Total posts: 1,706
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
No one is arguing against definitions in a dictionary. You yourself cannot argue the definitions of Leprechauns or Unicorns. But, to put any authority in the dictionary based on the existence of something, anyone with a working brain in their head would argue that.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@PGA2.0
But, that's only what you can think of, yet there are other alternative you haven't thought of, hence you're making your decisions based on personal incredulity and ignorance. Just because you haven't educated yourself, doesn't mean others haven't also.I can think of only a limited amount of possibilities such as:1) life was created,2) life came about by chance,3) life is an illusion.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Mopac
You're a fanatic.
This, coming from a fanatic of a dictionary.
Created:
-->
@Mopac
That would be you.So is there anyone actually crazy enough to debate the reality of truth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Yes, to the first. The second is a false premise, that is, unless you can prove verification by humans is subjective.
You'll then need to prove the Periodic Table, for example, is based on subjectivity.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
Free will is simply the capacity to have the will to choose freely. Objective reality is the collection of things that we are sure exist independently of us. Every person is able, in principle, to verify every aspect of it and anything that cannot be verified in this way is not part of it. Simple really.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
You're not lying, just mistaken. No big deal.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Outplayz
Your story is too far fetched to believe. It's more likely that not just a large portion 99.9% are mistaken/lying, but they are all mistaken/lying, especially when paranormal events have never been shown to exist aside from Disney movies. On top of that, a paranormal event is highly unlikely for most people yet you claim to have experienced events, more than one. Sorry, not even remotely compelling.I've personally experienced events that were paranormal in nature. But even if i put aside my own experiences there are many other people that report them. Even if we say 99.9% of them are incorrect for whatever reason... that fraction of a percent that actually happened would be evidence. Now, i am not of the opinion that many are lying. I would still say a large portion are mistaken/lying,
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
the possibility of God's existence cannot be as easily disposed of as the OP believes
Or gnomes, or the Jabberwock, or Leprechauns riding Unicorns in the Kentucky Derby. They all have exactly the same characteristics and traits as far as we can observe and no evidence of their existence. We should therefore not dispose of any notion anyone can concoct in their imaginations then, even though the possibilities and probabilities of their existence are minuscule, yet should be kept on the shelf for further review if such evidence reveals itself.
And since, people have very vivid and active imaginations, that shelf is going to be huge.
It's most likely the vast majority of whatever winds up on that shelf will indeed be disposed in favor of more realistic enterprises.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
It's not the accuracy of the example that makes a hypothetical work, but rather the ability of the constructed reality to demonstrate ideas.
By all means then, I anxiously await your hypothetical work in regards to constructing God, what evidence you expect to look for and find and how it fits into reality.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Columbus's assumption that the world was circular and then going out to prove his supposition true.
Columbus was looking for a trade route, he along with most other people already knew the world was spherical, they knew this hundreds of years prior.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Let me get this straight, when you're losing an argument (with 2 members who are saying exactly the same thing) you'll just blurt out we're missing the point and that somehow justifies what exactly?
You've been refuted, try to deal with it as best you can.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
Interestingly, your comment does nothing to refute the circularity of your argument.You missed the entire point of the post. Rather, I suspect you intentionally failed to address it.
No matter how many times you say stuff like that, it means nothing and is only an escape for you not to defend your argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I knew what a lion was before I saw it,
Of course, because there was a massive amount of hard evidence for the existence of lions observed by billions of people for a very long time. Not so with God. Do you actually believe someone had an idea in their head of a lion and then went out looking for one?
Unfortunately, it's a common error to compare something that has lots of evidence for it's existence to something with no evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I knew what a lion was before I saw it,
Of course, because there was a massive amount of hard evidence for the existence of lions observed by billions of people for a very long time. Not so with God. Do you actually believe someone had an idea in their head of a lion and then went out looking for one?
Unfortunately, it's a common error to compare something that has lots of evidence for it's existence to something with no evidence.
Created:
Posted in:
It makes sense that we must first define the Jabberwock and then go out and find evidence to support it's existence.
Things just don't work this way.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
That begs the question. In order to prove that God exists, we must first have an idea of what God is. In order to have an idea of what God is, you're saying, we must first prove that God exists (such that we have evidence about God). This kind of circular logic is irrational. Rather, it makes sense to first define God and then to attempt to find evidence that establishes that such an entity exists or does not exist.
Unfortunately, the is the same reverse engineered method cranks and crackpots use when they come up with their far-fetched hypotheses. We can't have an idea of what God is without some form of reference. There are none available. So yes, as I said before and what Skep is saying now is that we need some evidence in order to have some idea about God. So far, no evidence. It's all just navel gazing.
Created:
Posted in:
Waiting for mc.yandex.ru
It does indeed seem to be a Russian server having problems.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Nope, still not working properly, am still getting the delay on the TLS handshake which is causing a, "Waiting for debateart" - this was one of main problems at ddo for the longest time, no one there fixed it. Seems it's now here.
Created:
Posted in:
Interestingly enough, it just so happens that the two categories that interest me the most are spirituality and health.
The problem is you get so much specious information on both topics, neither of which seem to hold in any of your arguments.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Strangely enough, the TLS Handshake seems to be an issue with this site only. I noticed it appears to be talking to a site with .ru which I think is Russian?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
It's the TLS Handshake, I've troubleshoot it so it should hopefully be working correctly now.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Plate Tectonics is often what causes earthquakes, this condition is going on today and has little to do with the conditions of the early earth other than the surface was molten and now it's not. Scientists try to predict earthquakes based on today's conditions, not the early earth.
Human behavior has choices, plate tectonics is cause and effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Plate Tectonics is often what causes earthquakes, this condition is going on today and has little to do with the conditions of the early earth other than the surface was molten and now it's not. Scientists try to predict earthquakes based on today's conditions, not the early earth.
Human behavior has choices, plate tectonics is cause and effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Plate Tectonics is often what causes earthquakes, this condition is going on today and has little to do with the conditions of the early earth other than the surface was molten and now it's not. Scientists try to predict earthquakes based on today's conditions, not the early earth.
Human behavior has choices, plate tectonics is cause and effect.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
What do the initial conditions of the universe have to do with earthquakes on earth?Only if we knew all the initial conditions of the universe and we don't
Because there there may not be a difference we could detect between the two states.
When it comes to cause and effect, it should be predictably consistent. Freewill cannot be predictably consistent. That would be the difference.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Changes have been occurring on the Earth for billions of years. The wobble of the Earth has been there a very long time but has yet to be linked to those changes.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
That one has will does not necessitate that this will be free.
Why not?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@Stronn
Perhaps, but Sec is talking about straight forward cause and effect, which would allow someone to predict the effect of the cause. We would be able to predict earthquakes through cause and effect if we knew the cause. If earthquakes had freewill we wouldn't be able to predict them.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
If the event is over the next 50 years it'll probably be global warming.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
I think you're still conflating the will to do something with the capacity to do something, they are both different things. Its a common error.Axiomatically it is true that you could do anything at any time providing you are physically able to do it.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@bsh1
Thank you both for the candid answers. It would appear Virtuoso has what appears to be a good background and looks like first time for bsh. I'm sure over time Virtuoso will be a good role model and mentor for the rookie.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
It matters not whether they exist or not in reality; that they are known concepts is sufficient
You're absolutely right, I couldn't possibly have any bearing on a discussion based on navel gazing. My bad. Carry on.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Yes, it has to do with the long term wobble in the Earth. The official beginning of the Aquarius age was 11/11/11. Apparently, the transition alone takes 50 years.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
That's what I was hoping you would say, you've scuttled your own argument.
I don't disagree it's about semantics, but not for the reason you think.
You said it yourself...
If you define God as possessing the property of originationSimilarly, if gnomes possessed the property of origination
You see, it's all about how we define those things, whether we define God as possessing certain traits or gnomes, it matters not, they're just labels we've created to define things that have never been shown to exist. So, it's obviously a wash, you can no more consider one over the other as having an more or less relevance beyond ones empty definitions, since they each possess exactly the same properties as the others; invisible, undetectable and indistinguishable from the non-existent.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
No problem, you can have a look at these if you wish...
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bsh1
I think we can differentiate gnomes from God. God is the originator, gnomes postdate the start of existence or the universe.
Is there any evidence to show that gnomes were not around before God, or possibly it was a gnome who created the universe? Maybe gnomes created God? Adam and Eve may have been gnomes?
Notice how it is impossible to differentiate God from gnomes without making bald assertions of either one?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
I gave your thread much more than it deserved. You're welcome.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@David
@bsh1
I wasn't sure if this question was ever asked. What are the credentials in regards to moderating forums for the two selected members? Is this their first time? Or, have they moderated forums before, and if so for how long and to what degree?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
Then, you have just admitted the prophecy is false. Well done. I knew you'd eventually see the facts.Yes, people still sin today.
Here is your dilemma, when you stand before God without trusting in Jesus Christ and Lord and Savior
Your dilemma is trying to demonstrate a prophecy, but then admitted the prophecy is false.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
Would do Pisces and Aquarius have to do with anything happening on Earth?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@janesix
I think there is objective evidence for a created solar system
Would you agree with the scientific explanations of how solar systems are created?
Created:
-->
@PGA2.0
That prophecy gave six conditions that would take place.1) to finish the transgression,2) to make an end of sin,3) to make atonement for iniquity,4) to bring in everlasting righteousness,5) to seal up vision and prophecy,6) to anoint themost holyplace.
That's ridiculous, those are just vague faith based assertions that cannot be observed or tested in any way and can applied to any number of events. In fact, please tell me if #2 occurs any more? Do people still sin or not? What about #4, is there everlasting righteousness and can you demonstrate that?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@3RU7AL
There's nothing of value to critique, it's all baloney. Perhaps, I can offer a jar of mustard for that baloney, if that helps?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
How exactly did you demonstrate freewill?
By willfully showing it with every answer. If it is was simply cause and effect, why didn't you accurately predict all of my answers?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Free will is indeed testable and observable, you tested me and observed the results of my free will. And no matter how many times you tried, you failed to show cause and effect was testable and observable in regards to showing free will false.
Created:
Posted in:
EtrnlVw claims:
So yes, it is very unfortunate you lump Creation in with stupid, immature absurdities when there is no need or justification for it.
This is the usual retort we'll here from theists who can never support their irrational beliefs, especially beliefs that include traveling to God worlds where Overlords and Spiritual beings who they have claimed to talk with reside.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@secularmerlin
Try reading what you just wrote and see how much you just shifted the goalposts and reading what I didn't write. If this is the only way you can make your point, then it's just sad.
Created:
Posted in:
I see no support for the OP's bald assertions. I see false premises, cherry picking and philosophical Popper/Kant claptrap tossed in. Another pointless thread.
Created: