Total Posts:28|Showing Posts:1-28
Jump to topic:

Evidence of God (lawlypants)

Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 5:06:10 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.

2 definitions.

1)Naturalistic: The highest possible being by darwinian means.

2)Supernaturalistic: the highest possible being by some other means not defined by our reality of which he created.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 5:53:50 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 5:06:10 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.

2 definitions.

1)Naturalistic: The highest possible being by darwinian means.

2)Supernaturalistic: the highest possible being by some other means not defined by our reality of which he created.

Do you realize that, in your definition, you explained it cannot be defined? How can you claim to have knowledge about a being that you cannot define? Sounds like, 'I know what he is like but I don't know what he is like'.

If you can define it, then define it and explain what evidence led you to that conclusion.
brontoraptor
Posts: 11,685
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 5:58:03 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 5:53:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:06:10 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.

2 definitions.

1)Naturalistic: The highest possible being by darwinian means.

2)Supernaturalistic: the highest possible being by some other means not defined by our reality of which he created.

Do you realize that, in your definition, you explained it cannot be defined? How can you claim to have knowledge about a being that you cannot define? Sounds like, 'I know what he is like but I don't know what he is like'.

If you can define it, then define it and explain what evidence led you to that conclusion.

Sure. By mathematical laws of infinity, whether you propose infinite space or infinite history or both, by default God would be the highest possible being that can exist. By process of infinite history, it has never not been produced nor has it never not existed. That's basic math mixed with basic philosophy.
"What Donald Trump is doing is representing the absolute heartbreak, and anger, and frustration at a government gone mad."

http://youtu.be...
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/7/2016 6:02:37 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 5:58:03 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:53:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:06:10 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.

2 definitions.

1)Naturalistic: The highest possible being by darwinian means.

2)Supernaturalistic: the highest possible being by some other means not defined by our reality of which he created.

Do you realize that, in your definition, you explained it cannot be defined? How can you claim to have knowledge about a being that you cannot define? Sounds like, 'I know what he is like but I don't know what he is like'.

If you can define it, then define it and explain what evidence led you to that conclusion.

Sure. By mathematical laws of infinity, whether you propose infinite space or infinite history or both, by default God would be the highest possible being that can exist. By process of infinite history, it has never not been produced nor has it never not existed. That's basic math mixed with basic philosophy.

Although I think that is a poor argument, that argument can only be used for a deistic god. How does that prove that there is a biblical god that obsesses about how humans use their genitals?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 3:19:20 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.

Apparently @lawlypants has nothing to say?
Omniverse
Posts: 973
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/9/2016 4:21:18 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 5:58:03 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
By process of infinite history, it has never not been produced nor has it never not existed. That's basic math mixed with basic philosophy.

So it's gibberish?

I'd love for you to produce one thought, one idea, something worth contemplating without a yawn, something provocative yet insightful.

You cannot do it, can you?
Must be because of all that air travelling...
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 12:36:41 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 3:19:20 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.

Apparently @lawlypants has nothing to say?

I guess not. That's disappointing. I was looking forward to seeing him run circles around me like he claimed in the original thread. Oh, well, there's still a chance.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2016 10:10:13 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 12:36:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:19:20 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.

Apparently @lawlypants has nothing to say?

I guess not. That's disappointing. I was looking forward to seeing him run circles around me like he claimed in the original thread. Oh, well, there's still a chance.

Bronto runs in circles all the time, Chaosism.

You just need to stand in the right place.
VirBinarus
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 6:24:55 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 6:02:37 PM, matt8800 wrote:
Although I think that is a poor argument, that argument can only be used for a deistic god. How does that prove that there is a biblical god that obsesses about how humans use their genitals?

All that we know about God has to come through him revealing himself to humans. Jesus is a great place to start if you want to know God.
"Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing."
1 thessalonians, 5:11
Willows
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:31:46 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 6:24:55 AM, VirBinarus wrote:
At 7/7/2016 6:02:37 PM, matt8800 wrote:
Although I think that is a poor argument, that argument can only be used for a deistic god. How does that prove that there is a biblical god that obsesses about how humans use their genitals?

All that we know about God has to come through him revealing himself to humans. Jesus is a great place to start if you want to know God.

That's one of the richest statements I have seen in a long time. Since when has "He" ever revealed "Himself" to anyone. And if I did want to see this "Being" with an anger management problem why do I need to go through his narcissistic, immaculately-born son?
Deb-8-A-Bull
Posts: 2,181
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 9:01:57 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 6:02:37 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:58:03 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:53:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:06:10 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.

2 definitions.

1)Naturalistic: The highest possible being by darwinian means.

2)Supernaturalistic: the highest possible being by some other means not defined by our reality of which he created.

Do you realize that, in your definition, you explained it cannot be defined? How can you claim to have knowledge about a being that you cannot define? Sounds like, 'I know what he is like but I don't know what he is like'.

If you can define it, then define it and explain what evidence led you to that conclusion.

Sure. By mathematical laws of infinity, whether you propose infinite space or infinite history or both, by default God would be the highest possible being that can exist. By process of infinite history, it has never not been produced nor has it never not existed. That's basic math mixed with basic philosophy.

Although I think that is a poor argument, that argument can only be used for a deistic god. How does that prove that there is a biblical god that obsesses about how humans use their genitals?

LOL , that's nice . Telling it like it is.
There can be no response to that.
Chaosism
Posts: 2,674
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 12:38:59 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/11/2016 10:10:13 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/11/2016 12:36:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:19:20 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.

Apparently @lawlypants has nothing to say?

I guess not. That's disappointing. I was looking forward to seeing him run circles around me like he claimed in the original thread. Oh, well, there's still a chance.

Bronto runs in circles all the time, Chaosism.

You just need to stand in the right place.

Ha! "Circling the wagons" springs to mind for some reason. :)

(http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com...)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 6:13:23 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 12:38:59 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 7/11/2016 10:10:13 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/11/2016 12:36:41 PM, Chaosism wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:19:20 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.

Apparently @lawlypants has nothing to say?

I guess not. That's disappointing. I was looking forward to seeing him run circles around me like he claimed in the original thread. Oh, well, there's still a chance.

Bronto runs in circles all the time, Chaosism.

You just need to stand in the right place.

Ha! "Circling the wagons" springs to mind for some reason. :)

Or is it a lone marauder attempting to surround them? Perhaps that's why he copypastas a handful of different criticisms every day. "See, I'm surrounding you!"
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 6:16:38 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/7/2016 6:02:37 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:58:03 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:53:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:06:10 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.

2 definitions.

1)Naturalistic: The highest possible being by darwinian means.

2)Supernaturalistic: the highest possible being by some other means not defined by our reality of which he created.

Do you realize that, in your definition, you explained it cannot be defined? How can you claim to have knowledge about a being that you cannot define? Sounds like, 'I know what he is like but I don't know what he is like'.

If you can define it, then define it and explain what evidence led you to that conclusion.

Sure. By mathematical laws of infinity, whether you propose infinite space or infinite history or both, by default God would be the highest possible being that can exist. By process of infinite history, it has never not been produced nor has it never not existed. That's basic math mixed with basic philosophy.

Although I think that is a poor argument, that argument can only be used for a deistic god. How does that prove that there is a biblical god that obsesses about how humans use their genitals?
You sure hes not more obsessed with how to treat the poor?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 6:56:58 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 6:16:38 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/7/2016 6:02:37 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:58:03 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:53:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:06:10 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.

2 definitions.

1)Naturalistic: The highest possible being by darwinian means.

2)Supernaturalistic: the highest possible being by some other means not defined by our reality of which he created.

Do you realize that, in your definition, you explained it cannot be defined? How can you claim to have knowledge about a being that you cannot define? Sounds like, 'I know what he is like but I don't know what he is like'.

If you can define it, then define it and explain what evidence led you to that conclusion.

Sure. By mathematical laws of infinity, whether you propose infinite space or infinite history or both, by default God would be the highest possible being that can exist. By process of infinite history, it has never not been produced nor has it never not existed. That's basic math mixed with basic philosophy.

Although I think that is a poor argument, that argument can only be used for a deistic god. How does that prove that there is a biblical god that obsesses about how humans use their genitals?
You sure hes not more obsessed with how to treat the poor?

He doesn't appear to be. For a supposedly all powerful god, there is a lot of destitute people in this world.

In the bible, not only can one be guilty of unsanctioned sex, one can be guilty just for thinking about it. It is the only thought crime in the bible. Furthermore, when most theists argue why their religion should take over the world, it is usually because of claims of modern immorality. When they talk about immorality, they don't talk about rape, murder, child abuse, etc; they talk primarily about 'impure' unsanctioned genital use.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 7:12:06 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 6:56:58 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/12/2016 6:16:38 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/7/2016 6:02:37 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:58:03 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:53:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:06:10 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.

2 definitions.

1)Naturalistic: The highest possible being by darwinian means.

2)Supernaturalistic: the highest possible being by some other means not defined by our reality of which he created.

Do you realize that, in your definition, you explained it cannot be defined? How can you claim to have knowledge about a being that you cannot define? Sounds like, 'I know what he is like but I don't know what he is like'.

If you can define it, then define it and explain what evidence led you to that conclusion.

Sure. By mathematical laws of infinity, whether you propose infinite space or infinite history or both, by default God would be the highest possible being that can exist. By process of infinite history, it has never not been produced nor has it never not existed. That's basic math mixed with basic philosophy.

Although I think that is a poor argument, that argument can only be used for a deistic god. How does that prove that there is a biblical god that obsesses about how humans use their genitals?
You sure hes not more obsessed with how to treat the poor?

He doesn't appear to be. For a supposedly all powerful god, there is a lot of destitute people in this world.

Are you saying there is something inherently bad about being poor?

In the bible, not only can one be guilty of unsanctioned sex, one can be guilty just for thinking about it. It is the only thought crime in the bible.
So you forgot about the passage of anger?
Furthermore, when most theists argue why their religion should take over the world, it is usually because of claims of modern immorality. When they talk about immorality, they don't talk about rape, murder, child abuse, etc; they talk primarily about 'impure' unsanctioned genital use.
would it be smart for anyone to use thier genitals however in leiu of stds, not ready to be a parent things like this?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 7:28:14 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 7:12:06 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/12/2016 6:56:58 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/12/2016 6:16:38 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/7/2016 6:02:37 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:58:03 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:53:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:06:10 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.

2 definitions.

1)Naturalistic: The highest possible being by darwinian means.

2)Supernaturalistic: the highest possible being by some other means not defined by our reality of which he created.

Do you realize that, in your definition, you explained it cannot be defined? How can you claim to have knowledge about a being that you cannot define? Sounds like, 'I know what he is like but I don't know what he is like'.

If you can define it, then define it and explain what evidence led you to that conclusion.

Sure. By mathematical laws of infinity, whether you propose infinite space or infinite history or both, by default God would be the highest possible being that can exist. By process of infinite history, it has never not been produced nor has it never not existed. That's basic math mixed with basic philosophy.

Although I think that is a poor argument, that argument can only be used for a deistic god. How does that prove that there is a biblical god that obsesses about how humans use their genitals?
You sure hes not more obsessed with how to treat the poor?

He doesn't appear to be. For a supposedly all powerful god, there is a lot of destitute people in this world.

Are you saying there is something inherently bad about being poor?

People that cant afford to feed their children would say yes.

In the bible, not only can one be guilty of unsanctioned sex, one can be guilty just for thinking about it. It is the only thought crime in the bible.
So you forgot about the passage of anger?
I was referring to the 10 commandments but OK.

Furthermore, when most theists argue why their religion should take over the world, it is usually because of claims of modern immorality. When they talk about immorality, they don't talk about rape, murder, child abuse, etc; they talk primarily about 'impure' unsanctioned genital use.
would it be smart for anyone to use thier genitals however in leiu of stds, not ready to be a parent things like this?

These days, contraception is available as an option.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 8:22:51 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 7:28:14 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/12/2016 7:12:06 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/12/2016 6:56:58 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/12/2016 6:16:38 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/7/2016 6:02:37 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:58:03 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:53:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:06:10 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.

2 definitions.

1)Naturalistic: The highest possible being by darwinian means.

2)Supernaturalistic: the highest possible being by some other means not defined by our reality of which he created.

Do you realize that, in your definition, you explained it cannot be defined? How can you claim to have knowledge about a being that you cannot define? Sounds like, 'I know what he is like but I don't know what he is like'.

If you can define it, then define it and explain what evidence led you to that conclusion.

Sure. By mathematical laws of infinity, whether you propose infinite space or infinite history or both, by default God would be the highest possible being that can exist. By process of infinite history, it has never not been produced nor has it never not existed. That's basic math mixed with basic philosophy.

Although I think that is a poor argument, that argument can only be used for a deistic god. How does that prove that there is a biblical god that obsesses about how humans use their genitals?
You sure hes not more obsessed with how to treat the poor?

He doesn't appear to be. For a supposedly all powerful god, there is a lot of destitute people in this world.

Are you saying there is something inherently bad about being poor?

People that cant afford to feed their children would say yes.
So there is something inherently wrong with the person thats so poor they cant feed their children? Just trying to get some clairity.

In the bible, not only can one be guilty of unsanctioned sex, one can be guilty just for thinking about it. It is the only thought crime in the bible.
So you forgot about the passage of anger?
I was referring to the 10 commandments but OK.
Ok.

Furthermore, when most theists argue why their religion should take over the world, it is usually because of claims of modern immorality. When they talk about immorality, they don't talk about rape, murder, child abuse, etc; they talk primarily about 'impure' unsanctioned genital use.
would it be smart for anyone to use thier genitals however in leiu of stds, not ready to be a parent things like this?

These days, contraception is available as an option.
Outside of these days? Say the days this commandment was given. Condums dont stop every std or prevent every pregnancy...
But essentially having self control over your genitals makes the world a worse place is what Im seemingly getting
VirBinarus
Posts: 323
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 9:00:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 8:31:46 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/12/2016 6:24:55 AM, VirBinarus wrote:
At 7/7/2016 6:02:37 PM, matt8800 wrote:
Although I think that is a poor argument, that argument can only be used for a deistic god. How does that prove that there is a biblical god that obsesses about how humans use their genitals?

All that we know about God has to come through him revealing himself to humans. Jesus is a great place to start if you want to know God.

That's one of the richest statements I have seen in a long time. Since when has "He" ever revealed "Himself" to anyone. And if I did want to see this "Being" with an anger management problem why do I need to go through his narcissistic, immaculately-born son?

Well, you could look at the rest of the Bible. The Bible is just a convenient collection of things that God has revealed to humanity, so that everyone can see them. If you look at the Bible you see it pretty clearly points to Jesus the whole way through.

And what do you have against looking at Jesus?
"Therefore encourage one another and build each other up, just as in fact you are doing."
1 thessalonians, 5:11
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 10:19:53 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 8:22:51 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/12/2016 7:28:14 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/12/2016 7:12:06 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/12/2016 6:56:58 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/12/2016 6:16:38 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/7/2016 6:02:37 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:58:03 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:53:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:06:10 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.

2 definitions.

1)Naturalistic: The highest possible being by darwinian means.

2)Supernaturalistic: the highest possible being by some other means not defined by our reality of which he created.

Do you realize that, in your definition, you explained it cannot be defined? How can you claim to have knowledge about a being that you cannot define? Sounds like, 'I know what he is like but I don't know what he is like'.

If you can define it, then define it and explain what evidence led you to that conclusion.

Sure. By mathematical laws of infinity, whether you propose infinite space or infinite history or both, by default God would be the highest possible being that can exist. By process of infinite history, it has never not been produced nor has it never not existed. That's basic math mixed with basic philosophy.

Although I think that is a poor argument, that argument can only be used for a deistic god. How does that prove that there is a biblical god that obsesses about how humans use their genitals?
You sure hes not more obsessed with how to treat the poor?

He doesn't appear to be. For a supposedly all powerful god, there is a lot of destitute people in this world.

Are you saying there is something inherently bad about being poor?

People that cant afford to feed their children would say yes.
So there is something inherently wrong with the person thats so poor they cant feed their children? Just trying to get some clairity.

I'm saying its more of a negative than a positive. Fair?

In the bible, not only can one be guilty of unsanctioned sex, one can be guilty just for thinking about it. It is the only thought crime in the bible.
So you forgot about the passage of anger?
I was referring to the 10 commandments but OK.
Ok.

Furthermore, when most theists argue why their religion should take over the world, it is usually because of claims of modern immorality. When they talk about immorality, they don't talk about rape, murder, child abuse, etc; they talk primarily about 'impure' unsanctioned genital use.
would it be smart for anyone to use thier genitals however in leiu of stds, not ready to be a parent things like this?

These days, contraception is available as an option.
Outside of these days? Say the days this commandment was given. Condums dont stop every std or prevent every pregnancy...
But essentially having self control over your genitals makes the world a worse place is what Im seemingly getting

Its none of my business what other people do with their genitals nor is it anyone else's business. How is the world a better place by trying to get other people to conform to ideas that are not their own regarding their sex life? If someone wants to be gay, let them be gay. If they want to have sex with someone and they are not married, so be it.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 10:35:00 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 10:19:53 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/12/2016 8:22:51 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/12/2016 7:28:14 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/12/2016 7:12:06 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/12/2016 6:56:58 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/12/2016 6:16:38 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/7/2016 6:02:37 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:58:03 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:53:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:06:10 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.

2 definitions.

1)Naturalistic: The highest possible being by darwinian means.

2)Supernaturalistic: the highest possible being by some other means not defined by our reality of which he created.

Do you realize that, in your definition, you explained it cannot be defined? How can you claim to have knowledge about a being that you cannot define? Sounds like, 'I know what he is like but I don't know what he is like'.

If you can define it, then define it and explain what evidence led you to that conclusion.

Sure. By mathematical laws of infinity, whether you propose infinite space or infinite history or both, by default God would be the highest possible being that can exist. By process of infinite history, it has never not been produced nor has it never not existed. That's basic math mixed with basic philosophy.

Although I think that is a poor argument, that argument can only be used for a deistic god. How does that prove that there is a biblical god that obsesses about how humans use their genitals?
You sure hes not more obsessed with how to treat the poor?

He doesn't appear to be. For a supposedly all powerful god, there is a lot of destitute people in this world.

Are you saying there is something inherently bad about being poor?

People that cant afford to feed their children would say yes.
So there is something inherently wrong with the person thats so poor they cant feed their children? Just trying to get some clairity.

I'm saying its more of a negative than a positive. Fair?
Hm sounds like more of an opiniom based around reativism than an absolute. But assuming being poor is always more of a negative than a positive what in your view makes this so? I suppose what Im getting at that its mans society that makes life difficult for the poor man. Agreed?

In the bible, not only can one be guilty of unsanctioned sex, one can be guilty just for thinking about it. It is the only thought crime in the bible.
So you forgot about the passage of anger?
I was referring to the 10 commandments but OK.
Ok.

Furthermore, when most theists argue why their religion should take over the world, it is usually because of claims of modern immorality. When they talk about immorality, they don't talk about rape, murder, child abuse, etc; they talk primarily about 'impure' unsanctioned genital use.
would it be smart for anyone to use thier genitals however in leiu of stds, not ready to be a parent things like this?

These days, contraception is available as an option.
Outside of these days? Say the days this commandment was given. Condums dont stop every std or prevent every pregnancy...
But essentially having self control over your genitals makes the world a worse place is what Im seemingly getting

Its none of my business what other people do with their genitals nor is it anyone else's business. How is the world a better place by trying to get other people to conform to ideas that are not their own regarding their sex life? If someone wants to be gay, let them be gay. If they want to have sex with someone and they are not married, so be it.
Seeing how anal sex provides more grounds for infection and possible natural health risks do you find nature to be inheretly evil for punishing people that enjoy that activity? Or is your only argument purely in favor of a do what thou wilt philosophy with a basis around pleasure seeking?
Are you familiar with the troubles facing a father with multiple children from multiple mothers?
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 10:47:11 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 10:35:00 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/12/2016 10:19:53 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/12/2016 8:22:51 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/12/2016 7:28:14 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/12/2016 7:12:06 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/12/2016 6:56:58 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/12/2016 6:16:38 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/7/2016 6:02:37 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:58:03 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:53:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:06:10 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.

2 definitions.

1)Naturalistic: The highest possible being by darwinian means.

2)Supernaturalistic: the highest possible being by some other means not defined by our reality of which he created.

Do you realize that, in your definition, you explained it cannot be defined? How can you claim to have knowledge about a being that you cannot define? Sounds like, 'I know what he is like but I don't know what he is like'.

If you can define it, then define it and explain what evidence led you to that conclusion.

Sure. By mathematical laws of infinity, whether you propose infinite space or infinite history or both, by default God would be the highest possible being that can exist. By process of infinite history, it has never not been produced nor has it never not existed. That's basic math mixed with basic philosophy.

Although I think that is a poor argument, that argument can only be used for a deistic god. How does that prove that there is a biblical god that obsesses about how humans use their genitals?
You sure hes not more obsessed with how to treat the poor?

He doesn't appear to be. For a supposedly all powerful god, there is a lot of destitute people in this world.

Are you saying there is something inherently bad about being poor?

People that cant afford to feed their children would say yes.
So there is something inherently wrong with the person thats so poor they cant feed their children? Just trying to get some clairity.

I'm saying its more of a negative than a positive. Fair?
Hm sounds like more of an opiniom based around reativism than an absolute. But assuming being poor is always more of a negative than a positive what in your view makes this so? I suppose what Im getting at that its mans society that makes life difficult for the poor man. Agreed?

I'm saying that there are people in this world that are so poor that they have a hard time feeding their children. You said Jesus cares about the poor. Either he doesn't care enough to do something about it or he does care but is not all powerful.

In the bible, not only can one be guilty of unsanctioned sex, one can be guilty just for thinking about it. It is the only thought crime in the bible.
So you forgot about the passage of anger?
I was referring to the 10 commandments but OK.
Ok.

Furthermore, when most theists argue why their religion should take over the world, it is usually because of claims of modern immorality. When they talk about immorality, they don't talk about rape, murder, child abuse, etc; they talk primarily about 'impure' unsanctioned genital use.
would it be smart for anyone to use thier genitals however in leiu of stds, not ready to be a parent things like this?

These days, contraception is available as an option.
Outside of these days? Say the days this commandment was given. Condums dont stop every std or prevent every pregnancy...
But essentially having self control over your genitals makes the world a worse place is what Im seemingly getting

Its none of my business what other people do with their genitals nor is it anyone else's business. How is the world a better place by trying to get other people to conform to ideas that are not their own regarding their sex life? If someone wants to be gay, let them be gay. If they want to have sex with someone and they are not married, so be it.
Seeing how anal sex provides more grounds for infection and possible natural health risks do you find nature to be inheretly evil for punishing people that enjoy that activity? Or is your only argument purely in favor of a do what thou wilt philosophy with a basis around pleasure seeking?
come on...people don't oppose homosexuality because they are overly concerned about their health. That is just an excuse to tell them what to do. It is ironic that morbidly obese Christians will tell others what they shouldn't do for health reasons yet they cant go shopping without a scooter (Ive met them). Are you really going to tell a perfectly healthy homosexual they cant engage in sex with someone of the same sex for health reasons? If that is the real reason, I assume you are fine with lesbians...

How about if we all mind our own business?
Are you familiar with the troubles facing a father with multiple children from multiple mothers?
Yep. I recommend birth control. Besides, religious teenagers are statistically more likely to get pregnant than secular teenagers so religion has proven to be far from helpful in that regard.
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/12/2016 10:55:47 PM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 10:47:11 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/12/2016 10:35:00 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/12/2016 10:19:53 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/12/2016 8:22:51 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/12/2016 7:28:14 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/12/2016 7:12:06 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/12/2016 6:56:58 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/12/2016 6:16:38 PM, bigotry wrote:
At 7/7/2016 6:02:37 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:58:03 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:53:50 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 5:06:10 PM, brontoraptor wrote:
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.

2 definitions.

1)Naturalistic: The highest possible being by darwinian means.

2)Supernaturalistic: the highest possible being by some other means not defined by our reality of which he created.

Do you realize that, in your definition, you explained it cannot be defined? How can you claim to have knowledge about a being that you cannot define? Sounds like, 'I know what he is like but I don't know what he is like'.

If you can define it, then define it and explain what evidence led you to that conclusion.

Sure. By mathematical laws of infinity, whether you propose infinite space or infinite history or both, by default God would be the highest possible being that can exist. By process of infinite history, it has never not been produced nor has it never not existed. That's basic math mixed with basic philosophy.

Although I think that is a poor argument, that argument can only be used for a deistic god. How does that prove that there is a biblical god that obsesses about how humans use their genitals?
You sure hes not more obsessed with how to treat the poor?

He doesn't appear to be. For a supposedly all powerful god, there is a lot of destitute people in this world.

Are you saying there is something inherently bad about being poor?

People that cant afford to feed their children would say yes.
So there is something inherently wrong with the person thats so poor they cant feed their children? Just trying to get some clairity.

I'm saying its more of a negative than a positive. Fair?
Hm sounds like more of an opiniom based around reativism than an absolute. But assuming being poor is always more of a negative than a positive what in your view makes this so? I suppose what Im getting at that its mans society that makes life difficult for the poor man. Agreed?

I'm saying that there are people in this world that are so poor that they have a hard time feeding their children. You said Jesus cares about the poor. Either he doesn't care enough to do something about it or he does care but is not all powerful.
So why does the God of the OT and Jesus of the NT command his people to take care of the poor and bring his wrath on his people when they dont?

In the bible, not only can one be guilty of unsanctioned sex, one can be guilty just for thinking about it. It is the only thought crime in the bible.
So you forgot about the passage of anger?
I was referring to the 10 commandments but OK.
Ok.

Furthermore, when most theists argue why their religion should take over the world, it is usually because of claims of modern immorality. When they talk about immorality, they don't talk about rape, murder, child abuse, etc; they talk primarily about 'impure' unsanctioned genital use.
would it be smart for anyone to use thier genitals however in leiu of stds, not ready to be a parent things like this?

These days, contraception is available as an option.
Outside of these days? Say the days this commandment was given. Condums dont stop every std or prevent every pregnancy...
But essentially having self control over your genitals makes the world a worse place is what Im seemingly getting

Its none of my business what other people do with their genitals nor is it anyone else's business. How is the world a better place by trying to get other people to conform to ideas that are not their own regarding their sex life? If someone wants to be gay, let them be gay. If they want to have sex with someone and they are not married, so be it.
Seeing how anal sex provides more grounds for infection and possible natural health risks do you find nature to be inheretly evil for punishing people that enjoy that activity? Or is your only argument purely in favor of a do what thou wilt philosophy with a basis around pleasure seeking?
come on...people don't oppose homosexuality because they are overly concerned about their health. That is just an excuse to tell them what to do.
Or its God knowing whats best for humanity and a designer telling the designed the best way to live...
It is ironic that morbidly obese Christians will tell others what they shouldn't do for health reasons yet they cant go shopping without a scooter (Ive met them).

Well thats gluttony and its a deadly sin...again God knows whats good for man and whats not.
Are you really going to tell a perfectly healthy homosexual they cant engage in sex with someone of the same sex for health reasons? If that is the real reason, I assume you are fine with lesbians...

No its not only an unhealthy practice but also a perversion Id argue of sex. Theres a reason homosexuals are sometimes barred from giving blood. If being homosexual was good for the human race why dont they get to pass on their genes?

How about if we all mind our own business?
Are you familiar with the troubles facing a father with multiple children from multiple mothers?
Yep. I recommend birth control. Besides, religious teenagers are statistically more likely to get pregnant than secular teenagers so religion has proven to be far from helpful in that regard.
Where was birth control pre modern times? What if you cant afford it?
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 12:30:53 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/9/2016 3:19:20 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.
Apparently @lawlypants has nothing to say?

In another thread about evolution, Lawlypants just got the chemical composition of water wrong (easier than it sounds), along with common ancestry and survival of the fittest -- and would neither check references nor admit error on any of these. [http://www.debate.org...]

Apparently he has a lot to say, until challenged on what he actually knows. :( While it's possible for anyone to pull up their socks if they choose, speaking only personally, I won't expect sincere, respectful, good-faith participation from this member any time soon.
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 2:25:21 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 12:30:53 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:19:20 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.
Apparently @lawlypants has nothing to say?

In another thread about evolution, Lawlypants just got the chemical composition of water wrong (easier than it sounds), along with common ancestry and survival of the fittest -- and would neither check references nor admit error on any of these. [http://www.debate.org...]

There is a joke somewhere in there generalizing theists but I'll refrain :)
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 3:35:35 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/13/2016 2:25:21 AM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/13/2016 12:30:53 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 7/9/2016 3:19:20 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 7/7/2016 2:44:43 PM, Chaosism wrote:
This topic is broken off from another thread. Thanks for offering to have this discussion. My first request will be for you to define or detail exactly what notion of God you are referring to.
Apparently @lawlypants has nothing to say?

In another thread about evolution, Lawlypants just got the chemical composition of water wrong (easier than it sounds), along with common ancestry and survival of the fittest -- and would neither check references nor admit error on any of these. [http://www.debate.org...]

There is a joke somewhere in there generalizing theists but I'll refrain :)

Then I'll refrain from laughing, Matt, as often as it applies. :)
Willows
Posts: 2,084
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/13/2016 10:22:37 AM
Posted: 5 months ago
At 7/12/2016 9:00:11 PM, VirBinarus wrote:
At 7/12/2016 8:31:46 AM, Willows wrote:
At 7/12/2016 6:24:55 AM, VirBinarus wrote:
At 7/7/2016 6:02:37 PM, matt8800 wrote:
Although I think that is a poor argument, that argument can only be used for a deistic god. How does that prove that there is a biblical god that obsesses about how humans use their genitals?

All that we know about God has to come through him revealing himself to humans. Jesus is a great place to start if you want to know God.

That's one of the richest statements I have seen in a long time. Since when has "He" ever revealed "Himself" to anyone. And if I did want to see this "Being" with an anger management problem why do I need to go through his narcissistic, immaculately-born son?

Well, you could look at the rest of the Bible. The Bible is just a convenient collection of things that God has revealed to humanity, so that everyone can see them. If you look at the Bible you see it pretty clearly points to Jesus the whole way through.

And what do you have against looking at Jesus?

You said ".....revealing himself to humans...." yet you are now saying..." The Bible is just a convenient collection of things that God has revealed to humanity, so that everyone can see them."

My point is that nobody but nobody has ever seen God nor is there any authenticated document whatsoever from God. Nor is there any evidence whatsoever (let alone any information that only God would know) that what is written in the bible is God's word, unless you mean metaphorically.
So my statement stands....God is so elusive that he may as well not exist at all, in fact he does not.