Judge Hades Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 These sort of discussions are always pointless. If you beleive that God exists, then he does, for you. No amount of arguing will change that. But it is so much fun.
Iolo Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 Sure. Arguing on the Internet is always fun even when pointless.
Judge Hades Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 I use it as a diversion or when I am looking for inspiration for my own personal writing. You would be surprised what type of characters I have in my PnP gaming that are based on forum members.
neriana Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 I always think we're going to come to some sort of common ground. And very often there's plenty to be found - but very often people are determined not to find it. Besides, I like sharing my opinion and seeing others'; we're far too prone "keep to our own". Either way, it's a great procrastination tool.
Brother None Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 Sure. Arguing on the Internet is always fun even when pointless. OH DEAR! inXile line producer
Craftsman Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 Dont cry im bak and ready to teach. First read this. The arguments generally adduced by theologians in proof of God's existence are: The a priori argument, which is the testimony afforded by reason. The a posteriori argument, by which we proceed logically from the facts of experience to causes. These arguments are: The cosmological, by which it is proved that there must be a First Cause of all things, for every effect must have a cause. The teleological, or the argument from design. We see everywhere the operations of an intelligent Cause in nature. The moral argument, called also the anthropological argument, based on the moral consciousness and the history of mankind, which exhibits a moral order and purpose which can only be explained on the supposition of the existence of God. Conscience and human history testify that "verily there is a God that judgeth in the earth." (http://www.christiananswers.net/q-aig/aig-c038.html) When u THINK about it it is obvious that nature is not a mistake. Where eerything we know of has a start and a finish. A begining and and end. Stars and space did jsut 'exist'. Hmm. Lets see u handle this one. Or in other words how u embarrising try to justify your reasons for doubting the existence of a devine being.
chevan Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 When u THINK about it it is obvious that nature is not a mistake. Where eerything we know of has a start and a finish. A begining and and end. Stars and space did jsut 'exist'. Hmm. Lets see u handle this one. Or in other words how u embarrising try to justify your reasons for doubting the existence of a devine being. I'm assuming you're saying "Stars and space did just 'exist'." You're talking about things having a beginning and end, so I'm assuming you're talking about the same thing the whole time. If not, just correct me. I don't see things existing as evidence of a divine being. I guess nobody here reads Discover. There was a cover story a month or two back, and although I can't find the issue itself, I remember the basic details of a new theory on the universe it gave. Basically, there's two three dimensional "membranes" right next to each other. But, we can't get to the other one because we don't know how. Over a great many years (trillions, I think) the universe expands to the point where the average amount of matter is so close to zero it doesn't even matter. Around that point, ripples in the membranes would result in the two membranes touching each other, causing massive temperatures that would incinerate everything, and everything would start over again. That's the gist of it. There's a couple small technical details about the info presented that I'd need the article to get, but basically, it means that the universe is a never ending cycle. This is disputed by other scientists who stand behind the other theories, such as the Big Bang and the Big Bang/Big Crunch, but I just thought you might want to know the other theories that are out there.
chevan Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 Okay, this post is a test. I think my post counter's screwed up. Yep. For some reason, it's stuck at 4 posts.
Fionavar Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 Posting in WoT does not increase one's post count. The universe is change; your life is what our thoughts make it - Marcus Aurelius (161)
Vladek Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 What i want to know is does it matter what someone else believes, you won't be able to prove them wrong and you right, no one will change their minds becouse someone told them their god isn't the true god etc... Can't people just believe what they believe let others believe what they want to believe and when you die you'll be able to either say "Hey this is great i was right all along" or "Oh crap i've wasted my whole life i was so wrong" does it matter that someone else has a different view?
Judge Hades Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 I am all for that, but what I hate is when religious freaks come at me on the streets trying to hand me a Gideon's bible, yelling at me to repent, or discriminate those who don't share their views. Religion needs to be practiced in private. It is a private affair between the worshipper and whatever god he or she cares to worship. As long as I am left out of it I have no problems with Christians.
chevan Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 Posting in WoT does not increase one's post count. Ah. Sorry, didn't know that.
Judge Hades Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 You didn't notice the "Please Note" at the top of the page?!?! I think someone needs more caffiene.
chevan Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 Oh. That. I saw those when I first joined here, but I haven't looked at them since, and forgot about that bit. Caffeine would be nice, though. Got thirty bucks I can have so I can go buy a lot of coffee?
neriana Posted February 24, 2004 Posted February 24, 2004 Craftsmen, all those arguments start from the position that there is a God, there is a creator. I've learned them all before in my study of medieval and even pre-medieval history. They're circular. You must take their bases as fact before you can prove them. "Who made the sky?" Interesting question, but not one that makes any sense. There isn't necessarily a "who" involved. It's like loading questions while polling so you get the answers you're looking for. You can prove anything with enough rhetorical mumbo-jumbo. But you have to get people to accept your premises first. That's where you get tripped up; we do not all accept these premises. Why is it obvious that nature is not a mistake? Just because? That's no kind of argument. If you were to outline your arguments in a more detailed fashion, I'd go point-by-point.
Craftsman Posted February 26, 2004 Posted February 26, 2004 First u say that these theories of an divine being r rubbish ect. Firstly might i state that Einstein and many other famous scientists all started on theories and at the time they were laughed at and told how stupid they were. They couldn
Ronald Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 The thread was unable to contain my awesomeness and was about to explode. Unfortunately, there is no longer a record of you getting schooled by myself, but you know it, I know it, and everybody else who read the thread knows it. Have a nice day.
taks Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 When u THINK about it it is obvious that nature is not a mistake. obvious only to someone who already believes... the "design" that believers so often love to speak of is based on rules that we (humanity) invented around the system. the order that can be seen in nature is only order based on a set of rules developed around the order itself. citing design as a basis for proof of a higher power is a circular argument. nature is chaos with the appearance of order. humanity invented the concept of order only to explain the chaos. taks comrade taks... just because.
breakdancing negro Posted March 9, 2004 Posted March 9, 2004 Just because u are incapable of physically proving that God exists that does not mean that he does not. From this, I gathered the meaning -- Just because you are incapable of physically proving that God exists doesn't mean that he's non-existent So, uh, because we can't prove he exists, by default he exists? Please explain the reasoning behind this.
Atreides Posted March 10, 2004 Posted March 10, 2004 nature is chaos with the appearance of order. humanity invented the concept of order only to explain the chaos. taks As Ronald mentioned, nature's not random (that's why the Shakespeare-monkey sim's not the best example). According to evolution theory there's a form of auto-selection so it's not entirely random, so it's not all down to chaos. @Breakdancing negro: The claim that you can't disprove the existance of God doesn't prove the existance of God. Craftman's just pointing that out, although he does believe in the existance of God. Both sides are at an impasse. Spreading beauty with my katana.
taks Posted March 10, 2004 Posted March 10, 2004 As Ronald mentioned, nature's not random (that's why the Shakespeare-monkey sim's not the best example). this is actually my point... we invented the concepts of randomness, order, et. al. AROUND the system we live in. the system was defined from within the system. also, the use of the term "chaos" by me was only in the loosest sense. taks comrade taks... just because.
taks Posted March 10, 2004 Posted March 10, 2004 Just because u are incapable of physically proving that God exists that does not mean that he does not. nor does it mean he exists. the existence of a god can only be proven if he were to come down and tell us here were there (signs don't count) and even then there may be an alternate explanation. it is impossible to prove a negative, btw, i.e. it is impossible to "prove" he does not exist so that is a moot argument. taks comrade taks... just because.
Craftsman Posted March 10, 2004 Posted March 10, 2004 1: Then the angel that had been sent to me, whose name was Uriel, answered 2: and said to me, "Your understanding has utterly failed regarding this world, and do you think you can comprehend the way of the Most High?" 3: Then I said, "Yes, my lord." And he replied to me, "I have been sent to show you three ways, and to put before you three problems. 4: If you can solve one of them for me, I also will show you the way you desire to see, and will teach you why the heart is evil." 5: I said, "Speak on, my lord." And he said to me, "Go, weigh for me the weight of fire, or measure for me a measure of wind, or call back for me the day that is past." 6: I answered and said, "Who of those that have been born can do this, that you ask me concerning these things?" 7: And he said to me, "If I had asked you, `How many dwellings are in the heart of the sea, or how many streams are at the source of the deep, or how many streams are above the firmament, or which are the exits of hell, or which are the entrances of paradise?' 8: Perhaps you would have said to me, `I never went down into the deep, nor as yet into hell, neither did I ever ascend into heaven.' 9: But now I have asked you only about fire and wind and the day, things through which you have passed and without which you cannot exist, and you have given me no answer about them!" 10: And he said to me, "You cannot understand the things with which you have grown up; 11: how then can your mind comprehend the way of the Most High? And how can one who is already worn out by the corrupt world understand incorruption?" When I heard this, I fell on my face 21: For as the land is assigned to the forest and the sea to its waves, so also those who dwell upon earth can understand only what is on the earth, and he who is above the heavens can understand what is above the height of the heavens." 2 Esdras Let me know what you think of this.
taks Posted March 10, 2004 Posted March 10, 2004 a story written 5000 years ago by somebody that 1.) was an avid believer and therefore may have a skewed opinion 2.) was uneducated (by today's standards) and could easily have mistaken a visitor from an advanced civilization (local or alien) as a god 3.) a person just trying to convey a parable to better explain something he did not understand or, finally 4.) somebody with a power trip trying to control the minds of those that cannot think for themselves. SOME of the information taken out of the bible is based on historical fact but it isn't a stretch to imagine that most of it is exaggerated, or even fabricated, in order to convince the "sheep" they must follow the will of "god." sorry, stories such as this are unconvincing. oh, and the first two "problems" are now solvable... taks comrade taks... just because.
Recommended Posts