Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Define God


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Define God Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Define God - 8/6/2009 9:19:20 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to lynk09)
Profile   Post #: 341
RE: Define God - 8/6/2009 9:19:36 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 342
RE: Define God - 8/6/2009 9:23:46 AM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
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.



_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to lynk09)
Profile   Post #: 343
RE: Define God - 8/6/2009 9:27:26 AM   
lynk09


Posts: 52
Joined: 8/3/2009
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 344
RE: Define God - 8/6/2009 9:28:34 AM   
Rule


Posts: 10479
Joined: 12/5/2005
Status: offline 		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?

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 345
RE: Define God - 8/6/2009 9:35:11 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		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 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 346
RE: Define God - 8/6/2009 9:41:33 AM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
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?

< Message edited by NihilusZero -- 8/6/2009 9:46:03 AM >

_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to lynk09)
Profile   Post #: 347
RE: Define God - 8/6/2009 9:46:57 AM   
lynk09


Posts: 52
Joined: 8/3/2009
Status: offline
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.

< Message edited by lynk09 -- 8/6/2009 9:51:56 AM >

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 348
RE: Define God - 8/6/2009 9:54:32 AM   
willbeurdaddy


Posts: 11894
Joined: 4/8/2006
Status: offline
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..

(in reply to lynk09)
Profile   Post #: 349
RE: Define God - 8/6/2009 9:55:52 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
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)  

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to lynk09)
Profile   Post #: 350
RE: Define God - 8/6/2009 9:58:47 AM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

argumentum ad populum


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?

_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to lynk09)
Profile   Post #: 351
RE: Define God - 8/6/2009 9:59:04 AM   
RCdc


Posts: 8674
Status: offline 		*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.)

_____________________________
RC&dc


love isnt gazing into each others eyes - it's looking forward in the same direction

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 352
RE: Define God - 8/6/2009 9:59:59 AM   
lynk09


Posts: 52
Joined: 8/3/2009
Status: offline
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?

(in reply to willbeurdaddy)
Profile   Post #: 353
RE: Define God - 8/6/2009 10:00:45 AM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
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!


_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 354
RE: Define God - 8/6/2009 10:01:46 AM   
lynk09


Posts: 52
Joined: 8/3/2009
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

argumentum ad populum


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?

(in reply to NihilusZero)
Profile   Post #: 355
RE: Define God - 8/6/2009 10:01:50 AM   
eyesopened


Posts: 2798
Joined: 6/12/2006
From: Tampa, FL
Status: offline 		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.

_____________________________

Proudly owned by InkedMaster. He is the one i obey, serve, honor and love.

No one is honored for what they've received. Honor is the reward for what has been given.

(in reply to Esinn)
Profile   Post #: 356
RE: Define God - 8/6/2009 10:02:01 AM   
FullCircle


Posts: 5713
Joined: 11/24/2005
Status: offline
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?


_____________________________

∞ ﮒuקּƹɼ ƾɛϰưϫԼ Ƨωιϯϲћ.

(in reply to Rule)
Profile   Post #: 357
RE: Define God - 8/6/2009 10:02:50 AM   
NihilusZero


Posts: 4036
Joined: 9/10/2008
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
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).


_____________________________

"I know it's all a game
I know they're all insane
I know it's all in vain
I know that I'm to blame."
~Siouxsie & the Banshees

NihilusZero.com

CM Sex God du Jour
CM Hall Monitor

(in reply to lynk09)
Profile   Post #: 358
RE: Define God - 8/6/2009 10:04:04 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

quote:

ORIGINAL: NihilusZero

quote:

ORIGINAL: lynk09

argumentum ad populum


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 

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to lynk09)
Profile   Post #: 359
RE: Define God - 8/6/2009 10:04:45 AM   
lynk09


Posts: 52
Joined: 8/3/2009
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to mnottertail)
Profile   Post #: 360
Page:   <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Define God Page: <<   < prev  16 17 [18] 19 20   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.094