Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Who says ? do you have proof?

Why would I need proof? That was my answer to your question....If a God exists, it is more than likely one who could do anything it wanted, or I do not see how it would be a God...

Quote:

You are making a claim that not even the smartest scientist would try to make you have no evidence to back up your claim therefore it ids not scientific.

If I am doing that, who says that I MUST have science to back it up in order for it to be valid?

I just told you, Physicists are trying to prove the string theory, which there is no evidence to support....So, Do they not get things wrong as well? Why can't a physicist trying to prove that the BVG theorem is wrong, be wrong??....

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I said what I said because anyone can claim anyone said anything. If someone said that you said you seen a unicorn I would like to hear your reply about that because maybe the person is taking what you said out of context.

What does that have to do with Spitzer's Ego? Go look up what Hawking said about a low energy state being nothingness, and I bet you will find your answer, and I bet even more, it goes in par with the way Spitzer applied it...

It does not make sense he would come out and publicly say that, and misrepresent Hawking....But if he did, I will recant my statement....

What is the point? The Universe, Couldn't do anything before the beginning point, because it was nothing, and nothing can only do nothing, then there is only one conclusion, the universe could not have created itself and the universe before it was nothing??

Quote:

You are making a claim that we do not know empirically. even though you may be correct.

Quote:

It could not have brought itself from nothingness to somthing-ness, because that would imply it could do something?

Quote:

same as above

And what EXACTLY about IT do you believe is wrong???

How would you word it, Or what would you say???

Are you saying, because it has not been 100% proven means it might not be real?

What do you believe is wrong about what Spitzer said?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I will be honest it is not my subject of expertise but I could pretend that it was but I think that it would be dishonest.

What actually is your subject of expertise rl? It is as well we know because then we can avoid tempting you to pretend regarding those vast areas of subject matter which lie outside your expertise scope.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Without man's brain to construct those concepts none of it would exist.

And what evolutionary function has the ability to construct concepts if not to progress. And we know that a lot of concept construction has lead to defeat and desolation. And we know one particular concept construction which has led to the masses living in a manner every king, emperor and potentate would have envied himself green all over about.

So from an evolutionary point of view the undermining of that fantastically successful concept construction is not a lot different to an eagle de-evolving its wings.

The struggles and agonies of the evolutionary process are nothing to do with what they resulted in. They are simply what it took.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans+3%3A10-18&version=NIV

Romans 3-10 - 3-18

“There is no one righteous, not even one;
11 there is no one who understands;
there is no one who seeks God.
12 All have turned away,
they have together become worthless;
there is no one who does good,
not even one.”[a]
13 “Their throats are open graves;
their tongues practice deceit.”
“The poison of vipers is on their lips.”[c]
14 “Their mouths are full of cursing and bitterness.”[d]
15 “Their feet are swift to shed blood;
16 ruin and misery mark their ways,
17 and the way of peace they do not know.”[e]
18 “There is no fear of God before their eyes.

All Paul is talking about in this Epistle to the Romans, is the way to salvation is thru God, there is no other way....

He is not directly saying Do not trust anyone, but yourself, like your theory is...

He is saying deny yourself, and everyone and Follow God....

If you do not follow ones who claim to know God, or God himself, You truly have nothing....And truly know nothing....

Do you believe we have reached that point on Earth??

Is there people everywhere, who do this about God??

I can name 3 who don't, and one is not even Christian....

He could also be directly talking about the Romans...and the way they were living....

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

I have to read a bit before, and after to know what Paul was exactly saying....

You can't take a snip out and post it, and think it applies exactly how it is stated...

It could be out of context....

You are familiar with parables aren't you Logic?

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Lets talk about this God. This God is much more complex than all of what we have been talking about.

For you lot maybe.

Once it is allowed that God exists, as a speculative hypothesis I mean, it is only natural that His greatest creation should try to understand Him.

And the only method at mankind's disposal is to try to read His intentions off His creations. And suffering exists to tell us where we are going wrong. As it does with a loaded mule that refuses to move.

And the OT is a record of going wrong for which the NT is intended to set right. In the OT God doesn't send the suffering. It is simply the result of foolishness. Like putting one's hand in the fire. God made suffering after doing that because it is foolish.

The suffering of the Russian people under the irreligious Marxist claptrap makes the whole catalogue of suffering in the OT pale into insignificance. And we know that the former is true which we don't about the latter despite how often atheists use it literally to justify getting it on without having the sanction of the proper authorities.

And the greatest characteristic of Christian society is the reduction of suffering and its aim is to eradicate it entirely. The first necessity of that being to solve the economic problems sufficiently to get it done.

I think that the speculative hypothesis has paid off. And will continue to do so unless it is ditched on behalf of the aforementioned pantsdowners.

It is hardly possible to give you faith but it is possible to persuade you to cease undermining the hypothesis.

1 Reply

@spendius,

It has struck me recently that the reason I had never heard of the FSM and Tooth Fairy argument before I came on A2k is that nobody here is ignorant enough to assume they have an audience for such an argument that is stupid enough not to laugh it to scorn.

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Quote:

Why do you quote the Bible, if it is wrong?

I quote it at times when I agree with it. It is like when a theist quotes science to support his claims.

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

It is like when a theist quotes science to support his claims.

Doing that gets one placed on Ignore. All the Ignores and down thumbs are coming from your neck of the woods. A running away strategy.

What do you define as science? fm has his own system for that.

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Quote:

.If a God exists, it is more than likely one who could do anything it wanted, or I do not see how it would be a God...

I am not sure if we can know what the limits of nature "god" may or may not be.

Quote:

If I am doing that, who says that I MUST have science to back it up in order for it to be valid?

Just because I believe something to be true does not make it true but if I can show you and others, that what I have said can be tested and the results seem to repeat themselves then I might have an understanding of what I am sharing.

Quote:

I just told you, Physicists are trying to prove the string theory, which there is no evidence to support....So, Do they not get things wrong as well? Why can't a physicist trying to prove that the BVG theorem is wrong, be wrong??....

As I have said this is not my field of study but if I am close to being correct what you and him are using is a bunch of theories that are not 100% true but some of them may be our best working models. Trying to use science to prove the existence of God is similar to using science to prove the existence of unicorns.

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Trying to use science to prove the existence of God is similar to using science to prove the existence of unicorns.

Your best bet then rl is to search out nutters who do that and then **** all over them as easy as blowing smoke.

0 Replies

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Quote:

What does that have to do with Spitzer's Ego?

I do not recall saying anything about Spitzer's Ego.

Quote:

It does not make sense he would come out and publicly say that, and misrepresent Hawking....But if he did, I will recant my statement..

I am not saying he did but people do make mistakes and if he is going to use someones work I would think that that person should at least be able to comment on how it is being used.

Quote:

What is the point? The Universe, Couldn't do anything before the beginning point, because it was nothing, and nothing can only do nothing, then there is only one conclusion, the universe could not have created itself and the universe before it was nothing??

I have said it before and I will say it again you are one smart dude but that does not mean you have an understanding of what our universe can do or how it came about but you can share your theories with us if you like.

Quote:

It could not have brought itself from nothingness to somthing-ness, because that would imply it could do something?

Same as above but to be honest with you I see it how you see god, things just have always been and there is no such thing as nothingness because itself is something. It is some sort of spooky magical thing that we may never understand but I can be wrong about that.

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Quote:

Logic, answer my questions when you get a second, we can discuss them...Then I will read the link you provided, and we can discuss them....

OK mate?

OK but I do not want to flood you with hours of info that you may not have an interest in, so lets start off where I started from "with a simple illustration. Please let me know if you see things that are true and more importantly what you think needs to be improved upon in this article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-fuller/what-is-rankism-and-why-d_b_465940.html?view=print

1 Reply

@spendius,

Quote:

What do you define as science?

Here is a copy and paste for you.

In modern use, "science" more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is "often treated as synonymous with ‘natural and physical science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use."[4] This narrower sense of "science" developed as scientists such as Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton began formulating laws of nature such as Newton's laws of motion. In this period it became more common to refer to natural philosophy as "natural science". Over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with scientific method, a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. It is in the 19th century also that the term scientist was created by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell to distinguish those who sought knowledge on nature from those who sought knowledge on other disciplines. The Oxford English Dictionary dates the origin of the word "scientist" to 1834. This sometimes left the study of human thought and society in a linguistic limbo, which was resolved by classifying these areas of academic study as social science. Similarly, several other major areas of disciplined study and knowledge exist today under the general rubric of "science", such as formal science and applied science

2 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Here is a copy and paste for you.

In modern use, "science" more often refers to a way of pursuing knowledge, not only the knowledge itself. It is "often treated as synonymous with ‘natural and physical science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use."[4] This narrower sense of "science" developed as scientists such as Johannes Kepler, Galileo Galilei and Isaac Newton began formulating laws of nature such as Newton's laws of motion. In this period it became more common to refer to natural philosophy as "natural science". Over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with scientific method, a disciplined way to study the natural world, including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. It is in the 19th century also that the term scientist was created by the naturalist-theologian William Whewell to distinguish those who sought knowledge on nature from those who sought knowledge on other disciplines. The Oxford English Dictionary dates the origin of the word "scientist" to 1834. This sometimes left the study of human thought and society in a linguistic limbo, which was resolved by classifying these areas of academic study as social science. Similarly, several other major areas of disciplined study and knowledge exist today under the general rubric of "science", such as formal science and applied science

What do you believe about all of that coming from philosophy??

Do you believe you can truly say a God is not real, or STILL did not play a part in what you and others use to try to debunk him over and over again??

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I am not sure if we can know what the limits of nature "god" may or may not be.

But you would have to believe for a God to be God, he is not restricted right? That is what Logic says....

Quote:

Just because I believe something to be true does not make it true but if I can show you and others, that what I have said can be tested and the results seem to repeat themselves then I might have an understanding of what I am sharing.

True, Very true....But that does not mean that everything applies to this rule as well, in order to make it valid....

Example: You can not test whether the sun will come up tomorrow or not, because it is unknown....But people still take leaps of faith in believing it does, and one day it might not....

Quote:

Trying to use science to prove the existence of God is similar to using science to prove the existence of unicorns.

Maybe that is why Spitzer could be on to something real....Because others have not been bold enough to try to do it! Well, Him, and what he says based about others such as the BVG theorem....They did not use their knowledge to say a God is real, like Spitzer....But they do imply they do not believe that there was ever nothing, and no universe is...and not one Physicist up till now, has been able to debunk that....

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

I do not recall saying anything about Spitzer's Ego.

You made a comment about what I said Spitzer said about Hawking, and that it implies to have one hell of an ego?? What did it mean, if it was not talking about Spitzer compared to what he was saying about Hawking??

Quote:

I am not saying he did but people do make mistakes and if he is going to use someones work I would think that that person should at least be able to comment on how it is being used.

I agree, But like I said, I do not think that Spitzer was being in any way disingenuous....If you can show me he was, I will recant what I said...

Here are the only 2 things Spitzer mentioned in the video about Hawking....

Spitzer said that Hawking was wrong about his low energy state being nothing....I doubt Spitzer made that up....And Spitzer said that in a book Hawking made, he left out, then recanted the fact he totally left out the whole part of the BVG theorem....And that Spitzer thought that was an odd omission....With which I agree 100%....If you can show me, that Hawking did not do any of these things or Spitzer was being disingenuous....I will gladly recant those statements....But I do not believe Spitzer was doing that....Or it would be easy for people to dismiss him, for taking on a Godhead (sota speak) with Hawking....Do you not agree???

Quote:

I have said it before and I will say it again you are one smart dude but that does not mean you have an understanding of what our universe can do or how it came about but you can share your theories with us if you like.

Thank you! I think you are a smart dude too....But I do not understand your logic sometimes....If you believe I do not have an understanding of what our universe can do, or how it came about....I do not feel like sharing my theory's....It will just be ridicule, maybe not by you but others....Just read what you typed above again....There is no point for me to explain it then....

Quote:

Same as above but to be honest with you I see it how you see god, things just have always been and there is no such thing as nothingness because itself is something. It is some sort of spooky magical thing that we may never understand but I can be wrong about that.

This is what gets me about your Logic, If you believe that, why do you question what Spitzer said about the other things, whether provable or not? And why do you question what he said as to Hawking or not???

Why would someone logically be right, but then, other times, be totally off the wagon?? What makes you believe people work that way? Do you? What causes you to logically think it happens and why? What makes you believe people are being genuine, but then decide to just totally flip the switch off, and not be? I am not saying someone is 100% correct all the time....Because no one is....But why do you seem to not trust anyone....rather than trust them? When you already show you trust what they say at times??

Let me ask you a question, and I want your serious answer to this....If you're willing.....Do you trust yourself??

Do you believe others just like to hear themselves talk that much or something?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

OK but I do not want to flood you with hours of info that you may not have an interest in, so lets start off where I started from "with a simple illustration. Please let me know if you see things that are true and more importantly what you think needs to be improved upon in this article.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-fuller/what-is-rankism-and-why-d_b_465940.html?view=print

I will look at it first thing tomorrow!

1 Reply

@XXSpadeMasterXX,

Quote:

This is what gets me about your Logic, If you believe that, why do you question what Spitzer said about the other things, whether provable or not? And why do you question what he said as to Hawking or not???

I question most of what everyone has to say especially if it is on a subject of myths.

Quote:

Do you believe others just like to hear themselves talk that much or something?

We all want attention don't we?

Quote:

Let me ask you a question, and I want your serious answer to this....If you're willing.....Do you trust yourself??

I make mistakes just like anyone else so yes I trust that I "myself" will get some things correct and other things wrong. I shared a video with you about that but I do not think you found value in it.

1 Reply

Question to those who do or do not doubt Christianity

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know