birdog1960

seems to be the in vogue trick for you cons lately: "prove a negative". it's not possible....but you all know that. intellectual dishonest unfortunately suits you very well.

that's what I thought. a fundamental and unresolvable difference.

I believe in an all powerful god but not a pagan view of him/her. it's a fundamental and unresolvable difference but it's important to appreciate. I agree with what is stated below. do you? Confusion over Pope Francis' words also arose when he said that “When we read in Genesis the account of Creation, we risk imagining God as a magician, with a wand able to make everything.” After this statement the pontiff said that God allowed creation and created beings to develop throughout history according to the internal laws which God gave them at the beginning of creation, and because of this “God is not a demiurge or a magician, but the creator who gives being to all things.” In response to those who took the Pope's words as meaning that God is not divine, Br. Consolmagno explained that all the pontiff said was that the Christian notion of God is not the same as other, pagan understandings of the divine being. He referred to Pope's use of the term “demiurge,” which comes from a gnostic tradition, and has been considered a heresy since ancient Roman times. “This was the idea that God was some sort of 'artisan' who formed the universe out of pre-existing materials,” he said, which is basically the same notion as the pagan nature gods who were thought to oversee the activities of nature. In light of this understanding, the astronomer said that what the Pope was most likely implying is that the Christian concept of God is “not a 'nature God'” like that of the pagans.

see this is where it gets maddening but of course that is by design. you cons are losing the argument and therefore resort to bs like this. almost any fool can see it even those on ppp. carson holds many beliefs that the average american will find highly suspicious. he's been, at the very least, less than fully honest about his past. he has a snowballs chance in hell of winning the prez race. the earth is not 6000 years old and literal interpretation of genesis is silly.

the caveat being that to accept solipsism requires rejecting science. you can prove that an idea is incompatible with current scientific knowledge. you can't do science if the world outside your mind doesn't exist or if you can't accurately observe and measure said world. you can't accept science and solipsism simultaneously. this is what carson is trying to do.

no. you cannot disprove solipsism. you can however reject it. I do. there are many other things that can't be disproven that I reject. leprachaun's for example. unicorns. yetis. the easter bunny...

only if you completely disregard science which requires disregarding one of a few (most would say 3) basic tenets. the most likely invoked philosophy being solipsism. one cannot logically utilize science (in this case neuroscience) while disregarding its basic tenets simultaneously. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLe_Soe19IQ

was lybob's example. I think it was an attempt at humor. kinda like yours with sheen. so why don't you teach by example. Diagram doc's argument.

no. I don't poke holes. I state unequivocally that it is incorrect to take ancient writings and symbolic and allegorical writing styles literally. that's it. nothing more. nothing less. so let's break this down: carson is successful in nonreligious endeavors. therefore he is not a nutbag. Caligula et al were successful at other endeavors. it however does not follow from that premise that they are not nutjobs. carson doesn't lead a cult (not sure I agree but for the sake of argument...) therefore he's not a nutbag. Caligula et al had people killed so they are notbags. therefore it follows that anyone that has someone killed Is a nutbag and anyone successful in non religious pursuits or that doesn't have anyone killed or lead a cult is not a nutbag???? ummmmm....no.

I believe in part, because of this (from the above linked article): Therefore, “science is left free to propose explanations and descriptions of the working of the natural world, knowing that none of these descriptions are the final word and that all of them are based on the assumption of a rational universe whose very existence depends on the creative action of God.” this seems clear to me based on my own life experiences. I also believe I've seen evidence of the soul or spirit. I've often worked with dying people. but why, based on what I've argued here, would you find it so hard to believe that I do believe in God? does your apparently rigid, structured, belief system require as a necessity, a literal approach to the bible as a prerequisite to believing? if so, why?

the evidence against literal creationism is overwhelming. Augustine obviously provides a model that fully allows for the findings of modern science and the presence of God simultaneously. http://www.catholicnewsagency.com/news/vatican-astronomer-yawns-at-frenzy-over-popes-big-bang-words-22062/ it appears that the astronomer's opinions coincide with those of Pope Francis.

interestingly, this scientist argued that what is now called creationism is much closer to paganism than Christianity. the romans believed that the early Christians were atheists because they refused to ascribe every natural phenomenon to a God eg: lightning = zeus acting.

some one that hasn't studied the classics might be tempted to describe him thus. someone that has might describe him better otherwise: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/augustine/ One of the decisive developments in the western philosophical tradition was the eventually widespread merging of the Greek philosophical tradition and the Judeo-Christian religious and scriptural traditions. Augustine is one of the main figures through and by whom this merging was accomplished. He is, as well, one of the towering figures of medieval philosophy whose authority and thought came to exert a pervasive and enduring influence well into the modern period (e.g. Descartes and especially Malebranche), and even up to the present day, especially among those sympathetic to the religious tradition which he helped to shape (e.g. Plantinga 1992; Adams 1999).

I said it is reasonable to conclude. I stand by that. your word is "probable". in the last half dozen posts, two words have been incorrectly ascribed to me. and we're arguing theology? yep....ridiculous and if you don't care what he says then you don't care what I do (which is quite obvious) since i'm in full agreement.

I would be foolish to try and restate what st Augustine has so beautifully communicated on this issue. I agree with him fully. in case you all missed it the first time: Augustine "It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]).

st Augustine is frequently cited in the official Catechism of the church. read his take on creation here. http://www.catholic.com/tracts/creation-and-genesis I do not have a poll of Catholics (although it may exist). but it's reasonable to conclude that a majority agree with the catechism else they would look elsewhere for spiritual guidance. for now, let me state alternatively, that many highly respected Catholic theologians do not agree with the literal interpretation of Genesis. Augustine "It not infrequently happens that something about the earth, about the sky, about other elements of this world, about the motion and rotation or even the magnitude and distances of the stars, about definite eclipses of the sun and moon, about the passage of years and seasons, about the nature of animals, of fruits, of stones, and of other such things, may be known with the greatest certainty by reasoning or by experience, even by one who is not a Christian. It is too disgraceful and ruinous, though, and greatly to be avoided, that he [the non-Christian] should hear a Christian speaking so idiotically on these matters, and as if in accord with Christian writings, that he might say that he could scarcely keep from laughing when he saw how totally in error they are. In view of this and in keeping it in mind constantly while dealing with the book of Genesis, I have, insofar as I was able, explained in detail and set forth for consideration the meanings of obscure passages, taking care not to affirm rashly some one meaning to the prejudice of another and perhaps better explanation" (The Literal Interpretation of Genesis 1:19–20 [A.D. 408]). yes, I believe He did. but not in a few days and not 6000 years ago. and not with the wave of a wand.

the majority of Catholics and especially Catholic theologians believe that literal acceptance of it is naïve and misguided. "bunk" is your word. I never typed it til now.

actually, it is everyday that Catholics say that literal interpretation is incorrect. at least the vast majority of Catholics.

went to a lecture by the head Vatican astronomer recently. very impressive astrophysicist.. very likely he's appropriately labelled a genius. he discussed this. it's not that metaphysics and science are incompatible. it's that one must grant the premise that the world is real in order to study science. it's absolutely necessary. solipsism, or the belief that we are actually alone in the world and it only exists in our own minds is the premise that is incompatible with science. what carson is saying is tightly related to this. I reject it outright. and so must anyone that uses science for any decision making. by that fact alone, he's inconsistent in his beliefs since neurosurgery is based on science. btw, he was just as critical of the 6000 year old earth crowd as the Stephen hawking atheist crowd saying both base their beliefs on agendas and convenience rather than evidence. too long to go into here and frankly it was extremely deep and complicated but he made his case well. in regards to hawking, he summarized his book on the "proof" that God was not involved in the creation of the universe by saying that hawking's proof makes gravity into God. the astrophysicist thought that appropriate since Catholics celebrate Mass. there are clearly some amazing intellects considering these questions. unfortunately, ben carson is not one of them.

why? righteous indignation is my thing. steered me right (actually left) most of my adult life.

so it wasn't meant to be funny and the word abort had no tie to abortion. you just shut up.

just as there are no tasteful jokes about nazis, there only indecent "jokes" about abortion.

http://www.vox.com/2015/7/20/9007815/bernie-sanders-national-socialist So even though Williamson: Acknowledges that Sanders is Jewish and his family was killed in the Holocaust; Acknowledges that Sanders is not, in fact, a Nazi; and Agrees with Sanders that economic policy should be organized around national interest and it is not chauvinistic to say so He nevertheless thinks that there is no other way to characterize Sanders's views on trade policy and the welfare state than as national socialism.

you truly are a crude, tasteless, filthy pos. your ancestors must be so proud.

about what? that you really worship at his leprechaun pot-a-gold feet or that we can ignore anything he says that is repeated here? is expecting both asking too much?