Religion The God Question (continued in Part 2 - link in last post)

[Procrastinator35]

What about us Cosmic Fence-Sitters, the Agnostics? I don't hedge a bet either way - the good I do in life I do because I feel it's right, not because I expect heavenly punishments or hellish rewards. The question may burn bright in others but I don't actually CARE why I'm here - I'm just gonna f*cking enjoy myself regardless.

And that's it.

Ah yes....Hedonism....So your God is Dionysus then.

 

[apparentlydead]

The majority of the New Testment was written within a hundred years of Christ's death, a lot of it only a few decades after.

o rly?

 

[Procrastinator35]

1. If you deny that the universe had a beginning, You do not believe in the accepted model of universal expansion and without realising it you've already wandered off to go sit with the supernatural thinkers.
2. if you want a rational non supernatural explanation, you can only rely on observation. That observation is limited and you must accept it.

3. I don't have an answer as to what occurred before the big bang, I don't try to invent one.
Perhaps one day science will find the answer, Perhaps we won't.

4. The fact is unless you're mature enough to admit we don't know and current there is no way to know, Then you're simply lying to yourself.

5. The question is do you want to THE answer or do you want to know AN answer?
and can if do want THE answer can you handle possibly never knowing?
for those that just want AN answer, Well there's an entire market for that, take your pick.

1. It's important to recognize the universal expansion theory as merely the latest one in a long line of ultimate cosmological theorems....I've seen & heard it postulated by theists, that the universe both expands & contracts, proving that is is none other than the living breathing body of God!...I find that utterly fascinating & far more interesting.

2. No one is arguing over the limited nature of empirical knowledge/data....It is just that very limitation itself that theists would argue, points to the ineffectual ability of rational, sense data alone to either prove or disprove the ineffable....Consciousness itself is such a universal example of this....And yet scientists ignore the miracle & wonder of their very own being in their distracted & de-animated universes!...That is true ignorance. In having lost touch with their very own nature & glory....The miracle of life on earth.

3. That's the whole point....As noted in the first cause debate....As soon as you posit a beginning, then an infinite regress must take place of a-priori first causes....The theory/notion is utter nonsense from both a metaphysical & physical perspective....Complete mumbo-jumbo twaddle of an ultimate hypotheses.

4. And yet you defend the big bang theory nonetheless, as if it is fact!

5. Wow....I mean just WOW....I'd have thought the entire enterprise of science begins with a quest for an answer....What is science after all if not seeking for a 'break-through'?....Those of us with faith are happy enough with our answers, but the constant 'seeking' of science would suggest something left unfulfilled!

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Intuitive thinking is a gene that gets passed on.

To just know is to be human.

Is that the difference between knowledge and wisdom? Knowledge being information you acquire from without while wisdom is what you already know from within?

 

[Geelong_Sicko]

Ah yes....Hedonism....So your God is Dionysus then.

I guess that makes me unagnostic. Better get the beers in!

 

[Sydney Bloods]

1. It's important to recognize the universal expansion theory as merely the latest one in a long line of ultimate cosmological theorems....I've seen & heard it postulated by theists, that the universe both expands & contracts, proving that is is none other than the living breathing body of God!...I find that utterly fascinating & far more interesting.

2. No one is arguing over the limited nature of empirical knowledge/data....It is just that very limitation itself that theists would argue, points to the ineffectual ability of rational, sense data alone to either prove or disprove the ineffable....Consciousness itself is such a universal example of this....And yet scientists ignore the miracle & wonder of their very own being in their distracted & de-animated universes!...That is true ignorance. In having lost touch with their very own nature & glory....The miracle of life on earth.

3. That's the whole point....As noted in the first cause debate....As soon as you posit a beginning, then an infinite regress must take place of a-priori first causes....The theory/notion is utter nonsense from both a metaphysical & physical perspective....Complete mumbo-jumbo twaddle of an ultimate hypotheses.

4. And yet you defend the big bang theory nonetheless, as if it is fact!

5. Wow....I mean just WOW....I'd have thought the entire enterprise of science begins with a quest for an answer....What is science after all if not seeking for a 'break-through'?....Those of us with faith are happy enough with our answers, but the constant 'seeking' of science would suggest something left unfulfilled!

do you actually consider any argument before running off on rants?
if you believe you have any answer provide actual evidence for it, your blithering tirade is irrelevant.
you have no evidence whatsoever and you think you, simply argue your way around it. that s**t doesn't fly with any rational person.

for all your blithering point by point interjections, you still fail to produce the evidence being requested.
at least you've dropped the facade logic by asserting your own very limited beliefs as facts and doggedly cleaning to your informal doctrines.
like all rational people i'm open to new solutions, so please by all means, produce the evidence.

i wait with baited breath.

 

[skilts]

Those of us with faith

Who would have thought?

 

[evo]

Ok then it's a tautology. So what ?

.

So you're not really saying anything.

 

[Procrastinator35]

do you actually consider any argument before running off on rants?
if you believe you have any answer provide actual evidence for it, your blithering tirade is irrelevant.
you have no evidence whatsoever and you think you, simply argue your way around it. that s**t doesn't fly with any rational person.

for all your blithering point by point interjections, you still fail to produce the evidence being requested.
at least you've dropped the facade logic by asserting your own very limited beliefs as facts and doggedly cleaning to your informal doctrines.
like all rational people i'm open to new solutions, so please by all means, produce the evidence.

i wait with baited breath.

All I'm reading here is rant, blithering & baited breath.

Have a read of your criticisms in this post & recognize how self-referencing they are.

Also. finally....Please note the thread topic....And try to stay on it.

 

[Present Not Past]

o rly?

rly.

 

[apparentlydead]

rly.

Strong evidential back-up.

Did God tell you this or something?

 

[Present Not Past]

Strong evidential back-up.

Did God tell you this or something?

All you could say about it was that the New Testament Gospels were "written 100s of years after christ".
Apart from that one sweeping generalisation you provided no evidence to back up that claim.

 

[Present Not Past]

Strong evidential back-up.

Did God tell you this or something?

God works in mysterious ways.
He even weaves his magic through the interweb.
http://www.google.com.au/url?url=ht...enAAt0&usg=AFQjCNGBHo-Y7N1T8Hehnd_P7dv3pU-rgQ

 

[Boston tiger]

So you're not really saying anything.

"Some people use "tautology" in logic in a wide sense, to mean any logically true wff. But others use "tautology" more narrowly to mean true in virtue of truth-functional structure (so, "valid by the truth-table test"). So, for example, ∀xFx→Fa
∀
x
F
x
F
a
would count as a tautology in the first, wide, sense but not in the second, narrow, sense. (How to use 'tautology', then, is a matter of terminological preference: I much prefer the second narrower usage as it gives us a label for a special class of logical truths which we need a label for.)"

 

[apparentlydead]

All you could say about it was that the New Testament Gospels were "written 100s of years after christ".
Apart from that one sweeping generalisation you provided no evidence to back up that claim.

No.

All I said was...o rly?

Which, obviously was a request for unequivocal evidence

and...

God works in mysterious ways.
He even weaves his magic through the interweb.
http://www.google.com.au/url?url=ht...enAAt0&usg=AFQjCNGBHo-Y7N1T8Hehnd_P7dv3pU-rgQ

you gave me this s**t.

Such an unbiased and fact driven website.

LOL.

 

[evo]

"Some people use "tautology" in logic in a wide sense, to mean any logically true wff. But others use "tautology" more narrowly to mean true in virtue of truth-functional structure (so, "valid by the truth-table test"). So, for example, ∀xFx→Fa
∀
x
F
x
F
a
would count as a tautology in the first, wide, sense but not in the second, narrow, sense. (How to use 'tautology', then, is a matter of terminological preference: I much prefer the second narrower usage as it gives us a label for a special class of logical truths which we need a label for.)"

you didn't use it like that though.

I give up. "Uncle"

 

[Boston tiger]

you didn't use it like that though.

I give up. "Uncle"

Good. Cause you come across as someone who has nothing to say.

 

[Present Not Past]

No.

All I said was...o rly?

Which, obviously was a request for unequivocal evidence

and...




you gave me this s**t.

Such an unbiased and fact driven website.

LOL.

Well go away and find me evidence that unequivocally disputes these dates, and stop your whining.

 

[apparentlydead]

Well go away and find me evidence that unequivocally disputes these dates, and stop your whining.

How could I possibly go against a faith driven ideologue who genuinely believes that some sky fairy had a guiding hand in writing a book about a son he sent to earth to save everyone by being strung up on a cross by some angry Romans?

Oh, and bits and pieces in the old book where he gets pissy at NTTAWWTs and kills them all.

And s**t.

FMD

 

[Present Not Past]

How could I possibly go against a faith driven ideologue who genuinely believes that some sky fairy had a guiding hand in writing a book about a son he sent to earth to save everyone by being strung up on a cross by some angry Romans?

Oh, and bits and pieces in the old book where he gets pissy at NTTAWWTs and kills them all.

And s**t.

FMD

Dear oh dear, you really do delight in putting on a tantrum when someone calls you out on your BS.

 

[apparentlydead]

Dear oh dear, you really do delight in putting on a tantrum when someone calls you out on your BS.

MY BS?

LOL.

Holy s**t.

 

[Lebbo73]

MY BS?

LOL.

Holy s**t.

Keep digging. I reckon you have or still do work for the council.

 

[not a warmonger]

Dear oh dear, you really do delight in putting on a tantrum when someone calls you out on your BS.

Good question. Why does god hate gays?

 

[apparentlydead]

Keep digging. I reckon you have or still do work for the council.

And what if I did?

Are you bigoted against council workers too?

 

[Procrastinator35]

Good question. Why does god hate gays?

Methinks you have God mixed up with official church policy....We all know the Roman Catholic Church is populated by innumerable gay bishops!....And likely always has been....So it's hardly homophobic!

Given it's taken the church some 500 years to finally absolve Galileo of any wrong-doing, then one can garner the pace at which progress is made there!....Vatican City is an ivory tower, isolated from the rest of the world!

If you want to slag off on religion, then at least iron out your category errors to begin with, before dropping your baited lure in the water.