Existence of God

[Elenai]

The Bigbang was an example of how people say that Science and Religion are against each other.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Although, really, it shouldn't be. One little thing exploded and became everything. Sounds like a potential act of God, something from nothing.

 

[Redeemer59]

Honestly, my mother believes in God, the Big Bang, and Evolution. What's wrong with that? She's even Christian. In before "She isnt Christian if she believes in the big bang."

And you never know. The Big Bang might have only been the beginning of our universe as we know it. Hell, we could all be inside a little universe marble like at the end of MIB.

 

[Teh_Ephy]

Elenai said that the big bang was just a common example of Christianity and science disagreeing.

 

[Elenai]

Although, really, it shouldn't be. One little thing exploded and became everything. Sounds like a potential act of God, something from nothing.

Elenai said that the big bang was just a common example of Christianity and science disagreeing.

Yes...and yes again...sadly there are some who say
"Religious? You must be an absolute idiot! Science...blah blah blah...."

@Redeemer59

We would not mind evolution and the BigBang, and ect stuff as much if we could have our side of the story told without being called religous fanatical retards. Personally I think both should be taught. My belief is in Creation and I will support it, but atleast open forum should be granted so people can choose. If you get what I am saying.

There are all kinds of theories and hypothesis that could be considered....Like a marble'verse ...

 

[Redeemer59]

We would not mind evolution and the BigBang, and ect stuff as much if we could have our side of the story told without being called religous fanatical retards. Personally I think both should be taught. My belief is in Creation and I will support it, but atleast open forum should be granted so people can choose. If you get what I am saying.

While I disagree with the Creation theory, I think that's actually a pretty good compromise. Granted, you'd still have people on both sides saying "Christians are retards." and "Atheists are retards.", but yes, I do understand.

Nowadays in schools people are being taught that X is the correct way to think, and oh yeah, Y is a theory too but lets not get into that. Replace X and Y with Creation and TBBT in whichever order applies.

There are all kinds of theories and hypothesis that could be considered....Like a marble'verse ...

So God is the CEO of the marbleverse manufacturer?

 

[Elenai]

While I disagree with the Creation theory, I think that's actually a pretty good compromise. Granted, you'd still have people on both sides saying "Christians are retards." and "Atheists are retards.", but yes, I do understand.

Nowadays in schools people are being taught that X is the correct way to think, and oh yeah, Y is a theory too but lets not get into that. Replace X and Y with Creation and TBBT in whichever order applies.

It is a good comprimise in my opinion. And yes there will always be extremes in both sides that will bicker and call the other names...its a sad thing actually.

So God is the CEO of the marbleverse manufacturer?

I hear he has a great dental plan..

 

[Teh_Ephy]

I really don't understand why some people are so committed to ideas they have no way of being proven that they actively denounce other ideas as unrealistic. What if their idea is unrealistic, and only looks realistic? When I commit myself to an idea, I commit myself to the one I hold to be most likely to be the truth. I'll admit that there are some ideas that I'm just against, but one of them is sort of common sense. The other one that I can think of, I have evidence against, and not just evidence for a competitor.

 

[Cheeder]

Nuke770 and Donut3.5, the quote thingy isn't working.

A circular argument proves itself, being that it cannot be penetrated any further with human reasoning or logic.

So moving on, i stated that for existence to BE, there needs to be a force, a power, and thus an intelligence backing it's existence.

If you believe that nothing once existed, than how, in your reasoning, does something come from nothing? And i ask the both of you, and any other who are in your way of thinking, do you really understand what nothing is as a REALITY? The word nothing IS something. First, it's a word, then second it's an idea. Now, if this idea were a reality, than it would not even be anything because you and i and nothing would exist to be able to observe and consider that which IS nothing. So, can a brain, or matter, or intelligence, or God, or any THING come from nothing? It's impossible.

So i ask, is there such a thing as spontaneity? Let me rephrase. Is there something which exists which has NO purpose? Now mind you, here comes the tricky part. If you ever decide that there is something which exists that has NO purpose, you will have just contradicted yourself. How so? By thinking of it, by talking about it, by giving it attention. You will have given it it's purpose; to be thought of/about and/or talked about by YOU!

So let me ask you this. Is there no purpose to life, matter, living, rainbows, God, existence, for examples? And no matter what you decide, tell me now whether purpose exists before creation or after.
How can spontaneity exist without purpose?
Is not every action taken by all forms of life deliberate? Is the wind truly random? Or are we just not at the level of wisdom to know and see how predictable it is..

Natural law. How does wood and metal know to stay in formation? Are not the molecules encoded with intelligence to know to stay in place rather than liqifying or floating away? And aren't we just lucky that they are set with laws/rules/boundaries so that they can melt or evaporate or solidify when WE want them to?!

You see, there is nothing without intelligence. Granted we are given free-will, are self-aware and are thus able to question, it doesn't mean that dry wood or metal is lifeless. And what is life? That which has lungs, a heart, a brain, blood? If that is true, so much for single-celled organisms and amobia. So much for those elements which, when mixed with others, become a totally different substance. And why should iron and carbon become steel, or blue and yellow become green, or sugar and water become one? Why should they be so accepting of each other and not, to an extent, repel? I sure as hell don't know. haha.. Perhaps we should ask God why he decided to make these natural laws. Then again, we can give it our own purpose.

Well, anyway.. I'm wrong. I must be because you think so. Therefore that is the truth for you. All religious texts were composed by liars, based on liars, fakes and non-existent beings and situations which only exist in the imagination (land

That's fine, but i have to ask a few favors before i end this reply.
Explain/disprove-prove the following
God
curses
witchcraft
telepathy
flying yoga
ghosts
angels
demons
spirits
orbs
telekenises
visions
OBE's
NDE's
people who see spirits
people who hear spirits
space-time deformations/warps
the "Baba's" (ie, Sathya Sai Baba)
Amritanadamayi (aka Amma)
prophecy
faith-based healing
"miracles" of ANY kind
remote-viewing
astrology
auras
chakras
tarot
psychic ability
posession
"divine" manifestations
apparitions
karma
compassion!

For everybody who makes claim to any one or more of the above equals one investigation you need to add to a list of "Instances in need of Investigation".

Until you, as a real investigator/researcher/scientist to the truest meaning would do, and investigate each claim thouroughly, i suggest you accept that you, as we all, simply do not know the TRUTH to anything let alone everything. Even those who experience anything from the given list, they only come up with their own idea of the truth of the matter. Some have better ideas, more universal ideas, more experience and thus evidence to formulate the truth but we do not know for sure. The truth is evasive, imaginable, yet incompliable to our ability to imagine 'at once'. Meaning, we think in sections, of subjects, and therefore cannot grasp or realize the unity, complexity, the reality of the truth of the matters.

If it is the WORD, "God", that you do not like, (probably more-so the idea of it) i hope i've made at least this much clear, that there is an undenyable force of infinite power and wisdom; the wisdom and power to BE intelligent, TO exist, and do whatsoever it chooses. THAT, not-minding the "rules" of this game called "life", whatever you think they are or how much you dislike them.

(God would not give you free-will just to break his law and "MAKE" you do anything. If he was going to break them, why would he even decide to make any.)

 

[Gilles]

Why did you bring it back before it was lost in the annals of time!

 

[Cheeder]

Anyways, there's no point in using logic to define/explain/prove something illogical. If you think about it, there's no logical way that God can be omniscient, omnipotent, and all good. Except that God is anyways. So, God is illogical, and, obviously, there is no way to logically prove something illogical.

Indeed God is illogical to you. This is common, even for those who believe. God is illogical to all humans, but had we a better understanding of things, i'm sure God would be quite logical. Pertaining to the formation of God's existence, which is unimaginable, it is illogical. I personally believe God never not existed, as it correlates to my discussion on nothingness. Pertaining to God existing, not illogical, not for me, and that's not even taking into consideration his omni.
(Everyone is either a believer, or agnostic. Atheism is impossible.)

 

[donut3.5]

A circular argument proves itself, being that it cannot be penetrated any further with human reasoning or logic.

Try say that to your debate teacher. Circular logic == fail. Everyone knows that.
--donut3.5--

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Yeah, circular logic is definitely foolproof.

"How do I know there's a treasure chest in the backyard?"
"Because I said so!"
"How do I know what you're saying is true?"
"Because there's a treasure chest in the backyard!"

Pure genius.

 

[donut3.5]

Hell, with circular logic, you could make the opposite of the God argument.
God doesn't exist.
Why?
Because all religion is bullshit.
Why?
Because God doesn't exist.
That's pretty much what all religions are saying, if you change a few words.
God exists.
Why?
Because my religion says so.
How do you know that's correct?
Because God told me.
Phail -.-
--donut3.5--

 

[Cheeder]

Yeah, circular logic is definitely foolproof.

"How do I know there's a treasure chest in the backyard?"
"Because I said so!"
"How do I know what you're saying is true?"
"Because there's a treasure chest in the backyard!"

Pure genius.

That's not logic, nor has it anything to do with logic. Sorry, but there is a HUGE misconception of circular logic.. Of course i'm the odd man out, being that the term "circular logic" and it's innappropriate definition to the essence of the term has been more widely used than a logical conclusion to the term would have one of common sense come to upon knowing it.
(i'm talking about the term and definition)

 

[donut3.5]

That's not logic, nor has it anything to do with logic. Sorry, but there is a HUGE misconception of circular logic.. Of course i'm the odd man out, being that the term "circular logic" and it's innappropriate definition to the essence of the term has been more widely used than a logical conclusion to the term would have one of common sense come to upon knowing it.
(i'm talking about the term and definition)

Its a very simplified form to allow people unfamiliar with the term to wrap their minds around in. In general, that's the main idea behind circular logic.
Of course religion doesn't make it that damn obvious, they wouldn't get any converts if their logic was that blatantly retarded.
--donut3.5--

 

[thisruoy]

Amen!

So are you saying religion is using circular logic to draw people in?

 

[Cheeder]

Its a very simplified form to allow people unfamiliar with the term to wrap their minds around in. In general, that's the main idea behind circular logic.
Of course religion doesn't make it that damn obvious, they wouldn't get any converts if their logic was that blatantly retarded.
--donut3.5--

I understand that, and that being it's purpose, but there is no lgic involved in such "examples".

As for religion, who, what and where was/is it stated, does it state that they, people, things, organizations, want you to convert, and for what reason(s), minus everything BUT the religious texts themselves?

Where in Vatican law does it state 'if you are Catholi, it is your job to convert others'?

*MERGED BY Shados*

i am not religious, i am spiritual, and i abide by no religious law, but some do abide by me. I used "Catholic" as an example.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Circular logic is basing two conclusions upon each other. Those examples were perfectly kosher. Perhaps YOUR definition is the one flawed. How about YOU feed us an example of your definition at work?

And circular logic, even our example, is a fallacy, and therefore part of logic, false or not.

 

[Cheeder]

Circular logic is basing two conclusions upon each other. Those examples were perfectly kosher. Perhaps YOUR definition is the one flawed. How about YOU feed us an example of your definition at work?

And circular logic, even our example, is a fallacy, and therefore part of logic, false or not.

I did admit i was the odd man out, and stated the reason why (faulty definition in correlation to the essence of the term).

My example was deleted on the myspace forums. It was a good, long discussion.. i barely know where i did begin. It was about not knowing anything, and that the only thing you can know is not knowing anything. But even then, the circular logic is, truly we, at least me, i know nothing. Where people said it was circular logic, by their definition, they couldn't deny it was sound logic. Like i said, it was a long discussion. Started with me telling a story about how me and my dad were arguing about whether the Sun has a mouth and is talking. haha.

I can say "i know of ___", but i don't really know. I don't know what it is to "really" know. It is sound, circular-by-my-definition logic.

Don't skip the issues! I'm not begging for a discussion/argument.. But i don't feel like persuing this to exhaustion, nor the rest of my issues. I was merely trying to make points for others, not for the sake of talking.

*MERGED BY Shados*

Yeah, circular logic is definitely foolproof.

A"There's a treasure chest in the backyard"
B"How do I know there's a treasure chest in the backyard?"
A"Because I said so!"
B"How do I know what you're saying is true?"
A"Because there's a treasure chest in the backyard!"

Pure genius.

After some thought and research i'm going to say that this DOES pertain to logic, is NOT a fallacy and is perfectly sound logic.

Here is a question for you (all).. Let's say you are both A and B and you are having this discussion in your head, who is going to say the next thing and what are they going to say? And if you want, you can even tell me why. There's no right or wrong answers, i'm just curious.
However, i will wait until i do get some replies to my question before i go on to prove my point any further. So, i'll check back later tonight.

 

[donut3.5]

If I was B I would slap A across the face for being such a retard.
--donut3.5--

 

[Shados]

Cheeder, you're making little sense, you made two double posts, and you seem to be saying that circular logic is perfectly acceptable, which is one of the more ridiculous things I've heard throughout this thread.

In any case, this thread has gone on long enough. Either one of the people who claims they can prove or disprove god with logic do so before post number 800 in this thread, or I'm closing it. 800 posts is more than enough to discuss a topic to death, as this one has been.

 

[donut3.5]

I personally don't see the point in closing this thread. Its not like anyone has taken massive amounts of personal offense.
I think its fun.
Plus, you know that if you close this one, another one like this is just going to open up like when you closed the Abortion thread, the same people took the same sides, making almost the same arguments, just in context
Random religious/belief threads are bound to appear, thus invoking an argument of a sort or another.
--donut3.5--

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

The circular logic would not be acceptable because it proves NOTHING. Two questionable pieces of information are still two questionable pieces of information. Basing them off each other doesn't make anything stable!

Glaring question: BASED ON THE FACTS GIVEN, DO YOU THINK IT WOULD BE LOGICAL TO CONCLUDE THAT THERE IS A TREASURE CHEST IN MY BACKYARD?

EDIT:

In any case, this thread has gone on long enough. Either one of the people who claims they can prove or disprove god with logic do so before post number 800 in this thread, or I'm closing it. 800 posts is more than enough to discuss a topic to death, as this one has been.

Ad Nauseam?

 

[JarrardKO]

Why did you address Shados as "Slim Shady"?

Yep, you heard it here first folks.

 

[thisruoy]

Why did you address Shados as "Slim Shady"?

Yep, you heard it here first folks.

Because we want to?

 

[Cheeder]

Cheeder, you're making little sense, you made two double posts, and you seem to be saying that circular logic is perfectly acceptable, which is one of the more ridiculous things I've heard throughout this thread.

In any case, this thread has gone on long enough. Either one of the people who claims they can prove or disprove god with logic do so before post number 800 in this thread, or I'm closing it. 800 posts is more than enough to discuss a topic to death, as this one has been.

Shados, What's the difference between "little" sense and a "lot" of sense? One's ability to understand, for, as you stated, it still makes "sense".

Double-post.. I posted the same thing twice?

Your first paragraph states that you've been reading everything in this thread. If that were true than there would have been no reason for you to post your second paragraph, because i have already proved God to be true with logic. Even if one declares that i have not, they would still need to investigate every self-deemed "miracle" before they can jump to any conclusion. Otherwise we all just know them to be biased, which means their opinion doesn't matter.

Yeah, circular logic is definitely foolproof.

A"There's a treasure chest in the backyard"
B"How do I know there's a treasure chest in the backyard?"
A"Because I said so!"
B"How do I know what you're saying is true?"
A"Because there's a treasure chest in the backyard!"

Pure genius.

Why the above example is perfectly sound logic.

There is a problem with science and that problem lies within the issue of necessesity.
For example, projecting human time to number can go on forever, to fractions of fractions of numbers, forever. Why it is done, at all, ever, is to make a point. The above example of circular logic is one such point-to-be-made.
If a professor at a college told me that example and i told him it was sound logic, he'd more than likely say, "Then B says, How do I know there's a treasure chest in the backyard?, and so the cycle continues".
However, the faulty logic does NOT lie within the example itself but one who may ever think that that hypothetical situation needs to continue in verbal exchange.

Were it to continue by person B, it would imply that B has a severe case of mental deficiency, or is, perhaps, simply playing a joke as to annoy person A.

So, that example, as it is, is sound logic and to reiterate it in any way, or any further, is UNNECESSARY.
You cannot reiterate '1+1=2' any further, let alone the given example of circular logic.

So, let us disect the example.

A"There's a treasure chest in the backyard"
There IS a treasure chest in the backyard.
Person A is either telling the truth or is lying.

B"How do I know there's a treasure chest in the backyard?"
First of all, person B does NOT know there is a treasure chest in the backyard.
A more logical response from person A would be, "You don't know there is a treasure chest in the backyard", thus making the example itself illogical AS an example.
However, how person B is SUPPOSED to know there is a treasure chest in the backyard is by going to check for him/herself.

A"Because I said so!"
Again, just because person A "says so" does not mean person B knows whether person A is lying or telling the truth. Yet another example of a bad example, an illogical response.
However, person A DID say so, that there is a treasure chest in the backyard. Therefore it does exist, either trutfully or untruthfully, it is the job of person B to investigate if he so chooses.

When you tell you friend what you did while your friend was away, does your friend call you a liar and simply not believe you? On the contrary, people are very trusting of each other and your friend will most likely accept what you tell them as true. Had your friend decided NOT to believe you, he or she would have created a motive in their head to investigate the truth, for example, asking around what you did while they were away.
So, unless person B doubts everything he/she hears, it would be illogical for person B not to DO or WANT to do any investigation regarding the treasure chest in the backyard.

B"How do I know what you're saying is true?"
Again, relating to how person B is SUPPOSED to know about the treasure chest actually being in the backyard, he/she DOESN'T!
A good response from person A might be, "I don't know, how DO you know what i'm saying is true?"
(How technical does person B want to get?!)

A"Because there's a treasure chest in the backyard!"
Person A is clearly stating that there IS a treasure chest in the backyard. This is person A's response. It is a final response to end all questions from person B regarding the validity of the claim of there being a treasure chest in the backyard.

So, why would person B know there is a treasure chest in the backyard? Because there IS a treasure chest in the backyard. DOES person B know there is a treasure chest in the backyard? NOT until he/she decides to go check for him/herself.
How would person B know that there is NOT a treasure chest in the backyard? By going to check for him/herself.

Person A's word does not MAKE anything true. That is the logic of the example. So, what is illogical is person B thinking, or simply TRYING to believe the unknown by continually questioning person A's word.

You either investigate because you care/are interested, or you don't because you don't care and are not interested.

Here's a real-life example of stupidity i saw just the other day. In order for a land-speed record to count, the vehicle needs to go one way and then back in under an hour. They enter the AVERAGE speed into the record book, even if the vehicle went faster one run than the other, denying the factual speed of the vehicle.

That example relates to investigation. If a ghost-hunter hears of a haunted place 1k miles away, where objects get knocked over, but is told by someone from that area that it's just the wind blowing through the holes in the walls, and the investigator chooses not to go given that information, the "investigator" has no right to say it's not haunted, or have a valid opinion of the subject at hand. The "investigator" can't say whether it's haunted or not. Likewise, person B cannot KNOW whether the treasure chest is there in the backyard without investigation or CLAIM to know whether person A is a liar or telling the truth. And likewise to that, any OBSERVER to that conversation (like you and i) cannot have a valid opinion either, or claim to know whether person A is truthful or not. So, until we investigate, it is a logically sound exchange of information.
As stated, the example ends where it ends, the only thing left to do is either care or not care.

 

[donut3.5]

Double-post.. I posted the same thing twice?

You obviously don't know what double posting is.

A"There's a treasure chest in the backyard"
There IS a treasure chest in the backyard.
Person A is either telling the truth or is lying.

If they're lying then there is not a treasure chest. You obviously either don't:
1.) Know what lying is.
2.) Understand existence of matter.
3.) Have a sound grip on reality.

However, person A DID say so, that there is a treasure chest in the backyard. Therefore it does exist, either trutfully or untruthfully, it is the job of person B to investigate if he so chooses.

If you followed this logic, debates would get nowhere, people would bombard each other with "just because" retarded logic. Hell, I could say magical unicorns won the civil war and pandas defeated the nazis. However, that is far from true. Because many other people can prove my statements to be false, not only by saying with just because, but they have historical records, pictures, documents, and many many other things.
Person A is supplying NO evidence whatsoever. If he supplied evidence in the slightest, as opposed to just because, then it would not be circular logic. You cannot prove a statement you make with a second statement proved by the first. With transitivity in mind, you cannot prove statement 1 with statement 47583 if you used statement 1 to prove 2, 2 to prove 3, and so on and so forth. It is saying "just because" and hoping people will accept it.
However, it is going to be more plausible of a statement if you use legitimate proof, such as:
I know there's treasure in my backyard.
Why?
Because I used a metal detector, dug a few feet, and found one gold coin. This probably will lead to the discovery of many other gold coins, and proving I have what some may call treasure in my backyard.

Here's a real-life example of stupidity i saw just the other day. In order for a land-speed record to count, the vehicle needs to go one way and then back in under an hour. They enter the AVERAGE speed into the record book, even if the vehicle went faster one run than the other, denying the factual speed of the vehicle.

How is this related to circular logic at all? This is simply taking which one is faster on average, not which one can rush the fastest then perform poorly. Its like in a race, you don't go for top speed, you go for who actually finishes first.

Likewise, person B cannot KNOW whether the treasure chest is there in the backyard without investigation or CLAIM to know whether person A is a liar or telling the truth.

By this logic, if person B says, no there is none, then person A could not make that claim truthfully. This is why circular logic doesn't work. Person A would have no defense besides "just because" and person B could use the defense of "Aurum is a very rare metal that does not occur naturally in backyards of residential areas. Likewise, there is a very low likelihood a pirate would choose to bury treasure there. If you can prove it to me otherwise, then I will believe you, but right now my argument has better support, so therefore I am the more valid one to believe."

As stated, the example ends where it ends, the only thing left to do is either care or not care.

Ok, seriously, I'd suggest learning debate. False dichotomy and circular logic are two logical fallacies any debate opponent would rip you apart with. You can do a lot more than care or not care, you can also: Care and reply, like I am, care and do not reply, do not care and reply, do not care and do not reply, show lines of "caringness" somewhere in between and not care or care, never even read this post, or many other options. You have clearly given a false dichotomy.
--donut3.5--

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Why did you address Shados as "Slim Shady"?

Yep, you heard it here first folks.

So true.

Leave this topic to die, will you?

 

[Elenai]

Indeed....The insistence of rebirthing this topic is begining to sicken me.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

This thread's got but a few posts to provide proof of god's existence until it is closed. Good riddance, I must say.

Why did you address Shados as "Slim Shady"?

Elementary, Watson! It was a pun!

Yep, you heard it here first folks.

omfg that picture is awesome.

 

[Kjiverx]

Official catholic doctrine (paraphrased): when you die, you meet god. then YOU decide whether you want to be with him or not.

if you dont, you get to watch everybody that did want to be with god have an awesome time for eternity.

hell is watching everybody in heaven have an unending party, only everything at the party is perfect.

if you do choose to be with god you go to purgatory for a while, are cleansed of your sins, and go to heaven.

important:anyone can choose the god option. anyone. it doesn't matter if you've been a atheist all your life, if your reaction to seeing that god is real is something like "awesome, there is a god!", you go to purgatory for a while and get to heaven. everyone but martyrs goes to purgatory.


/end official catholic doctrine

personally, i belive that you can get out of hell, that you'd realize that you do want to be with god, even if it happens after 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 years. but that's just me.



as for proof of god's existence, in about 1917 there was the whole fatima thing. during this god made the sun move around.(bouncing, moving around the sky in ways other than a line...) newspapers hundreds of miles away reported that it had. there were 60,000+ witnesses. if that doesn't convince you, nothing will, except maybe meeting god when you die.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

as for proof of god's existence, in about 1917 there was the whole fatima thing. during this god made the sun move around.(bouncing, moving around the sky in ways other than a line...) newspapers hundreds of miles away reported that it had. there were 60,000+ witnesses. if that doesn't convince you, nothing will, except maybe meeting god when you die.

That's just stupid. People in 1917 could easily be fooled, so the fact this was posted in loads of newspapers is no proof.

 

[Redeemer59]

as for proof of god's existence, in about 1917 there was the whole fatima thing. during this god made the sun move around.(bouncing, moving around the sky in ways other than a line...) newspapers hundreds of miles away reported that it had. there were 60,000+ witnesses. if that doesn't convince you, nothing will, except maybe meeting god when you die.

I lol'd pretty hard.

 

[Elenai]

@Kjiverx.......That doctrine doesnt seem to be Biblically sound my friend. The Bible (the various books that make up the Bible) has no reference to purgotory, and if people chose God when they die and go to purgotory...then what was the Sacrifice of Christ for?

"Salvation is through grace alone, and Salvation is through Christ, whom you accept while alive."

Now then......God's existence is all too real....For those who have experienced him, it is unquestionable. To those who have not....they must seek him themselves, and see if they come to believe it.

An example of this would be the holy martyr Polycarp, the last disciple who studied under one of the direct apostles, (John). He was taken to the arena in Smyrna (modern Izmar Turkey). There he was threatened with fire and beasts, and was told to curse Christ and recant him. Polycarp said that he had served Christ for eighty seven years, and not once did Christ wrong him, and he told them to bring on the fire and beasts. His tormentors lit the flame and instead of burning he seemed as gold. And so a soldier had to kill him with a sword because the fire failed to kill him.

That is the kind of faith that makes God's existence unquestionable to those who have experienced him.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

I lol'd pretty hard.

I did too. I thought he was joking for a sec.

 

[Hakeem]

Maybe it's because I'm not anchored by bias, but I didn't notice Cheeder say or imply that circular logic was good for debate.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

Maybe it's because I'm not anchored by bias, but I didn't notice Cheeder say or imply that circular logic was good for debate.

But you did notice he said circular logic proves itself, right? Good, so let me fill you in.

Argument B is used as proof for Argument A, which, in turn, is used as proof for Argument B. Because both arguments are unstable, they are invalid as proof, and therefore, nothing is proven.

 

[Hakeem]

You mean this?

A circular argument proves itself, being that it cannot be penetrated any further with human reasoning or logic.

Perhaps you should check with Wikipedia:

As noted by Simon Blackburn in A Dictionary of Philosophy, describing something as "begging the question" can be problematic because such arguments are logically valid. That is, the conclusion does in fact follow from the premises, since it is already contained in the premises. All circular arguments have this characteristic: the proposition to be proved is assumed at some point in the argument. This is why begging the question was classified as a material fallacy rather than a logical fallacy by Aristotle and, similarly, is classified as an informal fallacy today.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

You mean this?

No, I mean the other time he introduced circular logic into the debate.

Perhaps you should check with Wikipedia:

If logic is "the science that investigates the principles governing correct or reliable inference," and circular logic is "logically valid," then one could conclude that when two facts rely on each other's truthfulness to be true, there is no logical counterexample. Yeah, I guess that works, because the only way to prove otherwise is to produce material counterexamples.

 

[Kjiverx]

@Kjiverx.......That doctrine doesnt seem to be Biblically sound my friend. The Bible (the various books that make up the Bible) has no reference to purgotory, and if people chose God when they die and go to purgotory...then what was the Sacrifice of Christ for?

christ died to let us go to purgatory. and the bible also has almost no reference to the holy spirit. does that make the holy spirit unreal? I don't mean that the holy spirit is necessarily real: i'm not a missionary. believe wat you want. but no one can deny that religion, almost all of it, has produced some impressive things. look into some of the more recent martyrs sometime. But like everything else it's also produced some idiocy-look at pacifism. pacifism is about as stupid as things get.

the bible is seriously filled with lots of irrelevant bullshit. there are other sources of revelation. like the pope, in some circumstances (the pope isn't always officially infallible. certain conditions must be met.)find someone with a bible, and read 1 kings 7. it basically says that pi=3. as everyone should know, that is not what pi equals.

essentially what i'm trying to say is that you cannot prove god. believe whatevr you want.but the futility of proving god's existence doesn't mean it isn't fun to argue about it.

@Elenai: and you know this happened because? of faith in god. you can't use faith to prove something.
notice how the sword still killed him anyway...

 

[Cheeder]

But you did notice he said circular logic proves itself, right? Good, so let me fill you in.

Argument B is used as proof for Argument A, which, in turn, is used as proof for Argument B. Because both arguments are unstable, they are invalid as proof, and therefore, nothing is proven.

Ok, it may not ALWAYS prove itself, i was quick to say so, but it is, undoubtedly, unpenetrable by further human logic and reasoning; it becomes or EXISTS as sound logic. It simply is what it is and exists as so, just as my example exists;
"I know nothing"

"Well do you know you know nothing?"
"I don't know if i know nothing"
Thus validating the claim, "I know nothing".

This is how i proved the given example of the "treasure chest" to be perfectly sound.

That example is not a matter of proof. Inded nothing is proven or disproven, but 'to prove' is not of any relevance. It's not a matter of proving person A's word to be true, that there really exists a treasure chest, rather it is a matter of whether the exchange in communication is logically sound.

I can relate the treasure-chest example to the movie Donnie Darko. The director left out information AT THE END, which would be the more logical time-place to have it, which would help people dissolve their confusion over the movie. Same goes for the example. We don't know if they continued to question each other like illogical, brainless idiots, or whether person B wet to go check if it was really there in the backyard, or if they simply dropped the whole issue altogether. Until such information comes to light, any opinion on the matter is useless because there's no base for a substantial argument. No one can say it exists or does not exist.

That being the case, the data-exchange is what it is and cannot even be illogical. What WOULD be illogical, again, is if the exchange were to continue, denying any action on the part of he or she who cares to validate the claim (ie person B).

What IS invalid as proof is not the "arguments", or the exchange of word themselves, but rather inaction.
INACTION is invalid as proof. Person B makes no attempt to validate person A's claims in the reality, but rather, my guess, assumes he can know the truth through questioning. Do you remember what i said about the ghost-hunter? By simply questioning a past-resident of the area of the supposed haunting does not validate or invalidate the claims of the supposed hauntings, and therefore any opinion by the "investigator", who never went to do any actual investigating, is worthless.
The fact that inaction is the model cannot make the situation illogical.

My whole point is, the situation is logical, it, being an example of circular logic is not.

 

[Elenai]

God's existence is all too real....For those who have experienced him, it is unquestionable. To those who have not....they must seek him themselves, and see if they come to believe it.

I was using Polycarp as an example of why Christians who have experienced God find the question of his (non) existence laughable.

pi = 3.14..........a bunch of numbers. Its close enough to 3 for my taste.

And as for the Holy Spirit....Here is a list of references to it found in the Bible.

The Holy Spirit mentioned on equal level with God
Matt. 28:19, "Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit,"
2 Cor. 13:14, "The grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit, be with you all."
Eph. 4:4-6, "There is one body and one Spirit, just as also you were called in one hope of your calling; 5one Lord, one faith, one baptism, 6one God and Father of all who is over all and through all and in all."
2 Cor. 3:16-18, "but whenever a man turns to the Lord, the veil is taken away. 17Now the Lord is the Spirit; and where the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty. 18But we all, with unveiled face beholding as in a mirror the glory of the Lord, are being transformed into the same image from glory to glory, just as from the Lord, the Spirit."
Names of the Holy Spirit
Spirit of God
Rom. 8:9, "However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him." See also Gen. 1:2
Spirit of Christ
Rom. 8:9, "However, you are not in the flesh but in the Spirit, if indeed the Spirit of God dwells in you. But if anyone does not have the Spirit of Christ, he does not belong to Him."
Spirit of your Father
Matt. 10:10, "For it is not you who speak, but it is the Spirit of your Father who speaks in you."
The Spirit of Truth
John 14:17, "that is the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it does not behold Him or know Him, but you know Him because He abides with you, and will be in you." See also, John 15:26.
The Spirit of the Lord
Acts 8:39, "And when they came up out of the water, the Spirit of the Lord snatched Philip away; and the eunuch saw him no more, but went on his way rejoicing." See also Judges 15:14; 1 Sam. 16:12
The Holy Spirit is referred to as a person by scripture
Who
Rom. 8:11, "But if the Spirit of Him who raised Jesus from the dead dwells in you, He who raised Christ Jesus from the dead will also give life to your mortal bodies through His Spirit who indwells you."
John 6:63, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."
1 John 5:7, "And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth."
See also 1 Cor. 2:12; 2 Tim. 1:14;
He
John 14:26, "These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you. 26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
Himself
Rom. 8:16, "The Spirit Himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God,"
Rom. 8:26, "And in the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words"
Personhood of the Holy Spirit (has emotions, is aware, speaks, knows, etc.)
Grieves
Isaiah 63:10, "But they rebelled and grieved His Holy Spirit; Therefore, He turned Himself to become their enemy, He fought against them."
Eph. 4:30, "And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption."
Loves
Rom. 15:30, "Now I urge you, brethren, by our Lord Jesus Christ and by the love of the Spirit, to strive together with me in your prayers to God for me."
Has a mind
Rom. 8:27, "and He who searches the hearts knows what the mind of the Spirit is, because He intercedes for the saints according to the will of God."
Speaks
2 Sam. 23:1, "The Spirit of the LORD spoke through me; his word was on my tongue."
Acts 8:29, "And the Spirit said to Philip, "Go up and join this chariot."
Acts 10:19, "And while Peter was reflecting on the vision, the Spirit said to him, "Behold, three men are looking for you."
Acts 11:12, "And the Spirit told me to go with them without misgivings. And these six brethren also went with me, and we entered the man’s house."
Acts 13:2, "And while they were ministering to the Lord and fasting, the Holy Spirit said, "Set apart for Me Barnabas and Saul for the work to which I have called them."
Acts 21:11, "And coming to us, he took Paul’s belt and bound his own feet and hands, and said, "This is what the Holy Spirit says: ‘In this way the Jews at Jerusalem will bind the man who owns this belt and deliver him into the hands of the Gentiles.’"
Acts 28:25, "And when they did not agree with one another, they began leaving after Paul had spoken one parting word, "The Holy Spirit rightly spoke through Isaiah the prophet to your fathers, 26saying, ‘Go to this people and say, "You will keep on hearing, but will not understand."
1 Tim. 4:1, "But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons,"
Heb. 3:7-8, "Therefore, just as the Holy Spirit says, 'Today if you hear His voice, 8Do not harden your hearts as when they provoked Me, as in the day of trial in the wilderness,"
Rev. 2:7, "He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches. To him who overcomes, I will grant to eat of the tree of life, which is in the Paradise of God." See also Rev. 2:11,17,29; 3:6,13,22.
Rev. 14:13, "And I heard a voice from heaven, saying, "Write, ‘Blessed are the dead who die in the Lord from now on!’" "Yes," says the Spirit, "that they may rest from their labors, for their deeds follow with them."
Rev. 22:17, "And the Spirit and the bride say, "Come." And let the one who hears say, "Come." And let the one who is thirsty come; let the one who wishes take the water of life without cost."
Knows
1 Cor. 2:11, "For who among men knows the thoughts of a man except the spirit of the man, which is in him? Even so the thoughts of God no one knows except the Spirit of God."
Has an awareness of goodness
Acts 15:28, "For it seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay upon you no greater burden than these essentials."
Can be lied to
Acts 5:3, "But Peter said, "Ananias, why has Satan filled your heart to lie to the Holy Spirit, and to keep back some of the price of the land?"
Can be tested
Acts 5:9, "Then Peter said to her, 'Why is it that you have agreed together to put the Spirit of the Lord to the test?'"
Makes overseers
Acts 20:28, "Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood."
Can be a witness
Acts 5:32, "And we are witnesses of these things; and so is the Holy Spirit, whom God has given to those who obey Him."
Can be resisted
Acts 7:51, "You men who are stiff-necked and uncircumcised in heart and ears are always resisting the Holy Spirit."
Activities of the Holy Spirit
Teaches
John 14:26, "These things I have spoken to you, while abiding with you. 26 "But the Helper, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in My name, He will teach you all things, and bring to your remembrance all that I said to you.
Luke 12:12, "for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that very hour what you ought to say."
Intercedes
Rom. 8:26, "And in the same way the Spirit also helps our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we should, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with groanings too deep for words;"
Leads
Matt. 4:1, "Then Jesus was led up by the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted by the devil."
Gives life
John 6:63, "It is the Spirit who gives life; the flesh profits nothing; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and are life."
Filled by
Acts 2:4, "And they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and began to speak with other tongues, as the Spirit was giving them utterance."
Forms of the Holy Spirit
Dove
Matt. 3:16, "And after being baptized, Jesus went up immediately from the water; and behold, the heavens were opened, and he saw the Spirit of God descending as a dove, and coming upon Him."

Miscellaneous
Can be spoken against
Matt. 12:32, "And whoever shall speak a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him; but whoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, either in this age, or in the age to come."
Can be baptized with the Holy Spirit
Mark 1:8, "I baptized you with water; but He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit."
The Spirit is given
John 3:34, "For He whom God has sent speaks the words of God; for He gives the Spirit without measure.
The Spirit is received
John 20:22, "And when He had said this, He breathed on them, and *said to them, "Receive the Holy Spirit."
The Spirit forbids
Acts 16:6, "And they passed through the Phrygian and Galatian region, having been forbidden by the Holy Spirit to speak the word in Asia."
The Spirit searches all things
1 Cor. 2:10, "For to us God revealed them through the Spirit; for the Spirit searches all things, even the depths of God.
The Spirit is the truth
1 John 5:7, "And it is the Spirit who bears witness, because the Spirit is the truth."

The Bible is not full of irrelevent bull...It is the word of God and that word is not shit.

God's existence is not provable to those who have not experienced him. To those who have not, they must seek him inorder to see. To those who have experienced him, God is unquestionably real.

Christ's death clears those who accept him of all their sin, and makes them a new being that is given entrence into Heaven....It is through the blood of Christ that we are healed. Not through a cleansing in purgotory.

Accept the sacrifice, be cleansed of sin, reciece the Holy Spirit, and when you die, enter Heaven, and escape Hell. All the while, becoming a better being on Earth and becoming Christlike with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

 

[WILL THE ALMIGHTY]

Yawn.

Forget promises of a better afterlife, live for today. Be happy NOW.

 

[Kjiverx]

I was using Polycarp as an example of why Christians who have experienced God find the question of his (non) existence laughable.

pi = 3.14..........a bunch of numbers. Its close enough to 3 for my taste.

And as for the Holy Spirit....Here is a list of references to it found in the Bible.

The Bible is not full of irrelevent bull...It is the word of God and that word is not shit.

God's existence is not provable to those who have not experienced him. To those who have not, they must seek him inorder to see. To those who have experienced him, God is unquestionably real.

Christ's death clears those who accept him of all their sin, and makes them a new being that is given entrence into Heaven....It is through the blood of Christ that we are healed. Not through a cleansing in purgotory.

Accept the sacrifice, be cleansed of sin, reciece the Holy Spirit, and when you die, enter Heaven, and escape Hell. All the while, becoming a better being on Earth and becoming Christlike with the aid of the Holy Spirit.

pi: if they'd said it was 31 cubits around that'd be fine. how hard is it to write 31 instead of 30? not very.

i never said the holy spirit isn't mentioned at all in the bible, i said it wasn't mentioned very often, as compared to, say, how you should be afraid of god.

the bible is not full of irrelevant bullshit, but there's lots of it. consider Lot: "hey evil crowd of Gomorrans, rape my daughters instead of these two strangers i just met five minutes ago." that is not what a righteous man does. on the other hand , seriously, there is a reason adultery is forbidden in the bible- sexually transmitted diseases.

you don't need to accept Christ to get to Heaven, you need to accept God. whether this happens before or after death might make a SMALL difference.

@willthealmighty: Paul even says that if god does not exist we (Christians) will be the most pitied, because we have spent our lives being selfless, or kind-of selfless.

conclusion:even if god does/n't exist, believe whatever you want. if you want to believe that you die and that's it, thats your choice. and all true Christians should be cool with it.

 

[Elenai]

i never said the holy spirit isn't mentioned at all in the bible, i said it wasn't mentioned very often, as compared to, say, how you should be afraid of god.

In the Bible the word fear means revere. It is not fear as in be petrified, it is fear as in, fear your parents and your elders.

the bible is not full of irrelevant bullshit, but there's lots of it. consider Lot: "hey evil crowd of Gomorrans, rape my daughters instead of these two strangers i just met five minutes ago." that is not what a righteous man does. on the other hand , seriously, there is a reason adultery is forbidden in the bible- sexually transmitted diseases.

The reason Lot did that was not because of a command of God...But because that was the practice of the middle eastern culture of the time. Hospitallity was a massive virtue.

you don't need to accept Christ to get to Heaven, you need to accept God. whether this happens before or after death might make a SMALL difference.

I'm sorry, but this is not true. The Bible clearly says "I am the way, the truth ,and the light. None come to the father but through me" -Christ-

conclusion:even if god does/n't exist, believe whatever you want. if you want to believe that you die and that's it, thats your choice. and all true Christians should be cool with it.

Everyone should be tolerant of another persons beliefs. But a True Christian should also tell others the Gospel.

you don't need to accept Christ to get to Heaven, you need to accept God. whether this happens before or after death might make a SMALL difference.

To accept Christ is to accept God, fore Christ is apart of and equal to God in the Trinity.

@willthealmighty: Paul even says that if god does not exist we (Christians) will be the most pitied, because we have spent our lives being selfless, or kind-of selfless.

I agree.

 

[MySpaceBarBroke]

@Cheeder: I already changed my mind. Circular logic IS actually a material fallacy and not a logical one.

 

[Hakeem]

Cheeder:
Why is purpose an argument for God?
Why is order an argument for God?

 

[Cheeder]

Cheeder:
Why is purpose an argument for God?
Why is order an argument for God?

I already stated.

Something, literally, from nothing does not happen for no reason. For anything to happen at all needs purpose before it can be/happen.
Then we relate the existence to anything to that of intelligence and the power to create.

Same goes for order. Order, as we can relate to natural laws, is purposeful, is intelligently designed, IS logic. Do you not understand natural law? Gravity cannot create itself. The order of atoms in molecules cannot create themselves to be, to exist in the forms they do, to make matter malleable, tangible. You did not create yourself. All of these things were created so that they can and would work.

If you take the big-band theory, what was there before matter? Space. Well, how did space create space? It couldn't.
There is an order to things, cronilogically and ideally so that anything which exists can be. Again, a force of power and intelligence, a master, a creator is behind all of that which is created.

 

[Shados]

I already stated.

Something, literally, from nothing does not happen for no reason. For anything to happen at all needs purpose before it can be/happen.
Then we relate the existence to anything to that of intelligence and the power to create.

Same goes for order. Order, as we can relate to natural laws, is purposeful, is intelligently designed, IS logic. Do you not understand natural law? Gravity cannot create itself. The order of atoms in molecules cannot create themselves to be, to exist in the forms they do, to make matter malleable, tangible. You did not create yourself. All of these things were created so that they can and would work.

And a god can create itself, but no other thing can create itself? Let's say god is Michelangelo, and the universe is the Mona Lisa. Is it more likely for Michelangelo to spring into being, or the Mona Lisa?

If you take the big-band theory, what was there before matter? Space. Well, how did space create space? It couldn't.
There is an order to things, cronilogically and ideally so that anything which exists can be. Again, a force of power and intelligence, a master, a creator is behind all of that which is created.

Similarly, what was there before god?

Besides, the obvious counter to the 'before' argument is that time may be circular, not linear, and so everything has allways existed.


In any case, as this is my post for #800, I won't close it for another post, or whenever I check.