There is a story of a guru who attracted a large audience to a stadium with the promise of a definitive proof of the existence of God. When all were assembled, he dramatically revealed an Oxford English Dictionary, and showed that it contained the word 'God'. Since the word was there, with a definition, there had to be something answering to it. I do not know how the audience felt, or whether any of them managed to reflect that the Dictionary also mentions Santa Claus and fairies. But it is interesting to think how there can be meaningful words with nothing answering to them. The reason is that you can define a concept, but it is quite another question whether anything answers to the concept you define. You can define what you want from a partner, if you are minded to advertise in the dating columns: Thoughtful person in search of fun-loving vegetarian, banjo-playing soccer fan, must be non-smoker. This defines your dream partner - let us call him or her Dreamboat. But there may unfortunately not be any fun-loving vegetarian, banjo-playing non-smoking soccer fans. You can decide what you want to put into the description, but the world decides whether anybody meets it. Dreamboat may not exist. From Simon Blackburn's book "Think" http://www.oup.co.uk/general/think/ ------------------ In order to be a success in life, you need 2 things: 1. Don't tell everything you know. [This message has been edited by BobFinn* (edited October 07, 2000).]
? [This message has been edited by Azim da Dream (edited October 07, 2000).] [This message has been edited by Azim da Dream (edited October 07, 2000).]
Why do athletes point to the sky when they do something good? Is God in the sky somewhere? Or are they thanking the sun? Or is it the latest "cool" thing to do? So many questions, yet so little answers ------------------ In order to be a success in life, you need 2 things: 1. Don't tell everything you know.
Been hangin' out with Hutz and inhaling that sidestream smoke again I see, Bobo... Season's about to start man... quit with the metaphysical thoughts and get back to the "wooooo"'s and the "yeaaaaaah"'s and the "steeeeeeeeeeve!!!"'s. ------------------ I got nothin'.
Bob stick to the one liners ------------------ Fun Police Says: 1. Stupid threads & Stupid BBS names are not FUN! 2. Spelling, grammar, punctuation and sentence structure are not FUN! 3. Conduct yourself in a FUN way! The Fun Police are Watching. Vote for the Rockets & Have FUN! REDSKINS SUCK!!!!!!!!
I love it. That is a perfect example of the fallacy of believing in God. Typical conversation between non-Christian and Christian. "Why do you believe in God?" "Its says he exists in the Bible" "What proves God?" "My faith" "Okaaay, well I geuss my faith in evolution proves that it exists right?" ------------------ Starting at shortstop, for the Houston Astros, Nomar Garciaparra. or Starting at First Base, for the Boston Red Sox, Jeff Bagwell!!!
My best answer is a primary source: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/1891nietzsche-zara.html That feels better... ------------------
Nomar, I think you are right when you say it takes faith to believe in evolution as statistics alone render it improbable at best. (As most people who study evolution seriously have stated in their own works defending that theory.) However, I would not say it is a fallacy to believe in God. Descartes and Pascal had arguments that defend the existence of God that go well beyond "My faith proves the existence of God." I'm not going to put my argument here for the existence of God, because I don't wish to try the patience of this forum, and if you refuse to accept God, nothing I can say will convince you. I would suggest to you to do a net search for Hugh Ross or read a book by Lee Strobel called "The Case for Christ" before you make the statement that all Christians use circular reasoning to defend their faith. I will agree that many Christians do not know enough to make a good defense of faith, but this does not make their faith false, even if it hinders their witness. ------------------ [This message has been edited by nutcake (edited October 08, 2000).] [This message has been edited by nutcake (edited October 10, 2000).]
Of course evolution is improbable. Thats why we havent found life on any other planet yet. Were the only ones so far because it is so improbable. Also, please let me know where i said that ALL Christians use circular logic. Notice in my original post, i stated that the conversation depicted was a TYPICAL conversation. Obviously, you are intelligent and would use a better argument. Also, dont assume that because i am a non-believer, that I am closed minded. Of course, if you present an infallible case before me, I will become Christian. However, I strongly doubt your ability to do so. P.S., I will check out the sites you mentioned.Thanks. ------------------ Starting at shortstop, for the Houston Astros, Nomar Garciaparra. or Starting at First Base, for the Boston Red Sox, Jeff Bagwell!!!
But, many of these theorists were Christians themselves and were weary of repercussions from the church. Many of them were forced to recant. Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't the Catholic church just recently forgiven Galileio ? I could be wron with the church or Galileo for that matter. ------------------ "Only Hakeem Olajuwon is a better athlete." Dick Versace, when referring to Antonio McDyess before the draft.
DesCartes was cool. How about how he proved that you can have different levels of infinity. That was bad ass. And so damn simple. For anyone not sure, you have an infinite amount of numbers between 1 and 2 (fractions). You can also have an infinite amount of numbers between 2 and 3. The infinity between 2 and 3 is larger than the infinity between 1 and 2. So you can have increasing maginitudes of infinity. Called Aleph 1 and Aleph 2 respectively. He failed out of college, but before that he proved that you can have different levels of zero. I think they are called, null, nothing, nothingness, and zero. Go figure. ------------------ humble, but hungry.
Evolution is no reason to believe that there's no God anyway.... who's to say that God didn't decided to "trigger" evolution as a way to create the world? As for God existing, the only concrete proof that can be found is in history. It involves a guy who claimed to be God, his name was Jesus and he pretty much backed up his claims. See nutcakes post above for some information on how to find out more. ------------------
Dr., how do YOU know he backed up his claims. And plus, Jesus claimed to be the SON of God. Not actually God. ------------------ Starting at shortstop, for the Houston Astros, Nomar Garciaparra. or Starting at First Base, for the Boston Red Sox, Jeff Bagwell!!!
Actually, Jesus' name that He used most for himself was "son of man," a term that comes from Daniel. Da 7:13 `I was seeing in the visions of the night, and lo, with the clouds of the heavens as a son of man was one coming, and unto the Ancient of Days he hath come, and before Him they have brought him near. This is a vision of God and a direct claim to divinity. This is the phrase that infuriated the Pharisees so much...not a claim to be the son of God, but a claim to be God. (PhiSlammaJamma: Infinity is a concept, not a number... it is impossible to be larger than infinity...even for infinity...cool concept, but in error or else all my math professors were wrong in college.) ------------------
How does ANYONE know ANYTHING?? Well firstly all this happened 2000 years ago. Historically that's not very long ago. There's no dispute that Jesus actually walked around on earth and healed sick people etc (this is supported by a Jewish historian called Josephius who was NOT a fan of Jesus). It is recorded in Roman records that he was executed and buried. Jesus had claimed that he would rise from the dead, and both the Jews who wanted him dead(who were fairly influential) and the Romans(one of the most efficiently run armies ever) knew this. So a guard was posted outside Jesus grave. Come morning of the third day and Jesus was gone. And he was seen ALIVE by more than 500 people (at different times too). Now all the Jews and the Roman army had to do to stop this uprising was produce a body, and interestingly enough there was never a body found - in fact ROMANS started converting to Christianity because of the proof. 500 is a LOT of people. The reason I KNOW that Jesus backed up his claims is because the evidence is there. The only reason NOT to believe that he rose from the dead is fairly silly; "People can't come back from the dead, I know that for a fact, so I won't believe that Jesus did." That kind of limits God to what WE want him to be, and clearly that's the wrong way to think about things. God made us, we didn't make him, if He want's to rise from the dead then I have no doubt that he can - and if there's that much proof, then I'll certainly believe it! If someone doesn't believe the word of 500 eye-witnessess, then why should they believe what they see on the evening news? ------------------
None of the 500 eye-witnesses told me anything. Im getting everything from a secondary or tertiary source. I have no reason to believe the writings of followers of jesus 2000 years ago. ------------------ Starting at shortstop, for the Houston Astros, Nomar Garciaparra. or Starting at First Base, for the Boston Red Sox, Jeff Bagwell!!!
Nomar; just wondering if you believe in Julius Caesar? The people Jesus appeared to were not all his followers; There was a guy who used to go around and kill off the people who believed Jesus had been raised - Jesus spoke to him and he actually became one of the people who spread the good news about Jesus with the most fervour. It's all there in history and if you want to check it out you're welcome to! Nobodies forcing you to, but at least you've got the option. In the end it's your choice ------------------
Nomar, As far as authentication standards go, the New Testament is the MOST reliable by far of any ancient book. Read the book by Strobel I suggested. He was a skeptic, like you, who was a crime journalist seeking proof to the existance or non existance of Jesus Christ and the validaty of the New Testament claims about His life. Strobel's conclusion is there is enough evidence to stand in a court of law prooving the accuracy of the New Testament. ------------------
