1818 replies to this topic

[shadowhawk]

IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR CHRISTIANITY???

I asked the same question about Atheism. Most of the responses were just a bunch of name calling. You might enjoy reading the topic. http://www.longecity...sm/#entry501885

I hope this topic does not disgenterate into that kind of thing. To start things off, I offer a recikent lecture by WL Craig from Australia of the same topic. Listen to it and then discuss our topic if it interests you.

[shadowhawk]

WHAT IS FAITH??? We hear all kinds of definitions of faith which are mindless, without evidence. Is this what faith is?

[Deep Thought]

He's a very funny man, thank you for sharing this.

Here's another video for those of you who think Craig's whole shtick with the talking in circles and gibbering is funny:

[shadowhawk]

Don’t you admire how much Deep Thought it took to post the above video in response to a serious topic? Typical off topic and says nothing..

[Deep Thought]

Don’t you admire how much Deep Thought it took to post the above video in response to a serious topic? Typical off topic and says nothing..

I didn't understand a word of what Craig said, and thus I wanted to draw a parallel with a well-known Monty Python sketch and the wisdom of Craig.

[shadowhawk]

Deep Thought: I didn't understand a word of what Craig said, and thus I wanted to draw a parallel with a well-known Monty Python sketch and the wisdom of Craig.

Such a deep thinker. You didn’t understand a word but because of your ignorance you knew there must be a parallel with Monty Python and Craig. How do you know? You don’t because you didn’t understand a word. Yet.... Doesn’t this say more about you, than Craig? What a Thinker!

Not interested in a childish, ignorant, pissing contest. There are important issues some may be interested in which are on topic. Hoping you can understand..

[Deep Thought]

Please explain to me what he says.

Edited by Deep Thought, 05 October 2013 - 07:12 AM.

[shadowhawk]

Please explain to me what he says.

Where would you like to start?

[shadowhawk]

What ever happend to Deep Thought? I await his revealing what he would like to talk about. I am open to a mature discussion of any kind.

I thought maybe this evidence by CS Lewis would be a change:
“Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food...”, and inferred that: “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."

We might put the argument in this form:

Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever.

What think ye?

[Deep Thought]

How about the hallucinations of a schizophrenic?

Wouldn't that also be evidence that supernatural inexplicable things happen?

(Even though science has shed more light on the condition.)

And on the issue of Greg, I fail to see how his viewpoint on the etymology of the word faith and his own reasoning proves the existence of God. He is charismatic however and I do understand why the masses would believe him. If anything, he has proven that he does not do critical or rational thinking.

I have the utmost respect for and empathize with the despair schizophrenics suffer daily.

Edited by Deep Thought, 08 October 2013 - 06:07 AM.

[N.T.M.]

What ever happend to Deep Thought? I await his revealing what he would like to talk about. I am open to a mature discussion of any kind.

I thought maybe this evidence by CS Lewis would be a change:
“Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists. A baby feels hunger: well, there is such a thing as food...”, and inferred that: “If I find in myself a desire which no experience in this world can satisfy, the most probable explanation is that I was made for another world."

We might put the argument in this form:

Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever.

What think ye?

Childlike extrapolation, my good friend. Let me tell you a story about a heroic line that once traversed a Cartesian plane. It climbed up and up with a steady seemingly half-parabolic curve, and everybody thought it would continue its path--all the way to the top! Little did they know, the heroic line would soon take a devastating dive and plunge through the x-axis into a world of negativity.

According to your inflexible logic, everybody's predictions about the line continuing upward had to have been correct by simple virtue of an established pattern. Clearly, however, that is not the case, and to contend otherwise is to commit a logical fallacy.

Yet another example of WLC openly discrediting himself.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.: Childlike extrapolation, my good friend. Let me tell you a story about a heroic line that once traversed a Cartesian plane. It climbed up and up with a steady seemingly half-parabolic curve, and everybody thought it would continue its path--all the way to the top! Little did they know, the heroic line would soon take a devastating dive and plunge through the x-axis into a world of negativity.

According to your inflexible logic, everybody's predictions about the line continuing upward had to have been correct by simple virtue of an established pattern. Clearly, however, that is not the case, and to contend otherwise is to commit a logical fallacy.

Yet another example of WLC openly discrediting himself.

My last post was about what Pascal called the God Sharped Vacuum in the hearts of human beings and the Deep Thought that our longings are for real things. Even your pointless story is made up of real things.

Humans long for God and this evidence is we only hunger for real things. The logical form of the argument comes from CS Lewis and Peter Kreeft not W.L.C. as my post, which you responded to, clearly states. http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422

Your story is immaterial to the subject, off topic as usual and all you seem capable of is calling people names. You put made up words in my mouth and then having created a straw man, accuse me of a "logical fallacy!'

Perhaps there is a God gene as some have argued for to explain the God longing. If so, where did it come from and why? Could there be a God which is our hearts desire and explains why there are so many believers in the world?

[shadowhawk]

SHADOWHAWK: We might put the argument in this form:

Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.

Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever.

Deep Thought;
How about the hallucinations of a schizophrenic?

Wouldn't that also be evidence that supernatural inexplicable things happen?

(Even though science has shed more light on the condition.)

And on the issue of Greg, I fail to see how his viewpoint on the etymology of the word faith and his own reasoning proves the existence of God. He is charismatic however and I do understand why the masses would believe him. If anything, he has proven that he does not do critical or rational thinking.

I have the utmost respect for and empathize with the despair schizophrenics suffer daily.

Good response. Sounds like you are actually engaging in the issues. Thanks. The argument I gave is like any argument not absolute proof. That kind of proof only occurs in mathematics and some forms of logic but those are abstract objects and may not be real.

Hallucinations and schizophrenic people are real and even a hallucination is made up of things that are real. To illustrate, even the Spaghetti Monster is made up of real things, Spaghetti, arms, legs, eyes, and he was created and exists in a real four dimensional universe. Every thing that we can even imagine exists in some way, in the real world.

“Premise 1: Every natural, innate desire in us corresponds to some real object that can satisfy that desire.”

We are not talking about a few mental cases, but the vast majority of the people of the world. (
The well ones)

“Premise 2: But there exists in us a desire which nothing in time, nothing on earth, no creature can satisfy.

Conclusion: Therefore there must exist something more than time, earth and creatures, which can satisfy this desire.

This something is what people call "God" and "life with God forever.”

If our desires are for real things, then what of our desire for God? This is not intended to be an exhaustive prove all argument. However I can tell you from personal experience that if you open your heart (the seat of that desire) He will meet you there. That is the best real evidence.

Edited by shadowhawk, 08 October 2013 - 11:20 PM.

[Camel]

N.T.M.: Childlike extrapolation, my good friend. Let me tell you a story about a heroic line that once traversed a Cartesian plane. It climbed up and up with a steady seemingly half-parabolic curve, and everybody thought it would continue its path--all the way to the top! Little did they know, the heroic line would soon take a devastating dive and plunge through the x-axis into a world of negativity.

According to your inflexible logic, everybody's predictions about the line continuing upward had to have been correct by simple virtue of an established pattern. Clearly, however, that is not the case, and to contend otherwise is to commit a logical fallacy.

Yet another example of WLC openly discrediting himself.

My last post was about what Pascal called the God Sharped Vacuum in the hearts of human beings and the Deep Thought that our longings are for real things. Even your pointless story is made up of real things.

Humans long for God and this evidence is we only hunger for real things. The logical form of the argument comes from CS Lewis and Peter Kreeft not W.L.C. as my post, which you responded to, clearly states. http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422

Your story is immaterial to the subject, off topic as usual and all you seem capable of is calling people names. You put made up words in my mouth and then having created a straw man, accuse me of a "logical fallacy!'

Perhaps there is a God gene as some have argued for to explain the God longing. If so, where did it come from and why? Could there be a God which is our hearts desire and explains why there are so many believers in the world?

do you realise that you are believing something that doesn't exist? I mean, its all ok but I was expecting to find only atheist or people who (of course) don't believe in (already made) religions in this forum.

you sounds just so angry towards people who don't believe that you are losing yourself. you look clever, wake up. there aren't any gods or superior creatures lol, and all the religions in the world are just (man-made) concepts based on nothing.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.: Childlike extrapolation, my good friend. Let me tell you a story about a heroic line that once traversed a Cartesian plane. It climbed up and up with a steady seemingly half-parabolic curve, and everybody thought it would continue its path--all the way to the top! Little did they know, the heroic line would soon take a devastating dive and plunge through the x-axis into a world of negativity.

According to your inflexible logic, everybody's predictions about the line continuing upward had to have been correct by simple virtue of an established pattern. Clearly, however, that is not the case, and to contend otherwise is to commit a logical fallacy.

Yet another example of WLC openly discrediting himself.

My last post was about what Pascal called the God Sharped Vacuum in the hearts of human beings and the Deep Thought that our longings are for real things. Even your pointless story is made up of real things.

Humans long for God and this evidence is we only hunger for real things. The logical form of the argument comes from CS Lewis and Peter Kreeft not W.L.C. as my post, which you responded to, clearly states. http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422

Your story is immaterial to the subject, off topic as usual and all you seem capable of is calling people names. You put made up words in my mouth and then having created a straw man, accuse me of a "logical fallacy!'

Perhaps there is a God gene as some have argued for to explain the God longing. If so, where did it come from and why? Could there be a God which is our hearts desire and explains why there are so many believers in the world?

do you realise that you are believing something that doesn't exist? I mean, its all ok but I was expecting to find only atheist or people who (of course) don't believe in (already made) religions in this forum.

you sounds just so angry towards people who don't believe that you are losing yourself. you look clever, wake up. there aren't any gods or superior creatures lol, and all the religions in the world are just (man-made) concepts based on nothing.

1. What does exist is a topic. Apparently you have not read it.
2. If you want to prove atheism is true, than we have a topic for that. http://www.longecity...sm/#entry501885
3. Sorry it doesn’t meet your expectations that we all don’t have the sane beliefs but why on earth would you expect that theists would not have an interest in life? They do.
4. Usually rather than name calling or pronouncements, as you have done, you present a case for what you say or believe. There is a place already made for you as I noted above..

[sthira]

If our desires are for real things, then what of our desire for God? This is not intended to be an exhaustive prove all argument. However I can tell you from personal experience that if you open your heart (the seat of that desire) He will meet you there. That is the best real evidence.

The idea of God is passed genetically, God has been naturally selected.  The idea could also be a virus we catch that has different strains, eg, Hinduism,  Judaism, Baha'i...  The idea of God could also be part of Jung's collective unconscious.  Or whatever. The idea of God has many manifestations, some of which may be too wild and far out for suburban Christian heads.   

Maybe the idea of God is utilitarian and beneficial, but maybe no God exists beneath those tangible benefits.  Or maybe God does exist, and God fits our ideas of what God is supposed to be (omnipotent, omniscient, etc).  Maybe God goes beyond what's rational and beyond what we're able to think and feel.  Maybe God is big, God is small, God is everywhere, God is nowhere, God is beyond reason, God is irrational.

But the thing is no one knows.  And we're free to question, doubt, wonder, and change our minds about God.  God, if God exists, offers no direct clues.  So agnosticism seems like an honest position because we don't know that God does exist and we don't know that God does not exist.  Until God reveals hirself in a more friendly, current, up to date fashion -- maybe to our computer tools rather than to us directly -- no one knows if God is real or God is not real.

[shadowhawk]

If our desires are for real things, then what of our desire for God? This is not intended to be an exhaustive prove all argument. However I can tell you from personal experience that if you open your heart (the seat of that desire) He will meet you there. That is the best real evidence.

The idea of God is passed genetically, God has been naturally selected. The idea could also be a virus we catch that has different strains, eg, Hinduism, Judaism, Baha'i... The idea of God could also be part of Jung's collective unconscious. Or whatever. The idea of God has many manifestations, some of which may be too wild and far out for suburban Christian heads.

Maybe the idea of God is utilitarian and beneficial, but maybe no God exists beneath those tangible benefits. Or maybe God does exist, and God fits our ideas of what God is supposed to be (omnipotent, omniscient, etc). Maybe God goes beyond what's rational and beyond what we're able to think and feel. Maybe God is big, God is small, God is everywhere, God is nowhere, God is beyond reason, God is irrational.

But the thing is no one knows. And we're free to question, doubt, wonder, and change our minds about God. God, if God exists, offers no direct clues. So agnosticism seems like an honest position because we don't know that God does exist and we don't know that God does not exist. Until God reveals hirself in a more friendly, current, up to date fashion -- maybe to our computer tools rather than to us directly -- no one knows if God is real or God is not real.

Are you saying all ideas are passed on genetically or only the idea of God? Is there an Atheist gene? Is there an Agnostic Gene? We laugh but it comes down to evidence. There is none.

That there are many answers to a math problem does not make math wrong nor are all answers right. Tell me any subject that is different. Maybe, maybe. The topic is about evidence for Christianity.

It is one thing to say no one knows. Evidence? Some say they know |God. I made that claim at the end of a recent post. http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616678

It seems to me that the question concerning Gods existence in three parts. First, is there any general evidence that there is a God? Second, evidence for which God, in this case we are considering Christianity. Finally can you experience a relationship with God and know God?

You don’t know. That is different than saying you know, you can’t know. From what you post says, you don’t know you can’t know. So lets continue on with our topic.

[shadowhawk]

KALAAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GODS EXISTENCE

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

So far I have given the “Personal Desire for God’s existence.” http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422
People in the vast majority, all over the world desire God and what we desire exists. I noted that evidence for the Christian God comes in three broad categories:

“First, is there any general evidence that there is a God? Second, evidence for which God, in this case we are considering Christianity. Finally can you experience a relationship with God and know God?”

T|he Kalaam argument is of the first kind of evidence. The argument of Desire is the third kind but we still will need evidence for Christianity specifically. Unlike Atheism, Christianity has evidence. ON TO THE kALAAM.

[Deep Thought]

KALAAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GODS EXISTENCE

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

So far I have given the “Personal Desire for God’s existence.” http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422
People in the vast majority, all over the world desire God and what we desire exists. I noted that evidence for the Christian God comes in three broad categories:

“First, is there any general evidence that there is a God? Second, evidence for which God, in this case we are considering Christianity. Finally can you experience a relationship with God and know God?”

T|he Kalaam argument is of the first kind of evidence. The argument of Desire is the third kind but we still will need evidence for Christianity specifically. Unlike Atheism, Christianity has evidence. ON TO THE kALAAM.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

For this to be a theorem, you must have proof.

Edited by Deep Thought, 11 October 2013 - 08:34 PM.

[shadowhawk]

KALAAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GODS EXISTENCE

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

3) Therefore, the universe has a cause.

So far I have given the “Personal Desire for God’s existence.” http://www.longecity...ty/#entry616422
People in the vast majority, all over the world desire God and what we desire exists. I noted that evidence for the Christian God comes in three broad categories:

“First, is there any general evidence that there is a God? Second, evidence for which God, in this case we are considering Christianity. Finally can you experience a relationship with God and know God?”

T|he Kalaam argument is of the first kind of evidence. The argument of Desire is the third kind but we still will need evidence for Christianity specifically. Unlike Atheism, Christianity has evidence. ON TO THE kALAAM.

Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

For this to be a theorem, you must have proof.

The first premise of the argument is logically sound. Everything that begins to exist has a purpose for its existence. For instance, your existence is the result of your biological parents consummation. Now, because you exist, it could logically be demanded that a host male and female parent had to exist. Your existence demands their existence. Your existence did not come by way of happenstance. There was a reason for you to be here. (The naysayer may claim that instances of rape and incest relationships counter this claim. However, your existence is still a good thing. Therefore, even though a person’s consummation may have come from less than favorable circumstances, good came through even the most horrible of circumstances…ie. the child’s existence. It is a sad fact that rape is in all our heritage someplace.

The cause-effect relationship is the fundamental building block of science itself. Certainly you are not denying science the necessity of casual relationships.. Premise (1) is obviously true of anything that has come into being. We are not dealing with magic here where things we know of just pop; into existence out of nothing. If this is the nature of things why does it not continue to happen?

When we think of cosmological arguments for the existence of God, particularly the Kalaam Cosmological Argument, it is the same with the universe. Because we are here, because there is design in the universe, and because there is something rather than nothing (we are not speaking of Krauss’ logically absurd “nothing something” here), we are forced with a first causing agent: God. This is the first premise.

You ask for proof? Open your eyes, look around you and tell me anything you see that was not caused and fits premise (1).. Shall we discuss the nature of proof? Do you need more?

[shadowhawk]

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

Edited by shadowhawk, 12 October 2013 - 12:08 AM.

[N.T.M.]

My last post was about what Pascal called the God Sharped Vacuum in the hearts of human beings and the Deep Thought that our longings are for real things. Even your pointless story is made up of real things.

I'm afraid, though, that there's no logical continuity as far as that applies to an argument. :(

Perhaps there is a God gene as some have argued for to explain the God longing. If so, where did it come from and why? Could there be a God which is our hearts desire and explains why there are so many believers in the world?

It seems to me that there are two most likely candidates. First, it could have directly had utility (Richard Dawkins explained this point nicely by using what he called, "the design stance." At least I think that's what it's called; it's been years since I've read the book.), and, second, it could have been expressed as a byproduct of something that directly carried utility. Consider, for example, pleiotropic expression.

Your story is immaterial to the subject, off topic as usual and all you seem capable of is calling people names.

Good sir, after many--many many--requests you've yet to produce a single example of me calling anybody a name. I'm still waiting. And as for my reference to the WLC openly discrediting himself, surely you can't exculpate him on the premise of it not being his argument. If you invoke a shoddy argument that makes the invocation itself shoddy.

And off-topic? My little story about the heroic line was a criticism of inductive reasoning (specifically as it related to your example). It was a very obvious parallel.

[ms95]

somebody wrote a book called the bible, thats the only proof i'm aware of

[shadowhawk]

My last post was about what Pascal called the God Sharped Vacuum in the hearts of human beings and the Deep Thought that our longings are for real things. Even your pointless story is made up of real things.

I'm afraid, though, that there's no logical continuity as far as that applies to an argument. :(

Perhaps there is a God gene as some have argued for to explain the God longing. If so, where did it come from and why? Could there be a God which is our hearts desire and explains why there are so many believers in the world?

It seems to me that there are two most likely candidates. First, it could have directly had utility (Richard Dawkins explained this point nicely by using what he called, "the design stance." At least I think that's what it's called; it's been years since I've read the book.), and, second, it could have been expressed as a byproduct of something that directly carried utility. Consider, for example, pleiotropic expression.

Your story is immaterial to the subject, off topic as usual and all you seem capable of is calling people names.

Good sir, after many--many many--requests you've yet to produce a single example of me calling anybody a name. I'm still waiting. And as for my reference to the WLC openly discrediting himself, surely you can't exculpate him on the premise of it not being his argument. If you invoke a shoddy argument that makes the invocation itself shoddy.

And off-topic? My little story about the heroic line was a criticism of inductive reasoning (specifically as it related to your example). It was a very obvious parallel.

We long ago dealt with your disconnected, disjointed attempt at creating a logical argument. I already pointed out its errors. As for name calling, I have also pointed out where you have done this. It is off topic. Boring!!!

[sthira]

Most of us (scientists, academicians, thinkers, artists) are trained to ignore Jesus people. As best as we can we try to ignore you. Dear God: Save Us From Your Followers. But you're noisy, you're persistent, and you're annoying. Some of us ignore you more politely than others. But noisy Jesus people often don't seem to respond to politeness. You just go on and on repeating the same stupid stuff as you did yesterday. You're kinda like, oh, I won't drag American politics into this, but you keep repeating the same idiocy over and over. You keep going on and on proselytizing about some crazy shit that happened in ancient times in your vapid interpretation of the bible. And we're all "going to Hell" if we don't believe the same fucked up schizophrenic wrathful shit you do.

The bible is a fine collection of ancient writings gathered into a book. But you think it's all true; you confuse fiction (or the olden-times documentation of suffering people) with reality. You believe it -- literally -- nor do you even deny your own craziness. Do you realize how crazy you appear? Nope. So rather than engage you in crazy, we ignore you, we let you go away: just go: just go: and just go: and just go away and believe whatever you'd like. Go in peace, man: freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion.

But we also have a pent-up, unexpressed and historically ingrained fear of ignoring Christians. Your history is a bloodbath. You've exiled, tortured, or killed those who won't adhere to your faith. You've done it before, you'll probably do it again. You'll exile, torture or kill we who don't find you pleasant or nice. History repeats itself, and as sure as the sun rises your violent history will attempt to repeat. Until then: go in peace, and we'll work to stop you from committing more violence.

[Deep Thought]

My last post was about what Pascal called the God Sharped Vacuum in the hearts of human beings and the Deep Thought that our longings are for real things. Even your pointless story is made up of real things.

I'm afraid, though, that there's no logical continuity as far as that applies to an argument. :(

Perhaps there is a God gene as some have argued for to explain the God longing. If so, where did it come from and why? Could there be a God which is our hearts desire and explains why there are so many believers in the world?

It seems to me that there are two most likely candidates. First, it could have directly had utility (Richard Dawkins explained this point nicely by using what he called, "the design stance." At least I think that's what it's called; it's been years since I've read the book.), and, second, it could have been expressed as a byproduct of something that directly carried utility. Consider, for example, pleiotropic expression.

Your story is immaterial to the subject, off topic as usual and all you seem capable of is calling people names.

Good sir, after many--many many--requests you've yet to produce a single example of me calling anybody a name. I'm still waiting. And as for my reference to the WLC openly discrediting himself, surely you can't exculpate him on the premise of it not being his argument. If you invoke a shoddy argument that makes the invocation itself shoddy.

And off-topic? My little story about the heroic line was a criticism of inductive reasoning (specifically as it related to your example). It was a very obvious parallel.

We long ago dealt with your disconnected, disjointed attempt at creating a logical argument. I already pointed out its errors. As for name calling, I have also pointed out where you have done this. It is off topic. Boring!!!

A quick google search reveals that the word off topic has been mentioned 152 times in conjunction with the word "shadowhawk":
https://www.google.d...e:longecity.org

And "name calling" + shadowhawk is seen 118 times:
https://www.google.d...e:longecity.org

Do you even want to discuss the topics?


1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

The kalam argument which all sorts of religious people have adhered to since the middle ages, and brought up by Craig in 1979, has already been disproven by scientists. It doesn't explain the concept of radioactivity or certain areas of quantum mechanics.

Edited by Deep Thought, 16 October 2013 - 07:50 AM.

[shadowhawk]

sthira: Most of us (scientists, academicians, thinkers, artists) are trained to ignore Jesus people. As best as we can we try to ignore you. Dear God: Save Us From Your Followers. But you're noisy, you're persistent, and you're annoying. Some of us ignore you more politely than others. But noisy Jesus people often don't seem to respond to politeness. You just go on and on repeating the same stupid stuff as you did yesterday. You're kinda like, oh, I won't drag American politics into this, but you keep repeating the same idiocy over and over. You keep going on and on proselytizing about some crazy shit that happened in ancient times in your vapid interpretation of the bible. And we're all "going to Hell" if we don't believe the same fucked up schizophrenic wrathful shit you do.

The bible is a fine collection of ancient writings gathered into a book. But you think it's all true; you confuse fiction (or the olden-times documentation of suffering people) with reality. You believe it -- literally -- nor do you even deny your own craziness. Do you realize how crazy you appear? nope. So we let you go away: just go: just go: and just go: and just go away . So rather than engage you in crazy, we ignore you, and believe whatever you'd like. Go in peace, man: freedom OF religion also means freedom FROM religion. (shadowhawk note here: You are in the religion and spirituality section of the site. Do you know where you are at? This is a place where we discuss religion. Hope that is not to much for you. The topic is evidence for Christianity )

But we also have a pent-up, unexpressed and historically ingrained fear of ignoring Christians. Your history is a bloodbath. You've exiled, tortured, or killed those who won't adhere to your faith. You've done it before, you'll probably do it again. You'll exile, torture or kill we who don't find you pleasant or nice. History repeats itself, and as sure as the sun rises your violent history will attempt to repeat. Until then: go in peace, and we'll work to stop you from committing more violence.

Actually this is a perfect example of an ad hominem logical fallacy, off topic and bigoted. And this name calling by a trained scientist, academician, thinker, artist, no less. Wow!! Where did you get your training? However, off topic,not interested.

Edited by shadowhawk, 16 October 2013 - 06:40 PM.

[shadowhawk]

KALAAM COSMOLOGICAL ARGUMENT FOR GODS EXISTENCE 2.

1) Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

2) The universe began to exist.

2. The universe began to exist.

The second premise of the argument is one that has been confirmed by scientific data. The belief that God created the universe ex nihilo (from nothing) is a biblical concept, as well. Let us consider three reasons why we should accept the fact that the universe began to exist.

Big Bang Theory

Oh no! Doesn’t the “Big Bang Theory” conflict with Genesis 1? Actually…no, it doesn’t. For now, it must be accepted as a fact that the universe is not eternal, but finite. The Big Bang Theory shows just that. W.L. Craig explains, “The standard Big Bang model, as the Friedman-Lemaitre model came to be called, thus describes a universe which is not eternal in the past, but which came into being a finite time ago. Moreover–and this deserves underscoring–the origin it posits is an absolute origin out of nothing. For not only all matter and energy, but space and time themselves come into being at the initial cosmological singularity.” How do the scientists know that a Big Bang occurred? Well, it has to do with the expansion of the universe. The universe as we know it is running out of energy. It is expanding at a faster rate and will eventually cool and lose the energy contained within. It is called. “The Heat Death of the Universe.” This corresponds with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics which we will cover in a moment. Because the universe is expanding, this forces one to concede the fact that if you were to travel back in time, you would find the universe becoming more and more dense and smaller. Turek and Geisler, two philosophers, in their book, give five reasons why one can know that the universe had a beginning. They give a handy acronymn “SURGE” to remember the five points. “S=Second Law of Thermodynamics…U=Universal Expansion…R=Radiation Afterglow…G=Galaxy Seeds…E=Einstein’s Theory of General Relativity” (Geisler and Turek 2004, 76-83). If you want to learn more about these five points, pick up Norman Geisler and Frank Turek’s book I Don’t Have Enough Faith to be an Atheist. We will examine one of the five points.

2nd Law of Thermodynamics

Geisler and Turek explain this law, “Thermodynamics is the study of matter and energy, and the Second Law of Thermodynamics states, among other things, that the universe is running out of usable energy. With each passing moment, the amount of usable energy in the universe grows smaller, leading scientists to the obvious conclusion that one day all of the energy will be gone and the universe will die. Many here in LONGECITY will not like this. Like a running car, the universe will ultimately run out of gas” (Geisler and Turek 2004, 76). If you do not believe in the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics, just look at a picture of yourself taken 10 years ago and then look at yourself in a mirror now. You have aged. As time progresses, your body will begin to break and wear down eventually leading to death (or the beginning of an exciting new life for the Christian). I know many Atheists won’t accept this but.... This is an example of the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics in action. Because the universe is running out of energy, there must have been a starting point where the universe was given all the energy contained within itself. This starting point is even more remarkable when one understands that there was no universe, no time, and no energy in the universe before the universe began. This demands that the universe, the energy contained within, and the laws of nature governing it came from an outside source…a source that contains more power than the sum total of power contained within the universe…is timeless…and able to provide the design and governing laws contained within the universe. God???

Villenkin/Guth/Borg Mathematical Theorem

Some naturalists have tried to wriggle around the obvious conclusions which a finite universe brings by claiming that this universe came from a larger unmanned universe. They call this mother universe to all universes a “multiverse.” This theory is also called the “M-Theory.” There are inherent problems with this theory. For one, there is not conclusive evidence that there is a multiverse. A multiverse would, if it exists, not be able to be observed now, if ever. No real evidence. Therefore, the adherents of such a view would have to accept a multiverse’s existence on faith. However, what many do not realize is that a multiverse solves nothing. A multiverse only pushes the problem back a step. Robert J. Spitzer, former president of Gonzaga University, wrote about three mathematicans who discovered a fascinating mathematical theorem (a theorem in mathematics is like a law in physics). Spitzer writes, “This stronger proof, put forward in 2003 by Arvind Borde, Alan Guth, and Alexander Vilenkin (henceforth BGV), considers space-times satisfying the condition that the average Hubble expansion in the past is greater than zero, i.e., H(av) > 0…In other words, the BGV result demonstrates that all inflationary space-times have a beginning in the finite past, presumably in some sort of quantum nucleation event that mitigates the breakdown of physics accompanying a classical singularity…By the impeccable logic of the kalam argument, the BGV theorem implies that space-times expanding on average throughout their histories are caused – they are caused because they began to exist, and everything that begins to exist requires a cause. Sound familiar? Furthermore, this cause must be transcendent in nature because space-time cannot be self-caused: prior to the existence of all space, time, matter, and energy there was no universe to describe and there were no physical laws or initial conditions that could have played a role in its genesis; rather, all these things came into existence out of nothing, so a transcendent immaterial cause must necessarily have acted” (Spitzer 2010, 76-77). In other words: even if a multiverse existed, the multiverse would have come into being at a finite point in time. Therefore, the naturalist has not escaped the “God dilemma.” The naturalist has only pushed the problem back a step if faith is put in a multiverse. How do I know? Science tells us so. But what about Christianity? Point #3

[N.T.M.]

My last post was about what Pascal called the God Sharped Vacuum in the hearts of human beings and the Deep Thought that our longings are for real things. Even your pointless story is made up of real things.

I'm afraid, though, that there's no logical continuity as far as that applies to an argument. :(

Perhaps there is a God gene as some have argued for to explain the God longing. If so, where did it come from and why? Could there be a God which is our hearts desire and explains why there are so many believers in the world?

It seems to me that there are two most likely candidates. First, it could have directly had utility (Richard Dawkins explained this point nicely by using what he called, "the design stance." At least I think that's what it's called; it's been years since I've read the book.), and, second, it could have been expressed as a byproduct of something that directly carried utility. Consider, for example, pleiotropic expression.

Your story is immaterial to the subject, off topic as usual and all you seem capable of is calling people names.

Good sir, after many--many many--requests you've yet to produce a single example of me calling anybody a name. I'm still waiting. And as for my reference to the WLC openly discrediting himself, surely you can't exculpate him on the premise of it not being his argument. If you invoke a shoddy argument that makes the invocation itself shoddy.

And off-topic? My little story about the heroic line was a criticism of inductive reasoning (specifically as it related to your example). It was a very obvious parallel.

We long ago dealt with your disconnected, disjointed attempt at creating a logical argument. I already pointed out its errors. As for name calling, I have also pointed out where you have done this. It is off topic. Boring!!!

To my knowledge you've never been so courteous as to produce an example for your claim (name-calling), and your reference to discontinuity is precisely in reverse. What's actually happened is I've provided logical arguments and you've responded in ways that would indicate that you didn't understand even the simplest elements of what I posted. But, knowing that you must be correct and that my arguments contradict yours--making me, by necessity, wrong--you work backwards by asserting generalized statements about logical discontinuity. It's an interesting defense mechanism, but it gets boring quickly.

I've given you a logical argument, and you, somehow, claim you've reconciled all its points; you say it as though the mere act of saying it makes it true. Again, it's very interesting, but I wish you'd be more inventive.

In closing I'll say this: What logical argument can you proffer to someone who doesn't recognize the value of logic.

[shadowhawk]

N.T.M.: To my knowledge you've never been so courteous as to produce an example for your claim (name-calling), and your reference to discontinuity is precisely in reverse. What's actually happened is I've provided logical arguments and you've responded in ways that would indicate that you didn't understand even the simplest elements of what I posted. But, knowing that you must be correct and that my arguments contradict yours--making me, by necessity, wrong--you work backwards by asserting generalized statements about logical discontinuity. It's an interesting defense mechanism, but it gets boring quickly.

I've given you a logical argument, and you, somehow, claim you've reconciled all its points; you say it as though the mere act of saying it makes it true. Again, it's very interesting, but I wish you'd be more inventive. What nonsense. Read the posts below.

In closing I'll say this: What logical argument can you proffer to someone who doesn't recognize the value of logic.

In another topic (subject) “christians and longevity?” you presented a disjointed, illogical set of statements which you are still stuck on. Read them yourself.

Your so called logical argument:

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry613639

I answered your nonsense three times, the third in most detail.
.
http://www.longecity...ty/#entry613762

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry613986

http://www.longecity...ty/#entry614321

It was nonsense then and it is now. This is your self proclaimed “logic.” So, answer your own question. “In closing I'll say this: What logical argument can you proffer to someone who doesn't recognize the value of logic?” Oh, off topic and I forgot you don’t answer questions.