[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Lol. The bible is full of errors and contradictions, but that’s okay because it’s only THE BIBLE! The inerrant word of God doesn’t need to be inerrant, it’s not some history book, it’s just a book of (supposed) historical events… way different!!!
Clearly by pointing out these abhorrent flaws I am making the logical fallacy of… being accurate.
Boy, I sure am glad you all took the time to tell me I was wrong, you know, without actually showing the flaws in mt logic, because otherwise I’d be some heathenish SCIENTIST or something childish like that. =3[/quote]
Oh, that was logic?
You talk to much and listen to little. The bible is what it is, I make no apologies for it, but I am pretty sure I know it far better than you. If you don’t like, don’t read it, it’s blatant that you have not. It is no concern of mine. I don’t care. [/quote]
I haven’t read the bible? Why? Because I don’t agree with it? That exact same argument could be used to “justify” ANY religion.
Besides, I’ve listed several verses, all related to the topic at hand, was this just a coincidence? I just typed a name and some numbers and it just happened to fit? Hmm?[/quote]
No, because you don’t know what your talking about.[/quote]
How so? Be specific. [/quote]
All your ‘arguments’ have been made by other athiests. They got them from virtually same sources but unfortunately for you they provided the links. So you ain’t breaking any new ground, I have seen in all before. Same exact things.
So you reckon your self a biblical scholar do you? These questions should be easy for you then, we’ll do a little test.
Who wrote the bible?
When was it written?
Who removed books from the bible and why? What books were they?
Which books got put back?
Google away…[/quote]
Didn’t you JUST say you didn’t want to talk to me? Did you just change your mind real quick?
Again you proclaim such simplicity in debunking my arguments, but make no effort whatsoever to do so. I call bullshit.
WTF? You already acknowledge that all these questions could be answered by anyone capable of maneuvering Google, but proceed to ask as though these questions will prove anything either way?
You’re not an intelligent man, Pat. If you’re going to talk to me anyway you might as well bring up arguments relative to my argument, is that so damn hard?
Pat, not sure what happened to my earlier post but in a nutshell I think you are making some unwarranted assumptions that might be worth reconsidering.
For example, how do you know matter doesn’t ultimately reduce to an elementary particle or set of particles? There’s no proof for this.
Also, how do you know that more complex particles, like atoms and molecules, haven’t always existed?
Finally, decide whether or not you believe the laws of the universe can change. If not, the laws of thermodynamics clearly state that matter and energy can’t be created or destroyed, end of story. If so, you can’t logically rule out randomness or insist on an entirely deterministic universe, since that may also have changed.
Chris - you say a person needs the Church to understand the bible, because only other Church members can explain it correctly.
Why isn’t it understandable by a person without the help of others? Why doesn’t the damn thing just make sense?
Also, how does a person become a part of the Church so that they’re the one someone goes to for biblical interpretation? What proof or assurance do you have that they have a correct interpretation or explanation? Could a person with a bad or incorrect interpretation of the bible possibly rise in the ranks of the Church?
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Lol. The bible is full of errors and contradictions, but that’s okay because it’s only THE BIBLE! The inerrant word of God doesn’t need to be inerrant, it’s not some history book, it’s just a book of (supposed) historical events… way different!!!
Clearly by pointing out these abhorrent flaws I am making the logical fallacy of… being accurate.
Boy, I sure am glad you all took the time to tell me I was wrong, you know, without actually showing the flaws in mt logic, because otherwise I’d be some heathenish SCIENTIST or something childish like that. =3[/quote]
Oh, that was logic?
You talk to much and listen to little. The bible is what it is, I make no apologies for it, but I am pretty sure I know it far better than you. If you don’t like, don’t read it, it’s blatant that you have not. It is no concern of mine. I don’t care. [/quote]
I haven’t read the bible? Why? Because I don’t agree with it? That exact same argument could be used to “justify” ANY religion.
Besides, I’ve listed several verses, all related to the topic at hand, was this just a coincidence? I just typed a name and some numbers and it just happened to fit? Hmm?[/quote]
No, because you don’t know what your talking about.[/quote]
How so? Be specific. [/quote]
All your ‘arguments’ have been made by other athiests. They got them from virtually same sources but unfortunately for you they provided the links. So you ain’t breaking any new ground, I have seen in all before. Same exact things.
So you reckon your self a biblical scholar do you? These questions should be easy for you then, we’ll do a little test.
Who wrote the bible?
When was it written?
Who removed books from the bible and why? What books were they?
Which books got put back?
Google away…[/quote]
Didn’t you JUST say you didn’t want to talk to me? Did you just change your mind real quick?
Again you proclaim such simplicity in debunking my arguments, but make no effort whatsoever to do so. I call bullshit.
WTF? You already acknowledge that all these questions could be answered by anyone capable of maneuvering Google, but proceed to ask as though these questions will prove anything either way?
You’re not an intelligent man, Pat. If you’re going to talk to me anyway you might as well bring up arguments relative to my argument, is that so damn hard?[/quote]
Come on, dude…is it really necessary insult his intelligence? Pat is a bright guy, and is more open minded than many religious folks I’ve met. For that matter, Tiribulus is intelligent as well. There’s no correlation between intelligence and religious beliefs. Some of the brightest people on the planet are believers.
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
… Did you forget all that stuff about needing to understand the Hebrew and Greek version, or are you going to pretend that didn’t happen?
You’ve said I can’t be properly opposed to Christianity because “doctors” who are uber-smrt argue over the bible… therefore my arguments must be faulty (lol). HOWEVER it’s perfectly okay to be FOR Christianity because the CHURCH will guide you and tell you that it all adds up and that’s good enough for you!
Your obedience is based on ignorance and when someone comes to you with a genuine contradiction you merely brush it off as “ignorance”, offer no argument otherwise and say that your church says it’s true and that’s better than ANY form of logic or empirical evidence it seems. =/[/quote]
Yes…you are good at the art of proof texting, and that is pretty insulting and bigotted to assume that my obedience is based on ignorance when you know nothing about me. I hope one day you learn your folly and realise your lack of openness to the truth. Coming to the table with the idea that you’re right is the wrong disposition. I hope you do not mind, but I’ll have to decline to continue this as it seems that neither of us is getting anywhere and you continue with the ad hominem attacks on my intelligence and the straw man arguments on what is taught by the Church.
For your own sake, pick up a Catechism of the Catholic Church and since you read so much, read through the whole thing and actually learn what I believe even on a shallow level, and maybe I’ll think about engaging you.[/quote]
I’m not putting words in your mouth. YOU said that I am wrong because these contradictions are mere translation problems, that I would have to understand the Greek and Hebrew versions in order to understand it AND you attempted to hide behind Ph.D. theologians as proof that I am wrong. This is an ad-hominem attack and it is the equivalent of saying I need to speak these languages and have a doctorate before any argument I give against Christianity can be taken with any sort of credibility. You also said that it’s okay for you to not have a doctorate or speak these languages because the church guides you. When you follow something without understanding what it’s all about for yourself, this is ignorance based obedience.
You say you’re done, but I have a feeling you aren’t capable of such a thing.
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Liberal professors?.. Okay o.O
Not only have I read the bible in its entirety, but I’ve read several translations of it.[/quote]
Oh? What was your favorite translation and why? or least favorite…Mostly interested in the why…[/quote]
Is this your best attempt at establishing that I don’t know the bible? Anyone could answer this question within 5 minutes via google.
I have a better idea, next time try to find an actual flaw in my arguement to establish my lack of biblical knowledge. [/quote]
You said you read several translations whole bible several times in it’s entirety, I want to know which translations and why you did not like them. Because I think you lied because you
don’t know what you talk about…But you can cut and paste like a mother fucker.
As far as I know, all you said, in very long prose is, that there is contradiction in the bible. I agree, I know there is. I don’t have to watch cartoons to figure that out.
A math book doesn’t often accurately define what an onomatopoeia is, but it has nothing to do with the purpose of the book or what the book actually is. Somebody who read the bible would know that.
You don’t have to like it, read it or anything. It’s not an issue to me. You’re entitled to your opinion. You think it’s bunk, then don’t waste your time with it. I couldn’t care less if I tried.[/quote]
If you don’t care that your bible is flawed and I find it as such… then why the FUCK do you keep talking to me? I didn’t start messaging you remember, YOU came to ME. If you don’t want to talk to me, then DON’T.[/quote]
No, was talking to BC, you butted in. I don’t care if you think it’s flawed. And I am happy to not talk to you… I am holding back the tears but I’ll get through.
[/quote]
Yeah, talking to Chris – relative to me and my argument. A cowardly tactic, but initial none the less
Well let’s clarify, when I say you need the Church, I mean the Catholic Church with the visible head being the Pope and the Bishop of Rome.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Chris - you say a person needs the Church to understand the bible, because only other Church members can explain it correctly.
[/quote]
Not just any members, the Magisterium, which is the Bishops in union with the Pope and the Bishop of Rome who has authority of the other bishops.
Because it being inspired by the Holy Ghost, it needs to be interpreted by the Holy Ghost and only those who are ordained with the Holy Ghost can properly interpret and teach Scripture (those in the Magisterium) infallibly. That doesn’t mean that others can’t have knowledge and know the truth which the Bible professes (that is what the Magisterium is for to teach us so we can know the Truth), but it has to be in accordance with the Magisterium.
[quote]
Also, how does a person become a part of the Church so that they’re the one someone goes to for biblical interpretation? What proof or assurance do you have that they have a correct interpretation or explanation? Could a person with a bad or incorrect interpretation of the bible possibly rise in the ranks of the Church?[/quote]
Well, first step is to be baptized, take holy communion, and then be confirmed. After that you can receive your Holy Orders to the Priesthood. Then a Bishop has to receive you as a Bishop (have a ceremony like the one the Apostles had when Jesus breathed on them).
What proof or assurance? It, the teaching of the Church, is what was at the beginning of our history. Yes, I am sure they could rise through the ranks; however, there has yet been a change in doctrine even through all the horrible and corrupt people that have been in the Catholic Church the past ~2000 years.
[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, not sure what happened to my earlier post but in a nutshell I think you are making some unwarranted assumptions that might be worth reconsidering.
For example, how do you know matter doesn’t ultimately reduce to an elementary particle or set of particles? There’s no proof for this.
[/quote]
Doesn’t matter. Where’d they come from and how did they get there? Where does their behavior come from and why do they do what they do? How did they come to get the properties they have?
[quote]
Also, how do you know that more complex particles, like atoms and molecules, haven’t always existed?
Finally, decide whether or not you believe the laws of the universe can change. If not, the laws of thermodynamics clearly state that matter and energy can’t be created or destroyed, end of story. If so, you can’t logically rule out randomness or insist on an entirely deterministic universe, since that may also have changed.[/quote]
I can logically rule out randomness. Randomness is an absurd concept really, because it is logically fallacious. It requires something from nothing for no reason. Since true nothingness is the absence of all existence and what does not exist cannot make something exist or act on something that exists. Hence there is no such thing as randomness. More so there is no such thing as nothingness. Nothingness, by definition does not exist.
The laws of thermo dynamics are damn handy but only apply to a limited Newtonian universe. The uncertainty principal plays havoc with the conservation principals. The truth of the matter, is that nobody knows. The smallest indivisible point is described as information. Can information be destroyed? The answer is that it’s possible, but not known. What lies beyond the event horizon in a black hole, holds the key, but nobody has been there and it is not observable. The only property we are certain of is mass, but we’re not certain what happens and why mass is lost. There are basically two possibilities. Information destruction or redistribution of information, i.e. worm holes, hawking radiation, etc. Either is possible, but nobody knows.
Can information be destroyed? The answer is that it is possible, actually.
Can information be held in a stateless, timeless ‘place’ or ‘moment’, sure.
Can laws change? No. Can they be violated? No, but they could be misunderstood where in some circumstances they appear to be violated, but are just no understood. What none of this does is disprove causation, because, confound it, there is always something and not nothing.
AND, you did not practice your regression homework.
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Lol. The bible is full of errors and contradictions, but that’s okay because it’s only THE BIBLE! The inerrant word of God doesn’t need to be inerrant, it’s not some history book, it’s just a book of (supposed) historical events… way different!!!
Clearly by pointing out these abhorrent flaws I am making the logical fallacy of… being accurate.
Boy, I sure am glad you all took the time to tell me I was wrong, you know, without actually showing the flaws in mt logic, because otherwise I’d be some heathenish SCIENTIST or something childish like that. =3[/quote]
Oh, that was logic?
You talk to much and listen to little. The bible is what it is, I make no apologies for it, but I am pretty sure I know it far better than you. If you don’t like, don’t read it, it’s blatant that you have not. It is no concern of mine. I don’t care. [/quote]
I haven’t read the bible? Why? Because I don’t agree with it? That exact same argument could be used to “justify” ANY religion.
Besides, I’ve listed several verses, all related to the topic at hand, was this just a coincidence? I just typed a name and some numbers and it just happened to fit? Hmm?[/quote]
No, because you don’t know what your talking about.[/quote]
How so? Be specific. [/quote]
All your ‘arguments’ have been made by other athiests. They got them from virtually same sources but unfortunately for you they provided the links. So you ain’t breaking any new ground, I have seen in all before. Same exact things.
So you reckon your self a biblical scholar do you? These questions should be easy for you then, we’ll do a little test.
Who wrote the bible?
When was it written?
Who removed books from the bible and why? What books were they?
Which books got put back?
Google away…[/quote]
Didn’t you JUST say you didn’t want to talk to me? Did you just change your mind real quick?
Again you proclaim such simplicity in debunking my arguments, but make no effort whatsoever to do so. I call bullshit.
WTF? You already acknowledge that all these questions could be answered by anyone capable of maneuvering Google, but proceed to ask as though these questions will prove anything either way?
You’re not an intelligent man, Pat. If you’re going to talk to me anyway you might as well bring up arguments relative to my argument, is that so damn hard?[/quote]
Obviously you can’t read a time stamp, nimrod. Why are you talking to me?
The existence of a thing disproves any claim (or at least one of a group of claims together) that necessarily leads to the conclusion that the thing is impossible.
Agree or disagree? [/quote]
Can you clarify what you are trying to say? I really don’t understand what you are saying. Then I can agree or disagree.[/quote]He’s saying that the fact of a thing’s actual existence precludes out of hand it’s impossibility. A statement of positive sort of inverted tautology. I actually agree with him and I bet you do too.
[/quote]
The fact of something existence means that it’s impossible for it not to exist? Is this what is being said?[/quote]
Yes. If a red ball exists, the claim “No one has ever made a red ball” (lets assume that claim means a red ball cannot exist) is untrue.
If a red ball exists, a series of claims, such as “Only X material can be used to make balls, and X material does not exist in red” (leading necessarily to the conclusion that a red ball cannot exist), then one or more of the claims is wrong.
So, the universe exists. Therefore, one of your claims, which taken together make the universe impossible, is wrong.
If the law of thermodynamics and the A theory of time combine to form a conclusion that the universe cannot exist, one or more of those claims is wrong. [/quote]
Which claim have I made, make the universe impossible to exist?
Secondly, cannot actually prove the universe exists, the limited epistemology of the human mind simply prohibit it. That doesn’t mean it doesn’t exist, it just means you are limited by your own humanity. You cannot prove that anything physical isn’t illusory. You can thank DesCarte for that one…[/quote]
All the claims that lead you to the conclusion of a Prime Mover that must exist outside our universe.
If all stuff comes from other stuff, then the first stuff can’t exist. But it does (I think the DesCarte bit is a little hyperphilosophical for the conversation, lets assume the universe exists).
So, either one or more of your claims is incorrect (That stuff always needs other stuff to make it, or that time acts in the way we see it, etc), or a being which can do the impossible (God) must exist, totally outside our time and space and reality.
Given the two options (God vs our understanding of the universe being flawed), I go with the latter. Consider how much has been “known” by past cultures that has turned out to be totally untrue.
Hell, for a while there “Bee’s shouldnt be able to fly, but they do” was proof of God to some. It was eventually explained, proving that the problem wasn’t “and impossible thing is happening!” but “we didn’t understand it yet”.
[/quote]
You must have misunderstood what I said. I didn’t say God exists out side the universe, I said by necessity he must exist out side the causal chain. As far as location, I don’t consider it a physical thing with a physical location. But I do not confirm or deny either possibility.
Our understanding of the universe does not preclude that God cannot exist. Quite the contrary, actually. There is evidence of causality every where, the is no evidence of randomness what so ever. While there is a possibility of eternal matter and energy, there is no evidence of that either. Time is irrelevant to the discussion as removing time does not remove dependencies.
The link I provided you and forlife covers all this stuff. I would recommend it so we don’t repeat arguments already made. [/quote]
In a bit of a hurry, cant read the link. Time isn’t irrelevant as we’re talking about what happened in the past. if time doesnt exist, there is no past and everything is eternal.
Your claim is God must exist outside the causual chain as we understand it. My claim is we simply don’t understand the causual chain.[/quote]
There’s really not much to causation. Philosophy simply breaks things down to their essential core. What makes something what it is.
David Hume wrote extensively on causation, it frustrated the shit out of him, but he was a genius. He’s an atheist, I recommend him.
If you do get a chance to read it, you’ll pretty much know how I’ll respond to things.[/quote]
The problem with your logic is that you fail to provide good reason we should conclude that “god made the universe” other than “We have no other explanation”.
[/quote]
No, it’s not a God of gaps argument. It is called a ‘necessary being’. A non-contingent being must be the basis for all that is contingent, which is everything else.
I’d definitely get them a cookie. Scientists could only show a system where and how something existence came to be. But to be direct, if somebody was able to deductively prove beyond the shadow of a doubt that God does not exist, I would no longer believe. There is no point in believing in what doesn’t exist.
It will never happen thoughâ?¦I am confident in that.
[quote]
Just watched a short video of Bill O’Reilly defending god by constantly saying “The tide comes in, the tide goes out, never a miscommunication”… and when someone sends an email saying the tide is caused by the moon pulling on the oceans, he replies (mildly annoyed) “Then who made the moon?? Why dont other planets have it?”
You can ask why/how infinitely. Eventually the person you’re talking to has to say they dont know. Replying to that inevitable “I dont know” with “I do! It was my God, who can do anything! Its the only explanation!” proves nothing, especially when, given if that specific question is eventually answered, you can just go back into the why/how process to get another “I dont know”.[/quote]
O’Rielly should not be making bad arguments on TV.
This also goes back to the ‘God of gaps’ argument which is not what is being proposed.
No, it’s not a God of gaps argument. It is called a ‘necessary being’. A non-contingent being must be the basis for all that is contingent, which is everything else.
[/quote]
Doesn’t this imply that there was a time when there was nothing?
[quote]RyuuKyuzo wrote:
Lol. The bible is full of errors and contradictions, but that’s okay because it’s only THE BIBLE! The inerrant word of God doesn’t need to be inerrant, it’s not some history book, it’s just a book of (supposed) historical events… way different!!!
Clearly by pointing out these abhorrent flaws I am making the logical fallacy of… being accurate.
Boy, I sure am glad you all took the time to tell me I was wrong, you know, without actually showing the flaws in mt logic, because otherwise I’d be some heathenish SCIENTIST or something childish like that. =3[/quote]
Oh, that was logic?
You talk to much and listen to little. The bible is what it is, I make no apologies for it, but I am pretty sure I know it far better than you. If you don’t like, don’t read it, it’s blatant that you have not. It is no concern of mine. I don’t care. [/quote]
I haven’t read the bible? Why? Because I don’t agree with it? That exact same argument could be used to “justify” ANY religion.
Besides, I’ve listed several verses, all related to the topic at hand, was this just a coincidence? I just typed a name and some numbers and it just happened to fit? Hmm?[/quote]
No, because you don’t know what your talking about.[/quote]
How so? Be specific. [/quote]
All your ‘arguments’ have been made by other athiests. They got them from virtually same sources but unfortunately for you they provided the links. So you ain’t breaking any new ground, I have seen in all before. Same exact things.
So you reckon your self a biblical scholar do you? These questions should be easy for you then, we’ll do a little test.
Who wrote the bible?
When was it written?
Who removed books from the bible and why? What books were they?
Which books got put back?
Google away…[/quote]
Didn’t you JUST say you didn’t want to talk to me? Did you just change your mind real quick?
Again you proclaim such simplicity in debunking my arguments, but make no effort whatsoever to do so. I call bullshit.
WTF? You already acknowledge that all these questions could be answered by anyone capable of maneuvering Google, but proceed to ask as though these questions will prove anything either way?
You’re not an intelligent man, Pat. If you’re going to talk to me anyway you might as well bring up arguments relative to my argument, is that so damn hard?[/quote]
Come on, dude…is it really necessary insult his intelligence? Pat is a bright guy, and is more open minded than many religious folks I’ve met. For that matter, Tiribulus is intelligent as well. There’s no correlation between intelligence and religious beliefs. Some of the brightest people on the planet are believers.
[/quote]
No, it’s not a God of gaps argument. It is called a ‘necessary being’. A non-contingent being must be the basis for all that is contingent, which is everything else.
[/quote]
Doesn’t this imply that there was a time when there was nothing?[/quote]
No, nothingness doesn’t exist literally and time is not relevant. Time is a function of matter anyway. If there is no physical matter there is no time.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< And your logic is that you had a personal experience that you have no other explanation for other than “god chose you”.[/quote]And that is THEE most precious and glorious explanation of all. I do pray that you one day have that testimony. When you have feasted on His love and mercy and glimpsed His beautiful face it is more than crystal clear.
[/quote]
But according to you, this poor bastard is going to hell along with the people he helps…What tragic world you live in…
[quote]forlife wrote:
Come on, dude…is it really necessary insult his intelligence? Pat is a bright guy, and is more open minded than many religious folks I’ve met. For that matter, Tiribulus is intelligent as well. There’s no correlation between intelligence and religious beliefs. Some of the brightest people on the planet are believers.
[/quote]
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
<<< And your logic is that you had a personal experience that you have no other explanation for other than “god chose you”.[/quote]And that is THEE most precious and glorious explanation of all. I do pray that you one day have that testimony. When you have feasted on His love and mercy and glimpsed His beautiful face it is more than crystal clear.
[/quote]
But according to you, this poor bastard is going to hell along with the people he helps…What tragic world you live in…
