If belief in God is rational, you must concede that belief in Jesus is at least plausible.
It's possible that Jesus did exist, people claim they saw and even touch him. But what does make you think that God exists?
Topic: There was no Big Bang, Truth shall set you free!!!! - page 6. (Read 11621 times)
It's possible that Jesus did exist, people claim they saw and even touch him. But what does make you think that God exists?
I find the belief in God to be something very rational, but I can't say the same about the belief in Jesus. At all.
If belief in God is rational, you must concede that belief in Jesus is at least plausible.
There's simply not enough information to soundly conclude that God must necessarily exist because you likened the Universe to a watch. Plausible? Sure. Sound? No. That's about as clear as it gets.
I'm not even sure it's plausible. Invoking a god because of a lack of either imagination or knowledge (or both) is the ultimate deus ex machina - an difficult problem solved by a being that can solve any problem.
To me this is just intellectual laziness. It's just too easy to say "well I don't understand, so it must be caused by a god of some sort".
difficult != impossible
Well I simply had an opinion based on what I personally believe I didn't ask anyone to changs their view for me. Now I'm being challenged because someone thinks they KNOW 100% even though they are limited in knowledge based on their brain that they had no part in designing.
So please show me your 100% fact there is no God that simply the whole world can say ah ok yo're right there is no God. You atheists are a bunch of pseudo intellectuals wearing long black coats and matrix glasses thinking the whole world doesent get what they get. If you can't be intellectally honest enough to accept being an atheist needs as much faith as believing in God, agnostics I think are worth having a conversation with Atheists have nothing but other people to point at and say see they think this, it must be true. Intelletually moronic.
Logic is axiomatically a predicate for truth. Truth takes the form of sound, rational statements (where the root word of 'rational' is 'ratio'). In other words, any true statement is simply a sound description of some relationship or characteristic thereof. It's a mistake to assume that we can't "KNOW 100%," as you suggest, because we didn't design our brain. It is logical that truth only exists inasmuch as sound, rational expression. Talking about "truth" outside of a logical perspective takes you down an irrelevant path.
Furthermore, your challenge to him to "please show [you his] 100% fact there is no God" is dubious since that wasn't his assertion. The assertion seems to be that the conclusion that God must necessarily exist because you decided to arbitrarily set the Universe as analogous to a watch is a non-sequitur. That is, the conclusion isn't that God doesn't exist based upon your premise, but simply that we can't conclude that God exists. There's a huge difference. And, he's also correct (excluding his comments about plausibility).
Throughout your post, I'd also like to point out your inherent contradiction in that you assert that people "[can't] KNOW 100%" because of the physical limitations of the brain, but then you rely upon your own use of logic which you seem to be asserting with absolute, 100% confidence. For example, saying that "[people can't] know 100%" is the same as saying "I know 100% that people can't know 100%." For, if you're not making that statement, then you must concede that it's essentially meaningless to consider anything you're stating as fact of any kind.
I know a couple of people that talk like you like they just finished their Degree in Philosophy. This is a discussion not a thesis. Both are now working in menial jobs. God bless em.
This is a "discussion not a thesis?" What the heck is that supposed to mean? I'm only allowed to say complete BS? Is that the rule?
I gave a thoughtful, point-by-point response to your post. Are you upset about that?
Nothing that I said is profound, and it's not even complicated. It is, however, correct.
I'll share my ideas however I please, thanks. If you're going to spout some cliche, romanticized ideas because they make you feel smart, go for it. You just end up sounding insane when you call people "intellectually moronic" because you are asserting that you know for certain (via logic) that people cannot know for certain (via logic).
Why do you pick on nextgencoin for using logic to determine that logic can't determine anything, while at the same time you are bigoted against only certain kinds of bigots?
nextgencoin is only promoting idiocy, which, although isn't very helpful, is not the condemnation of a complete stranger to hell for eternity for characteristics they were born with because of the God you believe in. Sorry, I'm bigoted against people who are awful towards others and take pride in it.
Also, I really don't understand your point as it is exactly written. Are you suggesting that I should be a bigot towards myself for correcting someone's poor use of reasoning?
Why do you pick on nextgencoin for using logic to determine that logic can't determine anything, while at the same time you are bigoted against only certain kinds of bigots?
Why are you supporting a bigot?
I find the belief in God to be something very rational, but I can't say the same about the belief in Jesus. At all.
There's simply not enough information to soundly conclude that God must necessarily exist because you likened the Universe to a watch. Plausible? Sure. Sound? No. That's about as clear as it gets.
I'm not even sure it's plausible. Invoking a god because of a lack of either imagination or knowledge (or both) is the ultimate deus ex machina - an difficult problem solved by a being that can solve any problem.
To me this is just intellectual laziness. It's just too easy to say "well I don't understand, so it must be caused by a god of some sort".
difficult != impossible
Well I simply had an opinion based on what I personally believe I didn't ask anyone to changs their view for me. Now I'm being challenged because someone thinks they KNOW 100% even though they are limited in knowledge based on their brain that they had no part in designing.
So please show me your 100% fact there is no God that simply the whole world can say ah ok yo're right there is no God. You atheists are a bunch of pseudo intellectuals wearing long black coats and matrix glasses thinking the whole world doesent get what they get. If you can't be intellectally honest enough to accept being an atheist needs as much faith as believing in God, agnostics I think are worth having a conversation with Atheists have nothing but other people to point at and say see they think this, it must be true. Intelletually moronic.
Logic is axiomatically a predicate for truth. Truth takes the form of sound, rational statements (where the root word of 'rational' is 'ratio'). In other words, any true statement is simply a sound description of some relationship or characteristic thereof. It's a mistake to assume that we can't "KNOW 100%," as you suggest, because we didn't design our brain. It is logical that truth only exists inasmuch as sound, rational expression. Talking about "truth" outside of a logical perspective takes you down an irrelevant path.
Furthermore, your challenge to him to "please show [you his] 100% fact there is no God" is dubious since that wasn't his assertion. The assertion seems to be that the conclusion that God must necessarily exist because you decided to arbitrarily set the Universe as analogous to a watch is a non-sequitur. That is, the conclusion isn't that God doesn't exist based upon your premise, but simply that we can't conclude that God exists. There's a huge difference. And, he's also correct (excluding his comments about plausibility).
Throughout your post, I'd also like to point out your inherent contradiction in that you assert that people "[can't] KNOW 100%" because of the physical limitations of the brain, but then you rely upon your own use of logic which you seem to be asserting with absolute, 100% confidence. For example, saying that "[people can't] know 100%" is the same as saying "I know 100% that people can't know 100%." For, if you're not making that statement, then you must concede that it's essentially meaningless to consider anything you're stating as fact of any kind.
I know a couple of people that talk like you like they just finished their Degree in Philosophy. This is a discussion not a thesis. Both are now working in menial jobs. God bless em.
This is a "discussion not a thesis?" What the heck is that supposed to mean? I'm only allowed to say complete BS? Is that the rule?
I gave a thoughtful, point-by-point response to your post. Are you upset about that?
Nothing that I said is profound, and it's not even complicated. It is, however, correct.
I'll share my ideas however I please, thanks. If you're going to spout some cliche, romanticized ideas because they make you feel smart, go for it. You just end up sounding insane when you call people "intellectually moronic" because you are asserting that you know for certain (via logic) that people cannot know for certain (via logic).
Why do you pick on nextgencoin for using logic to determine that logic can't determine anything, while at the same time you are bigoted against only certain kinds of bigots?
definitely a good read!
There's simply not enough information to soundly conclude that God must necessarily exist because you likened the Universe to a watch. Plausible? Sure. Sound? No. That's about as clear as it gets.
I'm not even sure it's plausible. Invoking a god because of a lack of either imagination or knowledge (or both) is the ultimate deus ex machina - an difficult problem solved by a being that can solve any problem.
To me this is just intellectual laziness. It's just too easy to say "well I don't understand, so it must be caused by a god of some sort".
difficult != impossible
Well I simply had an opinion based on what I personally believe I didn't ask anyone to changs their view for me. Now I'm being challenged because someone thinks they KNOW 100% even though they are limited in knowledge based on their brain that they had no part in designing.
So please show me your 100% fact there is no God that simply the whole world can say ah ok yo're right there is no God. You atheists are a bunch of pseudo intellectuals wearing long black coats and matrix glasses thinking the whole world doesent get what they get. If you can't be intellectally honest enough to accept being an atheist needs as much faith as believing in God, agnostics I think are worth having a conversation with Atheists have nothing but other people to point at and say see they think this, it must be true. Intelletually moronic.
Logic is axiomatically a predicate for truth. Truth takes the form of sound, rational statements (where the root word of 'rational' is 'ratio'). In other words, any true statement is simply a sound description of some relationship or characteristic thereof. It's a mistake to assume that we can't "KNOW 100%," as you suggest, because we didn't design our brain. It is logical that truth only exists inasmuch as sound, rational expression. Talking about "truth" outside of a logical perspective takes you down an irrelevant path.
Furthermore, your challenge to him to "please show [you his] 100% fact there is no God" is dubious since that wasn't his assertion. The assertion seems to be that the conclusion that God must necessarily exist because you decided to arbitrarily set the Universe as analogous to a watch is a non-sequitur. That is, the conclusion isn't that God doesn't exist based upon your premise, but simply that we can't conclude that God exists. There's a huge difference. And, he's also correct (excluding his comments about plausibility).
Throughout your post, I'd also like to point out your inherent contradiction in that you assert that people "[can't] KNOW 100%" because of the physical limitations of the brain, but then you rely upon your own use of logic which you seem to be asserting with absolute, 100% confidence. For example, saying that "[people can't] know 100%" is the same as saying "I know 100% that people can't know 100%." For, if you're not making that statement, then you must concede that it's essentially meaningless to consider anything you're stating as fact of any kind.
I know a couple of people that talk like you like they just finished their Degree in Philosophy. This is a discussion not a thesis. Both are now working in menial jobs. God bless em.
This is a "discussion not a thesis?" What the heck is that supposed to mean? I'm only allowed to say complete BS? Is that the rule?
I gave a thoughtful, point-by-point response to your post. Are you upset about that?
Nothing that I said is profound, and it's not even complicated. It is, however, correct.
I'll share my ideas however I please, thanks. If you're going to spout some cliche, romanticized ideas because they make you feel smart, go for it. You just end up sounding insane when you call people "intellectually moronic" because you are asserting that you know for certain (via logic) that people cannot know for certain (via logic).
We don't really die since all the atoms that constitute us stay on earth but they are used to make something else.
I think that you have a completely different idea of what living is to most people.
'Cause it was a real death... just like His resurrection was a real resurrection.
He knew he would stay alive. Not much sacrifice in such the deed...
Staying alive only comes after the death and resurrection. Now that He is alive again, death has no mastery over Him. He will be alive forever.
We don't really die since all the atoms that constitute us stay on earth but they are used to make something else.
I came back today to continue an intelligent conversation but it looks like people have just turned to their real selves and are just mocking for the sake of mocking. Seems to me one person can't hold a contradictory opinion on here without the majority attempting to club him to death instead of having a genuine discussion. Typical group behaviour that has singled out humans as susceptible to evil be it Nazi, Communist state sponsored evil.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Case-Christ-Journalists-Investigation/dp/0310209307
But if anyone is interested this is a great book that gives an intelligent walk through of faith from an unbelieving journalist and lawyer who genuinely wanted to understand and know what this faith was and became a believer in the process. The rest of you can fuck off, becoming a believing in God never gave anyone a licencee to treat me like a fucking wanker, Gays don't dare say a word against Gays. It Chritians yeah they are fair play.so fuck off and yeah I hope God judges your asses cause I personally don't have the compassion for your type of anti God Fuckwittery.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Case-Christ-Journalists-Investigation/dp/0310209307
But if anyone is interested this is a great book that gives an intelligent walk through of faith from an unbelieving journalist and lawyer who genuinely wanted to understand and know what this faith was and became a believer in the process. The rest of you can fuck off, becoming a believing in God never gave anyone a licencee to treat me like a fucking wanker, Gays don't dare say a word against Gays. It Chritians yeah they are fair play.so fuck off and yeah I hope God judges your asses cause I personally don't have the compassion for your type of anti God Fuckwittery.
This post seems to shining proof for me that the truth is indeed here: http://godisimaginary.com/i49.htm
Quote
In Christian mythology, God is supposed to the the all-powerful, all-knowing creator of the universe. God is supposed to have incarnated himself as Jesus and he is supposed to have written the Bible. And yet today God is completely and absolutely silent. Therefore, the only thing we hear from God comes from people who are speaking on his behalf.
If you would like to understand how imaginary God is, all that you have to do is listen to God's spokespeople, because in many cases these people are lunatics. If there actually were a God, and if he actually had anything to do with love, he would silence these people because they are an absolute embarrassment.
If you would like to understand how imaginary God is, all that you have to do is listen to God's spokespeople, because in many cases these people are lunatics. If there actually were a God, and if he actually had anything to do with love, he would silence these people because they are an absolute embarrassment.
This is all mental masturbation. How are we supossed to physically prove this?
You sound like masturbation is evil. I hope you don't imply that masturbators deserve hell?
This is all mental masturbation. How are we supossed to physically prove this?
'Cause it was a real death... just like His resurrection was a real resurrection.
He knew he would stay alive. Not much sacrifice in such the deed...
Staying alive only comes after the death and resurrection. Now that He is alive again, death has no mastery over Him. He will be alive forever.
Nextgencoin ran away claiming it was late. His post history with ranting about computer nerds, damn FED, mainstream media cnbc, and gold leads me to believe he is a paranoid uneducated American praise the lord and pass the ammunition type person. It is at most 430pm where he is, and I conclude he has conceded his argument
Praise the FSM
Praise the FSM
'Cause it was a real death... just like His resurrection was a real resurrection.
He knew he would stay alive. Not much sacrifice in such the deed...
God came as a man to earth, I think that shows his compassion and desire to bring all men to himself.
If Jesus didn't stay dead, how could His death have been a REAL sacrifice?
'Cause it was a real death... just like His resurrection was a real resurrection.
The fact is if God is God he can do what the hell he wants.
Can he create a stone that he can't lift?
That's what Jesus was. In the case of Jesus, Jesus obeyed God perfectly so that God didn't have to lift him. He lifted Himself, at god's bidding, right up onto the cross.
Which translation? The King James version, which you think is the only one to exist, 1611, that pretty recent for a revision. God fucked up the original? Omnipotent supreme being needs editors and rewrites?
This is a side effect of destroyed tower of Babel.
Jump to: