Print

[livewire]

Fact of the matter is, we won't know the truth until we die. 
Well, the unbelievers won't know until then, anyways.

The problem with that?





Then it's too late.

[Forsythia]

So which god are we suppised to believe in and why Live?

[livewire]

So which god are we suppised to believe in and why Live?

That's not a question that I can answer for you, Forsythia.  Your answer lies within you.

In my opinion, the way I look at it, there is only one God.  Man has twisted his thinking, over the centuries, into believing that there are different versions of God, resulting in various religions, and frequently, different denominations within those religions.  But in my mind, they are all worshiping the one and only God.

So, which God should you believe in?  That's entirely up to you.  God gave us free will, which enables us to make good decisions, or it can get us into big trouble.  I am a firm believer in making sure that people are to be held accountable for their actions.  I believe that God thinks that way, as well.  His Word is sometimes unclear, if you look at specific passages of the Bible.  So, when people like Xerxes quotes scripture, with odd context, I don't have all the answers.  Most of these quotes are from the Old Testament, which doesn't apply, now that Jesus has come to earth.  He is a jealous God, and a vengeful God.  In other words, don't piss Him off.  God has ALWAYS been in existence, and always will.  For anyone to say that they have all the answers (evolution, how life began, how our world began, etc.), is narcissistic, and closed minded, in my opinion.  I believe God created the earth.  But I have no idea how, or over what time period, specifically, or whether evolution played some part in it.  That is my personal opinion.  But when it comes to specifics, I am not afraid to say, "I don't know."

If you are searching for peace, you have to look inside your heart and mind, to find answers to the BIG questions.  The message of Jesus is very clear, in my opinion, and that is what I believe.  My faith is solid. 

Do I have all the answers?  No.  Not yet, anyways.  Some day I will.

And so will you.

[MonroeMonkey]

Fact of the matter is, we won't know the truth until we die. 
Well, the unbelievers won't know until then, anyways.

The problem with that?

Then it's too late.

Spoken like a devout Muslim or Mormon.

To say we can't know until we die is completely fallacious logic. How do you know? Lol... And don't try the whole, "Well, how do you know I don't know?" That's a shifting of the burden of proof. You are making a positive absolutely statement. If you were slick with logic, you'd say, "Perhaps, we can't know until death... Maybe..." It could be you're right on this, but it could be you're wrong, so how do you really know? You have no good basis for such a claim.

Here's something ironic about Christians, they always say, "I don't know it all." But then they go on to insist you can't know until death, and if you don't believe on Earth it will be too late, etc., etc. For not knowing everything they sure know what heaven looks like and who will be there and who won't be. How do they know? A book tells them, etc. They say this book is the word of God. But why is it the word of God? Because the Bible says it is. Circular Reasoning Fallacy.

All these religions say the same thing, like, "Believe before it's too late..." And "We can't know until the end." Could it be the same thing that compels a Muslims to believe what he does is the same thing that compels a Christian to believe what he does? You could say, "Well, one is right and the other wrong." Ok, well, provide sufficient evidence for that, or I'll find it more probable both are wrong, as well as the other various faiths.


And you say I take scripture out of context, yet you've not shown how I've done so. When I post a chapter that says to kill loved one if they worship other gods, I'm posting exactly what it says. Fact is, that god called for such things. He said, in essence, if a loved one entices you to worship a statue, kill him. That's some weird stuff. Christians always say, "You're twisting it!" But that is not an argument is it? Address the verses and explain how this is reasonable. Being the Bible has made god just like a man, as Moses says to his god, "You are a Man of War." let's put him on trial as a man. But Christians say, "He's not a man to do that! You can't question His ways! They are higher than ours! There's a just reason behind it, even if I can't see one!" --- That is not a logical argument, that's a surrendering of logic to "...we can't know..."

[livewire]

Spoken like a devout Muslim or Mormon.

To say we can't know until we die is completely fallacious logic. How do you know?

First of all, I am neither Muslim nor Mormon.

Second of all, there is nothing wrong with my logic.  You have blinders on, and you didn't comprehend what I wrote.  Your premise that God doesn't exist cannot be proven, UNLESS we are dead, and we either see God, or we don't.  You believe the theory that He doesn't exist.  I believe the theory that He does.  Neither of these theories can be proven, 100%, until we die.

That, my friend, is a fact.

[MonroeMonkey]

First of all, I am neither Muslim nor Mormon.

I know that. Point was, Muslims and Mormons say the same thing for the same reason, without any real evidence.

Second of all, there is nothing wrong with my logic. 

Yes, there is, and I pointed out how so.

You have blinders on, and you didn't comprehend what I wrote.  Your premise that God doesn't exist cannot be proven, UNLESS we are dead, and we either see God, or we don't. 

Again, I never said a god doesn't absolutely exist. And I'm not saying god can be proven or disproved. I'm saying, I use Occam's Razor to avoid a god of the gaps fallacy, which could very well be an argument from ignorance.

Occam's Razor: Do not needlessly employ a god into the explanation. If a naturalistic explanation is plausible favor it over saying a god did it. Don't stuff a god in the gap just because we don't yet understand something.

This is what I'm trying to tell Duck. Time and time again men have shoved an invisible god into the gap, but when understanding comes god is pushed out of the gaps of our knowledge.

You believe the theory that He doesn't exist.

Which He? I never said a god absolutely does not exist, but I think we can make claims based about observation and probabilities in relation to those observations.

I believe the theory that He does.  Neither of these theories can be proven, 100%, until we die. That, my friend, is a fact.

So, you say. Different philosophers have had differing opinions on this matter.

Kant said being we are bound by our evolved faculties we can never know the Noumenon, just as a blind man can never know color. We see colors the way we do because our eye structure, yet another animal sees the same color differently, so what is true color? Different beings extract a different picture of reality based on their faculties. Objects are over 99% empty space. If we had better eyes things wouldn't look solid, etc. This is Kant's view.

But other philosophers have believed that our reasoning powers and the ability to measure and do mathematics can provide us with a good understanding of nature, and that the question of particular gods can be proved or disproved by such tools. This is how we know things are more than 99% empty space apart from our eyes. Who is right?

You say your view is a fact, but what is your ground to base that on? It could very well be that we can prove or disprove certain gods, depending on their qualities and attributes. And those gods that people say cannot be proved or disproved, do we really have to take such invisible beings seriously without any substantial evidence that they even really exist?

[LessGovernment]

god of the gaps fallacy

How about your EVIDENCE GAP FALLACY of 10 million years between speciation or 100's of millions of years of IMAGINED CHANGE from one kind of animal into a completely other kind of animal(ya know - fish to humans), and your totally FICTICIOUS PRE-ASSUMPTION FALLACY that the Geologic Column is FACTUAL and TRUE, that the Earth is an "onion" of rock layers(with NO EROSION MARKS in great many places - since of course it NEVER rained in the millions of years inbetween each layer being laid down)  - and, since it is estimated that your precious made-up geologic table that depicts the evolution of ameobas-to-mankind only APPEARS in "Only a few locations on earth (about 0.4% of its area) have been described with the succession of the ten systems beneath (west Nepal, west Bolivia, and central Poland)."

I just LOVE this quote: "The assumptions and correlations within the 'geologic column' are largely make-believe and wishful-thinking and cannot be substantiated by empirical science; despite this, many under-knowledged school and college teachers teach this system verbatim." - can you tell me this is UNPROVEABLE through a LOGICAL and SYSTEMATIC analysis of SCIENTIFIC INSTRUCTION by primarily evolutionists and government-funded/subsidized PUBLIC EDUCATION - since, of course, Creationists just can't seem to secure prestigous/tenured government-funded University positions the world-over, nor get their stuff published in the evolution-slanted scientific journals?

Ok, Logic Boy!!!  There's no FAITH in your science!!!

[MonroeMonkey]

I just LOVE this quote: "The assumptions and correlations within the 'geologic column' are largely make-believe and wishful-thinking and cannot be substantiated by empirical science; despite this, many under-knowledged school and college teachers teach this system verbatim."

Ok, Logic Boy!!!  There's no FAITH in your science!!!

Name the professors of geology saying such things? Provide credible scientific evidence from peer reviewed journals and experts in their fields saying such things. Whenever I research such claims reality is nothing like the claims. It's pure dishonesty. But again, provide evidence of these things as explained by experts of Geoscience and I'll take it seriously.

You see, I get my science from scientists who are experts in their fields, not from someone bent on changing reality or distorting it to fit the mold of some ancient bible, who says the Earth was created before the Sun was, when that's been smashed by reality, etc., etc.

Saying stuff like that isn't an argument, so go into detail and provide evidences of such, with sources. Thanks.

[MonroeMonkey]

Another point...

If someone says to me, "My God is nature. What is is God. I see nature as one vast being, and I call that being God."

I can't really refute that and have no desire to. They use a definition of God that proves itself. Now, if they start talking about it having attributes that have no evidence to support such claims, then I'll point that out, and explain why I don't accept such things.

[livewire]

So, you say. Different philosophers have had differing opinions on this matter.

So, now some philosophers "opinion" is your proof that God does not exist?

Just because someone has an opinion, does not make it the truth.

You say your view is a fact, but what is your ground to base that on?

Because you cannot prove that God does or does not exist.  Neither can I.  Period.

Unless you can show me irrefutable proof that God does or does not exist, my premise that we must wait until we die to find out for SURE, is correct.  End of discussion.  Bye-bye!  See ya later!

[LessGovernment]

Considering you have already chosen a side, the evolutionist RELIGION; then maybe you ought to watch all of Hovinds DEBATES, eat popcorn, and root for the OTHER GUY!

See, when Hovind presents a Powerpoint slide of any number of textbooks that teach your RELIGIOUS millions of years viewpoint, he also has REFERENCES to which textbooks are publishing your side's biased, and Godless propaganda that is PURE IMAGINATION(like your retreating vestigal whale legs that I personally photographed in my own children's textbooks in the high school I currently work as a janitor at).

Now, certainly a guy as smart as you could find out what "experts" wrote that whales used to walk poppycock into public school and university textbooks, couldn't you?

The thrust of most of Hovind's efforts were to get the LIES out of the textbooks, from the chimpanzee called Lucy, to Nebraska Man, to Heykell's gill slits in human embryo's, to your whales used to walk on land B.S.

See, Xerxes; if they just took the LIES out of the textbooks, and the propaganda about nothing exploding in the Big Bang, and life evolving from non-living materials; they wouldn't replace it with Creationism....you guys would all just look stupid for believing it, and fighting for it to be taught at taxpayer expense.

Everyone should watch Hovind's debates, and his Lies in the Textbook seminar part 4 ... and Xerxes ought to get a new topic, because he is dodging and weaving so many punches right now that his rhetoric and insults are getting sloppy and incoherent as he tries to dress them up in so much flowery language meant to impress.

Like the great creation evangelist Kent Hovind preaches, to the severe irritation of so many scientific experts and university professors sucking on the government teet; "no one has ever seen a dog produce a non-dog"....and that ain't the Bible talkin'...that's just SCIENTIFIC PROOF that it will NEVER be observed.

[MonroeMonkey]

So, now some philosophers "opinion" is your proof that God does not exist?

No. I never said that. How did you get that out of what I said?

Just because someone has an opinion, does not make it the truth.

Agreed. I was only presenting several stances one can take, but I didn't say one was right.

But, as I stated, I do employ Occam's Razor to avoid committing the god of gaps fallacy.

Because you cannot prove that God does or does not exist.  Neither can I.  Period.

Again, that can be disputed, depending on the definition of god. I, personally, think attributes of manlike gods can be disproved, and some gods can be disproved altogether, and others have no basis to even be taken seriously.

Unless you can show me irrefutable proof that God does or does not exist, my premise that we must wait until we die to find out for SURE, is correct.  End of discussion.  Bye-bye!  See ya later!

That's a Non Sequitur.

It's like saying, "There is a fiery demon sitting on a fiery cloud that awaits us all upon death. Now, I can't prove or disprove it, but I believe it. We'll find out upon death, though. Prove this isn't so! If you can't then my premise is correct!"

Lol... Oy...

[MonroeMonkey]

Xerxes ought to get a new topic, because he is dodging and weaving so many punches right now that his rhetoric and insults are getting sloppy and incoherent as he tries to dress them up in so much flowery language meant to impress.

I imagine they would seem incoherent to you, being they've knocked your weak arguments silly.

K.O. 

[livewire]

But, as I stated, I do employ Occam's Razor to avoid committing the god of gaps fallacy.

I really don't care what you use to shave with... let's stay on topic here, okay?   


"Unless you can show me irrefutable proof that God does or does not exist, my premise that we must wait until we die to find out for SURE, is correct. "

That's a Non Sequitur.

No, it's not.  It is a clear, connected premise.  Do you understand what a Non Sequitur is?


Xerxes, just because you don't agree with something, doesn't mean you shave with a razor owned by a dude named Occum.  THAT is a Non Sequitur.

Logic 101 class, dismissed.

[MonroeMonkey]

Non Sequitur = Does not logically follow.

And I pointed out how your claim doesn't follow sound logic. Not only does it make an insubstantial original claim, such as stating there is an invisible god, as without proof it is insubstantial,; then it goes on to hedge this god in from disproof, by saying it cannot be proven or disproved; then it ignores all other views on the question of this god's possible existence and says, "We can't know until we die." Take about rigging the game.

Um... Is that an Ace up your sleeve? Why do you have five Aces?


Now, I can see an argument, like presented by C.S. Lewis. He says, "I believe in Christianity as I believe that the sun has risen: not only because I see it, but because by it I see everything else." So, one could make a similar argument, saying, "I don't believe in God because I see Him, but because  in the light of a God everything makes sense."

BUT! *Warning Siren!* That could be done in ignorance, so I employ Occam's Razor. It could very well be a god of the gaps argument. If you can provide proof of this unseen god, and especially proof of his human like attributes, then I'll put the Razor away.

We cook up ideas all the time to make sense of things and they don't work. In our ignorance we believed gods controlled the weather and threw lightning from Holy Mountains. Lightning and thunder made sense in the light of a god behind the scenes, but science has pushed out these gods through knowledge.