Bible Contradictions 2.0

Tiribulus · February 20, 2011, 1:15pm

It is almost beyond all belief how you guys have absolutely no idea of even the general drift of what I’m saying so much of the time. Of course you will rejoice in declaring how that’s just as it should be with a hopeless schismatic antique Calvinist protestant like myself. I would turn that back at ya as I hope you would expect by now, but there’s no telling WHAT you might expect by now.

I made a couple challenges where if it could be demonstrated by quoting me that I had said some outrageous things that Pat was accusing me of I would convert to Catholicism and post a video of myself saying the rosary. I find posts here now from you guys expecting both of those actions on my part though no such demonstration of my alleged statements has been forthcoming.

Now these posts from Pat and Chris that are not even intelligible in light of the previous train of thought. I’m not calling you guys idiots so don’t take it that way, I’m simply highlighting how differently we approach even simple communication when it comes to “life and godliness”.

jakerz96 · February 20, 2011, 3:52pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It is almost beyond all belief how you guys have absolutely no idea of even the general drift of what I’m saying so much of the time. Of course you will rejoice in declaring how that’s just as it should be with a hopeless schismatic antique Calvinist protestant like myself. I would turn that back at ya as I hope you would expect by now, but there’s no telling WHAT you might expect by now.

I made a couple challenges where if it could be demonstrated by quoting me that I had said some outrageous things that Pat was accusing me of I would convert to Catholicism and post a video of myself saying the rosary. I find posts here now from you guys expecting both of those actions on my part though no such demonstration of my alleged statements has been forthcoming.

Now these posts from Pat and Chris that are not even intelligible in light of the previous train of thought. I’m not calling you guys idiots so don’t take it that way, I’m simply highlighting how differently we approach even simple communication when it comes to “life and godliness”.[/quote]
Converting, because you once said something stupid or out of character would be really really dumb anyway.

TheBodyGuard · February 20, 2011, 5:00pm

[quote]pat wrote:

You can’t be bothered to read a single page? I have in fact written the argument in various forms several times here. The problem is it takes a lot of work and a single one page link suffices to lay it out basically.
You’re counter argument is that because you cannot know everything you know that everything has ever existed, you cannot know it was all caused.
That is an a posteriori on an a priori argument. That’s a problem with empirical inferences not deductive arguments. It actually has a name, it’s called the principle of ‘Sufficient Reason’. In short, the nature of existence demands a reason. Regardless or dimension, time, space, evolution, banging on a pot, etc the very essence of existence requires a reason, a cause, or a dependency. It doesn’t matter if it’s stings, elementary particles, etc. there is always a reason why it is there. Logic demands it. Further it also demands that existence is caused, and ultimately, something must exist that originated
causation.
Perception is irrelevant and so is string theory in all it’s dimensions, or any other attempt at a ‘Theory of Everything’. Existence it self is the problem.
As you can discover things with math, at a higher level you can discover things with logic.[/quote]

I don’t need you to label my arguments sir. And if you do not want to succinctly lay out your point b/c you feel you have prior, that’s your decision. Again, your conclusions, even your labeling of my arguments, and finally your sating that “existence demands a cause” is a perspective trapped in humanities limited experience with and perception of our unknown universe. You cannot perceive 10 dimensions on your best day - what makes you think you can perceive whether or not the universe had a cause? It is humanities nature to wonder about such things and they make for interesting conversations, but at the end of the day, it’s speculation. LOL at you taking the time to label various arguments. Make your point or specifically rebut mine - stop talking down to people.

TheBodyGuard · February 20, 2011, 5:05pm

It’s discussions like these that lead me to conclude these scriptures are not of God. And this discussion would repeat itself in any context - on online forum, in person, any other media where you can communicate, there would be people jumping up and down screaming at the other for not believing what they believe.

Contrast that simple reality with what are in reality simple truths. Simple truths reveal themselves to everyone. You won’t find two people ready to war over the observation that a tree is a tree. Yet they will happily kill each other, and here defame and demean each other, over who they say is God.

And you see the hand of the perfect almighty in this?

TheBodyGuard · February 20, 2011, 5:06pm

Simple question Pat. How did the universe spring into existence?

jakerz96 · February 20, 2011, 7:10pm

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

stop talking down to people.
[/quote]
I think you are imagining this.

Brother_Chris · February 20, 2011, 9:01pm

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It is almost beyond all belief how you guys have absolutely no idea of even the general drift of what I’m saying so much of the time. Of course you will rejoice in declaring how that’s just as it should be with a hopeless schismatic antique Calvinist protestant like myself. I would turn that back at ya as I hope you would expect by now, but there’s no telling WHAT you might expect by now.

I made a couple challenges where if it could be demonstrated by quoting me that I had said some outrageous things that Pat was accusing me of I would convert to Catholicism and post a video of myself saying the rosary. I find posts here now from you guys expecting both of those actions on my part though no such demonstration of my alleged statements has been forthcoming.

Now these posts from Pat and Chris that are not even intelligible in light of the previous train of thought. I’m not calling you guys idiots so don’t take it that way, I’m simply highlighting how differently we approach even simple communication when it comes to “life and godliness”.[/quote]

I have no clue what you’re talking about when it comes to conversion or saying the Rosary (beyond getting a response from the Friar saying that we can judge a man’s heart and say he is in Hell). And why wouldn’t you pray the Rosary, it is the Gospel. Everything in the Rosary is from the Gospel, and specifically the NT.

Brother_Chris · February 20, 2011, 9:04pm

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
these scriptures are not of God.[/quote]

Uh huh.

Tiribulus · February 20, 2011, 9:10pm

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:<<< Converting, because you once said something stupid or out of character would be really really dumb anyway.[/quote]It was alleged that I made statements which I am so certain that I did not make that I promised I would convert to Catholicism if my words could be produced showing them. My buddies here are now celebrating my conversion and waiting to say the rosary with me as if said alleged statements of mine had been verified. Nothing of the kind has happened and I am waiting until more false accusations are made whereupon I will then document what I actually said complete with quotes, dates and times and links to the original statements thereby displaying for all to see exactly what is going on here.

I haven’t even called for an apology. Only that it be acknowledged that I did not say what is being alleged. Ask them, what is being alleged, not me, if they even remember. I should throw in here that I am not even slightly angry or even mildly irritated. Jist par for the course. I will go back to cowardly running from Pat’s formidable scholarship as soon as he states that he accused me in error. Until then I see no excuse for waisting my time, his time or God’s time with him for that matter. Chris has that soft spot in me and he didn’t actually make the ridiculous accusations so I’m not responsible for not being able to control myself with him. =]

pat · February 21, 2011, 12:28am

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You can’t be bothered to read a single page? I have in fact written the argument in various forms several times here. The problem is it takes a lot of work and a single one page link suffices to lay it out basically.
You’re counter argument is that because you cannot know everything you know that everything has ever existed, you cannot know it was all caused.
That is an a posteriori on an a priori argument. That’s a problem with empirical inferences not deductive arguments. It actually has a name, it’s called the principle of ‘Sufficient Reason’. In short, the nature of existence demands a reason. Regardless or dimension, time, space, evolution, banging on a pot, etc the very essence of existence requires a reason, a cause, or a dependency. It doesn’t matter if it’s stings, elementary particles, etc. there is always a reason why it is there. Logic demands it. Further it also demands that existence is caused, and ultimately, something must exist that originated
causation.
Perception is irrelevant and so is string theory in all it’s dimensions, or any other attempt at a ‘Theory of Everything’. Existence it self is the problem.
As you can discover things with math, at a higher level you can discover things with logic.[/quote]

I don’t need you to label my arguments sir. And if you do not want to succinctly lay out your point b/c you feel you have prior, that’s your decision. Again, your conclusions, even your labeling of my arguments, and finally your sating that “existence demands a cause” is a perspective trapped in humanities limited experience with and perception of our unknown universe. You cannot perceive 10 dimensions on your best day - what makes you think you can perceive whether or not the universe had a cause? It is humanities nature to wonder about such things and they make for interesting conversations, but at the end of the day, it’s speculation. LOL at you taking the time to label various arguments. Make your point or specifically rebut mine - stop talking down to people.
[/quote]

It’s not about perception. Perception is small issue to it, if at all. And how can you now speak of string theory when you when to such great lengths to tell me I am unworthy of discussing it because I don’t know anything? So you know everything and hence your qualified? Interesting since you don’t even understand simple cosmology and causation?
Again, it’s not about perception, you cannot perceive the beginning of the universe since it is beyond the senses to do so.
Further, it’s 11 dimensions and not 10 and in either case in every dimension and the dimensions themselves have existence and contingency.

I did specifically rebut your point that you have to know everything in order to know that all things that exist result in a cause. Perception has nothing to do with it.

Things are caused or they are not. If you don’t think they are then prove it. And if that isn’t you counter argument then I don’t know what you are trying to say.

The link lays the argument and describes it well. I can copy and paste it, but I am not writing a term paper for you. Especially, as evidenced by this ‘discussion’ you likely won’t get it anyway. So I don’t see the point.

If you don’t want to read it I don’t care, but don’t go around telling me I am wrong when you don’t even know what the hell I am talking about.

pat · February 21, 2011, 12:31am

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Simple question Pat. How did the universe spring into existence?[/quote]

Far as I know, the current theory is the big bang occurring some where between 13 and 15 billion years ago. Beyond that I don’t know…

pat · February 21, 2011, 12:33am

[quote]jakerz96 wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

stop talking down to people.
[/quote]
I think you are imagining this.[/quote]

Sometimes the words on the page are elusive. But I am wrong because I don’t know everything.

pat · February 21, 2011, 12:35am

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
It is almost beyond all belief how you guys have absolutely no idea of even the general drift of what I’m saying so much of the time. Of course you will rejoice in declaring how that’s just as it should be with a hopeless schismatic antique Calvinist protestant like myself. I would turn that back at ya as I hope you would expect by now, but there’s no telling WHAT you might expect by now.

I made a couple challenges where if it could be demonstrated by quoting me that I had said some outrageous things that Pat was accusing me of I would convert to Catholicism and post a video of myself saying the rosary. I find posts here now from you guys expecting both of those actions on my part though no such demonstration of my alleged statements has been forthcoming.

Now these posts from Pat and Chris that are not even intelligible in light of the previous train of thought. I’m not calling you guys idiots so don’t take it that way, I’m simply highlighting how differently we approach even simple communication when it comes to “life and godliness”.[/quote]

You can’t be that devoid of a sense of humor, can you? I was just kidding.

pat · February 21, 2011, 12:38am

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s discussions like these that lead me to conclude these scriptures are not of God. And this discussion would repeat itself in any context - on online forum, in person, any other media where you can communicate, there would be people jumping up and down screaming at the other for not believing what they believe.

Contrast that simple reality with what are in reality simple truths. Simple truths reveal themselves to everyone. You won’t find two people ready to war over the observation that a tree is a tree. Yet they will happily kill each other, and here defame and demean each other, over who they say is God.

And you see the hand of the perfect almighty in this? [/quote]

Yep, but you are entitled to your opinion, so don’t read them if you don’t want to.

TheBodyGuard · February 21, 2011, 1:16am

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

You can’t be bothered to read a single page? I have in fact written the argument in various forms several times here. The problem is it takes a lot of work and a single one page link suffices to lay it out basically.
You’re counter argument is that because you cannot know everything you know that everything has ever existed, you cannot know it was all caused.
That is an a posteriori on an a priori argument. That’s a problem with empirical inferences not deductive arguments. It actually has a name, it’s called the principle of ‘Sufficient Reason’. In short, the nature of existence demands a reason. Regardless or dimension, time, space, evolution, banging on a pot, etc the very essence of existence requires a reason, a cause, or a dependency. It doesn’t matter if it’s stings, elementary particles, etc. there is always a reason why it is there. Logic demands it. Further it also demands that existence is caused, and ultimately, something must exist that originated
causation.
Perception is irrelevant and so is string theory in all it’s dimensions, or any other attempt at a ‘Theory of Everything’. Existence it self is the problem.
As you can discover things with math, at a higher level you can discover things with logic.[/quote]

I don’t need you to label my arguments sir. And if you do not want to succinctly lay out your point b/c you feel you have prior, that’s your decision. Again, your conclusions, even your labeling of my arguments, and finally your sating that “existence demands a cause” is a perspective trapped in humanities limited experience with and perception of our unknown universe. You cannot perceive 10 dimensions on your best day - what makes you think you can perceive whether or not the universe had a cause? It is humanities nature to wonder about such things and they make for interesting conversations, but at the end of the day, it’s speculation. LOL at you taking the time to label various arguments. Make your point or specifically rebut mine - stop talking down to people.
[/quote]

It’s not about perception. Perception is small issue to it, if at all. And how can you now speak of string theory when you when to such great lengths to tell me I am unworthy of discussing it because I don’t know anything? So you know everything and hence your qualified? Interesting since you don’t even understand simple cosmology and causation?
Again, it’s not about perception, you cannot perceive the beginning of the universe since it is beyond the senses to do so.
Further, it’s 11 dimensions and not 10 and in either case in every dimension and the dimensions themselves have existence and contingency.

I did specifically rebut your point that you have to know everything in order to know that all things that exist result in a cause. Perception has nothing to do with it.

Things are caused or they are not. If you don’t think they are then prove it. And if that isn’t you counter argument then I don’t know what you are trying to say.

The link lays the argument and describes it well. I can copy and paste it, but I am not writing a term paper for you. Especially, as evidenced by this ‘discussion’ you likely won’t get it anyway. So I don’t see the point.

If you don’t want to read it I don’t care, but don’t go around telling me I am wrong when you don’t even know what the hell I am talking about.[/quote]

This is called arguing in circles in case you were wondering LOL

It IS about perception. Theories, philosophy, the concept of causation, the labels you use to describe something, are all based on your perception of this life and have very little to do with the math behind these advanced TP theories.

I didn’t say I know everything and am otherwise any more qualified than you. By the way, that’s called an ad hominem argument.

Further to your “further” - I do not have my reference books out and it matters not whether 10 or 11 as I was illustrating a point - that poing being that you cannot imagine any of them beyond those that you believe you experience within your perception of life.

You say things are caused or they are not. I say to you, prove it. Tell me how the Universe began. I’m waiting for an answer.

And please, no more cutting and pasting. I’d like some or your original thoughts on it. What caused the Universe. I’m waiting for an answer.

TheBodyGuard · February 21, 2011, 1:18am

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
Simple question Pat. How did the universe spring into existence?[/quote]

Far as I know, the current theory is the big bang occurring some where between 13 and 15 billion years ago. Beyond that I don’t know…[/quote]

Oh, that was not very satisfying. What with all the references you posted and the blustering about causes and cosmology.

What preceded the big bang? What caused it?

TheBodyGuard · February 21, 2011, 1:20am

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:
It’s discussions like these that lead me to conclude these scriptures are not of God. And this discussion would repeat itself in any context - on online forum, in person, any other media where you can communicate, there would be people jumping up and down screaming at the other for not believing what they believe.

Contrast that simple reality with what are in reality simple truths. Simple truths reveal themselves to everyone. You won’t find two people ready to war over the observation that a tree is a tree. Yet they will happily kill each other, and here defame and demean each other, over who they say is God.

And you see the hand of the perfect almighty in this? [/quote]

Yep, but you are entitled to your opinion, so don’t read them if you don’t want to.[/quote]

What kind of argument was that? LOL

I need you to tell me I’m entitled to my opinion? It is my opinion; that’s what we’re expressing here - including you.

TheBodyGuard · February 21, 2011, 1:25am

The very “perception” of causation, and the principles you assign to it are directly related to man’s experience with the universe as we know it. And we can all agree, WE DO NOT KNOW THE UNIVERSE. If you do not know the universe, causation as you perceive it, is not necessarily required.

Your very own scriptures speak of “eternal” yet you cannot imagine it or accept it, because apparently Pat requires a cause, and if there is a cause, there is a beginning. If there is a beginning, it was not eternal.

I’m open to the possibility that “it” was always here. I say “it” because we do not know the nature of this universe, if there is only one, if the universe is contained within something else, etc and so forth.

TheBodyGuard · February 21, 2011, 1:36am

Since you like posting references, I very quickly fount this (first google hit) which I am not exactly cosigning as “scientific”, but apparently someone else in the world “gets” the fact that you’re tied up in perception and language.

http://thelanguageguy.blogspot.com/2006/04/god-time-matter-energy-causation-and.html

And speaking of the “hard-wiring” of our perceptions:

I can do the reference thing all day, or you can answer my questions and I’ll respond in kind. You keep trying to get around “perception” - you cannot. Everything you speak of, even the definitions and concepts of the words you use are based upon our hard-wired experience with the universe - and that experience is an illusion.

pat · February 21, 2011, 3:11pm