So why doesn't God write in the sky?

  • Thread starter Thread starter catholic1seeks
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Soulewolf said:
any evidence you just gave to prove me wrong is meaningless because you havent proved that your evidence means anything.

you are using logic to denounce logic which… doesnt work. its begging the question.
Click to expand...
LOL. You are so out of it.

Get this in to your head. I believe that LOGIC works. I HAVE FAITH. I accept that Science works. I can do that WITHOUT evidence because I have Faith.

You are the hypocrite to accept Science, logic and reason WITHOUT evidence while condemning Religion because it requires FAITH.

And I am not denouncing Logic lol. Where on earth did you get that from? Stop lying!! Is this your loosing strategy or something haha?

Now answer my following questions which I asked you before without wasting my time lol!!!

"People can’t follow logic on utility. What does that even mean? Just answer my question, how do you define “verification” and “prediction”? what does it mean to be “utilizable”? Aren’t those definitions accepted on faith ? Or are you going to be stupid enough to say they are accepted on “utilizability” haha?"

God Bless 🙂
 
The Ethiops say that their gods are flat-nosed and black
while the Thracians say that theirs have blue eyes and red hair.

Yet if cattle or horses or lions had hands and could draw
And could sculpture like men, then horses would draw their gods
Like horses, and cattle like cattle, and each would then shape
Bodies of gods in the likeness, each kind, of its own.

The gods did not reveal, from the beginning,
All things to us; but in the course of time,
Through seeking, we may learn, and know things better.

These things are, we conjecture, like the truth.

But as for certain truth, no man has known it,
Nor will he know it; neither of the gods,
Nor yet of all the things of which I speak.
And even if by chance he were to utter
The final truth, he would himself not know it:
For all is but a woven web of guesses.

Xenophanes
 
ddarko said:
LOL. You are so out of it.

Get this in to your head. I believe that LOGIC works. I HAVE FAITH. I accept that Science works. I can do that WITHOUT evidence because I have Faith.

You are the hypocrite to accept Science, logic and reason WITHOUT evidence while condemning Religion because it requires FAITH.

And I am not denouncing Logic lol. Where on earth did you get that from? Stop lying!! Is this your loosing strategy or something haha?

Now answer my following questions which I asked you before without wasting my time lol!!!

"People can’t follow logic on utility. What does that even mean? Just answer my question, how do you define “verification” and “prediction”? what does it mean to be “utilizable”? Aren’t those definitions accepted on faith ? Or are you going to be stupid enough to say they are accepted on “utilizability” haha?"

God Bless 🙂
Click to expand...
you are using your “faith” as evidence that your standpoint is correct. this evidence is meaningless because you cant prove that evidence means anything.
 
Soulewolf said:
you are using your “faith” as evidence that your standpoint is correct. this evidence is meaningless because you cant prove that evidence means anything.
Click to expand...
lol so? That is why I use FAITH as my BASIS. I believe without Evidence 🙂 You have NO basis. For you, all knowledge is meaningless lol. This debate is all about people like you haha. Not about me 🙂

Seriously though, are you just arguing with me for the sake of avoiding defeat? Because for the last couple of posts, you have been making the worst counter arguments ever.

God Bless 🙂
 
ddarko said:
lol so? That is why I use FAITH as my BASIS. I believe without Evidence 🙂 You have NO basis. For you, all knowledge is meaningless lol. This debate is all about people like you haha. Not about me 🙂

Seriously though, are you just arguing with me for the sake of avoiding defeat? Because for the last couple of posts, you have been making the worst counter arguments ever.

God Bless 🙂
Click to expand...
so your argument is meaningless in its own right just as my argument is meaningless because of your argument.

we could just go around and around in circles for all eternity because of this. but i have no desire to do that.
 
Kaninchen said:
How do you demarcate between those things you believe and those things you don’t believe?
Click to expand...
While logical consistency does not say something is true, logical inconsistency proves something is FALSE. Therefore I only believe in logically consistent systems.

God Bless 🙂
 
Soulewolf said:
so your argument is meaningless in its own right just as my argument is meaningless because of your argument.

we could just go around and around in circles for all eternity because of this. but i have no desire to do that.
Click to expand...
Oh my goodness, how old are you?

My argument only applies to you. It can’t apply to me lol. Do you not see? I am the one with FAITH. You are the IDIOT who believes certain things on faith but want to refute other things because they are from FAITH. What a waste of my time.

We do not go around eternity in circles. You are just intellectually unable to understand the difference or you just want to deny at all costs lol.

God Bless 🙂
 
ddarko said:
While logical consistency does not say something is true, logical inconsistency proves something is FALSE. Therefore I only believe in logically consistent systems.

God Bless 🙂
Click to expand...
That’s all very nice but it doesn’t really answer the question because there’s the little matter of premises involved. How do you demarcate between premises?
 
Kaninchen said:
That’s all very nice but it doesn’t really answer the question because there’s the little matter of premises involved. How do you demarcate between premises?
Click to expand...
As I said, logically inconsistent premises are rejected. In other words, self defeating premises are rejected. The others I either remain agnostic about them (if that is consistent with my other positions) or believe them to be true. I don’t seen any problems with premises since we are not talking about an argument here.

God Bless 🙂
 
ddarko said:
Oh my goodness, how old are you?

My argument only applies to you. It can’t apply to me lol. Do you not see? I am the one with FAITH. You are the IDIOT who believes certain things on faith but want to refute other things because they are from FAITH. What a waste of my time.

We do not go around eternity in circles. You are just intellectually unable to understand the difference or you just want to deny at all costs lol.

God Bless 🙂
Click to expand...
logic is objective. if an argument applies to me, it applies to you. the assumption that the statement “i exist” implies is obvious.

i’m not saying your wrong because you have faith. i’m saying your wrong because your argument disproves itself.
 
Soulewolf said:
logic is objective. if an argument applies to me, it applies to you. the assumption that the statement “i exist” implies is obvious.

i’m not saying your wrong because you have faith. i’m saying your wrong because your argument disproves itself.
Click to expand...
lol? You are one confused person. Logic is objective yes. But you can’t apply conclusions to wrong premises lol. You have to satisfy the premises first. In this case, your position satisfy the premises and therefore my argument applies to you. but my position doesn’t satisfy the premises. So it does not apply to me. Its starting to look like you need some serious coaching on logic.

Oh and care to elaborate how my argument disproves it self lol?

My argument was that “Faith is the Source of all knowledge and NOT evidence”

Now disprove that!!! If you can’t just stop arguing with me for the sake of argument.

God Bless 🙂
 
ddarko said:
As I said, logically inconsistent premises are rejected. In other words, self defeating premises are rejected. The others I either remain agnostic about them (if that is consistent with my other positions) or believe them to be true. I don’t seen any problems with premises since we are not talking about an argument here.

God Bless 🙂
Click to expand...
It all sounds very nice but, without some illustration, it doesn’t convey a lot of meaning to me. Perhaps you might guide us through a process of looking at ‘logically inconsistent premises’ that would allow for a demarcation between, say, Christianity and Judaism.

Actually, a lot of the ‘argument here’ has been based on different meanings to words like ‘truth’ but that’s just an aside.
 
Kaninchen said:
It all sounds very nice but, without some illustration, it doesn’t convey a lot of meaning to me. Perhaps you might guide us through a process of looking at ‘logically inconsistent premises’ that would allow for a demarcation between, say, Christianity and Judaism.

Actually, a lot of the ‘argument here’ has been based on different meanings to words like ‘truth’ but that’s just an aside.
Click to expand...
Ok but this would sidetrack the topic of this debate and enter in to one of comparative religions. I will give you one example here but if you want to continue the discussion along those lines, please open a new thread 🙂

So the nice thing about Judaism is that it does not have logical contradictions. It is just incomplete. Christianity is the completion of Judaism. So I will have to turn to a different religion to make my point.

Take Islam. Muslims believe that Christ dying on the cross was an illusion by God. At the same time they believe that God will punish Christians and send them to hell. The logical contradiction lies here in the fact that if God did indeed create the illusion of Christ’s death and thus the notion of resurrection, then God would be responsible for the straying of the Christians. A large chunk of people are going to hell because God wanted to play a nice trick with Christ. Now that becomes logically inconsistent since it almost turns in to God sending people to hell. Hope that example illustrates to you what I mean.

God Bless 🙂
 
Kaninchen said:
The need for explanation is the source of knowledge!
Click to expand...
Well thats just another dimension of looking at it. But any system of knowledge is based on assumptions without evidence i.e. faith. Thats a fact.

God Bless 🙂
 
ddarko said:
lol wow good job. Wikipedea. Are you still in high-school or something?

All knowledge comes from a concept without EVIDENCE. That is faith. Now read an actual academic paper about this than provide me with wiki articles that even you could write lol.

God Bless 🙂
Click to expand...
i could bust out my philosophy of science textbook if you like. though it says the exact same thing, so its rather pointless and id rather not repeat myself.
 
ddarko said:
So the nice thing about Judaism is that it does not have logical contradictions. It is just incomplete. Christianity is the completion of Judaism.
Click to expand...
On what basis would one demarcate whether Judaism is incomplete or not?
Take Islam. Muslims believe that Christ dying on the cross was an illusion by God. At the same time they believe that God will punish Christians and send them to hell. The logical contradiction lies here in the fact that if God did indeed create the illusion of Christ’s death and thus the notion of resurrection, then God would be responsible for the straying of the Christians. A large chunk of people are going to hell because God wanted to play a nice trick with Christ. Now that becomes logically inconsistent since it almost turns in to God sending people to hell. Hope that example illustrates to you what I mean.
Click to expand...
God Bless 🙂
Click to expand...
Muslims would merely reply that the texts upon which Christians would base those arguments are perverted while their texts are correct.

On what basis would one demarcate whether they are correct or not?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top