RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice?

RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (Full Version)

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

Message

Rule -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (7/28/2010 4:51:36 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: blackbelt i have a life history since i was 13, I'm also an expert in theology, spirituality , the occult, paranormal and philosophy , not to mention spiritual experience since i was a kid that i wont get into here I didn't ask for a fallacy of defective induction specifically the argument from authority. I actually want you to justify the assertions that you've made. I agree. He is merely parroting. He has no thoughts of his own.

blackbelt -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (7/28/2010 7:21:30 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Rule quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: blackbelt i have a life history since i was 13, I'm also an expert in theology, spirituality , the occult, paranormal and philosophy , not to mention spiritual experience since i was a kid that i wont get into here I didn't ask for a fallacy of defective induction specifically the argument from authority. I actually want you to justify the assertions that you've made. I agree. He is merely parroting. He has no thoughts of his own. justification comes from one who upholds it, if you do not know him, you merly have only the thoughts with in self and cannot look or understand the outter world, basically your spirtually blind.

GotSteel -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (7/28/2010 10:44:07 PM)
Is English your second language? quote: ORIGINAL: blackbelt justification comes from one who upholds it... Then justify your assertions preferably with something other than more assertions.

blackbelt -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (7/29/2010 8:06:15 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel Is English your second language? quote: ORIGINAL: blackbelt justification comes from one who upholds it... Then justify your assertions preferably with something other than more assertions. try an justify the spirit, you can only see the effect, typicle athiestic question

GotSteel -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (7/29/2010 8:59:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blackbelt try an justify the spirit, you can only see the effect, typicle athiestic question We know that plenty of things exist because of their effects, gravity for instance. We can't see it but know of it's existence because of the demonstrable effect it has. If you can demonstrate the effect of "the spirit" and if "the spirit" justifies the assertions you're making that would be a valid answer to my question.

blackbelt -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (7/29/2010 9:33:41 AM)
Gravity is a principle and Law , science basses its discoveries, theories and propisions on the Fact that Gravity never changes, someone in my belief sys, is upholding the principle of Gravity for it shows order and not chaos. Furthermore , there are many thousands of testimonies, world wide, in past and present coming into contact with His Sprit and are healed of many social, mental, spiritual and physical aspects of ones personal life . some call it mind over matter, some call it hogwash, others Know Him as God, pure is-ness, He who is, what ever one calls him, science stands on the fact that if there is an effect there must be a cause. the believer has faith the sceptic has theory take your pick a choice as in the original post will be made

mnottertail -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (7/29/2010 10:33:38 AM)
Not so, I am afraid, the science of relativity (which is despite is seeming exotic nature, is really a strictly low down and dirty fundamental physics, as in how do it know?) is that GRAVITY CHANGES EVERYTHING! If you got gravity, throw out everything you think you know, even a little bit of gravity. So from there, the analogy that follows is inept. arrigato. Ron

GotSteel -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (7/29/2010 9:16:07 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blackbelt Furthermore , there are many thousands of testimonies, world wide, in past and present coming into contact with His Sprit and are healed of many social, mental, spiritual and physical aspects of ones personal life . some call it mind over matter, some call it hogwash, others Know Him as God, pure is-ness, He who is, what ever one calls him, science stands on the fact that if there is an effect there must be a cause. the believer has faith the sceptic has theory take your pick a choice as in the original post will be made I don't quite understand what you're trying to say here. You seem to be talking about demonstrable evidence in which case there's no need for faith. If thousands of people are actually healed by "His Spirit" then we would all have knowledge based on evidence. No one would need to rely on faith. If instead your assertions are based on faith what makes them more valid then someone else's assertions? Isn't it just as valid for me to say that God is a bowl of pasta?

blackbelt -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (7/30/2010 7:25:50 AM)
mabey we should start a new thread, creationism Vs evolution I think you can see that the a bowl of pasta is both as a parody and as a being. As a parody, he fails to show that an inference to an intelligent designer of the universe is either illegitimate or unwarranted. What the parody shows is that we are not justified in attributing to our explanatory postulates arbitrary properties that are not justified by the evidence. Natural theologians have always known this. That’s why, for example, Thomas Aquinas, after his five brief paragraphs in his Summa theologiae proving the existence of a being “to which everyone gives the name ‘God’,” goes on to discuss in the next nine questions God’s simplicity, perfection, goodness, limitlessness, omnipresence, immutability, eternity, and unity. As a being, a bowl of pasta comes up drastically deficient as an explanation of those phenomena, which lie at the basis of the arguments for God’s existence. Those arguments, if all sound, as I think they are, require cumulatively a being which is the metaphysically necessary, self-existent, beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal, omnipotent, omniscient Creator and Designer of the universe, who is perfectly good, whose nature is the standard of goodness, and whose commands constitute our moral duties. The real lesson to be learned from the a bowl of pasta is that it shows how completely out of touch our popular culture is with the great tradition of natural theology. One might as well be speaking a foreign language. That people could think that belief in God is anything like the groundless belief in a fantasy monster shows how utterly ignorant they are of the works of Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, Paley, Sorley, and a host of others, past and present. In short , a bowl of pasta is great to eat , epically if prepared Italian style, but when it comes to relational values as humans are, it has failed and still fails the test.

vincentML -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (7/30/2010 7:50:00 AM)
quote: I think you can see that the a bowl of pasta is both as a parody and as a being. As a parody, he fails to show that an inference to an intelligent designer of the universe is either illegitimate or unwarranted. What the parody shows is that we are not justified in attributing to our explanatory postulates arbitrary properties that are not justified by the evidence. Natural theologians have always known this. That’s why, for example, Thomas Aquinas, after his five brief paragraphs in his Summa theologiae proving the existence of a being “to which everyone gives the name ‘God’,” goes on to discuss in the next nine questions God’s simplicity, perfection, goodness, limitlessness, omnipresence, immutability, eternity, and unity. You fail to mention that the scholastic approach Aquinas brought to reasoning the existence and nature of god was thoroughly rejected by the Evangelical revolution and it is the descendants of that revolution who are pushing the Creationism dogma based upon Faith and not reason. quote: Gravity is a principle and Law , science basses its discoveries, theories and propisions on the Fact that Gravity never changes, Natural Law is such because it has demonstrated consistency in observation. It is not of itself immutable. Just consistent and presumed reliable.

willbeurdaddy -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (7/30/2010 8:57:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blackbelt mabey we should start a new thread, creationism Vs evolution I think you can see that the a bowl of pasta is both as a parody and as a being. As a parody, he fails to show that an inference to an intelligent designer of the universe is either illegitimate or unwarranted. What the parody shows is that we are not justified in attributing to our explanatory postulates arbitrary properties that are not justified by the evidence. Natural theologians have always known this. That’s why, for example, Thomas Aquinas, after his five brief paragraphs in his Summa theologiae proving the existence of a being “to which everyone gives the name ‘God’,” goes on to discuss in the next nine questions God’s simplicity, perfection, goodness, limitlessness, omnipresence, immutability, eternity, and unity. As a being, a bowl of pasta comes up drastically deficient as an explanation of those phenomena, which lie at the basis of the arguments for God’s existence. Those arguments, if all sound, as I think they are, require cumulatively a being which is the metaphysically necessary, self-existent, beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal, omnipotent, omniscient Creator and Designer of the universe, who is perfectly good, whose nature is the standard of goodness, and whose commands constitute our moral duties. The real lesson to be learned from the a bowl of pasta is that it shows how completely out of touch our popular culture is with the great tradition of natural theology. One might as well be speaking a foreign language. That people could think that belief in God is anything like the groundless belief in a fantasy monster shows how utterly ignorant they are of the works of Anselm, Aquinas, Leibniz, Paley, Sorley, and a host of others, past and present. In short , a bowl of pasta is great to eat , epically if prepared Italian style, but when it comes to relational values as humans are, it has failed and still fails the test. No, your post fails the test. What the FSM points out is that there is every bit as much evidence to support his existence as the existence of god. As such belief in FSM and god are equally legitimate and warranted. And since belief in the FSM is patently absurd, so is belief in god.

Rule -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (7/30/2010 9:04:35 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blackbelt phenomena, which lie at the basis of the arguments for God’s existence. Those arguments, if all sound, as I think they are, require cumulatively a being which is the metaphysically necessary, self-existent, beginningless, uncaused, timeless, spaceless, immaterial, personal, omnipotent, omniscient Creator and Designer of the universe, who is perfectly good, whose nature is the standard of goodness, and whose commands constitute our moral duties. Okay, that is a better post. I agree with the boldened part, which is applicable to the Divine. The latter part, though, is not applicable to the Divine, but instead to various pagan gods.

E3 -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (7/30/2010 10:08:02 AM)
Something to think on... Science spends its time saying god(s) cannot exist. Religion spends its time trying to prove how science is wrong, and it is really the will of one or more gods. It was once apon a time, a miracle to survive influenza. An act of god really. Flying was meant only for gods creatures the birds. We live in a world, where the ancient greeks and romans asked questions they could not answer. Our science seeks answers to those questions. But we are no longer asking new questions. Well I have one. What if.. religion is the beleif in science without reason. And science, is the understanding of religion? If you had no beginnign and no end, as christians/muslims/jews believe their shared god to have, what would you come to define "a day" as? Especialy when your consciousness is not confined to one planet? A day on mercury is not the same as here. And jupiter? oh yeah. A day, is not a universal time measurement. So, prehaps, if existence was created by a single being as presented in the bible, prehaps it took seven days. Not our days. The creators days. But thats getting scientific.. and science and religion cannot blend! For the record... I'm pagan. Not christian at all. And my nature beliefes are prehaps... eaiser to understand through science, than many christian beliefs are. BUT the premis remains.. science and religion, any religion, do not need to remain as seperated as they have.

GotSteel -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (7/30/2010 11:21:07 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: E3 Science spends its time saying god(s) cannot exist. Religion spends its time trying to prove how science is wrong, and it is really the will of one or more gods. Both these statements are wrong. quote: ORIGINAL: E3 What if.. religion is the beleif in science without reason. And science, is the understanding of religion? Could you extrapolate on this statement a little?

GotSteel -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (7/30/2010 11:28:39 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: blackbelt mabey we should start a new thread, creationism Vs evolution I have no idea how you got to creationism vs. evolution, I've asked you to back up various claims you've made about the nature of god, I thought that was the discussion that we were having. However, if you want to talk about creationism especially since it seems like you're a proponent of intelligent falling, I have the perfect thread for you: http://www.collarchat.com/m_3328644/mpage_1/tm.htm Head over there and you'll be right on topic.

E3 -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (7/30/2010 11:31:10 AM)
Too often, older generations say "Gods methods cannot be understood." And sure, if there is a single God, prehaps in our life time how things are achieved, likely never would be understood. BUT what if such power isnt just a big mystical "becuase God says so" but instead, things definable by science, just simply at the moment beyond our understanding? What if "and God created life on earth" means yes, evolution was caused to happen, dinosaurs, natural existence. And eventual evolution into humanity. All scientificly understood at least on a basic, theoretical level. What if all of any "God's" powers are similarily, scientific? I mean think of Darwin and his theory of evolution. Especialy in that era, the fight of science vs religion was very prominant. I know now a days, scientists turn a blind eye to religion more often than defame it as they once did. Thats what I mean when the two things are often against each other. Yet theories of evolution and creationism are NOT contradictory if certain definitions are modified. Evoluntionists say creation took trillions of years from teh big bang to now. (I forget the actual number "existence" is said to have existed according to measurements). Creationists say from creation to the birth of humans was seven days. From my perspective, creationists have greatly adapted their standpoint away from seven literal days. But again, if there is a single "God", would not his lifespan, and not being earth based, actualy make 7 days in the perception of an immortal being, possible when the definition of days is kept lose and adapted to the time span of something as, apparently, eternal as a single "God"? Its funny I debate in favor of the existence of a single "God" and creation by him when it is actualy something I do not beleive in.

vincentML -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (7/30/2010 11:39:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: E3 Something to think on... Science spends its time saying god(s) cannot exist. Religion spends its time trying to prove how science is wrong, and it is really the will of one or more gods. It was once apon a time, a miracle to survive influenza. An act of god really. Flying was meant only for gods creatures the birds. We live in a world, where the ancient greeks and romans asked questions they could not answer. Our science seeks answers to those questions. But we are no longer asking new questions. Well I have one. What if.. religion is the beleif in science without reason. And science, is the understanding of religion? If you had no beginnign and no end, as christians/muslims/jews believe their shared god to have, what would you come to define "a day" as? Especialy when your consciousness is not confined to one planet? A day on mercury is not the same as here. And jupiter? oh yeah. A day, is not a universal time measurement. So, prehaps, if existence was created by a single being as presented in the bible, prehaps it took seven days. Not our days. The creators days. But thats getting scientific.. and science and religion cannot blend! For the record... I'm pagan. Not christian at all. And my nature beliefes are prehaps... eaiser to understand through science, than many christian beliefs are. BUT the premis remains.. science and religion, any religion, do not need to remain as seperated as they have. I would question your first premise. Science has nothing to do with god. Science is a method we use to understand Nature. It depends upon observation, hypothesis testing, and model (theory) construction. Science is not used to examine the supernatural because the supernatural by definition cannot be tested. You conflate science with atheism. Atheists say to one extent or other that god cannot exist. Agnostics say maybe/maybe not. Religion is not at all the belief in science. Lately there has been some attempt to bring the two together. The Pope accepts Darwinian Theory. The evangelicals seek the respectability of science by substituting Intelligent Design for Creationism. It is a sham. IMO it represents a stumbling of Faith when presented with the hard evidence that favors evolution by natural selection. Again imo, science and religion are irrevocably alien to one another because religion leans upon tradition, authority, and Faith. And Faith is fine, but should not be confused with science and reason.

E3 -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (7/30/2010 11:54:12 AM)
Science operates from the perspective of humanity. Our lives are extreemly limited, and so, all our perceptions are created by those limitations. How is something supernatural? I agree, supernatural cannot be defined by science. Yet human flight was once considred a supernatural and impossible thing. We achieve it now albeit in round about ways. Gravity, prehaps was one of the most obvious things considered an act of God and supernatural, yet we now understand the scientific principles of it. In our society, we do things daily that was once considered beyond hte scope of man, and in the realm of god alone. Prehaps... supernatural should be redefined to mean "things that have not yet been studied, analyzed, and explained by scientific understanding." And I REALLY wanna stop debating pro "God of Abraham"... I feel dirty. I wanna go hide in my earth religion now.

vincentML -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (7/30/2010 12:24:36 PM)
If it makes you happy to place the supernatural in a line of things we can explain through science I will not dissuade you further. Enjoy hugging your trees and rolling in the tall grass. [:)]

GotSteel -> RE: The Big Choice...or is it really a choice? (7/30/2010 12:26:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: E3 Science spends its time saying god(s) cannot exist. quote: ORIGINAL: E3 Science operates from the perspective of humanity. Science isn't a sentient being. Science can't spend it's time or operate or buy you a drink at the pub.

Page: << < prev 9 10 [11] 12 13 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.046875