Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 27 to 39 of 45
  1. #27
    Join Date
    Aug 2001
    Location
    forney texas
    Posts
    17,890
    Its not traditional values. Its the people who claim to have them, want to governeveryone according to them, and then break them every chance they get. AKA =GOP

  2. #28
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL.
    Posts
    4,313
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc O'Brien View Post

    The Euthyphro Dilemma...
    Does god love what is good or is what is good only because god says it is good?
    In the first instance goodness is independent of god and can be explained without the mention of god. In the second instance morality becomes arbitrary, where god could have even declared murder good if he wished, and god itself would only be good because it thought itself to be good - again all too arbitrary. Both ways god loses. Both ways god makes no sense when it comes to morals. Socrates discovered this dilemma.
    It's the second instance, most likely. Not only is God omniscient He's also omnipotent. If He wasn't then He would cease to be God. To theorize that God's omniscience would make Him disinterested would suggest to me that you do not know Him. Also, to really make things interesting, we should discuss the free will thing. But that's a discussion even certain theologians cannot seem to agree.
    WHY?

  3. #29
    Quote Originally Posted by Special Ed View Post
    To theorize that God's omniscience would make Him disinterested would suggest to me that you do not know Him.
    Well, nobody knows him. To assume that it is a he or not a he, to assume that it is knowable, to assume that it is omniscient is all idolatry.

  4. #30
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    6,285
    It's strange to see someone speak so heavily about thinking for themselves and in almost every chance they get they use someone other human beings thoughts. The problem with that thought process is you're still relying on fallible human beings and attempting to make them out to be gods. Go figure...

  5. #31
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Western PA
    Posts
    25,716
    Quote Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
    It's strange to see someone speak so heavily about thinking for themselves and in almost every chance they get they use someone other human beings thoughts. The problem with that thought process is you're still relying on fallible human beings and attempting to make them out to be gods. Go figure...
    Much like the religious rely upon the bible to prove the existance of god?

    Of course, that's different, right?

  6. #32
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    6,285
    The only true answer is the freedom to be religious or not. To act like trying to stop one or the other is going to solve all the worlds problems is a practice in futility. I personally haven't seen anyone trying to prove the existence of god with the bible. It's called faith for a reason.

  7. #33
    Quote Originally Posted by BigJon3475 View Post
    It's strange to see someone speak so heavily about thinking for themselves and in almost every chance they get they use someone other human beings thoughts. The problem with that thought process is you're still relying on fallible human beings and attempting to make them out to be gods. Go figure...
    You can't be for real?

    The assumption is that logic is universal. As is the size of a hydrogen atom. Math is also universal as by definition 1+1 is 2 everywhere in the universe. Pi is a universal ratio.

    Now, if you wish to talk of a gas's behavior in relation to pressure and volume with a constant temperature it is customary to refer to the relationship as Boyles Law.

    My own thoughts that I have not come across before are that if a theist accuses an atheist of being equally dependent on faith then that theist immediately loses 50% of his faith value. Also that if God gave man free will to see what he would do then he cannot be omnipotent. But these are pretty simple thoughts about almost inneffectual things. It is most often far more substantial to use larger and more far reaching concepts which were discovered already by others for at least the one reason that they lived before you.

    I don't have to mention Boyle when I talk of an isothermal process but it is a little more respectful and does help assure your listeners that you are not a plagariser and do at least draw from reliable sources for you material.

    So all I can say then is that your comments are perverse, they try to hold it against me that I am logically aware and willing to defer to mutually recognized experts. There are no god's in the matter, you seeing any such expert as a god is your nail, the only tool you have is a hammer - every problem looks like a nail.

  8. #34
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL.
    Posts
    4,313
    Oh, come on, Marc. You know very well that every time God refers to Himself, it's in the masculine. Stop muddying the waters.

    Do I truly know Him? I know Him to the extent that He has revealed Himself or to the extent that I have sought Him out. But to fully know the infinite is not possible for a finite mind.
    WHY?

  9. #35
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by Special Ed View Post
    Oh, come on, Marc. You know very well that every time God refers to Himself, it's in the masculine. Stop muddying the waters.
    Ed, dont even bother. Arguing with Marc on here is like arguing with a brick wall, and we all know who wins those arguments.........we do!!

  10. #36
    Quote Originally Posted by Special Ed View Post
    Oh, come on, Marc. You know very well that every time God refers to Himself, it's in the masculine. Stop muddying the waters.

    Do I truly know Him? I know Him to the extent that He has revealed Himself or to the extent that I have sought Him out. But to fully know the infinite is not possible for a finite mind.
    Lol, okay, God is a boy.

    To fully know the infinite - you mean the unknowable?

    Well, again, in both instances you are committing idolatry.

    If it's unknowable then how can you be sure it is unknowable - idolatry.

    See, reason is to faith as a brick wall is to a bad smell

  11. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2008
    Location
    Georgia
    Posts
    673
    Quote Originally Posted by Marc O'Brien View Post
    Lol, okay, God is a boy.

    To fully know the infinite - you mean the unknowable?

    Well, again, in both instances you are committing idolatry.

    If it's unknowable then how can you be sure it is unknowable - idolatry.

    See, reason is to faith as a brick wall is to a bad smell
    so marc you are saying that you have no faith because of the unknowable? so you are saying that to believe in something because you have faith in it, even if you cannot have it 100% proven to you, that it is rediculous?

    if that is not what you mean sorry i must have misunderstood that is just how I took it.

  12. #38
    Quote Originally Posted by adamste81 View Post
    so marc you are saying that you have no faith because of the unknowable?
    Yes, faith is the ultimate evil. It is acting in a consequential way upon something of which so far is utterly unknown in that there is precisely 0% evidence for it - not less and not more but exactly 0% evidence for.

    so you are saying that to believe in something because you have faith in it, even if you cannot have it 100% proven to you, that it is rediculous?
    Now this is a totally different category of thought. Now we are onto the topic of induction. Such as while I cannot be 100% sure the sun will rise tomorrow I still have faith that it will - my faith has evidential-probabilistic foundations. And so the sense of the word faith is very different to the sense employed by theists.

    if that is not what you mean sorry i must have misunderstood that is just how I took it.
    You just do not understand what you mean and so actually can't yet begin to understand what I mean.

  13. #39
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL.
    Posts
    4,313

    Forgive my ignorance

    but I don't know how you get to "idolatry" because something or someone is not fully knowable. Seems like you're stretching to me.

    Notice, though, I said I know God to the extent that He has revealed Himself or to the extent that my finite mind has attempted to seek Him out. Which means there is much more to know & in no way disproves His existence.

    Almost sounds like you're upset that belief requires faith & that not everything is "proveable". But it doesn't matter: Even when proof is provided some people still choose not to believe.
    WHY?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Comfortech Show Promo Image

Related Forums

Plumbing Talks | Contractor Magazine
Forums | Electrical Construction & Maintenance (EC&M) Magazine
Comfortech365 Virtual Event