- This topic has 18,301 replies, 269 voices, and was last updated 1 year, 3 months ago by
.
- Posts
Quote (bodhitharta @ Feb. 22 2010,18:51)
Your answers were much more honest and I appreciate that not that you weren't being honest on purpose but it seems you are being more thoughtful and clear, with that being said let's review this.Quote
Faith is believing despite the lack of evidence (hence the story of Thomas). When it comes to natural history I do not believe anything that is unsupported by evidence.Understood, however what you call evidence is not what you yourself have experienced or discovered so you are really displaying faith in the evidence of others. I myself have personally experienced God so I have more than faith in the existence of God, I have empirical knowledge of the existence of God.
Quote Real scientists, whatever their discipline, have a social contract with their communities to provide the highest quality of information possible. Their professional reputations are made or broken on how they respond to this demand, and there are a few scientists who are a laughing stock amongst their peers because they took shortcuts and did not provide the highest quality of information. I'm not doubting the sincerity of any scientist what I am saying is that these scientists do have personal ambitions and motivations that may cause them to apply their information in ways that benefit their career which could help them receive grant money or research funds.
Quote So this is not faith, but trust, which is built on the evidence of what scientists have done in the past. Science works, scientists are accountable to their peers and will be called to account if they are found to have falsified anything, which just about invariably is what happens to the tiny number of fraudsters. I could provide the same argument for religion
Quote None of that can be said for the charlatan creationist. They have no professional responsibility to anyone; no reason to provide anything more than what they do provide: lies. Unless you can prove a negative it is impossible to conclude that someone is lying
Quote I don’t know. I don’t think I am in Darwin’s class brilliance-wise, or would have had the associations with other top naturalists to piece together his theory, so possibly not. If Darwin had not published then Wallace would have; there was no shortage of people tinkering with evolutionary ideas. I’m not sure where I would come down that list. Probably well into the thousands. Most of what you said there is speculation but it is a fact that Darwin himself said he didn't really believe in Natural selection but it provided for him a way to classify. But what a boon to scientists, imagine how much money was made recreating an undefined picture
Quote I think the basic reason is the interpretation of the fossil record. Many people who discovered fossils had strange religious ideas about their origins, and I think it was Robert Hooke who was the first to conclude that they really were animal and plant remains. It is amazing to go from identifying fossils as plant and animal remains and simply because some of those plant and animals are extinct assume that they are the ancestors of remotely different animals of today.
Quote Regarding widespread god belief, if the grand mufti of Saudi Arabia, 'Abd al-'Aziz ibn 'Abdillah āl ash-Shaikh were to turn up to Friday prayers this week and publicly renounce god-belief, declaring himself convinced that there are no gods of any kind, would that change the likelihood for you that gods exist? I'm not aware who that is but as I have already testified to you, my knowledge of God is rooted in emperical evidence and therefore is not dependent on what others “believe”
Quote With the ‘every culture’ reference you are just asserting the logical fallacy of argumentum ad populam. Actually that is not an from “argumentum ad populam” because the argument refers to disparate communities and not as a whole population if you suggest that it is an “argumentum ad populam” then your use of fossils as evidence is the same thing because basically you are saying because there are so many different fossils they must mean something when in reality the only thing you “know” is there are a lot of fossils.
Quote The reality or othewise of gods in independent of the number of people who believe in them. That's my point!
BD
Quote however what you call evidence is not what you yourself have experienced or discovered so you are really displaying faith in the evidence of others.
Not faith, which requires no evidence, but trust which requires lots as I explained.Quote I myself have personally experienced God so I have more than faith in the existence of God, I have empirical knowledge of the existence of God.
Empiricism is based on the idea that you should be able to supply me with your method for collecting evidence and expect that if I repeat that method that I too will be able to observe the same evidence. That is obviously not true, is it.Quote I'm not doubting the sincerity of any scientist what I am saying is that these scientists do have personal ambitions and motivations that may cause them to apply their information in ways that benefit their career which could help them receive grant money or research funds.
Would you like to be specific about this accusation, or are you just smearing trustworthy people in the usual dishonest creationist way. The process of peer review, although not perfect, says that you are wrong.Stu: So this is not faith, but trust, which is built on the evidence of what scientists have done in the past. Science works, scientists are accountable to their peers and will be called to account if they are found to have falsified anything, which just about invariably is what happens to the tiny number of fraudsters.
Quote I could provide the same argument for religion
Go on then.Quote Unless you can prove a negative it is impossible to conclude that someone is lying
Do you understand anything at all of what we are saying?Quote Most of what you said there is speculation
You asked me to speculate.Quote but it is a fact that Darwin himself said he didn't really believe in Natural selection but it provided for him a way to classify.
Do you understand anything at all of what we are saying?Quote But what a boon to scientists, imagine how much money was made recreating an undefined picture
Huh??Quote It is amazing to go from identifying fossils as plant and animal remains and simply because some of those plant and animals are extinct assume that they are the ancestors of remotely different animals of today.
…and then to eventually have every piece of evidence subsequently discovered confirm that as true. I agree that is amazing insight on the part of Darwin, and interestingly his grandfather too.Quote Actually that is not an from “argumentum ad populam” because the argument refers to disparate communities and not as a whole population if you suggest that it is an “argumentum ad populam” then your use of fossils as evidence is the same thing because basically you are saying because there are so many different fossils they must mean something when in reality the only thing you “know” is there are a lot of fossils.
Do you understand anything at all of what we are saying?I think you are genuinely ignorant BD. You don’t understand half of this stuff to even a rudimentary level.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Feb. 22 2010,20:14) BD Quote however what you call evidence is not what you yourself have experienced or discovered so you are really displaying faith in the evidence of others.
Not faith, which requires no evidence, but trust which requires lots as I explained.Quote I myself have personally experienced God so I have more than faith in the existence of God, I have empirical knowledge of the existence of God.
Empiricism is based on the idea that you should be able to supply me with your method for collecting evidence and expect that if I repeat that method that I too will be able to observe the same evidence. That is obviously not true, is it.Quote I'm not doubting the sincerity of any scientist what I am saying is that these scientists do have personal ambitions and motivations that may cause them to apply their information in ways that benefit their career which could help them receive grant money or research funds.
Would you like to be specific about this accusation, or are you just smearing trustworthy people in the usual dishonest creationist way. The process of peer review, although not perfect, says that you are wrong.Stu: So this is not faith, but trust, which is built on the evidence of what scientists have done in the past. Science works, scientists are accountable to their peers and will be called to account if they are found to have falsified anything, which just about invariably is what happens to the tiny number of fraudsters.
Quote I could provide the same argument for religion
Go on then.Quote Unless you can prove a negative it is impossible to conclude that someone is lying
Do you understand anything at all of what we are saying?Quote Most of what you said there is speculation
You asked me to speculate.Quote but it is a fact that Darwin himself said he didn't really believe in Natural selection but it provided for him a way to classify.
Do you understand anything at all of what we are saying?Quote But what a boon to scientists, imagine how much money was made recreating an undefined picture
Huh??Quote It is amazing to go from identifying fossils as plant and animal remains and simply because some of those plant and animals are extinct assume that they are the ancestors of remotely different animals of today.
…and then to eventually have every piece of evidence subsequently discovered confirm that as true. I agree that is amazing insight on the part of Darwin, and interestingly his grandfather too.Quote Actually that is not an from “argumentum ad populam” because the argument refers to disparate communities and not as a whole population if you suggest that it is an “argumentum ad populam” then your use of fossils as evidence is the same thing because basically you are saying because there are so many different fossils they must mean something when in reality the only thing you “know” is there are a lot of fossils.
Do you understand anything at all of what we are saying?I think you are genuinely ignorant BD. You don’t understand half of this stuff to even a rudimentary level.
Stuart
trust (trust)noun
1.
a.firm belief or confidence in the honesty, integrity, reliability, justice, etc. of another person or thing; faith; relianceYou see, faith and trust are the same thing.
Quote Empiricism is based on the idea that you should be able to supply me with your method for collecting evidence and expect that if I repeat that method that I too will be able to observe the same evidence. That is obviously not true, is it. Empirism means 1.The view that experience, especially of the senses, is the only source of knowledge.
It is independent of what “you” can experience because according to you If a blind man can't see me telling him I experience color and images would remain untrue to him and somehow be faulty data but in reality some things the blind man will still be able to experience such as “feeling an object” that I explained that I saw.
Quote Would you like to be specific about this accusation, or are you just smearing trustworthy people in the usual dishonest creationist way. The process of peer review, although not perfect, says that you are wrong. Peers have certain things in common like grant money so if you and your peers study the same thing it really depends on their findings and how they correspond to what is already “agreed upon” that's why you don't see much change in science until the main players of a certain error dies.
Quote Stu: So this is not faith, but trust, which is built on the evidence of what scientists have done in the past. Science works, scientists are accountable to their peers and will be called to account if they are found to have falsified anything, which just about invariably is what happens to the tiny number of fraudsters. Faith is trust and peers that are in the same field have generally accepted the basics and will accept anything that corresponds to the basic tenants. For instance Christia
ns peer reviewing any religious information will accept to some degree anything that corresponds with Christianity hence they cannot peer review Islam as it is outside their paradigm. The only way to have knowledge properly is to approach the subject within and without your peers. But you have(as far as I know) have not done an independent study of your scientific beliefs so you do not truly know if they are correct.Quote I think you are genuinely ignorant BD. You don’t understand half of this stuff to even a rudimentary level. Apparently you haven't understood what you are talking about and parroting is not knowing.
Quote (princess of the king @ Feb. 18 2010,14:22) no marty, tt believes that his god came up from where he was, taught about his father's kingdom, then when his god died, went back to his father's kingdom kicked him out, took over everything and left his father out to dry.
does this sound like a good son?
Huh what?Show where I said or implied any of this bald faced lie you have stated. I have REPEATEDLY said that the Father has “delivered” ALL things into His Son's hands.
Don't lie! The Father is not the God of liars!
“You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.”
thinker
Hi TT,
No He is not but He is the God of Jesus and his brothers.
God gave him all authority and Jersus passed on some of that authority to his followers.God is the head of Christ and Christ is the head of the church.
Funny how some folk get them all mixed up
Quote (Nick Hassan @ Feb. 23 2010,14:12) Hi TT,
No He is not but He is the God of Jesus and his brothers.
God gave him all authority and Jersus passed on some of that authority to his followers.God is the head of Christ and Christ is the head of the church.
Funny how some folk get them all mixed up
No Nick,Jesus passed some of His authority to His apostles. The apostles are gone Nick. Nobody possesses Christ's authority today.
thinker
Hi All,
1. Why didn't God teach from the very beginning of man that He consisted of three separate, yet equal persons?
2. Why would there be no explicit instructions given in the Bible that we should worship God, Jesus and the Holy Spirit as equals. For example, Jesus saying, “The Father and Son and Holy Spirit are all God, if you want everlasting life, you must pray to and worship all three of us as your Godhead.”
3. And why should we do so when there are explicit instructions to the contrary?
I'm hoping for honest and sincere answers from WJ and TT.
When a person dies for another person, gives their life in place of another, are they worshipping the person they gave their life for, gave their life in place of?
If you commit suicide, are you worshipping yourself?
If we give up our life for Christ's sake, are we worshipping Christ?
When we worship the one only True God, from whom the God-breathed spirit of life came, and 'give up' our God-breathed spirit to Him, are we not doing the will of Him who we call Father and God Almighty, Jehovah of Armies?
Quote (JustAskin @ Feb. 27 2010,08:16) TT,
When am I going to get your diagram of your idea of your godhead rulership?
I told you already that I am not in to diagrams. i don't invent them. Neither do I use the diagrams of others.thinker
Quote (JustAskin @ Feb. 27 2010,08:32) When a person dies for another person, gives their life in place of another, are they worshipping the person they gave their life for, gave their life in place of? If you commit suicide, are you worshipping yourself?
If we give up our life for Christ's sake, are we worshipping Christ?
When we worship the one only True God, from whom the God-breathed spirit of life came, and 'give up' our God-breathed spirit to Him, are we not doing the will of Him who we call Father and God Almighty, Jehovah of Armies?
JustAskin said:Quote Father “GAVE” immortality to the son, no one else but the Father had immortality before, and Jesus does not rule as God, in fact, he does not rule at all yet. He will be very shortly though. 11 Then I looked, and I heard the voice of many angels around the throne, the living creatures, and the elders; and the number of them was ten thousand times ten thousand, and thousands of thousands, 12 saying with a loud voice:
“Worthy is the Lamb who was slain
To receive power and riches and wisdom,
And strength and honor and glory and blessing!” Rev. 5:13It says that thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands count the Lamb who was slain worthy of worship.
Take your questions to them.
thinker
Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 24 2010,19:41) No Nick, Jesus passed some of His authority to His apostles. The apostles are gone Nick. Nobody possesses Christ's authority today.
thinker
Well at least I can agree that you do not have Christ's authority. Christ never preached or taught the Trinity Doctrine.Quote (thethinker @ Feb. 27 2010,08:58) “Worthy is the Lamb who was slain
To receive power and riches and wisdom,
And strength and honor and glory and blessing!” Rev. 5:13It says that thousands and thousands and thousands and thousands count the Lamb who was slain worthy of worship.
Where does it say worthy is the lamb because he is God?He is being honoured as the lamb of God and the apostles honoured him as the son of God.
Should you not do the same instead of trying to fit him into a Trinitarian cast?
Quote (t8 @ Feb. 26 2010,17:05) He is being honoured as the lamb of God and the apostles honoured him as the son of God.
t8No, the Apostles honoured him even as the Father, (God)!
So should you!
Blessings WJ
TT,
Please be advised that there is nothing in your qouted verse that implies Worship.Hey, TT, you lose, ha ha! You can't justify yourself so you invent an answer.
How cowardly!!
Also, the other quote was not mine.
I think you find it is from Elizabeth?
So, not only are you scripturally dishonest, but you also falsely use the faulty logic of another person to accuse me.
Is that how you think you can assail me?
TT, you claim to be a scholar, but you are no more than an immature starter.
Actually, I don't think that you are areal person. I think that you are a faulty computer 'bot':
knowledge In – Garbage out!You can't show what your 'godhead' looks like diagrammatically because it cannot BE diagrammed, because it DOESN'T exist, Can't exist, because it is INCOMPREHENSIBLE, illogical and, UNGODLY.
Praise, Honor, Glorify God Amighty and Jesus, His Son and Christ.
Worship God Almighty and Him alone!My, my, WJ and T8,
The great scholars argue over plain, simple and unencrypted scriptural text.God and the Lamb are both Glorified, Honored and Praised.
The Lamb is also given Power and Riches.
I have seen where [someone] wooped and wooped that the Lamb was getting more accolades that God!
That person is has a 'power fetish'
The Lamb gets Power from God.
The Lamb gets Riches from God.Why do TT and WJ call this WORSHIP, Yet they have No Idea What Worship Is??
Can mankind receive Praise?
Can mankind receive Honor?
Can mankind receive Glory?
Can mankind receive Power?
Can mankind receive Riches?Can mankind receive Worship?
Quote (JustAskin @ Feb. 26 2010,17:36) Can mankind receive Honor?
JACan man recieve the same honour as God? John 5:23
See the difference?
Blessings WJ
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
