Ask a Catholic

Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Ask a Catholic

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}



This thread is for anyone here to ask me any question about the Catholic Faith they wish to ask. Questions about the Catholic faith can be about anything from Catholic history, teachings, and/or the Bible.  I only have a few rules/guidelines.

1.     Serious questions please. Please refrain from odd or insulting questions.

2.     Questions about the Church sex scandal are fine but please see guideline 3.

3.     Please keep it civil and polite, i.e. please do not refer to the Pope as the fuhrer, a pedophile, kiddy fiddler, and etc. This also applies to the clergy in general.

4.     Stay on topic. Obviously I’ll do this myself too.

5.     Please refrain from insulting me, i.e. “Why don’t you jump off a cliff” or “do yourself a favor and kill yourself”, and etc. The screen name refers to Cliffjumper the heroic Autobot from the Transformers series and toy line. Great show, movies, and toys by the way Laughing out loud

I will try my best to be prompt and as detailed as possible. I am working on my thesis. So I may be busy sometimes.  Also I will try to answer each person’s question in the order in which I see them.

Thank you.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37

Brian37 wrote:

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

  We chose imperfection, rejected His perfect love.

 

    A.)   WE chose ?  I didn't take a bite of the forbidden fruit, did you ?  I chose no such thing. 

    B. )  Having Adam and Eve's guilt of disobedience laid at the feet of later generations was entirely God's decision.  There is no logic ( or justice ) in transferring guilt based upon lineage. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
God is not in charge of our choices.

 

   Because of God's foreknowledge he is utterly reponsible.   Knowing the future with absolute certaintly adds a layer of responsibilty that no mortal could ever be held accountable for.  

 Even in the legal world individuals are held responsible for the actions of others if they had reason to believe that a particular person was prone to commit some criminal act yet they failed to take proper action to prevent it.   If you are a healthcare worker or a teacher and fail to report even suspected child abuse and are found out, you will find yourself facing prosecution despite the free will of the abuser.  Your guilt will be based upon your failure to act based upon even partial knowledge.   In a court of law the issue of the abuser's free will be no defense for your failure to act.

 

  Your "perfect" God has no defense, whether he causes evil or simply permits it, his divine qualities ( omniscience  + omnipotence ) are the very things that make him responsible for the actions of his created beings.

 

   

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
You cannot force someone to love you. Love requires choice.

 

 

     "Love" that is based upon coercion ( rewards or punishment ) is a superficial, meaningless love.  The process becomes tainted by appeal to self interest.  Would you rather go to Heaven ( reward ) or burn in Hell  ( punishment )  ?    These are literally the terms that God offers himself to humanity ..."Love me or I'll burn you alive."

 

   The only scenario that would be a true and honest expression of loving God without regard to selfish interest would be for God to eliminate his carrot on a stick approach.    If God removed the threat of Hell and the reward of Heaven, only then could it be an honest, genuine expression love.

 

 

 

If someone cannot force you to love them, and I agree, then why the retrobution? I had the best 6 years of my life with my X-wife. Meeting her for the first time was exciting. She was the first person to look beyond my looks and dorkness and saw me for me. But after 3 years of dating and 3 years of marriage she got tired. Would have it been right for me to expect her to stay in a relationship she was not happy in? It seems that the Gods of Abraham expect that. No matter what you personally want the oath is submission.

 

There can be no concept of "love" much less "all loving" if it does not envovle changing your mind. My x left me because we were not on the same page. She does not owe me an explination other than to be herself and be happy. I find no god concept that mature. The gods people sell hate it when you change your mind or when you dissent.

 

It is not retrobution. It is the consequence of your choice. Either you choose God who is all love and all perfection or you choose against it.

Changing our minds about love is an imperfection of ours not God.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Cliff Jumper

Vastet wrote:
Cliff Jumper wrote:
Where did the rock come from?
Magma. Which came from inside Earth. Which came from inside a star. Which came from inside another star. Which came from a big gas cloud. Where matter and energy itself came from, we don't know. And unless we learn to travel backwards in time or some god shows up to take credit, it'll stay that way. We can theorise, but we can't know.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
Both of these examples are finite things.
Wrong. The rock took billions of years to become a rock from a massive gas cloud to a tiny rock (well, trillions of trillions of tiny rocks). But erosion exists as long as it can exist. If we don't know if the universe is finite, we certainly can't know if the forces within the universe are finite.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
As to the universe being created/beginning we know from scientific evidences like the cosmic background radiation and the red shift that this universe that we are living in now had a beginning.
No. The CMB merely shows a massive explosion occurred billions of years ago, and that all matter and energy known to exist lies within the radius of the shockwave of that explosion. We don't know that all matter and energy was created in that explosion. In fact, most theories I've seen suggest that said matter and energy were compacted into a singularity that became unstable. There are a few quantum theories that suggest an instability in nothingness spawned that singularity, but unless someone goes back to film it we won't know if that actually happened. We'll never know if the universe was actually created then, because the explosion erased any evidence of anything before it. There might have already been a universe before the big bang, The evidence of the big bang doesn't prove the universe began to exist.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
In regards to the cloud of gas forming (or any of the natural processes we see and study) into a star it is becoming something different, more compressed, more energized, and etc, but it is not something of a lesser intrinsic nature becoming something of a greater intrinsic nature. It is simply something of the same inherent nature (material, finite, x elements, and etc) forming through other finite processes something else of the same inherent nature. If the cloud of gas formed into an intelligent creature or became infinite then that would be something of a greater intrinsic nature coming from something of a lesser intrinsic nature.  So simply put what you have here is a finite thing with the aid of other finite things becoming another finite thing.
No. What we have here is you failing to answer my question, and instead going on an irrelevant and pointless diatribe. I ask again: So what exactly do you mean by greater intrinsic nature?
Cliff Jumper wrote:
So fourness is a concept we can understand, grasp, and use. However it does not exist? So your argument apparently boils down to, "I cannot directly see it/experience it; therefore, it does not exist." There are a lot of things we cannot directly see but we can reason and know they exist. Empiricism is not the only means of learning about the universe. Empirical reductionism is a fallicious philosophy. 
There isn't one single thing that we can't directly see that we know for certain exists. Empiricism is the only means of knowing the universe. You are the only one operating under fallacies here, I'm afraid.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
Infinte regression as an explanation for the creation/beginning of finity is not even remotely on par with infinity as the explanation for the creation/beginning of finity.
It most certainly is. Which is why you can't demonstrate otherwise. "One, infinite regression is not even an explantion." Infinite beings aren't an explanation either. "An infinte thing is an explanation." Then an infinite incident is also an explanation. "Two, infinte regression is unreasonable and illogical, but an infinte thing is reasonable and logical." Nope. They are both unreasonable and illogical. "Let's look at your computer program example. If you write a computer program can the program then go on to make/program something greater than itself like an infinte universe?" Unlikely. I can't say whether or not it's actually possible, because noones tried it. But logically, the programme would have to be running infinitely to create infinity. Of course, getting a programme to run for even a few years is beyond our current capabilities; so I doubt an answer to that question is forthcoming. But if you could get a programme to run infinitely, then yes. It most certainly could create an infinite universe. The programming part would actually be easy. It's the system that would run it that would be the problem to solve.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
It is the intrinsic nature of something finite to have a beginning.
Says you. But you still haven't proved it.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
It is impossible, logically, reasonably, and scientifically for something finite to sometimes have a beginning and sometimes not.
More irrelevant philosophy. You haven't proved that anything finite has a true 'beginning', so there's no value in your argument.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
"You can prove that some finite things had a 'beginning', at least theoretically. But you can't prove they all do." is exactly the same as saying, "Did you know that theoretically electrons are negatively charged but not all of them?"
Bullshit. The definition of the term 'electron' REQUIRES the object to have a negative charge. If it doesn't have a negative charge, it can't be an electron. That is a linguistic issue, not a scientific one. We have defined and proved electrons very well. We haven't defined and proved the universe in anything like the same capacity.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
Everything we see in this universe, i.e., that exists as a result of the Big Bang, is finite. This is demonstrably and scientifically true.
No, it isn't. And yet again, even if it were, it is inapplicable to the universe itself. The universe isn't an object, the universe is all objects. You suffer primarily from the biased sample and composition fallacies, but you also dabble in begging the question, confusing cause and effect, false dilemma, genetic, and probably a whole bunch more fallacies as well. Your argument is so full of fallacy that it's incredible you can even speak of logic at all.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
How did the car already exist before it was assembled?
How did it not? If I take a car apart, it's still a car. It's just in pieces. Nothing was created to assemble a car. Every single component already existed. Before it was a car, the pieces were linguistically defined as a collection of other objects, but then a car is composed of objects linguistically defined as something other than a car. A car isn't an object, it's an assembly of objects. A vague assembly actually, since no two cars are identical. So a car is nothing more than a collection of objects that allows one to define the collection as a single object, even though it isn't a single object. It seems to me that, aside from fallacies, your greatest flaw is the English language and assuming definitions are axioms instead of definitions that facilitate communication.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
So intelligence can be altered? Can it be altered i.e. improved?
There are no examples of an entity becoming more intelligent. There are examples of an entity becoming less intelligent, presupposing of course the existence of intelligence in the first place. But none of an entity becoming more intelligent. That doesn't necessarily mean it can't happen, but if it can it has yet to be observed.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
A rock has no intelligence.
You keep digging your hole deeper. Technically we can't prove a rock isn't intelligent.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
It has never been observed and has never been found to exist in a rock or inanimate object.
There's no such thing as a truly inanimate object. An object may appear to be inanimate simply because we don't live long enough to observe the animation, or because our perceptions are directly tied to our sense of spacetime, but no object that was studied is truly inanimate. The Earth and everything on it whiz through space at inconceiveably huge speeds. Everything succumbs to entropy, constantly falling apart, becoming something else. Everything changes constantly. Even the definition of inanimate includes the statement that inanimate objects are merely perceived as being inanimate.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
The statement, "intelligence is greater than non-intelligence" is not to say that one state is better, subjectively, than the other. It means that one has a greater intrinsic nature then the other.
It seems to me that your definition of 'greater intrinsic nature' is entirely subjective. And thus entirely worthless. You still haven't described what you mean when you say it, so I have no choice but to categorise it as such.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
Again I never said everything in the universe was intelligent.
I never said you did. I asked questions about what you said because they made no logical, objective sense.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
Intelligence comes from intelligence.
You sure do like presenting unproved assertions as if they were facts.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
Again evolution (neo-dawrinian evolution in this case) has not shown intelligence coming from non-intelligence.
Yes it has, providing we accept intelligence exists and that particles aren't intelligent. Since we both operate under those assumptions, there can be no denying that evolution brought intelligence into being from non-intelligence.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
Bacteria, DNA, and molecules contain information, and just as before information does not come from non-information.
Rocks contain information too. So intelligent life could be descended from unintelligent rocks, as per your own argument.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
Evolution (neo-dawrinian evolution in this case) has not shown information coming from non-information.
And just as you do not comprehend the car example, neither do you comprehend information or evolution. You can't show me non-information, because everything that exists contains information. Evolution doesn't claim to create information. If you knew what evolution was you wouldn't even make such a ridiculous statement. In fact, on the genetic level, all evolution operates by copying (sometimes with flaws) or discarding information. Not by generating it.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
So now empirical (observational) evidence is not needed because you can reason this? 
It is impirical observation that proves this. So no.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
Also there are major unique characteristics that separate us from non-intelligent things.
All of which are inherently biased and thus inapplicable.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
Again God created us perfect.
Then my being an atheist is exactly what god wants, and I am perfect.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
He told us and showed us what needed to be done to keep it that way. We chose imperfection, rejected His perfect love.
Perfection cannot become imperfect. It is perfection. The epitome of everything it should be, and nothing it should not be. If we could choose to be imperfect, then we were never perfect.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
God is not in charge of our choices. That would be in contracidtion to his all loving nature. You cannot force someone to love you. Love requires choice.
Love first requires the acceptance of a beings existence. I can't love something that doesn't exist. Your god denies me the free will to love him by denying me evidence of his/her/its existence. Love requires choice, yes. But first it requires existence.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
We choose to do evil, not God. He knows our choices, and He allows us to make them. However, He is not responsible for our actions.
He created us with the full knowledge we would turn to evil. So he must want us to be evil. So he must be evil. Everything is gods responsibility. Everything.

 

I hate to end the discussion with you, but I am afraid I may have too. It is not because I want to by any means. It is because you cannot even accept a basic demonstrable fact:

All finite things have a beginning. 

I have demonstrated this several times. I will do so again. Take this conversation, this thread, this forum, this webpage, the internet, your computer, my computer, and etc. I know all began to exist at one point in time. This is fact demonstrably, empirically, scientifically, and logically. I'm going to assume none of this will do because I cannot show you every finite thing's beginning. 

If you do not accept this either because of antagonistic, sarcastic, or whatever _____ reasons the conversation is over.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cliff Jumper

Brian37 wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Response to Brian37:

Simply put "all this" is finite. So it needs to be created or started. Yes, I know what infinite regression is.  I could postulate another finite cause for "all this", but that requires another finte cause for the 1st finite cause, and another and another, etc (infinite regression). So in order for finity to be created something greater must have created it, because nothing greater comes from something lesser. The only thing greater than finity is infinity. Thus the creator, starter, first cause, God must be infinite. "All this" includes life, intelligence, laws, order, and etc. The infinite cause must then be intelligent, because again nothing greater comes from something lesser. If you are infinte and intelligent you are infintely intelligent and therefore omnipotent. If you are omnipotent you are not material, but immaterial. If you are omnipotent, infinite, and immaterial, you have omnipresence. Thus, the only God that meets these criteria is Yahw-h. 

Ok you agree all this IS finite, great. Hurricanes also have a cause and are finite, but you do not put the cognition of the god Posideon in as the starting point.

Sorry, you are making the same mistake Muslims and Jews and polythiests have throughout our species history, when you cant find an answer to something you stupidly make the starting point the cause of a fictional sky hero.

Yahweh was a character in the Canaanite polytheistic pantheon before Hebrews stole it and made him a monotheistic god, but I am sure you knew that didn't you?

Here is the reality you and believers of all of human history do not want to face. WE are finite. "All this" is a product of natural processes, not any polytheistic or monotheisitic human concocted sky hero. Humans make up god claims because it comforts them, but it is a false comfort and does not do anything but act as a sugar pill.

Now here is the reality. In the future humans will morph your religion into something completly different, or it will die out completely and humans will believe in new bullshit. Eventually though, just like most species did not survive the planet's 5 mass extinctions, humans will go extinct as well. Our planet's core will die, all life will go extinct, and our sun will die as well. The universe will continue on with no record of our existence or even care we no longer exist.

You are NOT special to us because of the particular god claim you make. We know all god claims are products of human imagination. You merely have yet to face that reality. We hope someday you do.

It made sense back then when humans didn't know any better. But to me in 2014 valuing an ancient comic book which is not a science textbook, makes you look silly. Just like you'd find it silly if someone believed still today Thor making lightening. Do not blame skeptics for the bullshit they were not around to write. If you want to blame anyone for our blasphemy and criticism, blame the ignorance of the people who wrote it.

 

 

 

 

Brian37 said- "Ok you agree all this IS finite, great. Hurricanes also have a cause and are finite, but you do not put the cognition of the god Posideon in as the starting point.

Sorry, you are making the same mistake Muslims and Jews and polythiests have throughout our species history, when you cant find an answer to something you stupidly make the starting point the cause of a fictional sky hero."

 

1. My response- Again I never said God directly caused hurricanes, nor does the Catholic Church.  Hurricanes as a result of natural processes does not detract from the existence of Yahw-h.  Where did those natural processes come from? If you want we can place in the next intermediary cause(s), and the next, and the next, and on and on and on. Until of course we reach the point of what started all that. Why not Posideon, Neptune, etc? They are finite fictional super humans. From their own mythology they began to exist at a finite point in time. All Posideon can do is manipulate the natural processes already in existence (which he didn't create), and cause a hurricane. Again the question must be asked, where did it come from? In short you cannot posit one finite cause for the existence of finity (all things finite).

 

Brian37 said- "Yahweh was a character in the Canaanite polytheistic pantheon before Hebrews stole it and made him a monotheistic god, but I am sure you knew that didn't you?"

2. My response- Off topic.

 

Brian37 said-"Here is the reality you and believers of all of human history do not want to face. WE are finite. "All this" is a product of natural processes, not any polytheistic or monotheisitic human concocted sky hero. Humans make up god claims because it comforts them, but it is a false comfort and does not do anything but act as a sugar pill."

3. My response- I agree we are finite. Great common ground Smiling Where did the natural processes come from? Natural processes are finite they started at a certain point. Belief in the existence of God, Yahw-h, is comforting, and truthful as all signs, scientific, logical, empirical, and philosophical point to Him.

 

Brian37 said- "Now here is the reality. In the future humans will morph your religion into something completly different, or it will die out completely and humans will believe in new bullshit. Eventually though, just like most species did not survive the planet's 5 mass extinctions, humans will go extinct as well. Our planet's core will die, all life will go extinct, and our sun will die as well. The universe will continue on with no record of our existence or even care we no longer exist.

You are NOT special to us because of the particular god claim you make. We know all god claims are products of human imagination. You merely have yet to face that reality. We hope someday you do."

4. My response- Seeing as how humans have tried to morph my religion and failed repeatedly for going on 2000+ years, I doubt Catholicism will change in another 1000 years, million years, or ever.

 

Brian37 said-"It made sense back then when humans didn't know any better. But to me in 2014 valuing an ancient comic book which is not a science textbook, makes you look silly. Just like you'd find it silly if someone believed still today Thor making lightening. Do not blame skeptics for the bullshit they were not around to write. If you want to blame anyone for our blasphemy and criticism, blame the ignorance of the people who wrote it."

 

5. My response- The Bible is not a science textbook. We agree on something else. Sweet Smiling I do not blame skeptics for writing the Bible. When did I say that? The Bible is God's perfect word. Misunderstandings of the Bible and the teachings of God lie on those who either incidentally or deliberately do not teach His word and teachings properly.

 

Lets try again.

"I never said Allah directly caused hurricanes"

"I never said Thor directly caused lightening"

"I never said Poseidon directly caused Hurricanes".

 

Do any of those sentances above make any sense to you? No? I didn't think so. Congratulations, now you know why I reject your pet god claim as well.

 

 

 

Actually the sentances make sense when put in context yes. However, they do not make sense as a cogent argument against God. 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Cliff Jumper

Old Seer wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Normal 0 false false false EN-US X-NONE X-NONE

/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:"Table Normal";
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:"";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:12.0pt;
font-family:"Times New Roman","serif";}



This thread is for anyone here to ask me any question about the Catholic Faith they wish to ask. Questions about the Catholic faith can be about anything from Catholic history, teachings, and/or the Bible.  I only have a few rules/guidelines.

1.     Serious questions please. Please refrain from odd or insulting questions.

2.     Questions about the Church sex scandal are fine but please see guideline 3.

3.     Please keep it civil and polite, i.e. please do not refer to the Pope as the fuhrer, a pedophile, kiddy fiddler, and etc. This also applies to the clergy in general.

4.     Stay on topic. Obviously I’ll do this myself too.

5.     Please refrain from insulting me, i.e. “Why don’t you jump off a cliff” or “do yourself a favor and kill yourself”, and etc. The screen name refers to Cliffjumper the heroic Autobot from the Transformers series and toy line. Great show, movies, and toys by the way Laughing out loud

I will try my best to be prompt and as detailed as possible. I am working on my thesis. So I may be busy sometimes.  Also I will try to answer each person’s question in the order in which I see them.

Thank you.

 

They should be good Christians.  Smiling  That's not likely to happen--however, if you noticed you are merely asking them to abide by the rules of the site.

I was a Catholic until I joined the USMC in 58. The movie "Full Metal Jacket was my summer of 1958. I was brought up until the age of 13-1/2 at the St Cloud MN Childrens home (google it). I was an Alter boy and at 13 was at that time considered an elder amoung ther other kids just as all kids that age back then were considered fairly well grown up.

Today- I cannot see where any religion on the planet is correct--and I also say--not biblically correct.

A question-- Why do you consider the Pope correct. Before you answer that, go to this site.   https://    sites.google.com   /site/   oldseers  (close the spaces)  The crux of the matter is---if the Pope (or any other religion claiming to be Christain) dosen't have page one of the bible correct he's got very little else correct. Please understand, I am not intending to be of negative intent by any measure.

I am sorry you left the Church. Perhaps I can help you come back Home given God's grace of course.

Why do I consider the Pope correct about what? You will have to be more sepcific. 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Cliff

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

 

 

 

Again we have the Perfect Catholic Church, many modern miracles, and our intellect. The argument, "God needs to perfrom for me to prove His existence." is not a cogent argument for the existence of God. 

 

  It's funny because your quote fully epitomises religious hubris.  Dictionary.com [ hubris, noun: excessive pride or self-confidence; arrogance. ]

 

 

  To paraphrase..."What nerve you atheist !!! How dare you question the "perfect"Church, how dare you question God's existence !!! ?   God doesn't perform tricks !!!

 

  I love irony, don't you ?

 

It would be pride if I was saying, "I am perfect" or "I am God's Church." However, I am not. I am relaying the Truth to you.

Would it prideful for me to say, "It is the truth that all electrons are negatively charged." Of course under your logic I'm saying, "What nerve you denier !!! How dare you question the charge of an electron. How dare you question it's existence !!! ?  Electrons need not show you their charge!!!!"

Either let's discuss the issue(s) or not. The sinde remarks need to stop please. 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Well I'm tired

Vastet wrote:
Well I'm tired of waiting for a response so I'll nitpick at other statements while I wait.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
And yet God antcipated this by giving us His Catholic Church (Magisterium), perfect and the same yesterday today and forever.
The catholic church is not perfect. Unless you support child molestation and those who would protect molesters from justice. Also, the catholic church is not the same today as it was a hundred years ago, and it will not be the same in a hundred years as it is today. The most simplistic research would show you as much.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
Again today we have intellect, modern miracles, and the perfect Catholic Church. If you would like to witness a miracle attend your local Parish mass and watch the bread and wine transform into Jesus' body and blood.
The bread and wine remain bread and wine. There's no miracle in that. You're the first person I've ever encountered who claims it changes into flesh and blood. Well I'm sorry if you take offense to this fact, but it doesn't change into flesh and blood. Never has, never will. If it did, then it would qualify as evidence your god exists. Which would be huge, since there isn't any such evidence.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
God supernaturally intervenes now. His Church, the Eucharist, Eucharistic miracles, miraculous signs like Guadalupe.
Just fairy tales. No miracles have ever been proven. Most are obvious fakes or old wives tales.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
Not only that but again we have our intellect.
Thank evolution for that. Literally.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
The argument, "God needs to perfrom for me to prove His existence." is not a cogent argument for the existence of God. 
Actually it is, for your god at least. Without proof of his existence, one cannot believe he exists, and therefore cannot have faith in him. For some people proof enough is found in having been told he exists. For others, a hallucination or unexplainable coincidence will suffice. But some of us need real evidence. Something that doesn't come from other people or fluke scenarios or crossed wiring in the brain. It doesn't have to profit anyone or hurt anyone, it just has to prove he's actually out there.

We can disucss one of these issues if you like. After we finish our previous discussion. Please stay on topic. Butting into another person's conversation is inappropriate. I know it's a forum and you can do whatever you want, but it becomes confusing for myself and others when I am responding to 2 people about 3 different topics.

I am sorry about the waiting time. I do have things to do. I cannot answer every one of these responses when the come up all the time. I try to answer 2-3 a day but sometimes life gets busy.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:All

Cliff Jumper wrote:
All finite things have a beginning.



that is definitively not a fact and i have shown you why. it is a metaphysical proposition. your analogy about your computer etc. is fallacious because nothing materially new was created. existing material was modified to fit a human conception. we have never observed anything just pop into being out of nothing. everything has either evolved or been modified. the necessity of a beginning or cause is one of aristotle's most clumsy axioms. as both vastet and i keep explaining to you:


1. infinity has never been observed, therefore "finite" is just as theoretical a term as "infinite,"


2. no "beginning of matter" has ever been observed, nor has it even been postulated by modern theoretical physics; even the big bang is not truly a "beginning," only the mother of all alterations,


3. a fact is something falsifiable in theory. i would hope even you can easily see how "all finite things have a beginning" is not falsifiable.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:I hate to

Cliff Jumper wrote:
I hate to end the discussion with you, but I am afraid I may have too. It is not because I want to by any means. It is because you cannot even accept a basic demonstrable fact:

All finite things have a beginning. 

So you're a liar. You say it's a demonstrable fact yet you can't accept the inherent incoherency of the statement itself, AND you've failed to demonstrate the 'fact' you say is demonstrable.

See what iwbiek said also, since he put it down better than me

Cliff Jumper wrote:
I have demonstrated this several times.

Not even once actually. I refuted every example you've given, and I'll continue to do so.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
I will do so again. Take this conversation, this thread, this forum, this webpage, the internet, your computer, my computer, and etc. I know all began to exist at one point in time. This is fact demonstrably, empirically, scientifically, and logically.

Yet none of this is everything, none of it is yet proven to be finite, and all of it other than the conversation itself already existed in some other form. The conversation is apparently the first thing you'll prove to be finite, by ending it. But proving a conversation is finite means shit. You can't compare a conversation to the universe.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
I'm going to assume none of this will do because I cannot show you every finite thing's beginning.

You can't even show me one physical things beginning.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
If you do not accept this either because of antagonistic, sarcastic, or whatever _____ reasons the conversation is over.

So I'm right, I win.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:We can

Cliff Jumper wrote:
We can disucss one of these issues if you like.

Good.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
After we finish our previous discussion.

Apparently we have. I won.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Please stay on topic

I am on topic. In fact, since I responded to you, if I'm off topic then you went off topic first.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Butting into another person's conversation is inappropriate

I didn't butt in to anything. I addressed points noone else did or did so in a way noone else did. And I only did so because you decided to ignore me and respond to everyone else, If anyone is being inappropriate, it's you.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
I know it's a forum and you can do whatever you want, but it becomes confusing for myself and others when I am responding to 2 people about 3 different topics.

Noone else is confused, and if you'd responded in a timely and courteous manner it wouldn't have happened anyway.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
I am sorry about the waiting time. I do have things to do. I cannot answer every one of these responses when the come up all the time. I try to answer 2-3 a day but sometimes life gets busy.

More lies. Today so far you've made 6 replies. And I waited almost two months just for you to officially ignore everything I said. If this is the way you treat others you have no right asking them to be polite to you.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:Brian37

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

I am sorry for the lateness of my replies. My hard drive crashed and as a result I have not been able to use my computer. Hopefully that won't happen again for a while anyway Laughing out loud

 

 

Funny how reality gets in the way of fantasy. Why didn't you simply pray for your sky hero to magically fix it? Made the earth in 6 days. Magically popped a man out of dirt. Made a baby without a second set of DNA.

I've had to fix crashed computers too, gut one for parts to revive another. But I don't pray to a fictional computer god to do it.

But I did pray and God did answer my prayer and fix my computer. He blessed me with my earthly father who does that kind of thing for a living and fun. So not only did God through my father here fix my computer, but he taught me some neat partioning tricks, how to notice hard drive problems, and other cool stuff.

Just because God does not perfrom at the snap of your fingers to answer your every whim how and when you want it does not mean He does not exist.

 

 

Nice to know that god considers your computer problems more important than the thousands of people dying from ebola. Obviously, he has his priorities in the right order. Perhaps if you hadn't prayed, god would have time, but since you did pray, and you are so important, he just had to fix your annoyance first.

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Cliff

Jabberwocky wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Ok, fair enough on point 1. Upon a closer reading, I found that the version I was reading was more ambiguous, and other versions were more clear and seemed to imply exactly what you mean. At which point, though, does it imply that it was due to insufficient belief, and the later attack featuring Deborah and Barak was successful due to full belief? I didn't find any such suggestion. 

That said, there are 2 other verses easy to find that suggest that god can't do anything. Mark 6:5 suggests Jesus was powerless to do some things, and Hebrews 6:18 says that it's impossible for god to lie (which is a problem when considering Ezekiel 14:9 saying that god can and does).

 

Okay first let me deal with Mark 6:5. It does not say Jesus Christ was/is powerless but that he could not heal the people of Nazareth. This has nothing to do with having or not having the power to do so. It has to do with the faith of the people there. It says before this that the people disbeleived not just that he was Jesus the Christ but also in what all that entails, i.e. that he is God, and all powerful. When they disbelieved they simply did not want any miracles or miraculous signs, and they did not ask for them. This is supported in two ways. Number one in that same verse Mark 6:5 it says, "And He could there do no mighty work, save that He laid His hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them." So he did do miraculous deeds, just very few of them because there were very few who beleived. Second, notice that all the miracles Jesus did in the Gospels were done when an act of faith was done either directly or implicitly. In other words faith requires works. You cannot just say you believe and that's that. If you believe there are certain things you will do to express this belief. For example, I believe that an antibotic (a cure) exists for strep throat.  However, unless I actively get the antibiotic from the doctor I will not be cured. Just like I believe Jesus is the Christ and can do all things. Thus I will ask Him for a cure, or whatever.

Bullshit.. Antibiotics work independant of belief in them (or even knowledge of taking them). My dog took them to prevent infection in his recently operated on scrotum (normal operation for male dogs) to prevent infection. They work. If you had strep throat, the drugs you take have been proven to work in trials at a better rate than placebos. 

Why is belief mandatory for a cure? In Luke 22:51, I assume those who came with the high priests wouldn't have come if they did believe. Regardless, Jesus was able to heal the dude's ear. This implies that belief is not mandatory for healing. The verse we were discussing in Matthew, upon checking every version on bible gateway I understand (46 in English, 3 in Polish, yes I checked them all!) and one extra Polish one (that I wouldn't add until I read that it is the most common translation used, "Biblia Tysiaclecia&quotEye-wink, I found that 78% of English translations didn't imply what you said it implied, nor did 50% of Polish versions. According to the new testament, belief is only sometimes mandatory in order to be cured. Incoherent, as the bible usually is.

Cliff Jumper wrote:

This extends to the verses in Judges with Judah, Deborah, and Barak. Judah does not have complete faith in the Lord and thus does not do everything required to fulfill that faith. Notice that Deborah beleives in what God says then does the work required to fulfill that belief. Barak however beleives but does not do everything required to fulfill that belief. In these cases God is not powerless but they lacked the faith and thus did not do the required works to perfrom said actions. Where specifically in those verses is this found? Easy. With Judah it's more implicit. The lack of faith means a lack of works. Deborah believes then does all that is required to believe. Barak however, believes only in part and as a result does only in part what needs to be done.   This theme of faith and works is found through out the entire Bible.

 

And this theme of faith and works is contradicted, as shown above. 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Ezekiel 14:9 does not have God lying. Ezekiel 14:9 says that God will allow false prophets to lie about him and will allow Isrealities and Gentiles to accept the lies or the truth. Again this is a common Hebrew literary device. They see all things as the will of God. Thus those who choose against Him is known to God and is in His will. This is not say however that God wants us to or makes us lie about Him to others, simply that He will allow it.  because

 

Jabberwocky wrote:
There is a problem with this. You could read history to find out how Abraham Lincoln became the person deemed most responsible for freeing the slaves. You can read of what he did, and you can read of what others did. I seriously do not know enough about the history to say much, but I'm sure much insight could be had reading about it. So while it's appropriate to say that "Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves" in a casual conversation, in a history class or a history club, you would probably delve into more detail. So why, then,  would you say that when we're discussing religion, theology, and god, that "Yahweh is the cause for all things" is sufficient to explain anything? Your book may assert that, but for those that don't accept the authority of the book (especially with its internal contradictions, one of which I've just highlighted), we demand far more explanation if we are to believe that this has anything to do with truth.

The Bible is not the sole source of authority and/or teaching on God as the cause for all things. God has given us His Catholic Church, the Deposit of the Faith, the writings of the doctors and father's of the Church, and much more. So when reading the Bible we read it not in isolation but with other resources. This is similar to when English classes read Shakespeare or Dickens with other aides like Elizabethian dicticonaires, a study of history, etc. 

I'll get to that in a bit. You brought up extra-biblical sources for your belief which I will discuss shortly, after I cover the biblical. The King James, and New International translations in English (and the Biblia Tysiaclecia in Polish, the 3 Biblegateway.com translations for Polish are new testament only) imply in Ezekiel 14:9 that when the prophets deceive someone, it is the lord who has deceived them.  Have you a reason to disagree with how that is written?

Now, Catholic Church. I don't have to agree with them. Next, the Deposit of the Faith. Sounds dirty to me. Jokes aside, it refers to scripture and apostolic succesion, which I also don't believe. Even if someone were to prove to me that it did go down a line from Peter or Paul, I don't believe that what they think they saw is what they actually saw. I find that an extraordinary claim, which requires extraordinary evidence. The writings of the doctors and fathers of the church are all the same thing. Basically, what you've said is

Cliff Jumper wrote:

God has given us His Catholic Church

Aaaand a bunch of stuff that requires that that is true. Since I disagree with the truth of that, you have succeeded in explaining nothing to me thus far. 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:
In reverse order: Judaism, Protestants, Coptic Catholics, Orthodox Christians, Eastern European Catholics, Muslims, Calvinists, and Jehovah's witnesses all do agree that Yahweh (despite alternate names like Jehovah or Allah) is all of those things. I agree with that. Even though that is a sizeable chunk of the world population, it doesn't mean a thing. That many people can be wrong, and I contend that they are. 

You have started this thread to talk of Catholicism specifically, so I'll leave the second point, and would like to speak further on the "truths which prove the Catholic Faith as the One True Faith". There is typically a lot more discussion with Protestants on these boards it seems, so I wouldn't mind getting to a specific denomination (especially since it's the one I was raised in).

 

What do you want to know about the Catholic faith? Ask away on a topic, Crusades, contraception, abortion, scriptural cannon, Inquisitions...

Discussing these issues will help show the differences and logical fallacies between the other faiths, and why the Catholic faith is the One True Faith.

Why would I ask on those topics? I think it's obvious why the Crusades and Inquisitions. These were intended to spread dogma and doctrine by force.

The injunctions in Catholicism against contraception and abortion are because the Catholic Church wants its adherents to have more children. The number 1 indicator of someone's religion is the religion of their parents. It would, of course, be hypocritical to say that a rule only applies to Catholics. Therefore, they attempt to apply it to everyone. Also, people are more likely to turn to religion in times of trouble. If a particular religion sees every instance of procreation as a gift, someone who is having troubles with it may gravitate towards that. These two rules exist only for the purpose of self-preservation of the church. The same applies to injunctions against euthanasia (it would be hypocritical to allow that in light of the others) homosexuality, etc. The one against homosexuality is even more sinister in a way. Since anyone growing up Catholic sees that as a mortal sin, they see same sex attraction as something that is not even an option. When they realize that they're not attracted to the opposite sex, they are very likely to, instead, opt to the priesthood, or in the case of girls, a convent. I have a priest in my extended family, and a former Catholic nun as well. Due to a continental divide, I have yet to discuss this with the former nun, but I would love to. Short story, she found a man. Not every nun and priest is gay, but other than a small amount of asexuals (which do exist), I would venture that many are. It's a good reason why you seemingly see such a small number of gay Catholics. Seriously, you should meet my relative who is a priest. You'd see what I mean. 

As far as scriptural Canon, clearly I think there are major contradictions, and I have to mention historical and scientific misstatements as well.

Why did you point me to those particular questions? What is a really radical claim specific to Catholics is apostolic succession, and transsubstantiation. What evidence do you have for those 2 things? That's what I want to know. 

 

Okay. Either I was not clear enough or you are misunderstanding my point about miracles, faith, and the need for works.

I am not saying antibiotics do not work unless you beleive they do. I am saying that antibiotics only work if you take them, and that by taking them you are trusting or believing they will work. You generally do not take medicine without some modicum of trust that it will work.  In otherwords just accepting that antibiotics or Jesus is real will not save you from your problem. You must act on that faith in the case of medicine take it. In the case of Christ ask, seek, and serve Him, make an act of the will. 

There is no contradiction of this theology in the Bible. The verses in Judges uphold this idea. In Judges Barak does not do the whole work and therefore does not fully believe. Deborah on the otherhand does all the works and thus believes fully.

In Luke what you have is God peforming a miracle for Malchus not only to heal him but as a sign to His disciples to learn peace and the need for Christ to be arrested and crucified. You are right there is no mention of an act of the will from Malchus, but there is also no mention of a lack of action. Regardless, God can perfrom miracles even if no one believes. In other words God's ability to do miracles is independent of people's beliefs or actions.

How does this not contradict Mark 6:5 you might be wondering. Well there is one major reason. It has to do with the nature of miracles. Miracles' main purposes are the glory of God and the good of men. Miracles are signs performed by God to appeal to our intelligence (faculty of thought). In the case of Mark 6:5 miracles were performed in the presence of Christ's fellow countrymen to show His divinity but many disbelieved and took no action to try to believe.  God showed them His purpose and they rejected it. Thus He did not do anymore miracles not because He could not but because they would not serve God's purpose.

 

On to Ezekiel 14:9. Yes, it says, "As for the prophet, if he is beguiled into speaking a word, I, the LORD, shall have beguiled that prophet; I will stretch out my hand against him and root him out of my people Israel." However, it does not mean God is directly causing the deception. This a Hebrew writing style. To the Hebrews all things were in God's plan thus nothing that happened, happened without His knowledge and permission. Intermediate causes existed and were recognized by the Hebrews but ultimately it was all in God's will. Thus you have the shorthand of God is behind it because it is His plan. It is a short way of saying God allows or permits the deception of others by the false prophet.

 

You can ignore and not believe in the Catholic Church, the Apostles, the writings of the Saints and Fathers, Deposit of the Faith, and proven historical foundations of the Church. This would be choosing ignorance. If you are going to read and understand the Bible like anything else you should learn about the context, its language, the writers, and the history referenced in it. In other words do not expect the Bible to explain itself and don't expect everything about the Faith to be in the Bible. The Bible itself warns against it as did Christ, and His Church.

This is obvious in any other secular area, like when reading Shakespeare or Dickens with other aides like Elizabethian dicticonaires, a study of history, etc.

 

As to the topic suggestions. You do not have to pick one of them. I merely suggested them, because they are usually sticking points with atheists and many atheists discuss them.

As an aside you are waaaaay off on your understanding of all those topics. I would love to correct you on each one, one at a time. But choose which ever topic you like.
 

 

 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
I am miles away from this current part of this thread. . .

 Re ::   I am miles away from this current part of this conversation in this thread. . .

 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
happened without His knowledge and permission.

 

     ...............................  Does that include watching as false accusations (or groundless accusations or unfounded accusations or false allegations or false claims) are BEING made antagonistically towards the innocence, (by the brethren no less) ??!!?

 

   "You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor'' that the ninth commandment

   
   "But for the fearful and unbelieving and abominable and murderers .. and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death."

 

  ____

   The previous day or two before, that he had ridden into Jerusalem on the back of a young donkey. Wasn't it Jesus himself who was confronted and accused ?

 

     You cannot begin to conjecture about which beliefs are held, not in such a forum, and what are flatly rejected.  Don't we all find an interesting point in this our text in the portion of the Gospel according to Saint Mark Ch. 11:27-33:

 

  The Text:
"And they came again to Jerusalem. And as He was walking in the temple, and the chief priests, and scribes and elders came to Him, and began saying to Him, 'By what authority are You doing these things, or who gave you this authority to do these things?' And Jesus said to them, 'I will ask you one question, and you answer me, and then I will tell you by what authority I do these things. Was the baptism of John from heaven, or from men? Answer Me." And they began reasoning among themselves, saying, 'If we say, 'from heaven,' He will say, 'Then why did you not believe him?' But shall we say, 'From men?'-they were afraid of the multitude, for all considered John to have been a prophet indeed. And answering Jesus, they said, 'We do not know.' And Jesus said to them, 'Neither will I tell you by what authority I do these things."

 



 Lol  0ff-site  ::

   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5KdOH7SrjQ {http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K5KdOH7SrjQ}


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Cliff Jumper

iwbiek wrote:
Cliff Jumper wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Cliff Jumper wrote:
I have used logical and empirical evidences as well as some scientific evidences to support the claim that Yahw-h is the one true God.

no, you have not. empirical evidence for something as unique as a personal god would be seeing god. you can analogize all you want about tables needing carpenters or what have you, but analogies are just that: analogies. they do not qualify as perception, not in the logical world and not in the scientific world. the existence of god cannot be determined scientifically anyway, as it is not a falsifiable claim.

 

A table needs a carpenter/designer is not an analogy in and of itself. It is a fact. I have seen a table being built by a carpenter. It is true regradless whether or not I directly experience it. "I don't see it; therefore, it doesn't exist." is not a cogent argument against God, for God, or for/against anything. Even science does not work on strict empiricism.

I agree science cannot prove God's existence. We agree yea! I never said any such thing though. I said scientific evidence in conjunction with other evidences supports the existence of God.

 

 

 

it becomes an analogy when you attempt to make a syllogism out of it. and i'm not arguing against god's existence. i'm arguing that the evidence you present will not be compelling to most people here because it is not scientific.

Okay no disagreement then. Any questions?

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:1. The

Beyond Saving wrote:

1. The means of complete salvation through the Catholic Church

But screw everyone else right?

 

2. The Catholic Church

Something that many more people would be alive today if it didn't exist. 

 

3. The sacraments

Always a good excuse to kill or jail people who don't follow them. 

 

4. The flourishing of western civilization

Lol, really? REALLY? Do I laugh or cry? 

 

6. The formation of Europe

Through the most violent period known in human history and the mass slaughter of tens of millions.

 

7. Major contributions to the development of logic and philosophy

Yeah, ask Giordano Bruno, Tommaso Campanella, Galileo and Menocchio. The Church certainly helped them contribute through imprisonment and torture. 

 

8. Major contributions to the formation of scientific thought and the experimental method see St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Father Roger Bacon

While condeming any scientist who dared make a discovery that wasn't consistent with Church doctrine. 

 

9. Major contributions to scientific fields and the freedom to do scientific research. See, antibotics, vaccines, astronomy, genetics, medicine, physics, and much more

Uh huh...

 

10. Constitutions

Which Constitution was written by a Catholic?

 

11. Constituional monarchies and republics

Really? The Greeks were Catholic? 

 

12. Trail by jury

Again, originated by the Greeks and in practice long before Rome adopted Christianity. As far as the modern jury, it finds its roots in Scandinavia, which was overrun with Pagans at the time. It was adopted in England by Aethelred the Unready, also not Christian. It then disappeared for awhile until it was brought back with the Magna Carta by King John, who was excommunicated by the Church. 

 

Quote:

And there's a lot more. These again are some the big ones.

Sure, when you willingly rewrite history to fit your agenda. You are either extremely ignorant of history or you are completely dishonest. Since you are a good Catholic, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are ignorant.

 

Pick one topic please. I do one topic at a time with each poster so as not to confuse myself and everyone else reading the thread.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Beyond Saving
atheist
Beyond Saving's picture
Posts: 5448
Joined: 2007-10-12
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:Beyond

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

1. The means of complete salvation through the Catholic Church

But screw everyone else right?

 

2. The Catholic Church

Something that many more people would be alive today if it didn't exist. 

 

3. The sacraments

Always a good excuse to kill or jail people who don't follow them. 

 

4. The flourishing of western civilization

Lol, really? REALLY? Do I laugh or cry? 

 

6. The formation of Europe

Through the most violent period known in human history and the mass slaughter of tens of millions.

 

7. Major contributions to the development of logic and philosophy

Yeah, ask Giordano Bruno, Tommaso Campanella, Galileo and Menocchio. The Church certainly helped them contribute through imprisonment and torture. 

 

8. Major contributions to the formation of scientific thought and the experimental method see St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Father Roger Bacon

While condeming any scientist who dared make a discovery that wasn't consistent with Church doctrine. 

 

9. Major contributions to scientific fields and the freedom to do scientific research. See, antibotics, vaccines, astronomy, genetics, medicine, physics, and much more

Uh huh...

 

10. Constitutions

Which Constitution was written by a Catholic?

 

11. Constituional monarchies and republics

Really? The Greeks were Catholic? 

 

12. Trail by jury

Again, originated by the Greeks and in practice long before Rome adopted Christianity. As far as the modern jury, it finds its roots in Scandinavia, which was overrun with Pagans at the time. It was adopted in England by Aethelred the Unready, also not Christian. It then disappeared for awhile until it was brought back with the Magna Carta by King John, who was excommunicated by the Church. 

 

Quote:

And there's a lot more. These again are some the big ones.

Sure, when you willingly rewrite history to fit your agenda. You are either extremely ignorant of history or you are completely dishonest. Since you are a good Catholic, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are ignorant.

 

Pick one topic please. I do one topic at a time with each poster so as not to confuse myself and everyone else reading the thread.

Huh? I went point by point down YOUR list in post 111. So either it is all the same topic, or you are a liar and you do more than one topic at a time. But don't mind me, I'm just the peanut gallery in this thread doing a little heckling for kicks and giggles. You should probably focus on Vastet as he is treating you rather seriously and has raised some good points that you summarily ignored. If you took it serious, you just might learn something. 

Although, I am noticing a pattern, this is the second time you have refused to respond to any substance on the grounds that it isn't on topic when it is a point by point reference of your own post. You have also refused to respond 2 or 3 times on the basis that you were "offended" by something rather innoculous. My conclusion given the evidence is that when you are confronted with an argument of any depth is that you simply evade it.  

If, if a white man puts his arm around me voluntarily, that's brotherhood. But if you - if you hold a gun on him and make him embrace me and pretend to be friendly or brotherly toward me, then that's not brotherhood, that's hypocrisy.- Malcolm X


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:Cliff Jumper

Old Seer wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

First of all to understand your territory/Habitat, Define Christianity.

Response to Old Seer

Christianity is Catholicism. In other words the Nicene Constantinopolitan creed:

I believe in one God,
the Father almighty,
maker of heaven and earth,
of all things visible and invisible.

I believe in one Lord Jesus Christ,
the Only Begotten Son of God,
born of the Father before all ages.
God from God, Light from Light,
true God from true God,
begotten, not made, consubstantial with the Father;
through him all things were made.
For us men and for our salvation
he came down from heaven,
and by the Holy Spirit was incarnate of the Virgin Mary,
and became man.
For our sake he was crucified under Pontius Pilate,
he suffered death and was buried,
and rose again on the third day
in accordance with the Scriptures.
He ascended into heaven
and is seated at the right hand of the Father.
He will come again in glory
to judge the living and the dead
and his kingdom will have no end.

I believe in the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of life,
who proceeds from the Father and the Son,
who with the Father and the Son is adored and glorified,
who has spoken through the prophets.

I believe in one, holy, catholic and apostolic Church.
I confess one Baptism for the forgiveness of sins
and I look forward to the resurrection of the dead
and the life of the world to come. Amen.

according to a Pope and religioious leaders in general. I know what you believe. The question was/is, what is your definition of Christianity. What's it for, how is it supposed to do what it's for, and how is it that what it was to accomplish hasn't happened yet, that is, if you say it's supposed to bring about a world of peace. If so--what happened that it hasn't come about. OR, what other goals is it supposed to accomplish, and can you explain "why" that hasn't happened as yet. And,What has Christianity done for the world so far when the world the same today as BC.  What is Christianity;s purpose?   Smiling

 

The Nicene Constantinopolitan Creed is the basic definition of Christianity. What is what for? The creed or Christianity? The Creed is used to define what Christianity beleives and what one must believe to be Christian. Christianity specifically Catholicism (The One True Faith) is used to keep you holy, with Christ, and ultimately to bring you into Heaven with the Trinity.

Jesus nor the Catholic Church ever said that an Earthly utopia would come about if Christianity was true and/or if many or all were Christian.

As to Christianity's true goals, which overall is the salvation of souls through the spreading of Christ's Gospel and teachings, this has not happened yet for several reasons:

1. We only reach salvation after the death of the flesh. So there are people still alive who are yet to be saved.

2. People will choose no slavation over salvation.

3. Jesus has not returned which is necessary for evil to be fully and truly defeated.  

These are not all the reasons but some big ones.

As to what Christianity specifically Catholicism has given the world since BC well there's a lot.

1. The means of complete salvation through the Catholic Church

2. The Catholic Church

3. The sacraments

4. The flourishing of western civilization

6. The formation of Europe

7. Major contributions to the development of logic and philosophy

8. Major contributions to the formation of scientific thought and the experimental method see St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Father Roger Bacon

9. Major contributions to scientific fields and the freedom to do scientific research. See, antibotics, vaccines, astronomy, genetics, medicine, physics, and much more

10. Constitutions

11. Constituional monarchies and republics

12. Trail by jury

And there's a lot more. These again are some the big ones.

of Christianity then, is Catholisism. That's hypocrtical. If the Pope is chosen by a super human then why do Cardinals have to elect one. It turns out that ---if---Cardinals elect a Pope then "they" are the super humans. And in turn--if the Cardinals elect the Pope then they are God--right---which in turn menas that if they are the super humans  --then what do they need a Pope for. The whole thing doesn't make sense. The Jehovahs
Witnesses claim also that their religions leaders are chosen by God. That happens (according to them) at a special ceremony where if one drinks the wine that same is a member of the 144000. How am I supposed to believe that. There's nothing to go on except --they say. Religions depend on "belief because "they say" but they have no proof of what "they say". There's no such claim in the book that there is any such being as super human. That's merely and ancient belief fostered by those who set themselves above others and acquire the postion of leaders. Religions are nothing more then another civil government that has no civil powers but maintain dominance over others by belief, while civil governments use police force to maintaihn dominance, and neither has solved a single social problem going back 1000s of years. What's the problem????. The dark age Euorpeans merely attached their religion to the bible. What you have there is Europeanism, not Christianity.

What you are describing in your posting is --the Cathiolic church instituted civilization--which can't be. Catholisism is a religion as any other--and will never solve the worlds problems any more then governments will. What use is religion if it's not going to change anything. I can't believe just because someone "says". Drinking wine from gold goblets and wareing special finery hasn't, and isn't,  going to change a thing--that we have evidence of. What can the Pope and the Cardinals do/say that will bring peace to this planet. Old Seer.  Smiling

 

Please pick one topic. So far you've asked for what the definition of Christianity is, its purpose, Papal authority, and incorrectly commented on papal elections. Please pick one topic to discuss.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Cliff Jumper

iwbiek wrote:
Cliff Jumper wrote:
As to the insults and impolitiness, I was unaware that politeness was completely out the window. I was also unaware that my expection to have a rational and polite conversation was irrational and an unachievealbe expectation for some atheists on the rational responders site.

oh please, don't be obtuse. your finger-wagging that i responded to in my post was not prompted by any insult or impoliteness. it was prompted by dana's gif of someone pouring syrup over a madonna statue, which only the hyperreligious would consider "insulting" or "impolite." i'm sorry, but we don't cater to the sensitivities of the hyperreligious here.
now, that being said, it is very possible that someone here will be rude or insulting when faced with asinine or ignorant posts. most of us just don't suffer fools. if you find that irrational or disconcerting then, as i said, you're welcome to fuck off to another site.

More snide insults, fantastic. What is their purpose? This forum is about debating theist claims and atheist claims. This thread is specfically about asking a Catholic questions about the Catholic faith. If you wish to show off your ability to sling back handed insults do it in one of the other forums. I came here to do what this site claims to do, have a rational conversation about theism and atheism.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Jabberwocky wrote:Cliff

Jabberwocky wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Jabberwocky wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

 

The last .gif could be considered offensive. Please refrain from that kind of .gif in the future.

More offensive than asserting that atheists only reject the god they know exists so that they can do evil works? Because Christians assert that all the time. Some syrup poured on a statue of someone who may or may not have existed with a common exclamation appearing on the screen can't be anywhere near as offensive as that. Also, it's hilarious. Does your god have no sense of humour?

I have not said anything like that, and I know that is not a dogmatic teaching of the Catholic Church. Please stay on topic.

 

No you haven't. However, I will state right now that the Catholic church is nothing but a criminal organization based on an awful lie. Trans-substantiation is a ridiculous claim that is definitely untrue. Confession is nothing but a way to make children nervous, and adults comfortable with many an awful crime they've committed. Thinking these things seems to me, to condemn me to hell according to the church if I maintain this line of thinking until my demise. Is that not what the church says?

The Church says nothing of the sort in any remote way. Pick one topic and I will gladly discuss it with.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

 

"Again God created us perfect. He told us and showed us what needed to be done to keep it that way. We chose imperfection, rejected His perfect love.

God is not in charge of our choices. That would be in contracidtion to his all loving nature. You cannot force someone to love you. Love requires choice.

We choose to do evil, not God. He knows our choices, and He allows us to make them. However, He is not responsible for our actions."

1. Yes I beleive in papal infallibility. You are misunderstanding papal infallibility. Infallibility does not mean impecability which is what you are confusing it with. The popes are not protected from personal sin, or from the sins of others. Infallibility only deals with matters of faith and morals and the Church's teachings on them.

2. I believe in transubstantion. It is not magic. It is a miracle, big difference. They do not collect money to perfrom the miracle. The collection is for charities. Ask your local parish for a breakdown of it's chartiable donations from the collections.

3. Yes, Mary, perfect in her humanity, was assumed body and soul into Heaven. We imperfect humans do not have bodies because they are imperfect (result of personal and original sin). In the fullness of time all those in Heaven will recieve perfect bodies.

 

 

 

 

Hi Cliff Jumper. Something that is evident is your insistence in the ultimate fallibility of the empirical method counterbalanced by your dogmatic belief in 'facts' like the ones above. I think it's fair to argue raw empiricism is not the only way to approach generally knowable human truths - in fact I would argue rationalism and empiricism are always applied together in human brains - but you seem to be doing something else. You highlight empiricism's inability to disprove god and having established 'doubt' over its power in this 'case', argue absolute truth can yet be ascertained in 'other ways'. These ways seem to be absolute belief based on the bald assertions contained in the bible - they are beyond any normal method of confirmation. Could you tell us if you have any doubt about your beliefs? Or are you absolutely certain? 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

 

"I never said you made a statement regarding your personal beliefs. Again, I never said all my proofs and eveidences were scientific. Some are some are not. So far I have seen no scientific arguments against Yahw-h as God here. I have seen typical responses that are all traditional ignorant or back handed insults."

Having read the entire thread I see no one has successfully defined god. You asked others what their idea of a god might be but did not clearly define your own idea of a god beyond broad human concepts like 'cause', 'intelligence' and 'higher power'. It does seem to me that you are supporting the abstract noun 'god' with labels that are equally nebulous. Would you argue it is possible to prove the existence of a thing that has not been defined and whose characteristics are both undefineable and outside our ability to confirm? I think it's possible to believe in such a thing - but that is not the same as proving the existence of such a thing to be more or less true. 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

It is a demonstrable fact that if something began something caused it to begin. So for the car, it began to be when it was assembled. So something assembled it, say factory workers and machines. Something created the machines and people, and on and on and on, until you reach a point where something that always existed created the first finite thing, finity. Positing infinte beginnings does not explain where finity came from. For the second, that is the nature of infinity. If it has a beginning/end it is not infinite. 

 

Cause and effect is an empirical observation. Given empiricism lies at the core of your christian beliefs, could you explain to us at what point you believe empiricism stops functioning as a tool for increasing your personal knowledge about god? 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Empirical reductionism (what you and many skeptics adhere to) is a flawed way to understand the universe and a flawed way to reason. There are other evidences besides direct observation/experience (empiricism). Going by this philosophy many things that exist like beauty, art, and love do not exist and can never be proven to exist because they cannot be observed. So yes, an epistemoligcal shift is required and should be done as empirical reductionism is the wrong way to obtain knowledge. Keep in mind I am not saying empirical methods do not obtain knowledge, but it is not the only method for doing so. 

 

It's a false dichotomy to suggest empiricism (I think you mean sense data in this case) and rationalism (human reason) are opposed as ways to know things about the experience of human existence. When the researcher seeks to confirm a rationally conceived hypothesis, empiricism and rationalism work together. When the christian employs the cosmological argument, empiricism and rationalism work together. In fact, I would argue that empiricism and rationalism used together comprise the best way for humans to ponder and seek to confirm those things that seem to be true. 

What would you say that 'truth' is, Cliff Jumper? What do you mean when you use that word in support of statements about your entwined experiences of the objective and subjective world?

Pick one topic. I will gladly discuss it with you. Discussing multiple topics with one person is confusing enough not including all the others here in the thread.

You are misunderstanding my remarks on empiricism so I would be delighted to discuss that. Or we could discuss what the definition of God is. While I did not give a definition I did clearly define His necessary qualities. The question about God's defintion was not posed by me or by anyone. I beleive digitalbeachbum asked "Why your god?". I answered the question. 

Again one topic at a time.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
I'm seriously considering

I'm seriously considering going to the administration to see about getting you a troll badge at this point. You are asking people to be polite and then being rude yourself. You're telling people to pick a topic when they're all interrelated, as demonstrated by every conversation you've taken part in. You keep telling people to pick a topic instead of picking one yourself, and you keep bringing up multiple topics in a display of hypocrisy. And you're quoting the bible as if it were solid proof of your claims, which is circular logic.

I don't think you have any interest in debate. I think you're just proselytising and ignoring anything that doesn't explicitly conform in some way to your expectations. Maybe I'm wrong, and because of that possibility I'm giving you this warning about my intentions. You are not obligated to speak to anyone or respond to anyone in particular, but if your responses to people are going to continue to be dismissive and rude and trollish then you'll leave me no alternative.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
     The Catholic troll

 

 

   The Catholic troll Cliff Jumper doesn't like the answers he's getting from the atheists.  I would love for Cliff Jumper to spend a week or so debating with our resident Protestant Calvinist troll Jean Chauvin.   Two defenders of "God" each attempting to defeat the other with their endless passive-agressive answers.   Hilarious !

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
Amateur !!

  Cliff-jumper ::

 

    Amateur!!

    Man,   Pa/TWD39 went on a time or twelve about the 'rude fashion' in which 'she' was being treated .. and went on and on and on about "more snide insults", remember the sock-puppet queen. I know a thing or twelve about being treated rudely and outside of one former catholic ("I" was NEVER a catholic, Byzantine or Alexandrian or Roman  ..myself), you clearly don't know what "rude" is bub !!

  Now here's the great( -er,est ) injustice brought to light in that you have no clue who you're even talking with. Take a look around the board before you go by what you see in a single post in a single thread.

Iwbiek wrote:
. . oh please, don't be obtuse. your finger-wagging that i responded to in my post was not prompted by any insult or impoliteness . .  most of us just don't suffer fools. if you find that irrational or disconcerting then, as i said, you're welcome to F*** OFF to another site

 Funny thing is people dont appreciate this as you can see from the quote.  It's well-established  this is a ploy to consistently and willfully change the subject. Nice try.



  On - site (0 n l y)

 


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
I think what you're

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

 

"Again God created us perfect. He told us and showed us what needed to be done to keep it that way. We chose imperfection, rejected His perfect love.

God is not in charge of our choices. That would be in contracidtion to his all loving nature. You cannot force someone to love you. Love requires choice.

We choose to do evil, not God. He knows our choices, and He allows us to make them. However, He is not responsible for our actions."

1. Yes I beleive in papal infallibility. You are misunderstanding papal infallibility. Infallibility does not mean impecability which is what you are confusing it with. The popes are not protected from personal sin, or from the sins of others. Infallibility only deals with matters of faith and morals and the Church's teachings on them.

2. I believe in transubstantion. It is not magic. It is a miracle, big difference. They do not collect money to perfrom the miracle. The collection is for charities. Ask your local parish for a breakdown of it's chartiable donations from the collections.

3. Yes, Mary, perfect in her humanity, was assumed body and soul into Heaven. We imperfect humans do not have bodies because they are imperfect (result of personal and original sin). In the fullness of time all those in Heaven will recieve perfect bodies.

 

 

 

 

Hi Cliff Jumper. Something that is evident is your insistence in the ultimate fallibility of the empirical method counterbalanced by your dogmatic belief in 'facts' like the ones above. I think it's fair to argue raw empiricism is not the only way to approach generally knowable human truths - in fact I would argue rationalism and empiricism are always applied together in human brains - but you seem to be doing something else. You highlight empiricism's inability to disprove god and having established 'doubt' over its power in this 'case', argue absolute truth can yet be ascertained in 'other ways'. These ways seem to be absolute belief based on the bald assertions contained in the bible - they are beyond any normal method of confirmation. Could you tell us if you have any doubt about your beliefs? Or are you absolutely certain? 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

 

"I never said you made a statement regarding your personal beliefs. Again, I never said all my proofs and eveidences were scientific. Some are some are not. So far I have seen no scientific arguments against Yahw-h as God here. I have seen typical responses that are all traditional ignorant or back handed insults."

Having read the entire thread I see no one has successfully defined god. You asked others what their idea of a god might be but did not clearly define your own idea of a god beyond broad human concepts like 'cause', 'intelligence' and 'higher power'. It does seem to me that you are supporting the abstract noun 'god' with labels that are equally nebulous. Would you argue it is possible to prove the existence of a thing that has not been defined and whose characteristics are both undefineable and outside our ability to confirm? I think it's possible to believe in such a thing - but that is not the same as proving the existence of such a thing to be more or less true. 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

It is a demonstrable fact that if something began something caused it to begin. So for the car, it began to be when it was assembled. So something assembled it, say factory workers and machines. Something created the machines and people, and on and on and on, until you reach a point where something that always existed created the first finite thing, finity. Positing infinte beginnings does not explain where finity came from. For the second, that is the nature of infinity. If it has a beginning/end it is not infinite. 

 

Cause and effect is an empirical observation. Given empiricism lies at the core of your christian beliefs, could you explain to us at what point you believe empiricism stops functioning as a tool for increasing your personal knowledge about god? 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Empirical reductionism (what you and many skeptics adhere to) is a flawed way to understand the universe and a flawed way to reason. There are other evidences besides direct observation/experience (empiricism). Going by this philosophy many things that exist like beauty, art, and love do not exist and can never be proven to exist because they cannot be observed. So yes, an epistemoligcal shift is required and should be done as empirical reductionism is the wrong way to obtain knowledge. Keep in mind I am not saying empirical methods do not obtain knowledge, but it is not the only method for doing so. 

 

It's a false dichotomy to suggest empiricism (I think you mean sense data in this case) and rationalism (human reason) are opposed as ways to know things about the experience of human existence. When the researcher seeks to confirm a rationally conceived hypothesis, empiricism and rationalism work together. When the christian employs the cosmological argument, empiricism and rationalism work together. In fact, I would argue that empiricism and rationalism used together comprise the best way for humans to ponder and seek to confirm those things that seem to be true. 

What would you say that 'truth' is, Cliff Jumper? What do you mean when you use that word in support of statements about your entwined experiences of the objective and subjective world?

Pick one topic. I will gladly discuss it with you. Discussing multiple topics with one person is confusing enough not including all the others here in the thread.

You are misunderstanding my remarks on empiricism so I would be delighted to discuss that. Or we could discuss what the definition of God is. While I did not give a definition I did clearly define His necessary qualities. The question about God's defintion was not posed by me or by anyone. I beleive digitalbeachbum asked "Why your god?". I answered the question. 

Again one topic at a time.

going to find is--no one here is going to believe you. I can see you're trying to do a good deed by infroming others of your beliefs. What you have to understand is -alI here already have their beliefs--and---you'll have to prove you're right. That will take forensic and/or psychological evidence. IE- if "God" is a super human non material existing phenomenon, you have nothing to put under a microscope or on a weitght scale to show. On the other hand --the only thing left would be psycology. If you have no psycological facts to present then how do you prove your information. IF, you can express or present psycological facts associated with God then you may have something. Again-IE, what mental factors does God impose or create withion society or people--or any person. Any proofs of God can only come mental (psychological) evidence.

 Presenting a material universe as proof simply can't do it, as what is seen or undestood to the members of the forums here (in essence) that no God is needed to create material. (depending upon one's understanding of God) So, how do you prove your case. I find it very hard to see that one person (a Pope) is infallible --and if so-that would mean he knows everything, and would be the same as an all knowing all seeing God/entity. If that were true then what use (or sense) would there be for any need of a God when an infallible person would do. OK, you could say that God needs an earthly mouthpiece. But now, wait a minute--says who. Thsi just seems to show up at a time in history wihtout proof or resonable ashowing that --that was/is actually the case. IF, there were any infallibility connected , how can it be that church leaders believed at one time that the earth was phlat. ----simple--they never were physicists. Don't you suppose that if the infallibility factor were true they would have known all about physics. The infallibility claim covers to many unexplainables and no physics. The main problems with past times religions is they have no real areas of expertise. God can only be explained from two factors, material, and spiritual/psychological. The middleage and darkage Europeans weren't very knowledgeable of either. I submit that this is what todays religions are still stuck in. Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:On the other

Old Seer wrote:

On the other hand --the only thing left would be psycology. If you have no psycological facts to present then how do you prove your information. IF, you can express or present psycological facts associated with God then you may have something. Again-IE, what mental factors does God impose or create withion society or people--or any person. Any proofs of God can only come mental (psychological) evidence.

Mhmm, we would probably reject this "psychological evidence" as fallacious anyways, depending on the specific argument. We'd probably just attribute it primarily to, as indicated by your own terminology, psychology, rather than any supernatural god.

People frequently cite an improvement in their lives or the lives of others as evidence for the truth of their religion. For example, a drug addict becomes born again, so he quits his bad habits, becomes involved in his church, and starts a family, becoming a positive force in his community. Some would say this demontrates the power of the holy spirit. I would say it's an anecdote and an example of confirmation bias, among other psychological and logical pitfalls, that convinces gullible people of the validity of beliefs that they desperately wanted to be true in the first place. 

The best evidence would be if all members of a particular religious group was exemplary in some way, without exception. Unfortunately, it seems that such a group does not exist or this will often turn into a special pleading argument (e.g. he did that because he's not a real Christian). Even a difference of degree on one specific topic is really hard to pin down, like say, how much community service people do? And at the end of the day, you still have to prove causation rather than just correlation.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
As much as we (The Smurfs/Old Seers)

butterbattle wrote:

Old Seer wrote:

On the other hand --the only thing left would be psycology. If you have no psycological facts to present then how do you prove your information. IF, you can express or present psycological facts associated with God then you may have something. Again-IE, what mental factors does God impose or create withion society or people--or any person. Any proofs of God can only come mental (psychological) evidence.

Mhmm, we would probably reject this "psychological evidence" as fallacious anyways, depending on the specific argument. We'd probably just attribute it primarily to, as indicated by your own terminology, psychology, rather than any supernatural god.

People frequently cite an improvement in their lives or the lives of others as evidence for the truth of their religion. For example, a drug addict becomes born again, so he quits his bad habits, becomes involved in his church, and starts a family, becoming a positive force in his community. Some would say this demontrates the power of the holy spirit. I would say it's an anecdote and an example of confirmation bias, among other psychological and logical pitfalls, that convinces gullible people of the validity of beliefs that they desperately wanted to be true in the first place. 

The best evidence would be if all members of a particular religious group was exemplary in some way, without exception. Unfortunately, it seems that such a group does not exist or this will often turn into a special pleading argument (e.g. he did that because he's not a real Christian). Even a difference of degree on one specific topic is really hard to pin down, like say, how much community service people do? And at the end of the day, you still have to prove causation rather than just correlation.

understand, psycology is the study of person, or personality, personalities. In essence then, it's the study of people as relative to others or a society. When looking at the darkages it can be seen that belief was instituted by punishment tp persuade a person to change their mind. It gets right down to--someone having the means and powers to use force to change a mind--thus then--it's about (in their time) torture to tamper with a mind to make that mind in accordance to the mandates of an authority. In those times )and still with us today) it's about controling people and creating them into what the authourities want them to be and do. No matter how one looks at it--it's about the mind and in turn then, about the person. We see the person and psychcogy to be the same, as in, psychology "Is" the person. Also then, we see God (in biblical terms) as "People", becasue in the total end the book deals with people and their relationships with others, thus god then is "The powers of people"singular or enmass". To us then, the book is a book of Psychology, as it deals with the same aspects of person and what a person is. We don't find a super human anything or anyone in the book.

At one point during our study a psycho Smurf pointed out that he concluded--when he studies the mind he studies God, because in the all and all we see that studying people one is also studying God. That makes the biblical God then ---people and how they think, but mostly connects to social values as to "what" the social values of a society are based on. As you may guess, we see the book entirely different then what the present interpretations are. All have a good side and a bad side and capable of migrasteing to either depending upon the need or circumstance. We also find that there are no real Christians on the planet. Even us Old Seers don't regard ourselves as Christians. With the world as it is one cannot remain a Christain very long as the present social values don't permit it. One still has to deal with the world as it is. Even JC had to. In todays world still, the bad side rules--it's merely a matter of mind. Bear in mind that our world today was handed to us via previous generations and their mentality still rules. One has to consider, what did they kanow, and what did they give to the future generations--which are us. With their limited knowledge of things they couldn't have possibly got it right in terms of proper or positive relations within the masses.   Smiling

Addition-9/10/14- In biblical terms the universe contains two basic things, the material and the spiritual. The material of course we all know about, and it's the spiritual that social problems originate from. Spritual is "person" and what comprises "person", and the characteristicsod person divides tweo ways--good and evil.The good and evil in biblical terms is what people's relations are based on. The books concern is--the goods and evils exacted upon each other--which in turn denotes the systems and terms unders which a society is comprised and exists. The book holds that a person is non material (as to whether that is correct or not is debatable) and invisible.

  Good and evil are a matter of universal consequences for existing in a universe and a result of the universe itself, as, the universe has it's opposites. Where-as --the spiritual mimics the material universe in that --from what we do and thi9nk can be good or evil upon one's self and/or others. The book deals with these two mental concepts and forwars a remidy--the first of which is--to understand the phenomenon, and makes adjustments to exact as less harm of one upon another as possible. The universe of the mind then has it's goods and evils just as unavoidable as the material universe. This is what the books concern is of---to bring an understanding of what one does to bring about a good or evil upon one's self or others--called ---morals. Existing in a society has it's automatic goods and evils and it will always be so. The idea is--to have the individual reason before hand the consequences upn others of an act taken affecting or in conjuction with others--and to willfully refrain from the harm that a personal venture may cause to another. The systems in the world since civilization's institution is to do evil to bring about good--to one's self or others in one's own society at the expense of lessors or other civilizations or societies--thus creatiung a predatory system that eventually (via ignorance of the total outcome) destroys itself. A prdator /cpitalistic) society has nothing but each other to operte such a system on until there are only predators within the society. A pride of lions preying on itself eventually eliminates itself. (the results can be seen currently) What this incurrs is--a changi8ng of the mental condition--and that'sa matter of psychology--the workings of the mind. So--we are all a metality and  not the physical itself. Changing the body won't change the social situation. No amount of material enterprise will change society's mental condition toward one another. Henery Ford,s automobile did not change the mental situation society is in still today. The social mentality of his day is still the same today, and, going back 20,000r more years. Material additions and chnges have not changes the person of over time.  Smiling

The only possible thing the world needs saving from are those running it.

https://sites.google.com/site/oldseers

Knowledge trumps faith

Lies are nothing more then falsehoods searching for the truth


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Old Seer wrote:At one point

Old Seer wrote:

At one point during our study a psycho Smurf pointed out that he concluded--when he studies the mind he studies God, because in the all and all we see that studying people one is also studying God. That makes the biblical God then ---people and how they think, but mostly connects to social values as to "what" the social values of a society are based on. As you may guess, we see the book entirely different then what the present interpretations are. All have a good side and a bad side and capable of migrasteing to either depending upon the need or circumstance. We also find that there are no real Christians on the planet. Even us Old Seers don't regard ourselves as Christians. With the world as it is one cannot remain a Christain very long as the present social values don't permit it. One still has to deal with the world as it is. Even JC had to. In todays world still, the bad side rules--it's merely a matter of mind. Bear in mind that our world today was handed to us via previous generations and their mentality still rules. One has to consider, what did they kanow, and what did they give to the future generations--which are us. With their limited knowledge of things they couldn't have possibly got it right in terms of proper or positive relatio9ns of the masses.   Smiling

Ah, it seems that your beliefs are quite different from, as you say, what the present interpretations are. In that case, much of what I said may not apply to arguments that you would make. I still don't think I would accept what you consider to be "psychological" evidence, although at this point, I don't quite understand your position.

Regardless, Cliff Jumper himself seems to be a fairly typical Catholic of the more indoctrinated flavor, based on what I've read so far. So, it would probably be productive for him to take my comments to heart, but I doubt he will. Would he even agree with you on what you consider to be evidence?

Edit: Will respond to your addition later today. Also, let's be careful to not get too off topic as this is Cliff Jumper's thread.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Old Seer
Theist
Posts: 1521
Joined: 2011-11-12
User is offlineOffline
Agree.

I was aware that I might be taking this off topic. I think I'll leave it be unless he responds.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
Actually, on that note, I'll

Actually, on that note, I'll stop here as well, unless Cliff Jumper himself weighs in on it. I'm not really interested enough to start another thread on it.

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
ProzacDeathWish wrote:Cliff

ProzacDeathWish wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

 

 

You are misunderstanding. God is infinte, immaterial, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-just, omni-loving, omni-mercifiul, all good, and perfect. For Him to chose against that would mean He is none of those things. God is good always as it is His isness. In other words it is His very nature to be all these things.

 

   No I understood "perfectly".    You have two versions of "perfection" in your world view that you are unwilling to acknowledge.  Should I go through and contrast the differences again ?

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
For us we were created perfect ...

 

   You do not understand what perfection implies. Or more likely you do understand but protecting your religious dogma trumps acknowledging simple logic.

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
..and allowed to choose between life and love or death and hate. One cannot love without choice, free will. Without choice we would simply be robots, slaves. There would be know love, no joy, and no perfection.

 

       You still choose to ignore that God's offer is predicated upon coercion ( rewards and punishment )  or in more simple terms ...."Love me or I'll burn you alive"    Gotta love the Christian version of "free will".

 

Let me try this again. God is perfect, omnipotent. immaterial, omnipresent, infinite, omni-just, omni-merciful, and etc. It is His nature, His very being is to be all these things. For example, it is the nature of macroni and cheese to have macaroni and cheese. If it lacks either one it is not macaroni and cheese. Thus if God lacked any of these natures He would not be God.

For us, humans, God created us perfect, but He loves us and He wants us to love Him. In order for that to happen we must choose Him. When we do not choose Him we invariably choose against Him. Without choice there can be no love. 

You seem to be confusing two separate issues. One is perfection as the nature or intrinsic being of God. The other issue is humans being created perfect and with the ability to choose between perfection or imperfection so that we may love God.

As to the idea of "coercion" this is another misunderstanding. Are you being coerced when you are told by your boss the consequences of following or not following the company rules? When hired you are given an explanation of your salary and benefits (rewards), the rules to keep and obtain these rewards, and a list of fireable offenses (punishment). You then have the choice of following the rules and receiving the salary and benefits or not follow the rules and by direct result lose the salary and benefits.  

Simply put there is no coercion merely the consequence of your own choice(s).

Your quote, ""Love me or I'll burn you alive" is a straw man argument.

 


   

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Atheistextremist

Atheistextremist wrote:

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:

You are misunderstanding. God is infinte, immaterial, omnipotent, omnipresent, omni-just, omni-loving, omni-mercifiul, all good, and perfect. In other words it is His very nature to be all these things.

 

 

Please define these words - infinite, omnipotent, omni-just, omni-merciful, all good, perfect and most curiously, immaterial. Explain how you were able to ascertain the very nature of your still undefined idea of god. Explain how it is logical to assume the first premise of any argument - in this case, that premise is god. Would you agree that you are using undefined and undefinable labels to define an undefined and undefinable god?

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
 

For us we were created perfect, and allowed to choose between life and love or death and hate. One cannot love without choice, free will. Without choice we would simply be robots, slaves. There would be know love, no joy, and no perfection.

 

As well as being predicated on the bald assertion of a still undefined state of perfection, this argument proposes a false dichotomy - we get to choose between life and love, and death and hate. Human nature is more nuanced than this. Further, love and joy are products of the mammalian limbic system, they aren't really a matter of choice. Ask anyone who suffers depression. As for perfection, this label applies to a human concept that is subjective - there is no empirical measurement of perfection. 

Again, CJ, could you tell us if you have any doubts about your christian beliefs? Or are you utterly certain?

 

 

 

 

Pick one topic.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:So I guess I

Vastet wrote:
So I guess I won. I've given Cliff Jumper plenty of time to respond, and he hasn't done so. He's responded multiple times to other people, but not to me. I wasn't rude and I stayed on topic, as he requested, and yet he's ignoring me. I must conclude that he's doing so because he was defeated, and doesn't want to admit it.

Just to let you know I've read your comments, and I will answer them. Please remember though there are others who are awaiting responses to their questions. As I said in the beginning I will answer each one in order of their appearance. Thank you for your patience. 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
wtf lol. This guy has a few

wtf lol. This guy has a few screws loose.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Brian37 wrote:Cliff Jumper

Brian37 wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

iwbiek wrote:
Cliff Jumper wrote:
I am simply saying that these laws and all things finite, as this universe is, had to come into existence at some point. This beginner, creator, God had to be infinite.

these statements are easy enough to understand, but they are not observational principles. they're axiomatic. presuppositions, in other words. no empirical data can falsify them. you either accept them or you don't. as vastet has pointed out multiple times, even concepts like finity and infinity are purely theoretical. no one has ever observed infinity, therefore the concept of finity might well be superfluous.
the demand of most skeptics--on this site and elsewhere--is empirical evidence for god's existence. if you cannot provide it--and i for one believe it is categorically impossible to provide it--then it is unreasonable to expect a skeptic to take your claims seriously. my advice is to accept it and move on. the only way a skeptic will ever accept the existence of god is through a fundamental shift in his or her epistemology, most likely a spontaneous and traumatic shift. of all you catholics, at least flannery o'connor got that...

 

Empirical reductionism (what you and many skeptics adhere to) is a flawed way to understand the universe and a flawed way to reason. There are other evidences besides direct observation/experience (empiricism). Going by this philosophy many things that exist like beauty, art, and love do not exist and can never be proven to exist because they cannot be observed. So yes, an epistemoligcal shift is required and should be done as empirical reductionism is the wrong way to obtain knowledge. Keep in mind I am not saying empirical methods do not obtain knowledge, but it is not the only method for doing so. 

 

 

Former Catholic myself FYI.

 

Your pet god claim and your personal comic book do not impress us. If you were arguing for the Koran or Reg Vedas as being the magic books that give you a cosmic Bat phone to your super hero in the sky, our arguments would be the same.

That book, from the OT to the NT took over 1,000 years to write, with books left out, and none of the NT was written during the alleged life of the Jesus character.  The earth was not made in 6 days. Men do not pop out of dirt. Women do not pop out of ribs. There is no such thing as a magic baby born without a second set of DNA. And human flesh does not survive rigor mortis. Do not blame us for the crap written by scientifically ignorant humans who had no way of knowing. It was understandable back then when they didn't know better. We know better now.

Humans make up gods, and that is the truth. Yours and every religion in human history, from the dead myths you rightfuly reject to your own you falsely believe now. We do not play favorites to any god claim.

 

As a former Catholic you must know that the Bible is not the sole source for information regarding Jesus Christ and His teachings. I have been using other methods besides the Bible. You keep saying, "You can't use the Bible as proof. It's no more valid than ____ holy book" I have not used the Bible to prove God's existence. 

It's taken 1500 years to write the last 1500 years of history. With many of the writers not even alive when those they were writing about were alive. For example, Patrick Henry's books weren't penned till 20-30yrs after he died & his memorable speech at St John's wasn't recorded by pen for 20 yrs. So He never said or wrote those things by your logic.

Again, your erroneous claims about Genesis can be discussed if you like. There is no Catholic doctrine that the Earth was made in 6 days. Men do not pop out of dirt. God formed them, see design and creation. Again a woman does not pop out of ribs. The first woman was formed and designed by God. Human flesh does not survive rigor mortis, but again Jesus Christ was human and divine. Jesus Christ was not a magic baby born strictly of natural means. He was born from God the Father and the Immaculate Virigin Mary.

How am I blaming you for anything? I have never blamed you, generally or specifically, for anything in the Bible. I am more then willing to defend its contents as separate topic if you like.

 

No amount of claims inside or outside that comic book makes magic babies or invisible sky heros, by any name real. It is a mere book written by mere humans who didn't know jack shit about the nature of reality. That comic book reflects the superstitions and social beliefs of it's time.

No need for a separate thread. You could be arguing for Allah or Thor or a god named Frank. All the same shit to me.

Okay. If you want to ignore, facts, logic, reason, and other evidences and just go on with the same ignorant rant at least do it to some cool music.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fdYLQsGUEio

 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
danatemporary wrote:  > Re

danatemporary wrote:

  > Re ::  Remember Me . . .

 Remember Me (double reference, and double meaning) . . .

 

Beyond Saving wrote:

Vastet wrote:
So I guess I won. I've given Cliff Jumper plenty of time to respond, and he hasn't done so.

I concur.

 To the OP our Cliff Jumper  (Attn. To Cliff Jumper )

  In the New Testament documents, in Jude he exhort his audience ''to contend for the faith once for all delivered'' . Can you comment on the cross, and the death on a cross, if you can make the time please.

  I dont know why, especially due to your overall approach, Fore you are woefully unqualified to speak on this topic, I know ( meaning you are totally and woefully unqualified to speak on this topic). However, please comment on many misconceptions have pervaded the notions about the mechanism(s) and cause of death by crucifixion, a subject dear to all of us; it's the death on which He (Christ) fulfilled and satisfied the substitutionary propitiation by being nailed to an old wooden cross, afterall.

 Comment  supplementary from some Lutheran of all things

 

  ''In the second century BC a Jewish author close to the Essene community made a new edition of the laws of Deuteronomy, incorporating verses from Leviticus and Numeri as well as priestly teaching from his own time. He published this new edition, which included a lengthy section on the temple, as authoritative Torah of God. In 1956 the bedouins found two copies of this work north of the Dead Sea. In this book, today called the Temple Scroll, we meet a radical reinterpretation of these verses from Deuteronomy:  If a man informs against his people, delivers his people up to a foreign nation and betrays his people, you shall hang him on the tree so that he dies. On the word of two and three witnesses shall he be put to death, and they shall hang him on the tree. If a man commits a crime punishable by death, and he defects into the midst of the nations and curses his people, the children of Israel, you shall hang him also on the tree so that he dies. And their bodies shall not remain upon the tree, but you shall bury them the same day, for those who hang on the tree are accursed by God and men, you must not defile the land which I give you as an inheritance (Temple Scroll 64:6-13).  In Deuteronomy it is not clear whether the evildoer should be hanged alive upon the tree or only his corpse after he is executed (most interpreters do not note that the Hebrew can be translated either “is put to death and you thereafter hang him on a tree” or “is put to death when you hang him on a tree” ). The Temple Scroll clearly ordains that certain evildoers shall be executed by being hanged alive on the tree. The word tree can mean a tree, a pole or a cross. In rabbinic sources “to hang on the tree” primarily means execution by hanging on a pole. Crucifixion would also be considered a form of hanging somebody upon the tree.''  ~ Prof. Torleif Elgvin ( of the Seminary of the-INDEPENDENT Lutheran Church, of Oslo)

 



 

 

   They went and found a young donkey outside in the street, tied at a doorway. As they untied it . .  It was the stubborn little donkey who insists on sitting firmly on its' haunches, who no one has ever ridden . . .

    ''Today we celebrate the day called “Palm Sunday,” the day of Jesus’ triumphal entry into Jerusalem one week prior to his crucifixion and death of the Savior. In most cases some of you may be wondering why this is called “Palm Sunday”, it’s because according to the Gospel of John the crowds in Jerusalem came out to greet Jesus carrying palm branches, which they either waved or strewed in his path. We have two independent accounts of Jesus’ triumphal entry, one in the Gospel of Mark and the other in the Gospel of John. Historically speaking, this is very important . . '' ~ William Lane Craig (who is an American  christian theologian).

  Ref. found in the New Testament . . .

Gospel According to Saint Luke 19 (NKJV) ::

 

 29 And it came to pass, at the mountain called Olivet, that He sent two of his disciples,  saying, “Go into the village opposite you, where as you enter you will find a young donkey tied, on which no one has ever sat. Loose it and bring it here. And if anyone asks you, ‘Why are you loosing the donkey?’ thus you shall say to him, ‘Because the LORD has need of it.’” Then they brought her to Jesus. And they threw their own clothes on the young donkey, and they set Jesus on him. And as He went, many spread their clothes on the road. Then, as He was now drawing near the descent of the Mount of Olives, the whole multitude of the disciples began to rejoice and praise God with a loud voice for all the mighty works they had seen, saying:  “ ‘Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord!’  “Hosanna!, 

Peace in heaven and glory in the highest!”

 

Gospel According to Saint Mark 10 (NKJV)::

 

 11 Now when they drew near Jerusalem, at the Mount of Olives, he sent two of his disciples;  and He said to them, “Go into the village opposite you and as soon as you have entered it, you will find a young donkey tied, on which no one has sat. Loose it and bring it. And if anyone says to you, ‘Why are you doing this?’ say, ‘The Lord has need of it,’ and immediately he will send it here.” So they went their way, and found the young donkey tied by the door outside on the street, and they loosed it. But some of those who stood there said to them, “What are you doing, loosing the donkey?” And they spoke to them just as Jesus had commanded. So they let them go. Then they brought the young donkey to Jesus (Thank Heaven) and threw their clothes on it, and He sat on it. And many spread their clothes on the road, and others cut down leafy branches from the trees and spread them on the road. Then those who went before and those who followed cried out, saying:  “Hosanna!,  Hosanna in the Highest!

‘Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord!’

Blessed is the kingdom of our father David

That comes in the name of the LORD!

Hosanna, .. Hosanna in the highest!”

 

  . . .

 


 



 

 

  :: ::

 Edit :: ( Edit  Spacing or formatting of spacing )

 

Are you wanting me to answer a question? Or are you just being funny?

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


ProzacDeathWish
atheist
ProzacDeathWish's picture
Posts: 4127
Joined: 2007-12-02
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper

Cliff Jumper wrote:

 

 

Simply put there is no coercion merely the consequence of your own choice(s).

 

   Sure, no coercion involved  ....like the when the Italian Mafia used to tell a business owner to either pay "protection" money or suffer the consequences of your own choice(s).   It's the business owners fault if he doesn't pay ( his choice ) and he then gets beaten to a pulp.   Yeah, no pressure, LOL ! 

 

 

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Your quote, ""Love me or I'll burn you alive" is a straw man argument.

 


   

 

                       What is Hell, a vacation resort ?

 

 

Patrick is an edgy edgelord.


danatemporary
danatemporary's picture
Posts: 1951
Joined: 2011-01-12
User is offlineOffline
You're eyes just looked straight through me.

Fixing what cannot be fixed -- Off - site ::

 

                                                                          The future started yesterday . . .

 



 > Re::  You're eyes just looked straight through me.

  To: Addressed To: Cliff Jumper

Cliff Jumper wrote:

danatemporary wrote:

  > Re ::  Remember Me . . .

 Remember Me (double reference, and double meaning) . . .

 

 Or are you just being funny?

 



    Isn't it clear  there's  a method  to all the madness, be assured . . .

 

 

  * Sigh *

   

 

 

     The canonical Gospel according to Saint Mark Ch.  14 --  '' .. and questioned Jesus, saying, “Do You not answer? What is it that these men are testifying against You?” But He kept silent and did not answer''

 

 

Who can make me feel this way? Nothing, "I" mean nothing ''I've'' said speaks to you  as being that way  nor caustic,  K?

 

 

 

   Gospel of  Saint  John  --  19:23-30  (NRSVCE):

 

    When the soldiers had crucified Jesus, they took his clothes and divided them into four parts, one for each soldier. They also took his tunic; now the tunic was seamless, woven in one piece from the top.  So they said to one another, “Let us not tear it, but cast lots for it to see who will get it.” This was to fulfill what the scripture says,

 

 “They divided my clothes among themselves,
     and for my clothing they cast lots.”

  And that is what the soldiers did.  Meanwhile, standing near the cross of Jesus were his mother, and his mother’s sister, Mary the wife of Clopas, and Mary Magdalene.   When Jesus saw his mother and the disciple whom he loved standing beside her, he said to his mother, “Woman, here is your son.”  Then he said to the disciple, “Here is your mother.” And from that hour the disciple took her into his own home.

  After this, when Jesus knew that all was now finished, he said (in order to fulfill the scripture), “I am thirsty.”  A jar full of sour wine was standing there. So they put a sponge full of the wine on a branch of hyssop and held it to his mouth.  When Jesus had received the wine, he said, “It is finished.” Then He bowed his head and gave up his spirit.

 



 


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:Cliff Jumper

iwbiek wrote:
Cliff Jumper wrote:
All finite things have a beginning.

that is definitively not a fact and i have shown you why. it is a metaphysical proposition. your analogy about your computer etc. is fallacious because nothing materially new was created. existing material was modified to fit a human conception. we have never observed anything just pop into being out of nothing. everything has either evolved or been modified. the necessity of a beginning or cause is one of aristotle's most clumsy axioms. as both vastet and i keep explaining to you:
1. infinity has never been observed, therefore "finite" is just as theoretical a term as "infinite,"
2. no "beginning of matter" has ever been observed, nor has it even been postulated by modern theoretical physics; even the big bang is not truly a "beginning," only the mother of all alterations,
3. a fact is something falsifiable in theory. i would hope even you can easily see how "all finite things have a beginning" is not falsifiable.

 

I would hope even you can easily see how all electrons are negatively charged is not falsifiable under your logic.

 

Let me try another example of a finite thing having a beginning.

Example: this thread, created 12 weeks and 5 days ago at 2:56 PM EST.

 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:I would

Cliff Jumper wrote:
I would hope even you can easily see how all electrons are negatively charged is not falsifiable under your logic.



i certainly do not. the word "electron" is our name for a negatively charged subatomic particle that moves about the nucleus in the electron cloud. any subatomic particle that does not fulfill these criteria is not an electron. the names we give things are not scientific propositions. we do not arrive at them scientifically--in fact, according to ferdinand de saussure anyway, we arrive at them more or less arbitrarily. therefore, they don't fall under the criterion of falsifiability. if we ever discovered a positively charged subatomic particle in the electron cloud, it would not prove the existence of a positively charged electron. it would prove the existence of a totally new particle that we would invent a new name for. try again.


Cliff Jumper wrote:
Let me try another example of a finite thing having a beginning.

Example: this thread, created 12 weeks and 5 days ago at 2:56 PM EST.

 




how do you know this thread is "finite"? what "infinite" object are you comparing it to?

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:I would

Cliff Jumper wrote:
I would hope even you can easily see how

Yeah that's enough. Time to see about getting you a troll badge.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
iwbiek wrote:how do you know

iwbiek wrote:
how do you know this thread is "finite"? what "infinite" object are you comparing it to?

Oh don't let him off so easy! Lets have even more fun. How exactly is this topic even a thing?

noun
an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.
an action, activity, event, thought, or utterance.
what is needed or required.

By definition, this topic isn't a thing, and therefore cannot be a finite thing.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:So you're a

Vastet wrote:
So you're a liar. You say it's a demonstrable fact yet you can't accept the inherent incoherency of the statement itself, AND you've failed to demonstrate the 'fact' you say is demonstrable. See what iwbiek said also, since he put it down better than me

 

Vastet wrote:
Not even once actually. I refuted every example you've given, and I'll continue to do so.

 

I demonstrated it with the universe, matter, energy, myself, a rock, the earth, this thread. 

From your own post you agree at least that all matter and energy in the universe is finite as you said, "No. The CMB merely shows a massive explosion occurred billions of years ago, and that all matter and energy known to exist lies within the radius of the shockwave of that explosion." Of course you promptly back track with a contradiction, "We don't know that all matter and energy was created in that explosion."

You even proved my point on the car, "If I take a car apart, it's still a car. It's just in pieces." So before it was a car, it was something(s) else. So it began to exist. Then as per the usual with atheists you back tracked again with relativist bull crap like, "Before it was a car, the pieces were linguistically defined as a collection of other objects, but then a car is composed of objects linguistically defined as something other than a car."

Under your very line of reasoning the same comments are true:

A rock is a human, is a star, is Transformer, is an ulna.

Because after all they are all just different summations of the same parts.

 

Vastet wrote:
Yet none of this is everything, none of it is yet proven to be finite, and all of it other than the conversation itself already existed in some other form. The conversation is apparently the first thing you'll prove to be finite, by ending it. But proving a conversation is finite means shit. You can't compare a conversation to the universe.

 

I never said the thread example was everything nor did I compare it to the universe.

"...and all of it other than the conversation itself already existed in some other form"

Again your line of logic is as follows:  A rat is a star is an electron because it all exists in one form or the other.

 

Vastet wrote:
You can't even show me one physical things beginning.

Except you agreed I did with this, "The conversation is apparently the first thing you'll prove to be finite, by ending it. But proving a conversation is finite means shit."

Let's cut through the crap here.

What kind of proof is required for me to prove, "It is the inherent nature for a finite thing to have a beginning"? You say this thread as proof is not good enough. Your own admission of all matter and energy in the universe coming into existence at one point is not proof. So really what is? As near as I can gather nothing will do. Even if the evidence proves it you will find some relativistic nonsense way around it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:Cliff Jumper

Vastet wrote:
Cliff Jumper wrote:
We can disucss one of these issues if you like.
Good.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
After we finish our previous discussion.
Apparently we have. I won.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
Please stay on topic
I am on topic. In fact, since I responded to you, if I'm off topic then you went off topic first.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
Butting into another person's conversation is inappropriate
I didn't butt in to anything. I addressed points noone else did or did so in a way noone else did. And I only did so because you decided to ignore me and respond to everyone else, If anyone is being inappropriate, it's you.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
I know it's a forum and you can do whatever you want, but it becomes confusing for myself and others when I am responding to 2 people about 3 different topics.
Noone else is confused, and if you'd responded in a timely and courteous manner it wouldn't have happened anyway.
Cliff Jumper wrote:
I am sorry about the waiting time. I do have things to do. I cannot answer every one of these responses when the come up all the time. I try to answer 2-3 a day but sometimes life gets busy.
More lies. Today so far you've made 6 replies. And I waited almost two months just for you to officially ignore everything I said. If this is the way you treat others you have no right asking them to be polite to you.

I apologize for going off topic.I did not ignore your comments. The reason I did not reply to them is because it would pointless to continue the discussion if we cannot even agree on a demonstrable fact.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Cliff

Beyond Saving wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Brian37 wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

I am sorry for the lateness of my replies. My hard drive crashed and as a result I have not been able to use my computer. Hopefully that won't happen again for a while anyway Laughing out loud

 

 

Funny how reality gets in the way of fantasy. Why didn't you simply pray for your sky hero to magically fix it? Made the earth in 6 days. Magically popped a man out of dirt. Made a baby without a second set of DNA.

I've had to fix crashed computers too, gut one for parts to revive another. But I don't pray to a fictional computer god to do it.

But I did pray and God did answer my prayer and fix my computer. He blessed me with my earthly father who does that kind of thing for a living and fun. So not only did God through my father here fix my computer, but he taught me some neat partioning tricks, how to notice hard drive problems, and other cool stuff.

Just because God does not perfrom at the snap of your fingers to answer your every whim how and when you want it does not mean He does not exist.

 

 

Nice to know that god considers your computer problems more important than the thousands of people dying from ebola. Obviously, he has his priorities in the right order. Perhaps if you hadn't prayed, god would have time, but since you did pray, and you are so important, he just had to fix your annoyance first.

Straw man argument and insults.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Beyond Saving wrote:Cliff

Beyond Saving wrote:

Cliff Jumper wrote:

Beyond Saving wrote:

1. The means of complete salvation through the Catholic Church

But screw everyone else right?

 

2. The Catholic Church

Something that many more people would be alive today if it didn't exist. 

 

3. The sacraments

Always a good excuse to kill or jail people who don't follow them. 

 

4. The flourishing of western civilization

Lol, really? REALLY? Do I laugh or cry? 

 

6. The formation of Europe

Through the most violent period known in human history and the mass slaughter of tens of millions.

 

7. Major contributions to the development of logic and philosophy

Yeah, ask Giordano Bruno, Tommaso Campanella, Galileo and Menocchio. The Church certainly helped them contribute through imprisonment and torture. 

 

8. Major contributions to the formation of scientific thought and the experimental method see St. Albert the Great, St. Thomas Aquinas, and Father Roger Bacon

While condeming any scientist who dared make a discovery that wasn't consistent with Church doctrine. 

 

9. Major contributions to scientific fields and the freedom to do scientific research. See, antibotics, vaccines, astronomy, genetics, medicine, physics, and much more

Uh huh...

 

10. Constitutions

Which Constitution was written by a Catholic?

 

11. Constituional monarchies and republics

Really? The Greeks were Catholic? 

 

12. Trail by jury

Again, originated by the Greeks and in practice long before Rome adopted Christianity. As far as the modern jury, it finds its roots in Scandinavia, which was overrun with Pagans at the time. It was adopted in England by Aethelred the Unready, also not Christian. It then disappeared for awhile until it was brought back with the Magna Carta by King John, who was excommunicated by the Church. 

 

Quote:

And there's a lot more. These again are some the big ones.

Sure, when you willingly rewrite history to fit your agenda. You are either extremely ignorant of history or you are completely dishonest. Since you are a good Catholic, I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you are ignorant.

 

Pick one topic please. I do one topic at a time with each poster so as not to confuse myself and everyone else reading the thread.

Huh? I went point by point down YOUR list in post 111. So either it is all the same topic, or you are a liar and you do more than one topic at a time. But don't mind me, I'm just the peanut gallery in this thread doing a little heckling for kicks and giggles. You should probably focus on Vastet as he is treating you rather seriously and has raised some good points that you summarily ignored. If you took it serious, you just might learn something. 

Although, I am noticing a pattern, this is the second time you have refused to respond to any substance on the grounds that it isn't on topic when it is a point by point reference of your own post. You have also refused to respond 2 or 3 times on the basis that you were "offended" by something rather innoculous. My conclusion given the evidence is that when you are confronted with an argument of any depth is that you simply evade it.  

The points you responded to were a list I made trying to explain to Old Seer what the Church contributed to society. Old Seer and I were discussing the Church's purpose and how She has enacted it, not those 12 points specifically.

If you wish to discuss one of those points one at a time then by all means, let's go. If you are just here to heckle me then leave please. I'm trying to have a substantive  conversation with others. Having to sift through heckling does not help my response time to serious responders.

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


Cliff Jumper
Theist
Cliff Jumper's picture
Posts: 153
Joined: 2008-09-18
User is offlineOffline
Thus ends the thread. There

Thus ends the thread. There is no more discussion to be had. Please have a good day.

 

 

I'll be looking for that troll badge though. I collect them Laughing out loud

 

 

People assume that time is a strict progression of cause to effect, but *actually* from a non-linear, non-subjective viewpoint - it's more like a big ball of wibbly wobbly... time-y wimey... stuff. -The Doctor


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Vastet wrote:iwbiek

Vastet wrote:
iwbiek wrote:
how do you know this thread is "finite"? what "infinite" object are you comparing it to?

Oh don't let him off so easy! Lets have even more fun. How exactly is this topic even a thing?

noun
an object that one need not, cannot, or does not wish to give a specific name to.
an inanimate material object as distinct from a living sentient being.
an action, activity, event, thought, or utterance.
what is needed or required.

By definition, this topic isn't a thing, and therefore cannot be a finite thing.




bravo. i'm doing this on a week of sleepless nights and a bottle of chianti. i'm afraid letting him off easy is the best i could muster.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:I'll be

Cliff Jumper wrote:
I'll be looking for that troll badge though. I collect them :D



now you show some integrity.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson


Vastet
atheistBloggerSuperfan
Vastet's picture
Posts: 13210
Joined: 2006-12-25
User is offlineOffline
Cliff Jumper wrote:I

Cliff Jumper wrote:
I demonstrated it with the universe, matter, energy, myself, a rock, the earth, this thread. 

I refuted every example you gave.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
From your own post you agree at least that all matter and energy in the universe is finite as you said,

I did no such thing.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
"No. The CMB merely shows a massive explosion occurred billions of years ago, and that all matter and energy known to exist lies within the radius of the shockwave of that explosion." Of course you promptly back track with a contradiction, "We don't know that all matter and energy was created in that explosion."

That you think I contradicted myself in any way is a demonstration of your failure to comprehend what you read.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
You even proved my point on the car, "If I take a car apart, it's still a car. It's just in pieces." So before it was a car, it was something(s) else. So it began to exist. Then as per the usual with atheists you back tracked again with relativist bull crap like, "Before it was a car, the pieces were linguistically defined as a collection of other objects, but then a car is composed of objects linguistically defined as something other than a car."

More reading comprehension failure.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Under your very line of reasoning the same comments are true:

A rock is a human, is a star, is Transformer, is an ulna.

Because after all they are all just different summations of the same parts.

Lol you're an idiot.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
I never said the thread example was everything nor did I compare it to the universe.

"...and all of it other than the conversation itself already existed in some other form"

Again your line of logic is as follows:  A rat is a star is an electron because it all exists in one form or the other.

Correction: You're a complete idiot.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Except you agreed I did with this, "The conversation is apparently the first thing you'll prove to be finite, by ending it. But proving a conversation is finite means shit."

A conversation is not a physical thing, thus you still fail to demonstrate any physical thing being finite.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Let's cut through the crap here.

That would require banning you from the forum. But it's pretty hard to get banned here. You've not broken any laws or spammed commercial links, so you've not earned a ban. If you really want to cut through the crap, you'll have to leave voluntarily. Which would be unfortunate. Irrational theists such as yourself are the perfect example of why people should reject theism, and we want more of your kind, not less, posting on the forums.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
What kind of proof is required for me to prove, "It is the inherent nature for a finite thing to have a beginning"?

You don't apparently have the capacity to understand the inherent incoherence of this statement.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
You say this thread as proof is not good enough.

This thread is not a physical object. And proving a physical object is finite doesn't prove all physical objects are finite. And proving all physical objects are finite doesn't prove the universe is finite. Not that it matters, since you can't even prove a physical object is finite.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Your own admission of all matter and energy in the universe coming into existence at one point is not proof.

I never said that, liar.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
So really what is? As near as I can gather nothing will do. Even if the evidence proves it you will find some relativistic nonsense way around it.

It really is sad when you take a theist right to the brink of understanding, and they never take the only step they have to take in order to finally comprehend.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
I apologize for going off topic.

An apology is nice, but I don't really want or need one. Just stop telling other people to do things a certain way when you won't. Nothing angers me more than blatant hypocrisy.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
The reason I did not reply to them is because it would pointless to continue the discussion if we cannot even agree on a demonstrable fact.

You have yet to provide a demonstrable fact.

Cliff Jumper wrote:
Thus ends the thread. There is no more discussion to be had. Please have a good day.

I'll be looking for that troll badge though. I collect them

Another one bites the dust after a humiliating defeat.

Proud Canadian, Enlightened Atheist, Gaming God.


butterbattle
ModeratorSuperfan
butterbattle's picture
Posts: 3945
Joined: 2008-09-12
User is offlineOffline
The semantics. It hurts.If

The semantics. It hurts.

If we include in the definition of "finite" the phrase, 'being limited in time,' then I suppose a physical 'thing' that is 'finite' would have a temporal 'beginning.' But then, that's just a tautology. After that, there are a number of issues that you need to work out, such as what is 'physical' or what might count as a 'beginning.' Additionally, you need to show that the universe and the matter and energy in the universe is all 'finite.'

Along the same lines that Vastet explained, the Big Bang theory states that our universe expanded from a singularity, but we don't know that it 'created' our universe since we don't know what happened immediately before the initial expansion. So, while many astrophysicists refer to this as a 'beginning,' it's not really a 'beginning' in the sense often employed by philosophers. 

 

Our revels now are ended. These our actors, | As I foretold you, were all spirits, and | Are melted into air, into thin air; | And, like the baseless fabric of this vision, | The cloud-capped towers, the gorgeous palaces, | The solemn temples, the great globe itself, - Yea, all which it inherit, shall dissolve, | And, like this insubstantial pageant faded, | Leave not a rack behind. We are such stuff | As dreams are made on, and our little life | Is rounded with a sleep. - Shakespeare


iwbiek
atheistSuperfan
iwbiek's picture
Posts: 4197
Joined: 2008-03-23
User is offlineOffline
butterbattle wrote:The

butterbattle wrote:

The semantics. It hurts.




i feel you, i do. the problem is, the OP isn't using "finite" in an ordinary language sense. he's using it in this very scholastic way, in contrast with "inifinite," to erroneously reinforce one of his ridiculous thomistic axioms. that's why i focus on it so much. yes, strictly speaking, finity exists, obviously. but infinity is still theoretical, therefore finity, juxtaposed with infinity, is still just as theoretical.

"I have never felt comfortable around people who talk about their feelings for Jesus, or any other deity for that matter, because they are usually none too bright. . . . Or maybe 'stupid' is a better way of saying it; but I have never seen much point in getting heavy with either stupid people or Jesus freaks, just as long as they don't bother me. In a world as weird and cruel as this one we have made for ourselves, I figure anybody who can find peace and personal happiness without ripping off somebody else deserves to be left alone. They will not inherit the earth, but then neither will I. . . . And I have learned to live, as it were, with the idea that I will never find peace and happiness, either. But as long as I know there's a pretty good chance I can get my hands on either one of them every once in a while, I do the best I can between high spots."
--Hunter S. Thompson