 | | Re: Problems with Christianity —Dave Schuler
|
| | | (...) It's not simply a matter of refusing The Bible; what Tom is (and others are) asking is that The Bible not be taken as proof of God, since The Bible is only valid as such proof if one accepts it as the Word of God, which is circular. What if I (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | |
| | | | | Re: Problems with Christianity —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | (...) Thought we cleared this up??? Elvis is alive and well and living in Las Vegas. ++Lar (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Problems with Christianity —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | | (...) Exactly! And this typed message in my hand is the proof! Dave! (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.fun)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | Re: Problems with Christianity —Steve Chapple
|
| | | | (...) _Somewhat_ circular, yes, but the Bible isn't the sole "proof of God". The most obvious evidence of the Creator being His creation. SRC (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Problems with Christianity —Dave Schuler
|
| | | | | (...) It is *entirely* circular to say that The Bible is proof of God at all. Now we're just sound-byting each other, but asserting that "creation" at large is proof of Christianity's God is circular again and hardly conclusive. I am willing to (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | |
| | | | | | | Re: Problems with Christianity —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) Correct me if I'm wrong Steve, but I think the argument goes something like: 'God will show Himself to you if you are faithful/willing to listen. You, posessing free will may not be open to His presentation of Himself, and even if you are (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | David Eaton wrote: <snip> (...) <snip> Hey Dave, Dave! et al. You are absolutely correct. And while I find these discussions interesting (when I am able to squeeze in the time), they are a bit unsatisfying, because we usually talking apples and (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Fair question. I can speak for no one else but myself, an agnostic who's pretty convinced but not 100% certain there is no god. For myself, I would require objective verifiable evidence. Alleged miracles, things that cannot currently be (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Remember though, that that kind of evidence is by definition not possible, so it's true that there would be no way to convince you. (...) I was just thinking that, if I were God, how *would* I convince you that I existed? (and how much LEGO I (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Since I point that out in the next paragraph but one, you can be sure I was aware of it. A danger of starting to respond before you read the whole thing... :-) as Paul B pointed out. In fact, "unconvincability" is kind of the whole point of (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | | | | (...) Don't know what made me think of this just now, but when I first saw the thread entitled "LP point 1", etc, I had interpreted the LP as "Larry Pieniazek" rather than "Libertarian Party". :) DaveE (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —Christopher L. Weeks
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) Is that from something? Chris (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | | (...) No, I made it up as an example of the sort of "miracle" one sometimes hears proffered, but exaggerated in the mundane direction for effect. ++Lar (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Sadly, I fear the answer is just about yes, going by what I think you define as God. But really what we've got to do is define 'God' first, because I may be wrong. In fact, depending on what you define as 'God', I may in fact already believe (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —John Neal
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I would simply define God as a single Entity which created the universe. We all instinctively long to be united with that Entity. I would then go on to state that that Entity entered time and space in the human form of Jesus Christ, in order (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) I personally would certainly not include "we all instinctively long to be united with that Entity" in the definition, as that seems an (unproven and highly dubious) attribute of *us*, not of God. Why muddy the definition up with that other (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | | | | (...) Rather as I expected-- an entity, seperate to ourselves-- having created what we know of as this universe, including ourselves, and capable of enacting or creating anything therin or similar to, and quite possibly, anything at all. (...) How (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —Tom Stangl
|
| | | | | | | | (...) Do we? What makes you think this? (...) Skepticism is GOOD. However, I don't think cynicism is good ;-) -- | Tom Stangl, Technical Support Netscape Communications Corp | Please do not associate my personal views with my employer (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —Scott Arthur
|
| | | | | | | | (...) I think science/society seeks to understand "creation". I don't think being united with creation is really a global aim. That said, could it not be argued that we are part of creation? Scott A (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | | | Re: What Would It Take? (was:Re: Problems with Christianity) —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | | | (...) There's merit in that argument. Certainly we are "part of the universe" since we reside in it, observe it, are affected by it, and effect things within it. The problem is that "creation" carries a connotation of it being an act of volition. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Problems with Christianity —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | | | (...) Nitpick, for things in general, that's only sufficient to show that they are "likely" to be true. We used to think that indivisible atoms were likely to be true. They gave good predictions and were a good tool. Now we know they're not, but we (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | | | Re: Problems with Christianity —David Eaton
|
| | | | | | (...) Quite so-- thanks :) Actually perhaps the correct thing to say is that by the objectivist viewpoint: "Something can ONLY *BE* true if ...." or more to the point: "If something is NOT ...., then it is NOT true." (...) Oh? Actually, I rather (...) (24 years ago, 23-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | | | |
| | | | | | Re: Problems with Christianity —Larry Pieniazek
|
| | | | (...) Any circularity whatever is sufficient to disqualify a particular item of evidence. (...) No one in this forum (or elsewhere) has yet demonstrated a proof to my satisfaction using this basis, although it's been tried. I feel like a taxonomy of (...) (24 years ago, 22-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
| | | | |
