It is currently Fri Aug 17, 2018 2:27 pm


The forum is READ ONLY. Please direct any future discussions to our Facebook page


 Page 7 of 9 [ 122 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Is God With Us??
PostPosted: Wed May 07, 2008 4:57 pm 
AA Warrior
AA Warrior

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 532
I can wait.



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is God With Us??
PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2008 11:09 am 
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:52 pm
Posts: 48
Valience wrote:
I can wait.


Yer but for how long??



_________________
Sorry if there are spelling mistakes in this post it not my fault. . . . . . . .
RΣDSKüLL
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is God With Us??
PostPosted: Thu May 08, 2008 12:59 pm 
AA Warrior
AA Warrior

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 532
As long as he cares to take... I'm not going to lose my mind over some theist not debating with me. What sort of question is that?



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is God With Us??
PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2008 7:48 pm 
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 16
Valience,
I am no professor. HA. I'm just a simple blue collar worker trying to get along. I guess you can say I take Christianity seriously and also the opposing views. I do my homework. Regarding your age: I never would have guessed you were 15. I hear the same agument from college philosophy professors. I am not sure you want to consider that as a complement.

Valience wrote:
I'm not going to lose my mind over some theist not debating with me.


Are you kidding me? I have given you more than you ever expected and all I get in return is "That's just the way it is."
I am still waiting for some kind of answer from an atheist to the most simple questions that I am asking. You and I don't reject the laws of logic but how do you justify them? How do you account for them? How do you account for the uniformity of nature? How do you account for ethical norms?

I think it is quite odd that you claim to reject morality and ethical norms but yet you continue to make moral judgments.

Are you really an atheist? I ask because I know that there are many people who call themselves christians but in reality they aren't. They don't live like christians. Perhaps it's just tradition to them or it is a means to an end or just a social pressure. I don't hesitate to call their bluff. Just because you claim to be something doesn't mean you are. Just because you call yourself an atheist doesn't mean you are one. Now in order for us to know if someone claiming to be a christian is a christian we need to know something about what christians do and think and live. Of course, the one place to know what a christian is and does is the Bible. Seems pretty simple right?

Well, lets apply this to an atheist. How do we know what an atheist is? How does an atheist think and live. Where do you find this information. Science? Your brain? Someone elses brain? Mother nature? Lets go with science. That seems to be one of your choice cuts. The problem is that this view says we are all molecules in motion and survival of the fittest and random processes. If I am to be an atheist why would I use ethical norms, why would I care about the survival of other humans? Why would I expect the future to be like the past? If an atheist is assuming and applying ethical norms, human dignaty, uniformity of nature etc, etc, then is he really an atheist?

Now in my simple argument that you think is weak, I proposed that atheism can't account for anything that has to do with human experience. On the positive side, I claim that Christianity provides the necessary preconditions for intellegible experience. In defending Atheism you beg the question. Then you defend begging the question dispite condemning (there's an ethical judgement) christians for begging the question. In order for you to make a case for atheism you assume the very things atheism rejects. Reason doesn't justify itself yet you use it with meaning and purpose dispite the atheistic claim that brains or minds are nothing more than chemical recations and the result of random evolutionary processes. Why do Atheist treat their thoughts about God or their mother any different than they treat their farts? I find it ironic that the atheist boasts of being "free thinkers" yet their thoughts are biologically and chemically produced. That's like calling the steam from the boiling water "free". Can any steam be not free? Can any thoughts be not free?

I have been very simple and basic appealing to your everyday experience (like buying milk) to demonstrate my argument.
If you have questions I can answer them, but if all you have is ridicule then why do you debate (or claim to debate)? If your belief in atheism is not based on anything other than emotions or social pressures then you got me fooled.

The ball is still in your court. Prove me wrong. If you continue to beg the question I will only reply by referencing you to read the "buying milk" post.

Caslow


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is God With Us??
PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2008 9:05 pm 
AA Warrior
AA Warrior

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 532
I've not been begging the question. I've responded to you, and you seem to be ignoring my reasoning.

Quote:
and I don't reject the laws of logic but how do you justify them? How do you account for them? How do you account for the uniformity of nature? How do you account for ethical norms?


As I've already said and you acknowledged, I don't believe there is any absolute for any ethical norms. They are a product of evolution, and vary from place to place and person to person.

And you must recognize that it is impossible to justify logic using logic without begging the question. I have pointed that out multiple times. It simply cannot be done. I could come up with a brilliant argument, but you'd always be able to say that simply using any sort of rational argument is begging the question. It cannot be done! The fact of the matter is, it is impossible to justify reason in any context at all, from a religious or atheist stand point.

I would love to justify reason, but the act of justification involves using reason, so petitio principii is unavoidable. And it is impossible for you to justify logic as well, for the same reason. You could say that logic exists because god wants it to exist, but in saying that, you imply that there needs to be an explanation, which goes back to your confidence in reason, and so you likewise beg the question.

I assume that reason works because of its usefulness. I see it working in the world around me, and it helps me anticipate what come's next, which improves quality of life. Quality of life is an evolutionary issue. Of course, basing one's beliefs off one's experiences, again, implies reason.

Quote:
I think it is quite odd that you claim to reject morality and ethical norms but yet you continue to make moral judgments.


I don't think I'm making that many, and those I do make, I've already explained. I am human, and therefore possess an instinct for morality. That does not mean that such a thing as morality exists, but it explains why I, and humans in general, act as if it does.

Quote:
Are you really an atheist? I ask because I know that there are many people who call themselves christians but in reality they aren't. They don't live like christians. Perhaps it's just tradition to them or it is a means to an end or just a social pressure. I don't hesitate to call their bluff. Just because you claim to be something doesn't mean you are. Just because you call yourself an atheist doesn't mean you are one. Now in order for us to know if someone claiming to be a christian is a christian we need to know something about what christians do and think and live. Of course, the one place to know what a christian is and does is the Bible. Seems pretty simple right?


If an atheist is one who denies the existence of god, I am an atheist. Further, I believe that if I god did exist, he would contradict morality. Note that I can say this because, though I don't believe in morality, such a thing as morality would exist if any god existed. And yes, I do see loads of Christians out there who don't know how many apostles there were. It's sad, because they tell me I'm going to hell, and I can just respond in kind...

Quote:
If I am to be an atheist why would I use ethical norms, why would I care about the survival of other humans? Why would I expect the future to be like the past? If an atheist is assuming and applying ethical norms, human dignaty, uniformity of nature etc, etc, then is he really an atheist?


Yes! He is a human atheist. He is one who is conscious that there is no god, or so he believes, but who still posseses human instincts, and is compelled to follow them.

Quote:
Now in my simple argument that you think is weak


Actually, you're argument is the best I've ever received from any Christian's. Most of them just crumble, and fall back on the bible, saying that god is infallible and god says that god exists, so he must. I said that it was flawed, which is something different. Relatively speaking, it is not bad.

Quote:
Christianity provides the necessary preconditions for intellegible experience.


Again, I'd just like to point out that your argument, like any other argument, uses reason, which neither of us can justify. It is an extremely simple thing to prove that reason cannot be proven, so I ask that you stop telling me that I'm begging the question whenever I use reason. It is impossible not to use reason in a debate, so it is therefore not to beg the question. I try to beg the question as infrequently as possible.

Quote:
Then you defend begging the question dispite condemning (there's an ethical judgement) christians for begging the question.


Actually, there's a difference between saying that someone's logic is wrong and saying that one is immoral. I'm not making any sort of ethical judgement, I'm just saying that the argument is flawed.

Quote:
Why do Atheist treat their thoughts about God or their mother any different than they treat their farts?


Please! You must not be so ignorant of evolution.

Quote:
I find it ironic that the atheist boasts of being "free thinkers" yet their thoughts are biologically and chemically produced.


You know, now that you point it out, I think it is rather amusing. I like it. Of course, it does not change the fact that atheist brains often rely on their own intelligence rather than simply listen and believe others without much reason (not saying all Christians do this, but many do).

I think I'll remember that one though. It's rather funny and ironic.

Quote:
If you have questions I can answer them, but if all you have is ridicule then why do you debate (or claim to debate)? If your belief in atheism is not based on anything other than emotions or social pressures then you got me fooled.


Then you really must not be getting my argument. American society, made up mostly of Christians, seems to be largely of the belief that all atheists are going to burn in hell. I am an atheist based on reason and experience, as I've reiterated many times.

And we're still back where we started. I think I've made some decent points, but you've just dismissed all of them as begging the question, which they really aren't. I've explained why people can be emotional. I've explained why people act as if there is such a thing as morality.

In conclusion, let's go back to reason.

First: All arguments that are "justified" are justifed by reason. That's given. Reason is what people engaged in debate use to support their arguments.

Second: Using an assumption to justify itself is begging the question.

So justifying reason uses reason, and is therefore begging the question. When you justify anything including a belief in god, you STILL use reason, and because no one can justify reason, you beg the question as much as I.

Reason is going to be a constant in any debate. With both accept it, so just why do you keep harping about it? It's ok for you to use reason, but not me? Why? If you call what I'm doing begging the question, then everyone begs the question whenever they debate and whenever they use reason. You must understand this!

This is the way I see it: We both believe in reason. There's no sense in debating that. I don't believe in god, and you do. That is what we should be debating.

Now, reason does not imply god, so far as I can see, and evidence does not support it either. So I ask you now, why should I believe in god? You have yet to answer that with a response that cannot be explained away with reason, which not only I, but also you support. And if you do not support it, we cannot debate.

You're attacks on atheism are not difficult to defend, but you've still not done a thorough job defending your religion.

Really all we've established so far is that reason must be accepted in debate, if you are even willing to agree with that. I've been saying that the whole time, but you keep harping on it.

And by the way, if you disagree with my argument that there is no evidence of god, please don't tell me that my argument is based in emotion. It's not. It's based on what I see. Instead, please supply counter examples rather than attacking my personality.


Last edited by Valience on Fri May 09, 2008 9:09 pm, edited 1 time in total.


_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is God With Us??
PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2008 9:08 pm 
Site Admin
Site Admin
User avatar

Joined: Wed Feb 19, 2003 12:17 pm
Posts: 2619
Is this thread STILL going?

Here is a curve to throw into it. I got this article from a UFO Mailing list I got added to since I host their sites.

Forgot a credit:
George A. Filer http://www.ufofiler.com Please visit the website and explore some of opportunities
Quote:
Colony Earth and the Dolichocephaloids

Attachment:
image023.jpg
image023.jpg [ 30.53 KiB | Viewed 4765 times ]


From Museo De National. Lima, Peru

"Francis Crick, the discoverer of DNA, subscribed to the theory of intelligent design, that our universe was not simply the result of a series of chemical accidents. He states, “Life did not evolve first on Earth, a highly advanced civilization became threatened so they devised a way to pass on their existence."

The Bible refers fourteen times to giants who lived prior to the flood that were called Nephilim, or, as Genesis, Chapter 6, describes them as those, “Who Have Come Down, from the Heaven to Earth.” Archaeologists and anthropologists have discovered a distinct "race" of people who died off during the last several thousand years, but were leaders in civilizations in Peru, Samaria, Malta, India, and Egypt in the past. There are questions whether they represent a pre-human evolutionary lineage, alien intervention, or some unknown civilization.

Attachment:
image024.jpg
image024.jpg [ 35.55 KiB | Viewed 4766 times ]


Possible UFO in ancient French Cave

If you make the assumption the UFOs in our skies represent visitors from another world the actual recorded history of mankind starts making more sense. We are provided with a detailed history of cavemen whose advanced technology was art paintings and various flint stone knives and spears. Then suddenly mankind is constructing cities including sophisticated pyramids that engineers claim could not be duplicated today.

The Egyptian historical records state the gods called Ptah or Osiris who came to Earth from space gave knowledge to write and build was passed onto the common people in a master to initiate relationship. These gods are almost always represented as having exceedingly large heads. They taught engineering and religion to the common people. Often serving as priests and kings we discover a race of people with extremely large heads known as Dolichocephaloids.

Attachment:
image026.jpg
image026.jpg [ 14.64 KiB | Viewed 4766 times ]


Ramses II at Abu Simbel’s rock bluff showing elongated heads

It happens the Martian gravity is much less than our own and that a high speed train or aircraft could easily launch into space. It also possible aliens traveled from another planet to Earth. If we assume an expedition arrived from Mars or some other planet 5000 years ago, they would land among cavemen with limited technological ability. Almost overnight metals were mined and forged, pottery was made, crops were planted, writing, symbols and religion were taught to caveman. Ancient writings repeatedly claim the Gods came from space providing this education.

There is plausible logic that Akhenaten was genetically related to the visitors. Assuming the aliens were from Mars or another planet, they would likely bring a belief system, and engineering knowledge with them. On Mars we have located structures such as pyramids, symbols such as Y,E,G,^, on a regular basis. I suggest that these symbols found both on Mars and Earth suggest this knowledge was brought to Earth. The aliens with greater technological knowledge would certainly become the key leaders in the ancient world probably mating with the natural native leaders. Dolichocephalic skulls may have gradually reduced in size and prominence as intermarriage between the two continued. Royalty through the ages has declared divine right, the right of Kings to kill their subjects.

Attachment:
image028.jpg
image028.jpg [ 9.43 KiB | Viewed 4763 times ]


The leaders possessing the advanced knowledge are known to us as Wira Kocha, Quetzalcoatl, Yahweh, Kukulcan, Osiris, Sargon of Agade, and Pharaohs such as Akhenaten who believed in one god. These leaders generally claimed the right to lead because they were the children of the gods and had the Divine Right to rule and choose who could live or die. They ordered the, temples, and cities to be constructed. These pyramids may have had a purpose unknown to us today such as a power station as proposed by mechanical engineer Christopher Dunn who reverse-engineered the Great Pyramid at Giza to discover its use. He claims the Giza Pyramid is a technological remnant of a highly advanced pre-historic civilization? His startling conclusions destroy the traditional Egyptologist notion that it was built with copper tools by a society that lacked the wheel.

Attachment:
image029.jpg
image029.jpg [ 28.05 KiB | Viewed 4765 times ]


Dunn shows proof that giant stones were cut with machined tools and saws

Christopher Dunn sees the pyramid as the power source that fueled a great civilization using the technology of harmonic resonance. The author shows how the pyramid's numerous chambers and passageways were positioned with deliberate precision to maximize its acoustical qualities. This may be the same technology discovered by Nikola Tesla and the solution to our own clean energy needs. I ask where did primitive man suddenly gain the social organization, technology and workmanship to build the pyramids. Today engineers will admit with modern machinery they would have a difficult time erecting duplicates.



_________________
My Blog: http://tarnusharten.aatraders.com
My Tech Blog: http://www.bswebdev.com
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is God With Us??
PostPosted: Fri May 09, 2008 9:11 pm 
AA Warrior
AA Warrior

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 532
Rofl!!! I want to see what Mcaslow says to that.



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is God With Us??
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:10 am 
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 16
valience,

I am convinced that you just don't get my argument.

Let us take one step at a time. The Uniformity Of Nature.

How do you account for this? You assume it every day in your life. You never second guess that when you pour the milk on your cerial that the milk will come out the way it did yesterday. Now, my faith accounts for that. Christianity holds that God created the world and created it with order and He governs it and sustains it.

Of course your going to say, "evolution made it this way" or "what happens in the past will be the bases for what happens in the future." But that begs the question. I know you don't like me to say that but it's true. No atheist can give an answer to that question. The very fact that you assume uniformity without question shows that you are borrowing from the christian worldview. You are living like as if order and uniformity exist proving the christian is justified.

So with the one step at a time approach, I hope it will be easier for you to understand my argument.
caslow


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is God With Us??
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:53 am 
AA Warrior
AA Warrior

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 532
I've understood it the whole time, and I don't you haven't understood my response.

The laws of physics pull the milk down (gravity). The laws of physics are based on reason. So it all comes back to reason. Now you will ask me to justify reason. I have already explained that that is impossible to justify using reason, because justifications use reason.

So I can explain it using reason, but I can't explain reason.

Now, are you going to attack reason? I don't think you want to do that, because it undermines your argument as well.

I'll explain how from the beginning if you don't get it. It's not long. That milk needs a reason to fall down implies logic. You suggest that logic works because God made the world that way. Now you're supplying a reason why logic works. That's using reason and logic. You are literally using logic to justify logic, it's just not as obvious, because you use god as the middle man. You beg the question yourself. We all beg the question when we come to logic. With or without god it is impossible to justify logic because logics is what justifies things, and we can't use an assumption to justify itself without begging the question.

So again, you either accept logic without question whether you're a Christian or an atheist, or you have nothing. Without reason, you can't debate, you can't even pretend to know anything. The world, as you see it, falls apart, into chaos.

And I'll also point out that without reason, there is no god, because god himself is a justification, and explaination of the world and why the way things are the way they are. Without acceptance of reason, there can be no justification, only acceptance.

So, here is where we are.

We both accept reason. You also accept god, but I do not. Your argument is that God explains reason, while, without god, I cannot justify reason, but you beg the question as much as me. You simply hide your petitio principii behind god, the middle man in your argument.

I have also shown that without reason we can have no thought, and certainly no debate. So we both must accept reason. We both need it, and neither of us can justify it.

So now we both have reason, the argument you've been using so far is gone and you need another, and you still have not justifed god. You've tried to say that without god there can be no reason, but that doesn't hold water, because even with god you beg the question. You must find another way to defend your point.

I can explain just about anything you throw at me with reason, but you still have not been able to use reason to explain god. And without using reason, by the way, the only way you can explain him is to beg the question again.

So you see, I only beg the question when I have to. It is impossible not to beg the question when it comes to reason, because in attempting to explain reason, we strip ourselves of the only method of explaination: reason. But theists beg the question when it comes to god as well. This is easy to avoid; just don't believe in god.



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is God With Us??
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2008 11:36 am 
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 16
wow.

You can't defend or justify reason then you say that my reasoning for the existance of God is not allowed. Brilliant. IF you can't justify reason then you can't justify anything. Not your own reasoning nor mine but you insist that you are right and i am wrong. That is unjustifiable.

Valience wrote:
The laws of physics are based on reason.
who's reason? yours? mine? a group?

come on val. Reason is not my source of knowledge. I do justify reason and sensation and knowledge. you can't. You only beg the question. Look at your worldview. Look at mine. As I said before, Atheistic principles undermine intellegable experience. How in a random chance world do you have order etc.

Please answer my question about the uniformity of nature. If I held the view that you hold that reason is the altimate authority then of course I would be begging the question. But I don't accept reason as my sole altimate authority. I don't accept Science as my altimate authority. Christians don't have the problem you have with reason and everything else basic to intellegable experience. You yourself have said that reason is fallable. So why do you accept it without question as an authority?

Again, from an atheistic worldview, how do you account for anything? I know you don't like this but what else can I do?
Can you imagine if I believed that computers just existed? They weren't created or designed. I can't account for the programming in the computer but I simply accept it as true. In fact I would argue that it originated by chance. How does chance produce anything?

Look at your presuppositions. Be consistant with them. If you believe in the uniformity of nature how does chance and chaos and randomness comport with it?

I have no problem sticking with step 1 for a while.

caslow


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is God With Us??
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2008 1:08 pm 
Newbie
Newbie
User avatar

Joined: Tue Apr 08, 2008 12:52 pm
Posts: 48
mcaslow wrote:
valience,

I am convinced that you just don't get my argument.

Let us take one step at a time. The Uniformity Of Nature.

How do you account for this? You assume it every day in your life. You never second guess that when you pour the milk on your cerial that the milk will come out the way it did yesterday. Now, my faith accounts for that. Christianity holds that God created the world and created it with order and He governs it and sustains it.

Of course your going to say, "evolution made it this way" or "what happens in the past will be the bases for what happens in the future." But that begs the question. I know you don't like me to say that but it's true. No atheist can give an answer to that question. The very fact that you assume uniformity without question shows that you are borrowing from the christian worldview. You are living like as if order and uniformity exist proving the christian is justified.

So with the one step at a time approach, I hope it will be easier for you to understand my argument.
caslow


i know this was towards val but im gunna jump in here, about the milk faith in god or the companys that make it also the used by date that helps alot in knowing about how your milk will come out.

evoultion has and still is happening we evoled from apes Many of the similarities between humans and apes derive simply from the structural similarity of their skeletons. Given any animal that is partially upright, with grasping hands on its forelimbs, there may just be one optimal way to design the rest of the organs. For example, such an animal will need extra intelligence to control its hands. It will also tend to be flexible and adaptible, and not so tied to the seasons as other animals are; thus it is more reasonable to have a reproductive cycle that permits offspring at any time of year, rather than only at certain seasons. Thus much of the genetic similarity may simply be a result of structural similarity.

lol over 100 post woooo



_________________
Sorry if there are spelling mistakes in this post it not my fault. . . . . . . .
RΣDSKüLL
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is God With Us??
PostPosted: Sat May 10, 2008 10:22 pm 
Forum Roamer
Forum Roamer

Joined: Sat Aug 16, 2003 9:57 am
Posts: 58
Redskull wrote:
evoultion has and still is happening we evoled from apes Many of the similarities between humans and apes derive simply from the structural similarity of their skeletons.


The following are the 6 forms of evolution :

1. Cosmic evolution - The origin of time, space and matter. Commonly known as the "Big Bang."
2. Chemical evolution - The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution - The origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic evolution - The origin of life from inanimate matter.
5. Macro-evolution - The origin of major organisms.
6. Micro-evolution - The variations within organisms, 'species' if you will.

Only one of those 6 has been observed in action : micro-evolution. The other 5 are assumed/theorized. They have, as of yet, never been duplicated on any scale, artificially or otherwise. So assuming micro-evolution to the highest extreme (apes into humans) where did the apes come from? Where did the 'life' come from? One of these 6 has been observed (in the variations of generations of insects and arachnids) the rest are just another form of religion. At least that's what Kent Hovind believes... to those that know him he's been called the "liar for jesus." However, if you have proof to back up evolution there's a pretty penny in it for you (25,000,000 pennies to be exact.) Check out his offer at http://www.drdino.com/articles.php?spec=67

MCaslow wrote:
The simple proof for the existance of God is the Impossibility of the contrary. Nothing but the God of the bible can account for intelligable experience. Without this God you can't know anything. You can 't prove anything.


Mr. Caslow's justification : Without God, nothing is possible

Look through this thread at the ammount of times, against both Mr. Caslow and myself you have said "impossible" Valience. Mr. Caslow and any Christian doesn't base his knowledge of God because knowledge of God is something that every Christian can feel in their heart. Knowledge of God precedes everything, even reason or knowledge of self.

Your argument uses reason as a support, but nothing as a keystone, so your argument crumbles. Mr. Caslow's argument however uses reason as a support and God as a keystone. At least, that's why I believe, I don't pretend to be able to keep up with Mr. Caslow, I got to have 2 years of that fact rubbed in my face. If you think he's a good debater, you should see him pick office supplies.



_________________
By reading this post you've just been made a better person...


...you're welcome.
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is God With Us??
PostPosted: Sun May 11, 2008 2:58 am 
AA Warrior
AA Warrior

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 532
To be honest, I'm really getting tired of this. You're just being stubborn.

Quote:
You can't defend or justify reason then you say that my reasoning for the existance of God is not allowed.


Yes, because you're supplying a reason for god existing. That's using logic. That's not allowed if reason is not allowed.

Quote:
who's reason? yours? mine? a group?


What we know of physics is based on a group, yes, of scientists and mathematicians.

Quote:
I do justify reason


No, you don't. You say logic exists because that's the way God designed the universe, but by doing that, you're giving a reason. You're implying that there should be a reason, which assumes reason. You beg the question as much as anything I've said.

Quote:
Atheistic principles undermine intellegable experience. How in a random chance world do you have order etc.


No, they don't undermine anything. And we don't live in this "random chance" world you keep repeating. Things aren't just random, they're controlled by the laws of physics.

Quote:
Please answer my question about the uniformity of nature.


I already have.

Quote:
Christians don't have the problem you have with reason


I have no problem with it, though you seem to think I do. And of course you don't, you just accept the stuff.

Quote:
You yourself have said that reason is fallable. So why do you accept it without question as an authority?


No, I never said that it was fallible. I said the humans could not use reason to prove reason because that was begging the question, by defintion. That's all. And just so you know, by justifying anything, including reason, you use reason. So if you're going to say that I have problems with reason, you have the same ones. Reason cannot be justified by anyone because to justify implies the use of reason. You cannot explain reason with god, because by the mere action of explaining, you use reason, and you therefore beg the question.

I accept reason because there is no alternative. Without reason, there is no explanation of anything, and there is certainly no knowledge. Reason allows knowledge, and reason never fails.

Quote:
Again, from an atheistic worldview, how do you account for anything.


With reason, which I cannot use reason to prove (begging the question) but I do see to work.

Quote:
Look at your presuppositions. Be consistant with them. If you believe in the uniformity of nature how does chance and chaos and randomness comport with it?


Where do you keep getting this chance and randomness crap? I never said anything about that. You're the one that keeps telling me that I believe that the world is pure chance. That's not the case. I think the world is governed by the laws of physics. The only chance and randomness is in Quantum Mechanics, and this randomness is univeral and predictable, probabilities are uniform and can be calculated. The occurence is random, but the probability is not, so the universality of the laws of nature is still persevered.

So I ask again, are you going to just attack reason, asking the same question, with me giving the same response? Because if you are, you're going to beg the question. Or can we move on? Really, there's not much to move on to, because as soon as you accept reason, god is just about destroyed. Reason and god are not compatible.

Ok, Tonto. I'll address your argument.

First...

Quote:
The following are the 6 forms of evolution :

1. Cosmic evolution - The origin of time, space and matter. Commonly known as the "Big Bang."
2. Chemical evolution - The origin of higher elements from hydrogen.
3. Stellar and planetary evolution - The origin of stars and planets.
4. Organic evolution - The origin of life from inanimate matter.
5. Macro-evolution - The origin of major organisms.
6. Micro-evolution - The variations within organisms, 'species' if you will.


Those aren't really the "forms" of evolution. Those are mostly all independent theories each with "evolution" in its name. When I refer to evolution, I mean micro and macro evolution, along with organic evolution. Those are more or less Darwin's theory.

The others I also think are correct, but those aren't what I refer to as evolution, and also have played a very minor role in the debate so far.

Quote:
So assuming micro-evolution to the highest extreme (apes into humans) where did the apes come from? Where did the 'life' come from?


The obvious answer is that apes came from the next organism down the line. It'd actually probably be multiple organisms for different types of apes, but there was some sort of animal that they came from. "Life" itself began on a microscopic scale. Basically, some chemicals happened upon each other and formed a sort of organic compound, not even of the complexity of bacteria, I would imagine. This began to replicate itself. It would have been of such an amazingly simple scale, it would really be more a question of chemistry than biology, but anyway, as this occured, the system accumulated complexities and evolved, envtually into bacteria, then to planckton, for example, and zoo planckton, and then perhaps small fish, and so on and so forth.

Quote:
God is something that every Christian can feel in their heart.


My turn to play the self-deceit card. It's your imagination. You know no god, you just think you do. I can't convince you otherwise, of course. You know what you feel, and I'm not saying you don't feel the presence of some god in your heart. But I'm telling you that I'm certain that it's just you subconsciously deciding to feel this. It's a product of both evolution and social pressure.

Quote:
Your argument uses reason as a support, but nothing as a keystone, so your argument crumbles.


My argument uses reason as a keystone. Reason cannot be proven using reason, just as god cannot be proven using god. His "keystone" is no weaker than mine. He either begs the question directly by using god to justify god, or he begs it indirectly by using reason to justify god, and then using god to justify reason. It's still flawed.



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Is God With Us??
PostPosted: Sun May 11, 2008 12:58 pm 
Newbie
Newbie

Joined: Wed Apr 30, 2008 9:27 am
Posts: 16
Valience wrote:
Not at all. I've seen evidence that it's round.


Now what is your position? Reason is the altimate source of knowledge or Emperisism? You appeal to science but then claim reason is the only way to know anything. Is reason the only way to know anything? As I have said before, I reject that view.

On April 24 4:24pm you wrote: "I don't believe god exists, but that is impossible to argue". Why do you defend something you find impossible to argue? Why should anyone convert to atheism if there is NO argment for it?

On Thu Apr 24, 9:01 pm you wrote: "I do not think I'm wrong, but it is possible, because I am not all knowing." You're not all knowing? So do you know God doesn't exist? Or is that just the way your brain works?

On April 24, 9:01pm you wrote: "Well, it is logically impossible for a person to know that their sense is flawwed. If they did, they would immediately amend it." How can you argue against someone who believes in God? If I can't know my senses are flawed then how can I be held responcible. If you can't know that you are flawed then how can you be so dogmatic?

I have tried to point out many of the worldview problems atheists have. You seem to agree that there is no morality and no freedom of thoughts but you continue to opperate outside of those peramiters. Ought I to not believe in God? But ought has to do with morality. There is no morality in molecules. Tell me Val, is it wrong for Joe Doe to rape and kill little 9 year old Johnny? If not how do you justify it with your atheistic presuppositions?

As to your group of scientists: Do you really join them in believing life arose from non-life? That intelegence came from non-intellegence? That order came from chaos? That something came from nothing?

Nobel Prize winner George Wald (1906–1997) wrote:
"There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God. . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility. . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."

Is this your view? Is this your faith? This doesn't look like reason to me and it doesn't look like observation. Why should I convert to atheism? Why should I give up my justification for reason and empiracism and morality?

I would like to remind you of what I said before. If the God of the bible is who you think he is I wouldn't believe in him either. I am defending the Christian Faith. I too oppose the god valience is opposing in this thread. You think I am misrepresening Atheism? Tell me how chaos and randomness are not part of atheism. DO you know how the world began? How life began?
Valience wrote:
You say logic exists because that's the way God designed the universe, but by doing that, you're giving a reason. You're implying that there should be a reason, which assumes reason. You beg the question as much as anything I've said.

First of all are you are equivocating "reason" and "logic"? I never said I know God exists because of Reason (capital R). If I did what can you care since it is only the chemicals in my brain creating those thoughts (brain gas). I never said Reason is the only way to know anything. Reason is not a god to place faith in. It cannot be reliable as an ultimate source. If it is not an ultimate source then what is it? A tool. God reviels himself to man through all his faculties. I believe God exists becuase I observe his work, His love, His power, His grace, His truth. I believe in God because if I reject Him then I am reduced to ubsurdity. Nothing in this world would make sence. This is why I stress the Atheistic world view. We know how the world is. But why is it like that? To argue "the world is orderly becuase of physics" is not a good argument. I know the world is orderly too. But why? I know about physics. I think physics is a wonderful tool to discovering the amazing world God created. They atheist can practice science but he does so without justification.


Offline
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: RE: Is God With Us??
PostPosted: Sun May 11, 2008 2:36 pm 
AA Warrior
AA Warrior

Joined: Fri Apr 06, 2007 3:20 pm
Posts: 532
Quote:
Now what is your position? Reason is the altimate source of knowledge or Emperisism? You appeal to science but then claim reason is the only way to know anything. Is reason the only way to know anything? As I have said before, I reject that view.


Reason is how the universe funcitons, so it is the "ultimate," but it doesn't just give humans knowledge. We have to think for ourselves about reason, so it's not really a source a knowledge, it's something to learn about. Humans can learn about reason, but their intution may be flawed as well, so that's something else to bear in mind.

Observation follows from reason. The two compliment each other. Reason can help explain observation, but we can learn better from observation than reason. That's because humans really aren't that intelligent. Most of us can see (observe) easier than we can think (reason), so observation is relied on a lot.

Quote:
Why do you defend something you find impossible to argue? Why should anyone convert to atheism if there is NO argment for it?


No, I didn't mean atheism was impossible to support, I meant it was impossible to tell a theist that god doesn't exist. It just doen't take. You can't really argue it with them and expect them to eventually admit defeat. There is an argument for atheism, but Christians usually don't listen to it.

Quote:
I have tried to point out many of the worldview problems atheists have. You seem to agree that there is no morality and no freedom of thoughts but you continue to opperate outside of those peramiters. Ought I to not believe in God? But ought has to do with morality. There is no morality in molecules. Tell me Val, is it wrong for Joe Doe to rape and kill little 9 year old Johnny? If not how do you justify it with your atheistic presuppositions?


Well no, it really doesn't matter what you believe, since, correct, there is no morality. I just think that god does not exist, and it is enjoyable to debate, so I do it. Believe whatever you want.

And no, there is no right and wrong, but Joe Doe would be punished if I had authority because his actions would revolt my human instincts.

Quote:
As to your group of scientists: Do you really join them in believing life arose from non-life? That intelegence came from non-intellegence? That order came from chaos? That something came from nothing?


I do join with them in that, but really, there is no "life". Life in an illusion. It's just a series of extremely complex chemical reactions. I don't think order came from chaos because I think the world is still chaotic. I don't think that something came from nothing because I think we still have nothing. There is no morality, no real life, just chemical reactions, no such thing as a soul, so what is there? Nothing came from nothing.

Quote:
You're not all knowing? So do you know God doesn't exist?


No, I don't know he doesn't exist, but I don't think he does.

Quote:
How can you argue against someone who believes in God? If I can't know my senses are flawed then how can I be held responcible. If you can't know that you are flawed then how can you be so dogmatic?


You're not really responsible. I'm just trying very persistantly to convince you that your sense is flawed. And remeber, it's not because you ought to be an atheist, it's just because I get some enjoyment out of it.

Quote:
Nobel Prize winner George Wald (1906–1997) wrote:
"There are only two possible explanations as to how life arose. Spontaneous generation arising to evolution or a supernatural creative act of God. . . . There is no other possibility. Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved 120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others, but that just leaves us with only one other possibility. . . that life came as a supernatural act of creation by God, but I can’t accept that philosophy because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation leading to evolution."

Is this your view? Is this your faith? This doesn't look like reason to me and it doesn't look like observation. Why should I convert to atheism? Why should I give up my justification for reason and empiracism and morality?


I do think that "life" formed at its simplest relatively spontaneously. Louis Pasteur did not disprove that. It is impossible to disprove. We cannot return to the time of Adam, or 4.5 billion years ago to see the first bacteria forming. It cannot be disproven or proven. It's just based on reason and observation. We observe that god does not seem to exist, and reason does not support him, so creationism goes out the window. That means we need a new way of explaining what we see, so we come up with spontaneous generation. There is nothing wrong with the explanation. It makes a lot more sense than creationism, so I'm more inclined to believe it.

Quote:
This doesn't look like reason to me and it doesn't look like observation. Why should I convert to atheism? Why should I give up my justification for reason and empiracism and morality?


No, it isn't reason. This is a theory, the product of reason. This is not why you should become an atheist, it is just what you would probably believe if you were an atheist. The rest of the debate leading up to this has been why it is silly to believe in god. This is a step ahead. Not why you don't believe in god, but what you do believe since you don't believe in god.

Quote:
I would like to remind you of what I said before. If the God of the bible is who you think he is I wouldn't believe in him either. I am defending the Christian Faith. I too oppose the god valience is opposing in this thread. You think I am misrepresening Atheism? Tell me how chaos and randomness are not part of atheism. DO you know how the world began? How life began?


There are a couple things to adress here. I'll start with the second. Chaos exists in the universe, but it's not the governing force. Things do not happen for no reason because of "chaos" in the atheistic universe. Chaos itself is not really an entity, it's just perceived for the most part. There is such a thing in physics as entropy, but I don't feel like getting into that unless you want me to.

Do I know how the world and life began? No, I can't really say I know anything. I'm a human, and human brains can make errors. I think I understand how life began. As far as the Earth, yes, that too. I'm learning how the universe began. Scientists haven't quite yet resolved all that, but we're moving towards it. Just because we don't have the answer yet doesn't mean that there isn't one.

And now as to the nature of god. I just have a question for you, to clear things up.

Let's say I believe in god. Let's also say that I believe in morality, as most theists do. And let's say that I devote my life to doing good, or what I believe is good. I raise millions and millions of dollars and donate it to the needy without personal gain. I work to get vaccines to plague infested third world countries, I try to bring food to the starving, I am a pacifist and advocate peace as opposed to war, ect. However, for some reason, I reject god. I've some how gotten it into my mind that god is immoral. It doesn't matter why I think this, just that I truly believe in my heart that it is immoral to worship god, though I devote my life to being a good person.

I am positive that the god of the bible would send this person to hell. And by doing so, I think that god would prove his immorality. If God and morality does exist, morality must be defined as a person simply doing what a person believes to be right, whether it is or not. If this person rejected god, but devoted themselves to doing good, and then god accepted them into heaven, no doubt they would see the error of their ways. They would be reconciled thanks to god's mercy.

But I'm certain that would not happen. God would not simply let them into heaven because they were a good person in life. They must first ask for forgiveness. However, this person is not going to do that. This person believes in his heart that god is evil, and to beg forgiveness from an evil entity is evil as well. So, from what I know of god, this person is going to hell.

Is this not the way it is? If god would truly let such a person into heaven, then I would support god! If you were to tell me right now that god would have mercy on this person because they devoted themselves so utterly to goodness that he would let them into heaven despite their opposition to him, then I will say that the god of the bible is moral, and that if I believed in him, I would worship and embrace him. Otherwise, I maintain that if he did exist, he would be evil, but he doesn't exist.

And by the way, if you do say such a god exists, I still don't think I would believe in him, just because I don't see any physical evidence, but again, I would admit that if he did exist, he would be moral. And let's say he does exist, and is so, and I still do not believe him simply because of a lack of proof. That would qualify me for heaven if god is as I described. I try to go through life doing all the good that I can, so he should allow me into heaven. Upon reaching heaven, I will see that I have been wrong in not believing in him, and I will immediately devote myself to him.

So tell me, is this how god truly is? Is he truly merciful to all good men, or must they beg forgiveness first, which not all will do?

Finally, is the road to hell indeed paved with good intentions? If it is, god is evil. If not, god is good.

Ok, moving on.

Quote:
First of all are you are equivocating "reason" and "logic"?


Yes, I am.

Quote:
I never said I know God exists because of Reason.


No, you didn't directly say that, but allow me to explain something. You said that god must exist because it is impossible to have logic without him.

You said because. That implies reason/logic. You're begging the question, because your already using reason and logic to prove god, and then using god to support reason and logic (by saying that they exist because he made the world that way).

Quote:
Reason is not a god to place faith in.


Yes!!! Yes! You could not be more correct! Reason does not need faith. Reason needs on eyes and a brain. You must only look around you to see reason working. Not so with god. I look around me, and I see no god, though I do see one and one making two, supporting reason.

Quote:
It cannot be reliable as an ultimate source.


Here is disagree. Why not? Because it cannot justify itself without begging the question? The same is true for god. God cannot justify himself without begging the question.

Quote:
God reviels himself to man through all his faculties. I believe God exists becuase I observe his work, His love, His power, His grace, His truth.


But I see none of this.

Quote:
I believe in God because if I reject Him then I am reduced to ubsurdity.


No, you are reduced to reason, the opposite of absurdity.

Quote:
To argue "the world is orderly becuase of physics" is not a good argument. I know the world is orderly too. But why? ... They atheist can practice science but he does so without justification.


We come back to justifying reason. I'm going to explain this a little differently this time.

Justification is explaining and verifying something based on something else already known to be true. When it comes down to it, all things are justified by logic and its axioms. 1+1=2 and 2+1=3, therefore 1+1+1=2+1=3. All math is built up from these simple premises, and these premises are based on logic. It make sense for one plus one to equal two.

So, what is justifying logic? It is explaining and verifying logic based on something else already known to be true. Do you see the problem? Atheists aren't the only one with it. You can't justify everything, because you always have to have something else that you know to be true. You'd have an infinite chain of justification with no foundation. Reason is necessary as an assumed foundation, and without it all arguments, atheistic or theistic alike crumble.

You say that god must exist because without him there could be no logic, and then you are saying that logic exists because god wanted it do.

So we've got Logic -> God and God -> Logic. In your first step, you're justifying god with logic, simply assuming logic to be true without justification. Then you're justifying logic with god, but god exists, according to you, because of logic. That is, since you're justifying god with logic, without logic you couldn't justify god. But then you're using god to justify logic!

You must see how you beg the question. No one can get around it, so for the purposes of debate, we might as well accept it.



_________________
Image
Offline
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
 Page 7 of 9 [ 122 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

cron