- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 23 2009,20:49) Polonium Halos: Unrefuted Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation!
http://www.halos.com/videos/streaming-video.htm
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CF/CF201.htmlStuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 22 2009,18:23) Quote (t8 @ Oct. 22 2009,12:30) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 22 2009,05:48) I have every qualification required to say that there are no gods, because it is an opinion, just the opposite view to your opinion.
Not true.You are not qualified to say that there is no God or creator because you do not have a clue as to the cause of all things.
Sorry Stu, but that is the way it is.
If I didn't have a clue about Black Holes, then I wouldn't be qualified to say that they didn't exist.
Pretty basic stuff I know.
Somehow you seem to have missed this point.
By your logic you are not qualified to claim there is a god because you do not understand the nature of big bang cosmology. The particular irony is that you are hypocritical in claiming that the universe needs a first cause but your god doesn't.Stuart
I am qualified because I know God personally and I have communication with him and have evidence of things not seen. You don't have to believe me of course, but I am qualified nevertheless.Likewise a man who has had a death experience is qualified to talk about death and Aboriginals who live in the Australian Outback are qualified to teach about survival in the desert.
As it stands, you are not qualified to make statements about God's existence or non-existence because in your own words you do not know anything about it and do not have a stance.
So such ignorance disqualifying one of the options because of bias is unreasonable.
You are not qualified full stop. Anyone can see that.
hi to all
well some people believe that it is not the well educated one who destoied the planet ,i remember when DR Einstien A,whent to the UN to talk to stop research on plutonium and other things ,the papers caled him be cennil.
you thing it should be spelled out that GOD realy exit;
answer those questions ;why man do not lessen to the righteous?(to the benefit of ALL)
why man will not LOVE their fellowman(the way in the interest of ALL)
why we are more separated today than 50 years ago and will be in the future gos ont8
Quote I am qualified because I know God personally 
Quote and I have communication with him Quote and have evidence of things not seen.
Stop! Not sure how much more of your comedy routine I can take! The evidence of the unseen is an oxymoron.Of course all of the above makes any christian’s attempts to encourage me to get to know your god rather futile, doesn’t it! I am ‘not qualified’!
Quote You don't have to believe me of course, but I am qualified nevertheless.
Knowing god is not the qualification you possess. What you have is not something that should be shouted as loudly as you are shouting it.Quote Likewise a man who has had a death experience is qualified to talk about death and Aboriginals who live in the Australian Outback are qualified to teach about survival in the desert.
Disagree, and agree respectively.Quote As it stands, you are not qualified to make statements about God's existence or non-existence because in your own words you do not know anything about it and do not have a stance.
I know as much about it as you do, so therefore we are equally ‘qualified’. I recognise that you are suffering from a meme infection that causes you to see things that are not really there, so while you may think you are qualified to comment on the emperor’s new clothes, I think you should consider carefully whether that is a qualification to boast about. Of course you could argue that most people call a degree in theology a ‘qualification’, but I wonder if they have though about how much of THAT involves descriptions of the emperor’s invisible finery.Quote So such ignorance disqualifying one of the options because of bias is unreasonable.
No, stating one’s ignorance, which you fail to do, is only the first step in being truly qualified! That is unless you want to make statements that have no meaning whatever.Quote You are not qualified full stop. Anyone can see that.
Not everyone CAN see your delusion. It is one that convinces you but does not supply the logical arguments to go with it, because actually those arguments are not logical ones.Stuart
Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 01 2009,15:43) hi to all
well some people believe that it is not the well educated one who destoied the planet ,i remember when DR Einstien A,whent to the UN to talk to stop research on plutonium and other things ,the papers caled him be cennil.
you thing it should be spelled out that GOD realy exit;
answer those questions ;why man do not lessen to the righteous?(to the benefit of ALL)
why man will not LOVE their fellowman(the way in the interest of ALL)
why we are more separated today than 50 years ago and will be in the future gos on
You have begged the question four times there terraricca.I think perhaps we should start with:
Have we destoied (sic) the planet?
DOES man not lessen to the righteous? (whatever that means)
Is it true that man will not LOVE their fellowman?
ARE we are more separated today than 50 years ago?
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 01 2009,15:54) Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 01 2009,15:43) hi to all
well some people believe that it is not the well educated one who destoied the planet ,i remember when DR Einstien A,whent to the UN to talk to stop research on plutonium and other things ,the papers caled him be cennil.
you thing it should be spelled out that GOD realy exit;
answer those questions ;why man do not lessen to the righteous?(to the benefit of ALL)
why man will not LOVE their fellowman(the way in the interest of ALL)
why we are more separated today than 50 years ago and will be in the future gos on
You have begged the question four times there terraricca.I think perhaps we should start with:
Have we destoied (sic) the planet?
DOES man not lessen to the righteous? (whatever that means)
Is it true that man will not LOVE their fellowman?
ARE we are more separated today than 50 years ago?
Stuart
Whatever people think we're not likely to destroy the planet (as in the big ball of rock). We are arguably providing the trigger for changes that will greatly diminish the ability of that tiny little layer on the surface of the planet we call home to support our civilisation though. Since it's about positive feedbacks though, we're still just supplying that little nudge required to start the process.Regardless of all the sophisticated social and religious systems we've invented and all the technology we possess I'm not convinced people have changed much at all in terms of being responsible for the rest of the species or planet. We think in terms of our own tribal group and the world as we know it – as in that little patch we inhabit in our daily lives. If we do things that have an effect not immediately visible on that little patch, regardless of the effect elsewhere – we don't generally change our behaviour to reflect that.
I'm pretty sure the vast majority of people on this site are the same?
You probably could argue in this country (UK) at least that we are more “separated” today than 50 years ago, if you asssume the separation in question refers to the existence of the traditional nuclear family – which you can find statistics to prove has somewhat decayed since then.
Quote (Stu @ Nov. 01 2009,15:50) The evidence of the unseen is an oxymoron.
That says it all Stu.You said it.
Jude 1:10
Yet these men speak abusively against whatever they do not understand; and what things they do understand by instinct, like unreasoning animals—these are the very things that destroy them.Perhaps in your mind you might be able to grasp that not all that exists is visible as in reflects visible light. I mean do Black Holes not exist because they do not reflect visible light?
Maybe you can take your understanding one step further from there. To think that you have to see something in order for it to exist is like the tree that didn't fall over because no one saw it fall over.
As humans we can see in other ways. We can see that which is invisible often by it's effect.
If I see a tree with green leaves uprooted and on its side, then even if I didn't see it fall, my likely conclusion is that it fell.
Do I really need to explain this to you? It is pretty basic stuff.
t8
Do I need to move you past the literal and obvious to the point that I have already made, that 'seen' does not have to mean sensed through visible light on the retina. Seen can also mean any other means of observing, including use of tools such as microscopes, telescopes,spectroscopes and radio receivers that extend our senses.
If “seen” can mean all ways of observing (and that is the sense in which I use it here) then there is no question that 'evidence of the unseen' is an oxymoron, because 'seeing' covers all means of collecting evidence.
You claim to have some extra method of discerning supernatural beings that many humans do not have, but those beings leave no impression on any sense-extending tool. Because the outcome of that 'observing' you do is indistinguishable from the observing done by anyone else, there is no difficulty in saying that these alleged beings are all in the mind.
Stuart
Hey Stu: Everything you see as you look around that was created by man was created first in the mind. Every invention we have discovered was formed in the mind and thought about before it could be drawn on paper and put together. All the plans you make for every day of your life are created first in your mind and then fulfilled or expressed outward.You follow your mind constantly even if you change your mind you will follow that choice. The belief in life is no different than the belief in death. Both are thoughts taking form in the mind and likely will manifest in a way to experience the thoughts you have. Your body will respond to your thoughts through feelings. Some feelings you like (from what each person would call good thoughts) or some feelings you don't like (which might be called bad or unwanted thoughts). Its your choice to take that powerful mental ability and create or generate the greatest feelings you can in life. Continual exercising of good thinking could raise your good feeling to the point of ecstacy. Most scientists agree that living in elevated emotions (energy) can be very healing to the entire body. In fact while living in a feeling of bliss I dare say that sickness of any kind would not be found. If no sickness, there would also be no death. They of course don't feel good and would not be a choice of thought.
So, with the mind, even with what we know scientifically there is a great upside potential for betterment in this life.
What would be the way to get to this bliss feeling? If we do wonderful things for others, and speak kindly to others, and give to others what they need would this help elevate our feelings of life? Absolutely! So no matter what the rest of the world is doing if I think on, ponder and meditate on loving thoughts, loving deeds, speaking love to others and actually just living love could I elevate my personal energy body to a possible point of bliss. Wow, that would be like a God if there was one! Maybe if we took all the religion out of four Gospels (good news) and found the Truth of what was being taught this woud be it. Cleansing the mind first of all negative beliefs and then rising up in the awareness that we have the mind of Christ! Even then its all in the mind and from the mind. Even the feeling of bliss.Its our choice to take ourselves to whatever level we choose. Somebody said I lay before you life or death, you choose! TKBut you would be OK if someone found his existentialist bliss in satanism?
Not sure on what basis you claim that “Most scientists agree that living in elevated emotions (energy) can be very healing to the entire body.” If anything it is the reverse.
Stuart
hi tk
you sure put it in words wath i feel in my mind to say to that fellow STU,Pr 12:11 He who works his land will have abundant food,
but he who chases fantasies lacks judgmentCan science and faith co-exist?
“In science, it is a cardinal sin to pretend to know something that you do not know. Such pretence is the very essence of religious faith.” (Sam Harris)
Tim
hi tim.
Pr 1:1 The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel:
Pr 1:2 for attaining wisdom and discipline;
for understanding words of insight;
Pr 1:3 for acquiring a disciplined and prudent life,
doing what is right and just and fair;
Pr 1:4 for giving prudence to the simple,
knowledge and discretion to the young—
Pr 1:5 let the wise listen and add to their learning,
and let the discerning get guidance— God want you to learn abode his creationyou know as a christian you have to learn allways going forward because everything you can learn under the sun,is God s creation
how more you know how bether ,but like everything the knowledge given by men are not truthfull,they have tere own agenda.Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 21 2009,13:05) hi tim.
Pr 1:1 The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel:
Pr 1:2 for attaining wisdom and discipline;
for understanding words of insight;
Pr 1:3 for acquiring a disciplined and prudent life,
doing what is right and just and fair;
Pr 1:4 for giving prudence to the simple,
knowledge and discretion to the young—
Pr 1:5 let the wise listen and add to their learning,
and let the discerning get guidance— God want you to learn abode his creationyou know as a christian you have to learn allways going forward because everything you can learn under the sun,is God s creation
how more you know how bether ,but like everything the knowledge given by men are not truthfull,they have tere own agenda.
In another thread you have just finished advising georg to keep an open mind, and now you are suggesting that Tim should not.Stuart
hi stu
wath i try to say is not a contradition,i showed that God want us to be knowledgeable not ignorant ,but point out ,how God s knowledge touchess all possible understanding ,like ;medecin,architecture,archeologie,geologie,chemistry,physics,cosmos,everything.How can you claim that a god that set the death penalty against eating from the tree of knowledge (even though he didn't carry out the threat) wants us to be knowledgeable?
How does this god's “knowledge” (I can't see how you could possibly be qualified to comment on it) 'touch our understanding' of archeology, geology or cosmology? Just about everything in those sciences utterly contradicts Genesis!
Stuart
Hi stu
I wish you well in your way and lets see as time pass by ,at the end we both will know for sure,don't we?
Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 21 2009,13:05) hi tim.
Pr 1:1 The proverbs of Solomon son of David, king of Israel:
Pr 1:2 for attaining wisdom and discipline;
for understanding words of insight;
Pr 1:3 for acquiring a disciplined and prudent life,
doing what is right and just and fair;
Pr 1:4 for giving prudence to the simple,
knowledge and discretion to the young—
Pr 1:5 let the wise listen and add to their learning,
and let the discerning get guidance— God want you to learn abode his creationyou know as a christian you have to learn allways going forward because everything you can learn under the sun,is God s creation
how more you know how bether ,but like everything the knowledge given by men are not truthfull,they have tere own agenda.
Hi terraricca,I am not sure I understand how the quotes from proverbs
that you gave to me relate to the quote that I pasted from
Sam Harris. Both statements in his quote are accurate.A scientist would lose his job, or at least his reputation, if he
claimed to know something that he did not. And by the same token, the very definition of faith is to believe, or claim to know, something that you do not know because it can not be proven.Christians claim that everything that a person needs to know can be found in the bible. I have yet to see the instructions for building a television in proverbs, or any good scientific knowledge in any book of the bible for that matter.
You can use faith or the bible for anything that you want, but definitely not for scientific knowledge.
Tim
Quote (terraricca @ Nov. 22 2009,19:44) Hi stu I wish you well in your way and lets see as time pass by ,at the end we both will know for sure,don't we?
What will we know 'for sure', 'at the end'?Your total knowledge goes to zero when you die, if that is what you mean by the 'end'.
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
