of something's non-existence. You said that God is eternally unknowable. You can't follow my logic? Why are you trying to twist my words into your own thinking?



I never said that there was an eternal lack of evidence for G*d.


So then, god is not beyond human comprehension?


Nor did I say that G*d is eternally unknowable.


So you're saying that some day we will meet this diety or know this unknowable, that's a contradiction? If something's unkowable, it can't be known. Please explain.


If it is not hot outside, it does not mean it is cold. This is the logic you are using here, which is not applicable.


No, the logic I am using here is this. There is a diety named god that never existed and never will exist, except for in the minds of the deluded, no evidence will ever suffice for this diety, except for in the illogical and non-physical imagination that has nothing to do with reality. The logic I am using here is prove that my invisible dog doesn't exist. Hint, you can never know it.


I said nothing of what you just stated.



How can you claim you have not said what I’ve quoted you saying?


Read above, look at what I said closely. Ready? I'm going to repeat it for you. I said nothing of what YOU just stated. Did I say anything about you quoting me or was I in reference to your statements? I'll allow you figure that one out, shouldn't be hard.


I rest my case . . . you’ve just declared that you’ve broken something that you claim yourself does not exist in reality. It would appear that you are the one playing make believe at the moment.


I'll show you why, again. The eternally unkowable and eternally invisible is irellevant because evidence will never suffice to prove its existence. Therefore it is only a delusion of the mind. We have dissorders for this, one we call schizophrenia. I can post an external link of the dissorder if you'd like?


Are you only now beginning to realize that this is a game and you’ve essentially been arguing with yourself? I would hope that in retrospect it is evident that I’ve followed your rational. Questioning someone’s logic does not entail that one must agree or disagree with it.


If you disagree with perfect logic, then you simply don't understand logic and its connection to physical reality.


Have I? I’ve merely pointed out possible flaws in your logic. You could easily rebut any of my allegations if you’d actually address them.



judg·ment
–noun 1. an act or instance of judging.
2. the ability to judge, make a decision, or form an opinion objectively, authoritatively, and wisely, esp. in matters affecting action; good sense; discretion: a man of sound judgment.
3. the demonstration or exercise of such ability or capacity: The major was decorated for the judgment he showed under fire.
4. the forming of an opinion, estimate, notion, or conclusion, as from circumstances presented to the mind: Our judgment as to the cause of his failure must rest on the evidence.


Let's see, as far as the English language is concerned you've been judging yourself and myself. That is unless you want to argue with the dictionary, go for it. I tend to be accustomed and in touch to the words I use and understand them well, since they're what I communicate with.


I can say that I’m amazinly good at basketball all I want, it won’t make it true


The same goes for believing in God. The difference here is, I can tell you that water consists of C3Mg, unfortunately we know that water is H2O, why? Because science doesn't take faith, it is what it is. A tangible, knowable, physical existence where its laws and contructs are unchanging, but its energetical transmorphology of those laws and constructs are always in change. I can say the invisible exists all I want to, but that doesn't make it so, it just makes me a delusional, uneducated, illogical and disconnected Human Being.



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:03 AM
link   
reply to post by JPhish
 



Science is now a conscious entity that speaks for itself and always has, within the eternity of the universe? Woa, I didn’t know that.


Glad I could help open you up to reality.


The existence of gravity is not dependant upon your believe in it. Trust me, if every living creature in the universe was obliterated. The planets, stars etc. would keep moving.


Yeah, that's what I'm telling you. I don't need to put faith in gravity, it's always there. But, the idea of my invisible and unkowable dog disappears when I am obliterated because it was only a delusion of my mind and had nothing to do with actual physical reality except for the fact that I am physical and it was a figment of my imagination.


If no one was alive to believe in science, it would cease to exist.


The Human construct of science known through symbols and ideas would cease to exist. Yet what we know of it so far has existed for eternity and would continue to whether we were here or not. If every living creature was obliterated, gravity would still move the planets and stars


[edit on 11-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 03:14 AM
link   

schiz·o·phre·ni·a
1. Psychiatry. Also called dementia praecox. a severe mental disorder characterized by some, but not necessarily all, of the following features: emotional blunting, intellectual deterioration, social isolation, disorganized speech and behavior, delusions, and hallucinations.
2. a state characterized by the coexistence of contradictory or incompatible elements.


1. Any of a group of psychotic disorders usually characterized by withdrawal from reality, illogical patterns of thinking, delusions, and hallucinations, and accompanied in varying degrees by other emotional, behavioral, or intellectual disturbances. Schizophrenia is associated with dopamine imbalances in the brain and may have an underlying genetic cause.
2. A situation or condition that results from the coexistence of disparate or antagonistic qualities, identities, or activities: the national schizophrenia that results from carrying out an unpopular war.

1. a form of insanity in which the patient becomes severely withdrawn from reality, has delusions etc


Source


dementia praecox

noun
any of several psychotic disorders characterized by distortions of reality and disturbances of thought and language and withdrawal from social contact [syn: schizophrenia]


Source

[edit on 11-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:22 AM
link   
reply to post by undo
 


We must have a language barrier problem and a percipience obstruction, as you clearly were the first one to state your position on the matter and then you replied to me letting it be known as well, and all I did was reciprocate a reply in lieu to the substance you formulated in my direction.

Please stop playing the victim and pulling out the sympathy card. A simple, join me in another thread and we'll discuss, would have worked.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:36 AM
link   
reply to post by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal
 


Ah, well when I say salvage the ancient past, I'm not referring to only the biblical texts, but most of ancient history (I say "most" because some of it has been destroyed).



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 04:52 AM
link   
reply to post by ValhallasValkyrie
 


There was no creator that created everything. Energy is eternal. That is what science states and that is what physics states.

Nothing is "created", it just changes energetical states. Energy isn't created nor is it destroyed, it only morphs from form to form. The unvierse had no beginning and will have no end.

Yes, science, logic and rational reasoning disprove God, or prove God to be nothing more than a fancy of the imagination, a schizphrenic fabrication, and a nice little stuffed animal to go to bed with to make you feel comfortable at night so the boogy man doesn't get you.

The most illogical reasoning about God is to say "God created the universe", without first stating how God came to be. Why the religious irrationally insist that the universe needs a beginning (that which they will never find) dumbfounds me. Regardless of how persnickety we want to be about it, there wasn't one, you won't find one, and you can't make a mathematical algorithm to produce one. In fact it should be understood that 0 isn't nothing, it is in fact everything, it is immeasurable, eternal, infinite. There is no such thing as an absence of "space" or energy, it can not be destroyed.

As I said, if God is anything, God is everything. For starters: You can't pick and choose what God is if God is omnipresent.

[edit on 11-6-2008 by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal]



posted on Jun, 11 2008 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal Elecromagnetic light is not a good argument, as it is not invisible, we know it's there.


What the heck are you talking about . . . who said anything about electromagnetic light? What is the point of you forming a line of reasoning and then subsequently stating it is poor?


When you admit that something is eternally unknowable and eternally intangible relative to a physical existence


Where are you getting the word “eternally”? Cause I’ve only used it when quoting you . .


Originally posted by JPhish unknowable can neither be verified nor refuted. These are your words yet again.



Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal I don't have a biased blindspot.


Haha I win . . . I even warned you that it was a trap to even respond . . yet you did . . . come on


Well, -g-od as an omnipresent diety must exist within all things. People sin and God exists everywhere and within those people. Simple logic. The Bible and the religious dogma contradicts. Either god is omnipresent or god isn't. So, what is it?


People have free will, so the point is moot. Are you saying that if you believed in G*d you would blame him for every time you did something horrible? If your children became mass murderors would you hold yourself accountable for what they did??? ;shakes head;


Actually, if you read back to your first post you stated that God is beyond Human capability of understanding, that is a BLARING contradiction for one to state, for if God was beyond Human comprehension you'd have no way of ever knowing that it was beyond Human comprehension.


That’s absolute bogus. At the moment, people do not have any idea how the elephant seal operates in deep sea dives the way it does. It is beyond human scientists’ comprehension for the time being, and quite possibly forever. Just because you cannot explain something does not mean you are blinde or oblivious to it.


Originally posted by JPhish The existence of such a being is not only un-falsifiable but would also be outside of our mental capacity to understand.



Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal It's rather ignorant to explain what the unknowable is if you have no knowledge of it, is it not? It's not ignorant or arrogant to explain away the labels that people have placed on the unknowable, because the unknowable needs to be left alone. The unknowable can not be labeled or explained as to what it is, only defended as to what it is not against those who would claim to know what it is.


Absolutely.


This is a good thread to reveal the flying spaghetti monster. Although it doesn't exist, it also effects me if I believe it to be so. It's called delusion.


Who are you to say that the flying spaghetti monster doesn’t exist???


Plato is old and outdated. It's not that plato disagrees with my logic, I disagree and contest plato's logic. It's nearly 2000 years old now. I could care less about that man.


“Vizzini: Let me put it this way. Have you ever heard of Plato, Aristotle, Socrates?
Westley:Yes.
Vizzini: Morons.”
:w:


So then, god is not beyond human comprehension?


Evidence for something, and the ability to interpret that evidence are two different things.


Originally posted by JPhish Nor did I say that G*d is eternally unknowable.



Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal So you're saying that some day we will meet this diety or know this unknowable, that's a contradiction? If something's unkowable, it can't be known. Please explain.


I’m just stating that I didn’t say it. If I declare it’s not cold outside, I’m not saying it’s hot out.


No, the logic I am using here is this. There is a diety named god that never existed and never will exist, except for in the minds of the deluded, no evidence will ever suffice for this diety, except for in the illogical and non-physical imagination that has nothing to do with reality.


Assumptions


The logic I am using here is prove that my invisible dog doesn't exist. Hint, you can never know it.


Eureka! you’ve caught up to my second post! No s%*t Sherlock.


Read above, look at what I said closely. Ready? I'm going to repeat it for you. I said nothing of what YOU just stated. Did I say anything about you quoting me or was I in reference to your statements? I'll allow you figure that one out, shouldn't be hard.


No, you are still false. I’ve quoted everything you’ve said verbatim and responded to each quote in relevance to what you said. “I said nothing OF what you just stated.” implies that my responses to your quotes are not relevant. You’re trying to play with semantics.


If you disagree with perfect logic, then you simply don't understand logic and its connection to physical reality.


Perfect logic?!?! Sounds like an oxymoron.

Again . . .

Originally posted by JPhish Questioning someone’s logic does not entail that one must agree or disagree with it.



Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal as far as the English language is concerned you've been judging yourself and myself.



Originally posted by dave20 (my) entire reasoning is based on a single assumption. On that fact alone, everything (I) say afterwards is a theoretical exercise,


Dave understands; ask him to explain it to you . . .


Originally posted by LastOutfiniteVoiceEternal science doesn't take faith, it is what it is.


It does take faith, because without people to believe in it, it ceases to exist. I’m not saying that the same logic doesn’t apply to G*d.


The Human construct of science known through symbols and ideas would cease to exist. Yet what we know of it so far has existed for eternity and would continue to whether we were here or not. If every living creature was obliterated, gravity would still move the planets and stars.


You’re equating science with pure understanding of the world, but you cannot do this because it is inherently “construal”/subjective. People are an integral part of the equation of science; not the universe.

[edit on 6/11/2008 by JPhish]



new topics

top topics



 
43
<< 17  18  19    21  22  23 >>

log in

join