For my Christians Friends

[stu]

Quote from I am...:

The very idea that love is wanting of something it cannot be is what gives rise to this world as a fantasy in the Son's mind. Thanks to this fantasy, the Son now has the impossible: unlimited love AND...drumroll please...limited love! The invariable predicament is internal mental conflict. Both cannot be true, so the attempt to have both is untrue...resulting in the experience of only the untrue. This leaves us with Gilbert...on the other hand.

Gilbert's world is logical indeed. And so are the son's of Gilbert. But they are not exactly sane sons.

Jesus

erm DerekD
would you please call security.

 

[volente_00]

Quote from DerekD:

However, as I stated before, the ideas came from first observing the material world, not the other way around. EVERYTHING is first born of observation.

Concept of Gods? In all probability came first from observing phenomena and nature but being unable to define it and its cause. It wasn't the other way around in which you are trying to posit. It didn't simply start "in the mind." Something has to prompt the thought to begin with. There are things which don't even cross our minds today that are sure to cross our minds in the future. But those thoughts will come from first observing something we hadn't observed before.

We don't conjure things up out of thin air lest they be undefinable even to ourselves. Is it any wonder why all gods to date are anthropomorphic of ourselves or things in nature?

How did the idea come from observation when there were no means to even view what was thought of having a possibility to exist ?


How is that any different from observing natural phenomena and getting an idea that there is a possibility that there is a creator or designer behind it ?

 

[volente_00]

Quote from stu:

I can post my test.

And you demonstrated that you are nothing more than an expert in ad hominem.

So what are you scared of ?

Post your simple test or STFU.

 

[volente_00]

Quote from stu:

.....then would I be correct in understanding, you do not have faith in God as a fact?

I have faith that there is a creator/ designer / something more out there.

Do I have proof of existence ? No.


Do you have proof that everywhere has been examined in search of proof ? No.


I place faith in what I believe just as you place faith in what those in science tell you from their theoretical explanations of phenomena.

 

[volente_00]

Quote from I am...:

What would you call the practice of distinquishing truth from illusion?

knowledge assimilation

 

[volente_00]

I came here with an open mind thinking perhaps atheist actually had an argument based on facts and proof. After 2 plus weeks of circular logic and zero facts to support their assertion, I have no choice to conclude that debating with narrow close minded people with limited thinking capabilities is about as fun as watching paint dry. The only right choice through logical reasoning is agnostic. The other 2 extremes are based on nothing more than faith and opinions. To each his own. Carpe diem




Until me meet again


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLbefwHpaZQ

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from volente_00:

...Religion is man made therefore it will always be naturally flawed. The same holds true for science.

Okay, fair enough, but which is likely to be more flawed? Critical, systematic thinking or blind faith?

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from volente_00:

...The only right choice through logical reasoning is agnostic. The other 2 extremes are based on nothing more than faith and opinions...

Not exactly. If you are prepared to be agnostic about the existence of a supernatural god, then it only follows that you should be equally agnostic about Russell's celestial teapot, fairies and so on, because no one has definitively proven that none of these don't exist. If you wish to define yourself as agnostic on every figment of anyone's imagination that cannot be disproven, then yours is an open mind indeed.

And please don't equate religion and science in any way whatsoever. One relies on critical thinking while the other relies on the suspension of critical thinking. The two could not be more different.

 

[TraderZones]

Quote from stu:

You've offered not one piece of rational information or counter evidence to alter the obvious mistake you've made, after cutting & pasting Max Planck’s words.

Are you REALLY that naive????? that if you continue to talk, that somehow replaces the need for saying something useful?

I said clearly:

The fact that I am both means I know which is far more important

The fact that you likely aren't says that you are unequipped to form intelligent or rational comments in this area, except a continuous stream of textual diarrhea.

An expert witness, is someone who knows about the topic. I am both. A clueless witness, is someone who talks, but knows little about the topic. You are neither

sorry, blind man, but so far, STU is only short for STUpid.

Now, this time, try to say something intelligible. SO far, you keep asking for evidence, but provide none yourself.

 

[Turok]

Quote from volente_00:

If one believes in a creator/ designer , then that creator/designer created/designed everything in existence, from birds to bees, and even the hydrologic cycle. What is supernatural about praying for rain to a creator of the hyrdologic cycle ?

Well, if you're happy with the normal hydrologic cycle, there's no need whatoever to request special treatment. But you're obviously not praying for the normal hydrologic cycle to be continued ... there's been no rain. You're asking him to interupt the normal cycle (supernatural act).

If you don't grasp that when you pray for rain or pray for rescue from a flood or you pray to be cured from cancer or you pray ... ... ... you are praying for a supernatual act, you're so far gone even prayer can't help you.

JB