Reply With Quote
I have yet to lose anything but I do go to confession regularly. Thanks. I don't need to steal anything as i have all I need.
and who on the www isn't?
Nothing you say makes any sense
I have yet to lose anything but I do go to confession regularly. Thanks. I don't need to steal anything as i have all I need.
Actually you're losing money if you he, but there are definitely worse ways to waste money.
For it to make sense, especially to a critical mind, you have to use your brain.
It is real easy to slough everything off and resort to name calling, but that just makes you look foolish, not me.
Again, I never said you had to believe anything I wrote. If it doesn't make any sense to you then it is your problem to wrestle with, not mine. I only said that these were my beliefs, and they are subjective to me and me alone.
But go ahead and try to use ridicule to get your point across. How far has that gotten you?
Your approach is intentionally obtuse as to not commit to a position, just everything goes and so forth. Why then engage in a discussion about it if your position is that it's not up for discussion (and yes that's what you're saying).
I am willing to discuss. I am not willing to engage in pissing contests, with you or anyone else. If that is what you want, you'll have to do it by yourself.
Can't say it much simpler than that.
You seem to like putting your words in other people's mouths. Since that is the case, why don't you write me a script?
However if you want to discuss the topic, I am willing. That is what I've been doing. You just don't like the way I've been doing it. Can't satisfy everyone, I guess.
No but all the controlled experiments done on the power of prayer means there is reason to believe its not true. While correlation does not prove causation the lack of it does disprove it.
On the contrary, I do commit to a position, but just because it does not conform to yours, and possibly does not make sense to you, does not make it wrong, any more than your position is wrong.
To you, it seems quite obtuse, which is fine with me because that is only your opinion, and I can accept that. But to me it is quite clear, and in many cases self evident, yet it is still my opinion and not yours.
Thus since there are definite differences in our opinions then we can discuss them. Neither of us need to resort to insults or ridicule, however, because that would only undermine the discussion of the differences of our opinions and cast the insulter/ridiculer as being uncivil and foolish.
My position, and yours, are indeed up for discussion, yet they may be irreconcilable to each of us simply because of the very nature of them being opinions rather than facts. We can however still discuss them in light of that. That is what I am saying.
Joe...I understand where you're coming from. I'm a Christian as well, and I go to church, but you've been around here a long time. You know this is only going to stir things up. If that's what you're going for, that's fine. Otherwise, this thread is unnecessary. God knows you believe, and that's all that matters.
I, too, understand where he is coming from.
And yes, it might stir things up. I hope it does. That may be a good thing. Just because things remain in status quo does not necessarily mean it is good. Sometimes it is better to shake things up a little bit because usually everything that happens, usually happens for the best, even terrible things. Being in the midst of them, like being amongst the trees, we can not see or realize the greater significance or impact, just as we cannot realize the greater forest. It is all relative and subject to the limitations of our individual perceptions.
No, your stance has been that it's anything goes, that everything is true depending on who you are. That's not a position we can debate, it's not conducive to discussion.
You've yet to state things you consider to be facts, things that can be debated.
Well, the topic is pretty cut and dry, either you believe in The Lord Jesus Christ, or you do not, right?
A person who didn't even know what the conversation was about could make the same points you're making. You've not established a claim, you've not even made a claim. You call everything an opinion, as if no facts exist.
Actually, I think what he is saying is that you need to say things that confirm his conclusions and his perceived superiority so he can then insult you and your lack of education according to his conclusions which were already established a long time before the thread started.
Well no. Joe made a statement of belief.
Your first response was this:
I want to know what science and logic you can possibly use to conclude a deity exists, and that Jesus was the son of a god, that he rose from the dead and physically ascended to the sky above the clouds.
You'll call that all opinion, but you threw in science and logic to lend credence to faith in God. I challenge you to support that by something other than "agree to disagree" copouts.
Hey keep it up and you'll be sending me another PM soon.
Our differences came about when you claimed that a theist could not use reason and science because his assertions were based on faith.
I disagreed. I believe in God, so that makes me theistic, right? But I also use scientific method and reason in my life.
I don't use it to try to prove or disprove the existence of a Supreme Being however because that is a subjective experience, something that can't be done objectively, ....... yet. It may happen one day though because I believe almost anything that can be thought of or imagined can eventually become a reality. This is especially profound when you consider dimensional theory.
So I wasn't arguing with you, I felt we had a difference in opinion.
Which is true. You pretend to have your own version of reason and science, one that says a god exists. Science has never made such a claim, and logic leads you away from it. This is the science and logic that the rest of us use.
So no, you've not shown any logic or reasoning to support your faith.
You abandon it when it comes to religion though. Saying you use it in your life is separating your life from your beliefs, which in reality is impossible. Science and reason aren't tools, they are the foundation of your thought process. If you can conclude a supernatural en y exists as the explanation for things around you, you've abandoned logic and reason. Like it or not, that's the truth.I disagreed. I believe in God, so that makes me theistic, right? But I also use scientific method and reason in my life.
We didn't have a difference of opinion. You're misrepresenting science, logic and reason. If you want to say you've had a personal experience that convinces you a specific god is real, that somehow that showed you that Jesus Christ was real and his story is real, then you're right, you have a hard row to hoe trying to explain it and I'd avoid trying if it was me. Instead though, you seem to think you can morph the Socratic method with faith and revelation, but you can't. Where would we be as a society if we abandoned logic and reasoning in favor of an emotional movement? What if Jonas Salk (or Sabin) broke down and just prayed for God to cure polio? Many theists would say God did, but then there goes reason and logic out the window.I don't use it to try to prove or disprove the existence of a Supreme Being however because that is a subjective experience, something that can't be done objectively, ....... yet. It may happen one day though because I believe almost anything that can be thought of or imagined can eventually become a reality. This is especially profound when you consider dimensional theory.
So I wasn't arguing with you, I felt we had a difference in opinion.
I wasn't using reason and logic to support my faith. I agree that it cannot be done in this point in time, however I believe a time may come that it can.
I disagreed about me being a religionist though and tried to explain that I am a spiritual being and that my beliefs are of a spiritual nature. To my way of thinking science is showing us this nature with each new advance especially in the molecular sciences. We already theorize that like microcosm so is macrocosm. We are seeing that space does not exist in a vacuum as previously thought, that everything is connected, everything is energy, and that nothing is lost.
Do you see where I am going with this?
Basically and on a simplistic level at this point in time no one can prove or disprove the existence of a Supreme Being, we can only theorize, contemplate, and explore.
Thus for the most part I agree with you. But scientific method is a tool, among many other tools to use at our discretion.
Yet you've drawn a conclusion nonetheless and then say you use logic and reason. Why bring up logic and reason if you're not using it? Simple: to lend some legitimacy to faith.
Which has absolutely nothing to do with reason, logic or science.I disagreed about me being a religionist though and tried to explain that I am a spiritual being and that my beliefs are of a spiritual nature.
There's a scientific method that doesn't tie itself to your way of thinking. I don't know that we ever thought space existed in a vacuum, since QED tbh. What existed prior to initial expansion of energy and space?To my way of thinking science is showing us this nature with each new advance especially in the molecular sciences. We already theorize that like microcosm so is macrocosm. We are seeing that space does not exist in a vacuum as previously thought, that everything is connected, everything is energy, and that nothing is lost.
Do you see where I am going with this?
You either think rationally or you do not. Science wasn't invented, it's been how certain honest thinking people have developed into known fact what we know to be true now. You don't use science and logic and reason, then put it away for your core beliefs to survive. If you truly understand the process, you cannot deny the conclusion.Basically and on a simplistic level at this point in time no one can prove or disprove the existence of a Supreme Being, we can only theorize, contemplate, and explore.
Thus for the most part I agree with you. But scientific method is a tool, among many other tools to use at our discretion.
No one needs to disprove a claim that's made without evidence. Otherwise we'd have to disprove every god claim. Atheists typically require evidence to form a belief as it's not a default position when negative proof isn't available, and I'd bet you don't accept other god claims that you cannot disprove. So let's not pretend the proof/lack thereof is the tug of war in the ontological discussion. It's not. Theists claim to know that not only does a supernatural being exist, they know its intent, it's demeanor and its past. They live their lives with the notion that this supernatural being is watching them, knows their thoughts, has their best interests in mind, has a grand plan for them, created the universe for them. Then they say that same deity is beyond our finite minds to understand.
Don't bas ize the concept of science and reason to make yourself feel less archaic because you believe in a ooga booga god.
Yes, I've drawn a conclusion, but it isn't one based on faith per say, it is one based on years of study, experience, and reason. It is subjective rather than objective in nature. You are the one claiming it is based on faith. I do not make such a claim. My claim is that it is not something that can be easily identified and wrapped up neatly in a box because of it's highly subjective nature, thus no one can debunk it's validity. You say this is faith, and I can easily see how you would draw this conclusion, but I say it is a subjective experience that cannot be defined so easily. We will have to disagree on this for now. You are en led to your opinion, I am not trying to change it. Until you have had a subjective experience that convinces you otherwise, then you will have to settle for your own belief.
Yes, we once thought space existed in a vacuum, but recent discoveries have clearly shown, via particle accelerators and the like, etc., that what was once considered a sea of emptiness, is made up of much more tinier elements, anti-matter etc. and that every particle of energy is connected in some way.There's a scientific method that doesn't tie itself to your way of thinking. I don't know that we ever thought space existed in a vacuum, since QED tbh. What existed prior to initial expansion of energy and space?
You either think rationally or you do not. Science wasn't invented, it's been how certain honest thinking people have developed into known fact what we know to be true now. You don't use science and logic and reason, then put it away for your core beliefs to survive. If you truly understand the process, you cannot deny the conclusion.
Yes, I do use science, logic, and reason, but I also use intuition, supposition, observation, and imagination. I leave no rock unturned. If no scientist ever used his imagination, then there would not have been any new discoveries in the past century. There always needs to be a reference point in which to start from, there needs to be an idea that needs to be explored and/or examined extensively.
Call it a "hunch" for lack of a better word, the researcher had a hunch that the answer to his riddle was in a certain direction. One could easily ask, where do hunches come from?
It is not my intention to bas ize anything. I do not feel less or more archaic about any of my beliefs. These are fic ious claims on your part to justify your inability to grasp the wherefores of my beliefs, rather than attempting to understand them. It is the easy way out, and thus a common misnomer.No one needs to disprove a claim that's made without evidence. Otherwise we'd have to disprove every god claim. Atheists typically require evidence to form a belief as it's not a default position when negative proof isn't available, and I'd bet you don't accept other god claims that you cannot disprove. So let's not pretend the proof/lack thereof is the tug of war in the ontological discussion. It's not. Theists claim to know that not only does a supernatural being exist, they know its intent, it's demeanor and its past. They live their lives with the notion that this supernatural being is watching them, knows their thoughts, has their best interests in mind, has a grand plan for them, created the universe for them. Then they say that same deity is beyond our finite minds to understand.
Don't bas ize the concept of science and reason to make yourself feel less archaic because you believe in a ooga booga god.
You may be correct in your description of the rank and file theist, but it is degrading to cast every theist in this pot because there are those of us who wrestle with the contradictions of reality by the use of reason, etc., mentioned above, in order to explain that reality everyday. We keep an open mind, we leave open the possibilities that any and everything can be part and parcel of the total concept. And we explore without preconceived notions.
Do you honestly think that the theory of relativity came about strictly through observable phenomena, for example? No, it had its roots in intuition and imagination.
My contention is that all of these processes are tools we use to explain, conjecturize, and eventually theorize everything in the universe.
And that is another reason why I do not even discount the theory that there is no Supreme Being, that even the atheistic supposition and contention may be a valid reality. Everything must be explored. If it can be imagined, then there is the possibility that it can exist.
If I could scientifically prove beyond a shadow of a doubt the existence of God, then it goes without saying that I could also show the fallacies of believing otherwise, and vice versa.
So, if you truly want something to ponder over, try dimensional theory. That should give you pause.
Last edited by xmas1997; 10-25-2013 at 07:32 PM.
If this were the case we would still believe the earth was flat and that everything revolved around the earth.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
