The Existence of God [Archive]

zorro

03-12-2006, 09:52 AM

well the problem here remains that you never proved atheism is false, nor did you actually prove a god exists in this paper, but in all honesty im tired of attempting to argue with you, yes i know all you must say to discredit me now is, "you have nothing to say so you say this" awesome. I merely feel as if i should at least let you know that i still feel as if neither this nor the other paper proved anything, unless of course you read these papers with a.) wanting them to prove to you that god exists and atheism is false or b.) that you already beleive, so it is easily accepted.

But it matters not. So enjoy.

When you say, "i still feel as if neither this nor the other paper proved anything," you are correct. Your position has to do with your subjective feelings, and not with any objective refutation of either paper. I don't care about your subjective feelings, and neither should you or anyone else. My arguments are not based on my feelings of God existing, but on logic and the facts of the world around us. If you can't provide anything other than your feelings, you have lost the argument. As I said in another post to you, your "arguments" don't follow the rules of logic.

Conclusion:

Give up logic or give up your "arguments."

Z

1994SilverGT

03-12-2006, 10:38 AM

When you say, "i still feel as if neither this nor the other paper proved anything," you are correct. Your position has to do with your subjective feelings, and not with any objective refutation of either paper. I don't care about your subjective feelings, and neither should you or anyone else. My arguments are not based on my feelings of God existing, but on logic and the facts of the world around us. If you can't provide anything other than your feelings, you have lost the argument. As I said in another post to you, your "arguments" don't follow the rules of logic.

Conclusion:

Give up logic or give up your "arguments."

Z

no, your arguments are not based on logic, they are based on your opinion of knowledge and the "fact" that knowledge needs a god to exist. you may use logic after that in some places, but you never prove atheism false, you still use your assumed knowledge argument you cant prove as your reasoning for the rest of logic, which means it is all false if you base it on something untrue.

zorro

03-12-2006, 10:48 AM

no, your arguments are not based on logic, they are based on your opinion of knowledge and the "fact" that knowledge needs a god to exist. you may use logic after that in some places, but you never prove atheism false, you still use your assumed knowledge argument you cant prove as your reasoning for the rest of logic, which means it is all false if you base it on something untrue.

After all this you continue to prove you just don't understand the argument. So, how can you say that it is not based on logic, if you have no comprehention of it? The core agument is that there is no atheistic cosmology that has the elements to get us to knowledge. As of yet, you have not been able to provide any rational counter example or any rational counter argument. In your last post you even admitted that your position was not based on logic, but on your feelings,

So, regardless of what you write here, unless you can come up with a rational counter example or any rational counter argument (and not the nonsense you have been providing), the argument stands. That's how real logic works. If you don't like it, to bad.

Z

DarkWolf

03-13-2006, 10:46 AM

Oh boy. Another one. I guess I'll try to read this one later tonight.

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-13-2006, 10:50 AM

My paper "Atheism's Blatant Contradiction" proved that atheism is false and indirectly that some sort of theism is true.

Many have asked that I present a direct argument for the existence of God, so here it is:

http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/cosmos.htm

Enjoy,

Z

So which god does that prove to exist? If there can be only one, wouldn't you have to disprove the rest?

SlowLX

03-13-2006, 10:55 AM

So which god does that prove to exist? If there can be only one, wouldn't you have to disprove the rest?
What about hawkman?!

zorro

03-13-2006, 10:55 AM

So which god does that prove to exist? If there can be only one, wouldn't you have to disprove the rest?

As I told you in another post this is a narrowing down process. If you look at the conclusion of the current argument, you will see that it is really a list of cosmological elements. This list will delete all theistic cosmologies, with the exce[ption of deism and cosmological theism. If you have a copy of the cosmology chart, you can look it over to see what I mean. Here is the link again:

http://home.earthlink.net/~gbl111/cosmologies.htm

Z

DarkWolf

03-14-2006, 10:03 PM

What if we never get to an end going backwards? It would mean that all past events could not be traversed; and if all past events cannot be traversed going backwards, then they could not be traversed coming forwards. The same number of events are involved. If the series of events could not be traversed coming forward, then we would never be able to get to the current event we are experiencing right now. Yet, we are at the present event. Therefore, there are not an infinite number of events.

I actually had a fit of laughter at this conclusion. The absurdity that we can't be experiencing the present unless we can traverse all the past events... wow.

Article #2 to fail to prove or disprove anything.

Got anymore?

zorro

03-14-2006, 10:21 PM

I actually had a fit of laughter at this conclusion. The absurdity that we can't be experiencing the present unless we can traverse all the past events... wow.

Article #2 to fail to prove or disprove anything.

Got anymore?

Your dismissal means nothing.

I have two points.

First, the argument is a deductive argument which means there are two parts: the formal validity and the truth of the premises.

Why don't we start with formal validity. will agree that the argument is formally valid. IF not will you point out the formal fallacy that you are accusing me of?

Second, Are you saying that it is possible to traverse an infinite series?

If you could traverse the series, it coundn't be an infinite series.

So, if there were an infinite series of events leading to this current event, it would be impossible to traverse it to get here.

Simple logic.

The paper proves the cosmological elements of the conclusion, so either deism is true or cosmological theism is true.

And yes, I got a lot more and to your dismay, there all based on logic.

Z

DarkWolf

03-15-2006, 11:23 AM

zorro

03-17-2006, 11:50 AM

Here's a simple diagram, since you seem fond of them:

infinity <---------------- [we are here] ---------------> infinity

This is basic string theory. We don't have to experience infinite pasts or futures... or presents for that matter, to be experiencing this present. Our present.

I await your next attempt.

Unfortunately, time only moves in one direction, so to get to [we are here] an infinite number of events had to be traversed. Since it is impossible to traverse an infinite number of events, if there were an infinite number of events prior to our current event, we could never get to this current event.

Z

DarkWolf

03-17-2006, 04:56 PM

Unfortunately, time only moves in one direction, so to get to [we are here] an infinite number of events had to be traversed. Since it is impossible to traverse an infinite number of events, if there were an infinite number of events prior to our current event, we could never get to this current event.

Z

Unfortunately, we experience the present time. We're on that infinite timeline, experiencing the current set of events, in all the infinite events. You can't go back, and you can't go forward, there's only now.

zorro

03-20-2006, 11:51 AM

Unfortunately, we experience the present time. We're on that infinite timeline,

Thanks for sharing you statement of blind faith. Oh, maybe it is not blind faith? You have a proof that time is infinite?

Z

DarkWolf

03-20-2006, 06:17 PM

Thanks for sharing you statement of blind faith. Oh, maybe it is not blind faith? You have a proof that time is infinite?

Z

I could ask that you share any proof that it's not, but you won't be able to, so I won't bother.

Unless you can show me a beginning or an end of time, I see time as infinite. You see, there's a difference between blind faith, and acceptance of a high probability. I'm willing to re-assess my views when given new evidence... something that is not possible with blind faith.

zorro

03-20-2006, 07:14 PM

I could ask that you share any proof that it's not, but you won't be able to, so I won't bother.

Unless you can show me a beginning or an end of time, I see time as infinite. You see, there's a difference between blind faith, and acceptance of a high probability. I'm willing to re-assess my views when given new evidence... something that is not possible with blind faith.

But I already did provide a deductive and certain proof. Your problem is that you hold to the contradictory position that an infinite series can be traversed. I hold to the logically necessary position that an infinite series cannot be traversed.

An infinite series is an endless series. If you can traverse the series, it means that you have come to the end. So, you insist that it is possible to come to the end of an endless series.

I insist that if the series is truly endless, that you can never find an end. Why? Because it is endless.

Z

DarkWolf

03-20-2006, 11:20 PM

And I've demonstrated that we exist in the now, and that we can't travel back, or forwards in time. Where is that "holding to the contradictory position that an infinite series can be traversed"?

zorro

03-21-2006, 04:08 PM

And I've demonstrated that we exist in the now, and that we can't travel back, or forwards in time. Where is that "holding to the contradictory position that an infinite series can be traversed"?

Very simply, this is not the first moment or event. There were either a finite number of prior events or an infinite number of events prior to the current event. You have said in your previous posts that you assert there were an infinite number of prior events. That is contradictory, as I have already explained.

Z

DarkWolf

03-21-2006, 07:34 PM

Very simply, this is not the first moment or event. There were either a finite number of prior events or an infinite number of events prior to the current event. You have said in your previous posts that you assert there were an infinite number of prior events. That is contradictory, as I have already explained.

Z

No, I said there's an infinite number of events (key being the missing "prior" that you tried to claim I pronounced). We're experiencing the events of now. We don't have to traverse past events to experience now.

zorro

03-22-2006, 09:28 AM

No, I said there's an infinite number of events (key being the missing "prior" that you tried to claim I pronounced). We're experiencing the events of now. We don't have to traverse past events to experience now.

So, are you denying that there is a past and there is a future?

Z

DarkWolf

03-22-2006, 09:49 AM

So, are you denying that there is a past and there is a future?

Z

Not sure how you gather that.

zorro

03-22-2006, 03:52 PM

Not sure how you gather that.

Actually, since your position is not too clear, I am trying to guess. Why don't you explain it more fully?

Z

DarkWolf

03-23-2006, 01:40 AM

I'm not sure how I could make it more clear. An infinite number of events != an infinite number of prior events, nor an infinite number of future events. They're all an infinite number of events.

The simple diagram I did earlier is too basic to explain infinite time, but should've been adequate. Apparently it wasn't for you. A more accurate diagram would look more like a sphere of lines, almost like a balled up spiderweb, or string. Infinite events in time, and a single dot somewhere in that sphere representing where we are in time. The sphere is infinity (the diagram is merely a representation of a portion of it, as it's impossible to accurately portray something that has no definable beginning or end... as you can imagine, ASCII characters confound this even farther).

zorro

03-23-2006, 11:55 AM

Hollywood

03-23-2006, 12:08 PM

My paper "Atheism's Blatant Contradiction" proved that atheism is false and indirectly that some sort of theism is true.

Z

Atheism false? I don't believe in god, now it's not false. The End.

zorro

03-23-2006, 12:48 PM

Atheism false? I don't believe in god, now it's not false. The End.

The fact that some kids believe in Santa Claus doesn't mean he exists. your mere belief or disbelief has no ontological bearing on reality. Atheism is false, because it is contradictory. It is both self contradictory and it contradicts with reality, as my paper clearly shows.

You might try actually reading it and repsonding to points in the paper.

Z

Hollywood

03-23-2006, 12:56 PM

The fact that some kids believe in Santa Claus doesn't mean he exists. your mere belief or disbelief has no ontological bearing on reality. Atheism is false, because it is contradictory. It is both self contradictory and it contradicts with reality, as my paper clearly shows.

You might try actually reading it and repsonding to points in the paper.

Z

There's nothing contradictory about it. What you believe has no bearing on what I believe nor does it change what I believe. Your paper is full of assumptions about atheism. You can't lump us all together as you so try.

DarkWolf

03-23-2006, 01:15 PM

I understand some of what you are saying, but "!=" means nothing to me.

Do you realize that a subset of an infinite set is an infinite set in itself? So in an infinite series, if you remove all the even items, you are left with two infinite series. Right?

Z

!= means "does not equal"

You can't remove all the even items from an infinite series, because by definition there's no end to the number of even or odd items. You can't have two infinite series. Which is why I stated: "An infinite number of events != an infinite number of prior events, nor an infinite number of future events. They're all an infinite number of events."

exlude

03-23-2006, 01:18 PM

Three cheers for zorro, master of semantics and the trickeries of the English language. One day you may actually prove something over wordgames.

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-23-2006, 01:26 PM

The fact that some kids believe in Santa Claus doesn't mean he exists.

Z

exactly

Fobra

03-23-2006, 04:35 PM

Atheism false? I don't believe in god, now it's not false. The End.
Believing in God and proving the existence of god are two different categories, one is subjective while the other is not. You don't have to believe in something even if 'it' has been proven as true either within an inductive or deductive framework. :)

DarkWolf

03-23-2006, 06:36 PM

Believing in God and proving the existence of god are two different categories, one is subjective while the other is not. You don't have to believe in something even if 'it' has been proven as true either within an inductive or deductive framework. :)

Be sure to let us know when that happens :)

zorro

03-24-2006, 06:24 PM

There's nothing contradictory about it. What you believe has no bearing on what I believe nor does it change what I believe. Your paper is full of assumptions about atheism. You can't lump us all together as you so try.

Still no response to any points in the paper.

OK, whateeever.

Z

zorro

03-24-2006, 06:42 PM

!= means "does not equal"

You can't remove all the even items from an infinite series, because by definition there's no end to the number of even or odd items. You can't have two infinite series. Which is why I stated: "An infinite number of events != an infinite number of prior events, nor an infinite number of future events. They're all an infinite number of events."

Actually, in infinite set theory you can, you just can't do it one by one. You can identify the infinite set of all numbers and the infinite set of all odd numbers and the infinite set of all even numbers.

The difference with numbers is that counting from 1 onwards is only a potentially infinite and not an actual infinite. You can start counting and potentially continue counting on and on, but anywhere you decide to stop and look at where you are will always be a finite number, you will never be able to count to infinity. So, a potential infinite is always finite.

An actual infinite set would have a infinite number of members already in the set. This is the problem for the infinite universe model: it must have an actual infinite number of events in the set call "past events." The future has no actual member in its set. Since each past event requires the one preceding it to occur first, there is no possible way we could get to the current event if there were an actual infinite set of past events. This is because, as already stated, it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite series.

Z

zorro

03-24-2006, 06:44 PM

Be sure to let us know when that happens :)

Already has! The fact that you choose to bury your head in the sand and pretend it hasn't doesn't change the facts.

Z

DarkWolf

03-24-2006, 06:53 PM

Already has! The fact that you choose to bury your head in the sand and pretend it hasn't doesn't change the facts.

OH SNAPS! For reals??!1

:rolleyes:

Show me some proof, and not some philosophical jargon, and I'll concede the argument. Until then, I await your proof with bated breath.

DarkWolf

03-24-2006, 07:00 PM

Actually, in infinite set theory you can, you just can't do it one by one. You can identify the infinite set of all numbers and the infinite set of all odd numbers and the infinite set of all even numbers.

The difference with numbers is that counting from 1 onwards is only a potentially infinite and not an actual infinite. You can start counting and potentially continue counting on and on, but anywhere you decide to stop and look at where you are will always be a finite number, you will never be able to count to infinity. So, a potential infinite is always finite.

An actual infinite set would have a infinite number of members already in the set. This is the problem for the infinite universe model: it must have an actual infinite number of events in the set call "past events." The future has no actual member in its set. Since each past event requires the one preceding it to occur first, there is no possible way we could get to the current event if there were an actual infinite set of past events. This is because, as already stated, it is impossible to traverse an actual infinite series.

Of course the universe isn't infinite, there's too much evidence to the contrary.

zorro

03-24-2006, 07:40 PM

Of course the universe isn't infinite, there's too much evidence to the contrary.

That's what my paper says. So, if the universe is finite, then the always existent is something else and this universe is derived from the always existent. Care to look over the list of cosmologies and tell me which ones have all these elements?

I'll be waiting.

Z

zorro

03-24-2006, 07:43 PM

OH SNAPS! For reals??!1

Show me some proof, and not some philosophical jargon, and I'll concede the argument. Until then, I await your proof with bated breath.

Once again, just because you put your head in the sand doesn't change anything. A formally valid deductive argument with true premises yeilds a necessary conclusion. Accept the conclusion or reject logic, your choice.

Z

01WhiteCobra

03-24-2006, 10:33 PM

zorro

03-24-2006, 11:06 PM

Zorro, assuming time is linear is never a good idea. Is the basic, "I can't figure it out, thus, there must be a Higher Authority."

Which I'll say... if there was a Creator the evidence would be so overwhelming that no one could possibly create a plausible argument otherwise.

There. I just created a rebuttal to your paper in about 1% of the bandwidth of your original thesis.

Actually, one can't create a plausible argument for atheism, that is the point. Regarding your first comment, read the paper prior to making silly comments that are already answered.

Z

DarkWolf

03-25-2006, 02:56 AM

That's what my paper says. So, if the universe is finite, then the always existent is something else and this universe is derived from the always existent. Care to look over the list of cosmologies and tell me which ones have all these elements?

I'll be waiting.

Time != Universe

Once again, just because you put your head in the sand doesn't change anything. A formally valid deductive argument with true premises yeilds a necessary conclusion. Accept the conclusion or reject logic, your choice.

You're the one failing to provide any evidence beyond what you believe. The burden of proof rests solely on your shoulders.

01WhiteCobra

03-25-2006, 08:10 AM

Actually, one can't create a plausible argument for atheism, that is the point. Regarding your first comment, read the paper prior to making silly comments that are already answered.

Z

Zorro, thanks for the non-answer. I know understand you lack the basics to participate in this argument.

Thanks for playing. Good luck selling computers.

zorro

03-25-2006, 11:27 AM

Time != Universe

It seems to me that dimensions of time could exist without our universe, but our universe could not exist with our dimension of time.

You're the one failing to provide any evidence beyond what you believe. The burden of proof rests solely on your shoulders.

Yes, I believe that valid deductive arguments with true premises are proof; in fact that is what the definition of "proof" is. You deny that logic and true premises is proof. I think we are about done here.

Once a person rejects logic, I really don't have much more to say to him. I have no illogical arguments to offer, just logical arguments. Since you have rejected logic as a source of truth, all I can say is, "Have fun with Alice as you fall down the rabbit hole."

Z

DarkWolf

03-25-2006, 12:34 PM

It seems to me that dimensions of time could exist without our universe, but our universe could not exist with our dimension of time.

Yes, I believe that valid deductive arguments with true premises are proof; in fact that is what the definition of "proof" is. You deny that logic and true premises is proof. I think we are about done here.

Once a person rejects logic, I really don't have much more to say to him. I have no illogical arguments to offer, just logical arguments. Since you have rejected logic as a source of truth, all I can say is, "Have fun with Alice as you fall down the rabbit hole."

So, now you're going to pull a TexasDevilDog and switch your position? Time is infinite now?

And, proof is dependant on that "true" premise... you provided no such thing. You provided what you believe. Belief != Truth, even if you believe it to be so.

zorro

03-25-2006, 12:43 PM

So, now you're going to pull a TexasDevilDog and switch your position? Time is infinite now?

What the heck are you talking about? Nothing I said conveys that time is infinite.

And, proof is dependant on that "true" premise... you provided no such thing. You provided what you believe. Belief != Truth, even if you believe it to be so.

Well, from your position, no premise can be consider to be true. Because no perception is ever justified, it is just asserted. So, every fact, in your system, is nothing more than a belief.

So, what is your problem? All your facts and premises are just blind faith beliefs, in your system!

Z

DarkWolf

03-27-2006, 06:37 PM

What the heck are you talking about? Nothing I said conveys that time is infinite.

Quoth you: "It seems to me that dimensions of time could exist without our universe, but our universe could not exist with our dimension of time."

Certainly appears to be an indication that time is infinite, as it exists independant of the universe. A tad loose, but none-the-less potential.

Well, from your position, no premise can be consider to be true. Because no perception is ever justified, it is just asserted. So, every fact, in your system, is nothing more than a belief.

So, what is your problem? All your facts and premises are just blind faith beliefs, in your system!

The difference is my facts and premises can be proven. They're repeatable. They're observable. Your's are in your head.

zorro

03-27-2006, 09:52 PM

Quoth you: "It seems to me that dimensions of time could exist without our universe, but our universe could not exist with our dimension of time."

Certainly appears to be an indication that time is infinite, as it exists independant of the universe. A tad loose, but none-the-less potential.

Show the necessary connection. If there are other dimensions of time, they could be infinite or the could be finite. We don't know about other dimensions of time. We do know about our own. It is finite.

The difference is my facts and premises can be proven. They're repeatable. They're observable. Your's are in your head.

You keep saying that, but it remains unjustified. If you can't justify your sense perceptions, anything that you observe remains unjustified and suspect.

As for me, I have a cosmology that has the elements to get me to a justified epistemology and to the justification of the senses.

You can't justify your sense perception, nor can you justify your perception of independence. In fact, from an atheist view, you must deny it.

Let's try an easy question for you: What are the means and methods you have by which you know things?

Z

DarkWolf

03-28-2006, 09:18 AM

We don't know about other dimensions of time. We do know about our own. It is finite.

Prove it.

Let's try an easy question for you: What are the means and methods you have by which you know things?

Already been answered a number of times. The fact that you can't argue outside of a philosophical spectrum isn't my problem.

zorro

03-28-2006, 11:02 AM

Prove it.

Already did, read my paper.

Already been answered a number of times. The fact that you can't argue outside of a philosophical spectrum isn't my problem.

It seems if you have no clue on how you know things, you can't argue at all, can you?

It would also seem that if you have no clue on how you know things, you won't be able to tell when I do prove something.

Z

DarkWolf

03-28-2006, 01:34 PM

Already did, read my paper.

So you can effectively demonstrate for us all when time began? That'd be mighty impressive for sure, since you'd be the only person in history to be able to do so. So when did time start?

It seems if you have no clue on how you know things, you can't argue at all, can you?

It would also seem that if you have no clue on how you know things, you won't be able to tell when I do prove something.

It would seem, if you could actually prove something without just saying what you believe, I would be able to tell when you've proven something. Belief != proof... no matter how much you want it to be so.

zorro

03-28-2006, 01:44 PM

So you can effectively demonstrate for us all when time began? That'd be mighty impressive for sure, since you'd be the only person in history to be able to do so. So when did time start?

At the beginning.

It would seem, if you could actually prove something without just saying what you believe, I would be able to tell when you've proven something. Belief != proof... no matter how much you want it to be so.

You say that belief dosen't equal proof, but since you have no criteria of what a proof is, how do you know? It seems like "Belief != proof" is nothing more than a faith statement, in other words, your belief. So, by you saying "Belief != proof," doesn't prove anything, does it?

Z

DarkWolf

03-28-2006, 04:46 PM

At the beginning.

I marvel at your genius.

You say that belief dosen't equal proof, but since you have no criteria of what a proof is, how do you know? It seems like "Belief != proof" is nothing more than a faith statement, in other words, your belief. So, by you saying "Belief != proof," doesn't prove anything, does it?

Belief != Proof has nothing to do with faith. Proof is something you can demonstrate unquestionably. 2+2=4. Proof. Every time you solve 2+2, you'll always get 4, unless you personally change the value of 2, for whatever reasons. That doesn't change the value of 2 for anyone but yourself.

Kinda like philosophy. Philosophy = Belief. Belief cannot be demonstrated, only speculated. You can try to persuade others to believe as you believe. That isn't proving what you believe is true, it's only showing your charisma (hey, there's that word again) and power of persuasion.

zorro

03-28-2006, 05:54 PM

Belief != Proof has nothing to do with faith. Proof is something you can demonstrate unquestionably. 2+2=4. Proof. Every time you solve 2+2, you'll always get 4, unless you personally change the value of 2, for whatever reasons. That doesn't change the value of 2 for anyone but yourself.

In Principia Mathematica, the landmark work written by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, they show that mathematics is a subset of logic. So, since you have already rejected logic as "just philosophy" are you now insisting that logic is "proof?" Which is it?

Kinda like philosophy. Philosophy = Belief. Belief cannot be demonstrated, only speculated. You can try to persuade others to believe as you believe. That isn't proving what you believe is true, it's only showing your charisma (hey, there's that word again) and power of persuasion.

Actually, there are three kinds of belief.

1) There is rational belief. This is where the evidence or argument supports a position.

2) There is blind belief. This is where there is no evidence or argument in support of either side of a position, or the evidence and arguments are equal on both sides.

3) There is irrational belief. This is where all the evidence and arguments are contrary to the position held.

You address only one kind, that would be blind belief. However, your personal position is that of irrational belief. This is demonstrated by the fact that you reject all logical arguments you don't like and accept those you do, as shown above.

Philosophy only equals blind belief when there is no evidence or arguments for it. I have offered several arguments. You just don't like them.

Z

DarkWolf

03-28-2006, 07:07 PM

In Principia Mathematica, the landmark work written by Alfred North Whitehead and Bertrand Russell, they show that mathematics is a subset of logic. So, since you have already rejected logic as "just philosophy" are you now insisting that logic is "proof?" Which is it?

Oh, so because I'm not cowtowing to your philosophical nonsense, I'm rejecting logic? I see. Because logic can only come from philosophy. Gotcha. Would it surprise you to know that Logic is a subset of Knowledge? And we already know for a fact, whether god exists or not, we're here, and we have knowledge. That's the reality of it, my friend. Whether or not god exists, we are here, and we have knowledge.

You are deluded to the point it'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. I really do feel for you.

Actually, there are three kinds of belief.

1) There is rational belief. This is where the evidence or argument supports a position.

2) There is blind belief. This is where there is no evidence or argument in support of either side of a position, or the evidence and arguments are equal on both sides.

3) There is irrational belief. This is where all the evidence and arguments are contrary to the position held.

You address only one kind, that would be blind belief. However, your personal position is that of irrational belief. This is demonstrated by the fact that you reject all logical arguments you don't like and accept those you do, as shown above.

Philosophy only equals blind belief when there is no evidence or arguments for it. I have offered several arguments. You just don't like them.

So it's irrational to believe 2+2=4? It's irrational to require some proof of something before accepting it? Proof beyond someone's personal beliefs. Wow. Crazy. Yeah I guess I'm holding to an irrational belief then.

And that's why you fail. You're always making assumptions. Assumptions will get you nowhere. Well, nowhere but me getting a good chuckle at your expense. To wit, I sincerely hope you never wise up. This is too entertaining.

zorro

03-29-2006, 12:45 PM

Oh, so because I'm not cowtowing to your philosophical nonsense, I'm rejecting logic? I see. Because logic can only come from philosophy. Gotcha. Would it surprise you to know that Logic is a subset of Knowledge? And we already know for a fact, whether god exists or not, we're here, and we have knowledge. That's the reality of it, my friend. Whether or not god exists, we are here, and we have knowledge.

You are deluded to the point it'd be funny if it wasn't so sad. I really do feel for you.

So it's irrational to believe 2+2=4? It's irrational to require some proof of something before accepting it? Proof beyond someone's personal beliefs. Wow. Crazy. Yeah I guess I'm holding to an irrational belief then.

And that's why you fail. You're always making assumptions. Assumptions will get you nowhere. Well, nowhere but me getting a good chuckle at your expense. To wit, I sincerely hope you never wise up. This is too entertaining.

People reading this thread can readily find instance after instance where you reject logic and hold to fallacious positions, both here and in other threads. God knows that I have pointed out and listed numerous of your fallacies for you. You want to pretend you are rational now? You fool only yourself.

You write, "we are here, and we have knowledge." I have presented a deductive argument that PROVES if knowledge exists, all forms of atheism are false. You have nevered offered a deductively sound counter; you have just rejected it, because you don't like it. Rejecting a deductively sound argument is rejecting logic.

So, it is time we put this to an end. Until you accept deductive logic and reject fallacies, I am through with you. I have no time for irrational discussions. My point has been proven, the only way for the atheist to hold the atheist position is to reject logic and accept fallacy.

Please continue burying your head in the sand, it is becoming for you. You can pretend the arguments don't exist, but pretending is the only way you have of getting out of them. You can't address them head on.

Z

DarkWolf

03-29-2006, 01:10 PM

People reading this thread can readily find instance after instance where you reject logic and hold to fallacious positions, both here and in other threads. God knows that I have pointed out and listed numerous of your fallacies for you. You want to pretend you are rational now? You fool only yourself.

You write, "we are here, and we have knowledge." I have presented a deductive argument that PROVES if knowledge exists, all forms of atheism are false. You have nevered offered a deductively sound counter; you have just rejected it, because you don't like it. Rejecting a deductively sound argument is rejecting logic.

So, it is time we put this to an end. Until you accept deductive logic and reject fallacies, I am through with you. I have no time for irrational discussions. My point has been proven, the only way for the atheist to hold the atheist position is to reject logic and accept fallacy.

Please continue burying your head in the sand, it is becoming for you. You can pretend the arguments don't exist, but pretending is the only way you have of getting out of them. You can't address them head on.

So you deny then, if it is proven there is no god, that we're still here, and we still have knowledge? That's been the point the whole time. Whether or not god exists, we are here, we have knowledge. That fact cannot be denied, without being delusional.

Your argument is nothing but your personal beliefs. You've proven nothing. The only people championing your arguments, are those that believe the same as you (and they rarely chime in anymore). That's not proof, my friend.

The only person looking foolish here is you, and your incessant dogmatism.

black02mustang

03-29-2006, 06:02 PM

Just a quick question zorro:
What exactly was god doing before he created our universe?

zorro

03-29-2006, 07:11 PM

Just a quick question zorro:
What exactly was god doing before he created our universe?

He was creating hell for people who ask stupid questions.

Z

zorro

03-29-2006, 07:22 PM

That's been the point the whole time.

Once you give up logic, you can have no point. Once you give up logic you can't prove there is no God, you can't prove anything. You keep talking about "proof," but that is a term linked to deduction and only deduction. You can't prove anything with induction. But if you accept logic, then it is already PROVEN that atheism is false. You lose!

Comeback when you have a real argument, until then I am not interested in your nonsense. I have already shown, that atheists have to reject logic to maintian atheism. You did that for me. Thanks for confirming it for everyone.

You are dismissed.

Z

black02mustang

03-29-2006, 07:24 PM

He was creating hell for people who ask stupid questions.

Z

Seriously, if god always has been, did he just think about creating his own universe and then just did it?
If so, did he create other universes as well possibly?
If not, has he spent an indefinite period "up there" just thinking about it.

Or as I said above "what was god doing before he created our universe?"

Not trying to be a smarta$$ just asking a question.
No bullsh!t, just an honest question.

Fobra

03-29-2006, 11:44 PM

He was creating hell for people who ask stupid questions.

Z
lol

DarkWolf

03-30-2006, 09:46 AM

Once you give up logic, you can have no point. Once you give up logic you can't prove there is no God, you can't prove anything. You keep talking about "proof," but that is a term linked to deduction and only deduction. You can't prove anything with induction. But if you accept logic, then it is already PROVEN that atheism is false. You lose!

Comeback when you have a real argument, until then I am not interested in your nonsense. I have already shown, that atheists have to reject logic to maintian atheism. You did that for me. Thanks for confirming it for everyone.

You are dismissed.

Not only have I not been arguing philosophy, nor have I rejected logic (only your hairbrained definition of logic), I've also not been trying to prove that god doesn't exist... hell, I haven't even hinted at that.

You've failed so monumentally. You are a disgrace to any apologetic that can actually present a compelling argument. You let your personal beliefs cloud your judgement, and you run with a predestined conclusion without comparing it against all possible rebuttals, only those you know you can dance around... and when a valid rebuttal is given, you attack it because it's not philosophical. You attack it as a rejection of logic. Your definition of logic is at fault, the rebuttal stands.

It all goes back to what I've been saying all along. You read (presumably), but you don't comprehend. You assume. And because of that, you fail.

zorro

03-30-2006, 02:09 PM

Seriously, if god always has been, did he just think about creating his own universe and then just did it?
If so, did he create other universes as well possibly?
If not, has he spent an indefinite period "up there" just thinking about it.

Or as I said above "what was god doing before he created our universe?"

Not trying to be a smarta$$ just asking a question.
No bullsh!t, just an honest question.

The serious answer would be, unless he tells us we have no way of knowing.

One day, even if you don't believe in him, you will be able to ask him. Maybe he will tell you, maybe he won't.

Z

zorro

03-30-2006, 04:01 PM

Not only have I not been arguing philosophy, nor have I rejected logic (only your hairbrained definition of logic), ... Your definition of logic is at fault, the rebuttal stands.

Here is yet another chance for you to show everyone either how brilliant you are or what an idiot you are.

Why don't you list the hairbrained laws by which I define logic and then list the laws by which you define logic and show us all the differences as compared to any standard logic text.

If you can't or there are no differences, then you prove yourself the idiot, once again.

Z

ClockwrkOrangeS4

03-30-2006, 04:25 PM

The serious answer would be, unless he tells us we have no way of knowing.

Z

in other words, "I have no idea, but you're supposed to believe everything that happened AFTER he decided to flip the switch on this universe is true because my paper proves he exists"

...or something like that

black02mustang

03-30-2006, 11:38 PM

The serious answer would be, unless he tells us we have no way of knowing.

One day, even if you don't believe in him, you will be able to ask him. Maybe he will tell you, maybe he won't.

Z

Hmm.. Does this seem logical to anyone else?

So your telling me theres no way using your logic, reasoning, etc., to prove that god created something else besides our universe?

DarkWolf

03-31-2006, 09:03 AM

Here is yet another chance for you to show everyone either how brilliant you are or what an idiot you are.

Why don't you list the hairbrained laws by which I define logic and then list the laws by which you define logic and show us all the differences as compared to any standard logic text.

If you can't or there are no differences, then you prove yourself the idiot, once again.

Main Entry: log·ic
Pronunciation: <tt>'lä-jik</tt>
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English logik, from Middle French logique, from Latin logica, from Greek logikE, from feminine of logikos of reason, from logos reason -- more at LEGEND
1 a (1) : a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2) : a branch or variety of logic <modal>logic> <boolean>logic> (3) : a branch of semiotic; especially : SYNTACTICS (4) : the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1) : a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2) : RELEVANCE, PROPRIETY c : interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d : the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also : the circuits themselves
2 : something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the>logic of war>
- lo·gi·cian /<tt>lO-'ji-sh&n</tt>/ noun

Please explain how I've rejected logic? I've rejected your argument based on the fact that it's biased, a predetermined outcome from your personal beliefs. It would appear your definition of logic only stems from philosophy (as you've clearly stated "facts without philosophy are meaningless")... you put too much faith in philosophy, to the detriment of your rationality.</the></boolean></modal>

zorro

03-31-2006, 11:40 AM

Hmm.. Does this seem logical to anyone else?

So your telling me theres no way using your logic, reasoning, etc., to prove that god created something else besides our universe?

How would you logically know? Deductively? Inductively? Transcendentally? Do you have a way of knowing other than those? Since there would be no a priori or posteriori ways of knowing this without God telling you, there would be no way of knowing at all. What is so controversial about that?

Z

DarkWolf

03-31-2006, 01:24 PM

black02mustang

03-31-2006, 03:22 PM

How would you logically know? Deductively? Inductively? Transcendentally? Do you have a way of knowing other than those? Since there would be no a priori or posteriori ways of knowing this without God telling you, there would be no way of knowing at all. What is so controversial about that?

Z

You mention knowledge and logic all throughout your arguments, but when it comes to the actual questions about your "god" you have proved to exist, there is nothing but beliefs. Do you believe this god can talk as well? If so could you prove it? The point is once you have claimed to establish the existence of god you have to stop there because you cannot argue anything further. Everything is subjective to your own interpretation of god. You cannot prove if he is personal, created other universes, sat around for eternity thinking about creating this universe, hell maybe he just got damn good at solitaire or something. So apparently the same rules don't apply to your "god". Is this rational? Its like using all the rules of math to prove that math is wrong. You have used things in nature to prove that there is a "supernatural" which in turn defies the laws of nature. Please just explain how you justify this. Again, not trying to be a smarta$$...

zorro

04-01-2006, 09:37 AM

Please explain how I've rejected logic?

In how many posts have I already pointed it out? Go back and reread the posts. Let me give you a hint, any time you reject the necessary conclusion of a valid deductive argument with true premises, you are rejecting logic. The reason is that there is some other criteria besides logic that is being used to determine if one acceps or rejects the argument, and by definition that criteria is not logic. So, that criteria is illogical, usually it is subjective likes and dislikes, as I have pointed out before.

I've rejected your argument based on the fact that it's biased, a predetermined outcome from your personal beliefs.

Let's say for a minute that I did exactly that. So what? You can't create a valid argument with true premises that yeilds a false conclusion. Whenever, the conclusion is false there will be either a formal fallacy or an informal fallacy. And that is your problem. My argument is formally valid with no informal fallacies, regardless of anything else, the conclusion follows necessarily. But you don't like the conclusion, so you reject it; regardless of your lack of logical grounds.

It would appear your definition of logic only stems from philosophy (as you've clearly stated "facts without philosophy are meaningless")... you put too much faith in philosophy, to the detriment of your rationality.</the></boolean></modal>

When I pointed out that facts without philosophy are meaningless, I also gave several examples. You have not offered any counters. Once again, you reject what you don't like and offer no rational reason. But since your naive empericism still remains unjustified, hence the name "naive," anything you would offer remains unjustified. So, what is the point?

As for my definition of logic, logic is defined by its laws not some general sentence in a dictionary. In my last post I asked that you share with us your laws of logic and compare how they differ with mine. Can you do that or not? Do you have any clue what the laws of logic are?

Z

DarkWolf

04-01-2006, 01:52 PM

Whether or not god exists, we are here, and we have knowledge.

Why is it so hard for you to wrap your head around that simple fact?

How many times do I have to repeat this for you to get it, zorro?

It's clear you have deluded yourself beyond hope. My rejection of your arguments, philosophically sound though they may be, is not rejecting logic. Philosophy and reality do not always mesh. When philosophy and reality disagree, the rational, sane person will accept reality ... the insane, irrational person will continue to delude themselves into believing their THOUGHTS are more true than reality.

In reality, WHETHER OR NOT GOD EXISTS, WE ARE HERE, WE HAVE KNOWLEDGE. Fact. Stick that in your philosophical pipe and smoke it.

Until God walks the earth for all to see, the only "proof" you can offer is subjective, based on your personal beliefs and nothing more. Neither this article, nor your atheism one has proven anything from a reality standpoint. You've shown atheism philosophy to be contradictory. Good job. It took you a long time to understand that, in order for you to write that paper? Wanna know what else is contradictory? The idea that some supernatural being created our natural universe. It defies the laws of nature. It's not logical. Does that make it false? No. Nor does it make it true. The point is, WE DON'T KNOW. We can only believe one way or the other, but we cannot know for sure.

You can build your philosophical walls as high as you want... but you cannot dance around this simple fact: Whether or not god exists, we are here, and we have knowledge. That, my friend, is a logically sound conclusion.

zorro

04-02-2006, 12:44 AM

It's clear you have deluded yourself beyond hope. My rejection of your arguments, philosophically sound though they may be, is not rejecting logic. It defies the laws of nature. It's not logical.

I will be happy to discuss the rest of your rant, but only after you show where your laws of logic differ from mine, as you claim. Do you even know what the laws of logic are? I would have thought by now you would have googled them and had some idea of how stupid your accusation is.

Put up or shut up. Admit you are just plain wrong about logic or go home.

Z

zorro

04-02-2006, 01:10 AM

You mention knowledge and logic all throughout your arguments, but when it comes to the actual questions about your "god" you have proved to exist, there is nothing but beliefs. Do you believe this god can talk as well? If so could you prove it? The point is once you have claimed to establish the existence of god you have to stop there because you cannot argue anything further. Everything is subjective to your own interpretation of god. You cannot prove if he is personal, created other universes, sat around for eternity thinking about creating this universe, hell maybe he just god damn good at solitaire or something. So apparently the same rules don't apply to your "god". Is this rational? Its like using all the rules of math to prove that math is wrong. You have used things in nature to prove that there is a "supernatural" which in turn defies the laws of nature. Please just explain how you justify this. Again, not trying to be a smarta$$...

I do sense your sincerity, and I will answer in like. At this point, I have a full blown worldview. I have not asked you to believe the entirety of the whole thing, justs the parts that are logically proven. Let's take a look at what we have so far:

1) all atheism is false.
2) Knowledge exists.
3) some sort of theism is true.
4) the cosmological elements we can deduce are:
a) There is something that did not not exist (i.e that the logical way of saying there is something that always existed)
b) The universe is finite and did not always exist.
c) the always existent caused the universe.

Now, if this is all you have, you still could not create a whole world view, but your options do become far more limited. If we compare the above cosmological elements to the cosmological chart, we will eleminate all but two: Theism and Deism.

The next question would then be, is there yet another argument that could help us narrow down our options even further?

The answer is yes. And when you are ready for the next step, I will be happy to present it to you. But we have to get you through all this first.

Regarding, nature and supernaturalism, they are not contradictory. Can you take 130 tons of metal and make it fly? Yes, given a sufficient power source of an engine you can. Can you walk on water? Once again, give the power source of a ski boat, yes you can.

Supernaturalism simply maintains that there is a being with sufficient power to do what he wants with the universe. There is nothing contradictory about that.

Regards,

Z

DarkWolf

04-02-2006, 04:14 AM

I will be happy to discuss the rest of your rant, but only after you show where your laws of logic differ from mine, as you claim. Do you even know what the laws of logic are? I would have thought by now you would have googled them and had some idea of how stupid your accusation is.

Put up or shut up. Admit you are just plain wrong about logic or go home.

Whether or not god exists, we are here, and we have knowledge.

Why is it so hard for you to wrap your head around that simple fact?

Please tell me where I'm wrong about logic. I gave you the definition. I've rejected none of it, only your argument.

You can't do it, because you know I'm right. You can't prove beyond a shadow of a doubt. Your arguments are based on your personal belief. It's you that needs to be admiting your failure.

You like that phrase, don't you... "put up or shut up"... well how about it? You say you'd love to discuss the rest of my "rant"... so have at it. Whether or not god exists, we are here, and we have knowledge. Deny it. Please.

And before you think you're all crafty, "god" as in the royal "god", meaning "God", "a god", "any gods".

DarkWolf

04-02-2006, 04:18 AM

Regarding, nature and supernaturalism, they are not contradictory. Can you take 130 tons of metal and make it fly? Yes, given a sufficient power source of an engine you can. Can you walk on water? Once again, give the power source of a ski boat, yes you can.

Supernaturalism simply maintains that there is a being with sufficient power to do what he wants with the universe. There is nothing contradictory about that.

Aero and Hydro dynamics are not supernatural. They're part of the natural laws of physics. Nothing super (above/beyond/transcending the laws of physics/nature) about it.

Yes, a supernatural being defies the laws of nature.

Try again.

zorro

04-02-2006, 01:08 PM

Aero and Hydro dynamics are not supernatural. They're part of the natural laws of physics. Nothing super (above/beyond/transcending the laws of physics/nature) about it.

Yes, a supernatural being defies the laws of nature.

Try again.

I am not really sure what you are saying here, and I doubt if you are. Are you saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for there to exist a being outside our universe with sufficient power to influence the laws of physics in our universe? Even if that being designed and brought the universe into being with his power?

Let me know.

Z

zorro

04-02-2006, 01:43 PM

Please tell me where I'm wrong about logic. I gave you the definition. I've rejected none of it, only your argument.

Do you have any idea what a deductively sound argument is? Do you read these words, have no clue what they are and just write whatever comes into your head? If you reject a deductively sound argment, you are rejecting logic.

You want to know where you are wrong about logic? Let's review: You said my definition of logic is different from yours. I asked you to show where it is. You couldn't. I asked you to show where the laws of logic I follow are diferent from the laws of logic you follow, you couldn't. You said that my argument was based on personal belief. I asked you to show one false premise or invalid form, you couldn't.

Let's take a look at the induvidual pieces. Negationism teaches that God doesn't exist and neither does the universe. Is that my personal belief or the belief of Eastern atheists for the last 4000 years?

Naturism teaches that the universe exists, but God does not and all that exists is matter in motion. Is that my personal belief or the belief of western atheism for the last 2500 years.

Is it not impossible to deny the existence of knowledge, without having knowledge? Isn't that deductively necessary, or is that only my personal belief?

Do you not have the experiece of independence? Or is that just my personal belief and I am the only one that has that experience?

There is everythng my argument is based on. Everything else is a deduction, based on those. Can you show any of my deductions false ( that means showing a invalid form or false premise), once again the answer is no.

So, what is the basis of your rejection? Just, you don't like the conclusion. When you reject a deductively sound argument with true premises, you reject the logic it is based on.

So, I keep asking you to give one deductive counter argument, you can't. You just continue giving more rants.

One more time: show where our definitions of logic differ. Show where our laws of logic differ. If you can't, then, as I said before, your dismissed.

Z

black02mustang

04-03-2006, 08:00 AM

DarkWolf

04-03-2006, 09:33 AM

I am not really sure what you are saying here, and I doubt if you are. Are you saying that it is IMPOSSIBLE for there to exist a being outside our universe with sufficient power to influence the laws of physics in our universe? Even if that being designed and brought the universe into being with his power?

Let me know.

I don't think anyone's said it's impossible. I certainly haven't. Even though it defies the laws of nature, if something created those laws, then certainly that something would transcend those laws.

Aero and Hydro dynamics, as I stated, work within the laws of physics/nature. Nothing supernatural about them. Supernatural means something that defies natural/physical laws. Something that transcends them. Something that is above them.

Do you have any idea what a deductively sound argument is? Do you read these words, have no clue what they are and just write whatever comes into your head? If you reject a deductively sound argment, you are rejecting logic.

You want to know where you are wrong about logic? Let's review: You said my definition of logic is different from yours. I asked you to show where it is. You couldn't. I asked you to show where the laws of logic I follow are diferent from the laws of logic you follow, you couldn't. You said that my argument was based on personal belief. I asked you to show one false premise or invalid form, you couldn't.

Let's take a look at the induvidual pieces. Negationism teaches that God doesn't exist and neither does the universe. Is that my personal belief or the belief of Eastern atheists for the last 4000 years?

Naturism teaches that the universe exists, but God does not and all that exists is matter in motion. Is that my personal belief or the belief of western atheism for the last 2500 years.

Is it not impossible to deny the existence of knowledge, without having knowledge? Isn't that deductively necessary, or is that only my personal belief?

Do you not have the experiece of independence? Or is that just my personal belief and I am the only one that has that experience?

There is everythng my argument is based on. Everything else is a deduction, based on those. Can you show any of my deductions false ( that means showing a invalid form or false premise), once again the answer is no.

So, what is the basis of your rejection? Just, you don't like the conclusion. When you reject a deductively sound argument with true premises, you reject the logic it is based on.

So, I keep asking you to give one deductive counter argument, you can't. You just continue giving more rants.

One more time: show where our definitions of logic differ. Show where our laws of logic differ. If you can't, then, as I said before, your dismissed.

Can you counter this argument: Whether or not god exists, we exist, and we have knowledge.

It's not philosophical. It never was. You keep failing to understand that. I've rejected your argument, because it's based on your personal beliefs (in that it's purely philosophical.)

Proving atheistic cosmology contradictory does not prove god (or any gods) exist. Proving the universe was not always here does not prove god (or any gods) exist and created said universe. These are philosophical positions. Beliefs. Your argument can be bulletproof on a philosophical level, I've never denied that. I reject your argument based on reality, I don't let my beliefs cloud my argument.

ClockwrkOrangeS4

04-03-2006, 09:51 AM

Regarding, nature and supernaturalism, they are not contradictory. Can you take 130 tons of metal and make it fly? Yes, given a sufficient power source of an engine you can. Can you walk on water? Once again, give the power source of a ski boat, yes you can.
Z

I hate to break it to you, but skimming across the water while being pulled behind a boat is not 'walking on water'. For being so smart, how can you be so dumb? Keep telling me about the fallacies I create and continue to post this junk.

zorro

04-03-2006, 11:24 AM

If this being is so powerful why did it take the universe billions of years to form our earth and then a few more billion years to form any sort of life? If this being is so powerful how come we still have evolution? You believe in evolution right? I mean, surely since he designed something so perfect (Universe, Earth) why would anything ever need to change?

The problem is in the questions. These are called unanswerable questions. You see, no matter which way God did it, it is always possible to ask, "Why didn't he do it another way?"

Let me give you an example:

The sky appears blue to us, so the question is, "Why did God make the sky blue? Why didn't God make it another color?" If, however, he had made it appear, let'say, red, the question could then be, "Why did God make the sky red? Why didn't God make it another color?"

It looks to me that life was "tuned" for the universe, not the other way around.

Ok, go ahead, give your argument for that position. I will listen to it. Will it be based on scientific discovery?

Z

zorro

04-03-2006, 11:32 AM

Blah...Blah .... Blah

One more time: show where our definitions of logic differ. Show where our laws of logic differ. If you can't, then, as I said before, your dismissed.

Z

zorro

04-03-2006, 11:43 AM

I hate to break it to you, but skimming across the water while being pulled behind a boat is not 'walking on water'. For being so smart, how can you be so dumb? Keep telling me about the fallacies I create and continue to post this junk.

You misunderstood my post. If we, with very limited abilities, can exert some power sufficient to do the things we can do, it seems that the miracles you noted before would be no problem for some being that has the power to exert control at the molecular level. A being who has the power to bring the universe into existence would have the power to control it too. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the supernatural and the natural.

Z

black02mustang

04-03-2006, 01:10 PM

You misunderstood my post. If we, with very limited abilities, can exert some power sufficient to do the things we can do, it seems that the miracles you noted before would be no problem for some being that has the power to exert control at the molecular level. A being who has the power to bring the universe into existence would have the power to control it too. Therefore, there is no contradiction between the supernatural and the natural.

Z

Since this being has to exist outside our space-time continuum by your definition, how can "It's" power be visible in our universe?

DarkWolf

04-03-2006, 01:10 PM

One more time: show where our definitions of logic differ. Show where our laws of logic differ. If you can't, then, as I said before, your dismissed.

Just admit that you can't counter the statement, and we can call this discussion closed. I'm sure you'll still look megasmart(tm), at least to your peanut gallery.

ClockwrkOrangeS4

04-03-2006, 01:38 PM

Ok man, you win, for me at least. You've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that god exists. I still don't believe in it and it looks like I'm going to hell.

zorro

04-03-2006, 05:04 PM

Blah, blah, blah

You see, you make all these really stupid statements and when you are called on them, you wimp out and never back them up, nor do you ever retract them. Well, the one on logic was the stupidest of them all, and I will not continue with you anymore in this thread or any other until you back up your statement or admit that, once again, your position is nothing but bull.

One more time: show where our definitions of logic differ. Show where our laws of logic differ. If you can't, then, as I said before, your dismissed.

Z

ClockwrkOrangeS4

04-03-2006, 05:12 PM

zorro

04-03-2006, 05:17 PM

Ok man, you win, for me at least. You've proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that god exists. I still don't believe in it and it looks like I'm going to hell.

My friend, that is your choice. I am not here to force you to trust Jesus and be saved. I am here to take away your excuses. Now, you can't say that there is no proof for the existence of God or the falsity of atheism.

My point is, logically, the only sound position is that God exists and atheism is false. What you do with that is up to you. If you want to reject logic, that is up to you, but at least you understand what you are doing and you won't be under the illusion that atheism is some sort of rational option.

If you want to move on to the next argument, I am OK with that. The same will be true there. I will show you the rational conclusion, and you can do with it as you will.

Z

DarkWolf

04-03-2006, 07:20 PM

You see, you make all these really stupid statements and when you are called on them, you wimp out and never back them up, nor do you ever retract them. Well, the one on logic was the stupidest of them all, and I will not continue with you anymore in this thread or any other until you back up your statement or admit that, once again, your position is nothing but bull.

One more time: show where our definitions of logic differ. Show where our laws of logic differ. If you can't, then, as I said before, your dismissed.

You see, you make all these really stupid philosophical conclusions with no backing in reality, and when you're called on them, you wimp out and never attempt to counter the factual statement that I've been making almost since the beginning of these arguments. Well the one on facts without philosophy being meaningless was the stupidest one of them all, and I will continue with you in this thread and any other until you admit that you cannot counter my statement, or at least admit that you can't prove god exists with philosophy alone.

One more time: whether or not god exists, we are here, and we have knowledge. If you can't counter this statement, then as I said, just admit it and we'll conclude this argument.

zorro

04-03-2006, 10:45 PM

Blah, blah

You are dismissed.

DarkWolf

04-04-2006, 08:40 AM

You are dismissed.

It's ok to admit you failed. I don't believe anyone will think any less of you for it.

BrianC

04-07-2006, 10:07 PM

In my defense, just incase this has been covered, here's a simple point made:

Logically, if something exists, and especially if it could eventually not exist, then it must have a beginning. God has no ending, and therefore no beginning. The Universe is in existance, and may very well have an end, being that scientists claim that the Hubble telescope proved the Universe is retracting...getting smaller...closing in on itself. The Hubble was built to prove the Universe is expanding and in turn proving the Big Bang exploded from a central point. There were nine months of silence after the launch of the Hubble due to exactly that scientific find. The scientists knew the people funding everything would be upset to hear the contradiction. So, a meeting of the minds came up with the solution of the explosion going so far, then coming back in on itself, and thus, the theory of a Universe that expands and contracts on itself every 20 or so billion years.

Now, you can believe in the Big Bang and Evolution, but scientists cannot explain what created the Big Bang.

I suspect that when God created us, he hung the stars just outside of the Milkyway and created our galaxy first. Then, he stretched the stars out around the milkyway, which caused two very important things to happen:

1. The acceloration of space time in which the stars were contained, and
2. The ability for the light of each star to reach us soon after the star was created, instead of it taking billions of years for the light to reach earth.

The bible says MANY times that God stretched the heavens around the Earth. Scientist claim they've proven that the fabric of space is interwoven with time, and when you stretch space, you accelorate time. If this is true, it would backup God's statement of stretching the heavens, and this would explain the age of stars. An interesting concept, but a bit off topic.

My point is that if everything has a beginning, it had to be created by something or someone. To be atheistic is a big naive.

BrianC

04-07-2006, 10:13 PM

On that same note, explain the evidence shown from Moses' Red Sea crossing. There is a portion of the Gulf of Aqaba (the Red Sea) where there is a shore large enough to accomidate the number of Jews that exited Egypt, and at the beach (the only beach large enough to support that number of people), there is a column on each side of the sea that claims this was where Moses' crossed the Red Sea, and it was placed there by Solomon. In the middle of those to columns is a raised portion of sea floor nearly to the top of the water line.

Out of the 5 mile stretch, the sand bar is very wide and reaches out about 2 miles before it decends about 20 feet below sea level for about a mile or so, then comes back up toward sea level again. I have seen pictures of men standing 2 miles out and it looks like they're walking on water, and a tanker is stuck in the background on the sand bar. Everyone knows to pass through a specific part of the Red Sea so they don't get stuck...except that tanks, I suppose. :) Anyway, I've also seen the pictures of the chairot wheels found at the ocean floor and men's bones and egyptian armor, etc. The bible says God parted the waters and made a roadway through the waters. It also says that God took the chairot wheels off, because the Egyptians were catching the Hebrews too quickly. It then says he dropped the waters on the Egyptian army. That is exactly what is found in that area today. Interesting... www.anchorstone.com has the full story about the discovery and the pictures as well. There are more pictures, but I can no longer find them on the site for some reason. They revamped the site.

BrianC

04-07-2006, 10:18 PM

I would also like to know how you explain Soddom and Gomorah. They found Soddom and Gomorah over on the Dead Sea. It was still standing, but completely reduced to an ashen state. Check out the pictures on www.anchorstones.com. You can distinctly see buildings and a double wall and a sphinx. They're standing, but on the videos I've seen, the people can put their hands right into the building walls and it's all ash. They also find millions of balls of sulfur (brimstone) that melted so hot that they created their own shell that burned them out, so they preserved well. When you dig them out with a spoon, they burn through the spoon. The bible says God reduced the city to ash with fire and brimstone. Interesting that this is exactly what we find in that area today. At certain extreme temperatures, things simply reduce to ash...like rocks and such.

DarkWolf

04-10-2006, 09:16 AM

ClockwrkOrangeS4

04-10-2006, 10:46 AM

BrianC

04-10-2006, 11:57 PM

However, it has not been proven that God exists. It's still a personal belief. As for the expanding/retracting universe, being that there's evidence of this expansion/retraction going on within the universe (ie: stars), I see no reason to think the same phenomena cannot happen to the universe as a whole. It's physics. Look it up sometime.

Regardless that physics can produce these effects of an expanding or contracting universe, something still had to create it all. It hasn't just always been here. It's not eternal. Eventually, it will reach an equillibrium per the second law of thermodynamics where energy in a system will equal out at some point. If something non-eternal exists, something eternal created it.

As for your second statement... how does a few men running around on a beach, and chariot wheels that get pulled off due to getting stuck in wet sand, while the horses are still running flat out, have to do with the existence of God?

You really don't understand what those picture are on that site. They found tons of these chariot wheels out in the middle of the Red Sea, along with human bones and Egyptian armor, etc. They're like 3 miles out into the sea! You're saying that some guys were joyriding on the beach, happen to lose their chariot wheels somehow and they floated out 3 miles?? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I would have at least said that they were on a boat and decided to drop a bunch of supplies off including armor and chariot wheels, but that still makes no sense. Sorry, but there's no reason human bones and chariot wheels should be out in the middle of the Red Sea. No explanation for that! And it just HAPPENS to be at the point where there is a column found on each side of the sea saying that this is where Moses crossed the Red Sea, AND there's a HUGE raised sand bar all the way across that is at water level till about the middle where it dips down around 20 feet or more for a mile or so, then comes back up on the other side. Gee...that's one heck of a coincidence!

And your 3rd statement... also, how does a volcanic eruption have anything to do with the existence of God? A similar thing happened in Pompeii.

A volcanic eruption?? AHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while. Nice try. I saw that show on Discovery, as well. That's about the most lame explanation I've heard yet.

You mean to tell me you think a volcano (which would be hundreds, or actually I think thousands of miles away) one day just decided to start shooting out sulfur balls and they all headed right for the area of Sodom and Gomorrah? Then, as they fell, the left the entire city standing, but they were so hot they reduced the city to ash. Yet, this has never happened in human history. Volcanos don't shoot out sulfur balls. This is the most pure sulfur found on earth. They said the haven't found sulfur this pure in any rock collection on the planet thus far, if I remember correctly. If volcanos rained down sulfur on cities hundreds or thousands of miles away, then the world has a much bigger problem than nuclear weapons. We better watch out for those sulfur spitting volcanos. We might wake up to find Dallas in ashes tomorrow. lol I mean COME ON! REALLY! Are you actually going to claim a volcano for this?? How desperate do you have to be?? Give me some REAL arguments, man...

DarkWolf

04-11-2006, 02:22 PM

Regardless that physics can produce these effects of an expanding or contracting universe, something still had to create it all. It hasn't just always been here. It's not eternal. Eventually, it will reach an equillibrium per the second law of thermodynamics where energy in a system will equal out at some point. If something non-eternal exists, something eternal created it.

Great! Then where's the proof that God exists?

You really don't understand what those picture are on that site. They found tons of these chariot wheels out in the middle of the Red Sea, along with human bones and Egyptian armor, etc. They're like 3 miles out into the sea! You're saying that some guys were joyriding on the beach, happen to lose their chariot wheels somehow and they floated out 3 miles?? Yeah, that makes a lot of sense. I would have at least said that they were on a boat and decided to drop a bunch of supplies off including armor and chariot wheels, but that still makes no sense. Sorry, but there's no reason human bones and chariot wheels should be out in the middle of the Red Sea. No explanation for that! And it just HAPPENS to be at the point where there is a column found on each side of the sea saying that this is where Moses crossed the Red Sea, AND there's a HUGE raised sand bar all the way across that is at water level till about the middle where it dips down around 20 feet or more for a mile or so, then comes back up on the other side. Gee...that's one heck of a coincidence!

It seems my sarcasm was lost to your obviously profound intellect. The sand bar... you know the one that extends across the sea? Yeah. Chariot wheels would get stuck in the wet sand.

A volcanic eruption?? AHHHHHHHHHHHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA That's the funniest thing I've heard in a while. Nice try. I saw that show on Discovery, as well. That's about the most lame explanation I've heard yet.

You mean to tell me you think a volcano (which would be hundreds, or actually I think thousands of miles away) one day just decided to start shooting out sulfur balls and they all headed right for the area of Sodom and Gomorrah? Then, as they fell, the left the entire city standing, but they were so hot they reduced the city to ash. Yet, this has never happened in human history. Volcanos don't shoot out sulfur balls. This is the most pure sulfur found on earth. They said the haven't found sulfur this pure in any rock collection on the planet thus far, if I remember correctly. If volcanos rained down sulfur on cities hundreds or thousands of miles away, then the world has a much bigger problem than nuclear weapons. We better watch out for those sulfur spitting volcanos. We might wake up to find Dallas in ashes tomorrow. lol I mean COME ON! REALLY! Are you actually going to claim a volcano for this?? How desperate do you have to be?? Give me some REAL arguments, man...

Maybe you should do a little research before you go flapping your gums.

Volcanoes of the Middle East and the Indian Ocean (http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/region.cfm?rnum=03)

Sulfur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur) particularly this line: "Elemental sulfur can be found near hot springs and volcanic regions in many parts of the world, especially along the Pacific Ring of Fire. These occurrences are the basis for the traditional name brimstone, since sulfur could be found near the brims of volcanic craters."

Please try not to be stupid the next time you think to reply. I'm really getting tired of the abundance of stupidity from people who think they can prove whether or not God exists.

Fobra

04-11-2006, 02:47 PM

I'm really getting tired of the abundance of stupidity from people who think they can prove whether or not God exists.
It interesting how you demand "proof" but have not stated what proof is nor the grounds upon which one must use in order to prove something. What would proof of something like this look like and how may we test for it?

BrianC

04-11-2006, 08:33 PM

Great! Then where's the proof that God exists?

God says it in the bible...that creation itself speaks for God expistence so that no man has an excuse. When you look at how elaborate and complex and perfect everything...if you think it all happened by chance, then you just flat out don't want to see a God and you're going on some amazing faith in chaos.

It seems my sarcasm was lost to your obviously profound intellect. The sand bar... you know the one that extends across the sea? Yeah. Chariot wheels would get stuck in the wet sand.

Maybe you should do a little research before you go flapping your gums.

Maybe it's you that needs to do some research as to how well someone could navigate a wet ocean sand floor...

How logical is it to say that the waters ALONE parted, and God did raise a sand bar for the people to walk across but it was still wet?? The Hebrews had carts and wagons. Their wheels would've also come off. No, it said it was a cold wind that parted the sea and the path through the water was dry or they would've sunk down in it even on foot. You ever try running in wet sand? It's not the easiest thing to do, especially pulling a wagon. No, it was not a wet path through the water. That would be a stupid God altogether...

Sure, the sand bar there now is wet and covered by water, but you can still walk on it for quite some distance before it sinks down. So you're saying that this 5 mile sand bar just happens to be in the middle of the Red Sea at the ONLY point where the Hebrews could've crossed and King Solomon just happen to decide to put two columns there to show this was the place they crossed? That's pretty amazing that there happened to be a sand bar there, and even though it sinks down about 20 feet or more in the middle, let's disregard that the water would till have to part during that mile or so stretch for these people to cross.

Oh, and on top of that, on thermal satellite images shortly after dark, a bright red line goes all the way from Egypt, across the Red Sea and to Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia (which was previously thought to be at the Red Sea split, yet the bible says in Galatians that Mt. Sinai is in Arabia). They say that the reason that bright red line lights up after sundown on thermal satellite images is because so many people travelled that path at one time that it beat the sand into such a fine powder that when it rained, it turned it to concrete, which retains the heat after sundown longer than the cooling desert floor. That's an awful big coincidence there, man...

Volcanoes of the Middle East and the Indian Ocean (http://www.volcano.si.edu/world/region.cfm?rnum=03)

Sulfur (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sulfur) particularly this line: "Elemental sulfur can be found near hot springs and volcanic regions in many parts of the world, especially along the Pacific Ring of Fire. These occurrences are the basis for the traditional name brimstone, since sulfur could be found near the brims of volcanic craters."

Please try not to be stupid the next time you think to reply. I'm really getting tired of the abundance of stupidity from people who think they can prove whether or not God exists.

Okay, what part of that explanation did you not understand? It says that "these occurrences are the basis for the traditional name brimstone, since sulfur can be found NEAR THE BRIMS OF VOLCANIC CRATERS." NEAR THE RIM. The volcanos don't spit out sulfur. When volcanos errupt near towns, the people don't run from sulfur...they're running from lava. Maybe you've heard of it. It's nothing like balls of solid sulfur.

I was unaware of the volcanos in the Middle East, so I admit that. However, they don't sprew millions of sulfur balls. That's just ridiculous. And if it were lava that caused it, you'd still see lava settled there in the city streets. You see nothing of the sort. Also, the sulfur in the volcanos is not going to be as pure as the sulfur found at Sodom and Gomorrah, because, as I said, they claim they could not find sulfur this pure in any rock collection in the world. How thorough is that claim? I don't know. Apparently, though, this is some extremely pure sulfur that burns extremely hot. No way it came from a volcano. That's wishful thinking.

BrianC

04-11-2006, 08:38 PM

It interesting how you demand "proof" but have not stated what proof is nor the grounds upon which one must use in order to prove something. What would proof of something like this look like and how may we test for it?

I agree. Technically, you cannot physically prove God. You can show things on the earth that would prove someone did this other than mankind, and thus it would point to a higher power. But that's all you can do. Which is why I bring these things up.

And you can't seem to disprove the Red Sea evidence found. You can't seem to prove Mt. Sinai either. How did the top of that mountain peak get so hot that it turned the granite to obsidian on the outside? Please explain.

You don't "prove the existance of God"...you simply show the proofs in the world and think logically. Many scientists are now starting to say that things are designed instead of created by chance of evolution. Why? Because of things like the flagellum. I mean...mankind designs outboard motors for boats...then we discoverd that under a microscope, this flagellum has a tail which shares 73 parts with an outboard motor, and its tail works better than our motors. That's called good design, not chance... Here's a picture of part of the tail and some labels to corresponding motor parts:

http://www.arn.org/docs/mm/flag_labels.jpg

If you think that was created by chance, you have a lot of faith in nothing to create something. lol

BrianC

04-11-2006, 08:52 PM

Hey, let me post a reply in my "Red Sea Crossing" thread from a member here that lives near the area where they cross the Red Sea:

I find it interesting that they know where they crossed at. I'm actually not to far from Nuweiba right now. And yeah, its a cool site to see. You can see Saudi Arabia and the mountain ranges and all from the beach. This may sound crazy, but there is a Hilton Hotel there too. I'll go check and see if those pillars/columns whatever are there.
-Eric

DarkWolf

04-12-2006, 11:01 AM

God says it in the bible...that creation itself speaks for God expistence so that no man has an excuse. When you look at how elaborate and complex and perfect everything...if you think it all happened by chance, then you just flat out don't want to see a God and you're going on some amazing faith in chaos.

Ah, the bible says so. Yep, no circular logic there.

Maybe it's you that needs to do some research as to how well someone could navigate a wet ocean sand floor...

How logical is it to say that the waters ALONE parted, and God did raise a sand bar for the people to walk across but it was still wet?? The Hebrews had carts and wagons. Their wheels would've also come off. No, it said it was a cold wind that parted the sea and the path through the water was dry or they would've sunk down in it even on foot. You ever try running in wet sand? It's not the easiest thing to do, especially pulling a wagon. No, it was not a wet path through the water. That would be a stupid God altogether...

Sure, the sand bar there now is wet and covered by water, but you can still walk on it for quite some distance before it sinks down. So you're saying that this 5 mile sand bar just happens to be in the middle of the Red Sea at the ONLY point where the Hebrews could've crossed and King Solomon just happen to decide to put two columns there to show this was the place they crossed? That's pretty amazing that there happened to be a sand bar there, and even though it sinks down about 20 feet or more in the middle, let's disregard that the water would till have to part during that mile or so stretch for these people to cross.

Oh, and on top of that, on thermal satellite images shortly after dark, a bright red line goes all the way from Egypt, across the Red Sea and to Mt. Sinai in Saudi Arabia (which was previously thought to be at the Red Sea split, yet the bible says in Galatians that Mt. Sinai is in Arabia). They say that the reason that bright red line lights up after sundown on thermal satellite images is because so many people travelled that path at one time that it beat the sand into such a fine powder that when it rained, it turned it to concrete, which retains the heat after sundown longer than the cooling desert floor. That's an awful big coincidence there, man...

You have all these fanciful ideas, yet nothing to back them up. Do you have thermal pictures of this supposed "red line"? Again, I've been doing some searching, and so far I'm not seeing anything to back your claim.

And perhaps you fell asleep in middle school level science classes, and aren't aware of such things as high and low tides.

Okay, what part of that explanation did you not understand? It says that "these occurrences are the basis for the traditional name brimstone, since sulfur can be found NEAR THE BRIMS OF VOLCANIC CRATERS." NEAR THE RIM. The volcanos don't spit out sulfur. When volcanos errupt near towns, the people don't run from sulfur...they're running from lava. Maybe you've heard of it. It's nothing like balls of solid sulfur.

I was unaware of the volcanos in the Middle East, so I admit that. However, they don't sprew millions of sulfur balls. That's just ridiculous. And if it were lava that caused it, you'd still see lava settled there in the city streets. You see nothing of the sort. Also, the sulfur in the volcanos is not going to be as pure as the sulfur found at Sodom and Gomorrah, because, as I said, they claim they could not find sulfur this pure in any rock collection in the world. How thorough is that claim? I don't know. Apparently, though, this is some extremely pure sulfur that burns extremely hot. No way it came from a volcano. That's wishful thinking.

Do you understand what "Elemental Sulfur" means? It doesn't get any "purer" than that. That means it's the pure element of Sulfur. And perhaps you should do some research on what actually happens during volcanic eruptions. There's plenty of volcanic eruptions that have no lava flow.

It interesting how you demand "proof" but have not stated what proof is nor the grounds upon which one must use in order to prove something. What would proof of something like this look like and how may we test for it?

When I can shake the hand of God, or at the very least witness him walking the Earth, I'll take that as sufficient proof. Until then, no one can either prove, nor disprove the existence of God. It's all beliefs at this point. Belief != proof.

And you can't seem to disprove the Red Sea evidence found. You can't seem to prove Mt. Sinai either. How did the top of that mountain peak get so hot that it turned the granite to obsidian on the outside? Please explain.

Because I'm not trying to disprove the Red Sea evidence. I'm asking how it has anything to do with proving God exists?

As for Mt. Sinai, you're aware that the biblical Mt. Sinai is not the present day Mt. Sinai found in the Sinai peninsula? The biblical Sinai/Horeb is in the land of Midian, which is present day Saudi Arabia. And researchers have found what they consider to be the biblical Mt. Sinai/Horeb in a ring of mountains large enough to hold potentially millions of people and their flocks, also containing an oasis. The specific mountain identified as the tallest peak of the ring (also in corrolation with the biblical verse), is Jabal al Lawz (or Jebel el Lawz).

Now, are you ready to pick your jaw up? Jabal al Lawz is a volcano. Of course the peak would be scorched.

Fobra

04-12-2006, 02:30 PM

When I can shake the hand of God, or at the very least witness him walking the Earth, I'll take that as sufficient proof. Until then, no one can either prove, nor disprove the existence of God.
If that did happen, how would you 'prove' to people thousands of years later that you weren't lying about what you witnessed, that everything you witnessed from this figure proved the existence of God?

DarkWolf

04-12-2006, 02:44 PM

If that did happen, how would you 'prove' to people thousands of years later that you weren't lying about what you witnessed, that everything you witnessed from this figure proved the existence of God?

For one, if God were to walk the earth 6 billion people would be witness to it, (not just a few founding fathers of judaism in the middle of the desert) which would at least lend some credence to the claim. Whether that's sufficient enough to prove the existence is up to the people thousands of years later.

Fobra

04-12-2006, 11:52 PM

For one, if God were to walk the earth 6 billion people would be witness to it, (not just a few founding fathers of judaism in the middle of the desert) which would at least lend some credence to the claim. Whether that's sufficient enough to prove the existence is up to the people thousands of years later.
This is pure subjectivity. Have you ever shaken hands with dark matter? Are you going to deny it exists? Have you ever seen a proton, does this not exist? You have never met 6 billion people, are you going to deny their existence? I know these questions may seem rediculous, but the point still holds. All of history can be placed in this category along with all or law. Just because 'you' have not physically seen it or touched it does not necessarily mean it doesn't exist.

This is not an objective criteria, but pure preference. Since your criteria is not objectivity, it is nothing more than special pleading. And that is not a proof, it is a fallacy.

ClockwrkOrangeS4

04-13-2006, 08:23 AM

This is pure subjectivity. Have you ever shaken hands with dark matter? Are you going to deny it exists? Have you ever seen a proton, does this not exist? You have never met 6 billion people, are you going to deny their existence? I know these questions may seem rediculous, but the point still holds. All of history can be placed in this category along with all or law. Just because 'you' have not physically seen it or touched it does not necessarily mean it doesn't exist.

This is not an objective criteria, but pure preference. Since your criteria is not objectivity, it is nothing more than special pleading. And that is not a proof, it is a fallacy.

Bigfoot, UFO's, Loch Ness Monster, god, devil, and Everlasting Gobstoppers

The burden of proof lies on the people that 'believe' they exist

Fobra

04-13-2006, 09:15 AM

The burden of proof lies on the people that 'believe' they exist
Finally we agree!

That's what some of these threads are about. They are about providing evidence and arguments that point to a creater and that some events are so improbable just to happen as sheer coincidence that it would take more faith to believe that than to believe the evidence that points towards a creater.

ClockwrkOrangeS4

04-13-2006, 10:59 AM

Finally we agree!

That's what some of these threads are about. They are about providing evidence and arguments that point to a creater and that some events are so improbable just to happen as sheer coincidence that it would take more faith to believe that than to believe the evidence that points towards a creater.

...which has been my stance all along. Some people have claimed to prove the existance of god by 'proving' he can't not exist.

I have always looked at it as a belief, as long as you believe god exists, that's all that matters.... Not unlike that Santa character that came up more than once during the multiple debates recently.

DarkWolf

04-13-2006, 03:03 PM

This is pure subjectivity. Have you ever shaken hands with dark matter? Are you going to deny it exists? Have you ever seen a proton, does this not exist? You have never met 6 billion people, are you going to deny their existence? I know these questions may seem rediculous, but the point still holds. All of history can be placed in this category along with all or law. Just because 'you' have not physically seen it or touched it does not necessarily mean it doesn't exist.

This is not an objective criteria, but pure preference. Since your criteria is not objectivity, it is nothing more than special pleading. And that is not a proof, it is a fallacy.

It's only subjective when it can't be proven. We can observe dark matter. We can see protons. We can see (don't have to meet) 6 billion people. These are provable/observable conditions.

BrianC

04-15-2006, 08:07 AM

You have all these fanciful ideas, yet nothing to back them up. Do you have thermal pictures of this supposed "red line"? Again, I've been doing some searching, and so far I'm not seeing anything to back your claim.

I'll see what I can dig up. It's been years since I've seen the satellite photos, but there are pictures...

And perhaps you fell asleep in middle school level science classes, and aren't aware of such things as high and low tides.

Please explain your point here...

Do you understand what "Elemental Sulfur" means? It doesn't get any "purer" than that. That means it's the pure element of Sulfur. And perhaps you should do some research on what actually happens during volcanic eruptions. There's plenty of volcanic eruptions that have no lava flow.

Not true at all. Elemental Sulfur isn't pure. Go look at the percentages of elemental sulfur. It's somewhere in the 90 percentile range actually. not 100% pure unless it's man-made to take out all the impurities.

When I can shake the hand of God, or at the very least witness him walking the Earth, I'll take that as sufficient proof. Until then, no one can either prove, nor disprove the existence of God. It's all beliefs at this point. Belief != proof.

I won't grace that with an opinion...

Because I'm not trying to disprove the Red Sea evidence. I'm asking how it has anything to do with proving God exists?

As for Mt. Sinai, you're aware that the biblical Mt. Sinai is not the present day Mt. Sinai found in the Sinai peninsula? The biblical Sinai/Horeb is in the land of Midian, which is present day Saudi Arabia. And researchers have found what they consider to be the biblical Mt. Sinai/Horeb in a ring of mountains large enough to hold potentially millions of people and their flocks, also containing an oasis. The specific mountain identified as the tallest peak of the ring (also in corrolation with the biblical verse), is Jabal al Lawz (or Jebel el Lawz).

Now, are you ready to pick your jaw up? Jabal al Lawz is a volcano. Of course the peak would be scorched.

Of course I'm not dropping my jaw. LOL I've already explained this once...did you miss it?? Yes, Mt. Sinai is in Saudi Arabia even according to the bible in Galatians 4. It says Mt. Sinai is in Arabia. Pretty straight forward if you ask me.

And if you go take a look at Mt. Sinai, it's not volcanic at all, actually. I've seen the pictures of the mountain and the rock on the mountain that's surrounding and on top of it. The archaeologists in the area believed it was volcanic till recently when Ron Wyatt found the mountain and took the archaeologists up on it and showed them what they thought was obsidian. See, on volcanoes you find obsidian rocks, right? And it's just that, all the way through...obsidian. However, these rocks on this mountain are not obsidian. Ron Wyatt cracked open those rocks for the archaeologists to see, and they were not obsidian on the inside. They were granite. Simply stated, something EXTREMELY hot came down on that mountain and scorched it black, hot enough to turn the outside of granite rock into obsidian...but leave the center granite. There's never been ANY indication of that mountain being a volcano or having volcanic activity. Sorry, but you're very much wrong in this case, and my jaw is quite well resting in its usual position. :)

BrianC

04-15-2006, 08:08 AM

Bigfoot, UFO's, Loch Ness Monster, god, devil, and Everlasting Gobstoppers

The burden of proof lies on the people that 'believe' they exist

I have no problem with Loch Ness. lol :)

BrianC

04-15-2006, 08:09 AM

...which has been my stance all along. Some people have claimed to prove the existance of god by 'proving' he can't not exist.

I have always looked at it as a belief, as long as you believe god exists, that's all that matters.... Not unlike that Santa character that came up more than once during the multiple debates recently.

There's no SANTA?? :D

BrianC

04-15-2006, 08:11 AM

It's only subjective when it can't be proven. We can observe dark matter. We can see protons. We can see (don't have to meet) 6 billion people. These are provable/observable conditions.

Technically, you can't see "dark matter". It's dark...it absorbs light, therefore, since it doesn't reflect light off of its surface, it has to be impossible to observe...technically. So no, you can't see dark matter. Scientists assume that its there, because they see nothing beyond it.

It's kind of like a creator. While you cannot see him, you see what he's left behind. We assume, because of what he's left behind, that he is indeed there. But we cannot see him, just as we cannot see dark matter, but can assume it's there.

DarkWolf

04-15-2006, 05:28 PM

Technically, you can't see "dark matter". It's dark...it absorbs light, therefore, since it doesn't reflect light off of its surface, it has to be impossible to observe...technically. So no, you can't see dark matter. Scientists assume that its there, because they see nothing beyond it.

... which is why I didn't say "we can see dark matter". I said we can observe it. We can observe micro-earthquakes that by appearance don't do anything, but register lower than 1 on a richter scale. We're not "seeing" these earthquakes shaking things up, but we are observing them.

I'll see what I can dig up. It's been years since I've seen the satellite photos, but there are pictures...

You won't be offended if I don't hold my breath in anticipation, will you?

Please explain your point here...

Do some research on high and low tides, and then apply what you've learned to the Red Sea crossing. I thought that was quite clear given what I quoted... but apparently you need things explicitly spelled out for you.

Not true at all. Elemental Sulfur isn't pure. Go look at the percentages of elemental sulfur. It's somewhere in the 90 percentile range actually. not 100% pure unless it's man-made to take out all the impurities.

Ahh you're ignorance brings a smile to my face. The element of sulfur is pure. There are impurities that can form on sulfur rocks. Sulfur rocks aren't pure elemental sulfur.

Of course I'm not dropping my jaw. LOL I've already explained this once...did you miss it?? Yes, Mt. Sinai is in Saudi Arabia even according to the bible in Galatians 4. It says Mt. Sinai is in Arabia. Pretty straight forward if you ask me.

And if you go take a look at Mt. Sinai, it's not volcanic at all, actually. I've seen the pictures of the mountain and the rock on the mountain that's surrounding and on top of it. The archaeologists in the area believed it was volcanic till recently when Ron Wyatt found the mountain and took the archaeologists up on it and showed them what they thought was obsidian. See, on volcanoes you find obsidian rocks, right? And it's just that, all the way through...obsidian. However, these rocks on this mountain are not obsidian. Ron Wyatt cracked open those rocks for the archaeologists to see, and they were not obsidian on the inside. They were granite. Simply stated, something EXTREMELY hot came down on that mountain and scorched it black, hot enough to turn the outside of granite rock into obsidian...but leave the center granite. There's never been ANY indication of that mountain being a volcano or having volcanic activity. Sorry, but you're very much wrong in this case, and my jaw is quite well resting in its usual position. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabal_al-Lawz ... try again.

And your friend (http://www.anchorstone.com/content/view/161/54/) here doesn't seem to have written anything about cracking open obsidian rocks and finding granite. In fact... the word obsidian doesn't even appear on the page describing the discovery of the mountain. So... where are you getting this little gem?

Oh yeah... and he acknowledges that it's a volcanic region. While he doesn't come out and say it's a volcano, you don't get a volcanic region without volcanoes.

Really, you could at least attempt to stop making a fool of yourself. At this point, the only way I can see of that happening is to just stop replying all together. The more nonsense you write, the more retarded you look.

BrianC

04-16-2006, 09:43 AM

Do some research on high and low tides, and then apply what you've learned to the Red Sea crossing. I thought that was quite clear given what I quoted... but apparently you need things explicitly spelled out for you.

I don't need it spelled out for me that low and high tides don't matter whatsoever. If they made sand bar roads through the water, ships would be stuck all over the world. Great rebuttle there...

Ahh you're ignorance brings a smile to my face. The element of sulfur is pure. There are impurities that can form on sulfur rocks. Sulfur rocks aren't pure elemental sulfur.

Well, find me some elemental sulfur then and see if it burns 5,000 degrees and eats through spoons on contact. Also, explain how they actually test the purity of sulfur. Just because I can go to Sulfur Springs, Texas and get some sulfur in the area doesn't mean it's pure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jabal_al-Lawz ... try again.

And your friend (http://www.anchorstone.com/content/view/161/54/) here doesn't seem to have written anything about cracking open obsidian rocks and finding granite. In fact... the word obsidian doesn't even appear on the page describing the discovery of the mountain. So... where are you getting this little gem?

Oh yeah... and he acknowledges that it's a volcanic region. While he doesn't come out and say it's a volcano, you don't get a volcanic region without volcanoes.

Really, you could at least attempt to stop making a fool of yourself. At this point, the only way I can see of that happening is to just stop replying all together. The more nonsense you write, the more retarded you look.

I've watched the videos where they crack open the obsidian rocks that are granite inside, and it's on a different page:

www.anchorstone.com

Read throught that Red Sea Crossing account of Mt. Sinai and you'll see it in that storyline. This is a friend of the person that found the mountain.

Also, again, you have proved nothing if you can't go to that mountain and show me evidence of a volcano, because I can guarantee you cannot find one lick of evidence to show it is. He said the region has volcanic activity, but he states that this mountain is not volcanic. Even if it was, there would not be granite inside of the obsidian rocks. Makes no sense. You have nothing to go on here...

BrianC

04-16-2006, 10:04 AM

Hey, Darkwolf, I'm just curious why you didn't rebuttle the split rock with water erosion out the bottom of it in the Red Sea Crossing thread? Was that not condusive to your debate? lol

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/mt_sinai_found_part_2.htm

There's no water in that area, hense the desert. Just curious how a rock got split in half almost perfectly and water erosion is found at the bottom of the split just like the bible says. I find that a bit too much of a coincidence, especially since it was found in the desert right along the path that Moses took.

DarkWolf

04-17-2006, 01:45 PM

I don't need it spelled out for me that low and high tides don't matter whatsoever. If they made sand bar roads through the water, ships would be stuck all over the world. Great rebuttle there...

Your brain:
http://www.maycoindustries.com/images/bricks.jpg

Well, find me some elemental sulfur then and see if it burns 5,000 degrees and eats through spoons on contact. Also, explain how they actually test the purity of sulfur. Just because I can go to Sulfur Springs, Texas and get some sulfur in the area doesn't mean it's pure.

Lead. Brick.

I've watched the videos where they crack open the obsidian rocks that are granite inside, and it's on a different page:

www.anchorstone.com (http://www.anchorstone.com)

Read throught that Red Sea Crossing account of Mt. Sinai and you'll see it in that storyline. This is a friend of the person that found the mountain.

Also, again, you have proved nothing if you can't go to that mountain and show me evidence of a volcano, because I can guarantee you cannot find one lick of evidence to show it is. He said the region has volcanic activity, but he states that this mountain is not volcanic. Even if it was, there would not be granite inside of the obsidian rocks. Makes no sense. You have nothing to go on here...

You'll notice... I linked to that same site... and actually linked to the direct article in question. Perhaps if you'd care to link to the actual page containing the videos?

Hey, Darkwolf, I'm just curious why you didn't rebuttle the split rock with water erosion out the bottom of it in the Red Sea Crossing thread? Was that not condusive to your debate? lol

http://www.arkdiscovery.com/mt_sinai_found_part_2.htm

There's no water in that area, hense the desert. Just curious how a rock got split in half almost perfectly and water erosion is found at the bottom of the split just like the bible says. I find that a bit too much of a coincidence, especially since it was found in the desert right along the path that Moses took.

Egypt and the Sahara were once fertile grasslands, as was most of the middle east. I see no problem with a rock showing water erosion.

murphy54

04-20-2006, 09:06 AM

GOD is out there search for HIM with all your heart and you will find HIM

ClockwrkOrangeS4

04-20-2006, 10:41 AM

GOD is out there search for HIM with all your heart and you will find HIM

I heard god was a chick

347Mike

05-16-2006, 08:59 PM

I do sense your sincerity, and I will answer in like. At this point, I have a full blown worldview. I have not asked you to believe the entirety of the whole thing, justs the parts that are logically proven. Let's take a look at what we have so far:

1) all atheism is false.
2) Knowledge exists.
3) some sort of theism is true.
4) the cosmological elements we can deduce are:
a) There is something that did not not exist (i.e that the logical way of saying there is something that always existed)
b) The universe is finite and did not always exist.
c) the always existent caused the universe.

Now, if this is all you have, you still could not create a whole world view, but your options do become far more limited. If we compare the above cosmological elements to the cosmological chart, we will eleminate all but two: Theism and Deism.

The next question would then be, is there yet another argument that could help us narrow down our options even further?

The answer is yes. And when you are ready for the next step, I will be happy to present it to you. But we have to get you through all this first.

Regarding, nature and supernaturalism, they are not contradictory. Can you take 130 tons of metal and make it fly? Yes, given a sufficient power source of an engine you can. Can you walk on water? Once again, give the power source of a ski boat, yes you can.

Supernaturalism simply maintains that there is a being with sufficient power to do what he wants with the universe. There is nothing contradictory about that.

Regards,

Z

The universe is finite and did not always exist.

Serious question here. If the universe is in fact finite and lets say you have the most modern day space ship or what ever and you get to the end? Ok what happens then? Is it just a big wall that has us trapped and if it is a "wall" then there has to be something on the other side no?

Maybe im not smart enough or just dont comprehend the whole finite universe part. But thats i see it.

my 2cents..

mike

blowpop65

05-16-2006, 09:24 PM

zorro

05-16-2006, 10:50 PM

If space is nothing, as in there are areas where there is no matter, then why cant the universe extend forever? What reason is there to believe that the universe has "ends" beyond which there is the absence of existence. Beyond the "ends" there cannot simply be nothing, because that already exists in space, it has to be less than nothing, or non-existence. I find it easier to believe that the universe has no end than that there is an end of existence.

Modern physicists and astronomers have determined the age of the universe and the size of the universe. To your question, I will give you the same answer many of them will give you: I don't know!

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

zorro

05-16-2006, 10:56 PM

If space is nothing, as in there are areas where there is no matter, then why cant the universe extend forever? What reason is there to believe that the universe has "ends" beyond which there is the absence of existence. Beyond the "ends" there cannot simply be nothing, because that already exists in space, it has to be less than nothing, or non-existence. I find it easier to believe that the universe has no end than that there is an end of existence.

Space is not nothing. Space has attributes. It exists. It is something. In fact particle physicists tell us that all the matter you see in the universe came about by the dimensions of space rapidly expanding.

Z

347Mike

05-17-2006, 12:07 PM

The universe is finite and did not always exist.

Serious question here. If the universe is in fact finite and lets say you have the most modern day space ship or what ever and you get to the end? Ok what happens then? Is it just a big wall that has us trapped and if it is a "wall" then there has to be something on the other side no?

Maybe im not smart enough or just dont comprehend the whole finite universe part. But thats i see it.

my 2cents..

mike

Am i the only one who sees it this way? Or am i just loco.

blowpop65

05-17-2006, 01:49 PM

Space is not nothing. Space has attributes. It exists. It is something. In fact particle physicists tell us that all the matter you see in the universe came about by the dimensions of space rapidly expanding.

Z

Then I have been mislead. Do you have a source I can look into? I am curious. I had always been told space was the absence of matter, or nothing.

zorro

05-17-2006, 04:16 PM

Then I have been mislead. Do you have a source I can look into? I am curious. I had always been told space was the absence of matter, or nothing.

Sure, virtually any astronomy or physics textbook dealing with the subjects of relativity or big bang cosmology. Space is an absence of matter, but it is not nothing. The dimensions of space and time exist, they have attributes, they are something.

Z

White trash wagon

05-17-2006, 05:06 PM

Although deep space is very empty, it's not "nothing". WE now know deep space is not a perfect vacuum, and even the most remote reachs of deep space contain traces of hydrogen (by far the most common element in the universe).

And no where is it at absolute zero in temperature (all molecular movement stops at absolute zero). Even when light years from the nearest star, it's about 3 degress Kelvin, which is residual heat from the big bang.

Scott

Fobra

05-17-2006, 07:26 PM

Sure, virtually any astronomy or physics textbook dealing with the subjects of relativity or big bang cosmology. Space is an absence of matter, but it is not nothing. The dimensions of space and time exist, they have attributes, they are something.

Z
Yep, had to know that stuff for my internet astronomy course.

Casper

06-06-2006, 02:50 PM

I understand some of what you are saying, but "!=" means nothing to me.

Do you realize that a subset of an infinite set is an infinite set in itself? So in an infinite series, if you remove all the even items, you are left with two infinite series. Right?

Z

^^^^ has never really understood logic or experienced any real boolean instruction, or he would know what bang means by convention as well as how false the follow-up was.

All numbers comprise an infinite set. All 3's comprise a finite subset.

You probably couldn't even buy a degree from JP Holding.

zorro

06-08-2006, 10:12 AM

^^^^ has never really understood logic or experienced any real boolean instruction, or he would know what bang means by convention as well as how false the follow-up was.

All numbers comprise an infinite set. All 3's comprise a finite subset.

You probably couldn't even buy a degree from JP Holding.

The logic is quite simple, either there was an infinite series of events prior to our current event or there was a finite series of events prior to our current event. It is not like tackling a gordian knot to figure out that if there is an infinite or endless series prior to our currnt event, that all members of that set could not be traversed to get to the current event. If all members in the series could be traversed, it wouldn't be endless, now would it?

Z

Casper

06-08-2006, 10:59 AM

DarkWolf

06-08-2006, 11:14 AM

Wrong again.

Numbers are infinite. All can still be counted. Thus, an infinite series can still be traversed.

You try too hard to twist things into some kind of academic philosophical argument. The purpose of logic is to make things simpler, not confuse them.

Logic making things simple? Logical? *gasp!*

Keeping with the numbers theme, we can represent our point in time as 0 and infinity extending out in either direction.

infinity <-- ... -5 -4 -3 -2 -1 0 1 2 3 4 5 ... --> infinity

Looks a lot like:
"infinity <---------------- [we are here] ---------------> infinity"

that I posted back on page 1, post #15 ... doesn't it Zorro?

3 page dissertation using pseudo-intellectual and heavily pseudo-philosophical mannerisms going over every word of both of our statements... individually, naturally... coming from Zorro in 3...

2...

Casper

06-08-2006, 11:30 AM

I'll do it for you:

Then where does the square root of negative one fit on that line? Just answer the question, if you can. But you can't, because I am right, so I see no reason to continue this discussion

(really I am only ragging on you in jest, zorro; I like reading your posts, just try and keep them to a half page or less).

zorro

06-08-2006, 01:36 PM

Wrong again.

Numbers are infinite. All can still be counted. Thus, an infinite series can still be traversed.

You try too hard to twist things into some kind of academic philosophical argument. The purpose of logic is to make things simpler, not confuse them.

Actually, you are the one who is wrong. Numbers aren't infinite, because numbers don't exist.

The counting of numbers is only potentially infinite, not actually infinite. You can count however long you like but when you stop to see where you are, the number will always be a finite number. You will never reach an infinite number at which you will stop, it doesn't exist.

By definition, an infinite series can't be traversed member by member. To do so would mean that all members would have to be traversed. In other words, there would be no more members. In other words, you would have to come to the end of an endless series. I'll let you work out the law of non-contradiction on that one.

This is quite simple, the logic is not hard and doesn't require a PhD: if you can come to the end of an endless series, the endless series isn't endless.

Z

Casper

06-08-2006, 02:08 PM

Of course numbers don't exist as a physical item, they are a concept that humans created so as to build a better mental model of their world.

As for "potentially infinite" vs "actually infinite", you are pulling that out of your tighty-whiteys. You are suggesting a scenario where "god" could potentially be infinitely powerful but exercising that power makes it finite.

Congratulations, you just proved that an omnipotent god cannot exist (except maybe as a concept that humans created so as to build a better mental model of their world, like numbers).

zorro

06-17-2006, 09:50 AM

Of course numbers don't exist as a physical item, they are a concept that humans created so as to build a better mental model of their world.

Created by humans? No! Discovered by humans? Yes! We simply gave names to elements that were already part of the Universe. The number "three" doesn't exist in reality, but three apples do. By extracting that which can be applied universally (the concept) from what we experience about us, we can manipulate what we know to our advantage. It is our misuse of the concept that leads to such nonsense as: "Numbers are infinite. All can still be counted. Thus, an infinite series can still be traversed."

As for "potentially infinite" vs "actually infinite", you are pulling that out of your tighty-whiteys. You are suggesting a scenario where "god" could potentially be infinitely powerful but exercising that power makes it finite.

Actually, I am pulling these out of Aristotle's tighty-whiteys, and those of countless philosophers and mathematicians ever since. Do a google search for more details.

Congratulations, you just proved that an omnipotent god cannot exist (except maybe as a concept that humans created so as to build a better mental model of their world, like numbers).

This is covered in detail in my paper, "The Existence of God." I have only proved that a God who must exist on a single timelime, moving in one direction doesn't exist. Fortunately, there are very few gods who fit this description.

Z

Casper

06-19-2006, 11:54 AM

So that explains why Jesus is a little late for the rapture. He's going in the wrong direction, LOL!

You really are twisting logic. Numbers are a concept, created by humans, not discovered. The number three did not exist until the concept was rationalized and formalized in someone's mind. Again, your whole argument falls apart because of your tortuous use of semantics.

Another example of a human created concept is latitude and longitude. These aren't real things, they are concepts designed to explain relationships (in this case, a non-euclidean grid system for mapping a spherical surface).

zorro

06-19-2006, 09:11 PM

So that explains why Jesus is a little late for the rapture. He's going in the wrong direction, LOL!

I guess when you are losing an debate it is always best to try to change the subject in hopes that no one will notice. I think everyone noticed.

You really are twisting logic.

A twisting of logic is known as a fallacy. Name the fallacy and show where I committed it.

Numbers are a concept, created by humans, not discovered. The number three did not exist until the concept was rationalized and formalized in someone's mind. Again, your whole argument falls apart because of your tortuous use of semantics.

Another example of a human created concept is latitude and longitude. These aren't real things, they are concepts designed to explain relationships (in this case, a non-euclidean grid system for mapping a spherical surface).

Numbers, math and logic are expressions of already existing relationships. Even before any animal life existed, those relationships existed. We merely named the relationsips, we didn't create them.

Regarding lat. and long., that too is a representation of a relationship. It doesn't matter how you measure the coordinates, if you use the accepted way or make one up yourself, as long as the measurement is consistent the results will be consistent, because the relationship is consistent.

Z

DarkWolf

06-20-2006, 10:19 AM

I guess when you are losing an debate it is always best to try to change the subject in hopes that no one will notice. I think everyone noticed.

You tried this with me once. It's called sarcasm. Look it up. I promise, there's no nefarious intent to change the subject.

Numbers, math and logic are expressions of already existing relationships. Even before any animal life existed, those relationships existed. We merely named the relationsips, we didn't create them.

Regarding lat. and long., that too is a representation of a relationship. It doesn't matter how you measure the coordinates, if you use the accepted way or make one up yourself, as long as the measurement is consistent the results will be consistent, because the relationship is consistent.

Z

Yeah thanks for that. He's not arguing that the relationships didn't exist before we associated numbers/concepts to them... rather that we created the numbers to associate with the relationships. So in otherwords, you just said exactly what he said.

*golf clap*

It's ok though, I know it's hard for you to grasp the concept that some people can comprehend statements without obsessing over every minute detail of the verbage, or structuring used.

zorro

06-20-2006, 12:27 PM

You tried this with me once. It's called sarcasm. Look it up. I promise, there's no nefarious intent to change the subject.

Such "sarcasm" seems to be used only when one is losing the debate, as I noted. If one is winning, there is no need for such "sarcasm." But thanks for the opportunity to once again point this out.

Yeah thanks for that. He's not arguing that the relationships didn't exist before we associated numbers/concepts to them... rather that we created the numbers to associate with the relationships. So in otherwords, you just said exactly what he said.

The problem is with the word "create." We didn't create anything, we merely described existing relationships and named them.

It's ok though, I know it's hard for you to grasp the concept that some people can comprehend statements without obsessing over every minute detail of the verbage, or structuring used.

Those minute details of structure are called "grammar." Without proper use of words (verbage) and grammar, there is no communication. Try writing a sentence without "verbage" and those "minute details of structure," and see how far you get. We will all be waiting to see that sentence.

Z

DarkWolf

06-20-2006, 01:56 PM

Such "sarcasm" seems to be used only when one is losing the debate, as I noted. If one is winning, there is no need for such "sarcasm." But thanks for the opportunity to once again point this out.

You certainly are familiar with losing debates, aren't you? Practically every post you've racked up in this forum has been full of snide/sarcastic remarks.

If that's a tactic of those that are losing, then not only have you lost time and again, but you never really succeeded to begin with. I do believe I've pointed this out, a number of times.

The problem is with the word "create." We didn't create anything, we merely described existing relationships and named them.

The problem is your obsession with semantics.

Those minute details of structure are called "grammar." Without proper use of words (verbage) and grammar, there is no communication. Try writing a sentence without "verbage" and those "minute details of structure," and see how far you get. We will all be waiting to see that sentence.

Z

Grasping straws again. For shame. For one so eager to jump on fallacies, you certainly commit your share. Hiding it under your condescending pseudo-intellectual tone isn't going to help it go away.

zorro

06-21-2006, 12:45 AM

You certainly are familiar with losing debates, aren't you? Practically every post you've racked up in this forum has been full of snide/sarcastic remarks.

If that's a tactic of those that are losing, then not only have you lost time and again, but you never really succeeded to begin with. I do believe I've pointed this out, a number of times.

Just more of the same. Do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion? I didn't think so.

The problem is your obsession with semantics.

Yes, I know, in your world words don't have to have meaning in order to convey meaning. For the rest of us, words must have a specific meaning in context for the sentence to convey meaning.

Grasping straws again. For shame. For one so eager to jump on fallacies, you certainly commit your share. Hiding it under your condescending pseudo-intellectual tone isn't going to help it go away.

Still waiting for you to write a sentence without "verbage" and those "minute details of structure." Anytime you are ready, go right ahead.

Z

DarkWolf

06-21-2006, 02:45 AM

Just more of the same. Do you have anything of substance to add to this discussion? I didn't think so.

I'd ask the same of you, but we already know you don't... so what's the point?

Yes, I know, in your world words don't have to have meaning in order to convey meaning. For the rest of us, words must have a specific meaning in context for the sentence to convey meaning.

Again with the semantics. Who said anything about words not having a meaning, to convey a meaning? I mean seriously... do you just pull this stuff out of your ass? It certainly sounds like it.

Still waiting for you to write a sentence without "verbage" and those "minute details of structure." Anytime you are ready, go right ahead.

Z

Did you come across a surplus of hay or something?

zorro

06-21-2006, 09:30 AM

Still waiting for you to write a sentence without "verbage" and those "minute details of structure." Anytime you are ready, go right ahead.

Did you come across a surplus of hay or something?

That was a nice try. It really doesn't mean anything, but it still has a bunch of verbage and those silly minutia of structure are still there; subect, object and stuff like that. Someone as smart as you doesn't need to have all that. Give it another try. This time don't use any verbage or any structure.

Z

DarkWolf

06-21-2006, 04:55 PM

You love the straw man, don't you?

zorro

06-21-2006, 06:51 PM

You love the straw man, don't you?

Yawn......

DarkWolf

06-22-2006, 10:15 AM

Aww is widdle zowwo tired?

That's ok, you can take that straw man you've been building up, and make a nice little bed to lay in.

Casper

06-22-2006, 11:09 AM

It is no use wolfie. I tried to ignore the straw men, ad hominems, red herrings and all on the other post, and interject some much needed freindliness and tongue in cheek humor in an effort to stimulate a forum that had started to degrade from ego boosting. It didn't seem to have the desired effect because we are dealing with "small man syndrome". It is similar to penis envy in a woman. Every statement is taken as a percieved insult, an attack that must be aggressively handled. Zorro is like a puppy who feels safe in his own back yard where he can bark at the big dogs while they pee on his fence. You and I are wetting his fence right now in what he perceives as his own personal blog. I suggest ignoring him. Maybe he can teach at the Discovery Institute some day.

Casper

06-22-2006, 11:10 AM

Fobra

06-22-2006, 02:01 PM

I tried to ignore the straw men, ad hominems, red herrings
which straw men, ad hominems, and red herrings are you talking about? I looked back and didn't see them pointed out :confused:

DarkWolf

06-22-2006, 02:34 PM

Zorro is like a puppy who feels safe in his own back yard where he can bark at the big dogs while they pee on his fence. You and I are wetting his fence right now in what he perceives as his own personal blog.

Ok, that seriously made me ROFL, and I don't use those acronym's flippantly :D

DarkWolf

06-22-2006, 02:35 PM

which straw men, ad hominems, and red herrings are you talking about? I looked back and didn't see them pointed out :confused:

Well, for starters, just check the last few posts Z made in this thread. At least for his latest set.

Just becasue we don't obsessively point them out like he does, doesn't mean they're not there.

Casper

06-22-2006, 03:23 PM

zorro

06-22-2006, 04:45 PM

Aww is widdle zowwo tired?

That's ok, you can take that straw man you've been building up, and make a nice little bed to lay in.

You really should take that logic class. There is a big difference between a straw man and Reductio ad Absurdum. If you knew how to determine the difference you wouldn't make such an obvious mistake.

Z

zorro

06-22-2006, 05:36 PM

Well, for starters, just check the last few posts Z made in this thread. At least for his latest set.

Just becasue we don't obsessively point them out like he does, doesn't mean they're not there.

Oh, please point them out, pleeeeease. Everyone would all love to see them, including me!

But you and Casper are unable to do so, because neither of you know how to determine what is a fallacy and what is not, in my writing or your own; as I pointed out in my last post, the rookie error you made in mistaking Reductio ad Absurdum for a straw man.

To: Forbra and everyone else,

You will notice that this discussion continues to be about logic. The reason is that in order for Darkwolf and Casper to maintain their positions they must maintain positions that are at the core irrational. You will notice that both Darkwolf and Casper continuously run from inductive and deductive processes that have been shown to lead to true conclusions.

I continue to point out (one by one) the fallacies they commit. Why? Because they continue to commit them in such abundance and they base their arguments on the foundation of these fallacies. They make it far to easy for me (or others who may only have a basic understanding of logic) to debunk their arguments.

Z

zorro

06-22-2006, 05:47 PM

I was referring mostly to the other thread abou the JWs.

One, for example, was the flippant comment about textual vs higher criticism. Anyone who has read Van Manen or Detering is aware of their use of the term "textual criticism". So I ignored it as irrelavent. My intention was simply to post a point-by-point construction of my premise. Yet it took him four posts to even address anything in context, and even then his lack of real study in the field was evident. The redirection tactics he uses are obviously an ego shield.

Such a sad situation :(

My replies showed three things:

1) In some instances you were just factually wrong.

2) The places you weren't fatually wrong were irrelevent points that proved nothing of importance one way or the other.

3) Many of your conslusions were nothing more that speculation based on other speculations.

You completely ignore the elements needed to construct a cogent inductive argument.

Z

DarkWolf

06-22-2006, 08:19 PM

Oh, please point them out, pleeeeease. Everyone would all love to see them, including me!

But you and Casper are unable to do so, because neither of you know how to determine what is a fallacy and what is not, in my writing or your own; as I pointed out in my last post, the rookie error you made in mistaking Reductio ad Absurdum for a straw man.

To: Forbra and everyone else,

You will notice that this discussion continues to be about logic. The reason is that in order for Darkwolf and Casper to maintain their positions they must maintain positions that are at the core irrational. You will notice that both Darkwolf and Casper continuously run from inductive and deductive processes that have been shown to lead to true conclusions.

I continue to point out (one by one) the fallacies they commit. Why? Because they continue to commit them in such abundance and they base their arguments on the foundation of these fallacies. They make it far to easy for me (or others who may only have a basic understanding of logic) to debunk their arguments.

Z

Uh huh... so proclaiming that I've expressed the ability to be able to make a sentence without using verbage or structure... and then challenging me to prove you wrong isn't a straw man?

Wow.

So let's see, definition #1 for Straw Man: "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted"

So... you set up a "weak or imaginary opposition" by proclaiming I've expressed the ability to form a sentence without verbage or structure. This was set up, so that you could easily tear it down, and show how I'm wrong, because I cannot form a sentence without verbage or structure.

Yep, definitely doesn't sound like a straw man to me.

Now, let's take a look at Reductio ad Absurdum: "a type of logical argument where one assumes a claim for the sake of argument, arrives at an absurd result, and then concludes that the original assumption must have been wrong, since it led to this absurd result."

Well... the conclusion was absurd, I'll give you that. However, YOU proclaimed that I said something... of which I did not. You then used that proclaimation to come to your absurd conclusion, and placed the origin on me.

Reductio ad Absurdum means YOU come to a conclusion, find it absurd, and then dismiss it as wrong. What you did was claim that I came to a conclusion, and you set up a challenge so that you could tear the claim apart, and prove that I was wrong.

Straw man, my friend. Tell me... how does a logic major, arguing these things for nearly 50+ years... make such a rookie mistake?

To: Forbra and everyone else,

I think what you mean to say is "To: Fobra," ... he seems to be the only one still listening to you, though he only chimes in with popcorn refills now and then, anymore.

I think most everyone else, even those that sided with you early on, are seeing you for what you really are. An raving ego maniac.

Ooops... there I go with the Argumentum ad Populum fallacy :rolleyes:

Casper

06-23-2006, 09:45 AM

;)

46Tbird

06-23-2006, 11:38 AM

What the hell did you just say?

Casper

06-23-2006, 11:57 AM

What the hell did you just say?

He just compared el zorro's argument from popularity to the Chrysler commercials where Snoop Dog says dodge is the shizzle, so Dodge must indeed be the shizzle.

ClockwrkOrangeS4

06-23-2006, 12:50 PM

What the hell did you just say?

I'm pretty sure they're just making up words

46Tbird

06-23-2006, 03:30 PM

Ah. In that case, remember to be cognisant of Vendetta et Perturbment.

Phillystang

06-23-2006, 03:41 PM

Ah. In that case, remember to be cognisant of Vendetta et Perturbment.
your avatar is makes my head hurt...

Joebum

06-23-2006, 05:02 PM

to explain with good logic the existence of God is a waste of time. NO ONE will believe due to rationality and logical arguments, rather people believe in God by our actions. Sometimes I wish people would shut up and live it. this may not be directed particularly at you, but as francis assisi says "preach the gospel at all times, and when necessary use words."

when a community of people say they believe in a powerful, good, loving, forgiving, gracious deity, but their lives reflect something else no one will believe. we should move from cold, rational people, to gracious, loving people.

BlackFormula

06-25-2006, 09:36 PM

So Basically these forums are all the same... YAWN

zorro

06-26-2006, 01:41 PM

Uh huh... so proclaiming that I've expressed the ability to be able to make a sentence without using verbage or structure... and then challenging me to prove you wrong isn't a straw man?

Wow.

So let's see, definition #1 for Straw Man: "a weak or imaginary opposition (as an argument or adversary) set up only to be easily confuted"

So... you set up a "weak or imaginary opposition" by proclaiming I've expressed the ability to form a sentence without verbage or structure. This was set up, so that you could easily tear it down, and show how I'm wrong, because I cannot form a sentence without verbage or structure.

Yep, definitely doesn't sound like a straw man to me.

Well, it sounds like a straw man to you, because you really don't know how an argument works, let alone a straw man argument. This has been your problem all along.

A straw man argument presents an argument supposedly given by an opponent. It is then countered point by point. The conclusion is that the argument and the opponent are defeated.

A Reductio works best when the opponent has made some silly, arbitrary statement. Let's take the following one as a good example:

"It's ok though, I know it's hard for you to grasp the concept that some people can comprehend statements without obsessing over every minute detail of the verbage, or structuring used."

The question becomes, what is a minute detail of verbiage and structure? And how much verbiage and structure can be ignored, while still be able to communicate accurately via writing. By adding or leaving out any details of structure a sentence or paragraph can, and usually does, change the meaning drastically. The same is true for the words we use or misuse.

The Reductio shows the stupidity of the proposition. You cry because you never said you could write a sentence without verbiage or structure, but you also never said how much verbiage and structure was needed to write a meaningful sentence; a sentence that you are not guessing at the meaning. That is the point of the challenge I gave you. Not only did you not define how much verbiage and structure is needed, but you can not. This is because all the verbiage and structure that is needed to make a simple sentence meaningful, is needed to make a simple sentence meaningful. And all the verbiage and structure that is needed to make a complex sentence meaningful, is needed to make a complex sentence meaningful. Ignoring elements of either means you are merely guessing at the meanig of the sentence.

So, it is fair to ask, if you can understand the meaning of a sentence without the details of words and grammar, and you have no way to define what those details are, how do you know that you need any words or grammar at all?

I think most everyone else, even those that sided with you early on, are seeing you for what you really are. An raving ego maniac.

Excuse me, but I happen to be a raving ego maniac that also is right. And your problem is that I continually show you up as being a raving ego maniac that is wrong and illiterate when it comes to logic, as this post once again demonstrates.

Z

DarkWolf

06-26-2006, 03:15 PM

Blah blah blah, I promise I'm right, and if I say it enough, and use enough big words and long posts, maybe someone will believe me.

Again, your failure is in your obsessive need to argue semantics. The statement you quoted from me, is not at all an "arbitrary, silly" statement. It's in reference to your, as Casper once said, tortureous use of semantics.

Casper said:

Numbers are a concept, created by humans, not discovered. The number three did not exist until the concept was rationalized and formalized in someone's mind. Again, your whole argument falls apart because of your tortuous use of semantics.

You then said:

Numbers, math and logic are expressions of already existing relationships. Even before any animal life existed, those relationships existed. We merely named the relationsips, we didn't create them.

Pure semantics. You both said the same thing, with different words. Naming the relationships is CREATING the names given to the relationships. Ie: Creating numbers to define the existing relationships.

Thus my statement was quite valid, and far from "arbitrary, silly". By "obsessing over the verbiage or structure used"... that's semantics. Rather than admiting you both said the same thing, you try to make the assertion that my quote is an indication that statements can be understood... nay, formed... without using verbiage or structure.

Making your attempt to dismantle it a straw man. You fail again. Not that it should surprise anyone.

Excuse me, but I happen to be a raving ego maniac that also is right. And your problem is that I continually show you up as being a raving ego maniac that is wrong and illiterate when it comes to logic, as this post once again demonstrates.

Z

What was it called again? Invincible ignorance, I believe. Yes, that quite well describes you, to a tee.

zorro

06-29-2006, 07:33 PM

Again, your failure is in your obsessive need to argue semantics. The statement you quoted from me, is not at all an "arbitrary, silly" statement. It's in reference to your, as Casper once said, tortureous use of semantics.

Casper said:

"Numbers are a concept, created by humans, not discovered. The number three did not exist until the concept was rationalized and formalized in someone's mind. Again, your whole argument falls apart because of your tortuous use of semantics."

You then said:

"Numbers, math and logic are expressions of already existing relationships. Even before any animal life existed, those relationships existed. We merely named the relationsips, we didn't create them."

Pure semantics. You both said the same thing, with different words. Naming the relationships is CREATING the names given to the relationships. Ie: Creating numbers to define the existing relationships.

This is where verbiage and structure comes into play and why ignoring those leads to problems. This is not a semantic issue and Casper & I are not saying the same thing. There are four main theories about numbers and a couple of variations. Casper affirms one of these theories and I another. Although we disagree and hold separate theories, we know that we hold to separate theories.

We are not talking about the names given to numbers (numbers were being used by cultures for well over 1000 years prior to the English name "three" ever being thought of), but we are discussing the essence, concept or nature of numbers; in other words, the ontology of numbers.

Thus my statement was quite valid, and far from "arbitrary, silly". By "obsessing over the verbiage or structure used"... that's semantics. Rather than admiting you both said the same thing, you try to make the assertion that my quote is an indication that statements can be understood... nay, formed... without using verbiage or structure.

Since you don’t know the philosophical implications of our positions and you refuse to try and understand the verbiage and structure of our sentences and paragraphs, you do come across as arbitrary, silly and just plain wrong. When Casper says,”Numbers are a concept, created by humans, not discovered,” he understands, as do I, that we hold to contradictory positions. The only one who doesn’t get it is you; just as you don’t get the difference between a straw man argument and a Reductio ad Absurdum.

Z

Casper

06-30-2006, 12:14 AM

A concept, by definition, takes a sentient mind.

(shakes head in disappointment)

DarkWolf

06-30-2006, 10:26 AM

I really don't know why I even bother anymore. He's by far the most ignorant person I've ever debated with.

One must wonder if he even realizes how ignorant he is. I mean... does he know how stupid he sounds, and is just hoping people won't catch on... or is he really this ignorant? I have to say it seems like a mix of both. Not only is he really this ignorant, but he knows he's this ignorant, and instead of admitting his faults and mistakes... he wallow's in them, like some sad attempt at persuasion by repetition.

He's like a juggernaut of stupidity. Stupernaut? :D

zorro

06-30-2006, 10:38 AM

A concept, by definition, takes a sentient mind.

(shakes head in disappointment)

The problem never was with the word "concept," but with the words "created" and "discovered." Unless, Darkwolf is right and we have been talking past each other. I don't think we have been talking about the articulation of the concept, but the essense of the concept. Of course there has to be a sentient mind to understand and articulate, that is trivial; but is the essense of the concept, created or discovered? That is really what we are talking about isn't it?

You seem to recognize the difference when you say, "Numbers are a concept, created by humans, not discovered." My view is, numbers are a concept, discovered by humans, not created, just like the laws of physics are discovered, or when Columbus discovered the New World, etc. The difference is that when something is discovered, what is already there is expressed and articulated. Nothing new is brought into existence. When something is created, something that was not there before is produced. Such as, Da Vinci painting the Mona Lisa, he didn't discover that the painting was on the canvas, he created it.

Z

Casper

06-30-2006, 03:49 PM

zorro

07-01-2006, 02:12 PM

Okie Dokie.

Now explain how someone can "discover" a concept that exists only in their minds. I might have this concept that monkeys fly out of my keester. Flying monkeys born of my lower regions don't exist, but I can visualize the concept. What did I discover? A meme?

Some concepts and ideas are created, some are discovered, and some are extrapolated. There are those that even assert that some concepts are innate. The continent of North America was discovered and so was the concept. The Land of Oz, where your flying monkeys come from, was created from other discovered ideas that were put together.

So, the question is, are the concepts of numbers and math like the concept of the concept of North America or like the concept of Oz?

Z

Casper

07-01-2006, 04:14 PM

zorro

07-02-2006, 10:11 PM

Interesting, I'll play. So what is the dividing line (honestly fishing out of curiosity here)?

My example was pretty lame in so many ways. I'll throw a better known one out there; the ether. Before relativity, the "ether" was credited with holding classical physics within certain boundaries. It didn't exist. It was a complicated concept but never necessary. There was never anything to discover here, in my mind. The concept was completely a figment of the human imagination, and if that isn't a "creation" I don't know what is.

Ether was an attempt at extrapolation, but it was a bad one. In the end it turned out to be nothing more than a false conclusion based on false assumptions. I suppose we could call this a created concept.

The discussion about where and how ideas and concepts come about was had by Locke, Descartes and Hume.

If I may suggest a book that I think will be helpful in all these discussions, it is called The GREAT IDEAS, by Mortimer J. Adler.

It takes over a hundred ideas and covers the history of thought on that topic. I think it may be out of print, but there are some copies available on Ebay for as little as $35.

Z

Casper

07-03-2006, 09:05 AM

Nice post.

I think I see more where you are coming from in your viewpoint; you seem to hold some respect for Descartes*, and from other posts you seem to rely on an ontological argument**. I don't, myself (obviously). You mention two philosophers who are at odds in this respect (Hume and Descartes). But both are simply talking heads and don't really accomplish anything IMO except to supply philosophy students with homework. Is existence a binary property? Are imaginary numbers*** real? They exist mentally but not physically. They cannot be denied but they cannot be demonstrated except through extrapolation. Is this how God "exists"? As a mental construct necessary only to prove the relationship between the natural and supernatural?

*Descartes was a mathemetician and philosopher, probably best known for the idea "I think, therefore I am". This really has more implications in what it excludes. He supported the "ontological argument" and added to it.

**The Ontological Argument for the existence of God goes something like "God is the greatest perfection conceivable, and existence is part of perfection, so God must exist" (with MANY variations on this theme).

***An imaginary number is one which has a very sound explanation for existence but they are only a mental construct and cannot exist physically. The relationships they represent hold true in modern mathematics, but mathematical solutions can rely on non-existent or impossible interim results. The square root of negative 1 is an imaginary number. However -1 exists as the square of its own square root.