The Whole Jesus Thing

Har har har har hardi har har.Actually, it's more like this:1) invisible 1-legged purple iguanadons from space exist!2) You can't refute me unless you prove their non-existance!True... but useless.God is the same way, we can pull dozens of things out of our ass and say it exists and make the same argument as above. It's useless.This is because there is no evidence of it's evistance in the first place. There is no presciednt or exidence from which to even atempt a refutation.This message has been edited by Yaro, 11-11-2004 01:17 PM

quote:

---

-1+-1=-2

---

where's the logical negative in that??

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

quote:

---

This is because there is no evidence of it's evistance in the first place. There is no presciednt or exidence from which to even atempt a refutation.

---

That is so true! Faith and belief are just that faith and belief. Anyone who says they can prove God existed is eithera. a liar
~~~or~~~
b. insane.

---

Angel

As I said before, your answers pretty much curtail any further discussion.So since you have made your opinions known, I bid you good day.Again, welcome to the forum, take care, and enjoy!
(BTW, I do mean what I say.)

---

A gentle answer turns away wrath, But a harsh word stirs up anger.

How about.........
1. Allosaurus is extinct.
2. One can not make a cold fusion machine.
3. Nothing moves faster than speed c.
all points 1,2,,3 are considered scientific facts.
and are trustworthy statements but logically assuming that they are true statements requires proving a negative. Like point 1. Allosaurus is extinct. Has the Earth has been completely surveyed simultaneously and no living allosaurus observed?
No? But science concludes that Allosaurus is extinct. We do not lay awake at night worrying about it.
I heard this argument before and it did make a point about proving a negative. At least I thought so.

Hello Angel,I find a bit of time to drop by and who do I run into.I see you referring to the prophetical flagship of Isaiah 53. I will try to post some of my thoughts on this later this evening (within topic limits) and perhaps we can discuss it some.For now, welcome to the forum and, as an old friend was wont to say; 'Mind the hounds!'As always,AmlodhiThis message has been edited by Amlodhi, 11-11-2004 03:29 PM

Sure, they are theories strongly supported by the evidence. Well, it dosn't work that way. Try the following train of logic.1) There are dino bones. What leaves bones?
2) dead stuff.
3) Dino bones come from dead dinos.
4) Where did the dinos go?
5) Maybe no one has found them?
6) That would be hard considering they were so big.
7) All we have is bones, so I guess they must have all died.8) Conclusion: Most or all Dinosaurs have died off. We can conclude this because all we have left are bones, and we havent seen any walking around lately, considering that they are pretty big animals, it is unlikely that we would have missed them by this point.See, it's a simple train of logic. One conclusion leading to another. All of them are posative assesments of actual evidence. If an alasaurus were found tomorow, it still wouldn't invalidate the logic. (There were plenty other dinos around )

Hi Amlodhi,Yes, I am stalking you. No really, nice to hear from you, hope all is well. I look forward to your post, and discussing it with you. Thanks for the welcome, and the warning. Talk to you soon,

---

Angel

I hope you realize I am playing the devils advocate Yaro.
Premise : Dinos are extinct.Observation 1. There are dino bones
Observation 2. dead dinos leave dino bones
Observation 3. No live Dinos have been observed
Conclusion: Dinos must be extinct.
Refutation: Since the Earth has not been simultaneously explored nor completely explored.
Observation 3 is inconclusive. Premise is based on a negative.
I did not say your premise was incorrect, I am saying it is based on a negative that you begin your premise with inconclusive evidence. Making the assumption that since no dinos are observed they are extinct. My whole point being that Science as well makes premises based on a negative, regardless of how accepted the premise may be. example:Premise: fish need male and female genetic material to reproduce.Observation 1. male and female genetic material makes for biodiversity
Observation 2. No fish has been observed that does not need a male and female to reproduce
Observation 3. Many fish that mate are male and female.
Conclusion: fish must need male and female genetic material to reproduce.
Refutation: Since every taxa of fish mating has not been observed premise is inconclusive.
(* as a side note. Observation 2 is incorrect. a species of self fertilizing hermphorditic fish does indeed exist.
who would of thunk it.

Actually, not that uncommon. There are also species that change sex based on conditions, ones that change sex based on age, ones where the sex is determined based on external conditions at a given life stage. In fact, almost every possible combination and permutation is known.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Off topic admin!!!! But since you responded. Hermaphodism may be common in the animal world, but true parthenogenesis is not.
At least to my knowlege only one fish is, some of the fish in the Poecillia are parthenogenic but still need male sperm agitation to cause the zygote to cleave.

well, yeah. more importantly, it's jesus saying that he's not trying to start a new religion. he's saying he's jewish, basically, and that his followers are jewish.

ben'adam. sons of men. it's one way of saying a member of the group man (like ben'yisrael = israelite).of course, it may also be referring to the prophets. ezekiel was called the son of man as well.

I just saw this thread and thought I'd put in my thoughts...When you try to see things from God's perspective, it does seem rather ridiculous.. the whole dying and condemning thing...But then how do you really know what it is like to see things from God's perspective? We don't have a clue... so why try?All we can do is see things from our perspective.So... from my perspective: I see myself as a creature that is living by God's decision. Without him I would have no physical life and without him I would have no hope of something beyond this physical life. And I have done nothing to deserve anything more. Now in order for a finite being with free-will to eternally dwell with an infinite supreme being, perhaps two things are inherently necessary: faith and obedience. I mean if God is infinite and I am finite, there's gonna be a lot of surprises and adventures to come so I must be able to trust him. And perhaps the thing called "evil" is an inherent product of the coexistence of a willful finite being with a willful infinite being. So obedience must be one of our characteristics if we are to be apart of God without becoming evil in rebellion.Now it is true that God knew what the whole package would include when he formed the universe, but can you conceive of a more perfect way to refine in his creatures the qualities of faith and obedience while at the same time illuminating the qualities of his character? My puny brain certainly cannot.If this God wants to communicate to us that he loves us and desires a relationship with us, he must do so in terms we can understand... in fact every bit of our so called understanding is only a picture of something too great for our finite brains to comprehend.So if God wants to show love to us, how might he do it? I know that I personally get all choked up watching war movies when one soldier gives his life for his buddies or his sweetheart back home. "There is no greater love than for one man to give his life for another." So God becomes a man and dies for us to communicate this love to us.God taught us obedience by giving us law. And if God is good you would expect the law to generally follow what we intuitively know to be good. And Jesus said loving God and loving others summed it all up. He gave us bodies that were suceptible to breaking the law to test our will to see if it will obey his. He knew full well we couldn't live up to it, so He showed us that he would not hold our sins against us. How can he prove it? Pour them out on Christ. And that just happens to teach us about his justice righteousness and mercy as well.And I could go on, but you're getting bored...The whole point of Christ is not so that God can set up some extravagant obstacle course and hand the prize to the only ones foolish enough to go through it. The point is to teach us about God and to refine those characteristics which are necessary for God to have a relationship with us.You're free to disagree. This whole argument will be based on our assumptions so any arguing is really pointless. In the end it all boils down to faith.

quote:

---

You are intitled to your oppinions, whatever they may be. Have a good day, but avoidance of questions, with intelectual words, makes your points no more valid than anyone elses.

---

Some advice you should take to heart, I suspect.