|
|
del_diablo
Legendary Hero
Manifest
|
posted May 03, 2011 07:51 PM |
|
|
Quote:
YOU need positive evidence to claim "God does not exist." Unfortunately for you there is no evidence that God does not exist.
Then there is a teapot orbiting around mars, and a monster made of spagetti under your bed.
You have just made a claim, if you do not present evidence, the claim is no good.
Basically you are presenting "prove a negative", because a negative can't be proven, ON the other hand a posetiv must first be proven.
If there is indeed evidence, we have not found it.
Quote:
I have evidence that God exists, which I have mentioned before.
1) The universe. The only rational explanation for the universe is God being the First Cause. The former atheist position that the universe is eternal has been proven false.
2) The Bible, with the prophecies and historical recordings of God dealing with humanity throughout history.
3) The witness of billions of people of their personal encounters with God.
4) My personal encounters with God.
5) The Spirit of God who lives inside of me.
6) My own human spirit communing with God.
7) Miracles I have personally witnessed and experienced.
And to answer:
1. The universe needs to no cause, thinking so means giving it a random attribute
2. 
Please refute, because it proves the napkin gods religion.
3. I am not one of them, hence there is no evidence for it, and since it can't be proven, there is no reason to believe it
4. See 3.
5. See 3.
6. See 3.
7. See 3.
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2011 10:29 PM |
|
|
Apples and oranges, Elodin. And lies:
Quote:
I was responding to your false claim that God's existence is not scientifically possible.
I never said anything like that.
Strictly spoken, you are deceiving everyone here. Because it's not just the possibility of SOMETHING out there, we are talking about, not about extraterrestrial life or unknown life. Oh no - It's a SPECIFIC God and his story, doings and way of doing things we are talking about. Planet Vulcan and their pointy-eared, emotion-less species. The Yeti. God Jahwe.
In short, we are talking about a very special thing, not a general one.
While it IS true, that the crime scene specialists might say something like, "at this point we cannot rule out that it was murder", what YOU are saying is, that it not only was murder, but John Smith being the killer.
While it IS true that it would have to be proven that it can't be murder to rule it out, saying not only that it was so AND that a certain individual is the killer, needs proof from YOUR side. Evidence.
You can't just point on someone and claim, "murderer". Without evidence the possibility that the one you pointed to did it, because it's a random creation of a possibility out of nothing.
You need EVIDENCE.
I talked about evidence already.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 03, 2011 11:24 PM |
|
Edited by Fauch at 23:28, 03 May 2011.
|
Quote:
it IS true that it would have to be proven that it can't be murder to rule it out
well, even if you proved that it was a suicide, and that John Smith and the victim never ever met, Elodin would still say that John Smith somehow entered in telepathic contact with the victim and convinced him to suicide himself and thus is a murderer.
or well, I think one of the bible quote said "whoever hates his brother is a murderer" (ok, I may not remember right) so if John Smith ever thought of killing the victim (but isn't the one who did it) he still is the murderer.
about god, he is timeless and spaceless but can think, take decisions, create... does it actually make sense? from my point of view, all those actions are at least caught in the web of time. and all Elodin can answer is "yes, but he is god, so it doesn't apply to him"
I found a site about bad argumentation, and most exemples are about occult beliefs, christianism... lol
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 03, 2011 11:28 PM |
|
|
@JJ
Quote:
Apples and oranges, Elodin. And lies:
Quote:
I was responding to your false claim that God's existence is not scientifically possible.
I never said anything like that.
Strictly spoken, you are deceiving everyone here.
No, you are the person who made false claims and who is falsely accusing me of being the deceiver.
You said, "If the evidence was not compelling, then, again scientifically spoken, god's existance was NOT in the realm of the possible (because there had never been enough evidence to postulate his existance in the first place as a serious idea)."
Frankly it is theism that has been the serious idea for all of recorded human history. Very very very few people who have ever lived have given any credence at all to the notion that "there is no god."
|
|
Salamandre
Admirable
Omnipresent Hero
Wog refugee
|
|
posted May 04, 2011 12:16 AM |
|
|
Useless arguments on both sides? I hope everyone realize that you don't converse with a christian representer here, but a fanatical selfish and stubborn individual, which hide behind a controversial book to spread intolerance and hate views. Subtle, but still behind the words.
I used to read with attention the religious threads before the apocalypse joining, since then the forum became an arena.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 04, 2011 01:21 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Frankly it is theism that has been the serious idea for all of recorded human history. Very very very few people who have ever lived have given any credence at all to the notion that "there is no god."
what does that prove? are you trying to prove that people are gullible, or what? 
you could say it about a lot of recent scientific discoveries, that throughout the history, most people didn't believe in those theories, well of course, those people couldn't believe in a theorie that didn't yet exist.
for example, throughout history, there might have been a majority of people that believed that illnesses were caused by demons. so it would mean that it is true?
|
|
Corribus
Hero of Order
The Abyss Staring Back at You
|
|
posted May 04, 2011 02:06 AM |
|
|
Quote:
for example, throughout history, there might have been a majority of people that believed that illnesses were caused by demons. so it would mean that it is true?
Using the irrational, Elodinian form of logic, that's exactly what it means.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted May 04, 2011 03:08 AM |
|
Edited by Elodin at 03:09, 04 May 2011.
|
@Salamandre
Quote:
I hope everyone realize that you don't converse with a christian representer here, but a fanatical selfish and stubborn individual, which hide behind a controversial book to spread intolerance and hate views.
@Corribus
Quote:
Using the irrational, Elodinian form of logic, that's exactly what it means
Sorry boys, internet bullying via personal attacks may work on the kids in your neighborhood but I'm an adult. Rather than trying to provoke me with name calling how about addressing the issues?
|
|
gnomes2169
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Duke of the Glade
|
|
posted May 04, 2011 03:12 AM |
|
|
But this is an issue. I, for one, would like to see a discussion in the OSM, but name-calling and denouncing other posters gets in the way.
Could we, maybe, start all over in a different thread? Forget about what has been said in other threads and treat everything that each poster says with respect and seriously consider it? (This last part is to all, including you, Elodin and Griff-dude. I also include myself in this list.)
____________
Yeah in the 18th century, two inventions suggested a method of measurement. One won and the other stayed in America.
-Ghost destroying Fred
|
|
Warlord
Famous Hero
Lord of Image Spam
|
|
posted May 04, 2011 04:34 AM |
|
|
You guys do realize you'll never get anywhere with this argument, right?
____________
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted May 04, 2011 08:49 AM |
|
|
I think, I've had enough now. What sense does it make to talk to someone who either cannot understand his native language or doesn't want to:
Quote:
I was responding to your false claim that God's existence is not scientifically possible.
Quote:
No, you are the person who made false claims and who is falsely accusing me of being the deceiver.
You said, "If the evidence was not compelling, then, again scientifically spoken, god's existance was NOT in the realm of the possible (because there had never been enough evidence to postulate his existance in the first place as a serious idea)."
|
|
angelito
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
proud father of a princess
|
|
posted May 04, 2011 09:57 AM |
|
|
I wonder why there are still some members left posting issues adressed to Elodin.
Fire will extinct without fuel....
No audience....no speaker...
____________
Better judged by 12 than carried by 6.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 11, 2011 06:04 PM |
|
|
The real world has caused me to be away from HC for a time but I wanted to post this as a follow up to the discussion as to whether or not Pope John Paul taught a literal hell. I promised I'd post the results of my question to a group of Roman Catholic Priests. I received email from the website and so I post the question and answer here.
Clicky
Quote:
CatholicView Staff:
Quote:
Quote:
Brief background: While I am not Catholic, I am trying to defend what I think is the Catholic church's position on hell, and specifically what Pope John Paul taught on hell.
In a discussion a person claimed, "The last Pope of the Catholic Church, John Paul II, rejected literal hell as well [as a pastor named Rob Bell.] My understanding is that Pope John Paul taught a literal hell and is "more than a place," and is also a state of being. That he taught that after death everyone is judged and that hell is the ultimate consequence of sin and that after death those who are "in hell" will experience eternal suffering and separation from God. My question is, "Is my understanding of what Pope John Paul taught correct, and is there anything you would add/clarify in addressing the charge that the Pope taught that there is no literal hell?" - Elodin
Elodin:
Yes, there is a hell. It is a place of total alienation from God and one another. Hell exists because we human beings must be free to choose God. There is no true love without a choice. God loves us so much that he gave to each of us free will to determine our lives and destiny. God wants us to love Him as our Creator and Father, but He cannot make us love Him since a forced love is not love at all. Hell exists because people do not want to love God and therefore they chose hell and their lives reflect that hell in their lives and actions. But what does hell look like? What is it? Scripture itself are full of different human descriptions from a dark place (Old Testament) to Jesus' description as a place of fire, to the Book of Revelation's description as a pool of fire and destruction of the enemies of God. In reality, we as human beings cannot describe hell, but we know what it is; total separation from everything. There is a hell, and Pope John Paul II in his Wednesday audiences describes a LITERAL HELL. Hell is hell. Eternal pain is eternal pain. Eternal alienation is eternal alienation. No one who is Christian disputes that there is a REAL place called hell. Now, please read Pope John Paul's actual words concerning his own mediation concerning heaven, hell, and purgatory. Clicky . Thank you for your question. - CatholicView Priest Staff
____________
Revelation
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 11, 2011 10:11 PM |
|
|
hell is total separation from everything?
it reminds of a quotation from sister emmanuelle, "Le paradis, c'est les autres"
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 12, 2011 08:18 AM |
|
|
What they say is not in keeping with what John Paul says - they warp the actual message.
But that's nothing new, isn't it?
Anyway, JP's vision is so superior to this eternal fire nonsense, if we indeed try to understand what "the (deliberate) separation of God, the source of all life and joy" means. Speaking in terms of Christian religion, there simply can't be MORE hell than that, fire or not, because existance without the source of everything positive can just be ... eternal unhappiness. Eternal loneliness. Eternal being alone with this unhappy self, with one's demons and regrets and pains and whatnot - yup, that's believable hell.
Also, what he says about purgatory. It's not a place EITHER (like hell).
But, hey, believe what you want.
|
|
SkrentyzMienty
Famous Hero
|
|
posted July 12, 2011 10:28 AM |
|
|
...
Wait, what?! Elodin still isn't embarrased of posting theist jokes after having been proven wrong so many times (or proven to have no proof)?
The perfect "napkin" metaphor by del_diablo concludes religion very well, and seeing as theists have no proof for their beliefs (the Bible is no proof, but a napkin), I think any intelligent atheist won't post here anymore and feel the need to "argue" with the likes of Elodin.
PLEASE, don't get provoked by those pitiful outcomes of the fragile, confused, and easily influenced/maimed human mind.
|
|
Fauch
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 12, 2011 02:48 PM |
|
|
SkrentyzMienty : I understand what you say about beliefs, but don't be too fast to bash religion. for some people, being religious means freeing himself from egoism and living a responsible life. and it is possibly the fundamuntal message behind most religions.
but did they really believe in god, or did they invent him because they understood what a fantastic psychological impact it would have, kinda like with money today?
I don't mean that their goal was to manipulate people. I read little about religions, but often, the mechanism of identification / attachment to a god seems to be a way to free yourself from more materialistic bonds. more exactly, to replace those bonds with an imaginary one, god. which effectively means that people stop fighting for materialistic possessions, since anyone can convince himself to be in presence of god.
|
|
Elodin
Promising
Legendary Hero
Free Thinker
|
|
posted July 12, 2011 09:31 PM |
|
|
@JJ
1) I proved you wrong from John Paul's own words.
2) A committee of priests said you are wrong.
3) I proved the Bible teaches a literal hell of eternal torment from the Bible itself.
It is pointless to continue the discussion with you.
|
|
JollyJoker
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted July 12, 2011 09:58 PM |
|
|
You did nothing of that sort. Look at the answer of those priesis:
Quote:
In reality, we as human beings cannot describe hell, but we know what it is; total separation from everything. There is a hell, and Pope John Paul II in his Wednesday audiences describes a LITERAL HELL. Hell is hell. Eternal pain is eternal pain. Eternal alienation is eternal alienation. No one who is Christian disputes that there is a REAL place called hell. Now, please read Pope John Paul's actual words...
Does TOTAL SEPARATION FROM EVERYTHING sound like a PLACE to you, where all deadly sinners suffer in eternal fire?
Then they say there is "A" hell - but, no, that's not what John-Paul says. John Paul says, there is HELL, not A hell. Oh, yes, hell is real, for those who suffer. Sure, hell is hell, and eternal alienation is just that. But "no one who is Christian disputes there is a real PLACE called hell?
They got that wrong.
Yes, they should read the words, because they just talk around what they don't seem to like.
And, no, John-Paul doesn't say ANYTHING about judgement. Nope. He says, that it's THE SINNER, who CHOSES, and NOT god who judges, because god in his absolute love wouldn't do that. Instead it's the human who decides to be forever separated from God.
That's what he says, and you are right, it makes no sense whatsoever to discuss with you.
|
|
sambadrius
Bad-mannered
Tavern Dweller
|
|
posted July 12, 2011 10:31 PM |
- penalty applied by angelito on 13 Jul 2011. |
Edited by angelito at 08:18, 13 Jul 2011.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
