01 Dec 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeThat's only because you deny God, and therefore also His Son's mission on earth.
Yes in fairy tales people lived much longer lives in the past.
In reality the average lifespan used to be a helluva lot lower in the past than it is now.
And nobody has ever lived 150 years... let alone 900.
And no I don't think we should be looking to the bible for useful information.
What I was pointing out is that it is wrong to claim th ...[text shortened]... on't know of anything we need to know that is in the bible that we didn't know
already anyway.
My main point is that *this* is really all we 'need' to know. The rest is gravy.
Originally posted by googlefudgeYes, I am convinced that God exists. It has been 'proven' to *me*. So yeah, given that God exists, the statement that 'God doesn't exist' *must* be false.
So you are convinced that god exists and thus their cannot be evidence that god doesn't exist...
Yeah, the world doesn't work like that.
And the world works exactly like that.
Edit: Lol, I hope you're happy. By denying me the opportunity to attack those cretins who think homosexuality is a sin against man and nature (but only if it's male homosexuals), you've inadvertently turned my attention to you. 😀 Maybe that's what you wanted in the first place, I dunno. 😵
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
01 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneReasonable doubt is not wishy washy.
When you start those discussions, you end up running away from logic, saying things like 'reasonable doubt', so no, it just ends up sounding wishy-washy.
If you prove something to a certainty of 99.99995% then it's not reasonable to doubt
that it's true.
However it's still not absolutely 100% certain.
For example physics has a threshold for declaring the discovery of a new particle of 5 sigma,
which means that the chance of being wrong is about 1 in 2 million.
The problem of hard solipsism means we can never have absolute 100% certainty about
anything other than our own existence and what can be proven entirely logically within
our own minds (mathematics basically).
So when I say 'beyond reasonable doubt' I am simply acknowledging that you can't prove
anything with 100% certainty.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
01 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneBeing convinced something is true is not evidence or reason to believe that it is true.
Yes, I am convinced that God exists. It has been 'proven' to *me*. So yeah, given that God exists, the statement that 'God doesn't exist' *must* be false.
And the world works exactly like that.
People believe all kinds of things that are patently not true.
And how has gods existence been proven to you?
Given that you keep claiming (wrongly) that their can't be evidence of gods existence
otherwise peoples free will would be violated.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
01 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneI know that's your point.
That's only because you deny God, and therefore also His Son's mission on earth.
My main point is that *this* is really all we 'need' to know. The rest is gravy.
My point is that your point is wrong.
It's not ALL we need to know, in fact it's not even SOMETHING we need to know. Given it's wrong.
01 Dec 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeNo, no, NO.
We do.
However we are discussing the major point where we do disagree.
You think you can know stuff by faith.
I know you can't.
I *know* you can know stuff by faith.
You *think* you can't. (Because you've never tried. Although I must say, it is like man not trying to fly because every time someone in the past tried it, they ended up badly injured or dead. I'm not sure if you're past that point of no return yet, but you're putting up a hell of an argument that you are.)
Originally posted by SuzianneAlright, I can live with that interpretation (to a certain extent of course; dirty atheist that I am), it doesn't sound too mindboggling.
Well, no, that's not it.
Using the examples you put forth. Everyone knew how to build a house, presumably they learned it from their parents or relatives. Cancer was unknown in the Bible. Viruses and bacteria were unknown in the Bible. And I mean unknown to man in general. The Bible, written as it was thousands of years ago, is not the place to look ...[text shortened]... to some kind of 'Book of Secrets' would have spoiled its intent and muddled up its real message.
What does sound unreasonable to me is that God would disperse a lot of need-to-know information in the bible, yet not where he comes from. He expects us to follow him, certainly it wouldn't be unreasonable of us to want to know the history of god himself.
I mean, what if god turns out to be nothing more than a smalltime criminal who was kicked out of the sixth dimension of the multiverse as punishment and decided to burp a universe into existence out of boredom? I'd like to know that before giving me life to him.
01 Dec 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeAhhh, finally, the point. Very good.
Being convinced something is true is not evidence or reason to believe that it is true.
People believe all kinds of things that are patently not true.
And how has gods existence been proven to you?
Given that you keep claiming (wrongly) that their can't be evidence of gods existence
otherwise peoples free will would be violated.
Although it will have to wait, because I am soon off to church and unfortunately can't take the time it would take to explain right this minute.
🙂
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
01 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneI am not sure I did deny you that opportunity.
Edit: Lol, I hope you're happy. By denying me the opportunity to attack those cretins who think homosexuality is a sin against man and nature (but only if it's male homosexuals), you've inadvertently turned my attention to you. 😀 Maybe that's what you wanted in the first place, I dunno. 😵
However I have no problem debating with you.
I have to say that in terms of reading the bible, those that claim it says homosexuality is a
sin have a stronger claim than those saying it doesn't.
Which is one of the many reasons I attack the whole idea of using the bible to decide what
is right or wrong in the first place.
Which brings me to an interesting question that I asked Kelly, and am now specifically asking you.
From Page 16, third post down, of this thread:
http://www.redhotpawn.com/board/showthread.php?threadid=156306&page=16
Can you answer me this question?
Imagine the worst, most despicable, act of gross immorality and evil you
can think of. An act which turns your stomach even to think of and if
someone perpetrated that act you would despise them for it...
Would you accept that same horrible act as being good and wonderful,
if your god came down and told you that that act was morally good?
Please note I am not asking whether you think your god would do that.
I am asking IF they did, would you accept that that act you currently
consider to be abominable, to now be moral and good.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
01 Dec 13
Originally posted by SuzianneOh. I'm never going to believe anything based on faith.
No, no, NO.
I *know* you can know stuff by faith.
You *think* you can't. (Because you've never tried. Although I must say, it is like man not trying to fly because every time someone in the past tried it, they ended up badly injured or dead. I'm not sure if you're past that point of no return yet, but you're putting up a hell of an argument that you are.)
Barring major brain damage of course, but in that case I would have ceased being me.
01 Dec 13
Originally posted by googlefudgeHowever, it IS all we need to know from the Bible.
I know that's your point.
My point is that your point is wrong.
It's not ALL we need to know, in fact it's not even SOMETHING we need to know. Given it's wrong.
Because clearly, the Bible didn't 'need' to tell us how to control electricity or how to make an electric light or how to build an airplane or rocket to the moon, because we figured all that out on our own, in its own good time.
And oh, yes, Man does need to know it. And Man, as a species, will know it, at least enough of them to continue his existence. Something Man has shown to be good at. Overcoming adversity. Surviving. Despite himself.