Noah's Ark

[Orangeslice13]

I guess us soft drinks need to stick together...

Yup

 

[MercyPercy]

It's a soft drink not a bunch of slices of oranges.

It's also a type of gross candy.

 

[rjd970]

I've bolded some of the many things you've misrepresented either out of callous or lack of knowledge. You know, if you're going to rag on something, it would help to understand it and present it from its own internal paradigm. It bears repeating, it's sloppy and a bit disingenuous to "disprove" one paradigm by the logic of another.

What I mean is, you have inferred atheistic/nihilistic logic to attribute the logic of a religious interpretation of reality. Christianity makes sense within the Christian paradigm, which is all a logical person could ask of it. It breaks down only when attributed your nihilism.

Christianity states that God created a special planet for a special purpose-- which is relationship with a special creation. He created the expanse of space around it to:

• Mark time-- which it does.
• Create harvest seasons -- which it does.
• Reveal His glory -- which it does.

Your predictive abilities per the sun engulfing us are seriously misplaced.



Yes He is.




It was a bit hard to dissect this giant, run-on sentence, but I'll try to highlight issues I would take issue with.

If you had cared to get to know the paradigm that you are trashing, you would immediately see the mistake you're making. His "primary concern" is not meddling in real estate. His "primary concern" as stated in the paradigm, is that He be glorified. It's important because it also goes back to your first paragraph per the cosmos.

His "primary concern" is not the extension of 99% of species. It's not the duration of the planet. It's not the lifespan of people. It's not the importance of one planet over another, or that you segment out portions of the known universe.

So, what we have in your diatribe is basically the arguments:

"I don't understand much of this..."

and

"I would have done it differently..."

and

"My atheistic philosophy means that pretty much everything is meaningless..."

All unskillfully woven into a perceived refutation of that which you obviously don't understand.




That is absurd.

So much epic fail here I don't even know where to begin.

Christianity makes sense within the Christian paradigm, which is all a logical person could ask of it.

I would think a logical person would ask that it stand on its own. No?

That requires the assumption that the Christian paradigm is true. Can the same be said about Islam or any other religion? Even you wouldn't call suicide bomber families singing their praises rational, just because you can "understand it and present it from its own internal paradigm". It's absurd premise and logic.

What I mean is, you have inferred atheistic/nihilistic logic to attribute the logic of a religious interpretation of reality.

I have attributed a rational logic, based on reason. 99% of all species ever alive on this planet are dead, great periods of time and areas on this planet have not been life supporting, the sun will explode one day. These are all facts. Period.

Christianity states that God created a special planet for a special purpose-- which is relationship with a special creation. He created the expanse of space around it to:

Mark time-- which it does.
Create harvest seasons -- which it does.
Reveal His glory -- which it does.

If accepted as a priori, then sure, what follows is reasonable. But the fact of the matter remains it is all based on the premise that God exists, and that Christianity is the correct understanding of him, and that it can all be understood through religious texts written by primitive and superstitious people.

This is one of the biggest beefs I have. The religious crowds are making the claim that God exists. The burden of evidence is on them. And if you come back with a bunch of "evidence" based on a priori statements and 2000 year old religious texts that assume the red sea can part, every animal on earth lived within walking distance of the ark, virgin births, raising the dead and walking on water you will get laughed at.

Your predictive abilities per the sun engulfing us are seriously misplaced.

Ridiculous.

If you had cared to get to know the paradigm that you are trashing, you would immediately see the mistake you're making. His "primary concern" is not meddling in real estate. His "primary concern" as stated in the paradigm, is that He be glorified.

I know more about it than you think I do. And what does it say about your god that he cares primarily about being glorified, above all else? He would be a rather narcissistic egomaniac. Go back to the story of Noah's ark...he decides to wipe everything out because we are paying enough attention to what he wants? An OT filled with genocide, infanticide, blood lust, and cruelty.

So, what we have in your diatribe is basically the arguments:

"I don't understand much of this..."

and

"I would have done it differently..."

and

"My atheistic philosophy means that pretty much everything is meaningless..."

All unskillfully woven into a perceived refutation of that which you obviously don't understand.

I would say it is I do understand, and it makes no sense, or has any bearing on the reality of intelligent people living in the 21st century.

 

[Orangeslice13]

You lost me at epic fail.

I'm a simple man. I build things. My father is far from a simple man. He's a PhD in nuke engendering. Smart guy. He came to believe in God threw science. He says the more we learn the more we find that we don't know much. He also says that you get to a point you can no longer deny intelligent design.

I tell you all that to tell you this.
1) I've never heard a serious scientists say "epic fail"
2) there are plenty of "scientist " that came to God because of science.
3) You don't have to turn your mind off to believe in God. To do so would be a failure of epic proportions.

 

[rjd970]

You lost me at epic fail.

I'm a simple man. I build things. My father is far from a simple man. He's a PhD in nuke engendering. Smart guy. He came to believe in God threw science. He says the more we learn the more we find that we don't know much. He also says that you get to a point you can no longer deny intelligent design.

I tell you all that to tell you this.
1) I've never heard a serious scientists say "epic fail"
2) there are plenty of "scientist " that came to God because of science.
3) You don't have to turn your mind off to believe in God. To do so would be a failure of epic proportions.

Not surprised.

Really?

Then I seriously question his understanding of evolutionary theory, or for that matter, how science works.

 

[Orange_Crush]

So much epic fail here I don't even know where to begin.

That brought a lot to the table. Thank you for that.

I would think a logical person would ask that it stand on its own. No?

That's the internal consistency I mentioned.

That requires the assumption that the Christian paradigm is true. Can the same be said about Islam or any other religion? Even you wouldn't call suicide bomber families singing their praises rational, just because you can "understand it and present it from its own internal paradigm". It's absurd premise and logic.

I never said Christianity is true just based on its internal consistency. I said it wasn't untrue due to your invented fallaciously created "inconsistencies".

I have attributed a rational logic, based on reason. 99% of all species ever alive on this planet are dead, great periods of time and areas on this planet have not been life supporting, the sun will explode one day. These are all facts. Period.

You attributed philosophical meaning to those fact-- well, to be more specific philosophical meaninglessness based in nihilistic atheism, which speaks nothing to the meaning that Christianity claims.

If accepted as a priori, then sure, what follows is reasonable. But the fact of the matter remains it is all based on the premise that God exists, and that Christianity is the correct understanding of him, and that it can all be understood through religious texts written by primitive and superstitious people.

Your philosophical assertions that tried to negate the truth of Christian claims were based on the idea that God does not exist, IF He, in fact, DOES exist, your entire argument folds. That was my point. You missed it. Sorry.

You just can't seem to understand this because you can't escape your illogical, a priori black hole.

This is one of the biggest beefs I have. The religious crowds are making the claim that God exists. The burden of evidence is on them. And if you come back with a bunch of "evidence" based on a priori statements and 2000 year old religious texts that assume the red sea can part, every animal on earth lived within walking distance of the ark, virgin births, raising the dead and waling on water you will get laughed at.

I'm not sure I've made the definitive statement that God exists. But you are a hypocrite. See blow. You are making bold statements that He does NOT exist, based entirely on a fallacious argument from absurdity.

Ridiculous.

For sure!

I know more about it than you think I do. And what does it say about your god that he cares primarily about being glorified, above all else? He would be a rather narcissistic egomaniac. Go back to the story of Noah's ark...he decides to wipe everything out because we are paying enough attention to what he wants? An OT filled with genocide, infanticide, blood lust, and cruelty.

Remember that part about your arguments pretty much consisting of: "I don't understand"?

Here we have it again.

Narcissism is an unhealthy obsession with self-- viewing one higher than one deserves, to the detriment of others.

If God is perfect, can He view Himself higher than He deserves?

If God were in fact the greatest thing in the Universe for humanity, would it be bad for Him to want to be glorified to humanity?

If His glory brings the world to unity with Him, which brings eternal joy, peace, life, etc... His glory would be the most important thing for humanity.

But again... Your argument is less: "God doesn't exist", and more "I don't like Him."

That's your prerogative.

I would say it is I do understand, and it makes no sense, or has any bearing on the reality of intelligent people living in the 21st century.

You must not like yourself very much. May I remind you:

This is one of the biggest beefs I have. The religious crowds are making the claim that God exists. The burden of evidence is on them.

If "God exists" is a religious statement that requires a burden of proof, then the inverse is also a religious statement with a burden of proof.

You are a hypocrite.

You're an illogical hypocrite as well. Your argument basically boils down to a fallacious argument from incredulity.

Sad, if you ask me.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Not surprised.

Really?

Then I seriously question his understanding of evolutionary theory, or for that matter, how science works.

I'm starting to seriously question yours

 

[MercyPercy]

What's sad is an adult in this day and age believes all the animals marched two by two to avoid a flood, or a man split the sea, or a river turned to blood, etc.

If they wrote Harry Potter two thousand years ago the same type of people would be saying the Hail Harry.. full of grace.

 

[Orange_Crush]

I'm starting to seriously question yours

Apparently, to him science and philosophy basically equate to arguments from absurdity.

 

[Orange_Crush]

What's sad is an adult in this day and age believes all the animals marched two by two to avoid a flood, or a man split the sea, or a river turned to blood, etc.

If they wrote Harry Potter two thousand years ago the same type of people would be saying the Hail Harry.. full of grace.

What's sad is that there are two people claiming the intellectual high ground based on fallacious arguments from absurdity, spiced with the occasional hint of "attack the man" fallacies.

 

[rjd970]

If "God exists" is a religious statement that requires a burden of proof, then the inverse is also a religious statement with a burden of proof.

Wrong.

If I tell you bigfoot exists, the burden of proving he doesn't does not fall to you. You ask me what my proof is and why I think that. Weigh the evidence, then determine if it is credible.

People laugh at the teapot orbiting earth and flying spaghetti monster exercises, but the premise has merit. I say there is a teapot floating above earth. No satellite or telescope can see it because it is so small, and it undetectable to all man made instruments. Does that mean there is a teapot, just because you can't prove there isn't?

I'm making no such claim that God doesn't exist. I'm simply saying the evidence inadequate.

 

[MercyPercy]

What's sad is that there are two people claiming the intellectual high ground based on fallacious arguments from absurdity, spiced with the occasional hint of "attack the man" fallacies.

It's pretty easy to claim the intellectual high ground when the opposing side believes in fairy tales.

 

[Orangeslice13]

Apparently, to him science and philosophy basically equate to arguments from absurdity.

It's typical.


I've got to drive from Nashville to Chattanooga now. I'll be back. Don't let this die in the next 3 hrs

 

[Orangeslice13]

It's pretty easy to claim the intellectual high ground when the opposing side believes in fairy tales.

You should sit in the corner.
The adults are talking

 

[MercyPercy]

You should sit in the corner.
The adults are talking

:thumbsup:

 

[Orange_Crush]

Wrong.

If I tell you bigfoot exists, the burden of proving he doesn't does not fall to you. You ask me what my proof is and why I think that. Weigh the evidence, then determine if it is credible.

People laugh at the teapot orbiting earth and flying spaghetti monster exercises, but the premise has merit. I say there is a teapot floating above earth. No satellite or telescope can see it because it is so small, and it undetectable to all man made instruments. Does that mean there is a teapot, just because you can't prove there isn't?

I'm making no such claim that God doesn't exist. I'm simply saying the evidence inadequate.

You're not very good at this logic thing, unfortunately. It's apparent that I must slow down.

If a logical assertion is a religious assertion, then its opposite assertion is a religious assertion.

There is a God. Is a religious assertion.
There is no God is a religious assertion.

Either person making the assertion would share the same burden of proof for their assertion. Logically, that is.

You made an assertion. I'll remind you.

I would say it is I do understand, and it makes no sense, or has any bearing on the reality of intelligent people living in the 21st century.

Now, that equates to an assertion that God does not exist. It is by definition a religious statement. So, you have been a hypocrite.

The underlines part is at least a twofold fallacy.

1. Argument from incredulity
2. True Scotsman

Not very intelligent.

 

[Orange_Crush]

It's pretty easy to claim the intellectual high ground when the opposing side believes in fairy tales.

It's pretty hard claim it, and be taken seriously, when you're using fallacious arguments.

So, since you're head first back in, you care to go back and answer my questions from before. You got pretty quiet and defensive when I asked for more than intellectually vacuous quips.

 

[MercyPercy]

It's pretty hard claim it, and be taken seriously, when you're using fallacious arguments.

So, since you're head first back in, you care to go back and answer my questions from before. You got pretty quiet and defensive when I asked for more than intellectually vacuous quips.

Nope. Just gonna keep pokin' fun at ya. :hi:

 

[rjd970]

If God is perfect, can He view Himself higher than He deserves?

If God were in fact the greatest thing in the Universe for humanity, would it be bad for Him to want to be glorified to humanity?

If His glory brings the world to unity with Him, which brings eternal joy, peace, life, etc... His glory would be the most important thing for humanity

Without definitively proving the above, anything you say after is irrelevant.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Nope. Just gonna keep pokin' fun at ya. :hi:

That's cool.





And exactly what I expected.

:hi:

 

[KingNick865]

You're not very good at this logic thing, unfortunately. It's apparent that I must slow down.

If a logical assertion is a religious assertion, then its opposite assertion is a religious assertion.

There is a God. Is a religious assertion.
There is no God is a religious assertion.

Either person making the assertion would share the same burden of proof for their assertion. Logically, that is.

You made an assertion. I'll remind you.



Now, that equates to an assertion that God does not exist. It is by definition a religious statement. So, you have been a hypocrite.

The underlines part is at least a twofold fallacy.

1. Argument from incredulity
2. True Scotsman

Not very intelligent.

"There is no God" is not a religious assertion. It is much like saying "There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster/Flying Teapot/Fairy Godparents/etc." is a religious assertion. The burden of proof is not equal in this case; it is up to the believer to present a case that there is a God, not up to the non-believer to prove there is no God.

 

[rjd970]

You're not very good at this logic thing, unfortunately. It's apparent that I must slow down.

If a logical assertion is a religious assertion, then its opposite assertion is a religious assertion.

There is a God. Is a religious assertion.
1. There is no God is a religious assertion.

Either person making the assertion would share the same burden of proof for their assertion. Logically, that is.

You made an assertion. I'll remind you.



2. Now, that equates to an assertion that God does not exist. It is by definition a religious statement. So, you have been a hypocrite.

The underlines part is at least a twofold fallacy.

1. Argument from incredulity
2. True Scotsman

Not very intelligent.

1. No it isn't. Is it really this hard? Tell me where you learned in your supreme logic understanding that disproving a negative is possible.

2. LOL....no, not even in the least.

 

[rjd970]

"There is no God" is not a religious assertion. It is much like saying "There is no Flying Spaghetti Monster/Flying Teapot/Fairy Godparents/etc." is a religious assertion. The burden of proof is not equal in this case; it is up to the believer to present a case that there is a God, not up to the non-believer to prove there is no God.

Thank you. Somebody gets it finally.

 

[Orange_Crush]

Without definitively proving the above, anything you say after is irrelevant.

Not at all. You are obviously again missing the point I'm making.

That's what the "if" statements are for. It's how you form a logical argument.

You say:

"God would be narcissistic."

I say,

"Not IF Christianity is right. IF Christianity is right, then He's doing the world a lot of good."

It goes back to internal consistency. IF Christianity is right about that, it CAN be right about the rest.

IF Christianity could not have accounted for that argument, you would have created a contradiction. But IF Christianity can account for it, then you have not.

It's the same as this.

Michael Behe:

"X, Y and Z are irreducibly complex, thus darwinian evolution is impossible."

Evolutionists:

"But IF this, this and this happened, they could have evolved."

Behe:

"Prove it happened."

Evolutionists:

"I don't have to. All I have to do is show that it isn't impossible, and your proposed contradiction falls away."

Please get better at this logic thing if we are to continue.

 

[MercyPercy]

Atheists 'have higher IQs': Their intelligence 'makes them more likely to dismiss religion as irrational and unscientific' | Mail Online

"The conclusions were the result of a review of 63 scientific studies about religion and intelligence dating between 1928 and last year.
In 53 of these there was a ‘reliable negative relation between intelligence and religiosity’.
In just 10 was that relationship positive.
Even among children, the more intelligent a child was the more probable it was that they would shun the church.
In old age the same trend persisted as well, the research showed.
The University of Rochester psychologists behind the study defined religion as involvement in some or all parts of a belief.
They defined intelligence as the ‘ability to reason, plan, solve problems, think abstractly, comprehend complex ideas, learn quickly, and learn from experience’.
In their conclusions, they said: ‘Most extant explanations (of a negative relation) share one central theme - the premise that religious beliefs are irrational, not anchored in science, not testable and, therefore, unappealing to intelligent people who ‘know better’.
‘Intelligent people typically spend more time in school - a form of self-regulation that may yield long-term benefits.
‘More intelligent people getting higher level jobs and better employment and higher salary may lead to higher self-esteem, and encourage personal control beliefs.’
Study co-author Jordan Silberman, a graduate student of neuroeconomics at the University of Rochester, said: ‘Intelligence may lead to greater self-control ability, self-esteem, perceived control over life events, and supportive relationships, obviating some of the benefits that religion sometimes provides.’"