There is no natural law... so kindly DROP it

[You]

He replied to that in message 201.
Forum thread generation algorithm:
void debate()
{
printf(“Why don’t you prove %s
\r”, szSomeDemand);
printf(“Oh yeah! Then %s
\r”, szCounterDemand);
debate();
}

At least this function will stack overflow at some point.

For someone who is a big blue brain you will understand this; angry atheist chose ancient Aztecs himself.
I don’t think there are online census records for the ancient Aztecs.

 

[AlanFromWichita]

No, because the Catholic Church Reversed everything of the Roman Empire: (a) From selfishness to Selflessness: always Giving instead of Taking, (b) From Military Power to Prayer Power (c) from Roman great culture, failing in selfishness, to New Catholic Culture: Liturgy, Arts., Etc., Etc.

Are you talking about her teachings, or her practices?

Sorry. It is an honest question; I’m wondering about the intended scope your comments. Believe it or not I really do love the Church and she has done some great things for me, but I can hardly say some of the things that her leaders have done in recent years with impunity, fit those criteria.

However perfect we each may think the Church is, I don’t think human nature is materially different now that it was when Jesus walked to earth. That’s why His teachings are just as valid today as they were then. :sad_yes:

Alan

 

[LeafByNiggle]

Is this what you have in mind? God Answers Prayers Of Paralyzed Little Boy. ‘No,’ Says God But let’s get serious. I could see that God refuses to grant a request to win the jackpot on the lottery. But to refuse a request for a revelation so he could “save” another soul?

Perhaps God values our free will more than He values our salvation? Or maybe due to some connection we do not understand, salvation is impossible without free will?

 

[ThinkingSapien]

… it’s part of the spiritual works of mercy dear spock , i am being charitable by pointing this out , just keep searching for the light and you will find it …

I don’t think it’s a guarantee that one will find it. “keep searching for the light and you might find it” seems more realistic.

 

[John_Russell_Jr]

I don’t think it’s a guarantee that one will find it. “keep searching for the light and you might find it” seems more realistic.

… dearest friend , perhaps i should say : keep searching for the light switch , once you flick the switch you’ll see the light , or again : the light is already there shining brightly and all around and on you , the problem is your blind and can’t see it , so like the blind man in jesus’ parable pray " lord , that i may see " , or : just recognise the light you now see for it fills our whole world , but you take it for granted so much you don’t appreciate it , however you see it you just have to ask for help to see the light with a sincere humble heart and persevere and when god sees your really ready he’ll help you see the light , just open your eyes in any case – the whole world is full of this light dear friends …

 

[buffalo]

**The Natural Law: A Study in Legal and Social History and Philosophy **

 

[SwizzleStick]

"Absolute Truth Exists
Laws of Logic Exist
Laws of Mathematics Exist
Laws of Science Exist
Absolute Moral Laws Exist
Laws of Logic, Mathematics, Science and Absolute Morality are Immaterial
Laws of Logic, Mathematics, Science and Absolute Morality are Universal
Laws of Logic, Mathematics, Science and Absolute Morality are Unchanging
The proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything.

Denying the existence of God is not unbelief but an exercise in self-deception. You may know things, but you cannot account for anything you know. Arguing against God’s existence would be on par with arguing against the existence of air, breathing it all the while. You use the universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality in order to come to rational decisions, but you cannot account for them. These laws are not the only way God has revealed himself to you, but they are sufficient to show the irrationality of your thinking, and expose your guilt for denying Him.

There is a reason that you deny the existence of God and it has nothing to do with proof. I can show this to you. Examine what your initial reaction was to the proof of God’s existence offered on this website. Did you think that you could continue to deny God because you are not a scientist, or philosopher but ‘Surely somewhere, sometime, a philosopher or scientist will come up with an explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws apart from God?’ Did you try to come up with an alternate explanation on your own? OR Did you even consider that the proof was valid?

Hoping that an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws can someday be found apart from God, is a blind leap of faith, or wishful thinking. Isn’t it interesting that this is exactly what professed unbelievers accuse Christians of?

Please examine the real reason why you are running from God. It is my prayer that God will open your eyes and change your heart so that you may be saved from your sin, embraced by His forgiving love, and come to know the peace which passes all understanding."

All blue excerpts quoted from: proofthatgodexists.org/

 

[Sair]

"Absolute Truth Exists
Laws of Logic Exist
Laws of Mathematics Exist
Laws of Science Exist
Absolute Moral Laws Exist
Laws of Logic, Mathematics, Science and Absolute Morality are Immaterial
Laws of Logic, Mathematics, Science and Absolute Morality are Universal
Laws of Logic, Mathematics, Science and Absolute Morality are Unchanging
The proof that God exists is that without Him you couldn’t prove anything.

Denying the existence of God is not unbelief but an exercise in self-deception. You may know things, but you cannot account for anything you know. Arguing against God’s existence would be on par with arguing against the existence of air, breathing it all the while. You use the universal, immaterial, unchanging laws of logic, mathematics, science, and absolute morality in order to come to rational decisions, but you cannot account for them. These laws are not the only way God has revealed himself to you, but they are sufficient to show the irrationality of your thinking, and expose your guilt for denying Him.

There is a reason that you deny the existence of God and it has nothing to do with proof. I can show this to you. Examine what your initial reaction was to the proof of God’s existence offered on this website. Did you think that you could continue to deny God because you are not a scientist, or philosopher but ‘Surely somewhere, sometime, a philosopher or scientist will come up with an explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws apart from God?’ Did you try to come up with an alternate explanation on your own? OR Did you even consider that the proof was valid?

Hoping that an alternate explanation for universal, immaterial, unchanging laws can someday be found apart from God, is a blind leap of faith, or wishful thinking. Isn’t it interesting that this is exactly what professed unbelievers accuse Christians of?

Please examine the real reason why you are running from God. It is my prayer that God will open your eyes and change your heart so that you may be saved from your sin, embraced by His forgiving love, and come to know the peace which passes all understanding."

All blue excerpts quoted from: proofthatgodexists.org/

I was not aware that Catholics endorsed presuppositionalism…

 

[SwizzleStick]

I was not aware that Catholics endorsed presuppositionalism…

As indicated, the post came from proofthatgodexists.com. You can probably look around the site to find the faith of the poster, but that is just a diversion. The main question is: Do his entries proof that God exists?

 

[babylonsfalling]

The above statement and the one you posted before it look like the equivalent of saying that “confirmation bias is the key to revelation.”

Note that I’ve not argued for or against the existence or nonexistence of a god or gods. If I grant that there are many gods, one god, or no god my previous statement is not impacted. The topic raise to which I responded started as a discussion on the reliability of the results from science and religion. I specifically responded to a statement on “Answered prayers [being] verifiable results.” Though only considering “answered” prayers is an implicit form of confirmation bias since one is ignoring prayers that are not “answered.” It reminds me of some comment I’ve heard many times that says “More than half the people that survived a plane crash payed attention to the location of the emergency exists when they boarded the plane.” Such a statement could influence people to draw hasty conclusions by assuming that those that didn’t survive had not paid attention to the location of these exits.

Ideally when investigating into a matter the removal of any sources of bias are reduced if not eliminated. A step in achieving this is defining an objective criteria for examining results. When the Mayo clinic did their study the objective criteria included things such as death, cardiac arrest, re-hospitalization for cardiac disease, and so on. Ones personal religious beliefs don’t tend to have very significant impact determining whether or not some one is still alive (there are a few cases where it has had impact, but not many).

There’s been no attempt on my part to manipulate anyone or anything out of existence through dis-belief. So I will just accept this as information that you felt compelled to share.

Confirmation bias is used by atheists trying to convince themselves there is no God. Christians don’t need confirmation bias because knowledge of God is a natural, indwelling thing.

As far as unanswered prayers, I don’t know that I have any unanswered prayers. There are times when the answer has been no, and in hindsight, years later, that was the correct answer. Some of the things I prayed for would have done my then immature self more harm than good. Answers also seem to be proportional sometimes, in that I may not get all I ask for.

Regarding prayers that are for other people’s benefit, they all seem to be answered, although sometimes I won’t find out until years afterward do to losing touch with the people prayed for.

Belief comes before prayer though. So if you’re trying to DIS-believe in God, or waiting for God to deliver some whopper-of-proof big enough to overcome YOUR OWN bias against accepting Him, the “unanswered-prayer-schtick” will always help you in your attempt at disbelieving in God. That’s a problem not rooted in proof however, it’s rooted in your own anti-God perspective.

As I said before, you can disbelieve God out of your own self but you can’t disbelieve Him out of existence.

 

[babylonsfalling]

An experiment where the experimentors already believe that there is only one possible answer before it even starts is worthless. Because they will inevitably interpret whatever data they gather to fit the predetermined conclusion.

I know…that’s what makes atheism such a joke, something which I suspect atheists themselves are very much aware of but loath to admit.
Is that why you’re such an angry atheist?

 

[Spock]

Perhaps God values our free will more than He values our salvation? Or maybe due to some connection we do not understand, salvation is impossible without free will?

Cannot be either. First, if I would get a positive proof of God’s existence via a revelation, not only it would not limit my free will, but actually it would be necessary to allow me to choose at all. A positive knowledge about God’s existence would not force me in any way to “mindlessly” worship him and prevent me from making the choice of either accepting or rejecting God.

But such knowledge would lend substance to the process of choosing. Imagine that I have knowledge about one road across a forest. Obviously I cannot “choose” any other road, since I am not aware of the existence of some other road. Imagine now that you come to me and say that there is another road, and urge me to choose that, since it is shorter, better, safer. But you are unable to show me that road. You say that if I persevere long enough, seek hard enough and “honestly enough”, then eventually maybe I will find that road, if, of course that road wants to be found! I ask you how long will that process take place? You answer, that you don’t know.

Obviously I cannot choose it, since I don’t know if that road exists at all. The whole “free will” does not even come into the picture, unless I am positively aware of that “other road”. So that revelation, which simply never happens, is absolutely essential if God wishes to “save” me.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

For someone who is a big blue brain you will understand this; angry atheist chose ancient Aztecs himself.
I don’t think there are online census records for the ancient Aztecs.

Actually the thing I want to emphasize is the interminable direction in which the exchange is heading with the cyclic demands that each person provide evidence that the other person cannot possibly be able to produce.

 

[You]

Cannot be either. First, if I would get a positive proof of God’s existence via a revelation, not only it would not limit my free will, but actually it would be necessary to allow me to choose at all. A positive knowledge about God’s existence would not force me in any way to “mindlessly” worship him and prevent me from making the choice of either accepting or rejecting God.

But such knowledge would lend substance to the process of choosing. Imagine that I have knowledge about one road across a forest. Obviously I cannot “choose” any other road, since I am not aware of the existence of some other road. Imagine now that you come to me and say that there is another road, and urge me to choose that, since it is shorter, better, safer. But you are unable to show me that road. You say that if I persevere long enough, seek hard enough and “honestly enough”, then eventually maybe I will find that road, if, of course that road wants to be found! I ask you how long will that process take place? You answer, that you don’t know.

Obviously I cannot choose it, since I don’t know if that road exists at all. The whole “free will” does not even come into the picture, unless I am positively aware of that “other road”. So that revelation, which simply never happens, is absolutely essential if God wishes to “save” me.

You don’t know if the road across the forest actually does go across the forest until you travel it, you must trust that it does go across the forest.
Likewise you must trust again that there is another road, again, you do not know where it will lead you. Your trust this time is at the beginning not the end - will you find the road? instead of where will this road go?.
You are Harrison Ford [Indiana Jones] in the Temple of Doom, or wherever, and you gotta take that first step across the invisible bridge. All things in life are invisible. You don’t know if you will die this evening but you trust you won’t and make plans for tomorrow.

 

[ThinkingSapien]

Confirmation bias is used by atheists trying to convince themselves there is no God…

Whether or not that there is a god isn’t something I’ve brought into question. So I’ll treat that part as off topic.

As far as unanswered prayers, I don’t know that I have any unanswered prayers. There are times when the answer has been no, and in hindsight, years later, that was the correct answer.

This sounds a lot like the milk jug prayer experiement where the milk jug can be shown to always answer prayers. For those that are unfamiliar you can see a video summary of this experiment by a college student here at time marker 6:10 to 8:00 for those that have the time.

 

[You]

Actually the thing I want to emphasize is the interminable direction in which the exchange is heading with the cyclic demands that each person provide evidence that the other person cannot possibly be able to produce.

That, once again, is not my fault. I put no limits on the society that could be chosen.
Angry Atheist decides he wants Ancient Aztecs, I tell him that will be very difficult, that he could try something easier - like a society with online census records. But no, no, no.
You are correct, though, that there is more argument than results. But, just think, if the natural law did not exist, then, then, you should now be beside yourselves with joy, pointing a quivering finger at almost any society on earth and saying, there, there, look, look, at the society that lacks, totally and completely, any conscience. And there too… …look… and there quick, …look… there…

 

[buffalo]

Cannot be either. First, if I would get a positive proof of God’s existence via a revelation, not only it would not limit my free will, but actually it would be necessary to allow me to choose at all. A positive knowledge about God’s existence would not force me in any way to “mindlessly” worship him and prevent me from making the choice of either accepting or rejecting God.

It seems it boils down that you are upset at not being chosen, like the Apostles or the witnesses at that time.

 

[You]

**WE LOVE KILLING EVERYONE AND,
AND, PULLING THEIR ARMS OFF FOR FUN!
ITS GREAT! **
http://1.bp.blogspot.com/-ESC8dANrY/TFsQ7QQC2iI/AAAAAAAAC4E/RFe347KRRWc/s1600/BINOS.jpg

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/​

-ESC8dANrY/TFsQ7QQC2iI/AAAAAAAAC4E/RFe347KRRWc/s1600/BINOS.jpg
WE LOVE HELPING EVERYONE
EVERY WAY WE CAN, AND SEEING
THEM LAUGH, ITS GREAT​

Where is that society?

 

[babylonsfalling]

Whether or not that there is a god isn’t something I’ve brought into question. So I’ll treat that part as off topic.

This sounds a lot like the milk jug prayer experiement where the milk jug can be shown to always answer prayers. For those that are unfamiliar you can see a video summary of this experiment by a college student here at time marker 6:10 to 8:00 for those that have the time.

Except milk jug experiments are ridiculous because unlike God, nobody believes milk jugs have the power to answer prayers, whereas everyone KNOWS God DOES have that power.

We’re back to the same old point, you can disbelief God out of yourSELF and thereby make something as ridiculous as prayer to milkjugs seem sensibly comparable to prayer to God, when in reality it’s absolutely ridiculous. But you still can’t disbelieve God out of existence.

You can even become ridiculous yourself by glomming onto the ridiculous. Is Ye Olde “God’s Rock” schtick going to be next?

 

[Spock]

You don’t know if the road across the forest actually does go across the forest until you travel it, you must trust that it does go across the forest.

It was a metaphor!!! The road was a substitute for God. And I asked him to provide a revelation to show me that he is real.

Likewise you must trust again that there is another road, again, you do not know where it will lead you. Your trust this time is at the beginning not the end - will you find the road? instead of where will this road go?.

Don’t you understand? I would trust God, if he told me that he exists. I do NOT trust you guys. There are many reasons for this lack of trust, but that is not the topic at this moment.