traders who are deeply religious

[volente_00]

If you believe in a GOD, then all the proof you need is all around you.

 

[Thunderdog]

Quote from volente_00:

If you believe in a GOD, then all the proof you need is all around you.

Quote from volente_00:

For your sake I hope you trade better than you debate.

How I love the irony.

 

[volente_00]

prove that irony even exist.

 

[2cents]

Quote from trader28:

http://www.secret-scrolls.com/master-key-system-free.pdf

by far the most interesting contribution in this thread! thks

 

[trader28]

Quote from 2cents:

by far the most interesting contribution in this thread! thks

A discerning gentleman at last

 

[trader28]

Quote from volente_00:

prove that irony even exist.

Well its a little bit like when you call a bottom

 

[nononsense]

Quote from stu:

I agree, only I would go further considering the contention was between starving children and some sort of imaginary conjecture, I would say volente_00 's response is insensible and contemptuous.

I think religion is clearly inducing the inclination for him to defend his negligent viewpoint by goading-on the overbearing pious self-righteousness he displays and has the same shortcomings as the arrogance which inevitably ends up getting its own a$$ handed back by the markets.

Hey stu,

See ya managed to climb out of your chit-chat hole.
In these 'better' threads, don't start preaching about your belief in lill' Gilbert. As many posters here are rather well mannered, don't plaster too many obscenities around either.

nono

 

[trader28]

Quote from stu:

I agree, only I would go further considering the contention was between starving children and some sort of imaginary conjecture, I would say volente_00 's response is insensible and contemptuous.

Well in volente_00 's defence... he is an idiot

 

[trainr]

Quote from Thunderdog:

I agree that "neither side can show facts to prove existence."

That's not really true.

The problem with proving christianity and the bible true is the method of analysis. People like yourself choose the scientific method, which is like using it to analyze whether to turn the key in the ignition each time you start your car -- it's highly inappropriate. And I bet you still start your car every day without subjecting it to this ridiculous examination, in spite of the fact that car bombs have been known to explode without a hypercritical analysis.

It appears that anyone who wants an "out" has one by invoking "you can't prove it's true." It doesn't obviate your responsibility for what you know, however.

Based on rules of law used in courts every day, one can prove what you say cannot, based on the preponderance of the evidence. I refer you to Bernard Lonergan's (the great modern philosopher) "Proof of God," and Simon Greenleaf's (one of the founders of the Harvard Law School) treatise, Testimony of the Evangelists:

The great truths which the apostles declared, were that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling terrors that can be presented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teaching of his disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes imprisonments, torments and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propogate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually rose from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem amom men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come.

Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact, that they possessed the ordinary constitution of our common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for this fabrication.

The entire treatise by Simon Greenleaf

However, the onus is not on those who do not believe to prove the absence of a deity. Rather, I would think that the onus would be on those who do believe to prove that a deity does indeed exist ...

The bible says that what exists proves that God exists and seeing the world around you eliminates any possible excuse for your ignorance.

It seems to me that since you, I, and the universe obviously exist, the onus is on us to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that God does not exist, or failing to do so, to seek him for meaning.

Also, you cannot say that God exists simply because we exist and the world exists, because that is a circular argument that leads nowhere.

Also untrue. What you need to do to make that work is prove the following to be false: "all effects have causes except the ultimate cause." Since you cannot refute that statement, you can't say the ultimate cause must have a cause. Your tautology only exists when you look at the problem in a meaningless way.

In other words, it appears reasonable that there is a self-existent cause, but the world and universe as we know it don't possess this cause-less character.

Even quantum physics now recognizes that there is no reality without an observer, and that there must be an ultimate observer for there to be an ultimate reality. I refer you to Gerald Schroeder's (PhD from MIT) books about science and the bible. He proves conclusively that science and the bible are in complete agreement about the beginning of the universe, evolution, speciation, and many other things.

It is a logically baseless argument. Finally, if you refer to the Bible or any of the other holy books associated with other religions, then you need to take it literally. If you do not read it literally, it would be like reading a contract in a way that is not literal. In so doing, you can make it mean anything you want it to mean. Unless you take it literally, it will mean 10 different things to 10 different people. And that brings you nowhere.

Not sure what your point is. I agree the bible is a literal document, inspired by God, penned by more than 40 authors from all walks of life over 1500+ years in different places at different times. For the New Testament there are over 24,000 manuscripts whose textual agreement is better than 98%.

Try taking 40 different authors and ask them each to write about the same controversial subjects. See whether they create any "harmonious" set of writings, or rather a jumbled anthology.

Yet the bible starts and ends with a tree of life, a river of life, the same themes throughout, beginning with the fall of man and ending with man's eternal restoration, all in complete agreement.

I can see why you say we should take it literally.

 

[hcour]

The great truths which the apostles declared, were that Christ had risen from the dead, and that only through repentance from sin, and faith in him, could men hope for salvation. This doctrine they asserted with one voice, everywhere, not only under the greatest discouragements, but in the face of the most appalling terrors that can be presented to the mind of man. Their master had recently perished as a malefactor, by the sentence of a public tribunal. His religion sought to overthrow the religions of the whole world. The laws of every country were against the teaching of his disciples. The interests and passions of all the rulers and great men in the world were against them. The fashion of the world was against them. Propagating this new faith, even in the most inoffensive and peaceful manner, they could expect nothing but contempt, opposition, revilings, bitter persecutions, stripes imprisonments, torments and cruel deaths. Yet this faith they zealously did propogate; and all these miseries they endured undismayed, nay, rejoicing. As one after another was put to a miserable death, the survivors only prosecuted their work with increased vigor and resolution. The annals of military warfare afford scarcely an example of the like heroic constancy, patience and unblenching courage. They had every possible motive to review carefully the grounds of their faith, and the evidences of the great facts and truths which they asserted; and these motives were pressed upon their attention with the most melancholy and terrific frequency. It was therefore impossible that they could have persisted in affirming the truths they have narrated, had not Jesus actually rose from the dead, and had they not known this fact as certainly as they knew any other fact. If it were morally possible for them to have been deceived in this matter, every human motive operated to lead them to discover and avow their error. To have persisted in so gross a falsehood, after it was known to them, was not only to encounter, for life, all the evils which man could inflict, from without, but to endure also the pangs of inward and conscious guilt; with no hope of future peace, no testimony of a good conscience, no expectation of honor or esteem amom men, no hope of happiness in this life, or in the world to come.

Such conduct in the apostles would moreover have been utterly irreconcilable with the fact, that they possessed the ordinary constitution of our common nature. Yet their lives do show them to have been men like all others of our race; swayed by the same motives, animated by the same hopes, affected by the same joys, subdued by the same sorrows, agitated by the same fears, and subject to the same passions, temptations and infirmities, as ourselves. And their writings show them to have been men of vigorous understandings. If then their testimony was not true, there was no possible motive for this fabrication.

You must be kidding. This is just nonsense. All it says is that they believed it w/utter conviction and were willing to suffer/die/whatever for their beliefs, even though the world was against them. That's it. That's all it says. You don't think the zealots who flew the planes into the twin towers believed in what they were doing and their God as strongly as the Apostles?

This is proof of the Christian God? How ridiculous. Har, har.

H