With respect to the laws of physics, everything has been "predefined." Even the laws of physics themselves. Hmm ... While I'm sure there's even a principle (no doubt) behind "free will."daenku32 said:
And how do you know that I don't know God exists? That would make a big difference if He did wouldn't it?
Like I said in another thread, I can acknowledge that the sky is blue and observe the clouds go by, but that doesn't require that I have a PHD in physics does it? Why is it so necessary for me to get so technical? I can acknowledge a horse for being a horse can't I?
Of course you can't defend it. It is indefensible. You cannot stop at god. If you argue that the complexity of the universe or its design implies a designer, then that designer is also complex or apparently designed, and that designer must have had a designer. And that designer a designer.Iacchus said:
Your logic is flimsy. It demands that god gotta daddy. You recognize the problem and need to rush us all out of here in the vain hope nobody else has recognized the problem.
I assure you, they have.
Iacchus said:
So I shouldn't need to have a diploma from a Creationist school or 'Evolutionist' school to declare Creationism (or ID) to be a sham, and to believe that nature keeps reinventing itself without any help from a spiritual plain.
Thanks.
Iacchus said:Yeah, and don't let the door hit you on the way out.
I'll be here long after you've been laughed off the stage. On the other hand, you could actually try to learn something here about the nature of reason, evidence and logic. But to do that, you need first to get motivated by a search for the truth.
Maledict
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Messages
- 535
Iacchus said:The truth is as plain as the nose on your face. That is if you've got a face, or a nose?
What Truth are you talking about? That your "Swedenborg" God exists? That your "interpretation" of a fairy tale is the "one true" interpretation?
Please - we've been through this in another thread, which you quickly ducked out of.
I don't know, do you think we should subject God to so much scrutiny? You know, maybe this isn't the best way to go about it? And while I'm sure God doesn't mind us asking questions (if He does exist), don't you think it would be a better if we weren't so demanding about it? Hey, maybe there's actually a set of protocols involved, you know like the protocols involved when we get on the Internet? (if you have dial-up). And, if you don't follow the protocols, why should you expect to make a connection?RabbiSatan said:
Maledict
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Messages
- 535
Iacchus said:
Yes, because we can verify it, it's called evidence. As usual, more strawmen.
Whereas with Swedenborg's god? Oh, we have this interpretation, which is obviously true, along with 34,000 others, not to mention the various other main stream religions today, with all their interpretations, not to mention the dead ones, but they're all false, of course.
Oops - meant to say "quietly".
In anycase - you simply ducked out of that thread.
Z
Variable Constant
This is getting WAAAY out of hand, and frankly (if I were a moderator) I'd close the post just to curtail further pointless argument.
You see, Iacchus, one of the problems we experience with you, Rad, LifeGazer, and some others is that you come here with an opinion that you THINK will bear up under scrutiny, yet when it fails to do so, you 1) ignore the points made against you, 2) resort to nonsense, 3) try changing the subject, and finally 4) pull the "I'm not here to debate" card (sometimes seen as the "It's my opinion" card). It's becoming a predictable pattern.
Meanwhile, having enflamed a debate, those who oppose you want some simple behaviour from you - they want you to address the points made to you, and they want you to see the logical flaws of your arguments. Further, they want you to concede that you might be wrong, based on their arguments.
So when you post something like, "The Universe got a designer" you need to be prepared to defend this post, as well as answer the question, "Then does God got a daddy?"
At any rate, constant repitition and shouting and name-calling, perpetuated by both sides of the argument, leads nowhere. I ask you as decent human beings to take a breath, count to ten, smoke a doobie, or whatever you do to relax, then start fresh with the original statements - Or, if you don't want to argue about it, Iacchus, just say so one last time and then butt out.
You see, Iacchus, one of the problems we experience with you, Rad, LifeGazer, and some others is that you come here with an opinion that you THINK will bear up under scrutiny, yet when it fails to do so, you 1) ignore the points made against you, 2) resort to nonsense, 3) try changing the subject, and finally 4) pull the "I'm not here to debate" card (sometimes seen as the "It's my opinion" card). It's becoming a predictable pattern.
Meanwhile, having enflamed a debate, those who oppose you want some simple behaviour from you - they want you to address the points made to you, and they want you to see the logical flaws of your arguments. Further, they want you to concede that you might be wrong, based on their arguments.
So when you post something like, "The Universe got a designer" you need to be prepared to defend this post, as well as answer the question, "Then does God got a daddy?"
At any rate, constant repitition and shouting and name-calling, perpetuated by both sides of the argument, leads nowhere. I ask you as decent human beings to take a breath, count to ten, smoke a doobie, or whatever you do to relax, then start fresh with the original statements - Or, if you don't want to argue about it, Iacchus, just say so one last time and then butt out.
Z
Variable Constant
You may not be the one who is in error. However, making a claim at this forum entails defending this claim - which means facing the logic and arguments aimed at you, as well as posting your own logic and arguments.
What we want, however, is for you to either refute the argument/logic with a reasonable answer and/or better logic, or admit a failing in your logic.
Me? I believe in Deity, yet fully admit there is no logical reason to do so. This is why you won't see lengthy threads with skeptics battling against me - because I admit a failing in logic with my assertation. And I don't even bother with my more irrational beliefs - like the belief that Dragons (in the classical Chinese sense) still exist, or my belief in genetic memory (by which I refer to the idea that memory is somehow coded and transferred from parent to child, to some small degree) because I am not equipped to logically debate these beliefs, and understand that they by no means hold up under scrutiny.
Over at H'pathy, I was actually beginning to believe there may be something to this form of healing - but only after one remarkable homeopath explained that the effectiveness of homeopathy derives entirely from faith. Of course, both he and I were blasted, but the point is, I was willing to concede a change in my beliefs based on a logical argument that was carefully debated by someone willing to give and take.
This is the problem with you, Iacchus - you want things one-sided, and here, you have to consider both sides to be respected.
So far, both you and Irritating Ian have no respect from us. Rad has at least a minimum of my respect - I have high hopes that Rad may even become a decent thinker as a result of his involvement here.
What we want, however, is for you to either refute the argument/logic with a reasonable answer and/or better logic, or admit a failing in your logic.
Me? I believe in Deity, yet fully admit there is no logical reason to do so. This is why you won't see lengthy threads with skeptics battling against me - because I admit a failing in logic with my assertation. And I don't even bother with my more irrational beliefs - like the belief that Dragons (in the classical Chinese sense) still exist, or my belief in genetic memory (by which I refer to the idea that memory is somehow coded and transferred from parent to child, to some small degree) because I am not equipped to logically debate these beliefs, and understand that they by no means hold up under scrutiny.
Over at H'pathy, I was actually beginning to believe there may be something to this form of healing - but only after one remarkable homeopath explained that the effectiveness of homeopathy derives entirely from faith. Of course, both he and I were blasted, but the point is, I was willing to concede a change in my beliefs based on a logical argument that was carefully debated by someone willing to give and take.
This is the problem with you, Iacchus - you want things one-sided, and here, you have to consider both sides to be respected.
So far, both you and Irritating Ian have no respect from us. Rad has at least a minimum of my respect - I have high hopes that Rad may even become a decent thinker as a result of his involvement here.
Hey, I understand you feel the need to speak for everyone here. Sorry, it ain't gonna work.zaayrdragon said:
By the way, did you know that 6 x 6 x 6 = 216? Yours was the 216th post.
So we have the Dragon (zaayrdragon?), the Beast out of the Sea, and the False Prophet. Hmm ... Verrdy interesting.
Maledict
Muse
- Joined
- Oct 19, 2003
- Messages
- 535
Then since you're not in error, please, prove it to us that you're not in error and that we are erring.Iacchus said:
Where did we assert that because there is majority rule here that it has a bearing on factual validity?
Of course not, seeing as how you ignore everything to the contrary.Hey, I understand you feel the need to speak for everyone here. Sorry, it ain't gonna work.
Lets see:
Yours was the 217th post - 7 - 1 = 6
2 more Sixs added side by side to that = 666!
Wow, who woulda thunk
More numerology nonsense.
Life is a journey. It doesn't happen all at once.RabbiSatan said:
Yes, because we can verify it, it's called evidence. As usual, more strawmen.
Whereas with Swedenborg's god? Oh, we have this interpretation, which is obviously true, along with 34,000 others, not to mention the various other main stream religions today, with all their interpretations, not to mention the dead ones, but they're all false, of course.
Would it be correct to force open the petals of a flower? If you don't wish to destroy it? If you were so keenly interested in what I had to say, you should have already begun your own research (I provided the links) and stopped pestering me about it.