What is the True Religion?

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
221

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]
Our counter claim is not valid because we do not prove your argument wrong. Your counter claim is equally invalid because you cannot prove our argument wrong. Neither of us can prove our arguments right. Therefore, I am right.

Right?[/quote]
Wrong.
You have to prove the argument wrong to make a counter claim. Proving it wrong is absolutely necessary. It’s either wrong or right. You cannot skirt the issue. There is plenty of information about it. You cannot simply dismiss it. God existing or not existing is key to this whole train of thought and discussion.
If God exists, religion still may or may not be relevant, but if he does not then relgion is most definitely irrelevant.
To deal with it in a relevant authentic matter, you have to deal with God’s existence, otherwise, nothing else being discusses matters one tiny bit. [/quote]

I was not serious when I said “Right?” I was using the a string of logical statements to prove a point that made no sense, making an enormous mental leap. That’s pretty much what you told me. God must exist because I cannot prove that God does not exist.

Argument from ignorance. Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

This is a fallacy, Pat. If you cannot prove God exists then any counter-claims I make are indeed invalid because they seek to prove something that was never proven true in the first place.

222

[quote]njrusmc wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]
Our counter claim is not valid because we do not prove your argument wrong. Your counter claim is equally invalid because you cannot prove our argument wrong. Neither of us can prove our arguments right. Therefore, I am right.

Right?[/quote]
Wrong.
You have to prove the argument wrong to make a counter claim. Proving it wrong is absolutely necessary. It’s either wrong or right. You cannot skirt the issue. There is plenty of information about it. You cannot simply dismiss it. God existing or not existing is key to this whole train of thought and discussion.
If God exists, religion still may or may not be relevant, but if he does not then relgion is most definitely irrelevant.
To deal with it in a relevant authentic matter, you have to deal with God’s existence, otherwise, nothing else being discusses matters one tiny bit. [/quote]

I was not serious when I said “Right?” I was using the a string of logical statements to prove a point that made no sense, making an enormous mental leap. That’s pretty much what you told me. God must exist because I cannot prove that God does not exist.

Argument from ignorance. Argument from ignorance - Wikipedia

This is a fallacy, Pat. If you cannot prove God exists then any counter-claims I make are indeed invalid because they seek to prove something that was never proven true in the first place.[/quote]

Indeed.

223

classism

224

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
What is Judaism?[/quote]Biblical or modern?

225

[quote]pat wrote:
If God exists, religion still may or may not be relevant, but if he does not then relgion is most definitely irrelevant.
To deal with it in a relevant authentic matter, you have to deal with God’s existence, otherwise, nothing else being discusses matters one tiny bit. [/quote]

If you hold the existence of God to be the only redeeming quality of religions, then yes without God those religions are irrelevant. If you believe that religions carry other redeeming qualities outside of God, then without God they are still very relevant.

226

What if religion is irrelevant even if God does exist?

What if there really is no correct religion?

What if God doesn’t “care” if you believe in his existence at all?

What if God doesn’t have a “divine plan” and his “will” is just the design of the psychologically ill, power-hungry sociopaths?

227

God cannot lie

228

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
God cannot lie[/quote]

But people can and do.

229

[quote]BeefEater wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:God cannot lie[/quote]But people can and do.[/quote]Every second of their lives without Christ.

230

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]BeefEater wrote:[quote]Tiribulus wrote:God cannot lie[/quote]But people can and do.[/quote]Every second of their lives without Christ.
[/quote]

But how do you know that?

Does God speak to you?

edit

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What if God doesn’t have a “divine plan” and his “will” is just the design of the psychologically ill, power-hungry sociopaths?[/quote]

231

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]Dr.Matt581 wrote:

[quote]TigerTime wrote:

[quote]njrusmc wrote:
You are only delaying the inevitable. All that matter must have come from somewhere.[/quote]

M-theory postulates the probability of other dimensions (up to 11 different spacial dimensions). All the ones above 4 would be above time and therefore not require a first cause.
[/quote]

M-theory does not “postulate the probability of up to 11 different spacial dimensions.” It requires 10 different spacial dimensions or it does not work at all, and it uses a Minkowski continuum to describe what you probably think of as the “fourth” dimension, which is not spacial. And the extra dimensions are not necessarily “above” the four we know about. Wikipedia and Brian Greene may not be up to date, but recent data from experiments with the LHC have produced data that severely limits the potential size and scope of so-called “higher dimensions,” so don’t expect M-theory to be around in its current state much longer. We need a new one, or a highly revised version of this one. Even if it wasn’t on the verge of being proven mostly wrong, no where in M-theory is there anything that could be considered an “uncaused cause.” That is not what M-theory and the other string theories are trying to do, and if the people doing research into M-theory even tried to do so, they would be the laughing stock of the physics community. [/quote]

Well, darnit. We’ll just have to look harder for the reason God doesn’t exist.
[/quote]

That’s correct M-Theory and other various forms of string theory does not even begin to remove God, or an Uncaused-cause out of the equation. First an foremost, aside from the fact that it’s a “theory” it doesn’t actually question “what caused the universe”. It’s trying to sort of attempt to unify electromagnetism and gravity. Or basically, look beyond what current QM and GR is able to tell us about everything. It’s trying to be a theory of everything.
But even for the sake of argument, you say its 100% true, it does absolutely nothing to the greater cosmological question, how’d it get there? The ‘strings’ it refers to is just a ‘frequency’ or vibration of a said ‘singularity’. Nobody knows what this singularity is of course as it’s thought to be a 1-dimensional something. But it doesn’t really matter what it is because the same problems apply? Where’d it come from, how’d it get there, what’s it’s make up, what rules does it follow and why?
All of these are still causal relationships. All of them are somethings in need of a reason for their existence since they are caused entities.
To be a cosmological solution they have to be preceded by nothing and not beholden to the rules that they clearly follow. For that show it’s has dependencies, dependencies show that it cannot exist on it’s own, and with out being able to exist on it’s own, it cannot be the solution. It’s just another peg in the causal chain and nothing more.[/quote]

Right, so as I said to Matt, you have two options. Either reality is an infinite regression of first causes, or there is some aspect of it above the constraints of time. I’m not going to bother with the first option because I know you don’t agree with it if even for no reason other than it immediately removes the need for God.
[/quote]
The it’s not about agreeing or not agreeing it’s about the logic not supporting it. You cannot have an infinite regress because it begs the question, which is circular reasoning which invalidates it as an option.
The whole ‘infinite regression of first causes’ is impossible to support because the reasoning boils down to ‘it is because it is’. ← And whether or not yo ‘believe’ that is irrelevant to the fact that you cannot have an argument with infinite premises because infinite premises will never lead to a conclusion. So if you like that idea, that’s fine, but it’s not a deductive argument and cannot be supported by logic.

[quote]
The difference we have about the second option is that you think this “singularity” is the concious creator of our universe, while I think a conciousness is unnecessary. My reasoning? Infinite energy poured over an infinite amount of time is already enough to guarantee the existence of our universe. There’s no need for anything else and therefore it would require extraordinary evidence to support the idea of a concious singularity. Your move, Pat. [/quote]

Where’d it come from? Try to answer that without being circular.

What your missing is that the universe or what it’s made of can be infinitely existing, it still does not invalidate the argument. The problem is that this ‘stuff’ what ever it is, is still dependent even if eternal.
The other thing your missing is your focused only on physical existence, where nothing physical exists without it’s metaphysical governance, it’s law, or reason for being. That’s existence too. A ‘singularity’s’ behaviour is still governed by something else. For every physical thing, there are two parts to its existence, the thing and it’s law.

232

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
anyone who thinks that God doesn’t exist has never been in a fox hole.[/quote]

Bullshit[/quote]

In which war have you been in active combat?[/quote]

This ^^^^^^ has no bearing on the discussion. But to answer your question, none. A little bit of research on your part however, will direct you to instances of combat having the opposite effect that believers so often like to make in their “foxhole believer” bit. I assure you, there are atheists in foxholes.
[/quote]

It is relevant because you said it was bullshit. That leads one to believe you have seen active combat and remained atheist through out. Otherwise, how would you know? I know people who have seen real actual combat, and none of them nor do they know of anybody in that situation that is atheist. Now, maybe there are, I don’t actually know, but the evidence is scant. [/quote]

I didn’t have to see combat to read the accounts of service men and women who came through it and renounced religion. It’s a bullshit comment on it’s face.

You can say that atheists in foxholes are a minority, and you’d probably be right, but that has everything to do with atheists being a minority in general. More soldiers and Marines go into combat as believers, therefore more come out as believers. This is simple logic, patty cakes, do try to keep up.

Now, if you do some research, you’ll find examples of fighting men who seen shitty combat and renounced religion. What do you say to that?

Saying that "there are no atheists in foxholes, is christian bullshit logic, and I’m throwing the bullshit flag on it.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Now, did you have something of value to add to the discussion, or are you just here for the drive by ad hominem?[/quote]

Actually, that wasn’t an ad hominem, and I have plenty of discussing going on. But if you drop other asshat one liners I may drive by again.[/quote]

Actually, it was an ad hominen argument, in support of a fallacious statement. You do understand what an ad hominem argument is, right?
[/quote]
No because there is no such thing as an ‘ad hominem arguemt’ ad hominems are fallacies. I was merely pointing out that your certainty was rooted in personal experience. I was not saying you were wrong because you aren’t qualified to make the statement.

LOL! ^ That is an ‘ad hominem’

233

Trib what are your thoughts on people who claim to have been given a message from god? Such as pat Robertson when he makes predictions that are based on what god apparently told him? Do you think god is really speaking to them even if they’re wrong?

234

Trib what are your thoughts on people who claim to have been given a message from god? Such as pat Robertson when he makes predictions that are based on what god apparently told him? Do you think god is really speaking to them even if they’re wrong?

235

[quote]therajraj wrote:
Trib what are your thoughts on people who claim to have been given a message from god? Such as pat Robertson when he makes predictions that are based on what god apparently told him? Do you think god is really speaking to them even if they’re wrong?

[/quote]Without getting into a long diatribe. I believe God “speaks” to people today and they aren’t always even true Christians in every single instance. I further do not believe that 99% of what you see on TV has anything to do with the true and living God. I believe that 100% of failed future predictions are not of God and one strike makes you a false prophet to be ignored forever.

To answer Lifty quickly, see the epistemology thread, but yes God communicates with me as He does with millions of others of His children. No voices or visions for me before your imagination goes off… Impressions. I’ve gone over this, but can explain more. Stuff to do. Many in my own theological tradition would consider me goofy at best and in grave error at worst for so believing BTW.

236

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
To answer Lifty quickly, see the epistemology thread, but yes God communicates with me as He does with millions of others of His children. No voices or visions for me before your imagination goes off… Impressions. I’ve gone over this, but can explain more.
[/quote]
Do you remember where you did this?

237

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
What if God doesn’t have a “divine plan” and his “will” is just the design of the psychologically ill, power-hungry sociopaths?[/quote]
Every supposed prophet that ever came to us directly fought against the designs of the psychologically ill, power-hungry sociopaths.

They didn’t all do this literally, but even when words / ideas were the only weapons, “fight” is the most accurate word I can think of as they were “targeted” by the people in power.

238

[quote]pat wrote:
The it’s not about agreeing or not agreeing it’s about the logic not supporting it. You cannot have an infinite regress because it begs the question, which is circular reasoning which invalidates it as an option. [/quote]

Unless you apply ‘God logic’. Then anything goes, right?

[quote]
Where’d it come from? Try to answer that without being circular.

What your missing is that the universe or what it’s made of can be infinitely existing, it still does not invalidate the argument. The problem is that this ‘stuff’ what ever it is, is still dependent even if eternal.
The other thing your missing is your focused only on physical existence, where nothing physical exists without it’s metaphysical governance, it’s law, or reason for being. That’s existence too. A ‘singularity’s’ behaviour is still governed by something else. For every physical thing, there are two parts to its existence, the thing and it’s law.[/quote]

You forgot the part where God is necessary in all this. You already accept that God is above time, so I know you don’t have issues accepting the concept of something above the constraints of time, well, if a certain spacial dimension is above the constraints of time then “where’d it come from” becomes an inappropriate question. Oh, and LOL at you telling me to not be circular. This is the exact same line of reasoning you use to argue for God, “God always was and always will be. He created Time and so he is not bound to it.”

The only difference is that I don’t personify this ‘greater than time’ force. Also, I’m talking about the highest dimension. This includes everything; physical or otherwise. There is no force or law that is not included in this dimension that encompasses all the spacial dimensions below it. I’m literally talking about everything.

So, this brings us back to the original problem. An infinite amount of time draped over an infinite amount of energy is already enough to guarantee the existence of our universe. Given this, what evidence do you have to back up the claim that this force is not only the concious creator of the universe, but YOUR concious creator of the universe, specifically?

Oh, that reminds me. You used the wrong “your”… every time you used it.

239

[quote]squating_bear wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
To answer Lifty quickly, see the epistemology thread, but yes God communicates with me as He does with millions of others of His children. No voices or visions for me before your imagination goes off… Impressions. I’ve gone over this, but can explain more.
[/quote]
Do you remember where you did this?[/quote] https://tnation.T-Nation.com/free_online_forum/world_news_war/misconceptions_of_christianity_2;jsessionid=383F9548380B597678C91BBD7A492C79-hf.hydra?id=3967427&pageNo=6 For my fine slippery friend. Didn’t realize it was that long ago now. [quote]All things fail; but Thou, Lord of all, never failest! They who love Thee, oh, how little they have to suffer! oh, how gently, how tenderly, how sweetly Thou, O my Lord, dealest with them! Oh, that no one had ever been occupied with any other love than Thine! It seems as if Thou didst subject those who love Thee to a severe trial: but it is in order that they may learn, in the depths of that trial, the depths of Thy love. O my God, oh, that I had understanding and learning, and a new language, in order to magnify Thy works, according to the knowledge of them which my soul possesses! Everything fails me, O my Lord; but if Thou wilt not abandon me, I will never fail Thee. Let all the learned rise up against me, - let the whole creation persecute me, - let the evil spirits torment me, - but do Thou, O Lord, fail me not; for I know by experience now the blessedness of that deliverance which Thou dost effect for those who trust only in Thee. In this distress, - for then I had never had a single vision, - these Thy words alone were enough to remove it, and give me perfect peace: “Be not afraid, my daughter: it is I; and I will not abandon thee. Fear not.”
It seems to me that, in the state I was in then, many hours would have been necessary to calm me, and that no one could have done it. Yet I found myself, through these words alone, tranquil and strong, courageous and confident, at rest and enlightened; in a moment, my soul seemed changed, and I felt I could maintain against all the world that my prayer was the work of God. Oh, how good is God! how good is our Lord, and how powerful! He gives not counsel only, but relief as well. His words are deeds. O my God! as He strengthens our faith, love grows.[/quote]From the divine locutions of Teresa of Avila. A “doctor” of the Catholic Church (Big C Christopher), which church I hate, but have repeatedly stated that some of her residents know the same God I do. I simply, with some admitted wishful subjectivity, cannot believe that this woman is not describing genuine experiences with God. Experiences I have also had and which have produced profound godly and thoroughly biblical effects in my life and others. Some will scratch their heads wondering how I can blast Catholicism on one hand and say this on the other. I can. Check my posts on that page for a start.

240

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:

[quote]Mick28 wrote:
anyone who thinks that God doesn’t exist has never been in a fox hole.[/quote]

Bullshit[/quote]

In which war have you been in active combat?[/quote]

This ^^^^^^ has no bearing on the discussion. But to answer your question, none. A little bit of research on your part however, will direct you to instances of combat having the opposite effect that believers so often like to make in their “foxhole believer” bit. I assure you, there are atheists in foxholes.
[/quote]

It is relevant because you said it was bullshit. That leads one to believe you have seen active combat and remained atheist through out. Otherwise, how would you know? I know people who have seen real actual combat, and none of them nor do they know of anybody in that situation that is atheist. Now, maybe there are, I don’t actually know, but the evidence is scant. [/quote]

I didn’t have to see combat to read the accounts of service men and women who came through it and renounced religion. It’s a bullshit comment on it’s face.

You can say that atheists in foxholes are a minority, and you’d probably be right, but that has everything to do with atheists being a minority in general. More soldiers and Marines go into combat as believers, therefore more come out as believers. This is simple logic, patty cakes, do try to keep up.

Now, if you do some research, you’ll find examples of fighting men who seen shitty combat and renounced religion. What do you say to that?

Saying that "there are no atheists in foxholes, is christian bullshit logic, and I’m throwing the bullshit flag on it.

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Now, did you have something of value to add to the discussion, or are you just here for the drive by ad hominem?[/quote]

Actually, that wasn’t an ad hominem, and I have plenty of discussing going on. But if you drop other asshat one liners I may drive by again.[/quote]

Actually, it was an ad hominen argument, in support of a fallacious statement. You do understand what an ad hominem argument is, right?
[/quote]

No because there is no such thing as an ‘ad hominem arguemt’ ad hominems are fallacies. I was merely pointing out that your certainty was rooted in personal experience. I was not saying you were wrong because you aren’t qualified to make the statement.[/quote]

ORLY? LOL

http://www.wordiq.com/definition/Ad_hominem
[i]Ad hominem - Definition

An ad hominem argument, also known as argumentum ad hominem (Latin, literally “argument to the man”), is 1) a logical fallacy that involves replying to an argument or assertion by addressing the person presenting the argument or assertion rather than the argument itself; 2) an argument pointing out an inconsistency between a view expressed by an individual and the remainder of his or her beliefs. [/i]

Please acknowledge the fact that there actually ARE atheists in foxholes, and that you subsequently were wrong. You called into question my personal experiences without actually attacking the argument, guess what that was?

Your shipment of fail…has arrived. LOL

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]bigflamer wrote:
Keep throwing your ignorance up on these forums, it’s quite amusing. I thought you were better than this, I really did; perhaps I gave you too much credit?[/quote]

LOL! ^ That is an ‘ad hominem’ [/quote]

No, not exactly.