Speaking in 'toungues'
-
When Jesus was asked a similar question, He responded to Satan that God said not to test Him. My response is the same. I believe God can protect me. I don't believe I should seek danger to prove it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
So, bear with me for a moment: you're saying that you can do these things, but you're not going to prove it because you believe that you don't need to? :confused: How come you only talk about doing the one most readily explained by natural mechanisms?
-
harold aptroot wrote:
God didn't make the brain, evolution did and there's plenty of evidence to back that up
Not really. There's plenty of stuff we interpret that way, in the framework of what we generally believe. In that sense, we're no different to the people who held opposing views in the past.
harold aptroot wrote:
Even if he did, though, that would just mean that he "hardcoded" speaking in tongues into the brain - then why aren't we all speaking in tongues?
Speaking in tongues is not hard coded in the brain at all. You're making the ongoing mistake of trying to reduce God to be constrained by your thought processes, and to reason a way to try to prove He can't exist. It doesn't work, that is, it's not a reliable proof at all.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
So, bear with me for a moment: you're saying that you can do these things, but you're not going to prove it because you believe that you don't need to? :confused: How come you only talk about doing the one most readily explained by natural mechanisms?
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
So, bear with me for a moment: you're saying that you can do these things, but you're not going to prove it because you believe that you don't need to?
Not at all. I am saying I don't expect if I went out and handled snakes deliberately, that I would be OK, because that's a promise of protection, not a superpower. That's why Jesus said He would not put Himself in danger to try to prove promises made in the Bible.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
How come you only talk about doing the one most readily explained by natural mechanisms?
Because you're picking on one Bible passage, I'm talking about the one thing in that passage that is widely spoken of through out the new testament, is nominated by the Bible as the thing that happens when someone becomes a Christian, as the thing that is under my control, and the thing that is an ability from God that I should use regularly, rather than a promise of protection if needed. Being able to pray for the sick does not mean I order Anthrax power and put it on my Weet Bix, for example.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
What do you mean?
I was just impressed with your response to Christian. Take no prisoners young man!
*grin* nothing he said was new to me. It's based on the usual, people reading a little bit of the Bible without placing it in context or understanding how it works.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
No, it made perfect sense, and I have in fact argued the same thing a while back. You can't have both, or either, and remain internally consistent.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You can't have both, or either, and remain internally consistent.
Why not? If you know everything you know every possible outcome of an event, going down a chain from every moment. That doesn't mean you can't change the outcomes, it just means you know what the consequences are of doing so. I would imagine that having full knowledge and the ability to do anything just means you have better choices. "I step on this ant and in 1.2 million years WW2 happens. That's horrible, but the advances in tech will make it so that in 2011 the aliens will get beaten back and they will make it to 2012 so they can all die as the world ends. I gave em a year. Bye mr. ant." :)
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
*grin* nothing he said was new to me. It's based on the usual, people reading a little bit of the Bible without placing it in context or understanding how it works.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
*grin* nothing he said was new to me. It's based on the usual, people reading a little bit of the Bible without placing it in context or understanding how it works.
Is understanding how it works based on passages from the Bible?
-
Josh Gray wrote:
I was just impressed with your response to Christian. Take no prisoners young man!
Oh, OK! :) Are they bald and/or grey because I'm so stressful to be related to? ;P
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
You can't have both, or either, and remain internally consistent.
Why not? If you know everything you know every possible outcome of an event, going down a chain from every moment. That doesn't mean you can't change the outcomes, it just means you know what the consequences are of doing so. I would imagine that having full knowledge and the ability to do anything just means you have better choices. "I step on this ant and in 1.2 million years WW2 happens. That's horrible, but the advances in tech will make it so that in 2011 the aliens will get beaten back and they will make it to 2012 so they can all die as the world ends. I gave em a year. Bye mr. ant." :)
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
You're saying that omniscience is not knowing what the outcome is but knowing what every possible outcome could be. Essentially everything is possible, even if only remotely so, so your definition pretty much boils down to knowing that at every moment anything is possible, which isn't really knowledge at all.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
*grin* nothing he said was new to me. It's based on the usual, people reading a little bit of the Bible without placing it in context or understanding how it works.
Is understanding how it works based on passages from the Bible?
A lot of the time. For example, Jesus gives the answer to your question, as I've already said. You will say that makes it self defeating. I say it makes it self defining. The end result is the same. I approach the Bible with faith based on my experience. You approach it with a lack of respect borne from a desire to disprove it, so there's no wonder you don't want to spend the time to really understand it. That's cool, I understand it. It just won't change the answers I'll give, from the Bible.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
When Jesus was asked a similar question, He responded to Satan that God said not to test Him. My response is the same. I believe God can protect me. I don't believe I should seek danger to prove it.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
I believe God can protect me
and
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't believe I should seek danger to prove it
But if gods protecting you there isnt any danger so go ahead and handle the snake and drink the poison since you have stated that you need to do these things if you are a true christian.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
Are they bald and/or grey because I'm so stressful to be related to? Poke tongue
No because you ask difficult questions on purpose. Like this one.
Nah, I'm a lot more argumentative on the Internet than I am in real life. Most people aren't even aware of my existence, I spend so much time avoiding them.
-
You are still trying to argue that God can not be explained so any scientific argument about him must be invalid by default.
I would actually agree with this. The way God is defined goes so far out from where we can scientifically observe that it is invalid to try. God is a matter of philosophy and faith, not science and reason. Faith is present in everyone. Some people attach it to the authorities that tell us "oxygen is an atom, we can observe it through experiments. We know it exists, we just can't see it because it is too small for light to shine behind so there is no way to 'see' it." and others go with "god says don't be an a-hole. That means stop trying to screw yer buddies' wife, take his stuff, or kill him and be nice to your parents, jerk." I'm not saying we have to give them the same weight if we personally think it is drivel, but whichever side of the fence we sit on should be willing to accept the other side as having their own thoughts and as long as they don't try and shove stuff down our throats we should respect them, and vice versa.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
A lot of the time. For example, Jesus gives the answer to your question, as I've already said. You will say that makes it self defeating. I say it makes it self defining. The end result is the same. I approach the Bible with faith based on my experience. You approach it with a lack of respect borne from a desire to disprove it, so there's no wonder you don't want to spend the time to really understand it. That's cool, I understand it. It just won't change the answers I'll give, from the Bible.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
Christian Graus wrote:
You approach it with a lack of respect borne from a desire to disprove it
I have no desire to disprove it - I desire to have others prove it, which is where the burden of proof lies.
Christian Graus wrote:
It just won't change the answers I'll give, from the Bible.
I can only describe my position with this quote: "Trying to prove the existence of god with the bible is like trying to prove the existence of Superman with a comic book."
-
I would actually agree with this. The way God is defined goes so far out from where we can scientifically observe that it is invalid to try. God is a matter of philosophy and faith, not science and reason. Faith is present in everyone. Some people attach it to the authorities that tell us "oxygen is an atom, we can observe it through experiments. We know it exists, we just can't see it because it is too small for light to shine behind so there is no way to 'see' it." and others go with "god says don't be an a-hole. That means stop trying to screw yer buddies' wife, take his stuff, or kill him and be nice to your parents, jerk." I'm not saying we have to give them the same weight if we personally think it is drivel, but whichever side of the fence we sit on should be willing to accept the other side as having their own thoughts and as long as they don't try and shove stuff down our throats we should respect them, and vice versa.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You approach it with a lack of respect borne from a desire to disprove it
I have no desire to disprove it - I desire to have others prove it, which is where the burden of proof lies.
Christian Graus wrote:
It just won't change the answers I'll give, from the Bible.
I can only describe my position with this quote: "Trying to prove the existence of god with the bible is like trying to prove the existence of Superman with a comic book."
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I can only describe my position with this quote: "Trying to prove the existence of god with the bible is like trying to prove the existence of Superman with a comic book."
Wow, beautiful quote... Gotta remember that one.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
You're saying that omniscience is not knowing what the outcome is but knowing what every possible outcome could be. Essentially everything is possible, even if only remotely so, so your definition pretty much boils down to knowing that at every moment anything is possible, which isn't really knowledge at all.
no I am saying omniscience IS knowing what every outcome WILL be. "If I do X, Y happens. If I do X, Y happens, A does B and C happens along with Y. I can change A to do E instead of B and F happens instead. D is right out." It isn't knowing anything is possible, it is knowing what will happen in every chain of events with every variable. You see ALL of it, and you can travel down each path and see the outcomes. If you have seen "Chuck" you get the intersect with all that info in your head and you can make all the connections and figure it all out. My problem with omniscience is that by the very nature of it, it is almost worthless. I may know everything, but sorting it all out and picking the best solutions would take time and a lot of power. You'd almost need to be omnipresent and omnipotent just to get it to work.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
You approach it with a lack of respect borne from a desire to disprove it
I have no desire to disprove it - I desire to have others prove it, which is where the burden of proof lies.
Christian Graus wrote:
It just won't change the answers I'll give, from the Bible.
I can only describe my position with this quote: "Trying to prove the existence of god with the bible is like trying to prove the existence of Superman with a comic book."
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I have no desire to disprove it - I desire to have others prove it, which is where the burden of proof lies.
Well, you are wrong. You are wrong, because I've met my burden of proof by telling you how you can have the same experience. That it's a personal experience and only proof to the individual does not prove there is no God, only that He does not work as you'd like.
Ravel H. Joyce wrote:
I can only describe my position with this quote: "Trying to prove the existence of god with the bible is like trying to prove the existence of Superman with a comic book."
In a situation where the Bible did not offer tangible, physical proof to the individual, you may have some sort of point. However, if the Bible says God will do things in the real world, and He does, then what BUT the Bible would be the place to look ? The truth is, the Bible defines God, as comic books define Superman. It's if these books offer to prove something exists, and if this proof is found to work in the real world, that cause me to believe in God, and not Superman. If you want to understand quantum physics, why would it be wrong to look in a book about quantum physics to understand the theory, then test it in real life to see if it is true ? That is all I am advocating.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
I believe God can protect me
and
Christian Graus wrote:
I don't believe I should seek danger to prove it
But if gods protecting you there isnt any danger so go ahead and handle the snake and drink the poison since you have stated that you need to do these things if you are a true christian.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
since you have stated that you need to do these things if you are a true christian.
I said no such thing. You are being deliberately obtuse, and, in this case, a liar. I'll follow Jesus' example and not yours. You are saying exactly what Satan said to Jesus, and my response will not be any different. I'm not sure why I'm even playing this game with you, you're plainly not listening to me, or considering anything I say, beyond looking for ways to twist it to suit your views.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Sure, normally it isn't a problem, but when religion is trying to explain something real and physical, I'm not just going to watch that happen without doing something about it.
Religion tries to explain anything. It doesn't mean their explanations are grounded in science or make sense there. Trying to explain that to them doesn't work though. "God makes em talk funny." "We have no proof about it and it looks like they are being weird." "God made em weird." "... Your god sucks?" Perhaps we should just let them have their speaking in tongues and let em know that as long as they keep it in their practices, don't try and make us do it, and don't decide that someone saying "SNARFBLAT!" means "Kill all atheists!" which is a greenlight to start a crusade/jyhad/purge/insertreligiouswartermhere. I am more than fine with them being religious as long as they aren't forcing their beliefs down my throat. Christian is a good example of how they should behave. Personally religious, but not telling me I am burning in hell for not giving a flying eff about his religion.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
no I am saying omniscience IS knowing what every outcome WILL be. "If I do X, Y happens. If I do X, Y happens, A does B and C happens along with Y. I can change A to do E instead of B and F happens instead. D is right out." It isn't knowing anything is possible, it is knowing what will happen in every chain of events with every variable. You see ALL of it, and you can travel down each path and see the outcomes. If you have seen "Chuck" you get the intersect with all that info in your head and you can make all the connections and figure it all out. My problem with omniscience is that by the very nature of it, it is almost worthless. I may know everything, but sorting it all out and picking the best solutions would take time and a lot of power. You'd almost need to be omnipresent and omnipotent just to get it to work.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
ragnaroknrol wrote:
no I am saying omniscience IS knowing what every outcome WILL be. "If I do X, Y happens. If I do X, Y happens, A does B and C happens along with Y. I can change A to do E instead of B and F happens instead. D is right out."
That's a pretty far-out definition. How come you can't foresee your own actions?