Speaking in 'toungues'
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
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.
-
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?
You can, you can see EVERY possible action you do and what they would cause. And you can choose which one to take.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
-
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.
I was going to stay out of this thread, aside from my usual inane jokes, but I just have to step in... Sorry if this sounds offensive, but I'm just trying to be logical... That's how my mind works :)
Christian Graus wrote:
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 Superman was found to be real, then there would be plenty of other proof besides a comic book. Photographs and video, to start. The comic book itself would not be proof of his existence, any more than my novels are proof of the existence of the Xen Guardians.
Christian Graus wrote:
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.
Except, as you've described (And correct me if I'm wrong), you can only receive this "proof" if you already believe in "god". So its presence can affirm your belief, and its absence can affirm your disbelief. Basically, either way it just confirms what you already think to be true. If someone actually tries to test it and fails, then the standard answer from the religious side is always something along the lines of "You weren't REALLY trying because you didn't believe" Or are you saying that I, as an atheist, would be able to accurately test this proof? Real proof would be something that would bring you from a state of doubt to a state of belief, not something that requires belief in the first place.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels) -
You can, you can see EVERY possible action you do and what they would cause. And you can choose which one to take.
If I have accidentally said something witty, smart, or correct, it is purely by mistake and I apologize for it.
Then that goes back to what I said before - everything else may be deterministic, but anything is possible with regards to yourself which again means that at every instant you know that anything could happen but not what will happen.
-
Well, this is the age old story of deciding there can't be a God b/c He doesn't do things the way we would like. The Bible says that God gives us the worlds to speak because we don't know what we should pray for. If being given the words to pray benefits God, or us, the Bible is not clear. Why we should need to pray the things we don't know for, instead of just saying 'and don't forget the stuff I don't know', is also not clear except that by the very act, we're reminded that we don't know enough to know all the things we should be asking for or seeking, all the time. Speaking in tongues, according to the Bible, builds up our faith and keeps us in God's love.
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:
we don't know enough to know all the things we should be asking for or seeking
Hang on, what happend to the ten commandments? Praying for no murder, no stealing, no envy, no adultery, etc etc etc is not enough? I would like to know just what god IS telling you to pray for, it must be some pretty far out stuff!
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
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.
-
I was going to stay out of this thread, aside from my usual inane jokes, but I just have to step in... Sorry if this sounds offensive, but I'm just trying to be logical... That's how my mind works :)
Christian Graus wrote:
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 Superman was found to be real, then there would be plenty of other proof besides a comic book. Photographs and video, to start. The comic book itself would not be proof of his existence, any more than my novels are proof of the existence of the Xen Guardians.
Christian Graus wrote:
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.
Except, as you've described (And correct me if I'm wrong), you can only receive this "proof" if you already believe in "god". So its presence can affirm your belief, and its absence can affirm your disbelief. Basically, either way it just confirms what you already think to be true. If someone actually tries to test it and fails, then the standard answer from the religious side is always something along the lines of "You weren't REALLY trying because you didn't believe" Or are you saying that I, as an atheist, would be able to accurately test this proof? Real proof would be something that would bring you from a state of doubt to a state of belief, not something that requires belief in the first place.
Proud to have finally moved to the A-Ark. Which one are you in?
Author of the Guardians Saga (Sci-Fi/Fantasy novels)Ian Shlasko wrote:
Except, as you've described (And correct me if I'm wrong), you can only receive this "proof" if you already believe in "god".
What he actually said was a little more obtuse than that. It wasn't so much already believing as being 'willing enough' to accept it as true. It's something akin to somebody telling you that human flight is possible, but to prove it you have to be willing enough to accept it as true that you'll fling yourself off a tall building.