Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You don't actually think you are saying something different than what I have been saying the entire time, do you? Minus the absurd part, of course. It may be difficult for you to accept, but you haven't said anything in this sentence that I haven't already said. Some scientists (not, incorrectly, the scientist) wish to attribute to matter attributes of God.
Sigh. And, the theologian attributes to God the attributes of matter.
No difference.
In your desperation, you attempt to paint my position as egotistical, when it (matter has always been) is only a recent development for some scientists, owing to their difficulty in dealing with the facts as currently revealed.
I don't know what this sentence means. Matter and its constituent
properties have always existed; that scientists are just recently exploring
what that means is the scientific equivalent of the theologian's revelation.
God has always been, but what we know about Him has changed (dare
I say evolved?) over time.
Again, analogous stances.
You got me there! You would actually have to read it to get that information. Silly me.
You're the funny guy at the office, right? Nothing on the page to
which the link pointed talks about the origin of reason.
Apparently you are unaware of reason's impact on survival. If TOE (and its attendant timetables) be true, man survived just fine without reason. And there is no 'better,' there can be no 'preferred,' arising out of chance. Must be your clearly superior reasoning abilities which allow you to see what cannot be seen.
Well, this is just plain wrong. Creatures survived 'just fine' without
reason, but they ate better and procreated more when their ability to
reason improved. And, it appears, you are back to 'chance has no
preference' using chance equivocally again when I've already cleared
up that the better word is probability and the probability hinges upon
eating/procreating.
And if TOE is correct, in every instance of 'preferred' being 'selected' over and above other choices, the 'preferred' was supposedly superior. Yet somehow evolution used something un-preferred, inferior to further its cause. Wild.
Where did the unpreferred/inferior quality come in?
And to what do you attribute your success? Genes? The only art you have perfected is the twisting of clear and self-evident words to suit an otherwise indefensible position.
Wow. More projection. It's so convoluted I simply cannot respond!
The position is defensible and the words are untwisted (but you are
right, they are self-evident).
Given your penchant for put-downs and self-importance, you likely don't do well anywhere outside of this artificial environment. Were you to conduct yourself outside of the safety of your anonymity in your ususal manner, you'd be at the receiving end of more beatdowns than a month's worth of WWF.
I hope you can't hear the sounds of my tears on my pillow. And, to
what anonimity are you referring? My name is Nemesio and I live in
Pittsburgh. Unlike you, Mr Freaky, I hide behind nothing.
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHI cannot believe that you have survived this long. Nem is 100% correct. Theists are hypocritical in believing that matter requires a creator, but God does not. Go read up on your aristotle, and you'll come to the realisation (well, any sensible person would - I can't speak for you) that the theistic "uncaused cause" was nothing more than a philosophical cop out, without any actual evidence.
[b]When it [b]finally penetrates your theo-centric skull that your
arguments are no better, no worse, no different than that of the
scientist, you will realize how absurd you are being.[/b]
You don't actually think you are saying something different than what I have been saying the entire time, do you? Minus the absurd part, of course. It ...[text shortened]... hat you will get this
significant point.[/b]
The ceiling has no response.[/b]
Originally posted by NemesioSigh. And, the theologian attributes to God the attributes of matter.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
You don't actually think you are saying something different than what I have been saying the entire time, do you? Minus the absurd part, of course. It may be difficult for you to accept, but you haven't said anything in this sentence that I haven't already said. Some scientists (not, incorrectly, the scientist ...[text shortened]... Pittsburgh. Unlike you, Mr Freaky, I hide behind nothing.
Nemesio
No difference.
Except for the timing part, you're exactly right. The commonly-held position from the first recording of time has been that the universe had a beginning point, not that matter has always been.
Nothing on the page to which the link pointed talks about the origin of reason.
Hard to believe you missed it, but then again, you had asked when the conversation had turned into one regarding the origin of reason.
You're the funny guy at the office, right?
I'm the funny one everywhere. You're the one always asking for his Swingline, right?
Creatures survived 'just fine' without reason, but they ate better and procreated more when their ability to reason improved.
You are confusing the ability to reason with reason itself. Do try to keep up with the actual argument, won't you?
Where did the unpreferred/inferior quality come in?
Don't ask me, I'm not the evolutionist.
The position is defensible and the words are untwisted
So far, you haven't even found the table, let alone started eating, so don't get ahead of yourself.
Unlike you, Mr Freaky, I hide behind nothing.
I stand by my previous statement. In face-to-face situations, you are nothing like the persona you project in the safety of the internet: you just couldn't survive. Tell you what: next time we have a rugby match in the area, I'll be sure to look you up for a chat.
Originally posted by scottishinnzAnd the anti-theistic 'cop-out' is any more plausible or satisfactory, especially in light of personal issuing forth from impersonal? Get real.
I cannot believe that you have survived this long. Nem is 100% correct. Theists are hypocritical in believing that matter requires a creator, but God does not. Go read up on your aristotle, and you'll come to the realisation (well, any sensible person would - I can't speak for you) that the theistic "uncaused cause" was nothing more than a philosophical cop out, without any actual evidence.
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Except for the timing part, you're exactly right. The commonly-held position from the first recording of time has been that the universe had a beginning point, not that matter has always been.
So the arbiter of what makes for a better argument is the length of
time the argument has been postulated? If not, then what is your
point?
Hard to believe you missed it, but then again, you had asked when the conversation had turned into one regarding the origin of reason.
Uh huh.
You are confusing the ability to reason with reason itself. Do try to keep up with the actual argument, won't you?
What, praytell, is 'reason itself?' And why does its existence hinge
upon the existence of God?
Don't ask me, I'm not the evolutionist.
Clearly. The question itself makes no sense, so I can't answer it.
So far, you haven't even found the table, let alone started eating, so don't get ahead of yourself.
More tears on my pillow. I'll wait until you make a point to respond.
I stand by my previous statement. In face-to-face situations, you are nothing like the persona you project in the safety of the internet: you just couldn't survive. Tell you what: next time we have a rugby match in the area, I'll be sure to look you up for a chat.
Ah, like I said earlier, since you're bigger and stronger, my better
reasoning skills may be cancelled out. And I don't doubt that you are
bigger and stronger; I'm three inches shorter than the average man,
and 35 pounds lighter. In the wild, you probably would have eaten
and procreated more. Good for you.
As for your claim that I am 'different on the web' you couldn't be more
wrong. Am I argumentative with everyone I meet? Of course not; not
every conversation necessitates or even begs debate. Indeed, when
I am directing my choir, I don't argue that God does or does not do
this or that. However, as many of my friends and colleagues will
testify, I have an opinion on many things and am unafraid to express
that opinion. And since we are not in the wild, I don't worry that someone
who disagrees is going to beat me up in a rugby match.
This forum is specifically for discussion and debate about spiritual
topics. That you see that aspect of my personality predominantly
doesn't exclude that I might be quiet, forgiving, supportive, compassionate,
or any other positive (or negative) quality.
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHBoth 'cop-outs' are equally (un)satisfactory.
And the anti-theistic 'cop-out' is any more plausible or satisfactory, especially in light of personal issuing forth from impersonal? Get real.
That a Divine Being has always existed and guides the universe with
His mind or hand or whatever seems pretty implausible, too, don't you
think?
Nemesio
Originally posted by FreakyKBHYou really aren't worth it, you know that? As long as your type of unthinking drone never gets their hands on the educational system we;ll be fine. You've systematically demonstrated your inability to actually think. Your whole argument boils down to "I don't want to believe it, so it isn't true."
And the anti-theistic 'cop-out' is any more plausible or satisfactory, especially in light of personal issuing forth from impersonal? Get real.
Originally posted by NemesioSo the arbiter of what makes for a better argument is the length of
Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Except for the timing part, you're exactly right. The commonly-held position from the first recording of time has been that the universe had a beginning point, not that matter has always been.
So the arbiter of what makes for a better argument is the length of
time the argument has been postulated? If n ...[text shortened]... ve, compassionate,
or any other positive (or negative) quality.
Nemesio[/b]
time the argument has been postulated? If not, then what is your
point?
The timing part. Go back and read it; it will dawn on you.
What, praytell, is 'reason itself?' And why does its existence hinge
upon the existence of God?
At the risk of sounding redundant, go back and read it; it will dawn on you.
More tears on my pillow. I'll wait until you make a point to respond.
After you're done crying, and after you're done reading, perhaps it will dawn on you.
Ah, like I said earlier, since you're bigger and stronger, my better
reasoning skills may be cancelled out.
So much for the jungle of 100K+ years ago, eh?
Good for you.
And here I am, thriving and stuff. Damned evolution won't even follow its own self-made rules!
Indeed, when I am directing my choir,
The Episcopaleans have choirs still? How antiquated.
I don't worry that someone who disagrees is going to beat me up in a rugby match.
Something tells me you wouldn't step foot anywhere near a match, so you're likely not to suffer much as a result of one.
That you see that aspect of my personality predominantly doesn't exclude that I might be quiet, forgiving, supportive, compassionate, or any other positive (or negative) quality.
That you're likely a real swell guy in real life is not outside the bounds of possibility. I'm just asking for you to be one here.
Originally posted by NemesioI'm going to ignore the rest of your post, because all it is is
I'm going to ignore the rest of your post, because all it is is
unChristian goading.
What specifically in the timing part makes you feel that the anti-
science position is more meritorious?
Nemesio
unChristian goading.
As opposed to your Christian goading, perhaps?
What specifically in the timing part makes you feel that the anti-
science position is more meritorious?
Beautiful spin job. 'You sure you don't work for Fox? Some scientists, in the wake of more recent developments, have opted to make matter eternal. Science in general has not held this position until contemporary times. It has been adopted only after having to come to reconcile this universe as having a beginning.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHFor matter to be "eternal" it has to existed for all time. It has. All talk of "before" the universe is pointless and non-sensical. Any talk of God or anything outside the universe is simply non-sensical. Grow up dear boy, leave your imaginary friends back in your childhood.
[b]I'm going to ignore the rest of your post, because all it is is
unChristian goading.
As opposed to your Christian goading, perhaps?
What specifically in the timing part makes you feel that the anti-
science position is more meritorious?
Beautiful spin job. 'You sure you don't work for Fox? Some scientists, in the wake of more recent ...[text shortened]... has been adopted only after having to come to reconcile this universe as having a beginning.[/b]
Originally posted by FreakyKBHScientists haven't opted to make matter eternal. Scientists have come to the
[Goading deleted]Some scientists, in the wake of more recent developments, have opted to make matter eternal. Science in general has not held this position until contemporary times. It has been adopted only after having to come to reconcile this universe as having a beginning.
conclusion that such a claim is the only right one, the only one which the evidence supports.
That scientists may have been wrong in the past is immaterial; no scientist makes an infallibility
claim with respect to their discipline, merely that their conclusions strive to represent the best
answers possible.
And, when we say that these scientists hold that matter is eternal, by that we say that scientists
say that the ratio between matter and energy has remained constant (nothing is created ex nihilo.
I say this so you don't accuse me of saying something inconsistent.
That this universe has a beginning doesn't entail that previous universes didn't exist or
that this universe isn't the result of the collapse and re-expansion of that previously existing
universe. Science is totally agnostic on what preceded the Big Bang (though many might
enjoy the speculation).
Originally posted by twhiteheadThe higher purpose is this:
Your whole post basically concentrated on the fact that your only purpose in life is to 'save your soul' and that this is entirely for selfish reasons (avoidance of pain and suffering). Now can you explain how this is somehow a 'higher purpose' or measured on some 'absolute measure' and why you claim it has more 'meaning' than an athiests life where he is ...[text shortened]... the existence of God does not somehow magicaly make meaning appear. It is an illusion.
Jesus had disciples, and he told them to go out into the world
and spread the Word.
Christians are also disciples...we spread the Word.
The higher purpose is that I'm trying to save souls, through the glory
of God, in this forum.
No, it is not selfish.
It is a mission.
A friend and I started this mission several years ago.
We want to spread the Word of Jesus Christ our Lord and Savior
throughout the internet.
I just happen to like to play chess, and when I stumbled onto this
website I stumbled onto the evolution forum.
Now, on the other hand, an atheist can be doing the same thing:
but not for the glory of God, because the person IS an atheist.
Does that explain it better?
There is no single Christian who believes they are going to hell.
WE ARE ALL SINNERS in the eyes of the Lord.
If you accept Jesus Christ as your own personal Savior and you
welcome Him into your heart you are on your way my friend!