That was a joke.

Fairly obviously, there are lots of things that aren't possible.
But with a priori, you have to construct a valid and sound argument for every single one of those, regardless of how obvious they are. It is often the most obvious things that are the hardest to construct arguments for.

Didnt read the whole thread, but yes I believe in the possibility of Ghosts, and I'm actually an addict now of the Sci Fi show Ghost Hunters, and the guys from Taps. THey are there to disprove hauntings (which is more logical) but sometimes they come across video footage or EVP's that arent explainable. Very creepy.

Dude, why are you letting yourself get away with this?

I was going to formulate a reply, but I won't. I've decided to actually read about the subject instead of pulling things out of my hat. I'm reading a very interesting book right now called "Not by Chance", written by a Biologist who’s been in the field for a little over fifty years. He does not discuss Creation and even says at one point that science cannot prove or disprove the existence of God, which I agree with. He does provide an argument that the theory of evolution at the very least needs a face lift like was done in 1940's. He seems to know what he's talking about. I haven't had time to read to much of it, as I'm spending my spare time studying for the A+ certification test, but next time the subject comes up I'll have something to talk about.

Indeed, science cannot disprove the existence of God. Logic, however, can.

You think it can.

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]You think it can.[/QUOTE]

Logic is fairly anti-God.

So the Earth was created 6,000 years ago? What about how science points to it being created billions of years ago?

There, God disproven (or at least creationism disproven). You can't prove God. You can only believe in him.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]Logic is fairly anti-God.

So the Earth was created 6,000 years ago?[/QUOTE]

The earth's age has nothing to do with god's existence. It may be a blow to Christianity, but not the existence of a god or gods.

Very cool that you're reading up - and I totally understand about being swamped in stuff to do. I have heard a thing or two about the book you are reading. I'm going to be a little ***** already, prior to you finishing it, and point out a few things.

-Spetner is not a biologist, but a physicist. This of course doesn't attack any of his arguments, it's just something I'd like to point out.

-A book that tries to attack evolution by using the title 'not by chance' has lost a lot of credibility prior to actually reading it.

-Spetner seems to have a very poor understanding of ligand binding, the core of his argument. I know this, because while you are studying for your ACTs, I'm getting prepared for a biochemistry exam. I haven't read the book, but if it's based on his ignorance on these mechanisms, the book is pretty much lost.

See more here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/information/spetner.html

This thread's still going?

Obligatory FGR 'it's 6 pages and still goes on about crap so it sucks' comment has just arrived.

:]

That has to be the stupidest thing I've read this thread. And that's saying something.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]That has to be the stupidest thing I've read this thread. And that's saying something.[/QUOTE]

Why?

[QUOTE=IRG SithLord]You think it can.[/QUOTE]


It fairly obviously can, this discussion is regarding whether it already has.

Tensh, because everything I say is 'the stupidest thing he's ever heard' whether it's stupid or not.

[QUOTE=Dj Yoshi]That has to be the stupidest thing I've read this thread. And that's saying something.[/QUOTE]

No, it's not. It's not saying anything, actually.

I implore you to read over the thread again.

Tenshu--because (as I was too lazy to elaborate on earlier) a blow to Christianity is a blow to God, the Christian God at least, which is the one I'm arguing over (and the one it should be known that we're arguing over, for the most part).

Get your head out of your ***, Christianity doesn't have a monopoly on god.

But we're discussing the Christian god. The state of my head being up my *** (which it's not, for the record. I imagine that'd make posting difficult.) has nothing to do with this.

We're discussing a God that is supposedly all-powerful, all-good and all-knowing.

I don't care if this corresponds with a 'Christian' god or not. If it doesn't, then Christians have no problem.

No... Sadly though, we do have a monopoly on a Real God. Actually it'd be more correct to say God has that monopoly, but that's neither here nor there. :em321:

BTW, every one uses faith. How do you know that your sensual inputs reflect reality? What previous experience do you have to indicate that it would be reasonable to assume that? You don't. that why Artists stopped painting reality and started painting what they felt because that was all they could know. By watching the progression of classical art to modern art you quickly see how pure rationalism can quickly become irrational.

BTW the famous statement "I think therefore I am" seems to use circular logic does it not?

The philosophy of reality is a huge topic that I'm not even going to get started on here. But I will say that people only ever started thinking about it during and after the Age of Enlightenment, when philosophers started questioning and abandonding religion.

Descarte was one of those. Now, everybody knows that quote, but I'd be amazed if any more than 1% of them actually understand it.

"I think therefore I am" is a poor translation, it should rather be more like "I am thinking, therefore I am existing".

Descarte was concerned with the nature of reality, and more specifically "What if God, or some other supreme power, is actually decieving me and everything that I experience is just an illusion and a deception?"

This dialogue goes on for some time, but the basic conclusion he reached was that for god to be decieving him, there has to be a 'him' to decieve, because god could only be decieving him if he himself were existing and thinking. So, although Descarte could not prove that anything else existed, he did prove that he himself does exist.


(Also, 'rationalism' in the 19th century meant something quite different to what we mean by it today. 19th century rationalism we now call 'continental rationalism'.)

Correct, but to what degree is what's important.

I've never personally seen Africa, so I take it on faith that it exists. However, I've seen video footage of Africa, I've read about scientific studies done in Africa, I've looked at a plethora of maps that portray Africa, I've met people who claimed they were born in Africa, I've read about Africa in history books, I've seen it portrayed in video games, I can book a flight to this so-called Africa if I want, I've seen pictures of Africa from space; to my knowledge the astronauts do not deny Africa's existence. But even after all that, it still takes a sliver of faith to believe Africa exists, because I've never seen it.

On the other hand, it takes a great deal more faith to believe in god. I've never seen video footage of god, etc. etc.

Stop dealing in absolutes, Obi. There are grey shades of faith.

I don't see the circularity and I don't think this quote relevant to this discussion. Descartes wanted to base epistemology on absolute certainty so he labelled everything we 'know' as actually being doubtful (methodical doubt). Through reasoning (solid reasoning I like to think) he proved that the subject must exist. Then through an a priori and an a posteriori argument he 'proved' god's existence (they're a bit of weak arguments though). He concluded that God cannot be an evil deceiver, and because of that stated that clear and distinct ideas form a good basis for perception.

Which has nothing to do with this discussion.

Late addition



Yes, I bet you know for sure, even more sure than muslims or hindus or moonies, who claim the exact same thing.

But you KNOW right?

Sounds like a quote that might go on here .

OMFG Tenshu, that is the most hilarious site ever! I love you!

ROFL! Too funny!

"My question is, is it ok for a Christian to buy goods or services from a companies who has Atheists executives. How can a Christian justify buying something from a company who is headed by someone who denies the existence of God?

Is there a resource where I could find Christian approved businesses somewhere, because I suppose that as long as the company itself does God's work, it would be ok to buy from it."

"I am 100% serious. I really don't know if God would want me to give money to Atheists. For example both Bill Gates and Steve Jobs are Atheists, and they both have helped push the computer industry foward. Doesn't anyone else feel guilty when they buy Windows and make the world's richest man (and atheist) richer?"

"[After asking "what is space", and being referred to Stephen Hawking's The Universe in the Nutshell and A Brief History of Time]

I'd prefer not to read anything by Steven Hawking, but hey, what can it hurt? Maybe I'll learn something."

ahahahahahahhahaha

Okay, now it's not really funny any more, but downright scary:

"[Responding to a hypothetical 'if God told you to kill 23 little babies, would you do it?']

if there was a command from God in His Word to kill 23 babies, then Christians are to obey it just as they are to obey every other command. SO don't think for a second in your hypothetical that just because they are babies that it would be just reason to disobey what God has commanded."

Some are just painful, like the woman who'd kill her 3 (?) kids in a second if jesus would ask her, or the guy who goes to sleep with his sneakers on in case the rapture would come overnight.

Yeah, haha, just saw some of those. X_X