Forums-->Off-game forum-->
<<|<|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|21|22|23|>|>>
| Author | May 21, 2011-End Of The World? |
|---|
Why is a loving god allowed to abort wanted foetus, but people aren't allowed to abort unwanted ones?
you're assuming the God (in which you don't believe in) is not only loving, as natural events are product of his will. interesting.
do explain how did you arrive to such a concept of God. you seem to know more about him than i do...
I may as well remind you to explain the genesis contradiction while you are there.
i will, if you explain why logic has its contradictions too. as brought up. as unanswered. see? two can play this "dodging bullets" game. or many more, in this case. | If I could explain why logic has contradictions I'm sure I could earn myself a Nobel Prize of some description. That would sure be a nice little windfall.
However, the Genesis contradiction has a simple answer (or even answers). The obvious answer is that the Bible was *not* dictated by God and is, in fact simply a collection of mythological stories intended to explain the world to it's adherents.
Another easy answer - assume that the stories from the Bible *are* from God. However they have been dictated to mortal men. Mortal men are fallible so it is likely that the "Word of God" has been transcribed incorrectly in the Bible. So contradictions in the Bible exist. An issue here is that it would be impossible to determine which parts of the Bible are "Word of God" and which are incorrect due to the fallibility of Mortal men.
The difference is that we have not claimed that we can explain why logic has contradictions. However your side of the argument has claimed the "Divine" or "Perfect" nature of the Bible as "proof" of why your "Prophecies" are "true".
I am happy to say "I do not know why logic has contradictions".
Are you willing to accept the simple explanation of why your "Prophecies" aren't "Prophecies", but simply interpretations of an flawed text?
Does this answer your question?
Grunge | @341. Of course for my hypothetical, I've assumed natural events are product of god's will. He's all powerful. If you acknowledge natural events aren't part of his will, then it makes sense, as he's then not all powerful.
In regards to answering your questions, I've done so in 235, 236, 239, 260, 298, 304 regarding your poor attempt to use logic to show that the spirit has to be special. You may not have agreed, you may not have liked my answer, but every answer I gave addressed your question. I dodged nothing.
The few answers given by you are generally not to the question but a misrepresentation of the question. Your answer in 341, you well know all of that was examples of my proposition that a loving god can't be all powerful, but then you give an answer that is only applicable if god is not all powerful, so it's a non answer.
Your lack of ability to answer the questions asked is more meaningful than any of the half answers or non-answers you have given. I ask once more, any answer to that Genesis contradiction coming up? | "Hegel was deeply critical of any simplified notion of the Law of Non-Contradiction. It was based on Leibniz's idea that this law of logic also requires a sufficient ground to specify from what point of view (or time) one says that something cannot contradict itself. A building, for example, both moves and does not move; the ground for the first is our solar system for the second the earth. In Hegelian dialectic, the law of non-contradiction, of identity, itself relies upon difference and so is not independently assertable.
Closely related to questions arising from the paradoxes of implication comes the suggestion that logic ought to tolerate inconsistency. Relevance logic and paraconsistent logic are the most important approaches here, though the concerns are different: a key consequence of classical logic and some of its rivals, such as intuitionistic logic, is that they respect the principle of explosion, which means that the logic collapses if it is capable of deriving a contradiction. Graham Priest, the main proponent of dialetheism, has argued for paraconsistency on the grounds that there are in fact, true contradictions."
I am happy to say "I do not know why logic has contradictions".
and "true contradictions" exist? oh, these crazy philosophers... glad to see you're happy with it, though. makes my task a lot easier. actually, it means i have to make no account of contradition at all. if you're happy with contradition in logic, contradition in the Genesis or your concept of God (things you do not believe in) must be piece of cake. i do question your morbid interest in it, though...
now, some hints:
on the internal limits of logic:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paraconsistent_logic
on belief revision:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief_revision
on the limits of reason:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metanoetics | | syrian, instead of letting us proof that god does not exist, please give me a valid explanation that god does exist. | you guys aren't very keen on doing your homework, are you?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_of_god
but before, ask yourself what sort of "proof" do you want/need:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evidence
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formal_proof
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proof_%28truth%29 | Well then, it's probably a good thing that we aren't trying to prove or disprove the existence of God, isn't it?
This discussion started with attempts to use the Bible to "prove" a certain position. I believe we have shown that the Bible is obviously and logically flawed (see my post # 342, obviously in preparation for your current evasion method). Certainly you have been unable to account for the Biblical contradictions.
The reason you are trying to "disprove" contradictions is simply to evade explaining the Genesis contradiction (yet again) and are instead trying to obfuscate the issue.
As I said, if I could show that contradictions, or paradoxes, don't exist, I could become a very wealthy man. However just because paradoxes exist doesn't mean that the Genesis contradiction lacks a simple answer (again, see post # 342). It's just that it doesn't fit the position you are trying to defend (you want the Bible to be the "Word of God" and therefore proof).
You can find information regarding paradoxes and contradictions here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contradictions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paradox
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes
Just to be clear, contradictions and paradoxes do exist. There aren't really that many of them, currently and most are self-referential or "circular" in nature (See list of paradoxes).
I would like to reiterate - the Genesis contradiction is not a logical contradiction in and of itself. It is only a contradiction if you are trying to show that the Bible is "perfect" or "divine". Otherwise it is just a simple error.
Would you like to try again?
Grunge | don't tell me you missed the part where the discussion ended, Grunge... that's funny :)
summing up:
-you want to discredit the Bible because it has contradictions
-you want to discredit the Bible because it relies on beliefs
but...
-atheism bases itself on belief systems
-reason and logic have contradictions
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/True-believer_syndrome right back atcha... | atheism bases itself on belief systems
Care to explain that? | Care to explain that?
what, too lazy to go back and read the whole thing? ;)
post #234 (and do check the links... it's a hard problem and it takes a bit of studying into it). | Here is a typical left-wing group who just flat out lies in your face with no reservation.
San Francisco has a ban on circumcision on the ballot for November elections.
"Defenders of the measure say it’s all about “human rights” and “protecting babies” from unnecessary procedures.
But critics suspected there was something vaguely anti-Semitic about the whole proposal, since among Jews (and Muslims, as well) circumcising male babies is a religious duty, not just a mistaken medical procedure.
Ban proponents insisted their proposal had nothing to do with Jews — really, it’s all about the rights of children."
Oh not about Jews, huh?
Take a look at their little comic book and see how they depict Jews in it.
http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/06/03/proof-that-s-f-s-circumcision-ban-is-anti-semitic/
No, it isn't about Jews, right? I mean they said so, right?
This is why I long ago learned to disregard anything lefties say.
"Make peace with your neighbors, it's whats best for you. Don't worry, we'll protect you. Those guys really don't mean it when they say they want you all dead, it's just talk."
Go pound sand. | #351
Here is a typical left-wing group who just flat out lies in your face with no reservation.
So you claim that all big companies and oil companies have nothing to do with conservatives because they helped Obama?
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/02/wisconsin_governor_gets_fooled.html
Who's lying now? | So you claim that all big companies and oil companies have nothing to do with conservatives because they helped Obama?
Uh no. YOU stated that big companies were all right wing supporters and I pointed out that you were WRONG!
I liked how you skipped past what post 351 was about only to be wrong again.
Another name on the drive-by list. Now scat, son. | YOU stated that big companies were all right wing supporters and I pointed out that you were WRONG!
Yea and how did you prove me wrong? By saying they all supported Obama in elections. So show me something that proves that big companies aren't right wing supporters. | Atheism does not have to be a "belief system", although it is for some people. Atheism is specifically the position that there are no deities. This does not necessarily conflict with all religions. Specifically most of Jainism and elements of Hinduism do not require belief in a deity and can therefore be compatible with Atheism.
I think I prefer the stance outlined in Wikipedia's "Criticism of Religion". In particular there is a quote there that I like. "I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all the other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours." - Stephen F. Roberts.
Sure, reason and logic have contradictions and paradoxes. Neither logic nor reason claim to be perfect. Instead they could perhaps best be described as tools to help us understand, well, just about anything really. That does not mean they can be used to understand *all* things. There are many logical contradictions/paradoxes (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_paradoxes) and probably many more that we have not yet encountered. However this does not reduce the utility of logic or reason as tools for understanding.
As I said before, the problem with the Bible is that some claim that it is "perfect" or "divine" in origin, mostly those with the view to using the Bible as a form of "proof". Unfortunately such claims of "divine origin" or "perfection" would, of necessity, involve a lack of contradiction. The existence of contradictions in the Bible points to either a mortal origin or imperfect state. In either case using the Bible as "proof" of anything would be a mistake.
Have Fun
Grunge | As I said before, the problem with the Bible is that some claim that it is "perfect" or "divine" in origin, mostly those with the view to using the Bible as a form of "proof". Unfortunately such claims of "divine origin" or "perfection" would, of necessity, involve a lack of contradiction. The existence of contradictions in the Bible points to either a mortal origin or imperfect state. In either case using the Bible as "proof" of anything would be a mistake.
This is what I think:
When the eternal system comes in contact with the ephemeral system there are contradictions. Most of the times even in our real life we see contradictions that in some contexts become non-contradictions. If Bible would be to concrete as nobody could contradict it perhaps it wouldn't be complete.
Also, it has divine inspiration, but it's written by God's people. The essence is what is important, not the words used to describe it. And in a prophecy it's even more complicated, as the essence may be harder to find.
Still, I don't think it's a good idea to continue this discussion too much as I don't think people will change their mind - if this is the purpose - (especially Christians: if they would agree with atheists, they would lose eternal life (I speak from a Christian perspective); for an atheist, if he converts, I don't think he would lose anything at all). - so I go back to my #146 post.
And if we just want to say our opinions, I think we already did it - a lot. | Contrary to what some Atheists think about Christians, we don't hate those who recently have come out against our religion, and all religions.
I happen to like Christopher Hitchens a lot. He is a brilliant man although I disagree with him about many things. Same with Bill Maher. He says some nasty things about religion but he also says some true things that the left can't bear to hear, as does Pat Condel.
This post is about a prophecy that was given 2400 years ago and it is holding strong for nearly 500 years and counting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OmizyHFabqQ&feature=related
Notice at the 7:00 mark, Maher is standing outside the East Gate, or Golden Gate in Jerusalem and he correctly states that it was walled up by the Turks to stop the Jewish Messiah from entering it.
For Christians, Jesus said he will return to the Mt of Olives, right above the East Gate.
You can see a better view of it at the 4:51 mark of this video.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cy6dqNS1KqQ&feature=related
The gate was sealed in 1530 AD or so by the Turks and has remained sealed until this day.
The prophecy in Ezekiel records a vision shown to the prophet of a future time where the East Gate would be sealed and remain sealed until the return of the Messiah.
Ezekiel 44:1-3
1 Then he brought me back to the outer gate of the sanctuary, which faces east; and it was shut.
2 And he said to me, "This gate shall remain shut; it shall not be opened, and no one shall enter by it; for the LORD, the God of Israel, has entered by it; therefore it shall remain shut.
3 Only the prince may sit in it to eat bread before the LORD; he shall enter by way of the vestibule of the gate, and shall go out by the same way."
Ironically, the Turks who thought to stop prophecy from happening, actually fulfilled it by sealing the very gate the Ezekiel said would be sealed and remain sealed.
So all you skeptics must do is to break that wall down and you can show us that we are following nonsense. Tempting? I bet it is :P | . Specifically most of Jainism and elements of Hinduism do not require belief in a deity and can therefore be compatible with Atheism.
thats certainly untrue. HINDU(s) & JAIN(s) believe in deities more than you give Christians credit for.
both religions say that THERE IS NO SPECIFIC DEITY that they have to worship coz it affirms there is supreme GOD but has different names. UNLIKE CHRITIANITY HINDUS & JAINS dont worship only 1 deity
for instance Hindus worship LORD RAM, KRISHAN JI, SHIV JI, GANESH JI etc and so is the case. | Why on earth would any genuine skeptic wish to "break that wall down"?
As I've said before it is usually a simple matter to show flaws with the position of the most fundamentalist religions beliefs. Notice that most Christians don't accept the Bible as literally true, for example.
You only believe that the gate has significance because of your belief that it is tied up in biblical prophecy because of religious text that you also believe is literally true. I don't believe in biblical prophecy, let alone that the bible is literally true, so why would I care about the fate of this "gate" one way or the other?
No, the only people you are likely to need to concern yourself with are *other* fanatical believers of religions other than your own. They *may* care about destroying it to prove that your prophecies are "false", while I imagine they would then presume their own "prophecies" would then be in a "stronger" position. Personally, I find the whole concept of religious prophecy to be yet another nail in the coffin of belief in religion. As anyone can plainly see, prophecy is just used as another form of covert "warfare" to try and justify conflict between different religions. As if there was any need for *more* reasons for people to kill each other.
For nayyart - Jains (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism) believe "There is no supreme divine creator, owner, preserver, or destroyer. The universe is self-regulated, and every soul has the potential to achieve divine consciousness (siddha) through its own efforts.". It might be worth reading http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism_and_non-creationism to get a better idea of what is going on with Jainism. The "demigods" and "celestial beings" are essentially souls with a significant store of Karma. Jains believe that these beings will eventually exhaust their "supply" of Karma and be reborn into either our world or "hell", from there to continue their journey to achieve enlightenment and thereby escape the eternal cosmic cycle. The closest thing to "god" are souls that have attained Siddhahood. These are likened to having many of the attributes of "God" as given by other religions, but becoming a Siddha is a *goal* to be achieved rather than a "thing" to be worshiped.
Have Fun
Grunge | Watch the anti-Israel push this summer, leading to a crescendo in September. Should be very interesting.
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/06/06/us-palestinians-israel-idUSTRE7541PF20110606
Uh huh. I know it really isn't happening, is it? :p |
<<|<|13|14|15|16|17|18|19|20|21|22|23|>|>>Back to topics list
|
