Enquiry: Harvard and Ali G
-
That was not an argument, it was sarcasm. But can you tell me which part of it was in dispute with the Bible? :rolleyes:
Yes, the use of sarcasm. An inappropriate and wholly inadequate response to the word of God.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Demon Possessed wrote:
why would God
Ask him. He is omniscient not me.
Demon Possessed wrote:
This obviously makes him evil.
By whose definition? Yours :laugh::laugh: Now that is funny, you trying to tell God that he's wrong. If it wasn't so pathetic the hubris would be gobsmacking in the extreme. You should try juggling with some concepts you can handle. Start with small questions you have some chance of understanding and you are far more likely to get answers you can understand. If I say to you, God is Sovereign. There's you answer. What can you possibly do but misunderstand, deny, misinterpret or just invent nonsense. You're a long way from being able to handle the sort of answers you're asking for. Nothing wrong with aiming high but all things in moderation hey.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Quote: "Ask him. He is omniscient not me." Just as I expected. You just declare that God is above our understanding. That's the only way you can justify your preposterous beliefs. Quote: "By whose definition? Yours Now that is funny, you trying to tell God that he's wrong. If it wasn't so pathetic the hubris would be gobsmacking in the extreme. You should try juggling with some concepts you can handle. Start with small questions you have some chance of understanding and you are far more likely to get answers you can understand. If I say to you, God is Sovereign. There's you answer. What can you possibly do but misunderstand, deny, misinterpret or just invent nonsense. You're a long way from being able to handle the sort of answers you're asking for." You start out with the assumption that you are right, then personally attack me for not "understanding" it. Nice try, but that's hardly a way to destroy an argument. :rolleyes:
-
Quote: "Ask him. He is omniscient not me." Just as I expected. You just declare that God is above our understanding. That's the only way you can justify your preposterous beliefs. Quote: "By whose definition? Yours Now that is funny, you trying to tell God that he's wrong. If it wasn't so pathetic the hubris would be gobsmacking in the extreme. You should try juggling with some concepts you can handle. Start with small questions you have some chance of understanding and you are far more likely to get answers you can understand. If I say to you, God is Sovereign. There's you answer. What can you possibly do but misunderstand, deny, misinterpret or just invent nonsense. You're a long way from being able to handle the sort of answers you're asking for." You start out with the assumption that you are right, then personally attack me for not "understanding" it. Nice try, but that's hardly a way to destroy an argument. :rolleyes:
Demon Possessed wrote:
You start out with the assumption that you are right
and...? Am I to assume that you don't:doh::doh::doh:
Demon Possessed wrote:
personally attack me for not "understanding"
No I castigate you not for "not understanding" but for claiming understanding you don't have. That you do not understand is blatant and beyond debate at this point. BTW Remember you have no argument to destory before pointing at me for not destroying trying to destory it.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Yes, the use of sarcasm. An inappropriate and wholly inadequate response to the word of God.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Just exactly how far up your rectum have you lodged your cranium? Is your god so feeble and your beliefs so tenuous and weak that they'd be corrupted by a little sarcasm?
-
Demon Possessed wrote:
You start out with the assumption that you are right
and...? Am I to assume that you don't:doh::doh::doh:
Demon Possessed wrote:
personally attack me for not "understanding"
No I castigate you not for "not understanding" but for claiming understanding you don't have. That you do not understand is blatant and beyond debate at this point. BTW Remember you have no argument to destory before pointing at me for not destroying trying to destory it.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Quote: "No I castigate you not for "not understanding" but for claiming understanding you don't have." I am sure you understand all the aspects of your religion much better than I. But I understand that it goes against all logic and reason to blindly accept a religion as truth when there is no evidence for any of them. There are many religions, Christianity, Islam, neopaganism, to name a few, and each one of them has people that are just as convinced as you that they are right. And none of them have any evidence to support it. It's all very ridiculous.
-
Quote: "No I castigate you not for "not understanding" but for claiming understanding you don't have." I am sure you understand all the aspects of your religion much better than I. But I understand that it goes against all logic and reason to blindly accept a religion as truth when there is no evidence for any of them. There are many religions, Christianity, Islam, neopaganism, to name a few, and each one of them has people that are just as convinced as you that they are right. And none of them have any evidence to support it. It's all very ridiculous.
Demon Possessed wrote:
there is no evidence
Except the experience of millions of people over thousands of years. By saying
Demon Possessed wrote:
It's all very ridiculous
you place your own understanding above all those who are so convinced. There is no difference in logic or validity between your position and that of a Muslem or a Neopagan, except that you deny the existence of your own beliefs, making yourself less honest and less rational even than them.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Just exactly how far up your rectum have you lodged your cranium? Is your god so feeble and your beliefs so tenuous and weak that they'd be corrupted by a little sarcasm?
It is you who is arse about face:laugh:. It is not my God or my beliefs that are corrupted by such but Kyle, his feeble mind and potentially like feeble minds who may read his post. My God is sovereign and unassailable but he also cares about you and I and little oicks like Kyle more deeply than you or I can manage. He is "slow to anger and abounding in love". He is also holy but that is a far too deep a concept for most or to elaborate here.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Demon Possessed wrote:
there is no evidence
Except the experience of millions of people over thousands of years. By saying
Demon Possessed wrote:
It's all very ridiculous
you place your own understanding above all those who are so convinced. There is no difference in logic or validity between your position and that of a Muslem or a Neopagan, except that you deny the existence of your own beliefs, making yourself less honest and less rational even than them.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Quote: "Except the experience of millions of people over thousands of years." The fact that millions of people over thousands of years believed something is not evidence that it is true. That is called the appeal to authority fallacy. Millions of people over the years have believed that the earth was flat, that Mohammad was God's prophet, etc... Quote: "you place your own understanding above all those who are so convinced. " And by believing in a spherical earth you place your understanding above all those millions of people over thousands of years! Quote: "you deny the existence of your own beliefs, making yourself less honest and less rational even than them. " So I secretly believe in God, but deny it? Ok....
-
It is you who is arse about face:laugh:. It is not my God or my beliefs that are corrupted by such but Kyle, his feeble mind and potentially like feeble minds who may read his post. My God is sovereign and unassailable but he also cares about you and I and little oicks like Kyle more deeply than you or I can manage. He is "slow to anger and abounding in love". He is also holy but that is a far too deep a concept for most or to elaborate here.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Quote: "He is also holy but that is a far too deep a concept for most or to elaborate here. " That is a meaningless statement because the former is the definition of the ladder. Being like God is the definition of Holy. So saying that "God is a Holy God" is saying that God is like himself.
-
It is you who is arse about face:laugh:. It is not my God or my beliefs that are corrupted by such but Kyle, his feeble mind and potentially like feeble minds who may read his post. My God is sovereign and unassailable but he also cares about you and I and little oicks like Kyle more deeply than you or I can manage. He is "slow to anger and abounding in love". He is also holy but that is a far too deep a concept for most or to elaborate here.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
On another thing can you tell me why UKIP is invisible (I recall you said that you were quite involved with them)? Maybe mail me direct rather than here: I am really curious as to the silence with everything that is going on.
-
Quote: "Except the experience of millions of people over thousands of years." The fact that millions of people over thousands of years believed something is not evidence that it is true. That is called the appeal to authority fallacy. Millions of people over the years have believed that the earth was flat, that Mohammad was God's prophet, etc... Quote: "you place your own understanding above all those who are so convinced. " And by believing in a spherical earth you place your understanding above all those millions of people over thousands of years! Quote: "you deny the existence of your own beliefs, making yourself less honest and less rational even than them. " So I secretly believe in God, but deny it? Ok....
Demon Possessed wrote:
The fact that millions of people over thousands of years believed something is not evidence that it is true.
It is evidence but not proof. If you believe that appealing to authority is a fallacy then you don't understand what authority is. Not surprising. I place God's understanding above my own and that of all others. His authority is real and his word is true.
Demon Possessed wrote:
So I secretly believe in God, but deny it? Ok....
No you secretly have beliefs that are not based on reasoning from other beliefs but you don't acknowledge them, possibly even to yourself. This is sadly pretty normal.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Quote: "He is also holy but that is a far too deep a concept for most or to elaborate here. " That is a meaningless statement because the former is the definition of the ladder. Being like God is the definition of Holy. So saying that "God is a Holy God" is saying that God is like himself.
Don't wave your ignorance so frantically. Someone will think you are drowining.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
On another thing can you tell me why UKIP is invisible (I recall you said that you were quite involved with them)? Maybe mail me direct rather than here: I am really curious as to the silence with everything that is going on.
O.K. will go via your web site.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
On another thing can you tell me why UKIP is invisible (I recall you said that you were quite involved with them)? Maybe mail me direct rather than here: I am really curious as to the silence with everything that is going on.
I tried the contact address from the web site but it bounced. Can you mail me direct at mfaithfull<at>btopenworld<dot>com ?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Quote: "He is also holy but that is a far too deep a concept for most or to elaborate here. " That is a meaningless statement because the former is the definition of the ladder. Being like God is the definition of Holy. So saying that "God is a Holy God" is saying that God is like himself.
Interesting thread... Having become a christian (of sorts) in my thirties after spending almost a decade deprogramming myself out of the mental cage I like calling fundamentalist atheism, I just can't resist a comment. First a disclaimer: I am a programmer, not a philosopher or scholar. What I write here is based mostly on popular science and diverse other readings. Historical and other inaccuracies are to be expected, but I hope they don't warp the message too badly (or I'd have to rethink my personal philosophical/religious platform). Also, I'm from Sweden, so English isn't my native tongue - this may show in places. For what it's worth: What initiated my deprogramming process were a number of realizations from reading about quantum physics and modern philosophy (most notably Wittgenstein). Specifically, I didn't read *any* religious books or publications. That I'd one day end up as an active member of my local church would have surprised me immensely at the time (and still does, to some extent). The one most important realization was the one Matthew reiterates - that all reasoning is based on assumptions that can never be proven. A couple of hundred years or so, Lorenz and others tried to prove Euclid's geometry by creating "obviously" invalid alternatives (based on "obviously" invalid assumptions) and trying to disprove them. They failed miserably. The resulting geometries (geometrical systems may be a better English expression) were indeed weird, but (to everyones surprise) proved to be mathematically consistent, workable and without contradiction (incidentally, Einstein used one of the concoctions left behind by Lorenz as a mathematical tool in his general theory of relativity). This is one of the things that spawned the process that culminated with Wittgenstein and others (scientifically) reaching the conclusion that reasoning can't help us in finding truth - which is today predominant in the scientific community. Science since then (ca the thirties, I beleive) is all about models - not truth. A model that produces correct predictions is a good model, one that doesn't isn't. Truth lies elsewhere, and is entirely irrelevant to modern science. This is the paradigm shift that made "paradigm shift" a buzzword, by the way... My two cents: The "science" used by people trying to disprove God's existence is thus - as of early last century - no longer science. It is just ignorance. Ditto for any science that tries to *prove* God's existence. The latter statement is important. Yes, I call mysel
-
Interesting thread... Having become a christian (of sorts) in my thirties after spending almost a decade deprogramming myself out of the mental cage I like calling fundamentalist atheism, I just can't resist a comment. First a disclaimer: I am a programmer, not a philosopher or scholar. What I write here is based mostly on popular science and diverse other readings. Historical and other inaccuracies are to be expected, but I hope they don't warp the message too badly (or I'd have to rethink my personal philosophical/religious platform). Also, I'm from Sweden, so English isn't my native tongue - this may show in places. For what it's worth: What initiated my deprogramming process were a number of realizations from reading about quantum physics and modern philosophy (most notably Wittgenstein). Specifically, I didn't read *any* religious books or publications. That I'd one day end up as an active member of my local church would have surprised me immensely at the time (and still does, to some extent). The one most important realization was the one Matthew reiterates - that all reasoning is based on assumptions that can never be proven. A couple of hundred years or so, Lorenz and others tried to prove Euclid's geometry by creating "obviously" invalid alternatives (based on "obviously" invalid assumptions) and trying to disprove them. They failed miserably. The resulting geometries (geometrical systems may be a better English expression) were indeed weird, but (to everyones surprise) proved to be mathematically consistent, workable and without contradiction (incidentally, Einstein used one of the concoctions left behind by Lorenz as a mathematical tool in his general theory of relativity). This is one of the things that spawned the process that culminated with Wittgenstein and others (scientifically) reaching the conclusion that reasoning can't help us in finding truth - which is today predominant in the scientific community. Science since then (ca the thirties, I beleive) is all about models - not truth. A model that produces correct predictions is a good model, one that doesn't isn't. Truth lies elsewhere, and is entirely irrelevant to modern science. This is the paradigm shift that made "paradigm shift" a buzzword, by the way... My two cents: The "science" used by people trying to disprove God's existence is thus - as of early last century - no longer science. It is just ignorance. Ditto for any science that tries to *prove* God's existence. The latter statement is important. Yes, I call mysel
Well put.
Ian
-
Interesting thread... Having become a christian (of sorts) in my thirties after spending almost a decade deprogramming myself out of the mental cage I like calling fundamentalist atheism, I just can't resist a comment. First a disclaimer: I am a programmer, not a philosopher or scholar. What I write here is based mostly on popular science and diverse other readings. Historical and other inaccuracies are to be expected, but I hope they don't warp the message too badly (or I'd have to rethink my personal philosophical/religious platform). Also, I'm from Sweden, so English isn't my native tongue - this may show in places. For what it's worth: What initiated my deprogramming process were a number of realizations from reading about quantum physics and modern philosophy (most notably Wittgenstein). Specifically, I didn't read *any* religious books or publications. That I'd one day end up as an active member of my local church would have surprised me immensely at the time (and still does, to some extent). The one most important realization was the one Matthew reiterates - that all reasoning is based on assumptions that can never be proven. A couple of hundred years or so, Lorenz and others tried to prove Euclid's geometry by creating "obviously" invalid alternatives (based on "obviously" invalid assumptions) and trying to disprove them. They failed miserably. The resulting geometries (geometrical systems may be a better English expression) were indeed weird, but (to everyones surprise) proved to be mathematically consistent, workable and without contradiction (incidentally, Einstein used one of the concoctions left behind by Lorenz as a mathematical tool in his general theory of relativity). This is one of the things that spawned the process that culminated with Wittgenstein and others (scientifically) reaching the conclusion that reasoning can't help us in finding truth - which is today predominant in the scientific community. Science since then (ca the thirties, I beleive) is all about models - not truth. A model that produces correct predictions is a good model, one that doesn't isn't. Truth lies elsewhere, and is entirely irrelevant to modern science. This is the paradigm shift that made "paradigm shift" a buzzword, by the way... My two cents: The "science" used by people trying to disprove God's existence is thus - as of early last century - no longer science. It is just ignorance. Ditto for any science that tries to *prove* God's existence. The latter statement is important. Yes, I call mysel
There are points in what you've said that I'd quibble (or more) with. Some of those points are important, and ought to be argued, but I'm not going to do it just now. But, overall, what you've said is on the right track. (And, by the way, I'm one of those terrible Christian "fundies" you've no doubt heard of.)
-
Quote: "If you had an argument I would merrily destroy it as I have many times in the past. " Ok, why would God, if he knows everything in advance, create billions of people that will never hear the gospel, knowing that he is dooming them to eternal torture? This obviously makes him evil. Quote: "As you don't I will refrain from destroying you as that would not be very Christian." :laugh::laugh::laugh:
Demon Possessed wrote:
Ok, why would God, if he knows everything in advance, create billions of people that will never hear the gospel, knowing that he is dooming them to eternal torture? This obviously makes him evil.
At best, this is just an opinion. It is based on your emotion rather than Biblical scripture. If God had kept those destined for hell to have never been born, the net result is that we would all be going to hell. That a person is destined for hell is not the same as the person being predestined for hell.
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
-
Quote: "No I castigate you not for "not understanding" but for claiming understanding you don't have." I am sure you understand all the aspects of your religion much better than I. But I understand that it goes against all logic and reason to blindly accept a religion as truth when there is no evidence for any of them. There are many religions, Christianity, Islam, neopaganism, to name a few, and each one of them has people that are just as convinced as you that they are right. And none of them have any evidence to support it. It's all very ridiculous.
Demon Possessed wrote:
And none of them have any evidence to support it.
Actually, Christians are the only ones who lack such evidence. For all others, their god/deity can actually be dug up from the grave, thus proving that a mere mortal was buried.
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
-
Demon Possessed wrote:
Ok, why would God, if he knows everything in advance, create billions of people that will never hear the gospel, knowing that he is dooming them to eternal torture? This obviously makes him evil.
At best, this is just an opinion. It is based on your emotion rather than Biblical scripture. If God had kept those destined for hell to have never been born, the net result is that we would all be going to hell. That a person is destined for hell is not the same as the person being predestined for hell.
"Normal is getting dressed in clothes that you buy for work and driving through traffic in a car that you are still paying for, in order to get to the job you need to pay for the clothes and the car and the house you leave vacant all day so you can afford to live in it." - Ellen Goodman
"To have a respect for ourselves guides our morals; to have deference for others governs our manners." - Laurence Sterne
The Bible says God is love. The definition of love does not include torturing people.