Definition of Marriage gets Debated in California
-
If you can't see that replacing something true with something false invalidates a logical expression then you clearly are not capable of
led mike wrote:
further attempts at rational debate with you.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Now that is provably false and shows once again your utter lack of understanding of the idea of anything greater than yourself.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Because there isn't.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
-
Neither does it say that we are not. Atoms have been photographed and there's pretty good evidence for them, although not necessarily for the traditional model of how they work, so why wouldn't I believe in them. Spirits have also been photographed and there is far more and more evidence for them but I guess you don't believe in such things. So which of us is consistent?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Yes. I know atoms exist. No. Spirits have not been photographed. Many of them are even known to be hoaxes/fakes. The technique to make them is commonly known.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
-
These are your opinions and they are both ignorant and incorrect.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Those are not opinions. Those are facts. What part is wrong?
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
with something false
And where is your evidence proving it's false?
led mike
That is exactly what we're debating. "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." does not include things that are wrong. It cannot be intepretted to do so or it is meaningless as it then potentially includes everything that is right and things that are wrong and no boundary condition to prevent that including everything that is wrong, making this statment equivalent to total license which was unarguably against the principles of the founding fathers. So if they only intended to include things that are right, or possibly even a subset of things that are right if any had totalitarian leanings, which I doubt, then the question becomes did they consider same sex marriage ( a non concept but we've already had that debate elsewhere ) to be right. I think you can probably work that one out for yourself. The vital assumption in this argument as pointed out elsewhere is a belief in objective right and wrong, without which of course all debate, philosophy and frankly life, is futile. Replacing 'eating apple pie', something that can be right or wrong depending on the circumstances and is a second or third order moral issue with 'same sex marriage', a non concept that is wrong in all cases and has primary social consequences is the equivalent of rewriting e = mc^2 as e = m0^2 and claiming the two are equivalent.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Tim Craig wrote:
So what gives you the balls
Nothing to do with balls, any claim to define or completely understand God is patently false and based on an inadequate original concept. Any concept of God that is small and pathetic even compared to mine is clearly lesser and therfore false, God is not less than my concept of him but infinitely more.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
That is just your opinion; I actually make sense.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
-
Yes, it shows that you have an inadequate understanding of even my limited and partial understanding of God. It also shows that you have unacknowledged domain errors in your thinking which is probably why you make so little sense. God is exceptional by virtue of being God. If you can't spot the exceptionality of a definition that is fundamentally unique then you need a holdiay or brain reboot or something.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Just where are you getting this "understanding" of God from? …and since this is a a programming website, I'm sure you've probably encountered the term "chain of trust" somewhere (if you're into cryptography/security). How do you know that the sources of information that you draw your understanding from isn't compromised by something like… the Devil??
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
-
Indeed, until you consider that all natural phenomena are the creation of God, including probability. This was God saying how it would be, not describing what already was. The same God who spoke the universe into existence. His words carry the authority of law, as in a law of nature. This is not of course to deny that both man and nature are fallen, see Genesis 3.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
You just attribute everything to God, don't you?
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
-
Those are not opinions. Those are facts. What part is wrong?
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
Ok as you asked, here's a rewrite with the errors reversed. Marriage is an institution invented by God not an abstract concept. It is God's opinion. If God agrees you're married, then you're married. Marriage has one definition not many. Everyone has their own definitions but they done not carry any authority. God word is law. God is not an abstract concept and certainly not subjective. God is what not you think it is, he is. That's even the name he gives himself, 'I am' If you think there is a God then you're right. Reality is the same for everyone. Everyone has their own perception of reality all of which are flawed to a greater or lesser extent. It's just that some are more delusional than others. So you see in fact that it was all wrong exceot for the last sentence which is why I didn't bother to be specific. :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
That is just your opinion; I actually make sense.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
Anything I say is just my opinion unless it also happens to be true. Know the truth and he will make you free. :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Anything I say is just my opinion unless it also happens to be true. Know the truth and he will make you free. :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
I know truth when I can verify it. Care to answer my unanswered post[^]?
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
-
Ok as you asked, here's a rewrite with the errors reversed. Marriage is an institution invented by God not an abstract concept. It is God's opinion. If God agrees you're married, then you're married. Marriage has one definition not many. Everyone has their own definitions but they done not carry any authority. God word is law. God is not an abstract concept and certainly not subjective. God is what not you think it is, he is. That's even the name he gives himself, 'I am' If you think there is a God then you're right. Reality is the same for everyone. Everyone has their own perception of reality all of which are flawed to a greater or lesser extent. It's just that some are more delusional than others. So you see in fact that it was all wrong exceot for the last sentence which is why I didn't bother to be specific. :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Your modified statements only hold true because you think there is a god. They do not hold true for me. Here are the problem points:
- "God is what not you think it is, he is. That's even the name he gives himself, 'I am' If you think there is a God then you're right." There is an example of an individual's perception of God.
- "Marriage is an institution invented by God not an abstract concept. It is God's opinion. If God agrees you're married, then you're married. Marriage has one definition not many. Everyone has their own definitions but they done not carry any authority. God word is law." —assuming that there is a God, or that the person reading it believes that's exactly what God mandates.
You're not arguing from a common point of view. You're arguing with the assumption that everyone already agrees with the statements you establish.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
-
That is exactly what we're debating. "unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness." does not include things that are wrong. It cannot be intepretted to do so or it is meaningless as it then potentially includes everything that is right and things that are wrong and no boundary condition to prevent that including everything that is wrong, making this statment equivalent to total license which was unarguably against the principles of the founding fathers. So if they only intended to include things that are right, or possibly even a subset of things that are right if any had totalitarian leanings, which I doubt, then the question becomes did they consider same sex marriage ( a non concept but we've already had that debate elsewhere ) to be right. I think you can probably work that one out for yourself. The vital assumption in this argument as pointed out elsewhere is a belief in objective right and wrong, without which of course all debate, philosophy and frankly life, is futile. Replacing 'eating apple pie', something that can be right or wrong depending on the circumstances and is a second or third order moral issue with 'same sex marriage', a non concept that is wrong in all cases and has primary social consequences is the equivalent of rewriting e = mc^2 as e = m0^2 and claiming the two are equivalent.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Replacing 'eating apple pie', something that can be right or wrong
Whew ok at least I now understand what you were saying. However you are attempting to prove your POV by claiming the dominion of right and wrong. In debate you can't just make claims you must also provide proof. You also claim the intent of our quoted unalienable rights passage, however there is not a shred of evidence that the founders were limiting freedoms to things that weren't wrong. If that was their intention why did they not write it? "Life Liberty and the pursuit of things that are right", see it's not that difficult, I'm sure they could have figured it out. The only fact in evidence is that they did not write ANYTHING OF THE SORT, period. You have no facts to support your argument, period. Your statements to this effect are unprovable and in a scored debate you would most certainly have lost for lack of providing any evidence supporting your claims.
led mike
-
Just where are you getting this "understanding" of God from? …and since this is a a programming website, I'm sure you've probably encountered the term "chain of trust" somewhere (if you're into cryptography/security). How do you know that the sources of information that you draw your understanding from isn't compromised by something like… the Devil??
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
Ri Qen-Sin wrote:
Just where are you getting this "understanding" of God from?
From God, what other source would be more trustworthy. He who swears by himself because there is no higher name by which to swear, who sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, who's word is like a two edge sword sharp enough to separate the soul from the marrow. There is no one like him and no other to compare to him. His word is truth, he testifies to it. The whole universe was brought into being by his word and holds together by his authority. To him the nations are but a drop in a bucket and yet he has known me and loved me since before the foundation of the world and he has humbled himself, and become a man, lived among us and suffered and died so that all the just punishment my sin deserves may be placed on him and I may be free and enter into the eternal life he is preparing for me. More than this he has defeated death through his resurection becoming the firstborn from among the dead so that I may have confidence that neither life nor death nor angels nor demons nor powers or authorities in heaven or on earth can ever separate me from the love of God. This is the good news, a summary of parts of it anyway, and if I speak with authority then that authority is not my own but is given to me for a purpose, may that purpose be fullfilled. :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
You just attribute everything to God, don't you?
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
In the sense that he is the creator and ultimate source of everything, yes. Who do you attribute everything to I wonder?
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Ri Qen-Sin wrote:
Just where are you getting this "understanding" of God from?
From God, what other source would be more trustworthy. He who swears by himself because there is no higher name by which to swear, who sits enthroned above the circle of the earth, who's word is like a two edge sword sharp enough to separate the soul from the marrow. There is no one like him and no other to compare to him. His word is truth, he testifies to it. The whole universe was brought into being by his word and holds together by his authority. To him the nations are but a drop in a bucket and yet he has known me and loved me since before the foundation of the world and he has humbled himself, and become a man, lived among us and suffered and died so that all the just punishment my sin deserves may be placed on him and I may be free and enter into the eternal life he is preparing for me. More than this he has defeated death through his resurection becoming the firstborn from among the dead so that I may have confidence that neither life nor death nor angels nor demons nor powers or authorities in heaven or on earth can ever separate me from the love of God. This is the good news, a summary of parts of it anyway, and if I speak with authority then that authority is not my own but is given to me for a purpose, may that purpose be fullfilled. :)
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
That appears to be straight from the Christian Bible… I also asked how you would know you're not being fed "corrupt" information.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
-
Your modified statements only hold true because you think there is a god. They do not hold true for me. Here are the problem points:
- "God is what not you think it is, he is. That's even the name he gives himself, 'I am' If you think there is a God then you're right." There is an example of an individual's perception of God.
- "Marriage is an institution invented by God not an abstract concept. It is God's opinion. If God agrees you're married, then you're married. Marriage has one definition not many. Everyone has their own definitions but they done not carry any authority. God word is law." —assuming that there is a God, or that the person reading it believes that's exactly what God mandates.
You're not arguing from a common point of view. You're arguing with the assumption that everyone already agrees with the statements you establish.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
Ri Qen-Sin wrote:
You're not arguing from a common point of view.
No, why should I if I believe the 'common' point of view to be wrong.
Ri Qen-Sin wrote:
You're arguing with the assumption that everyone already agrees with the statements you establish.
No, I'm arguing with the assumption that God exists and that he is as he reveals himself to be. I have stated this many times. It is no more or less provable than the assumption of the athiest that God does not exist but it is a great deal more useful as the consequences of the positive assumption fit all the evidence without distortion or double meaning or contradiction. In order to make your arguments you have to believe that your reality and my reality can be completely contrary and yet co-existant, this is insane by definition as it mandates an irrational universe. No argument on this basis can be valid in logic as it denies itself.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Replacing 'eating apple pie', something that can be right or wrong
Whew ok at least I now understand what you were saying. However you are attempting to prove your POV by claiming the dominion of right and wrong. In debate you can't just make claims you must also provide proof. You also claim the intent of our quoted unalienable rights passage, however there is not a shred of evidence that the founders were limiting freedoms to things that weren't wrong. If that was their intention why did they not write it? "Life Liberty and the pursuit of things that are right", see it's not that difficult, I'm sure they could have figured it out. The only fact in evidence is that they did not write ANYTHING OF THE SORT, period. You have no facts to support your argument, period. Your statements to this effect are unprovable and in a scored debate you would most certainly have lost for lack of providing any evidence supporting your claims.
led mike
led mike wrote:
Your statements to this effect are unprovable and in a scored debate you would most certainly have lost for lack of providing any evidence supporting your claims.
Not so I showed that the logical consequence of broadening the interpretation of freedoms to the extent you propose would have been to deny the very statement I quoted earlier form Patrick Henry, among dozens of others by the other founding fathers. On the reasonable assumption that they were not in such an important document spouting illogical rubbish in contradiction of their own stated beliefs then broadening the intepretation of freedoms to the extent you propose cannot have been their intent, or in fact to any extent beyond 'things that are right' as this amounts to the same thing. That they did not take account of people so morally deprived that they would try to assert a right to do wrong on the basis of this document only goes to show that they lived in a better time than we do, amongst more civilized people and such a though never occured to them. There is my proof by argument based on the well known historical record of the character and statements of the people involved. If that didn't hold sway in a debate it would only be because the jury wasn't up to it or someone had a better argument. The floor is yours.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
modified on Thursday, March 6, 2008 4:46 PM
-
That appears to be straight from the Christian Bible… I also asked how you would know you're not being fed "corrupt" information.
So the creationist says: Everything must have a designer. God designed everything. I say: Why is God the only exception? Why not make the "designs" (like man) exceptions and make God a creation of man?
I know because the Spirit of God that lives in me testifies to the truth of his own words. I cannot expect you to understand this but it remains an experienced fact. Only the Spirit can interpret the Word for only God can interpret God. Unless you have an understanding of theological concepts like salvation and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit these things will likely not make sense to you. I could ask you how do you know you don't like the sensation of poking yourself in the eye with your toe. You just know because not liking pain is part of what we are. Well that's as close as I can get to an analogy. I know becuase the knowledge has become part of what I am.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
-
led mike wrote:
Your statements to this effect are unprovable and in a scored debate you would most certainly have lost for lack of providing any evidence supporting your claims.
Not so I showed that the logical consequence of broadening the interpretation of freedoms to the extent you propose would have been to deny the very statement I quoted earlier form Patrick Henry, among dozens of others by the other founding fathers. On the reasonable assumption that they were not in such an important document spouting illogical rubbish in contradiction of their own stated beliefs then broadening the intepretation of freedoms to the extent you propose cannot have been their intent, or in fact to any extent beyond 'things that are right' as this amounts to the same thing. That they did not take account of people so morally deprived that they would try to assert a right to do wrong on the basis of this document only goes to show that they lived in a better time than we do, amongst more civilized people and such a though never occured to them. There is my proof by argument based on the well known historical record of the character and statements of the people involved. If that didn't hold sway in a debate it would only be because the jury wasn't up to it or someone had a better argument. The floor is yours.
Nothing is exactly what it seems but everything with seems can be unpicked.
modified on Thursday, March 6, 2008 4:46 PM
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
Not so I showed that the logical consequence
You claimed to show logical consequences. However you offered no evidence that your claimed belief was shared by the founding fathers. Your claimed logic is not evidence that proves the intent of the founding fathers. Unless you are claiming that you share a consciousness with them? "It cannot be emphasized too strongly or too often that this great nation was founded, not by religionists, but by Christians; not on religions, but on the Gospel of Jesus Christ. For this very reason peoples of other faiths have been afforded asylum, prosperity, and freedom of worship here." - Patrick Henry
Matthew Faithfull wrote:
would have been to deny the very statement I quoted earlier form Patrick Henry
No, I don't because the founding fathers did it for me: Patrick Henry sponsored a bill for a general religious assessment in 1784 ... James Madison, the leading opponent of government-supported religion, combined both arguments in his celebrated Memorial and Remonstrance. In the fall of 1785, Madison marshaled sufficient legislative support to administer a decisive defeat to the effort to levy religious taxes. In place of Henry's bill, Madison and his allies passed in January 1786 Thomas Jefferson's famous Act for Establishing Religious Freedom, which brought the debate in Virginia to a close by severing, once and for all, the links between government and religion. link[^]
led mike