ArcoBlood Mod Finished

[Scott Hebert]

There is no such thing as free will. That much is a proven fact.

May I ask how you can prove a negative?

[Scott Hebert]

Omniscience is a religious concept. There's nothing "reasonable" about religion, ergo isn't creating yet more terms to describe shades of the farcical a tad ridiculous?

I would say that omniscience is a basic concept. The fact that we cannot know everything can easily be juxtaposed against a theoretical 'someone' or 'something' that can know everything. That is an omniscient being, and nothing I've said even touches religion.

Also, I believe that my religion is eminently reasonable.

[Scott Hebert]

Kristoffer O said:
> It's an utter waste of time for people to try to argue whether God exists or doesn't.

No it isn't. I might discuss whether or not Omega-man is the best movie ever without it being a waste of time. The discussion defines me and my views, not the quality of the movie or the attributes of God.

I was wondering when Kristoffer would join the discussion.

Strange thread BTW. It seems most threads with philosophical discussions end up in a discussion regarding the existance of a God.

I don't find it that strange. My views on blood magic/blood sacrifice/selfishness are directly tied to my moral views, which are adequately explained by Catholicism. Naturally, that will bring the god-bashers out of the woodwork.

Rather why I didn't want to bring it up...

[Scott Hebert]

I just thought I should point out, also, that for those that think the universe is completely deterministic (i.e., no free will), Godel's Incompleteness Theorem can be used in such a circumstance to show that you cannot use that as the basis for saying there is no God.

[BigDaddy]

Arryn said:
. . .Actually, you can no more disprove the existence of God than you can prove any negative.

However, since you seem to be leaning in a certain direction, I'll point out that the burden for showing objective proof falls upon those making the fantastical claims, which are the deists. Anecdotal evidence and belief are not proof. A history book (aka the Bible) isn't proof. Claiming divine intervention for anything that cannot be immediately explained is not proof.

It's an utter waste of time for people to try to argue whether God exists or doesn't. It's up to those who believe in the fantastical to convince those of us who are skeptical with irrefutable proof that they are correct (just as is happening with cold fusion research). Whenever someone tries to pin a believer down, you get a recitation of dogma, or circular logic, or an attempt to shift the burden of proof.

My apologies to Scott for the continued hijacking of his thread.

Tell me what part of these irrefutables are "dogma, or circular logic, or an attempt to shift the burden of proof.":

Often people are uncertain about the existence of Christ, but few scholars would disagree that a man named Jesus lived roughly between 2 BC and about 33 AD. History documents that this man was not a myth but a real person and the historical evidence for this is excellent. For instance, the Roman historian Tacitus, writing in about 115 A.D., records the events surrounding Emperor Nero in July of A.D. 64. After the fire that destroyed much of Rome, Nero was blamed for being responsible:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition [Christ's resurrection] thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. (Bettenson, p. 2)

And further an eyewittness account:

The popular historian Will Durant, himself not a Christian, wrote concerning Christ's historical validity, "The denial of that existence seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish opponents of nascent Christianity" (Durant, The Story of Civilization, vol. 3, p. 555). And again, "That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels" (Ibid., p. 557).

Also, remeber that the Old Testament which foretell Jesus was written far before his divine birth.

Further, an amazing four records record "Why" he was executed. In any case Scholars agree that there must have been at very least 2 such accounts.

Miracles do occur, and most institutions require scientific proof and expert testimony.

So which am I doing: "dogma, or circular logic, or an attempt to shift the burden of proof."

[BigDaddy]

Full apologies to Scott, whose mod is quite nice. . .

[Scott Hebert]

*laughs* Why apologize? You people are silly, with 'apology' this and 'apology' that.

I just wish I could find a way to mod my beloved R'lyeh without changing what's so fun about it.

[quantum_mechani]

BigDaddy said:

Tell me what part of these irrefutables are "dogma, or circular logic, or an attempt to shift the burden of proof.":

Often people are uncertain about the existence of Christ, but few scholars would disagree that a man named Jesus lived roughly between 2 BC and about 33 AD. History documents that this man was not a myth but a real person and the historical evidence for this is excellent. For instance, the Roman historian Tacitus, writing in about 115 A.D., records the events surrounding Emperor Nero in July of A.D. 64. After the fire that destroyed much of Rome, Nero was blamed for being responsible:

Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus [Christ], from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilate, and a most mischievous superstition [Christ's resurrection] thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their center and become popular. (Bettenson, p. 2)

And further an eyewittness account:

The popular historian Will Durant, himself not a Christian, wrote concerning Christ's historical validity, "The denial of that existence seems never to have occurred even to the bitterest gentile or Jewish opponents of nascent Christianity" (Durant, The Story of Civilization, vol. 3, p. 555). And again, "That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels" (Ibid., p. 557).

Also, remeber that the Old Testament which foretell Jesus was written far before his divine birth.

Further, an amazing four records record "Why" he was executed. In any case Scholars agree that there must have been at very least 2 such accounts.

Miracles do occur, and most institutions require scientific proof and expert testimony.

So which am I doing: "dogma, or circular logic, or an attempt to shift the burden of proof."

I have no problem believing that a few thousand years ago there was a person with a lot of followers, who believed he was the direct son of a god and could thought he could do all sorts of amazing things. It is only when you say that everything he is supposed to have said and done is the absolute truth that things start seem a little rickety.

I do find it quite funny that someone believes that those who believe in magic are a danger to society and themselves, could at the same time believe in miracles...

[Scott Hebert]

I don't see what is so funny about it. As already established in this thread, the question is not the nature of the power, but the source.

Miracles come from God. Magic does not (by definition). Therefore, there is a marked difference between them, and to treat them the same is the confusing idea.

'Apples and oranges' spring to mind.

[BigDaddy]

quantum,

Your problem, or attack on my thesis appears to be with your fear of or misunderstanding of Omnipotent and Omniscient. God is both.

Why does God have to lack humor? He see all that was or is or will be humorous at the same time! He calls his creation "Good." He can have feeling of the Whole creation, and a single place and point in time! And yet he gives us free will, so we can make him happy, sad, or angry.

Jesus is the Son of God. His Power comes from His Father, and so He is infallable, because of His Father.

Miracles are not well understood by the church. Mainly, because there don't appear to be concrete rules as to why, or how they work. And so, many christian ask themselves, "Why do children get sick at all?" While the church can has several rules about the faith of the leader, the candidate, and the community, some are healed and some not. A divine mystery I suppose, as "suffering is a part of the human condition" (Pope JPII).

God is definetly to be feared, and he well may be impossible to fit in nice tidy rules. Aetheism is a fools bet; You bet everything that you get nothing rather than betting everything that you get everything. . . Primarily do to a lack of will to SEEK the truth.