|
|
#101 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Er...so you think he's using the bible to prove the nonexistance of God?
The bible is only an authoratative text insofar as it is assumed to be divinely inspired. If you use God-given words to prove God doesn't exist, you are inherantly self-defeating... |
|
|
|
|
|
#102 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
If someone says "this text is the basis for claims x, y, and z", it's a reasonable course of action to examine claims x, y, and z, and search for inconsistencies and contradictions. By showing that a text doesn't make sense, you can show either that:
A: It wasn't divinely inspired B: God's message is completely incomprehensible or contradictory to human beings following logical or rational thought. If you accept B, as some Christians do, you either have to accept that the bible cannot be used as a basis for action when human reason contradicts it, or you have to reject reason altogether. |
|
|
|
|
|
#103 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
If someone says "I am going to prove god does not exist" and uses as a source, a book that is only a valid source is God does exist, we have a problem.
If God does exist (And thus the book is an acceptable source) any "proof" that God does not exist based on that book is faulty in some manner (be it that the person arguing was faulty in their phrasing of the argument, or interpretation of the evidence) If God does not exist (And thus the book is not an acceptable source) any "proof" that God does not exist based on that book is (while concluding an accurate thing [ie. That God does not in fact exist]) simply a coincidence that their argument (based on faulty information) happened to lead to a conclusion that was correct. |
|
|
|
|
|
#104 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Storm Sanctuary!
Posts: 255
|
A book was written about gods some time ago from humans. First of all, there is no evidence that a god wrote this book, gave consent to this book, or met with any human beings. Second of all, we are talking about religious books written a long time ago. A religious book would only be used by a person/society to enact what they feel should be "normal" (not to mention that "normal" standards from a long time ago are different from that of today [slavery]). The book itself may be right, but there is a chance that it might be wrong (considering there is no proven connection of god to the statements). Anything that tries to counter an argument made for a religious book would be a claim that would not work because an opponent of the book could only use the text (which is hypothetical). Unless a religion contradicts itself (god is good, yet it created hell) or if a religion is proven wrong ([assuming the role of believing one god]there are many gods, not one because I met them all and you can see them for yourselves while still being alive), there is no real way to contradict a religion and even still, one part of a religion being proven wrong doesn't make everything else wrong. The bottom line is that you can't argue for or against hypotheticals, but it's best to have real evidence with 100% truth or the intent of finding 100% truth because you can have a neutral stance that doesn't involve being so one sided (bombing the World Trade Centers) and because you are always right (science so far).
|
|
|
|
|
|
#105 |
|
Giant Pi Operator
|
Science has always been right so far? When was this decided?
|
|
|
|
|
|
#106 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Storm Sanctuary!
Posts: 255
|
Since every single theory ever made. Even if certain theories are faulty or aren't explained fully with what we have, science has the intent of being 100% right and not bigoting others against each other.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#107 |
|
Giant Pi Operator
|
...so we always thought the Earth was round? That's just one example, and I don't want to have to name any more. Science has conflicting theories all the time; sometimes several conflicting theories trying to explain the same phenomena end up being proven false.
Last edited by ledwix; 06-9-2007 at 06:40 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#108 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Storm Sanctuary!
Posts: 255
|
Science can change over time to become 100% right even if it isn't. The most common religions can't change over time (unless you make a whole new one or destroy one from existence) to become 100% right (that is, if they are at fault in any way).
Last edited by Master_of_the_Faster; 06-9-2007 at 06:45 PM.. |
|
|
|
|
|
#109 | |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: New York
Posts: 310
|
Quote:
__________________
Every hunter and forager, every hero and coward, every creator and destroyer of civilizations, every king and peasant, every young couple in love, every hopeful child, every mother and father, every inventor and explorer, every teacher of morals, every corrupt politician, every superstar, every supreme leader, every saint and sinner in the history of our species, lives here on a mote of dust, suspended in a sunbeam. http://obs.nineplanets.org/psc/pbd.html |
|
|
|
|
|
|
#110 |
|
FFR Player
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Storm Sanctuary!
Posts: 255
|
Honestly, I really don't care what a person feels on god, religion, or science. I will have my views of science and well other people and their views and stuff. I just don't want people shoving any of that God says that homosexuals are bad stuff. I hate bigotry over all things. Honor that your own statements could be false even if they are true and perhaps people would get along better. Take life, liberty, and property with pure 100% justification or else keep it to yourself. That's all I ask of anyone.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#111 | ||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
#112 | ||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Meaning, again, (and again and again and again), either human beings are too stupid to understand God's word and there isn't a contradiction to reason, it isn't God's word because of its contradiction to sound reason, or reason PERIOD isn't as sound as human beings believe. Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
|
#113 | ||||
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Also: Quote:
I don't see why this is a big deal: If you want to use the bible as a source and claim it is valid, you -must- also assume that the bible was divinely inspired (to wit: That God does exist) or else you have no proof of the validity of your source. Using the bible to disprove God is self-defeating logic, because in order to use the bible, you have to tacitly admit to proof of God. Last edited by devonin; 06-10-2007 at 02:43 AM.. |
||||
|
|
|
|
|
#114 |
|
Private College
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lol badger
Posts: 536
|
By your logic, proof by contradiction is not a valid form of proof. What Kilroy is saying is that by assuming that the Bible is a valid source, we can show that the Bible is not a valid source—meaning that the only possible explanation is that the Bible is in fact not a valid source, implying that the God described in the Bible does not exist.
__________________
<img src="Bent Lines" /> |
|
|
|
|
|
#115 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Proof by contradiction would involve proving !God purely on the basis of the consequences of assuming God.
I disagree that one of the consequences of assuming 'God' is 'The complete validity and truth of the bible' |
|
|
|
|
|
#116 | |||
|
Little Chief Hare
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Now, based on those statements do you think I am giving tacit admission to the role of the FSM in creating the universe? How about the role of God in creating the universe? Even though these things can't both be held at the same time? Even though I'm citing a source for the deliberate intention of showing it to be invalid? If you answered yes to any of these questions, congratulations, you may have brain damage! |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
#117 |
|
Private College
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Lol badger
Posts: 536
|
Who said anything about !God? I believe I said !(God as described in the bible).
__________________
<img src="Bent Lines" /> |
|
|
|
|
|
#118 | |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Well Kilroy, I inadvertantly responded to your question in the post above: I deny that a necessary consequence of the existance of God is the validty and truth of the bible.
The bible can be completely and utterly wrong and God can still exist, so proving that the bible is completely and utterly wrong does not allow you to conclude that God does not exist. Edit: Sniping everywhere! Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#119 |
|
Little Chief Hare
|
No, but assuming 'bible is true' leads to 'assume god is perfect in all aspects'. Introduce 'bible is product of God', introduce 'bible is not perfect'. And there you go.
|
|
|
|
|
|
#120 |
|
Very Grave Indeed
|
Well, go back in time and tell the person I was responding to that they should go ahead and phrase their argument in a way that they did not phrase their argument when I set about pointing out that it was a bad argument.
|
|
|
|
![]() |
| Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests) | |
|
|