RE: Define God (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message

Rule -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 9:19:20 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09
There is a stream of evidence from two sources that suggest copies of the gospels already existed by 50 AD,

I am willing to accept that.

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09
which means the originals were written well within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses, starting with  Magdalene, Peter and John, the two on the way to Emmaus, and the twelve.

Some me the headstones on their graves with year of death inscribed, please.



mnottertail -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 9:19:36 AM)

Rule:
Well, that may be true of yhwh, but the original lack of historical evidence for Yesh'ua ha Notzri line of thought also holds.

Jus' sayin' (LOL)
Ron 



NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 9:23:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

The fragment 7Q5, which is from gospel of Mark....

Except for that pesky part where not a single scholar aside from the individual who proposed the hypothesis (save Thiede, a decade after O'Callaghan's article) agreed with this phrase you've paraded as fact. From religious laypeople to historians, the hypothesis is considered bankrupt and discredited.




lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 9:27:26 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

The fragment 7Q5, which is from gospel of Mark....

Except for that pesky part where not a single scholar aside from the individual who proposed the hypothesis (save Thiede, a decade after O'Callaghan's article) agreed with this phrase you've paraded as fact. From religious laypeople to historians, the hypothesis is considered bankrupt and discredited.




Try  Sergio Davis and Shemaryahu Talmon, both leading Qumram scholars.



Rule -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 9:28:34 AM)

I know this crazy USA woman, catholic, fishing for souls in Amsterdam. I haven't heard from her since I told her that I had concluded that Leonardo da Vinci showed Jesus eating the brain of John the baptist in his painting of the last supper. Leonardo knew he existed, Ron.

Or did John the baptist not exist either? Is it possible for one not existing man to eat the brain of another not existing man?

Did tazzygirl convince John the baptist to sacrifice his brain in order to prove that he had one? Or was John the baptist prescient and did he decide two thousand years in advance to oblige her?



mnottertail -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 9:35:11 AM)

Rule:

What did you come out here to see?  A reed shaken by the wind?
Leo was the illegitimate son of a notary, and in that way I think he identified with the illegitimiate son-of-a-bitch, jesus.

I think it was a vision, 'The Last Supper', and was a portent of the coming of films, and Ray Liotta. (unless Tony Hopkins will admit to being one of the illuminati as well).

Will Durant 



NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 9:41:33 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

Try  Sergio Davis and Shemaryahu Talmon, both leading Qumram scholars.

Right. 4 guys. (We won't even get into how this is like saying astral projection is viable by asking  "leading psychic scholars"). Compared to multitudes of more informed sources. If this is so true, shouldn't eveyone be swarming to the veracity of these interpretations?

You've already demonstrated how speed of infection is a proof of factuality:

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

How about the fastest growing religion the world has ever seen.


That the subject has quickly switched to the abrahamic deity from misrepresentations of biology is apt...as your adoption of deistic ID is (as it usually is) just a cover to attempt to excuse the credibility of a specific god by pointing at hairs on the entire skin of an issue fraught with illogic.

When  you are discussing pieces of parchment smaller than a thumb or flawed examples of irreducible complexity...does it provide a sufficient distraction from having to deal with actual issues corresponding to a theistic abrahamic god?

Like reconciling sentience with an objective universal good? Or reconciling omnipotence with a creation indicative of non-consensual sadism? Or reconciling omniscience with the punishment of known introduced variables?



lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 9:46:57 AM)

quote:


Right. 4 guys. Compared to multitudes of more informed sources. If this is so true, shouldn't eveyone be swarming to the veracity of these interpretations?


argumentum ad populum


quote:


That the subject has quickly switched to the abrahamic deity from misrepresentations of biology is apt..


What misrepresentations?  I'm still waiting for a response from you from your earlier post. You had claimed that the video you linked to shows Ken Miller denying that random mutation has nothing to do with the Darwinian mechanism. I watched the video and found no such thing. And if he did say it he would be laughed out of the academic community.

quote:


When  you are disussing pieces of parchment smaller than a thumb or flawed examples of irreducible complexity...does it provide a sufficient distraction from having to deal with actual issues corresponding to a theistic abrahamic god?


I would compare Thiede's work to what geneticists do with DNA, which is why I am tentatively convinced that 7Q5 is from Mark chapter 6.



willbeurdaddy -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 9:54:32 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

quote:



As I recall one of Behe's favorite "irreducibly complex" systems was the eye, which, as I said, has been bebunked.


No , Behe never mentioned the eye as an example of irreducible complexity so it's impossible that he could've been debunked, with regard to the eye.

Oh really? did you read Darwin's Black Box? He explicitly uses the eye as an example of irreducible complexity. I said "as I recall" because Behe was so easily dismissed that I havent bothered to open it in years. However I did confirm it. Page 29.





quote:


Wildly improbably things dont happen every day? NZ's earlier bridge hand is a perfect example, the probability of any one hand happening is less than 1 in 600 billion. Every time one is dealt that result is wildly improbable, yet it happened.


And yet, no one's jaw drops just because they get a hum drum bridge hand. However, if I were to get a hand where each card was of the same suit, I would be astonished. There is a reason for that, because that hand is a low-probability event with special properties. There are so many possible ways to get a hum drum bridge hand, if you were to make a formula and take this into account, I would suspect that the probability would turn to be very large for a hum drum bridge hand, and very small for a hand where all the cards are of the same suit. It is because that low probability event has structure to it. But at any rate, I would agree that Bridge hands are very improbable events, that is why the game never gets boring.




You realize of course that you have made our point with the bridge hand. There is no difference in the probability of a hand of all the same suit and any other specific combination of 13 cards. It is only man's penchant for "patterns" that makes the fomer SEEM more unlikely. And you agree they are improbable events at the end. You leave out the "wildly" qualification, but since a specific bridge hand is LESS probable than genetic mutation, and since genetic mutations happen far more often that bridge hands are dealt, you have tacitly accepted our point..



mnottertail -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 9:55:52 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

quote:


Right. 4 guys. Compared to multitudes of more informed sources. If this is so true, shouldn't eveyone be swarming to the veracity of these interpretations?


argumentum ad populum



GAWDDAMN girlie!!!!!! Your 'How's about the fastest growing religion in the world' is an argumentum ad populum................

N0's argument is the contrapositive to an argumentum ad populum.

You have turned many things on their heads here, but you have now taken a bridge to far.

The Red Queen (courtesy of Jefferson Airplane)  



NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 9:58:47 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

argumentum ad populum

[:D]
So, aside from the humorous declaration of using one after parading one out yourself, you still want to discuss false dichotomies rather than substantiate the more profound traits of the deity you wish so fervently to be real?



RCdc -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 9:59:04 AM)

*blinks*
 
Am I the only one getting turned on by the discussions going on in this thread?  Knowledge rocks.
 
*blinks*
 
Carry on everyone.
 
the.dark.
(.wholovesinterllectualporn.)



lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 9:59:59 AM)

quote:


You realize of course that you have made our point with the bridge hand. There is no difference in the probability of a hand of all the same suit and any other specific combination of 13 cards. It is only man's penchant for "patterns" that makes the fomer SEEM more unlikely. And you agree they are improbable events at the end. You leave out the "wildly" qualification, but since a specific bridge hand is LESS probable than genetic mutation, and since genetic mutations happen far more often that bridge hands are dealt, you have tacitly accepted our point..


What point? All you did was completely ignore what I wrote, and create a straw man. Where did I say that genetic mutations are unlikely?



NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:00:45 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: mnottertail

N0's argument is the contrapositive to an argumentum ad populum.

Gotta take things to the next level, ya know?

Now if I can just get more acolytes to jump on my Sex God du Jour bandwagon, I can meet the speed-threshold to make my deification real!



lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:01:46 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

argumentum ad populum

[:D]
So, aside from the humorous declaration of using one after parading one out yourself, you still want to discuss false dichotomies rather than substantiate the more profound traits of the deity you wish so fervently to be real?


Whats with all the misrepresentations ? Where did I ever use an argument ad populum?



eyesopened -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:01:50 AM)

God is that personal source of inner strength, courage, inspiration, immagination, and will that seems to spring from nowhere at those times when we really need it.  As such it is personal and indefinable to others.  God is god on a strictly personal level, as definable as thought itself.

My god is my god and cannot be anyone else's god.  God is a form of energy that we know exists but have not yet given any specific scientific name to.  Physicists are aware of this energy and have not defined it.  Some people may have given it the term 'god'. 

God's existance is so hotly debated because god exists personally not universally.  My thoughts cannot be your thoughts therefore my thoughts do not exist universally but universally we can agree that thoughts themselves are real.  As real as my thoughts are (but so pooly expressed) they can never be yours.  Your thoughts can never be mine.  Is that such a bad thing?

I find it most interesting that according to Moses "god" indentified him(its)self simply as "I Exist".  One can either accept that or not and it changes nothing.



FullCircle -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:02:01 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Rule
I know this crazy USA woman, catholic, fishing for souls in Amsterdam. I haven't heard from her since I told her that I had concluded that Leonardo da Vinci showed Jesus eating the brain of John the baptist in his painting of the last supper. Leonardo knew he existed, Ron.

How in good conscience could she continue with her extreme beliefs once she was made to realise Jesus was a brain eater?



NihilusZero -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:02:50 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

What point? All you did was completely ignore what I wrote, and create a straw man. Where did I say that genetic mutations are unlikely?

Please come out from the footnotes. We're not talking about minor gray areas that you can dichotomize.

ID. The entire concept. The presumption that the improbability of something must indicate sentient design (as if non-sentient design wasn't all over the place).



mnottertail -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:04:04 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

argumentum ad populum

[:D]
So, aside from the humorous declaration of using one after parading one out yourself, you still want to discuss false dichotomies rather than substantiate the more profound traits of the deity you wish so fervently to be real?


Whats with all the misrepresentations ? Where did I ever use an argument ad populum?



You must have me blocked................LOL.  You used it to me.  It was your total and entire argument to me. I also repeated it..........will someone go get it for her?

Obviously, she isn't that into me.

LOL.
Ron 



lynk09 -> RE: Define God (8/6/2009 10:04:45 AM)

quote:


GAWDDAMN girlie!!!!!! Your 'How's about the fastest growing religion in the world' is an argumentum ad populum................


Sorry, but you completely misunderstood my point there. The fact that Christianity grew so fast was a testatment to the fact that eyewitnesses saw something supernatural. It grew into a worldwide religion much, much later. So my argument had nothing to do with "many people believed it, therefore it's true".

However, saying "virtually everyone rejects 7Q5 and therefore it should be rejected" is argument ad populum.



Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875