| Author | Message | ||
     Slaughter |
12 (twelve in decimal system) is truth | ||
| Blake |
>>> If one isn't welcome to voice an opinion or view, it should be posted in the rules right at the beginning of the discussion. But they are welcome. They just aren't immune from rebuttal. | ||
| Blake |
>>> 12 (twelve in decimal system) is truth Unless you are a baker, then it's 13. | ||
| Pammy |
welcome: adj: gladly received; pleasing.* n: reception of a person or a thing. * vt: to greet kindly.... ...uh, no. From what I understand about Christianity....an ego is only for sinners. Shame Blake... A sweetheart like me?...an evil woman? An uppity woman at that? You sir, are surely headed straight for Hades. (a little Greek)  | ||
| Prowler |
This thread should be put on some back burner way deep in the bowls of BadWeb. The last thing I need is some pathetic loser spewing religion at me. Isn't there a "backfire" board on this forum for crap like this? | ||
| Blake |
"Welcome to BadWeB" Sounds pretty welcoming to me! You're absolutely correct about the ego. It's something I struggle with a lot. You should have seen me ten years ago. All, Please ignore the pathetic losers who only pop in to whine about our discussion and insult us. | ||
| Sayitaintso |
All, Please ignore the pathetic losers who only pop in to whine about our discussion and insult us I'll play "devil's advocate" here. Should we also ignore those who fling insults? | ||
| Pammy |
Yeah but Blake, your "Welcome to Badweb"...followed by "Your new and impudent..." is much akin to "Come over here little girl...I have some candy". You know I love you, right? And I have some candy... Ha Ha | ||
| Froggy |
Blake, how old you do believe the earth is? Are you in the camp that feels it is 12,000 years old, or are you in the camp that believes it is 4.5 billion years? | ||
| Blake |
I had no idea that Stanley was so innocent or that I had enticed him or so reprehensibly violated him. I must be like Hitler!    Sorry Stanley. Now I feel bad, on account of I didn't even give you any candy. All in good Your Highness.  | ||
| Blake |
Not sure Frank. Still trying to figure out how the mammoths were flash frozen with fresh food matter still intact in their stomachs. | ||
| Blake |
One thing I absolutely reject is the notion that time and happenstance produce order let alone order leading to reproductive life. | ||
| Slaughter |
This is a discussion on religion and non-religion. We were expecting non-emotional discussions? Time and happenstance are only considered to be arbritrary by those who define them as arbritrary. Mammoths digestive systems are more like bovine than human - however the partially-digested food matter is identifiable, not intact (as it would be if "flash frozen") - unless you're saying that god-as-micro-manager "flash froze" the mammoth somehow for our benefit. | ||
| Slaughter |
I should go away now - I've got too much time on my hands today. | ||
| Slaughter |
Good to know that the following souls are damned: Jews Moozlims Papists Mormons yet we make exceptions for virtuous pagans (Dante's words, not mine) | ||
| Slaughter |
Ohhhh crap, I wasn't going to keep participating. Gotta get ready for Charlotte's party tonight! | ||
| Blake |
Steve, Yes, we must shun all emotion. Be like Spok. It would be nice. I might could do it, if others would play along too. I don't view time as arbitrary; happenstance is I think by definition the embodiment of "arbitrary", no? Reports I read indicated fresh food still in mammoths mouths. Not meaning to suggest anything other than an enigma that remains to be explained. Comets are another. Very interesting to me. "souls are damned"? Where does the bible say that? The Hindus and Buddhists are going to be upset with you for leaving them off your list. | ||
| Aesquire |
virtuous pagans We have hope. I really liked the Greek Gods too. Fabulous soap opera, moral lessons, even though I can't stop thinking of Aphrodite after watching "Xena". Dante's Hell has the promise of Heaven for the good, no matter the faith in life. "All you heathen are going to hell" is a universal in religion. Ask a Ba-al worshiper. The mammoths were probably frozen in a freezing fog, which still happens in Siberia, and places like the Dakota's, Canada, Antarctica. The higher temperature transfer from the fog sucks the heat out of you so fast horse troops have been found frozen in the saddle. Food in mammoth's gut, Buttercups, and tropical fern type stuff, not edible, that's a lot of mass to cool off..... | ||
| Pammy |
The Mammoth fell, broke a bunch of bones...earth fell in on top of him and it suffocated. By the plants that were in the beasts mouth, they reckoned it died in Autumn. | ||
| Blake |
The heat transfer doesn't work out, too much time for the food to rot in stomach acid. Not even a frozen river would do it from the analysis I saw. | ||
| Blake |
Cool news the other day about some folks looking to clone a mammoth. http://news.blogs.cnn.com/2011/01/17/scientists-tr ying-to-clone-resurrect-extinct-mammoth/ | ||
| Liquorwhere |
>>> So if God is "A" then you must also believe that he had a creator... and he had a creator and so on and so on. Untrue. You're stuck in four dimensions. Imagine that you only knew three dimensions, two of space, one of space-time. Everything you know and sense would be limited to a flat 2-dimensional plane. How would you fathom the 3rd spacial dimension? Or if you had no sense of time, all you knew was the present with no sense of a past or future. How could you fathom time and the abilities that it allows? How then may we comprehend existence in five or six dimensions? We do have laws of science for our realm that state that matter cannot appear from non-matter and that life cannot spring from non-life. Those are the laws of science upon which the proof is based. We don't have any laws of science that state that it is impossible for a being to exist in a realm of greater dimensions that our own. In fact Hawking at one time proposed just that notion wrt God. What he is on to is an old argument that is actually accepted as a valid and sound argument made by St Thomas Aquinas for a belief in God. It is called the five ways: St. Thomas Aquinas: The Existence of God can be proved in five ways. Argument Analysis of the Five Ways © 2004 Theodore Gracyk The First Way: Argument from Motion Our senses prove that some things are in motion. Things move when potential motion becomes actual motion. Only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion. Nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect (i.e., if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another). Therefore nothing can move itself. Therefore each thing in motion is moved by something else. The sequence of motion cannot extend ad infinitum. Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, put in motion by no other; and this everyone understands to be God. The Second Way: Argument from Efficient Causes We perceive a series of efficient causes of things in the world. Nothing exists prior to itself. Therefore nothing is the efficient cause of itself. If a previous efficient cause does not exist, neither does the thing that results. Therefore if the first thing in a series does not exist, nothing in the series exists. The series of efficient causes cannot extend ad infinitum into the past, for then there would be no things existing now. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God. The Third Way: Argument from Possibility and Necessity (Reductio argument) We find in nature things that are possible to be and not to be, that come into being and go out of being i.e., contingent beings. Assume that every being is a contingent being. For each contingent being, there is a time it does not exist. Therefore it is impossible for these always to exist. Therefore there could have been a time when no things existed. Therefore at that time there would have been nothing to bring the currently existing contingent beings into existence. Therefore, nothing would be in existence now. We have reached an absurd result from assuming that every being is a contingent being. Therefore not every being is a contingent being. Therefore some being exists of its own necessity, and does not receive its existence from another being, but rather causes them. This all men speak of as God. The Fourth Way: Argument from Gradation of Being There is a gradation to be found in things: some are better or worse than others. Predications of degree require reference to the “uttermost” case (e.g., a thing is said to be hotter according as it more nearly resembles that which is hottest). The maximum in any genus is the cause of all in that genus. Therefore there must also be something which is to all beings the cause of their being, goodness, and every other perfection; and this we call God. The Fifth Way: Argument from Design We see that natural bodies work toward some goal, and do not do so by chance. Most natural things lack knowledge. But as an arrow reaches its target because it is directed by an archer, what lacks intelligence achieves goals by being directed by something intelligence. Therefore some intelligent being exists by whom all natural things are directed to their end; and this being we call God. http://www.mnstate.edu/gracyk/courses/web%20publis hing/aquinasfiveways_argumentanalysis.htm In essence what is above is that everything has a first cause, your parents were your's, and their parents their's and back we go through time. The stick is the difference between those that believe in the big bang and those that believe in creationism. The FIRST CAUSE so to speak by some is God, creating the universe, heavens, Earth and so forth when referring to St Thomas Aquinas. The FIRST CAUSE with evolutionists would be the big bang: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang Pretty good explanation there. So it is a question of faith which is also covered in the five ways above. You can simply state that "it is what I believe to be true" and that faith should not be questioned as genuine. So the argument moves from whether or not the bible is evil to many other areas of theology including the formation of the universe, the age, the dynamics. There are others that site intelligent design: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intelligent_design another good explanation of that there. Then there are those that refute causal theory by citing quantum physics and the fact there is spontaneous generation at the sub atomic level that could back up the big bang. All good reading of course. Then there is my favorite philosopher Blaise Pascal. His story is interesting because he was a womanizer, a drinker, notorious to frequent the more decadent side of the royal courts of france and the red light districts in Paris until he has some religious experience that changed his point of view. Being an extreme individual he dove in headlong with a sect so strict they felt it unspeakable to give love to a child or fellow man as it was love reserved for God. Be that as it may he wrote wonderful passages and because many were considered heresy sewed them into his cloak. Those passages were assembled after his death and published with my favorite being The Wager: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager One of the most profound arguments for a belief in God as he puts it into "your best interest" and of course the presented many mathematical theories on the cutting edge at the time including expected utility. So there ya go. Lots of research to debate if you choose. | ||
| Blake |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager The apostrophe apparently messes up the automatic hyperlink. Fixed it above.  I'd not seen Aquinas' arguments. Thanks for posting that. Really interesting. One thing: The big bang is a physical event and as with every physical event, it must have been somehow instigated (set in motion), so I cannot see the truth that it in and of itself could be the root cause of matter and being. | ||
| Moxnix |
Yawn . . . | ||
| Moxnix |
All seriousness aside, my TV gets more than one channel. I don't watch all of them, just those I find either entertaining or thought provoking. | ||
| Liquorwhere |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager The apostrophe apparently messes up the automatic hyperlink. Fixed it above. I'd not seen Aquinas' arguments. Thanks for posting that. Really interesting. One thing: The big bang is a physical event and as with every physical event, it must have been somehow instigated (set in motion), so I cannot see the truth that it in and of itself could be the root cause of matter and being. Yes the causation of the big bang has been contested for a long time, that is why the quantum physics debate was so useful to those that wished to carry that water. Spontaneous generation, and not the one you are thinking of from your high school classes about Pasteur, but the kind that happens at a sub atomic level that can, this I must take this on faith because I do not have the background to decipher the math involved, in fact make drastic changes without a "first cause" or something pushing it into motion. It takes a lot of math apparently to prove it and while I can get through a great deal of math fairly well, that math is beyond me. Glad you like the St Thomas Aquinas link, he wrote quote a book, the Summa Theologica that you can still buy if you wish to have the most up to date 12th century writings on your nightstand, and of course a sturdy nightstand as it makes war and peace look like reader's digest. Read up on him, he was THE big gun of the Catholic church in his day. Anyone questioning the church that had any type of actual clout in his time eventually got to debate him, and most of the time go home and wimper into their pillow after he had thoroughly discredited their argument. He would lecture to 8-9 scribes at a time on Geology, math, theology, astronomy, and any other item he deemed necessary for the book. Quite frankly, along with Pascal and DesCartes, right up there in my list of favorite people in history. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Aquinas | ||
| Blake |
>>> Spontaneous generation,... the kind that happens at a sub atomic level that can... in fact make drastic changes without a "first cause" or something pushing it into motion. Proved by math you say? I cannot find a reference for that. I'd like to know more. | ||
| Liquorwhere |
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuleti c/vacuum.html http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elementary_particle This will get you started on your search. Remember Blake, most that adhere to this type of argument are arguing against the idea of a God, so be prepared to read things you do not agree with in your search. (Message edited by liquorwhere on January 22, 2011) | ||
| Slaughter |
Note: just because you don't know or can't explain something in a sportbike BBS doesn't mean it doesn't exist or can't exist. The reverse is also true Carry on. | ||
| Blake |
I'm just asking if it is pure theory or proved and/or observed truth. The idea that something comes from nothing absent even causal input from a higher being? Sounds like a tough sell and yet another example of the absurd lengths to which some will stretch in trying to deny the existence of God. I'll give it a thorough read once I return home. Thanks for the links! Found an interesting site with transcripts of debates, so you get both sides of the issues ... http://www.leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/menus/deb ates.html |
