|
Post by pennypacker on Mar 29, 2020 18:01:34 GMT
The only problem is that there aren’t enough of us.
|
|
|
Post by captainbryce on Mar 29, 2020 18:09:38 GMT
Feologild Oakes But yet they don't believe in God so those atheist can't be doing all that good at the end of the day especially since they don't believe in prayer/sin etc, which lowers their chances of reaching Heaven. What does believing in a god have to do with “doing good”? Are you suggesting that one has to believe in a god to do something good? Or that anyone who believes in god always does good? There seems to be a lot of evidence against both of those assumptions. Thats true. But you seem to be implying that living by the Bible is actually living decently and that you can’t live decently without the Bible. But do you have any evidence to support this? Again, these are all interesting assumptions, but is there any reason to believe they are actually true? Isn’t all of this based on a presupposition that any of the claims made in the Bible is true in the first place? Does this include Catholic priests that rape little boys? What reason do we have to believe there is any such thing as heaven, other than starting from a presupposition that the Bible is true?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 29, 2020 18:43:52 GMT
You admitting to any "belief" whatsoever made my day. Thanks. There's a difference between freedom of belief and credulity. But enjoy your day anyway. Just because people can read at a higher level than you doesn't mean they're credulous.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 29, 2020 18:57:50 GMT
There's a difference between freedom of belief and credulity. But enjoy your day anyway. Just because people can read at a higher level than you doesn't mean they're credulous. No; but if someone cannot offer positive evidence for something they believe in then the willingness to do so is all they have left to offer. As we've seen.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 30, 2020 18:50:28 GMT
Just because people can read at a higher level than you doesn't mean they're credulous. No; but if someone cannot offer positive evidence for something they believe in then the willingness to do so is all they have left to offer. As we've seen. What exactly would you like me to prove? What exactly do you think I have not proved?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 30, 2020 19:48:57 GMT
No; but if someone cannot offer positive evidence for something they believe in then the willingness to do so is all they have left to offer. As we've seen. What exactly would you like me to prove? What exactly do you think I have not proved? "You still seem to be laboring under the delusion that the facts in intelligent design have not been thoroughly established by stringent scientific methods. They have." Please don't trot out a God of the Gaps, negative argument again.
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 30, 2020 20:13:12 GMT
No; but if someone cannot offer positive evidence for something they believe in then the willingness to do so is all they have left to offer. As we've seen. What exactly would you like me to prove? What exactly do you think I have not proved? 1. The existence of a God 2. The fact that your version of God was the Creator of the universe.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2020 10:12:29 GMT
What exactly would you like me to prove? What exactly do you think I have not proved? "You still seem to be laboring under the delusion that the facts in intelligent design have not been thoroughly established by stringent scientific methods. They have." Please don't trot out a God of the Gaps, negative argument again. What is thoroughly establish is that there is no agency found in the natural world that can assemble life from lifeless matter. You know that much is true. QED. The natural world has limits, if it did not then it would be pointless whether the natural world or a "god" did anything. Your problem is that you believe you make the rules of debate. You do not. Negative proof is absolutely valid and used often in forensics. For example, "the car does not have enough miles on the odometer to have reached the scene, and there was not enough time to alter the odometer maliciously." Your "rule" about "Gods of the Gaps" is not a rule. It was made up by the product of inferior public schools who like to make all the rules without regard to any demonstrable utility. Please don't trot out the "I win because I make the rules" utter nonsense.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 31, 2020 10:20:50 GMT
What is thoroughly establish is that there is no agency found in the natural world that can assemble life from lifeless matter. You know that much is true. So then: no facts about Creationism, er, intelligent design established by stringent scientific methods after all. QED. As unfortunately, does the patience of those who wait for you to substantiate what you claim.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2020 10:22:29 GMT
What exactly would you like me to prove? What exactly do you think I have not proved? 1. The existence of a God 2. The fact that your version of God was the Creator of the universe. 1. I cannot do that. I can however show what the natural world cannot do. The "negative proof" as you might like to call it is possible because the natural world is limited. Whenever the scope of a proof is limited it is possible to prove a negative. If the natural world were not limited it would make no difference whether the natural world or a god did anything. Either one is unlimited. 2. I never even tried anything remotely like that.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 31, 2020 10:26:31 GMT
I can however show what the natural world cannot do. Do you know everything there is ever to know about the natural world, Arlon? Does that come with your higher intelligence?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2020 10:32:40 GMT
I can however show what the natural world cannot do. Do you know everything there is ever to know about the natural world, Arlon? Does that come with your higher intelligence? At your convenience you have left out the part that utterly defeats you.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 31, 2020 10:36:31 GMT
Do you know everything there is ever to know about the natural world, Arlon? Does that come with your higher intelligence? At your convenience you have left out the part that utterly defeats you. Is that a yes or no? Is your mighty brain able to know every possibility of the natural world? Which is neither here nor there but thank you for mentioning it (although "doing something" implies a will, which anthropomorphises nature.) Distraction noted.
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2020 10:46:08 GMT
At your convenience you have left out the part that utterly defeats you. Is that a yes or no? Which is neither here nor there but thank you for mentioning it. Distraction noted. I just showed what people of ordinary intelligence can see is your problem. You don't like "unlimited" gods interfering in things and yet you cannot explain the origin of life without postulating an "unlimited natural world." Yes I do know about the natural world. It's easy. That's how it got it's name. I know there are not many naturally occurring elements. I know there are few agencies of any sort, intelligent or otherwise.
|
|
|
Post by Feologild Oakes on Mar 31, 2020 10:51:41 GMT
Its a far bigger problem that religious people take religion seriously.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 31, 2020 10:52:24 GMT
Yes I do know about the natural world. It's easy. Just to be clear then: you think you know all there is to know about the natural world? Is that the inevitable product of 'higher reading' a mighty brain and having a website?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2020 10:58:04 GMT
Yes I do know about the natural world. It's easy. Just to be clear then: you think you know all there is to know about the natural world? Is that the inevitable product of higher reading and having a website? In the United States libraries are free to residents. What I don't know I can look up. What would you like to know? Where is the designer of the first life on Earth? There isn't one in the natural world in the whole library. And since it seems be your point that I overrate myself. I do know better than you, but that isn't saying very much is it?
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 31, 2020 11:02:27 GMT
Just to be clear then: you think you know all there is to know about the natural world? Is that the inevitable product of higher reading and having a website? In the United States libraries are free to residents. What I don't know I can look up. So that's a 'no' then? Please make it clear for those of us who don't know as much as you. Do you even know what you don't know you don't know?
|
|
|
Post by Arlon10 on Mar 31, 2020 11:15:27 GMT
In the United States libraries are free to residents. What I don't know I can look up. So that's a 'no' then? Please make it clear for those of us who don't know as much as you. Do you even know what you don't know you don't know? Cataloging the natural world is an enormous task, but with help from people who can read, write, use dictionaries, use libraries and generally stay focused on issues I can know everything there is to know. It is my superpower and not yours. I'm sorry. Perhaps you can find the kryptonite in your neighborhood that is causing you difficulty.
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Mar 31, 2020 11:23:29 GMT
So that's a 'no' then? Please make it clear for those of us who don't know as much as you. Do you even know what you don't know you don't know? Cataloging the natural world is an enormous task, but with help from people who can read, write, use dictionaries, use libraries and generally stay focused on issues I can know everything there is to know. It is my superpower and not yours. I'm sorry. Perhaps you can find the kryptonite in your neighborhood that is causing you difficulty. This is my quote of the week. When you have those 'stringent scientific methods' to hand which have 'established the facts' of Creationism, er, intelligent design, which I am reassured now that you must know but for some reason have forgotten to present, please get back to me. In the meantime, thank you for playing with a mere mortal. Real knowledge is to know the extent of one's ignorance - Confucius
|
|