Ramius Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Dwight: you read the Bible and can interpret its prophecies? You do realize, don't you, that you're not the first person to read the Bible and think they are living in the end of days, don't you? Further, what makes you think Christians have a lock on the whole god/end-of-the-world thing? Agreed completely. Again, dwight, why the hell is now all of a sudden different than the 2-3 dozen other times that the world was "coming to an end." They knew back then without a doubt that the world was ending and the end times were upon us, but here we still are. As for your "predictions," and the fact that you claim to be able to read prophecy within the Bible, and only are here to let us know, perhaps you should study the Bible a bit more, specifically, Matthew 7:15. Beware of false prophets who come to you in sheep's clothing but inwardly are savage wolves. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tennesseeboy Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 If you really want to get the wheels turning think about how jealousy is the opposite of love and God declares himself as love(God is Love) and how he also declares himself jealous. So either he is both Love and Jealous(we can go into a whole discussion about that if your up for it) or the bible has a flaw. Well...did God actually write Exodus? If so did he do it in English? Just curious. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazed and Amuzed Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Well...did God actually write Exodus? If so did he do it in English? Just curious. God didn't write any of the Bible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 God didn't write any of the Bible. I know. He spoke it to dwight drane and told him to spread the word across the intertubes. I'm actually waiting for when Dwight Drane claims to be Jesus Christ. Shouldn't be too long. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 God is provable through several means. Just because you don't understand or grasp them doesn't mean that it's not true. It's like arguing there is no such things as nuclear physics because you never finished calculus or don't grasp math. The argument presented here are 2 cent thoughts of absolute stupidity. God "must exist outside the universe", and Pascal's Wagers are not proofs of God. Pascal's Wager is about wagering your life if you don't think God exists and the wager of longer punishment or happiness whether or not you chose God. It's not meant to be a demonstrative proof but a means to happiness and virtue. Aquinas's 5 proofs are demonstrative. The proof through motion as an Unmoved Mover, 1st Being, final cause, etc. are demonstrative through induction and deduction. ... The problem here lies in the fact you are guys are clueless when talking about why God doesn't exist. Why not take a book on Epistemology and Ontology and get back to me. Any 10 year old gets the Aquinus proofs (that are really Aristotle's, but whatever). A consideration of those proofs leads an honest person to admit they don't know the answer to a question like "what moved the first moving thing?" Some people call not knowing the answer "god;" some call not knowing the answer "not knowing the answer." Those "proofs" are absolutely NOT demonstrative. They do not demonstrate "god." They are examples of questions that we cannot answer. Consider by analogy that when people didn't understand the Sun, it was god. Most people wouldn't say that now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Any 10 year old gets the Aquinus proofs (that are really Aristotle's, but whatever). A consideration of those proofs leads an honest person to admit they don't know the answer to a question like "what moved the first moving thing?" Some people call not knowing the answer "god;" some call not knowing the answer "not knowing the answer." Those "proofs" are absolutely NOT demonstrative. They do not demonstrate "god." They are examples of questions that we cannot answer. Consider by analogy that when people didn't understand the Sun, it was god. Most people wouldn't say that now. Aquinas abstracted them from Aristotle, but Aristotle never formulated proofs in dialectic fashion. To answer your question "Who moved the the First Mover" then excludes a first, which is a contradiction since the first cannot be first and not the first simultaneously. Of course your 10 year old knowledge of philosophy knows that. Something cannot be first and not first by reason it was moved itself simultaneously. This is demonstrative as all causation must come from something is moved from a Primary and not moved by necessity or it would be an intermediary and hence no terminus from which started causation. I know that might not seem demonstrative, but it is. Your denial or acceptance of such a demonstration from logic is of no consequence, just as if your acceptance or denial you write on a message board is of no consequence as truth is independent of ourselves. You know, all the stupid retorts of philosophy come from that stupidity which doesn't want to understand logic. "Well if God made everything, who made God? Who moved God?" etc. Well if God is the First Mover there cannot be another first. If God is the efficient cause of matter there cannot be another effecient cause. The word first is designated as the state of being, not as something in continual fluctuation unless we are speaking accidentally and not substantially. To make it really simple for you it's like saying "My first wife's name is Deborah." And then reply, "Yah, but who was your wife before her?" They are demonstrative despite your poor logic and denial of reason. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StupidNation Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Consider by analogy that when people didn't understand the Sun, it was god. Most people wouldn't say that now. Consider by way of analogy all biologists believed maggots came from rotten meat. Does that discredit biology any more than cultures who assumed mythology? Your analogy is horrible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stuckincincy Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Any 10 year old gets the Aquinus proofs (that are really Aristotle's, but whatever). A consideration of those proofs leads an honest person to admit they don't know the answer to a question like "what moved the first moving thing?" Some people call not knowing the answer "god;" some call not knowing the answer "not knowing the answer." Those "proofs" are absolutely NOT demonstrative. They do not demonstrate "god." They are examples of questions that we cannot answer. Consider by analogy that when people didn't understand the Sun, it was god. Most people wouldn't say that now. The God Exists/God Does Not Exist deal has been kicked around as long as mankind has had a mouth. By great and small minds. It's ludicrous and presumptuous for anyone who posts here, to think they have anything - at all - to add to the centuries of debate. Yet every generation is convinced that their blather is new and improved... It is presumptive, egotistical, to think that God need prove Himself to you, or me. There are plenty of folks who reject any concept of a God - it bothers some - not all - when there is a possibility of accounting for their abuse of others, their chronically self-referential existence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwight Drane Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 I know. He spoke it to dwight drane and told him to spread the word across the intertubes. I'm actually waiting for when Dwight Drane claims to be Jesus Christ. Shouldn't be too long. You can take me to the woodshed for being cocky....I'll accept that. Giving my opinion on football or hockey is just me using my knowledge and skills. Giving information on what is going on behind the scenes in the economic world is first-hand information that I see and have seen and know that the equation can't be balanced. If I was an engineer and the Buffalo Bills brought me in to check out the physical structure of the stadium.....and I found that the entire upper deck had a pretty good chance of falling down with the weight of 25,000 people in it....would you expect me to come and warn you? You may say "Oh...the Bills would never take that risk....the County or State regulators would close the stadium down...just one little crack doesn't mean it will come tumbling down!" Well, what if the Bills didn't plan on sticking around much longer and just needed to get through the season in that stadium? What if they didn't have the money on hand to fix the problem? What if the regulators were too stupid or paid off not to notice the problem or do something about it for the safety of the public? What if the Bills were hoping they could make it through the season, only to notice the structure starting to buckle during the 2nd quarter of a game...do they panic the fans, have them stampede out and cause it to crash down anyway? Or do they play dumb, wait for the disaster to happen and show concern after the disaster is well under way? I know it isn't an exact analogy...but you get the drift. If I saw that stadium in that condition, couldn't be bought off by the Bills, yet didn't have enough power to confront the regulators who are in on the deal....should I just not go to the games and run and hide? Or should I say.."Bills Fans....WATCH OUT!" Why do I think it is the end times? Because you can see the activity taking place in the economic, geopolitical, and cultural worlds that have and will have set it up. Of course I can be wrong....but that won't stop me from telling people that know me or ones I care about, how I feel. I just have my posting history on this board, but friends, family, co-workers....they respect me enough, I hope, to catch my drift. I don't claim to be a prophet.....I am not an expert on the Bible...however there are many passages of prophecy in the Bible that are straight forward. The more things start to heat up in the world, the more sides are starting to take shape to EXACT expectations given. There is no exact time given in the Bible for the end times, but a set of events were given to follow God's "gameplan". He's letting his fans know when he is about to go play-action, deep down the field. When you see a certain personel package and formation hit the field, it is about to happen. Congress has a 9% approval rating. They are supposed to be the experts. I'm just trying to do my public duty to make up for the other 91% that seems to have vanished into thin air. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hazed and Amuzed Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 is just me using my knowledge and skills. Like numb chuck skills, bow hunting skills... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MattyT Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 If I was an engineer and the Buffalo Bills brought me in to check out the physical structure of the stadium.....and I found that the entire upper deck had a pretty good chance of falling down with the weight of 25,000 people in it....would you expect me to come and warn you? I'd be grateful....right up until the point that you suggested fairy dust to fix it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Aquinas abstracted them from Aristotle, but Aristotle never formulated proofs in dialectic fashion. To answer your question "Who moved the the First Mover" then excludes a first, which is a contradiction since the first cannot be first and not the first simultaneously. Of course your 10 year old knowledge of philosophy knows that. Something cannot be first and not first by reason it was moved itself simultaneously. This is demonstrative as all causation must come from something is moved from a Primary and not moved by necessity or it would be an intermediary and hence no terminus from which started causation. I know that might not seem demonstrative, but it is. Your denial or acceptance of such a demonstration from logic is of no consequence, just as if your acceptance or denial you write on a message board is of no consequence as truth is independent of ourselves. You know, all the stupid retorts of philosophy come from that stupidity which doesn't want to understand logic. "Well if God made everything, who made God? Who moved God?" etc. Well if God is the First Mover there cannot be another first. If God is the efficient cause of matter there cannot be another effecient cause. The word first is designated as the state of being, not as something in continual fluctuation unless we are speaking accidentally and not substantially. Just because you like to do the logic dance with AQ (who?) does not make those proofs demonstrative of god. Aquinas merely considered the problem of the infinite regression with his prime mover/first cause "proofs." Not finding an answer in nature to the problem of infinite regression, he chose to call the prime mover "god." That's well and good but all he's actually done is give a word answer to a problem of incomprehensibility. There are plenty of questions, that by the circular nature of the question, cannot be similarly answered. If asked, "What's beyond the edge of the universe (infinite progression question)," is it safe to assume his answer would be "god?" That answer, "god," is not a logical conclusion. It's a leap of faith. His questions, and Aristotle's before him, are intriguing because we cannot as yet comprehend the answers. Maybe we will have an answer someday to the prime mover question. Maybe it's god. Maybe it's something else. Right now, no one knows, including you, and Aquinas's "proofs" proove nothing. If you want them to be proof of god (sounds good to me), that's fine but again, that is faith. To make it really simple for you it's like saying "My first wife's name is Deborah." And then reply, "Yah, but who was your wife before her?" They are demonstrative despite your poor logic and denial of reason. And you throw stones at my analogy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Consider by way of analogy all biologists believed maggots came from rotten meat. Does that discredit biology any more than cultures who assumed mythology? Your analogy is horrible. My point, and one you choose to ignore, is that not knowing an answer does not proove god's existence. In ancient Eqypt, people could not explain the sun so they made it the god Ra. Tree of the AQ "proofs" cannot understand infinite regression, and similarly decide to call it god. Both are leaps of faith. The first, the sun god Ra, is now widely accepted as debunked by our understanding of astronomy and physics. The second currently defies explanation--that does not mean it will always be so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Let me show you show stupid one argument is: "...it's easily provable that you can't prove God exists: God, as creator of the universe, must exist outside the universe. The universe, by definition, contains the sum total of everything that is knowable." The universe by definition is not truly quantifiable as we do not have the means to quantify it, but quantified in part, not in whole, by what is empirically known. The universe is a quantitative explanation of what materially exists. God is spirit (not like Scooby Doo idiocy I see here) and is hence immaterial. Therefore to reduce God to universe is about as intelligent as a plant preaching to humans that they are the most intelligent life they know. In both cases it's bad, bad logic. The material in the universe is not all that is known or can be known. We know spiritual ideas such as justice, society, goodness, etc. which cannot be quantified. And that, after I specifically said "The universe, by definition, contains the sum total of everything that is knowable." Thank you for simultaneously demonstrating and missing my point, bonehead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Adams Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 I don't claim to be a prophet.....I am not an expert on the Bible...however there are many passages of prophecy in the Bible that are straight forward. The more things start to heat up in the world, the more sides are starting to take shape to EXACT expectations given. There is no exact time given in the Bible for the end times, but a set of events were given to follow God's "gameplan". He's letting his fans know when he is about to go play-action, deep down the field. When you see a certain personel package and formation hit the field, it is about to happen. Really? The Bible's end of days passages are straightforward? Only really crazy people say that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 just a question, i never understood this logic but what is outside the universe and how is that argument make it true that god exists? Outside the universe is...where God is. Look at it this way: God, according to canonical religious thought, created everything (and for the benefit of the aptly-named "StupidNation", I'm not just talking about matter here). But before everything was created, there was God. Therefore, God must exist outside the universe at least in the sense that he pre-existed it (and there's nothing about "outside" that says it must be a space-wise consideration. A time-wise interpretation of "outside" is perfectly valid). It doesn't even matter if you believe in an infinite continuous universe, or one bounded by the Big Bang or billions of tribbles or the Flying Spaghetti Monster or whatever. The simple fact the the universe has a beginning presupposes an "outside" to the universe, and requires any creator to exist in that "outside". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwight Drane Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 I'd be grateful....right up until the point that you suggested fairy dust to fix it. I didn't suggest fairy dust last summer, in January or in March. The debate about God is relevant in the end when everything else human fails. I have only recently trumpeted a spiritual tone on all of this as it has unfolded. The good thing is....something big has to give, and soon. If the economy, the US, and the geopolitical scene is in any better shape in March of '09 than right now...I will STFU. In all honesty, I will probably STFU anyway as you don't need to yell "FIRE" at the point everyone is on fire. What will be, will be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Really? The Bible's end of days passages are straightforward? Only really crazy people say that. And I saw another mighty angel come down from heaven, clothed with a cloud: and a rainbow was upon his head, and his face was as it were the sun, and his feet as pillars of fire: And he had in his hand a little book open: and he set his right foot upon the sea, and his left foot on the earth, And cried with a loud voice, as when a lion roareth: and when he had cried, seven thunders uttered their voices. And when the seven thunders had uttered their voices, I was about to write: and I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Seal up those things which the seven thunders uttered, and write them not. You mean, that's not straightforward? Seems pretty clear we're living in that time right now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dwight Drane Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 Really? The Bible's end of days passages are straightforward? Only really crazy people say that. As they begin to happen...it will be moreso. Call me crazy......normal just doesn't do it for me these days. There is one thing though that I don't understand.....if God is just some Spaghetti Monster and you have to be crazy to believe, why do people get so upset in trying to disprove him? If some guy on Doat St. is holding a crackpipe and comes up to my car to tell me there is a Dolphin swimming in my backseat...I'm just going to smile, say thanks, and move on. Now if I feel threatened by that same guy, I would try to get as far away from him as possible. What I wouldn't do is START multiple conversations with him to try and convince him there is no Dolphin swimming in my car. I certainly wouldn't drive back down to Doat with a crackpipe and a rock, look for the guy, tell him to smoke it, then proceed to argue with him again. I have responded to multiple threads where someone feels the need to brag about how they believe there is no God. That just doesn't add up at face value. Instead of reading a philosophy book, maybe a psychology book is in order so we can identify just what conditions are really at play in this debate? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ramius Posted August 25, 2008 Share Posted August 25, 2008 I didn't suggest fairy dust last summer, in January or in March. The debate about God is relevant in the end when everything else human fails. I have only recently trumpeted a spiritual tone on all of this as it has unfolded. The good thing is....something big has to give, and soon. If the economy, the US, and the geopolitical scene is in any better shape in March of '09 than right now...I will STFU. In all honesty, I will probably STFU anyway as you don't need to yell "FIRE" at the point everyone is on fire. What will be, will be. No one is on fire. The sun came out, the temperature warmed a few degrees, and you are running around telling everyone they are on fire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts