You guys need to learn how to edit your quotes so as to avoid having a 36 inch post to convey a single sentence.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You guys need to learn how to edit your quotes so as to avoid having a 36 inch post to convey a single sentence. [/quote]
You’re right 
sorry
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You guys need to learn how to edit your quotes so as to avoid having a 36 inch post to convey a single sentence. [/quote]
Yeah! (Happy Easter, Tirib)
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
You guys need to learn how to edit your quotes so as to avoid having a 36 inch post to convey a single sentence. [/quote]
Yeah! (Happy Easter, Tirib)[/quote]
Thanks Happy Easter 2 u
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:<<< Yeah! (Happy Easter, Tirib)[/quote]He’s alive forever and therefore so am I. Hallelujah!!!The gospel according the Matthew 28:1-10
[quote]1 Now after the Sabbath, toward the dawn of the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to see the tomb. 2 And behold, there was a great earthquake, for an angel of the Lord descended from heaven and came and rolled back the stone and sat on it. 3 His appearance was like lightning, and his clothing white as snow. 4 And for fear of him the guards trembled and became like dead men. 5 But the angel said to the women, “Do not be afraid, for I know that you seek Jesus who was crucified. 6 He is not here, for he has risen, as he said. Come, see the place where he lay. 7 Then go quickly and tell his disciples that he has risen from the dead, and behold, he is going before you to Galilee; there you will see him. See, I have told you.” 8 So they departed quickly from the tomb with fear and great joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 And behold, Jesus met them and said, “Greetings!” And they came up and took hold of his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid; go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee, and there they will see me.”[/quote]Same to you Capped.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< And that’s not what Eph. 1:11 is talking about.[/quote]This is the fundamental difference between us Pat. My God defines everything. Yours is himself defined by forces beyond his control.
[/quote]
If you worship a different God than me, than you are worshiping a false God that does not exist. You’re the one who limits God, not me. I merely respond to the facts God himself laid out by the evidence of his creation. Truth is truth and you cannot undo truth by simply not believing it.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am not open minded and have never pretended to be. It is the most horrific of all vices while masquerading as the chief of virtues. The perfect deception. [/quote]
I agree with your sentiment but there is a difference between someone who accepts anything at face value that is touted as “science”, for example, and someone who can practice both skepticism and being aware of epistemological possibilities.
I am always “open minded” to the possibility of knowledge but only if I can first reconcile it with logic – sometimes even then I cannot make myself believe it without some sort of empirical verification.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
And I made no arguments what so ever about “Catholic” Gods or any other kind.
[/quote]
When you say “god” do you mean the god of your bible, also known as Yahweh? Yes or no.[/quote]
Not necessarily. In the context of cosmology, I am speaking of one aspect of God, the Uncausd-causer. This is not a religious argument. It’s a philosophical argument.
Anybody acknowledging the creator, the first cause of all that exists, is talking about the same thing, whether they call is Yahweh, God, Allah, Vishnu, etc…
Even the Greeks had a statue to the unknown God who created everything.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am not open minded and have never pretended to be. It is the most horrific of all vices while masquerading as the chief of virtues. The perfect deception. [/quote]
I agree with your sentiment but there is a difference between someone who accepts anything at face value that is touted as “science”, for example, and someone who can practice both skepticism and being aware of epistemological possibilities.
I am always “open minded” to the possibility of knowledge but only if I can first reconcile it with logic – sometimes even then I cannot make myself believe it without some sort of empirical verification. [/quote]
having an open mind or a closed mind is an attitude nothing more nothing less
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Oh goody, then where did it all come from? ‘I don’t know’ doesn’t count. Shit either came from something or nothing. Those are your 2 choices, there is not a third.
[/quote]
lol
I’ll go with something. And then I’ll admit that I dont know what that something is.
Or, its also possible that the universe has always existed. But that’d be crrrraaaazzzzzzzy, since everything has to come from something… except for the magical being some people made up a long time ago.
You still have not given one compelling argument why the something absolutely would have to be Yahweh. I’m all ears.[/quote]
So let me get this strait, you don’t know the origin of the universe, but the one thing it can not be is God? How did this process elimination proceed? Have you eliminated anything else, or by default God cannot be a factor at all?
THIS universe has not always existed. That is pretty verifiable, however it would no matter if it did. As I explained before it does not matter there were a series of universes (accrdien universe theory), if we exist in a mutiverse, or if the universe is an illusion, so long as it exists, it has a sufficient reason for doing so.
I never said anything resembling God is YHWY, I only claim that if something unusual happens, I do not assume direct involvement from God unless there is sufficient evidence to make such a claim.
If you believe God exists, then we can argue about his nature and his method of revelation. If you dont believe in God, then something that does not exist doing cannot be anything, much less a Yahweh. [/quote]
Out of curiosity how would you verify the Earth has not always been here.
[/quote]
Empirically you can test it and the results will correlate with an approximate 4.5 billion year existence, but you cannot prove it deductively. Hell, we can’t prove the Earth didn’t suddenly pop in to existence 5 minutes ago.
[/quote]
You can prove it deductively by THINKING:
Does a sun have an unlimited lifespan/fuel supply and remain in class II secchi stage forever(whatever forever means)? Doesn’t a planet need to be orbiting something? Didn’t the universe only reach a stage where suns could be created about 200 million years after the big bang? Aren’t planets made from the elements within giant stars that explode at the end of their lifecycle(supernovae)? Isn’t it true that space itself and time did not exist/begin until AFTER the big bang which was about 14 billion years ago?
The answers to these questions which are already known PROVE that the earth hasn’t ‘been here always(whatever always means)’. You don’t need carbon dating or rock layering to answer his question. Just common sense and some general knowledge about the universe we live in.[/quote]
Everything you just mentioned is inferred, not deductive, at all. Empirical evidence can at best, be strongly inferred, but not deductive.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
Oh goody, then where did it all come from? ‘I don’t know’ doesn’t count. Shit either came from something or nothing. Those are your 2 choices, there is not a third.
[/quote]
lol
I’ll go with something. And then I’ll admit that I dont know what that something is.
Or, its also possible that the universe has always existed. But that’d be crrrraaaazzzzzzzy, since everything has to come from something… except for the magical being some people made up a long time ago.
You still have not given one compelling argument why the something absolutely would have to be Yahweh. I’m all ears.[/quote]
So let me get this strait, you don’t know the origin of the universe, but the one thing it can not be is God? How did this process elimination proceed? Have you eliminated anything else, or by default God cannot be a factor at all?
THIS universe has not always existed. That is pretty verifiable, however it would no matter if it did. As I explained before it does not matter there were a series of universes (accrdien universe theory), if we exist in a mutiverse, or if the universe is an illusion, so long as it exists, it has a sufficient reason for doing so.
I never said anything resembling God is YHWY, I only claim that if something unusual happens, I do not assume direct involvement from God unless there is sufficient evidence to make such a claim.
If you believe God exists, then we can argue about his nature and his method of revelation. If you dont believe in God, then something that does not exist doing cannot be anything, much less a Yahweh. [/quote]
Out of curiosity how would you verify the Earth has not always been here.
[/quote]
Empirically you can test it and the results will correlate with an approximate 4.5 billion year existence, but you cannot prove it deductively. Hell, we can’t prove the Earth didn’t suddenly pop in to existence 5 minutes ago.
[/quote]
You can prove it deductively by THINKING:
Does a sun have an unlimited lifespan/fuel supply and remain in class II secchi stage forever(whatever forever means)? Doesn’t a planet need to be orbiting something? Didn’t the universe only reach a stage where suns could be created about 200 million years after the big bang? Aren’t planets made from the elements within giant stars that explode at the end of their lifecycle(supernovae)? Isn’t it true that space itself and time did not exist/begin until AFTER the big bang which was about 14 billion years ago?
The answers to these questions which are already known PROVE that the earth hasn’t ‘been here always(whatever always means)’. You don’t need carbon dating or rock layering to answer his question. Just common sense and some general knowledge about the universe we live in.[/quote]
I am sorry , this is nonsenses, you can prove nothing , except we know the earth did not just appear 10 minutes ago.
You example of the sun , just because the sun has a limited existence on means the sun maybe has a limited life and was the sun something before it was a sun and so on.
I am no expert ,but maybe you know the answer , if you carbon date a diamond, does that date it back to when it was coal , and when it’s was oil , or all the back to when it was a forest?
[/quote]
Contrary to being an expert I consider myself to be ignorant of Science/Physics/Maths…but not in comparison to people who ask ‘how do we know the earth wasn’t always here?’.
[/quote]
I guess you are talking about me Ok if the earth has not been there always then matter just appeared out of no where ? Or could the Earth been part of a star or larger planet that destructed . I think your condescension is closed mindedness, if I am wrong about your perceived than i apologize.
[/quote]
Matter and energy are the same thing. From Planck time(the earliest period we can measure after the big bang) there was just energy. Eventually through complex interaction of sub-atomic particles Hydrogen and Helium were created. These enormous clouds of hydrogen and helium were drawn together by gravity to create suns. Inside these suns the process of nuclear fusion creates all the elements that exist on earth. If these suns have enough mass to ‘go supernovae’ at the end of their lifecycles, they explode and spread these elements throughout the universe. Many of these elements become the basis of planets.
This is my general understanding without googling anything. Any physicists please feel free to correct me.
RE Matter appearing out of no where. What is ‘where’? Time and space did not exist prior to the big bang. There are a number of theories that postulate spontaneous energy/matter creation that do not contradict Einstein’s field equations.[/quote]
As far as I know this is the going theory right now…
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am not open minded and have never pretended to be. It is the most horrific of all vices while masquerading as the chief of virtues. The perfect deception. [/quote]
I agree with your sentiment but there is a difference between someone who accepts anything at face value that is touted as “science”, for example, and someone who can practice both skepticism and being aware of epistemological possibilities.
I am always “open minded” to the possibility of knowledge but only if I can first reconcile it with logic – sometimes even then I cannot make myself believe it without some sort of empirical verification. [/quote]
That which contradicts logic, is never right…Mind you, that’s not the same as proving “common knowledge” or “common sense” wrong.
It doesn’t matter what you think, it only matters what is true.
[quote]pat wrote:<<< That which contradicts logic, is never right… <<<[/quote]So I take it that you do not believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnated as a truly human man?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am not open minded and have never pretended to be. It is the most horrific of all vices while masquerading as the chief of virtues. The perfect deception. [/quote]
I agree with your sentiment but there is a difference between someone who accepts anything at face value that is touted as “science”, for example, and someone who can practice both skepticism and being aware of epistemological possibilities.
I am always “open minded” to the possibility of knowledge but only if I can first reconcile it with logic – sometimes even then I cannot make myself believe it without some sort of empirical verification. [/quote]
That which contradicts logic, is never right…Mind you, that’s not the same as proving “common knowledge” or “common sense” wrong.
It doesn’t matter what you think, it only matters what is true.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter what you think to any one else but you Imagine if you are wrong ?
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
And I made no arguments what so ever about “Catholic” Gods or any other kind.
[/quote]
When you say “god” do you mean the god of your bible, also known as Yahweh? Yes or no.[/quote]
Not necessarily. In the context of cosmology, I am speaking of one aspect of God, the Uncausd-causer. This is not a religious argument. It’s a philosophical argument.
Anybody acknowledging the creator, the first cause of all that exists, is talking about the same thing, whether they call is Yahweh, God, Allah, Vishnu, etc…
Even the Greeks had a statue to the unknown God who created everything. [/quote]
No. God is not Allah. God is not Vishnu. Vishnu is not Mazda. Mazda is not Yahweh. Yahweh is not Zeus.
None of these are totally unconscious forces of physics.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< That which contradicts logic, is never right… <<<[/quote]So I take it that you do not believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnated as a truly human man?
[/quote]
And you are willfully being retarded, why exactly?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
And I made no arguments what so ever about “Catholic” Gods or any other kind.
[/quote]
When you say “god” do you mean the god of your bible, also known as Yahweh? Yes or no.[/quote]
Not necessarily. In the context of cosmology, I am speaking of one aspect of God, the Uncausd-causer. This is not a religious argument. It’s a philosophical argument.
Anybody acknowledging the creator, the first cause of all that exists, is talking about the same thing, whether they call is Yahweh, God, Allah, Vishnu, etc…
Even the Greeks had a statue to the unknown God who created everything. [/quote]
No. God is not Allah. God is not Vishnu. Vishnu is not Mazda. Mazda is not Yahweh. Yahweh is not Zeus.
None of these are totally unconscious forces of physics.
[/quote]
I am not talking about the unconscious forces of physics, physics is just a piece of the pie, not the whole. Said, unconscious forces cannot act with out being acted upon.
God is not unconscious physics. Causation is not a slave to physics, it’s the other way around physics is a slave to causation…
[quote]pittbulll wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
I am not open minded and have never pretended to be. It is the most horrific of all vices while masquerading as the chief of virtues. The perfect deception. [/quote]
I agree with your sentiment but there is a difference between someone who accepts anything at face value that is touted as “science”, for example, and someone who can practice both skepticism and being aware of epistemological possibilities.
I am always “open minded” to the possibility of knowledge but only if I can first reconcile it with logic – sometimes even then I cannot make myself believe it without some sort of empirical verification. [/quote]
That which contradicts logic, is never right…Mind you, that’s not the same as proving “common knowledge” or “common sense” wrong.
It doesn’t matter what you think, it only matters what is true.[/quote]
It doesn’t matter what you think to any one else but you Imagine if you are wrong ?
[/quote]
If I am wrong, I merely wasted life. AND if I am wrong, that won’t actually matter. But if you have evidence to the contrary, I am all ears…
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< That which contradicts logic, is never right… <<<[/quote]So I take it that you do not believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnated as a truly human man?
[/quote]And you are willfully being retarded, why exactly?[/quote]Is it possible to have an adult dialog with you? Come on Pat.
Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Question 9 The immutability of God, Article 1. Whether God is altogether immutable?
[quote]On the contrary, It is written, “I am the Lord, and I change not” (Malachi 3:6).
I answer that, From what precedes, it is shown that God is altogether immutable.[/quote]How does an immutable God now have a human body that He didn’t have “before” as if before and after, notions of time, could apply to Him logically either? How is this subject to autonomous human logic? BTW, I agree with Thomas here. God is indeed altogether immutable.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
[quote]pat wrote:<<< That which contradicts logic, is never right… <<<[/quote]So I take it that you do not believe that Jesus Christ was God incarnated as a truly human man?
[/quote]And you are willfully being retarded, why exactly?[/quote]Is it possible to have an adult dialog with you? Come on Pat.
Aquinas’s Summa Theologica, Prima Pars, Question 9 The immutability of God, Article 1. Whether God is altogether immutable?
[quote]On the contrary, It is written, “I am the Lord, and I change not” (Malachi 3:6).
I answer that, From what precedes, it is shown that God is altogether immutable.[/quote]How does an immutable God now have a human body that He didn’t have “before” as if before and after, notions of time, could apply to Him logically either? How is this subject to autonomous human logic? BTW, I agree with Thomas here. God is indeed altogether immutable.
[/quote]
Yes, when you act like one.
I am discussing philosophy not theology. So throwing a 600 lbs. straw man at me will draw a response in kind. Everything is not theology as much as you want it to be. I don’t have to be blind and willfully ignorant to live in faith, that’s your problem not mine. I can discuss lots of topics with out beating people over the head with a bible all the damn time.