posted
No, shrinky-dink. From all the international news organizations, predominantly NPR whilst driving to and from work. I'm not a "conspiracy theorist" -- even though the U.S. government sure is startng to use a lot of Illuminati iconography...
--Jonah
-------------------- "That's what I like about these high school girls, I keep getting older, they stay the same age."
--David "Woody" Wooderson, Dazed and Confused
Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Peregrinus: No, shrinky-dink. --Jonah
I am terribly confused. I don't even think that I have a dink. And if I did, I'm sure it's size would remain constant.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
And how can your God claim to love me unconditionally when I've done nothing wrong at birth, and yet I'm still considered unworthy?
Because you're inherantly flawed, simply by existing as a human, would be the obvious answer. However, I'm not sure that there's a verse that claims that people are flawed when they're born. I believe the doctrine of original sin has tenuous scriptural support, at best. Correct me if I'm wrong.
you're claiming that your Christian god exists and that the Bible is truth.
Yes, but I'm NOT claiming them circularly, as you say. I claim that a God MUST exist, and that the Bible is the best, most consistant, most unique explaination as to That God's nature.
I go on the offensive by offering my point of view and an explanation for the origins of the Bible (as a series of cultural stories that developed without any real god), and you just ignore it as an "extraneous analogy."
Because that's exactly what it is. We KNOW your opinions from several instances earlier in the thread, but unless you provide any fact to back them up, all you're doing is repeating yourself.
As for the whole laws of physics thing, look at it this way:
Entropy must always increase as time moves forwards. Therefore, there must have been a point when entropy approached zero at some point in the past. Before that point, that law of physics could not exist, because the universe would have non-increasing entropy. So where'd the law come from? Similarly, if you argued that the universe didn't exist at all before that point (or before ANY point), then again, where did it come from? Mass/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. We have a structured universe that supposedly formed from an unexplained chaotic explosion, in defiance of entropy once again. The basic question is, where did all the order come from?
By your own admittance, said nature is beyond your ability to comprehend.
Beyond my ability to comprehend in it's entirity. That doesn't mean I can't have an abstract idea of it, or know the important parts.
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Because you're inherantly flawed, simply by existing as a human, would be the obvious answer. However, I'm not sure that there's a verse that claims that people are flawed when they're born. I believe the doctrine of original sin has tenuous scriptural support, at best. Correct me if I'm wrong.
Um... and yet God is supposed to have created Man, not to mention everything else. So what you're saying is that God created something flawed and then blames it for that flaw.
How about this: cars these days are built mainly by automation. So if cars come out of the production process that are faulty, do you blame the robots, or the people who built the robots?
quote:you're claiming that your Christian god exists and that the Bible is truth.
Yes, but I'm NOT claiming them circularly, as you say. I claim that a God MUST exist, and that the Bible is the best, most consistant, most unique explaination as to That God's nature.
The flaw in your argument is the belief that the Bible is divinely inspired. Therefore, you're saying that God inspired the writing of the Bible, which is being used to prove God's existence. That seems pretty circular to me.
quote:As for the whole laws of physics thing, look at it this way:
Entropy must always increase as time moves forwards. Therefore, there must have been a point when entropy approached zero at some point in the past. Before that point, that law of physics could not exist, because the universe would have non-increasing entropy. So where'd the law come from? Similarly, if you argued that the universe didn't exist at all before that point (or before ANY point), then again, where did it come from? Mass/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. We have a structured universe that supposedly formed from an unexplained chaotic explosion, in defiance of entropy once again. The basic question is, where did all the order come from?
I have no idea. I don't pretend to have all the answers. But I refuse to jump to conclusions -- simply because I *don't* have answers and can't possibly understand most of it anyway.
Should people two thousand years ago have believed that there was some invisible man that kept things on the ground, before the concept of gravity was discovered?
Rather than presenting another analogy, let me appeal to your obvious interest in science fiction. Trek -- among other shows -- is about broadening the horizons of Human knowledge. About discovering the answers to our questions, and also to finding new questions. We learn more as time goes on. It may turn out that there really *IS* a God. But right now, I do not find consistency in the beliefs presented.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
you're saying that God inspired the writing of the Bible, which is being used to prove God's existence.
Are you even reading what I type? Let me say this very clearly. I am NOT using the Bible to prove the existence of God, and I defy you to find a place where I've done so. I simply use it as an explaination of His nature.
I have no idea. I don't pretend to have all the answers. But I refuse to jump to conclusions -- simply because I *don't* have answers and can't possibly understand most of it anyway.
And yet you deny other, perfectly valid answers...
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: you're saying that God inspired the writing of the Bible, which is being used to prove God's existence.
Are you even reading what I type? Let me say this very clearly. I am NOT using the Bible to prove the existence of God, and I defy you to find a place where I've done so. I simply use it as an explaination of His nature.
It doesn't matter if you're using the Bible in your arguments here. Christianity has absolutely no basis without the Bible as its proof. Although there is a shitload of writings from later on, they are all entirely based on the alleged events of the Bible.
Without the Bible, your supposed higher being could be the ancient Vorlon god Boojee for all we know. Which has absolutely nothing to do with the Hebrews or Jesus.
quote:I have no idea. I don't pretend to have all the answers. But I refuse to jump to conclusions -- simply because I *don't* have answers and can't possibly understand most of it anyway.
And yet you deny other, perfectly valid answers...
Because I believe that your "valid" answers are nothing more than primitive superstitions that people have desperately clung onto for the past four thousand years for the simple fear that the lack of some higher being somehow invalidates their life. Which I'm sure that I said previously, though not so bluntly.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by TSN: Sorry, but, out of context, that statement is just too useful.
It was intentional, y'know.
-------------------- Yes, you're despicable, and... and picable... and... and you're definitely, definitely despicable. How a person can get so despicable in one lifetime is beyond me. It isn't as though I haven't met a lot of people. Goodness knows it isn't that. It isn't just that... it isn't... it's... it's despicable.
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
posted
Because I believe that your "valid" answers are nothing more than primitive superstitions that people have desperately clung onto for the past four thousand years for the simple fear that the lack of some higher being somehow invalidates their life.
Which you have no logical reason to believe.
Christianity has absolutely no basis without the Bible as its proof.
Agreed. But again, what point are you trying to draw from this?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: Which you have no logical reason to believe.
The hell...? Very amusing that you're trying to invoke logic in this argument.
quote:Christianity has absolutely no basis without the Bible as its proof.
Agreed. But again, what point are you trying to draw from this?
Do I have to spell it all out for you? I'm saying that since the Bible and the Christian God are so closely linked, it's basically circular logic. Furthermore, if you remove one, the other must go as well.
I have applied the skills that I have learned as a History student (as well as some other things) to consider the Bible as a historical document. And I see a whole lot of reasons why the Bible cannot be a factual document. (Lack of external corroborating evidence for the really key issues, for one.) Furthermore, I see a large number of inconsistencies in several aspects of Christian theology.
Quite simply, I find religion to be highly illogical. And despite the exhortations for "faith," I maintain that even faith must bow to logic and consistency.
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
posted
I'm saying that since the Bible and the Christian God are so closely linked, it's basically circular logic.
And I'm saying that this is not true. Yes, they support each other, but they're also the most viable theory for the nature of the world. I don't use them to back each other up, I use the world we see to support them both.
I see a whole lot of reasons why the Bible cannot be a factual document.
Do tell.
Lack of external corroborating evidence for the really key issues, for one.
A) such as?
B) lack of external evidence, even if that were the case, would not be a reason why it MUST NOT be a factual document.
Furthermore, I see a large number of inconsistencies in several aspects of Christian theology.
Again, such as?
-------------------- "This is why you people think I'm so unknowable. You don't listen!" - God, "God, the Devil and Bob"
Registered: Mar 1999
| IP: Logged
Cartman
just made by the Presbyterian Church
Member # 256
posted
As for the whole laws of physics thing, look at it this way: blah
This a prime example of why the practice of homeschooling should be banned. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people with no background in physics and no understanding of its laws and concepts WHATSOEVER who spew forth meaningless arcane gibberish. There is absolutely NO contradiction.
"Entropy must always increase as time moves forwards."
No, entropy must increase as the number of possible quantum states in which the system can BE increases. First class of STATISTICAL MECHANICS.
"Therefore, there must have been a point when entropy approached zero at some point in the past."
1) If time is infinite, entropy has a positive limit value as it approaches negative infinity.
2) If time is not infinite, the vertical offset is sufficiently large to ensure positive entropy.
"Before that point, that law of physics could not exist, because the universe would have non-increasing entropy."
Entropy CAN decrease in certain systems (like singularities) over a short timespan. First class of THERMODYNAMICS.
"So where'd the law come from?"
Random chance. Why is the gravitational constant 6.672 * 10^-11 nm^2/km^2? Why is the speed of light 299792 km/s? Why is the Planck constant 6.63 x 10^-34 J*s? Because together they form a stable configuration. One out of infinite combinations of variables. The universe works the way it does, get used to it.
"Similarly, if you argued that the universe didn't exist at all before that point (or before ANY point), then again, where did it come from?"
Damned if I know. A quantum fluctuation in an n-dimensional superspace. A collision between a shadow universe and our own. What I do know is that you do not accomplish ANYTHING by entering god into the equation.
"Mass/energy can neither be created nor destroyed."
The TOTAL energy of the universe could be zero, allowing it to spontaneously initiate. It might exist for an infinite duration of time, but renew itself right after each inflationairy phase via a collapsing Higgs-field.
"We have a structured universe that supposedly formed from an unexplained chaotic explosion, in defiance of entropy once again."
See above.
"The basic question is, where did all the order come from?"
See above.
Beyond my ability to comprehend in it's entirity. That doesn't mean I can't have an abstract idea of it, or know the important parts.
WRONG. You neither have a way of knowing the important parts, nor do you have a way of knowing WHAT those important parts ARE.
See, the thing about deities is that you have NO way of knowing ANYTHING about their nature. If you pretend otherwise, you start treading down the slippery slope of HUMAN PERSPECTIVE. You are not EXPECTED to comprehend.
And yet you deny other, perfectly valid answers...
So. Do. You.
quote:Is it not better to place a question mark upon a problem while seeking an answer than to put the label 'God' there and consider the matter closed?
But hey, labeling is easier. And as an added bonus, it neatly masks those annoying holes in your knowledge!
What you call a perfectly valid answer, I call an implausible argument using invalid inference. If god is eternal (i.e. didn't somehow come into being along with EVERYTHING else), it MUST necessarily exist OUTSIDE the spacetime continuum. You CAN'T conveniently ignore the obvious fallacy involved here (i.e. the fact that such existence is IMPOSSIBLE, omnipotence or not) regarding the origin of the universe yet MAINTAIN the aforementionted distinction.
Which you have no logical reason to believe.
He has EVERY logical reason to. If you're going to argue logic, I strongly suggest you first make sure your own is impeccable... lest it STRAINS your credibility.
Why do I get the feeling this falls on deaf ears?
[ December 24, 2002, 16:09: Message edited by: E. Cartman ]
-------------------- ".mirrorS arE morE fuN thaN televisioN" - TEH PNIK FLAMIGNO
Registered: Nov 1999
| IP: Logged
quote:Originally posted by Omega: I see a whole lot of reasons why the Bible cannot be a factual document.
Do tell.
I already have told. Or do you have short-term memory problems?
quote:Furthermore, I see a large number of inconsistencies in several aspects of Christian theology.
Again, such as?
Must I post absolutely everything in one message for you to look at it all?
Omega, I'm trying very, very hard here to remain civil. Therefore, I refuse to argue any further. I respect your choice to believe otherwise, and I take offense at your insistence that I may not believe what I choose to. I find it sad that you refuse to acknowledge my arguments when I've presented several facets of it over the past eight or nine pages worth of posts.
A reasonable argument is impossible when one side has his fingers stuck in his ears and is humming very loudly...
-------------------- “Those people who think they know everything are a great annoyance to those of us who do.” — Isaac Asimov Star Trek Minutiae | Memory Alpha
Registered: Nov 2000
| IP: Logged
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
Printer-friendly view of this topic
