Not that I don't beleve in God. Just that there ain't enough proof. Also, everyone says like "how did humans get borned, how did the world begin", how this, how that... Then I ask the question, where did God come from then?
Obviously haven't read the thread, as that question has been answered multiple times.
i used to believe in god and worship someone that ive never seen, smell, touch, taste, hear until I found out that D2A was an atheist, so therefore I knew god doesnt exist because D2A knows everything.
Not that I don't beleve in God. Just that there ain't enough proof. Also, everyone says like "how did humans get borned, how did the world begin", how this, how that... Then I ask the question, where did God come from then?
Obviously haven't read the thread, as that question has been answered multiple times.
True, I didn't read the whole thread, 17 is pretty much..
Not that I don't beleve in God. Just that there ain't enough proof. Also, everyone says like "how did humans get borned, how did the world begin", how this, how that... Then I ask the question, where did God come from then?
Obviously haven't read the thread, as that question has been answered multiple times.
True, I didn't read the whole thread, 17 is pretty much..
Though still don't see someone's answer on it.
Fair enough, read my last post on page 17, that contains something relevant to the subject.
This is what the video information says: God is Eternal, not created. Firstly, you have 2 choices; either everything came from nothing (which is impossible), or something always existed and created us. You have no other choice. Take a moment to think about that.
This thing that always existed would be considered Eternal, having transcended time, space, and matter, being everlasting, having always existed. If you argue this is impossible, I would argue the contrary; it is impossible for this Eternal 'thing' to not exist, because the alternative is that nothing existed, which could only produce nothing. So, something always existed, and is therefor Eternal.
Now, for something to be Eternal, it can not consist of time, because time must have had a beginning. We exist in a universe of causality, so an infinite regress is impossible; there could not have been an infinite amount of time before right now, because we never would have reached this moment in time. That means time had a beginning, and whatever created time exists without time, beyond time, in timelessness; Eternity.
So, this Eternal Creator, created time, and the universe. This Eternal Creator clearly is extremely powerful, because the energy of the trillions of stars in the known universe were created by this Creator. And obviously, the Creator is extremely intelligent, having created an intelligent being such as mankind and a world in which to populate with it.
If something exists without time, it necessarily exists without matter, and is therefor without space as well. Something that exists without time is Eternal, something without matter is immaterial (invisible, untouchable), and something without space is omnipresent (not bound by spacial restriction). So, an Eternal immaterial omnipresent 'something' created matter, time, and space.
Now, without using your imagination, we know something that always existed (eternal) that is immaterial (invisible and untouchable) and omnipresent (everywhere) created matter, time, and space.
Please do tell me what that sounds like, and don't use your imagination. Just be perfectly honest with yourself.
Still, how did christians find out of the Eternal God. How did other people then find out for their gods? If he's immaterial how did he give a sign?
Also, look it my way:
Mammals. Animals. Humans are mammals. As science says, an evolution occured, where homo sapiens is after some time created. Tell me, how come those other animals do not know of the Eternal God, but just us, humans? If humans have a hell/heaven where do animals "go"?
Still, how did christians find out of the Eternal God. How did other people then find out for their gods? If he's immaterial how did he give a sign?
Yes, he is immaterial but that doesn't make it impossible for him to communicate to humans. Ever heard of the bible? that is the inspired word of god, it vastly covers the works of god. Most christians believe god came down in the body of jesus.
Quote:
Also, look it my way:
Mammals. Animals. Humans are mammals. As science says, an evolution occured, where homo sapiens is after some time created. Tell me, how come those other animals do not know of the Eternal God, but just us, humans? If humans have a hell/heaven where do animals "go"?
God created humans in the image of himself, so obviously we are of large importance over other animals. Animals can be seen as a gift to us, just like many other things god created for us. Obviously animals weren't created for the same purpose as humans are. Animals in this world don't go to heaven/hell, however that doesn't mean animals won't be there. Also, I don't actually believe in hell, or hell as a place like all those hollywood movies suggest. Hell is simply the name of the place where god is absent, no eternity of fire and pain. Simply the absence of god, which is basically nothing.
Quote:
Don't believe him; VenomFangX is an idiot.
Could you put some reasoning into that statement. I personally am not very fond of VenomFangX as a person, but his points are quite valid, how he expresses those points is another matter...
No opinion on your reply.. And no, didn't read the bible. Should and will read it, though, the more I learn about God (classes at school), the less I have faith in him. Don't see it as a good thing, I'm still an orthodox christian.
Could you put some reasoning into that statement. I personally am not very fond of VenomFangX as a person, but his points are quite valid, how he expresses those points is another matter...
Deductive arguments are supposed to be water-tight. For a deductive argument to be a good one (to be 'valid') it must be absolutely impossible for both its premises to be true and its conclusion to be false. With a good deductive argument, that simply cannot happen; the truth of the premises entails the truth of the conclusion.
The classic example of a deductively valid argument is:
Premise (1): All men are mortal. Premise (2): Socrates is a man. Therefore Conclusion (3): Socrates is mortal.
It is simply not possible that both (1) and (2) are true and (3) is false, so this argument is deductively valid.
VenomFangX attempts a deductive style of argument and glosses over his own fallacies.
Premise (1): All those who fail to properly use logic while they attempt deductive reasoning demonstrate idiocy. Premise (2) VenomFangX fails to use logic properly. Therefore Conclusion (3): VenomFangX is an idiot.
I'm an idiot too. Bifurcation fallacies demonstrate 'either / or' arguments. The possibility of our not knowing how the the universe came into existence is a third valid option. Reducing the argument to two options only when there are more than two choices is a fallacy. Arguments that commit fallacies of presumption contain false premises, and so fail to establish their conclusion. For example, arguments based on false dilemmas and circular arguments both commit fallacies of presumption.
The Barotix fallacy is of the type called Ad Hominem (Personal Attack). This argument rejects the view that universe was created based on a remark about the person advancing the view, not by engaging with Creationism. It ignores the argument, focusing only on the arguer; it is therefore a fallacious argument ad hominem.
It all goes well until 2:00 One cannot conclude anything on something one does not know. We don't know what created the universe, or even if it was created at all. From that statement, you cannot say anything about the creator(s).
1. I do not know what created the universe. Therefore...
STOP! What conclusion can you ever formulate from this premise?
2. I know it is powerful and intelligent. 2. I cannot conclude anything on it.
After going with the first option (I know it is powerful and intelligent.) instead of the second, he goes on and try to provide proof for his conclusions.
1. There is an immense amount of energy in the universe. 2. Therefore it came from a powerful being.
and
1. There is life. 2. Therefore it came from an intelligent being.
Am I missing anything in here? It's just the first vid though, so hopefully, he expands these arguments further.
To believers it is true that the Universe proclaims the majesty of God, but that presupposes belief.
Some advance arguments about the irrationality of faith -- that believers are required to hold fast to something that has no evidence:
Premise (1): Christianity teaches that faith is necessary for salvation. Premise (2): Faith is irrational, it is belief in the absence of or contrary to evidence. Therefore Conclusion (3): Christianity teaches that irrationality is rewarded.
It does not matter where the belief and the response come from; someone who accepts the gospel based on evidence (e.g. Doubting Thomas) still gets to heaven. My point is that the argument is moot and unprofitable. Opposing sides are welcome to their opinions but the "proof argument" in its entirety is folly. There are two fundamentally different types of statement: statements of fact which describe the way that the world is, and statements of value which describe the way that the world ought to be. The assumption that these different views are mutually exclusive is simply untrue. To describe the way that the world is, though, is to say nothing of the way that it ought to be. That's okay, I mean - what's wrong with that? I don't see the need to argue. It is perfectly fine to look at things and think about them. I object when people try to form ideas for me while they fail to do this well for themselves. My objection cuts both ways.
think of it this way, do you believe in love? why do you believe in love? does love have a physical form? After all of these questions I would ask, then how does love exist... the response would be " because i have experienced it ". Its like saying that love has "revealed its presence" to you . Science cant explain what love is, so can we believe in it without thinking its 100% trival? yes we can. So god can b regarded in the same way. this god could have "revealed its presence" within someone and that person will say, God does exist. for thousands of years people have believed this strongly without question... but in this day and age, alot of people have turned to science because they want some awkward explanation that really does not make any sense. and thats what i believe~
And for the simple response... i do believe in God in catholic terms /2cents
Last edited by magisuns on Tue Sep 30, 2008 8:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
think of it this way, do you believe in love? why do you believe in love? does love have a physical form? ...people have turned to science because they want some awkward explanation that really does not make any sense.
Yes, it does: Chemical reactions. (watch him ask me to prove it)
Venom's conclusions and arguments are flawed. There's a reason I call him (the arguer) an idiot. I don't do it because I dislike the guy (I don't know him). I do it because he tries to pass ignorance as logic.
Most of his videos go something like this:
Code:
God is good. I don't understand most of the theories I try to dispute. Here are some hoaxes; they prove God is real. Here are some obvious straw men. I'm going to hit them. I don't know the origin of the universe. Therefore God did it.
Hence why I call him an idiot. The leaps in logic the man preforms are hilarious; besides, if you read the whole thread you'll notice I already explained why I call him an idiot. You asked earlier; I delivered earlier. He lacks any credibility so I won't take him seriously anymore. I encountered his videos before I started posting on SRF and laughed then as I do now.
Quote:
You seem to be saying that to almost everyone who has a different opinion than you do
False.
Barotix wrote:
He has never used any real science to back up his views and if you think that his humanist vs creationist point of view is science then you're bullshitting yourself. First and foremost. The humanist point of view is a school of psychology founded by Abraham Maslow, it has nothing to do with evolution or the big bang. Second, creationism is not science. You can spin it in so many different ways but if it's religion then it's not very scientific. That's like me passing reincarnation as Science by calling it reincarnationism. Not once has he employed rational empiricism to prove his point. It's always fallacy after fallacy after fallacy. You can not prove the existence of God and trying to do so shows that you're insecure. If your faith is sound and strong that should be more than enough but no, there are countless theist out there that are constantly trying to prove their God exist. It is impossible to prove it exist and it is impossible to prove it doesn't. Remember absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but even that is not enough to prove it exist. It just postulates the possibility of it's existence. The bible is his only source. He is badly educated and at most only takes little snippets to pass his case as valid. He can't support his point of view when the only source is the bible.
_________________
Maddening
Last edited by Barotix on Tue Sep 30, 2008 10:27 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Yes, it does: Chemical reactions. (watch him ask me to prove it)
Venom's conclusions and arguments are flawed. There's a reason I call him (the arguer) an idiot. I don't do it because I dislike the guy (I don't know him). I do it because he tries to pass ignorance as logic.
Most of his videos go something like this:
Code:
God is good. I don't understand most of the theories I try to dispute. Here are some hoaxes; they prove God is real. Here are some obvious straw men. I'm going to hit them. I don't know the origin of the universe. Therefore God did it.
Hence why I call him an idiot. The leaps in logic the man preforms are hilarious; besides, if you read the whole thread you'll notice I already explained why I call him an idiot. You asked earlier; I delivered earlier. He lacks any credibility so I won't take him seriously anymore. I encountered his videos before I started posting on SRF and laughed then as I do now.
Quote:
You seem to be saying that to almost everyone who has a different opinion than you do
False.
Barotix wrote:
He has never used any real science to back up his views and if you think that his humanist vs creationist point of view is science then you're bullshitting yourself. First and foremost. The humanist point of view is a school of psychology founded by Abraham Maslow, it has nothing to do with evolution or the big bang. Second, creationism is not science. You can spin it in so many different ways but if it's religion then it's not very scientific. That's like me passing reincarnation as Science by calling it reincarnationism. Not once has he employed rational empiricism to prove his point. It's always fallacy after fallacy after fallacy. You can not prove the existence of God and trying to do so shows that you're insecure. If your faith is sound and strong that should be more than enough but no, there are countless theist out there that are constantly trying to prove their God exist. It is impossible to prove it exist and it is impossible to prove it doesn't. Remember absence of evidence is not evidence of absence but even that is not enough to prove it exist. It just postulates the possibility of it's existence. The bible is his only source. He is badly educated and at most only takes little snippets to pass his case as valid. He can't support his point of view when the only source is the bible.
I am not just referring to this argument, almost any argument you have with someone it usually ends up with you calling the other an idiot, moron, etc.
I am not just referring to this argument, almost any argument you have with someone it usually ends up with you calling the other an idiot, moron, etc.
No, I usually dismiss their post once I realize they don't understand what they're arguing against. I don't use "idiot or moron"; I use "imbecile", and it's usually followed by an argument. Sometimes I end an argument with a comment on ignorance. So, I do argue and address w/e issue they bring up but I have a limit, and once I pass that limit the snide little remarks start to follow. It's a serious character flaw that I should work on but, meh.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
