tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post8467671375776042863..comments2024-03-19T01:46:23.275-04:00Comments on Debunking Atheists: Radical SkepticismD. A. N. http://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comBlogger70125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-89701138652222322132008-11-08T16:37:00.000-05:002008-11-08T16:37:00.000-05:00And by the way, wonderfull use of the Ad Hominem t...And by the way, wonderfull use of the Ad Hominem there. Attacking a persons character is not license to logically conclude that they're are wrong or do not understand.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-58229981004804305702008-11-08T14:45:00.000-05:002008-11-08T14:45:00.000-05:00Dan, I think perhpas you've missunderstood the que...Dan, <BR/>I think perhpas you've missunderstood the question, which was:<BR/><BR/>In your own words, what does it mean to seek Jesus?<BR/><BR/>I'm simply asking you for your personal expeience of what it means to seek Jesus. Regardless of whether or not you think I'll understand, I'd nonetheless be interested if you'd share that with me.<BR/><BR/>Also you stated:<BR/>"Have you kept the first Commandment? Is God's Word meaningless?"<BR/><BR/>I'm not sure I can answer this, Dan. What do you mean by "God's word"?Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-12300189827425535242008-11-08T13:23:00.000-05:002008-11-08T13:23:00.000-05:00Andrew,"The right thing to do would [have] been to...Andrew,<BR/><BR/><I>"The right thing to do would [have] been to correct me."</I><BR/><BR/>Or expose you for who you are, to you. Sure in your eyes and if you were in charge of your salvation you could instruct to me how to seek Jesus, but God is in charge and you are just not ready. (Matthew 7:6)<BR/><BR/>Without an understanding of how wicked you truly are you cannot understand how to seek Jesus.<BR/><BR/>You think I am doing something wrong and I am leading you to Jesus just as you requested. You are an evil manipulating liar and you have indeed broken God's commandments. Until you realize this and understand how much you actually need God you will not seek Him yourself. You don't show the signs of a broken and contrite heart (Psalm 34:18,Psalm 51:17)<BR/><BR/>Have you kept the first Commandment? Is God's Word meaningless?<BR/><BR/>Are you actually interested in seeking God?<BR/><BR/>Until then you need milk like a baby and until you are ready for the meat of true salvation then there is no need to feed it to you. Have you ever fed meat to a baby? They just spit it out and reject it. You would do the same. You need milk for now.<BR/><BR/>1 Corinthians 3:2 "I have fed you with milk, and not with meat: for hitherto ye were not able to bear it, neither yet now are ye able."<BR/><BR/>Hebrews 5:11-13 "Of whom we have many things to say, and hard to be uttered, seeing ye are dull of hearing. For when for the time ye ought to be teachers, ye have need that one teach you again which be the first principles of the oracles of God; and are become such as have need of milk, and not of strong meat. For every one that useth milk is unskilful in the word of righteousness: for he is a babe."<BR/><BR/>A proud unrepentant man, like yourself, needs the milk of hell and damnation and lake of fire talk. We will work on that for now grasshopper. Show repentance to move on to the next pebble.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-9775785074451125432008-11-08T08:40:00.000-05:002008-11-08T08:40:00.000-05:00Dan,you avoided answering the key question there:"...Dan,<BR/>you avoided answering the key question there:<BR/><BR/>"In your own words, Dan, tell me what it means to seek Jesus."<BR/><BR/><BR/>Also, (You quoted this)<BR/>"I'm simply trying to build an understanding here Andrew, and you're trying to cut me down.<BR/><BR/>You're either [afraid] of thought that isn't consistent with yours, or you just like bashing people."<BR/><BR/>I don't see the issue with these Dan? I was simply pointing out what seemed consistent with your responses. The right thing to do would ahve been to correct me.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-18210140655632940972008-11-08T02:23:00.000-05:002008-11-08T02:23:00.000-05:00 Well, I think the bible is false and that its... Well, I think the bible is false and that its path is false as well. You have not convinced me that a god has said there is only one path. Perhaps a being of dubious merit claiming to be a god has said there is only one path.Pvblivshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17931937272948538181noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-79426661357502730682008-11-08T00:47:00.000-05:002008-11-08T00:47:00.000-05:00Andrew, I forgot to add a verse after I referenced...Andrew,<BR/> <BR/>I forgot to add a verse after I referenced John 1:1 I should of added: <BR/><BR/>John 1:14 "And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth."<BR/><BR/>Word is meaningless huh? Sad<BR/><BR/>Let's be clear Jesus is God! (John 1:1,14; 10:30-33; 20:28; Col. 2:9; Phil. 2:5-8; Heb. 1:8)D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-29626482047189189302008-11-07T21:20:00.000-05:002008-11-07T21:20:00.000-05:00Holier then thou judgmental Andrew,You obviously s...Holier then thou judgmental Andrew,<BR/><BR/>You obviously saw the movie to adamantly know so much about it, or am I mistaken? Besides I did not use profane or foul language so replace the names with whatever name you want. Instead of wolf use kitty cat and instead of Vincent use 'Jimmy crack corn'or whatever. It is a work of fiction and I was making a point about being curt. Besides I was not a Christian when that movie came out. So you offended me on so many levels.<BR/><BR/>You claim to say to me: "I appologize if I've offended..." are you kidding me you are either a liar or a manipulator either way you are being a foul person.<BR/><BR/>The scribes of the Pharisees also scoffed at Jesus for eating with a tax collector and those nasty sinners. (Mark 2:15-17) He even made a tax collector and sinners disciples, imagine that?<BR/><BR/>Psst, Jesus has the harshest words for the Pharisees and their scribes. Be forewarned.<BR/><BR/><I>"[Perhaps] I mistook your honesty and your heart."</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, make no mistake about it, you are very wrong. You see, it takes far more love to confront then to ignore the situation, perfect love is a constant confronter. So yes you are very mistaken if you think I should just smooth things over or walk on egg shells around you and not tell you of your impending doom. You are mistaken if you don't think I will do everything I can to pull you from that burning building that you are in, no matter how many times you fight back or how much it offends you. I am here to help save you from your own thoughts and tell you truth. <BR/><BR/>You student!<BR/><BR/>Here I will use your lie: <BR/><BR/>"I'm simply trying to build an understanding here Andrew, and you're trying to cut me down.<BR/><BR/>You're either [afraid] of thought that isn't consistent with yours, or you just like bashing people."<BR/><BR/>Andrew you are false and fake, come back when you want to be a real person instead of some false manipulator. You are no different then GW Bush was or a pedophile to a child. You are trying to manipulate without substance of humanity. Enron CEO should be your life when you are reincarnated.<BR/><BR/>Talk about karma, give us all a break! Your fake. I rebuke you, because you are evil.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-17940651495802392312008-11-07T19:35:00.000-05:002008-11-07T19:35:00.000-05:00That fact that you, a proclaimed Christian, would ...That fact that you, a proclaimed Christian, would use such a film to make a point in the name of God is reprehensible.<BR/><BR/>Perhpas I mistook your honesty and your heart.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-77976828340469152762008-11-07T19:27:00.000-05:002008-11-07T19:27:00.000-05:00I believe I'm aware of the movie you're speaking o...I believe I'm aware of the movie you're speaking of, however I'm not a big fan of vulgarity and violence.<BR/><BR/>In your own words, Dan, tell me what it means to seek Jesus.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-60335118248536818132008-11-07T18:43:00.000-05:002008-11-07T18:43:00.000-05:00Andrew,"I appologize if I've offended your beliefs...Andrew,<BR/><BR/><I>"I appologize if I've offended your beliefs, it was not my intent."</I><BR/><BR/>You haven't and I am trying to shake you up even if I do offend you. I am not trying to make you feel good I am trying to save your life here. Please read the <A>Parachute</A> link I provided. <BR/><BR/>Remember in Pulp Fiction when Vincent (John Travolta) said to Wolf "A please would be nice."<BR/><BR/>Wolf said "Get it straight buster - I'm not here to say please, I'm here to tell you what to do and if self-preservation is an instinct you possess you'd better do it and do it quick! I'm here to help - if my help's not appreciated then lotsa luck, gentlemen."<BR/><BR/>Vincent: "I don't mean any disrespect, I just don't like people barking orders at me."<BR/><BR/>The Wolf: "If I'm curt with you it's because time is a factor. I think fast, I talk fast and I need you guys to act fast if you wanna get out of this. So, pretty please... with sugar on top. Clean the car!"<BR/><BR/>and scene.<BR/><BR/>So if I am curt with you Andrew it's because time really is the factor and you could die tomorrow. <BR/><BR/>So pretty please with sugar on top, seek Jesus.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-48639546903740991062008-11-07T18:33:00.000-05:002008-11-07T18:33:00.000-05:00I appologize if I've offended your beliefs, it was...I appologize if I've offended your beliefs, it was not my intent. It is/was my intent to find a connection.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-17223651100109108252008-11-07T18:32:00.000-05:002008-11-07T18:32:00.000-05:00Dan, you have a full cup: so, I wish you the best....Dan, <BR/>you have a full cup: so, I wish you the best.<BR/><BR/>I'll comment only on this:<BR/><BR/>"You sound very post modern...."<BR/><BR/>This thought goes back well before the bible. And you slander me by compairing me to Oprah. I'm simply trying to build an understanding here Dan, and you're trying to cut me down. You're either affraid of thought that isn't consistent with yours, or you just like bashing people. <BR/><BR/>I'll tell you this, I accept you as you are. Your thoughts are honest, but gaurded, and this leads you towards a feeling of malice towards others.<BR/><BR/>Finally:<BR/>All you are doing is quoting more words; but you are saying nothing of meaning. I don't mean this as a rebuke; I simply mean to say that you're not even making an attempt to consider what I've said. I think you'd find that after an unknown amount of time, our beliefs are not that much different. Yes, I've read the bible cover to cover; as a matter of fact I studied it intensively for 8 years.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-30376756579761004762008-11-07T17:57:00.000-05:002008-11-07T17:57:00.000-05:00Andrew,"Of course there are many other ways I coul...Andrew,<BR/><BR/><I>"Of course there are many other ways I could take to the wizard, and perhaps many other roads; the yellow one is just one of them."</I><BR/><BR/>Nope your wrong and you are sounding more like <A HREF="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ElYy6MLUVU" REL="nofollow">Oprah</A> saying that.<BR/><BR/>You sound very post modern with your <I>"But that's nonsense, Dan, words are meaningless."</I> talk. There is such a thing as <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ostensive_definition" REL="nofollow">ostensive definition</A>. When you wanted to be pointed salvation we point to Jesus. Also, objective truth and principle of noncontradiction arguments apply.<BR/><BR/><I>"but more importantly a certain set of words spoken in a certain way."</I><BR/><BR/>Now you are showing that you do not understand the Bible's message at all. I would venture to bet that you have not even read the Bible cover to cover by that comment. Even atheists know this one.<BR/><BR/>Ephesians 2:8-9 “For by grace are ye saved through faith and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.”<BR/><BR/>Works count after salvation to show gratefulness, but will not get you to heaven. Speaking words in a certain way will not help you. You are missing the point of salvation completely.<BR/><BR/>What you claim is you can do something to earn salvation through your other path. God says there is zero paths for you to get to salvation. ZERO! There is nothing you can do. You have broken His Laws and are guilty and deserve punishment. You will spend eternity in hell forever.<BR/><BR/>The only hope you have is that God came as a man to take your punishment for you. You have to admit to God that you have sinned against Him and turn away from sinning again and trust Jesus to run your entire life as you would trust a parachute jumping from a plane. Then and only then God will grant you everlasting life with Him. Otherwise God dying on the cross was for nothing and meaningless.<BR/><BR/>Which brings us to you point about words are meaningless.<BR/><BR/><I>"Ok, fine, but all I see in the bible are words. So in effect what you're saying is that "words" lead to truth;"</I><BR/><BR/>It was said best in John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."<BR/><BR/><I>"words are meaningless."</I> So you are saying God is meaningless but you found another path to God?<BR/><BR/>Narrow is the path to salvation and wide is the path to destruction.<BR/><BR/><I>"As with the yellow brick road, you’re mistaking the path for the destination."</I><BR/><BR/>Oh what a cute analogy that fits real nice. Try this one: there is a fallen tree over a very deep lava pit the forest you are walking in is on fire you have to get out. The <B>only</B> path to safety (salvation) is on that tree. Do you try to find another path? No anyone would run on the path provided for you. God said that He is the light (John 8:12, John 9:5) He is the only way (John 14:6-7, Philippians 2:10-11,John 14:21)<BR/><BR/>You can discount the Bible but then you are doing a very dangerous thing to your soul.<BR/><BR/>Words are meaningless? So if someone says give me your wallet or I will blow your head off with this shot gun, you would say to him, "words are meaningless?" and then you have no more head. Words, in fact, have meaning in context. Look at these:<BR/><BR/>The Bible describes hell as unquenchable fire,(Mark 9:43) outer darkness,(Matthew 22:13) a furnace of fire and a place where people wail and gnash their teeth,(Matthew 13:42) and a lake of fire.(Revelation 20:15) where the worm does not die and the fire is not quenched,(Mark 9:48) and where people are in agony in flames.(Luke 16:24) Perhaps the most terrifying passage in the Bible describing hell says that men will "drink the wine of the wrath of God, which is mixed in full strength in the cup of His anger; and he will be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels and in the presence of the Lamb. And the smoke of their torment goes up forever and ever; and they have no rest day and night." (Revelation 14:10-11)<BR/><BR/>You may consider this meaningless also, but it would be detrimental to your health and life. Are you willing to bet your life that there are other paths then the direct one that the Bible Describes, because you are?<BR/><BR/>So why not follow the path the Bible offers instead of making up other paths to God. What is so wrong with that very nice yellow brick road instead of going through all those thorny rose bushes on the sides. (trying to get you to relate)<BR/><BR/>Is the Bible's path unreliable or inadequate?<BR/><BR/>The Bible speaks of faith and here are some passages about <A HREF="http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Romans%2011:20,Romans%204:14,Romans%205:1-2,Hebrews%2011:3,Hebrews%2011:6-7&version=9" REL="nofollow">faith and Jesus</A> being the only way.<BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/07/welcome-atheists-i-love-you.html" REL="nofollow">Consider this</A><BR/><A HREF="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/07/have-you-put-jesus-on-like-parachute.html" REL="nofollow">And consider this</A> (Buddhism may improve your flight but it will not save you)D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-2724764247067889272008-11-06T21:57:00.000-05:002008-11-06T21:57:00.000-05:00You put of lot of words out here, so let me just p...You put of lot of words out here, so let me just pick out one thing where you stated:<BR/><BR/>"Buddhism compromises the truth of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ who said He alone was the way the truth and the life."<BR/><BR/>There is nothing being compromised when you understand what you just stated there, Dan.<BR/><BR/>What is it, Dan, that makes up "He" from the statement above? Believing in Christ is not a matter of believing in objective dogma; once again you're making an idol of God. So again, when you say "He is the way", what does that mean?<BR/><BR/>If I say, "The yellow brick road is the way to the wizard", I'm simply talking about an actual path existing in objective reality that leads to the wizards house. Of course there are many other ways I could take to the wizard, and perhaps many other roads; the yellow one is just one of them. To say that the yellow one is “THE ONLY” path, is to mistake the path for the destination. Which again, is idolatry. <BR/><BR/>In another way if I say, "Jesus is the way to truth"; where is "the Jesus", and what "truth" does it lead to? Now you might want to say, "well, it's in the bible". Ok, fine, but all I see in the bible are words. So in effect what you're saying is that "words" lead to truth; but more importantly a certain set of words spoken in a certain way. But that's nonsense, Dan, words are meaningless. Words are merely a path to meaning; to say that Christianity has more validity then Buddhism or Islam is to miss the point of religious language all together and to take a dogmatic (idolatrous) stance towards God; then you've just committed a sin. As with the yellow brick road, you’re mistaking the path for the destination. <BR/><BR/>And you stated:<BR/>"What makes science the only language that can own the universe?"<BR/><BR/>Dan, I don't think science is the only language to explain things. I thought I had stated that. <BR/><BR/><A HREF="http://idiotphilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/10/nothing.html" REL="nofollow">Consider this </A><BR/><A HREF="http://idiotphilosophy.blogspot.com/2008/10/p2-what-is-science-beginning-of-dogma.html" REL="nofollow">And consider this </A>Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-91504763433250581712008-11-06T14:57:00.000-05:002008-11-06T14:57:00.000-05:00Psst God is in a box, of sortsDan, do you mean the...<I>Psst God is in a box, of sorts</I><BR/><BR/>Dan, do you mean the Ark of the Covenant, like in <I>The Raiders of the Lost Ark?</I> God was really in a box back then. Boy howdy.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-47582422369194168532008-11-06T14:08:00.000-05:002008-11-06T14:08:00.000-05:00Andrew,Thanks for sharing what you believe it make...Andrew,<BR/><BR/>Thanks for sharing what you believe it makes a big difference as to what I should say to you. I would say different things, for example, to an Atheist verses a Catholic.<BR/><BR/><I>"Although at the core, Christianity is not all that different (then Buddhism)."</I><BR/><BR/>Buddhism compromises the truth of the saving gospel of Jesus Christ who said He alone was the way the truth and the life. This means that all other systems are wrong! It means that Buddhism is <B>not</B> true. It means that Hinduism is <B>not</B> true. It means that Islam is <B>not</B> true. It means that <B>only</B> Christianity is true. There is no fellowship with darkness. <BR/><BR/>Someone wrote to me: "That is, our religion is from the Creator. It is a result of our hope and trust in God. It is the natural fruit. False religions have stolen from God and not the other way around. False religions have a common denominator and that is there assault on the term "Justification." They are working toward their salvation. We are working as a result of our salvation.<BR/><BR/>A religion that is pure in the sight of God is a "discipline" which results and originates, from God. We do these things as a result of being justified. We do these things because God has declared us "not guilty" because of the passive/active obedience of the Messiah being given to us as a gift. His works are what save us. In contrast, the religions of the world who deny justification seek to bring their "religious" efforts to God to "save" them.<BR/><BR/>We as believers have a beautiful religion because it is a fruit which comes from God. It starts with him and ends with him. Like I said; the religion we show is a result of what God did. It is an external response. For example, we love because he first loved us right? The false religions out there have a completely different gospel. As a result they bring their filthy rags and present then to God thinking they are working their way to God. We have been made clean by the word. The false religions make themselves clean." (Moshe, carm.org)<BR/><BR/>Psst Andrew, Buddhism is a false religion.<BR/><BR/><I>"You’re in affect saying that it’s rational that it isn’t rational."</I> So what I am to understand is that you believe that supernatural reasoning is irrational then, right? Your presupposition is that "scientific rational discourse" is the rational process. So because scientists, not science, rejects the supernatural then you are in belief that anything other then naturalism is the only "way" to explain things? Again your belief of "Naturalism of the gaps" is the only correct way to view things. Got it. There is no way you can be wrong? Got it. That your view is the only rational view? Got it. Not logical at all but I get it. You’re in affect saying that it’s rational to believe that nothing else is rational.<BR/><BR/>No terms can apply? Why because you said so? An intelligence, outside our understanding, is a term that we cannot use in our language? I have a great question for you: Is there objective truth?<BR/><BR/><I>"There is a wide gap between the use of religious language and scientific language that needs to be distinguished."</I><BR/><BR/>Fine I perfectly understand your point but let me ask you then. What makes science the only language that can own the universe? What if the only rational way to talk about the understandings of said universe is by the Christian language in order to understand it properly. Science cannot even explain the universe within itself properly.<BR/><BR/>Take the Big Bang for example. Known physics breaks down in this situation. General relativity (powerful gravitational fields) and quantum mechanics (very small situation) exists separately but there is NO physics currently that can explain both situations at the same time which is what the Big Bang requires. Known physics cannot describe that (big bang) situation so big banger's take it on BLIND FAITH that if such physics is ever discovered that it would even allow for the theory of the big bang. Understand? The scientific language used today is insufficient for the current paradigm of the universe.<BR/><BR/>Psst God is in a box, of sorts, He Created His Word to define Him so we can get to know Him. He gave us the entire language and story to understand Him. The language of God is now universal across all fields and disciplines and can be applied to any of them. Get it?D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-80086708556658085692008-11-06T08:47:00.000-05:002008-11-06T08:47:00.000-05:00“So how do you describe your worldview? Is there a...“So how do you describe your worldview? Is there a term or a philosophy? Are you an existentialist?”<BR/><BR/>I typically describe my worldview relative to Buddhist thought and language. Although at the core, Christianity is not all that different.<BR/><BR/><BR/>”Well I may have but at this point I am confused. Why can't this cause not be supernatural, wouldn't that be more logical if the cause transcends matter, energy, space, and time?<BR/><BR/>You can dumb it down for me if you feel I am not "getting it." I am perfectly comfortable with that.”<BR/><BR/>Again Dan, all you’re saying when you state that the cause was supernatural is that it defies explanation; or more technically that it defies scientific rational discourse. Again, that’s fine, however you cannot turn around and say that that is a rational response to creation because you’re contradicting yourself by saying so. You’re in affect saying that it’s rational that it isn’t rational. <BR/><BR/>Then you turn around and apply terms to the cause as in “Powerfull” and “Intelligent”. However, if the cause defied reason, then those terms cannot apply; no terms can apply. So again, relative to a rational discourse, all you can honestly say is that you don’t know.<BR/><BR/>The best we can say is that these words are metaphorical. For example in Hindu religion you find a whole array of God’s and Goddesses, however it’s understood in Hindu that these do not represent individual God’s, but simply represent different aspects of the same thing (they are metaphors. The Hindu’s are vary creative artistic people). Much like you see in the Bible the use of many different names for God, Ell., Yah., Elo. so on; these names represent different aspects of God’s character relative to our experience of it. However, what that character ultimately is cannot be revealed in any rational sense. So once again to say that the cause was “powerful”, is simply a metaphor and doesn’t make rational sense.<BR/><BR/>There is a wide gap between the use of religious language and scientific language that needs to be distinguished. The real question for me is, is it valid to speak in such ways; is religious language valid? When we talk of Christianity for example, we’re agreeing to speak and understand in a certain language. For example:<BR/><BR/>Tell a man who’s never herd of Christianity that, “The Devil has control of my life” and he won’t know what the heck you’re talking about. On the other hand say that to a fellow Christian and they will understand you quite clearly. They will take it that you don’t have control of your biological impulses (lets say) as they relate to sin. What the devil is, who knows, what’s important is that we understand each other. To me then, religions validity does not lie in rational proof (that’s impossible) it lies in it’s validity as a way of communicating and understanding each other relative to our spiritual sentiments and meaning (Christianity then, is a path, not a Dogmatic authority or ultimate truth. To see it as an authority is to mistake the finger for the moon. Him with ears to here, right?). In this way, most religions are the same; where they differ objectively and rationally are simply cultural differences. <BR/><BR/>Trying to put God in a box, to define him, to attribute things to his nature, to rationalize, is idolatry. Words stand every bit as a false idol as a golden calf.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-59231711689279896232008-11-05T23:29:00.000-05:002008-11-05T23:29:00.000-05:00Andrew Louis,"I'm not an atheist (although I'm not...Andrew Louis,<BR/><BR/><I>"I'm not an atheist (although I'm not a Christian either)"</I><BR/><BR/>So how do you describe your worldview? Is there a term or a philosophy? Are you an existentialist?<BR/><BR/>I may have treated you as an atheist, and if I have I apologize. I assume a great deal when I get countered so forgive me.<BR/><BR/><I>"So you're contradicting yourself a bit here, Dan, by answering no."</I><BR/><BR/>Well I may have but at this point I am confused. Why can't this cause <B>not</B> be supernatural, wouldn't that be more logical if the cause transcends matter, energy, space, and time?<BR/><BR/>You can dumb it down for me if you feel I am not "getting it." I am perfectly comfortable with that.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-27599443464272073932008-11-05T18:07:00.000-05:002008-11-05T18:07:00.000-05:00Dan,lets me be clear on something else, I'm not an...Dan,<BR/>lets me be clear on something else, I'm not an atheist (although I'm not a Christian either, simply look at my blog), I'm simply challanging your thinking; I'm interested in your responses. (I do however, have great regard and respect for Christianity, but perhpas this doesn't mean much to you, I dno't know)<BR/><BR/>Anyway, lets look at this:<BR/>"If this is so, how can you then turn around and apply the attribute of intelligence and power to it? Such an event would have had to transcend both ideas. Yes/no?"<BR/><BR/>No because it follows the Laws of physics. Like I pointed out in..<BR/><BR/>There is a problem here in that, the original statement said:<BR/>"…that cause transcends matter, energy, space, and time...."<BR/><BR/>So you're contradicting yourself a bit here, Dan, by answering no. So, was the cause transcendent or not?<BR/><BR/>I don't believe that creation was rational, and further more do not believe rationality has the power of revealing the nature of God or the truth of his existence. So rationally, yes, I don't know.Andrew Louishttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18204999524677028033noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-89654315218660569412008-11-05T13:16:00.001-05:002008-11-05T13:16:00.001-05:00Andrew Louis,"If this is so, how can you then turn...Andrew Louis,<BR/><BR/><I>"If this is so, how can you then turn around and apply the attribute of intelligence and power to it? Such an event would have had to transcend both ideas. Yes/no?"</I><BR/><BR/>No because it follows the Laws of physics. Like I pointed out in <A HREF="http://debunkingatheists.blogspot.com/2008/07/big-bang-busted_25.html" REL="nofollow">Big Bang Busted</A><BR/><BR/>"Now for eternity all of the universe was compacted in to this infinitesimal point of singularity. All energy and mass compressed in a state of total organization and stability for eternity then one Tuesday afternoon at 3pm BOOM it blows up?<BR/><BR/>So, what happened to Newton's very first Law of Motion called the law of inertia? Things at rest stay at rest unless acted upon by what? Come on you believe in science right? Things at rest stay at rest unless acted upon an outside force. You have to discount science and the entire laws of physics to believe in no God."<BR/><BR/><I>"But then you add the caveat "supernatural", which is really just a refusal to speak rationally in an instance when you’re trying to say there is rational proof."</I><BR/><BR/>Wouldn't it be more rational to believe a Creator created the complexity of life instead of the intellectual gymnastics that you must go through to believe otherwise? In fact it is you who logically concludes that you don’t know. I do know. This isn't God of the gaps, in fact it is you who is claiming "evolution of the gaps."<BR/><BR/>It would go something like this:<BR/><BR/>1.) We don’t know [rationally] how the universe was created.<BR/>2.) The beginning “seems” to transcend time and matter.<BR/>3.) Therefore Darwinian evolution created the universe; therefore the bible is refuted.<BR/><BR/>Please give us all a break on the double standard. Does that sound “rational” to you? <BR/><BR/><I>"Am I wrong Dan?"</I> Yes, you are.<BR/><BR/><I>"could not every world religion site they’re great works of dogma as a valid rational authority of the world, life and creation?"</I><BR/><BR/>It's possible. Please show me some examples so we can examine the claims.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-80258378145339205362008-11-05T12:29:00.000-05:002008-11-05T12:29:00.000-05:00Sorry: If that is all it said then NOSorry: If that is all it said then <B>NO</B>D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-57342922697025163982008-11-05T12:28:00.000-05:002008-11-05T12:28:00.000-05:00Zilch,"If I say "I am God" or even "I am Dumbledor...Zilch,<BR/><BR/><I>"If I say "I am God" or even "I am Dumbledore", does that prove that I am?"</I><BR/><BR/>If that is all it said then know but we both know it goes further then that. <BR/><BR/>Whateverman,<BR/><BR/><I>"Would the Bible be allowed as proof that a global flood took place 6000 years ago? Definitely not."</I><BR/><BR/>Of course it would. If science found indications that the earth was much younger and had geological evidence to back up the Bible's claim then sure it would be admissible. <BR/><BR/>Archeology backed up the biblical accounts many times over. Just Google it. Although the Bible could stand alone for "proof", it is noteworthy to point out that most of what was found was found by non-Christians. As we know proof of anything will not save you in His court though. <BR/><BR/>The Bible is the only ancient, well-organized and authentic framework in which to fit all the facts of history. Let's keep in mind though, the great men of the Bible prophesied accurately that highly educated men and women who scoff at God and His revealed Word would dominate our world. So both your viewpoints are perfectly understandable and bears no surprise to anyone here. At this point I am begging you to keep thinking about it, in your conscience. If true, you both are in for some big trouble and I just don't want that to happen. It's frustrating to see people you care about, defy and ignore God. It doesn't have to be like this.D. A. N. https://www.blogger.com/profile/11745259115723860852noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-70391302236774521712008-11-05T09:13:00.000-05:002008-11-05T09:13:00.000-05:00It's not the court that matters, but the physical ...<I>It's not the court that matters, but the physical legal case, and the purpose from bringing the Bible into it.</I><BR/><BR/>˙˙˙uɐɯɹǝʌǝʇɐɥʍ 'ʎʞɔıd 'ʎʞɔıd<BR/><BR/>Hey, Obama won! Maybe I'll move back to the States!zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-45283552725423683462008-11-05T08:57:00.000-05:002008-11-05T08:57:00.000-05:00Dan wrote "In a court of law the Bible would be ad...Dan wrote "In a court of law the Bible would be admissible."<BR/><BR/>Zilch asked <I>In what court?</I><BR/><BR/>It's not the court that matters, but the physical legal case, and the purpose from bringing the Bible into it.<BR/><BR/>Would the Bible be allowed in if a defendant was trying to explain why he fire-bombed a family planning clinic? Yes. Understanding a defendant's state of mind is very much mart of the legal process.<BR/><BR/>Would the Bible be allowed as proof that a global flood took place 6000 years ago? Definitely not.<BR/><BR/>---<BR/><BR/>It's <I>obvious</I> that the book might possibly be found as part of the legal process - but only in terms of explaining a defendant's (or plaintiff's) state of mind. It certainly wouldn't be viable in terms of morality or historical accuracy.Whatevermanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14458601080799278850noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7771612431511732960.post-47191077896335937932008-11-05T03:28:00.000-05:002008-11-05T03:28:00.000-05:00Dan- if I'm not mistaken, we've had this argument ...Dan- if I'm not mistaken, we've had this argument before. You say:<BR/><BR/><I>In a court of law the Bible would be admissible.</I><BR/><BR/>In what court? Any court that would affirm that insects have four legs, and that it's good to kill children if they're Amalekites, is a kangaroo court.<BR/><BR/><I>If you could in fact prove Dumbledore is God, as the Bible has, then more power to you.</I><BR/><BR/>The Bible has proven that Dumbledore is God? That's a new one.<BR/><BR/>Okay, sorry, I know what you mean. But what does the Bible prove? It claims stuff, but claims do not constitute proof. If I say "I am God" or even "I am Dumbledore", does that prove that I am?<BR/><BR/><I>You do understand some 1000 people had to be in on it. Most of the people died in those beliefs you do understand. So they risked life, limb, and even their heads for some joke or hoax? Is that logical or like I said adequate justification for it?</I><BR/><BR/>Yes, lots of people had to be in on it, and many people have died for believing in the Bible. But that's what religion is and does. What about all the Muslims and Hindus who have also "been in on it" and have died for their beliefs? All that shows is the power of a belief in God: it does not show that the belief is true.zilchhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01695741977946935771noreply@blogger.com