Religious Belief is Human Nature?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
421

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Again, Red Herring. You want to discuss other arguments I am happy to. Other arguments are not this argument. We are discussing this argument, not other arguments. There are no sucessful refutations. That doesn’t mean they don’t bring up interesting points, it’s just not refuted.
[/quote]

The universe was created by Chuck Norris.

You cannot refute this.
[/quote]
Chuck Norris is not a causer of the universe. He is the causers of useless Total Gym commercials. If he were the causer of the universe he’d necessarily have to sit outside it. He doesn’t so he isn’t

I cannot refute this. I simply don’t know. But if so, Jupiter’s gravity will soon have it’s way and it will not look like a teapot for very long…Therefore you can never know.

There is no historical evidence stating Atlantis existing at the same time Jesus was to be born or lived, so it’s quite doubtful…

Well, Atheist predetermination posits that each moment is define by the previous moment, so unless a pink unicorn was a major causal factor in the universes creation, this is not likely correct. However, if you have evidence to the contrary, I am more than willing to listen…

422

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Again, Red Herring. You want to discuss other arguments I am happy to. Other arguments are not this argument. We are discussing this argument, not other arguments. There are no sucessful refutations. That doesn’t mean they don’t bring up interesting points, it’s just not refuted.
[/quote]

The universe was created by Chuck Norris.

You cannot refute this.
[/quote]
Chuck Norris is not a causer of the universe. He is the causers of useless Total Gym commercials. If he were the causer of the universe he’d necessarily have to sit outside it. He doesn’t so he isn’t

I cannot refute this. I simply don’t know. But if so, Jupiter’s gravity will soon have it’s way and it will not look like a teapot for very long…Therefore you can never know.

There is no historical evidence stating Atlantis existing at the same time Jesus was to be born or lived, so it’s quite doubtful…

Well, Atheist predetermination posits that each moment is define by the previous moment, so unless a pink unicorn was a major causal factor in the universes creation, this is not likely correct. However, if you have evidence to the contrary, I am more than willing to listen…[/quote]

  1. No that is just his current incarnation. Chuck Norris is a bit like Jesus, he just makes shitty movies, tv series and infomercials.

And he roundhouse kicks a lot. This is how he started the universe.

Also, if Jesus can be part of this universe even though he is really God and whatnot, Chuck Norris certainly can too.

  1. Its a bit of a Schroedingers teapot, but you gotta have faith!

  2. So? That simply shows how good they really are.

  3. First of all I was talking about our personal spiritual fates, in particular whether you will spend eternity at a stripclub or at a busstation in Westchester.

Then, likelyhood does not play into it, you cannot disprove it, in fact, it has never been disproven so there.

423

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
We’re discussing your stubborn refusal to admit that other arguments, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISPROVEN, could be true. Failing to prove the cosmological argument false doesn’t prove it’s true, nor does it prove other arguments aren’t true. Yet you continue to act as if the cosmological argument MUST be true until proven otherwise. THAT is the confirmatory bias I’m talking about.

You just gave me a circular argument for god instead of what I asked. Listen to yourself:

God is noncontingent because he is god, so he cannot be contingent, otherwise he wouldn’t be god.
[/quote]
That’s not what I said. I said that God must be non-contingent or he is not God. Because and Uncaused-cause cannot, by definition, be caused. The argument demands it must be true. That’s not circular. I didn’t say ‘God is uncaused because he’s God’. The argument demands the result be an ‘Uncaused-cause’. That is the only solution to the problem.

See above…

[quote]
Your god has properties, just like space-time has properties. You can’t escape that fact.[/quote]

God is not defined by properties, the properties are defined by him. It’s the inverse after the equal sign.

Keep’em coming but don’t repeat yourself…[/quote]

I give up.

424

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Again, Red Herring. You want to discuss other arguments I am happy to. Other arguments are not this argument. We are discussing this argument, not other arguments. There are no sucessful refutations. That doesn’t mean they don’t bring up interesting points, it’s just not refuted.
[/quote]

The universe was created by Chuck Norris.

You cannot refute this. [/quote]

Yes you can.

This I am sure would be difficult.

Yes you can.[/quote]

Well then please do so.

Either one would be fine.

[/quote]

  1. The Universe’s cause has to be an adequate cause
  2. An adequate cause cannot be a lesser than its effect
  3. Chuck Norris is a lesser effect of the Universe
  4. Therefore, Chuck Norris did not cause the Universe
425

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Again, Red Herring. You want to discuss other arguments I am happy to. Other arguments are not this argument. We are discussing this argument, not other arguments. There are no sucessful refutations. That doesn’t mean they don’t bring up interesting points, it’s just not refuted.
[/quote]

The universe was created by Chuck Norris.

You cannot refute this. [/quote]

Yes you can.

This I am sure would be difficult.

Yes you can.[/quote]

Well then please do so.

Either one would be fine.

[/quote]

  1. The Universe’s cause has to be an adequate cause
  2. An adequate cause cannot be a lesser than its effect
  3. Chuck Norris is a lesser effect of the Universe
  4. Therefore, Chuck Norris did not cause the Universe[/quote]

Your premise is flawed.

I am not talking about Chuck Norris current incarnation but about his transcending essence.

He roundhouse kicked himself into being and one the backswing created the universe.

You cannot DISPROVE THIS !!!

426

Orion, you’ll find that when you throw their own absurd premises back in their faces, they will resort to accusing you of being childish.

I tried this when I postulated that if God is the Alpha and Omega, the creator of all, then evil is His creation too, and for us to rebel against His creation is a sin. Especially when they claim everything of God is good. Making evil good.

427

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Again, Red Herring. You want to discuss other arguments I am happy to. Other arguments are not this argument. We are discussing this argument, not other arguments. There are no sucessful refutations. That doesn’t mean they don’t bring up interesting points, it’s just not refuted.
[/quote]

The universe was created by Chuck Norris.

You cannot refute this. [/quote]

Yes you can.

This I am sure would be difficult.

Yes you can.[/quote]

Well then please do so.

Either one would be fine.

[/quote]

  1. The Universe’s cause has to be an adequate cause
  2. An adequate cause cannot be a lesser than its effect
  3. Chuck Norris is a lesser effect of the Universe
  4. Therefore, Chuck Norris did not cause the Universe[/quote]

Your premise is flawed.

I am not talking about Chuck Norris current incarnation but about his transcending essence.

He roundhouse kicked himself into being and one the backswing created the universe.

You cannot DISPROVE THIS !!![/quote]

As my philosophy teacher told the blonde, you are speaking, but the words that come out of your mouth do not make sense. Kind of like a round square.

428

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Orion, you’ll find that when you throw their own absurd premises back in their faces, they will resort to accusing you of being childish.

I tried this when I postulated that if God is the Alpha and Omega, the creator of all, then evil is His creation too, and for us to rebel against His creation is a sin. Especially when they claim everything of God is good. Making evil good.[/quote]

Well, as Stephen Colbert plainly stated, in order to be good, you have to obey authority. Lucifer did not obey authority. And, evil exists because of the disobedience of Satan. God gave man and Satan and the fallen angels free will. Satan used his free will and abused it by not obeying authority. And, Hell was created by Satan’s disobedience to God and purposeful removal from God’s love. Which is what Hell is, the removal of yourself from God’s love. God does not send you to Hell, you send yourself to Hell.

429

[quote]“Your wickedness makes you as it were heavy as lead, and to tend downwards with great weight and pressure towards hell; and if God should let you go, you would immediately sink and swiftly descend and plunge into the bottomless gulf, and your healthy constitution, and your own care and prudence, and best contrivance, and all your righteousness, would have no more influence to uphold you and keep you out of hell, than a spider’s web would have to stop a falling rock. Were it not for the sovereign pleasure of God, the earth would not bear you one moment; for you are a burden to it; the creation groans with you; the creature is made subject to the bondage of your corruption, not willingly; the sun does not willingly shine upon you to give you light to serve sin and Satan; the earth does not willingly yield her increase to satisfy your lusts; nor is it willingly a stage for your wickedness to be acted upon; the air does not willingly serve you for breath to maintain the flame of life in your vitals, while you spend your life in the service of God’s enemies.”[/quote]That great towering genius and servant of the risen Christ Jonathan Edwards, Enfield, Connecticut July 8, 1741 from his famous sermon, Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God. THAT was the gospel of the great awakening.

430

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Uh huh…

The great rough and tumble fisherman who walks on water, coming in at 5’10" 220 lbs, the Galilean with a knife, he’ll cut off your ear and Jesus will heal it, he is the Servant of the Servants of God, he is the Rock…he is St. Peter! And in the Rock’s corner, we have his successor…Blessed John Paul the Great! I prefer the actual Gospel, not man’s private interpretation!

So, leaving Peter for Judas?

431

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Again, Red Herring. You want to discuss other arguments I am happy to. Other arguments are not this argument. We are discussing this argument, not other arguments. There are no sucessful refutations. That doesn’t mean they don’t bring up interesting points, it’s just not refuted.
[/quote]

The universe was created by Chuck Norris.

You cannot refute this. [/quote]

Yes you can.

This I am sure would be difficult.

Yes you can.[/quote]

Well then please do so.

Either one would be fine.

[/quote]

  1. The Universe’s cause has to be an adequate cause
  2. An adequate cause cannot be a lesser than its effect
  3. Chuck Norris is a lesser effect of the Universe
  4. Therefore, Chuck Norris did not cause the Universe[/quote]

Your premise is flawed.

I am not talking about Chuck Norris current incarnation but about his transcending essence.

He roundhouse kicked himself into being and one the backswing created the universe.

You cannot DISPROVE THIS !!![/quote]

As my philosophy teacher told the blonde, you are speaking, but the words that come out of your mouth do not make sense. Kind of like a round square.[/quote]

My point exactly.

432

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Orion, you’ll find that when you throw their own absurd premises back in their faces, they will resort to accusing you of being childish.

I tried this when I postulated that if God is the Alpha and Omega, the creator of all, then evil is His creation too, and for us to rebel against His creation is a sin. Especially when they claim everything of God is good. Making evil good.[/quote]

Well, as Stephen Colbert plainly stated, in order to be good, you have to obey authority. Lucifer did not obey authority. And, evil exists because of the disobedience of Satan. God gave man and Satan and the fallen angels free will. Satan used his free will and abused it by not obeying authority. And, Hell was created by Satan’s disobedience to God and purposeful removal from God’s love. Which is what Hell is, the removal of yourself from God’s love. God does not send you to Hell, you send yourself to Hell.[/quote]

Ah, so we have free will, but if we exercise it in non sanctioned ways, we act sinfully.

So we have to obey or God ordained governments, unless they act agaoinst Gods will, which will undoubtedly be decided by the Catholic Church for us, great record of going against the grain that they have, having excomunicated Hitler and all.

I dunno, this whole system is at least cost effective, I hear professionel dominatrixes get paid pretty well. They will control your sexuality too, or so I hear, they are just more hands on than the Church. Well, in light of recent developments, maybe not.

433

[quote]orion wrote:
excomunicated Hitler.
[/quote]

Hitler excommunicated himself. I believe the Latin is, erit excommunicatus invenerit statim, ipso facto.

That may or may not be bad as I didn’t translate it, just pulled from my shaky memory. But basically, by the fact of the person doing the act it is an immediate excommunication, no one has to declare it.

I don’t have much knowledge on the German Bishop during WWII, but I am sure you’d enjoy the book written by the Rabbi:

434

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:
excomunicated Hitler.
[/quote]

Hitler excommunicated himself. I believe the Latin is, erit excommunicatus invenerit statim, ipso facto.

That may or may not be bad as I didn’t translate it, just pulled from my shaky memory. But basically, by the fact of the person doing the act it is an immediate excommunication, no one has to declare it.

I don’t have much knowledge on the German Bishop during WWII, but I am sure you’d enjoy the book written by the Rabbi:

This is not about a declaration as to his spiritual fate, it is about unambigiously declaring that is “ordainment” is void because he is acting against the will of God.

If the Church could not bring herself to do that in this circumstance, the message is quite clear: obey.

435

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Again, Red Herring. You want to discuss other arguments I am happy to. Other arguments are not this argument. We are discussing this argument, not other arguments. There are no sucessful refutations. That doesn’t mean they don’t bring up interesting points, it’s just not refuted.
[/quote]

The universe was created by Chuck Norris.

You cannot refute this. [/quote]

Yes you can.

This I am sure would be difficult.

Yes you can.[/quote]

Well then please do so.

Either one would be fine.

[/quote]

  1. The Universe’s cause has to be an adequate cause
  2. An adequate cause cannot be a lesser than its effect
  3. Chuck Norris is a lesser effect of the Universe
  4. Therefore, Chuck Norris did not cause the Universe[/quote]

Your premise is flawed.

I am not talking about Chuck Norris current incarnation but about his transcending essence.

He roundhouse kicked himself into being and one the backswing created the universe.

You cannot DISPROVE THIS !!![/quote]

As my philosophy teacher told the blonde, you are speaking, but the words that come out of your mouth do not make sense. Kind of like a round square.[/quote]

My point exactly.

[/quote]

You don’t get it. Obviously, god impregnating a virgin, talking snakes, zombies, bashing the heads of infants, and the ever mysterious triunity of god make perfect sense. But Chuck Norris? Really?

436

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Orion, you’ll find that when you throw their own absurd premises back in their faces, they will resort to accusing you of being childish.

I tried this when I postulated that if God is the Alpha and Omega, the creator of all, then evil is His creation too, and for us to rebel against His creation is a sin. Especially when they claim everything of God is good. Making evil good.[/quote]

Hey you and tirib have the same outlook…Did you become reformed baptist too?

437

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
We’re discussing your stubborn refusal to admit that other arguments, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISPROVEN, could be true. Failing to prove the cosmological argument false doesn’t prove it’s true, nor does it prove other arguments aren’t true. Yet you continue to act as if the cosmological argument MUST be true until proven otherwise. THAT is the confirmatory bias I’m talking about.

You just gave me a circular argument for god instead of what I asked. Listen to yourself:

God is noncontingent because he is god, so he cannot be contingent, otherwise he wouldn’t be god.
[/quote]
That’s not what I said. I said that God must be non-contingent or he is not God. Because and Uncaused-cause cannot, by definition, be caused. The argument demands it must be true. That’s not circular. I didn’t say ‘God is uncaused because he’s God’. The argument demands the result be an ‘Uncaused-cause’. That is the only solution to the problem.

See above…

[quote]
Your god has properties, just like space-time has properties. You can’t escape that fact.[/quote]

God is not defined by properties, the properties are defined by him. It’s the inverse after the equal sign.

Keep’em coming but don’t repeat yourself…[/quote]

I give up. [/quote]

Ok, but if you find new info you want to discuss, I am happy to do so…

438

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

Again, Red Herring. You want to discuss other arguments I am happy to. Other arguments are not this argument. We are discussing this argument, not other arguments. There are no sucessful refutations. That doesn’t mean they don’t bring up interesting points, it’s just not refuted.
[/quote]

The universe was created by Chuck Norris.

You cannot refute this. [/quote]

Yes you can.

This I am sure would be difficult.

Yes you can.[/quote]

Well then please do so.

Either one would be fine.

[/quote]

  1. The Universe’s cause has to be an adequate cause
  2. An adequate cause cannot be a lesser than its effect
  3. Chuck Norris is a lesser effect of the Universe
  4. Therefore, Chuck Norris did not cause the Universe[/quote]

Your premise is flawed.

I am not talking about Chuck Norris current incarnation but about his transcending essence.

He roundhouse kicked himself into being and one the backswing created the universe.

You cannot DISPROVE THIS !!![/quote]

Well your making the claim therefore you have to prove ^ this… You never specified which incarnation of Chuck Norris you were referring to. You really need to be specific.

439

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
We’re discussing your stubborn refusal to admit that other arguments, WHICH HAVE NOT BEEN DISPROVEN, could be true. Failing to prove the cosmological argument false doesn’t prove it’s true, nor does it prove other arguments aren’t true. Yet you continue to act as if the cosmological argument MUST be true until proven otherwise. THAT is the confirmatory bias I’m talking about.

You just gave me a circular argument for god instead of what I asked. Listen to yourself:

God is noncontingent because he is god, so he cannot be contingent, otherwise he wouldn’t be god.
[/quote]
That’s not what I said. I said that God must be non-contingent or he is not God. Because and Uncaused-cause cannot, by definition, be caused. The argument demands it must be true. That’s not circular. I didn’t say ‘God is uncaused because he’s God’. The argument demands the result be an ‘Uncaused-cause’. That is the only solution to the problem.

See above…

I was actually looking forward to exploring virtual particles, flat universe, M-theory, etc. but realized I’m in the wrong forum for that. I thought if any believer would be open to genuinely considering these arguments, it would be you, but the more we’ve talked the more clear it has become that you are operating under a confirmatory bias, and are permanently stuck on the cosmological argument as the only possibility. You’ve said it yourself: the more you discuss the cosmological argument, the more convinced you become that it must be true. Unfortunately, it’s the nature of the beast that people wth a confirmatory bias NEVER see it in themselves, but it’s crystal clear to me.

Besides, we have plenty of other things to talk about. I like you and don’t intend any offense, I just honestly believe that discussions like this are a dead end trail due to your current beliefs.

440

[quote]Makavali wrote:
Especially when they claim everything of God is good. Making evil good.[/quote]

You’d need to clarify the meaning of “of” in your sentence above.