Science does points to a creator/designer more than most realize. Even some evolutionists realizes this. natural selection alone can't solve the gene neutral gaps required for evolution. I have no faith in this theory but yet the more we learn the more science points to a creator.Saga of Gemini said:
Prove God Exists - Act Three
- Thread starter Perfection
- Start date
- Status
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Let me try another tack.
FredLC,
You asked what it was about the tales of faeries and pixies and such that made them any different from the 'tales' of Jesus and Noah (to paraphrase)?
Not very much, to be perfectly honest. Neither body of work offers any substantiable proof of what it claims about the nature of reality. The key difference, I believe, is in scope. The Bible makes it quite clear that no further wonders from God will occur until certain events have come to pass, said events being related to John the Revelator by Jehovah in visions recorded as the Book of Revelations in the Bible.
The tales of faerie, OTOH, would indicate that somebody somewhere ought to be running into fey creatures on long hiking trips into the mountains. We ought to have had a few more Rip van Winkles in the Catskill mountains by now, for instance, one of whom's claims could be verified with a records check. We ought to have read about small children getting lost in the woods and coming back as grown men or women, with tales of the land beyond, that could be verified with a DNA test.
The predictions one can make based on fairy tales have not come to pass. To make it blunt, every camping trip into the Adirondacks/ Himalayas/ Rockies/ Amazon rainforest that does not result in a faerie abduction or the Wild Hunt annihlating the campers is a disproof of that belief. This is not a case of lack of evidence, this is a case of millions of failed experiments based on the theory. (Lack of evidence is still not evidence of lack, but this is a heavily tested theory, and every test has proven negative.)
Until the visions that John recorded have come to pass, there can be no 'test' of Christianity for proof. Only five of the seven seals have yet been opened. Patience, the other two will come in their due time. Of course, once they are opened, there will be no time to convert. That is why we must exercise faith. By the time the proof is here, it will be too late.
Christianity, in a sense, is a lot like a theory that says that everyone will die at midnight Greenwich time, August 21st, 2011, of asphyxiation (well, there's a LOT of differences, but the principle is the same). The only way to test that theory is to wait until it is due to happen. There's no point in believing it, since it hasn't got a shred of evidence to support it. It would be sensible to point at, laugh at, and mock, anyone purchasing breathing apparati to survive The Great Choke. But if the only people alive on August 22nd, 2011 are the ones that had breathing assistance devices handy at midnight Greenwich time, August 21st, 2011, well, the rest of us are going to look mighty silly...and dead.
(Please note: the dates above are completely arbitrary and not intended to express any supposed knowledge of the future by me. I do not now, nor have I any intention of so doing in the future, own a scuba set.)
FredLC,
You asked what it was about the tales of faeries and pixies and such that made them any different from the 'tales' of Jesus and Noah (to paraphrase)?
Not very much, to be perfectly honest. Neither body of work offers any substantiable proof of what it claims about the nature of reality. The key difference, I believe, is in scope. The Bible makes it quite clear that no further wonders from God will occur until certain events have come to pass, said events being related to John the Revelator by Jehovah in visions recorded as the Book of Revelations in the Bible.
The tales of faerie, OTOH, would indicate that somebody somewhere ought to be running into fey creatures on long hiking trips into the mountains. We ought to have had a few more Rip van Winkles in the Catskill mountains by now, for instance, one of whom's claims could be verified with a records check. We ought to have read about small children getting lost in the woods and coming back as grown men or women, with tales of the land beyond, that could be verified with a DNA test.
The predictions one can make based on fairy tales have not come to pass. To make it blunt, every camping trip into the Adirondacks/ Himalayas/ Rockies/ Amazon rainforest that does not result in a faerie abduction or the Wild Hunt annihlating the campers is a disproof of that belief. This is not a case of lack of evidence, this is a case of millions of failed experiments based on the theory. (Lack of evidence is still not evidence of lack, but this is a heavily tested theory, and every test has proven negative.)
Until the visions that John recorded have come to pass, there can be no 'test' of Christianity for proof. Only five of the seven seals have yet been opened. Patience, the other two will come in their due time. Of course, once they are opened, there will be no time to convert. That is why we must exercise faith. By the time the proof is here, it will be too late.
Christianity, in a sense, is a lot like a theory that says that everyone will die at midnight Greenwich time, August 21st, 2011, of asphyxiation (well, there's a LOT of differences, but the principle is the same). The only way to test that theory is to wait until it is due to happen. There's no point in believing it, since it hasn't got a shred of evidence to support it. It would be sensible to point at, laugh at, and mock, anyone purchasing breathing apparati to survive The Great Choke. But if the only people alive on August 22nd, 2011 are the ones that had breathing assistance devices handy at midnight Greenwich time, August 21st, 2011, well, the rest of us are going to look mighty silly...and dead.
(Please note: the dates above are completely arbitrary and not intended to express any supposed knowledge of the future by me. I do not now, nor have I any intention of so doing in the future, own a scuba set.)
Perfection
The Great Head.
Your anology is incorrect FL2! Chrisitianity doesn't say when the entimes will come (there are some predictions, based on geopolitical phenomena, but they can be broadly interpreted to apply to most situations). There is no Midnight GMT August 33nd 2011 for Christianity.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
RE: Kant's Rant:
He considers slavish devotion to logic a positive, even though it cuts us off from imagination, simply because it also cuts us off from illogic? Had his will held sway in HG Wells' time, we might never have dared dream to walk on the moon. If that had come to pass, the very Internet we dicsuss this on would not exist, because the computers that made it possible would not exist.
Kant is hereby declared a fool, and all his loyal subjects deemed fools as well. You want a quote on logic? Try this one:
[irony]The most sensible thing I've ever heard about logic is a delimitation of it by a fictional character of a fictional race slavishly devoted to it.[/irony]
Now THAT'S funny!
He considers slavish devotion to logic a positive, even though it cuts us off from imagination, simply because it also cuts us off from illogic? Had his will held sway in HG Wells' time, we might never have dared dream to walk on the moon. If that had come to pass, the very Internet we dicsuss this on would not exist, because the computers that made it possible would not exist.
Kant is hereby declared a fool, and all his loyal subjects deemed fools as well. You want a quote on logic? Try this one:
Spock said:
[irony]The most sensible thing I've ever heard about logic is a delimitation of it by a fictional character of a fictional race slavishly devoted to it.[/irony]
Now THAT'S funny!
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Um... DUH!Perfection said:
Shall I dope-smack you now, or would you like to issue a retraction?
Perfection
The Great Head.
Let's leave the flames aside.FearlessLeader2 said:
Well, it's alot different to say something will happen at some specified date. We can just wait until it happens to prove weather the idea is valid or not. However with your application we can't just "wait it out" as you suggest, because we can only confirm, never deny the claim, it removes testibility!
If there is no "Great Choke" on such and such date then the idea is proven invalid, but there is no way to invalidate the claim of Christianity, there is only a way to validate.
There is a huge differnce between a claim for an action by a specified time versus an action at time of indefinate length away.
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
There was no flame, there was only me offering to dope-smack you for a total failure of reading comprehension. Did you or did you not see the disclaimer at the end of my post above?Perfection said:
Seven predictions were made by the Bible about what would happen before the battle at Har-Megiddo. Five have come to pass. Two remain, and the way the world is going now, it won't be long before the rest do too.Perfection said:
Unless you count five predictions coming true as proof that the other two will as well, and that when they do, Armageddon will follow.Perfection said:
No, there's a very small difference. Instead of happening at an exact date and time, it's an unspecified date and time. It is still going to happen.Perfection said:
Perfection
The Great Head.
That's a flame and you know it!FearlessLeader2 said:
You give an anology with positive and negative proofs to a situation with only positive proofs. There is a huge difference!FearlessLeader2 said:
A few things:FearlessLeader2 said:
1. The discriptions are either vague or can be symbolic, there has been interpretations that have led to calls of endtimes for quite some time now. Remember, people thought for ages that the end was near!
2. It only says those things come to pass, I don't recall it saying a specefied interval of time afterword those events would occur, so it's still indefinate.
Well, the meeting of the requirements of the prediction doesn't prove the prediction correct. Showing that some predictions were correct doesn't make all predictions correct.FearlessLeader2 said:
But the unspecifed negates the "wait and see" arguement because you can't wait an infinite amount of time to prove the assertion invalid!FearlessLeader2 said:
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
Indefinite <> infinite.
Perfection
The Great Head.
True, but with indefinite, it's not within a set range of dates, you could wait ten thousand years or a million years or as long as you can imagine with it not happening and the prediction not invalidiated. That's what distinguishes it from your analogy with a set date, if it passes that time and it doesn't occur, then the analogy's hypothesis is invalidated, with Christianity's hypothesis there is no way to inavlidate!
Christianity prediction = Impossible to invalidate
Great choke prediction = Possible to invalidate
Christianity prediction = Impossible to invalidate
Great choke prediction = Possible to invalidate
FearlessLeader2
Fundamentalist Loon
If the conditions set forth in the 6th and 7th seals come to pass, and Armageddon does not follow, then Christianity is disproved.
(Then again, the world will be such a flaming crapheap if they do that most of it will be in sheerest raw chaos and no one will notice...)
(Then again, the world will be such a flaming crapheap if they do that most of it will be in sheerest raw chaos and no one will notice...)
FL2:
I was willing to let this thread die - because I think that my point with BJ was pretty much made, wheter I replied him again or not. But since you addressed me, I guess I am up for another turn.
See, there is a celebrity here in Brazil, called Xuxa Meneghel, who hosted a kid's show for about ten years and is still widely popular around here. The interesting fact about her is that she believes in goblins. She does, for real, and she says that she is constantly visited by them. She even turned such believe in movies, specifically "Xuxa and the goblins 1 and 2 (I didnt bother to find out how bad the movies are, Im sure you can appreciate why).
Now, Xuxas goblins cant be disproved. Because she says some things about them that they are shy, and that they only show up for those who deserve to see them. But she says that whenever something threats the nature like cutting off trees or polluting rivers, the goblins are there to make things difficult to the man who does it.
So, there you have it. Ethereal entities that decided not to show to common mortals, and about who we have only the words of their chosen vessels; Entities that appear when a certain condition is met a threat to nature what can be interpreted with such vague examples as a massive oil spill in the pacific or using a CFC gas spray can, and that may be held responsible for every time a chainsaw malfunctioned or a bulldozer broke its axis, proving that their sabotage of polluters is very much happening.
Supernormal entities that are unreachable and decided not to show except in special circumstances that are vague, where their influence can be felt but leaving no evidence. Is it just me or is there a pattern here?
Fact is that the same licenses you use to excuse Christianity from analysis can be applied to any supernaturalism whenever anyone gives it two minutes to enforce such system. And Christianity had, what, two millennia? Its a sophisticated set of loopholes, but just a set of loopholes nonetheless.
As for the rest of the post, well, it pretty much ends up, again, as the good old fashioned Pascals Wager; you better believe, or risk hell (or choking). Not terribly convincing to a critical mind, but hey, whatever floats your boat, my friend.
Regards
.
I was willing to let this thread die - because I think that my point with BJ was pretty much made, wheter I replied him again or not. But since you addressed me, I guess I am up for another turn.
See, there is a celebrity here in Brazil, called Xuxa Meneghel, who hosted a kid's show for about ten years and is still widely popular around here. The interesting fact about her is that she believes in goblins. She does, for real, and she says that she is constantly visited by them. She even turned such believe in movies, specifically "Xuxa and the goblins 1 and 2 (I didnt bother to find out how bad the movies are, Im sure you can appreciate why).
Now, Xuxas goblins cant be disproved. Because she says some things about them that they are shy, and that they only show up for those who deserve to see them. But she says that whenever something threats the nature like cutting off trees or polluting rivers, the goblins are there to make things difficult to the man who does it.
So, there you have it. Ethereal entities that decided not to show to common mortals, and about who we have only the words of their chosen vessels; Entities that appear when a certain condition is met a threat to nature what can be interpreted with such vague examples as a massive oil spill in the pacific or using a CFC gas spray can, and that may be held responsible for every time a chainsaw malfunctioned or a bulldozer broke its axis, proving that their sabotage of polluters is very much happening.
Supernormal entities that are unreachable and decided not to show except in special circumstances that are vague, where their influence can be felt but leaving no evidence. Is it just me or is there a pattern here?
Fact is that the same licenses you use to excuse Christianity from analysis can be applied to any supernaturalism whenever anyone gives it two minutes to enforce such system. And Christianity had, what, two millennia? Its a sophisticated set of loopholes, but just a set of loopholes nonetheless.
As for the rest of the post, well, it pretty much ends up, again, as the good old fashioned Pascals Wager; you better believe, or risk hell (or choking). Not terribly convincing to a critical mind, but hey, whatever floats your boat, my friend.
Regards
.
FearlessLeader2 said:
Kant's book is about reason, not about logic, what have common grounds but isn't the same. Killing 5 people to save 6 is logic, numerical and quantitative; but it isn't reason, which encompass true envisioning and rational subjectivity, what is, by the way, the very essence of Kant's point.
I won't bother refuting your classification of Kant's ideas as a rant - despite I'll suggest that you avoid critics to it unless you have alread read it - and I'll leave the final decision on wheter your reply is a good or bad one to the prudent judgement of our readers.
Nevertheless, I'll make a little sugestion of tactics here. See, Fearless, as you are defending a point that is extremely controversial - and that is a conceding classification from my part - you'd do well if you avoided trying to refute one of humanity's most well known philosophers, widely famous due to his criterious study of the act of reasoning, with the one-liners of a fictional caracther from a sci-fi show. It pretty much ruins your respectability.
Regards
.
Blasphemous
Graulich
FL2, what if the last two seals pass and then Armageddon follows.... one million years later?
That's not a testable theory, it's not falsifiable, and mopst importantly, it proves nothing because it's not the essence of divine existance. If it were disproved (an impossible feat), that would not disprove all of religion.
That's not a testable theory, it's not falsifiable, and mopst importantly, it proves nothing because it's not the essence of divine existance. If it were disproved (an impossible feat), that would not disprove all of religion.
Erik Mesoy
Core Tester / Intern
Hmm. Grammar police isn't my main point here, but the total lack of capitalisation and punctuation can be abused for a defence against a poor argument, in the form of "don't mock me because my grammar is bad".Colonel said:
You're a clown, and your argument is incorrect in addition to being poorly made.
Let me put it this way- could God create a stone so heavy that he could not lift it? Either way, you've got a limit to His omniscience.
Answer: Wrong question. You can ask God to create a square circle, too. Both of these are examples of human words being used to create an apparent contradiction to the IoG (Identity of God), however the contradiction for both of them is in their own terms, not to the IoG.
God is so powerful, he created us with FREE WILL. Say that to yourself a few times. FREE WILL. The freedom to choose good or evil. Now, if God went and zapped all evil, there wouldn't be any to choose, and there isn't much free choice of there is only one possible choice- Good.
The best demonstration of God's power is not how much he interferes in our lives to set us on the straight and narrow path. The best demonstration is that he created beings so intelligent and self-aware that they can choose the right way. Hey- you can program a game where everyone behaves good all their life, but they're scripted. You can't make a game where the computer entities intelligently debate the nature of good and evil and then choose on or the other. Not happening, man.
The whole of your argument falls on this one thing: FREE WILL. You say that if God were all-knowing, omnipotent and infallible he would not have "allowed" the angel Satan to rebel and become the devil. Wrong- God created the angels with free will, knowing that this would happen, and probably sorrowful over it since the beginning of time. However, it is a necessary condition of free will that some do not choose the "best" path.
To paraphrase Isaac Asimov- The price a society pays for saints, geniuses and inventors is made in the form of heretics, criminals and lunatics.
You didn't mention Islam, which is the third branch of the same tree of monotheism. Afraid of irritating fundamentalist terrorists?
Anyway, wrong. I can't stress this enough- FREE WILL will result in some doing evil and some doing good. Whack your head a few times until you start understanding that.
:despairs:
u still have skipped the real question i asked if there was a real GOD then why would he allow evil, u cant say its to see who would turn to evil, and secondly what the hell is the point of createing everything in the Universe what was he just bored.
And now to explain how religon actually started
no garden of eden no adam and eve no god no devil no no bible story crap heres the real TRUTH
some guy way back when said he look that rock fell it must have been god oooo look we have had six healthy children oooo god must have blessed us, o no our second child died that must be the devil, and threw out the ages science has slowly weeded out the religous crap, and now the last thing science really has to disprove is that there is NO god NO devil
also keep in mind that these were first used to explain polythestic religons so good thing happens Zeus did bad thing happens Hades did it, similar with eygptian myths
also yea i would rather not piss off so Islamic fundamentalist extremeist, NOT a good plan
also very funny i dont even agree with a majority of what i said and yet i still have a convienceing arguement
And now to explain how religon actually started
no garden of eden no adam and eve no god no devil no no bible story crap heres the real TRUTH
some guy way back when said he look that rock fell it must have been god oooo look we have had six healthy children oooo god must have blessed us, o no our second child died that must be the devil, and threw out the ages science has slowly weeded out the religous crap, and now the last thing science really has to disprove is that there is NO god NO devil
also keep in mind that these were first used to explain polythestic religons so good thing happens Zeus did bad thing happens Hades did it, similar with eygptian myths
also yea i would rather not piss off so Islamic fundamentalist extremeist, NOT a good plan
also very funny i dont even agree with a majority of what i said and yet i still have a convienceing arguement
You are right which make me wonder why people ask this stupid question since it doesn't question God power but our understanding of the English word "omniscience" . So this question is really questioning human understanding and language not on God's power.Erik Mesoy said:
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
Before we get to 'god's power' - why not offer some solid ground that there is a god to begin with?
I still do not see anything but personal perspectives.
And surely a few people's whims does not constitute ground for us all to believe?
Tell us, religious folks;
Just why should we all believe your god is real?
What have you got to convince us, apart from your own yearnings?
I can almost predict word for word the responses here!
I still do not see anything but personal perspectives.
And surely a few people's whims does not constitute ground for us all to believe?
Tell us, religious folks;
Just why should we all believe your god is real?
What have you got to convince us, apart from your own yearnings?
I can almost predict word for word the responses here!
thestonesfan
A Client of Ron Kuby
Curt, you are a masochist.
CurtSibling
ENEMY ACE™
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2001
- Messages
- 29,455
I am a realist - Which these days is a rarity.
- Status
