Lord and Saviour ?

[Lohman446]

i think the entire intellectual and philosophical community would be interested in your proof of a god, as it has so far eluded humanity since the dawn of time

Actually not. Either you totally ignore those things that are convenient to you or your knowledge is really that shallow. I'm beginning to think your knowledge is that shallow and you simply are not capable of forming your own arguments - hence your failure to form cogent arguments when called on. As addressed before all your supposed "reasoning" to defend your statement that all religion was evil all had the logical fallacy of begging the question

Your statment that it has not been done ignores Aristotles prime mover argument.

It ignores all five of Thomas Aquinas's logical proofs.

It ignores countless others as well

This is why noone takes you seriously. You make these broad sweeping statements and claim to know all of human philosophy and intellect and the entirety of the intellectual and philosophical communities. Truth be told you build card stacking arguments to advance your conclusion without ever giving any hint that there are strong arguments against it. You lack intellectual honesty. You can take that however you want - its a statement of fact. You come across as arrogant by trying to claim some intellectual superiority where you seem to lack it to such a degreee to render your judgements of others in these conversations moot

Morbid curiousity is giving way. Serious discussion will have to continue without you as you simply hinder it.

[cockerpunk]

Actually not. Either you totally ignore those things that are convenient to you or your knowledge is really that shallow. I'm beginning to think your knowledge is that shallow and you simply are not capable of forming your own arguments - hence your failure to form cogent arguments when called on. As addressed before all your supposed "reasoning" to defend your statement that all religion was evil all had the logical fallacy of begging the question

Your statment that it has not been done ignores Aristotles prime mover argument.

It ignores all five of Thomas Aquinas's logical proofs.

It ignores countless others as well

This is why noone takes you seriously. You make these broad sweeping statements and claim to know all of human philosophy and intellect and the entirety of the intellectual and philosophical communities. Truth be told you build card stacking arguments to advance your conclusion without ever giving any hint that there are strong arguments against it. You lack intellectual honesty. You can take that however you want - its a statement of fact. You come across as arrogant by trying to claim some intellectual superiority where you seem to lack it to such a degreee to render your judgements of others in these conversations moot

Morbid curiousity is giving way. Serious discussion will have to continue without you as you simply hinder it.

prime mover has been debunked in a myriad different ways. not only is there the cause and effect problem, there is the fundamental assumption problem. and Aquinas is just another apologist, and his arguments all stem from that position. again, his arguments have had there logical fallacies shown for more then 200 years in published works. and really, the first 3 of his 5, are just the first mover argument re-worked.

way to keep current on philosophy and logic!

so go ahead, reason your way to a god. humanity is waiting.

[Lohman446]

You determine what arguments you like by their conclusion. Those that agree with you are logical and rational. Those that do not are "the evil rage machine" and irrational. As I said you lack any shred of intellectual honesty. I'm done. You may continue an argument of verbosity all you want.

[cockerpunk]

You determine what arguments you like by their conclusion. Those that agree with you are logical and rational. Those that do not are "the evil rage machine" and irrational. As I said you lack any shred of intellectual honesty. I'm done. You may continue an argument of verbosity all you want.

no, i use logic and reasoning, you googled "proofs of god" without knowing anything about them when i called you on your bluff that you could reason your way to a god.

i mean really, you tried to cite the first mover argument ... like really? most children can figure out where that one gets into trouble, you cannot violate your first assumption in your conclusion of a logical proof.

[Lohman446]

Right. Because you know exaclty how it works. I was actually familiar with the first mover argument and the argument of scale. I stumbled across the rest of Aquinas arguments trying to come up with the name of the first mover argument (original motion is what I recalled it as)

Your supposed intellectual superiority exists only in your mind. The rest of us know better.

[cockerpunk]

Right. Because you know exaclty how it works. I was actually familiar with the first mover argument and the argument of scale. I stumbled across the rest of Aquinas arguments trying to come up with the name of the first mover argument (original motion is what I recalled it as)

Your supposed intellectual superiority exists only in your mind. The rest of us know better.

so then why don't you try to patch the holes up in your proofs if you are so intellectually superior?

[Lohman446]

Others: if CP says anything useful let me know. I won't see it at this point as I have found I lack the will power to simply end this conversation.

In the end atheism is a faith. It is due the respect of other faiths. It can be arrived at through a series of considerations and a logical choice. However doing so requires thought and consideration not simply the repeating of others words.

The proofs I referenced are old proofs and are generally negatively received in atheistic circles. They are attacked and are generally argued to have flaws in make-up though you have to want to beleive the logic behind those flaws to believe them. Like it or not logical thought alone does not prove the existence of God.

However it has not now, nor will it as far as I can see, ever disprove the existence of God. The thing is it is virtually impossible to prove a negative. For instance prove we are not all just brains tied up to a complex machine that feeds us elecrical impulse as depicted in movies like the matrix. Prove we are not some ants in some great alien ant farm. The point is these proofs do not exist. We take it on faith that the world as we know it exists. There is no logical proof that God does not exist.

Atheism, in the end and rather ironically, must be taken with an amount of faith. So must the belief in God, gods, or some other entity. I have great respect for those who have come to the conclusion themselves and understand that it still requires faith. For those who would simply tear down without understanding the limits of their own knowledge I have very little respect. As conversations on sensitive subjects cannot exist without some medium of respect I have chosen to ignore CP.

I regret how badly this conversation has gone and the argument of verbosity that has ensued. Perhaps we are not ale to have discussions of this nature on the board. Maybe those who made rules accordingly before now do know better than I do

[going_home]

PSALMS 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good.

[Ando]

You really want to start quoting stuff out of the bible?

The bible also states tattoos are a sin.
Leviticus 19:28

Women should cover their heads.
Corinthians 11:6

And cutting your hair is also bad
Leviticus 19:27

I guess we're all going to hell

[Lohman446]

You really want to start quoting stuff out of the bible?

The bible also states tattoos are a sin.
Leviticus 19:28

Women should cover their heads.
Corinthians 11:6

And cutting your hair is also bad
Leviticus 19:27

I guess we're all going to hell

There is an argument that Christ's command replaced the entirety of the Mosaic law. Its an interesting discussion.

[cockerpunk]

Others: if CP says anything useful let me know. I won't see it at this point as I have found I lack the will power to simply end this conversation.

In the end atheism is a faith. It is due the respect of other faiths. It can be arrived at through a series of considerations and a logical choice. However doing so requires thought and consideration not simply the repeating of others words.

The proofs I referenced are old proofs and are generally negatively received in atheistic circles. They are attacked and are generally argued to have flaws in make-up though you have to want to beleive the logic behind those flaws to believe them. Like it or not logical thought alone does not prove the existence of God.

However it has not now, nor will it as far as I can see, ever disprove the existence of God. The thing is it is virtually impossible to prove a negative. For instance prove we are not all just brains tied up to a complex machine that feeds us elecrical impulse as depicted in movies like the matrix. Prove we are not some ants in some great alien ant farm. The point is these proofs do not exist. We take it on faith that the world as we know it exists. There is no logical proof that God does not exist.

Atheism, in the end and rather ironically, must be taken with an amount of faith. So must the belief in God, gods, or some other entity. I have great respect for those who have come to the conclusion themselves and understand that it still requires faith. For those who would simply tear down without understanding the limits of their own knowledge I have very little respect. As conversations on sensitive subjects cannot exist without some medium of respect I have chosen to ignore CP.

I regret how badly this conversation has gone and the argument of verbosity that has ensued. Perhaps we are not ale to have discussions of this nature on the board. Maybe those who made rules accordingly before now do know better than I do

i am happy to see you now openly admitting that you cannot reason your way to a god, like you falsely claimed before.

atheism requires no faith. does not believing in unicorns require faith on your part? does not believing in all those other gods that other people believe in require faith on your part? atheism equally does not claim to disprove god. nothing can ever be disproven, without an associated positive claim proven true, so god will never and can never be disproven. i never have claimed to disprove god. the person with the burden of proof is the one making the positive claim, the claim that god or unicorns or whatever, exists.

there has been no disrespect from me on this topic at any point.

PSALMS 14:1
The fool hath said in his heart, [There is] no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, [there is] none that doeth good.

indeed, quoting a book i do not consider authoritative will really change my mind

[Ando]

There is an argument that Christ's command replaced the entirety of the Mosaic law. Its an interesting discussion.

So the 10 commandments are out the window? What of the commands to Noah and Abraham?

If I remember my bible studies in church. I'm pretty sure (100%) Christ followed Mosaic Law? Was his fathers teachings too old school for him?

I sat through a sermon about a month ago when I went to church in my wives home town. The preacher actually talked about this very same thing and went on to quote...

God gives law to humans living in every age. He gave commands to the first humans living in the sinless environment of the Garden of Eden (Gen. 1:26-30; 2:15-17). He gave commands to Noah (Gen. 6-9). He gave commands to Abraham (Gen. 12:1; 17:10-14). He gave commands to the Israelites—known as the Mosaic Law—after delivering them from their bondage in Egypt (Ex. 20 - Deut. 34). He has given commands to Christians (Rom. 1-Rev. 3). These biblical distinctions are important, for though all Scripture is written for the benefit of the Christian, only some portions of it speak specifically to him and command his walk with the Lord. Just as the Christian would not try to obey the commands God gave to Adam in Genesis 1-2, or the commands God gave to Noah in Genesis 6-9, so he should not try to obey the commands God gave to Israel in Exodus through Deuteronomy. Romans chapter 1 through Revelation chapter 3 marks the specific body of Scripture that directs the Christian life both regarding specific commands and divine principles.

...so, depending on the times, the church in a nutshell rewrites and teaches on to it's flock what it now wants people to believe.

I think a new chapter is well over due for our time you think

[cockerpunk]

if gods laws changed in the bible, then how are they a solid basis for morality now? how do we know they haven't changed again?

[going_home]

You really want to start quoting stuff out of the bible?

The bible also states tattoos are a sin.
Leviticus 19:28

Women should cover their heads.
Corinthians 11:6

And cutting your hair is also bad
Leviticus 19:27

I guess we're all going to hell

There is a group of people that live the Word today.
The women never cut their hair, they dont wear mens garments (pants).
The men look like men, they keep groomed with short hair, and dont wear shorts.
You probably see some of these Believers once in a while in the grocery store.
They follow the Word, and they know that in itself brings ridicule.

if gods laws changed in the bible, then how are they a solid basis for morality now? how do we know they haven't changed again?

The laws were magnified by Jesus, not nullified.
The law said , dont commit adultery.
Jesus said, if you look on a woman with lust, you will be judged for committing adultery.

But your questions were dishonest, in that you really dont care what the answers are, only that you can ridicule more.
People believe what they have faith to believe in.
Ridiculers will ridicule no matter what.


MATTHEW 7:6
Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you.

[Lohman446]

If I remember my bible studies in church. I'm pretty sure (100%) Christ followed Mosaic Law? Was his fathers teachings too old school for him?:

Christ was a faith healer - actually a pretty common profession of the time. He healed on the Sabbath and his followers picked grain from the fields to eat, also on the Sabbath and against the law as they were held by the scribes and the pharisees of the time as Mosaic law.

Which of the commandments of God are you able to break while following Christ's command to love your neighbor as yourself? Maybe ones regarding God but remember Christ was talking to the Jewish people at the time.

Christ illustrated through his life that following of the law alone was not the path to joining God. His main issue with religion seemed to be, to me at least, that the teachers had complicated it and made it about things other than a relationship with God - be it tithing, number of steps on the Sabbath, whatever.