- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 25 2010,21:31) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 25 2010,21:26) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 25 2010,21:09) Quote (karmarie @ Jan. 25 2010,20:55) Iv seen a person who had a stomach malabsorbtion disorder, undiagnosed, once the correct vitamins were given (high dose especially thiamine, niacin) everything returned for them, they were suffering from the deficiency's and were suffering the diseases of beriberi / wernicks psychosis and pellagra. God gave humans just what they needed to eat for a healthy body and mind, our soil today is sick, overworked, depleted of nutrients, sometimes cures for things can be found in what God gave us in the beginning which man has now ruined
Rastafarians for eg supposedly use Marujuana for spiritual reasons as its a herb! not that id encourage that, but iv seen amazing things with vitamins.
BD's words:The Atheist will congratulate you on your life being improved but will quickly remind you that you could have made those changes without believing in God.
Stuart
The Atheist will try to convince you that they know something about reality that you don't, this is the basis of The Atheists Disease because to accept ANY evidence of God would put them at great discomfort considering not having experienced God at this point they will feel for the first time the nagging within that something indeed has been missing.
Sorry, no internal nagging in this atheist.I invite you again to present evidence for your god that is unambiguously a demonstration of your god and no one else's gods, and actually distinguishes objectively between the existence of a god and the absence of gods.
Stuart
God is Self-Evident and this is extremely non-ambiguous if there can be absolute laws of any sort like Math
if you know that laws of logic exist, Laws of mathematics exist, Laws of science exist and you have even said that Absolute Human Rights exist.We also know Morality cannot be societal because if when a dictator such as Hitler, Paul Pott, Sadaam Hussein…etc suggests that it is Moral to violate Human Rights it would be moral in that community and we ALL know that it is not Moral to violate Human Rights.
So through these things we know that God is self-evident.
BD
Quote God is Self-Evident
I’ll see your “god is self-evident” with a “not it’s not” and raise you a “where’s the unambiguous evidence”?Quote and this is extremely non-ambiguous if there can be absolute laws of any sort like Math if you know that laws of logic exist, Laws of mathematics exist, Laws of science exist and you have even said that Absolute Human Rights exist.
And they are all human inventions (maths. human rights, logic) or human models (scientific laws). We may call these things absolute, but really they are all relative except mathematics which is self-referential. See Kant for more details.Quote We also know Morality cannot be societal because if when a dictator such as Hitler, Paul Pott, Sadaam Hussein…etc suggests that it is Moral to violate Human Rights it would be moral in that community and we ALL know that it is not Moral to violate Human Rights.
That would be Pol Pot, yes? Did any of these people ever even discuss the nature of human rights publicly, apart from proclaiming their own as propaganda? All you are saying is that some people do not have the same ethics as you. And you adhere to a religion that is one of the biggest humans rights abusers on the planet.Quote So through these things we know that God is self-evident.
How is a god a necessary requirement of any of that?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 26 2010,07:00) BD Quote God is Self-Evident
I’ll see your “god is self-evident” with a “not it’s not” and raise you a “where’s the unambiguous evidence”?Quote and this is extremely non-ambiguous if there can be absolute laws of any sort like Math if you know that laws of logic exist, Laws of mathematics exist, Laws of science exist and you have even said that Absolute Human Rights exist.
And they are all human inventions (maths. human rights, logic) or human models (scientific laws). We may call these things absolute, but really they are all relative except mathematics which is self-referential. See Kant for more details.Quote We also know Morality cannot be societal because if when a dictator such as Hitler, Paul Pott, Sadaam Hussein…etc suggests that it is Moral to violate Human Rights it would be moral in that community and we ALL know that it is not Moral to violate Human Rights.
That would be Pol Pot, yes? Did any of these people ever even discuss the nature of human rights publicly, apart from proclaiming their own as propaganda? All you are saying is that some people do not have the same ethics as you. And you adhere to a religion that is one of the biggest humans rights abusers on the planet.Quote So through these things we know that God is self-evident.
How is a god a necessary requirement of any of that?Stuart
So there is no absolute logic, no absolute math and no absolute scientific method?Are you also saying that killing innocent people and raping children are not always immoral?
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 25 2010,18:38) Quote (Not3in1 @ Jan. 25 2010,18:04) Bod, Have you read The God Delusion? Good read – a must for Christians who want the “flip side” to Josh McDowells, “Evidence Demands a Verdict”.
Mandy
Hi Not3! Howz it going?I would add God is Not Great, with Christopher Hitchens's argument for the existence of Jesus based on the effort the gospel writers made in inventing things that never happened (the census, for example) in order to make Jesus fulfill what they saw as prophecy.
Are you convinced by this McDowell fellow?
Stuart
Hey Stu,I add Josh McDowell into the heap with all the other's whos books lined my shelves for years. They have since been boxed and given to Goodwill (a charity).
I don't listen to anyone now that wants to put God in a box and label it. Nor do I have time for those who are driven to hold onto their faith by fear.
Love,
MandyQuote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 26 2010,07:25) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 26 2010,07:00) BD Quote God is Self-Evident
I’ll see your “god is self-evident” with a “not it’s not” and raise you a “where’s the unambiguous evidence”?Quote and this is extremely non-ambiguous if there can be absolute laws of any sort like Math if you know that laws of logic exist, Laws of mathematics exist, Laws of science exist and you have even said that Absolute Human Rights exist.
And they are all human inventions (maths. human rights, logic) or human models (scientific laws). We may call these things absolute, but really they are all relative except mathematics which is self-referential. See Kant for more details.Quote We also know Morality cannot be societal because if when a dictator such as Hitler, Paul Pott, Sadaam Hussein…etc suggests that it is Moral to violate Human Rights it would be moral in that community and we ALL know that it is not Moral to violate Human Rights.
That would be Pol Pot, yes? Did any of these people ever even discuss the nature of human rights publicly, apart from proclaiming their own as propaganda? All you are saying is that some people do not have the same ethics as you. And you adhere to a religion that is one of the biggest humans rights abusers on the planet.Quote So through these things we know that God is self-evident.
How is a god a necessary requirement of any of that?Stuart
So there is no absolute logic, no absolute math and no absolute scientific method?Are you also saying that killing innocent people and raping children are not always immoral?
I really wish you would actually read what I write. I wonder why I bother replying to you if your response is going to be as vacuous as it so often is.MATHS IS ABSOLUTE BECAUSE IT IS SELF-REFERENTIAL.
Did you read that bit??
WE CALL [humans rights] ABSOLUTE (and treat them as such) EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ACTUALLY RELATIVE.
Honestly, how do you get from there to you blithering myopia of “maybe you think killing is OK, if these things are really relative”?
Good grief. Why don't you get off your lazy chuff and actually learn something about the world. Start with Kant, take in Popper and Descartes along the way. Otherwise stop posting inaccurate, ignorant and misrepresenting drivel.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 26 2010,08:27) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 26 2010,07:25) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 26 2010,07:00) BD Quote God is Self-Evident
I’ll see your “god is self-evident” with a “not it’s not” and raise you a “where’s the unambiguous evidence”?Quote and this is extremely non-ambiguous if there can be absolute laws of any sort like Math if you know that laws of logic exist, Laws of mathematics exist, Laws of science exist and you have even said that Absolute Human Rights exist.
And they are all human inventions (maths. human rights, logic) or human models (scientific laws). We may call these things absolute, but really they are all relative except mathematics which is self-referential. See Kant for more details.Quote We also know Morality cannot be societal because if when a dictator such as Hitler, Paul Pott, Sadaam Hussein…etc suggests that it is Moral to violate Human Rights it would be moral in that community and we ALL know that it is not Moral to violate Human Rights.
That would be Pol Pot, yes? Did any of these people ever even discuss the nature of human rights publicly, apart from proclaiming their own as propaganda? All you are saying is that some people do not have the same ethics as you. And you adhere to a religion that is one of the biggest humans rights abusers on the planet.Quote So through these things we know that God is self-evident.
How is a god a necessary requirement of any of that?Stuart
So there is no absolute logic, no absolute math and no absolute scientific method?Are you also saying that killing innocent people and raping children are not always immoral?
I really wish you would actually read what I write. I wonder why I bother replying to you if your response is going to be as vacuous as it so often is.MATHS IS ABSOLUTE BECAUSE IT IS SELF-REFERENTIAL.
Did you read that bit??
WE CALL [humans rights] ABSOLUTE (and treat them as such) EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ACTUALLY RELATIVE.
Honestly, how do you get from there to you blithering myopia of “maybe you think killing is OK, if these things are really relative”?
Good grief. Why don't you get off your lazy chuff and actually learn something about the world. Start with Kant, take in Popper and Descartes along the way. Otherwise stop posting inaccurate, ignorant and misrepresenting drivel.
Stuart
So, for someone who isn't quite sure of anything why act as though you are so sure about your criticisms?Do you admit then that every criticism that you have made of the Bible, Quran and God are criticisms arising out of your uncertainty about them?
By the way why use an “appeal to authority” you would call that a logical flaw in your argument.
Besides that have studied more about Philosophy than you can shake a stick at. By the way, what standard do you use as to what Philosopher is making a valid point since in your view nothing is truly VALID.
You say that Math is self-referential, is that really true?
Is existence itself axiomatic?
Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 26 2010,10:41) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 26 2010,08:27) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 26 2010,07:25) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 26 2010,07:00) BD Quote God is Self-Evident
I’ll see your “god is self-evident” with a “not it’s not” and raise you a “where’s the unambiguous evidence”?Quote and this is extremely non-ambiguous if there can be absolute laws of any sort like Math if you know that laws of logic exist, Laws of mathematics exist, Laws of science exist and you have even said that Absolute Human Rights exist.
And they are all human inventions (maths. human rights, logic) or human models (scientific laws). We may call these things absolute, but really they are all relative except mathematics which is self-referential. See Kant for more details.Quote We also know Morality cannot be societal because if when a dictator such as Hitler, Paul Pott, Sadaam Hussein…etc suggests that it is Moral to violate Human Rights it would be moral in that community and we ALL know that it is not Moral to violate Human Rights.
That would be Pol Pot, yes? Did any of these people ever even discuss the nature of human rights publicly, apart from proclaiming their own as propaganda? All you are saying is that some people do not have the same ethics as you. And you adhere to a religion that is one of the biggest humans rights abusers on the planet.Quote So through these things we know that God is self-evident.
How is a god a necessary requirement of any of that?Stuart
So there is no absolute logic, no absolute math and no absolute scientific method?Are you also saying that killing innocent people and raping children are not always immoral?
I really wish you would actually read what I write. I wonder why I bother replying to you if your response is going to be as vacuous as it so often is.MATHS IS ABSOLUTE BECAUSE IT IS SELF-REFERENTIAL.
Did you read that bit??
WE CALL [humans rights] ABSOLUTE (and treat them as such) EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ACTUALLY RELATIVE.
Honestly, how do you get from there to you blithering myopia of “maybe you think killing is OK, if these things are really relative”?
Good grief. Why don't you get off your lazy chuff and actually learn something about the world. Start with Kant, take in Popper and Descartes along the way. Otherwise stop posting inaccurate, ignorant and misrepresenting drivel.
Stuart
So, for someone who isn't quite sure of anything why act as though you are so sure about your criticisms?Do you admit then that every criticism that you have made of the Bible, Quran and God are criticisms arising out of your uncertainty about them?
By the way why use an “appeal to authority” you would call that a logical flaw in your argument.
Besides that have studied more about Philosophy than you can shake a stick at. By the way, what standard do you use as to what Philosopher is making a valid point since in your view nothing is truly VALID.
You say that Math is self-referential, is that really true?
Is existence itself axiomatic?
Have you never seen me write 'almost certainly'? That is the kind of uncertainty I mean: not blind adherence to infallible doctrines no matter what, but a weighting of the likelihood of one scenario versus another. This reserves the honest possibility that someone might be able to disprove you. That is not you though, on everything you have posted here so far.I didn't appeal to authority anywhere.
You wasted your tuition on philosophy then because you appear to know little about it. If you don't believe me then ask kejonn, he will tell you that as well.
I have never taken any classes in philosophy, and I can tell you what reading you need to do to keep up here.
Why don't you learn something about the nature of mathematics, while you are at it.
Evidence is axiomatic in the existentialist sense of assuming that what you see is what you get. That assumption cannot be proved, but it can be shown to be consistent in regards to the kind of empirical evidence we can collect. Pragmatically it works, too: modern medicine, chemistry, physics, evolutionary biology all bear that out by making predictions that are subsequently supported by new evidence.
Your existence is axiomatic too. So what?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 26 2010,11:15) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 26 2010,10:41) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 26 2010,08:27) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 26 2010,07:25) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 26 2010,07:00) BD Quote God is Self-Evident
I’ll see your “god is self-evident” with a “not it’s not” and raise you a “where’s the unambiguous evidence”?Quote and this is extremely non-ambiguous if there can be absolute laws of any sort like Math if you know that laws of logic exist, Laws of mathematics exist, Laws of science exist and you have even said that Absolute Human Rights exist.
And they are all human inventions (maths. human rights, logic) or human models (scientific laws). We may call these things absolute, but really they are all relative except mathematics which is self-referential. See Kant for more details.Quote We also know Morality cannot be societal because if when a dictator such as Hitler, Paul Pott, Sadaam Hussein…etc suggests that it is Moral to violate Human Rights it would be moral in that community and we ALL know that it is not Moral to violate Human Rights.
That would be Pol Pot, yes? Did any of these people ever even discuss the nature of human rights publicly, apart from proclaiming their own as propaganda? All you are saying is that some people do not have the same ethics as you. And you adhere to a religion that is one of the biggest humans rights abusers on the planet.Quote So through these things we know that God is self-evident.
How is a god a necessary requirement of any of that?Stuart
So there is no absolute logic, no absolute math and no absolute scientific method?Are you also saying that killing innocent people and raping children are not always immoral?
I really wish you would actually read what I write. I wonder why I bother replying to you if your response is going to be as vacuous as it so often is.MATHS IS ABSOLUTE BECAUSE IT IS SELF-REFERENTIAL.
Did you read that bit??
WE CALL [humans rights] ABSOLUTE (and treat them as such) EVEN THOUGH THEY ARE ACTUALLY RELATIVE.
Honestly, how do you get from there to you blithering myopia of “maybe you think killing is OK, if these things are really relative”?
Good grief. Why don't you get off your lazy chuff and actually learn something about the world. Start with Kant, take in Popper and Descartes along the way. Otherwise stop posting inaccurate, ignorant and misrepresenting drivel.
Stuart
So, for someone who isn't quite sure of anything why act as though you are so sure about your criticisms?Do you admit then that every criticism that you have made of the Bible, Quran and God are criticisms arising out of your uncertainty about them?
By the way why use an “appeal to authority” you would call that a logical flaw in your argument.
Besides that have studied more about Philosophy than you can shake a stick at. By the way, what standard do you use as to what Philosopher is making a valid point since in your view nothing is truly VALID.
You say that Math is self-referential, is that really true?
Is existence itself axiomatic?
Have you never seen me write 'almost certainly'? That is the kind of uncertainty I mean: not blind adherence to infallible doctrines no matter what, but a weighting of the likelihood of one scenario versus another. This reserves the honest possibility that someone might be able to disprove you. That is not you though, on everything you have posted here so far.I didn't appeal to authority anywhere.
You wasted your tuition on philosophy then because you appear to know little about it. If you don't believe me then ask kejonn, he will tell you that as well.
I have never taken any classes in philosophy, and I can tell you what reading you need to do to keep up here.
Why don't you learn something about the nature of mathematics, while you are at it.
Evidence is axiomatic in the existentialist sense of assuming that what you see is what you get. That assumption cannot be proved, but it can be shown to be consistent in regards to the kind of empirical evidence we can collect. Pragmatically it works, too: modern medicine, chemistry, physics, evolutionary biology all bear that out by making predictions that are subsequently supported by new evidence.
Your existence is axiomatic too. So what?
Stuart
What is existence?Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 26 2010,12:01) What is existence?
Indeed. What is it?Of course that question has no bearing on the nature of empirical evidence, because it is accounted for in the axiom that covers evidence.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 26 2010,12:23) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 26 2010,12:01) What is existence?
Indeed. What is it?Of course that question has no bearing on the nature of empirical evidence, because it is accounted for in the axiom that covers evidence.
Stuart
Is existence beyond the physical?Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 26 2010,12:28) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 26 2010,12:23) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 26 2010,12:01) What is existence?
Indeed. What is it?Of course that question has no bearing on the nature of empirical evidence, because it is accounted for in the axiom that covers evidence.
Stuart
Is existence beyond the physical?
What is the 'physical'?Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Jan. 26 2010,12:30) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 26 2010,12:28) Quote (Stu @ Jan. 26 2010,12:23) Quote (bodhitharta @ Jan. 26 2010,12:01) What is existence?
Indeed. What is it?Of course that question has no bearing on the nature of empirical evidence, because it is accounted for in the axiom that covers evidence.
Stuart
Is existence beyond the physical?
What is the 'physical'?Stuart
The materialQuote (Stu @ Jan. 25 2010,21:07) Quote But if you wish to engage you must take the HIGH GROUND which is not being “really nice” but to be really Honest. The Atheist must be told that if no evidence of God is acceptable, what is acceptable evidence of anything else?
Should Ed be properly honest, though? Should he avoid putting words in the mouth of the atheist that actually the atheist never claimed himself, say a claim that he has not, and in fact cannot test, like for example that no evidence would be good enough?Stuart
Hi Stuart,What evidence of God's existence would you consider good enough?
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
