Valefor.Sehachan said: »
What god wouldn't want lasers?
Are All Terrorists Muslims? It’s Not Even Close |
||
|
Are All Terrorists Muslims? It’s Not Even Close
Valefor.Sehachan said: » What god wouldn't want lasers? Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » Asura.Alexandero said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » ScaevolaBahamut said: » Quote: Apparently you fail to notice the one thing common in every religion there is: A creator is born from the mind of a man. If religion never existed, there would be no concept of God, and without a concept of God, he would cease being God and will be known as an unknown. Since the unknown cannot be known without evidence of existence, the being formally known as God would not exist because by definition of the (now nonexistent religious text) concept of God requires a defined existence which never existed. Ok, I have to stick up for Alexandero here and say you're begging the question in a real and serious way; saying God wouldn't exist without mortals to worship it is just starting from the premise that God is a work of fiction, unless you're relying on some silly D&D/Gaiman cosmology where the gods rely on human worship for power. Plenty, if not all religions suppose divine forces that exist without the consent of mortals, and some (Sikhism is awesome about this) are explicit that God is indifferent to mortal worship; the worship is for the benefit of the mortals. Religion defines the illusion that a creator is responsible for any and all happenings in this world, which is a crutch from knowing how things really work in the world. Placing blame on an event instead of an action is man's greatest crutch in life. You're failing to understand the argument from a presupposed premise. The only reason you think he can't exist without man, is that you've first decided man created him. You're stuck in a circular argument. The argument typically in play isn't "does god exist?" but "does god XYZ exist?" and the latter is far easier to attack due to the inconsistencies of the source material (holy books) presented as definitive evidence. Most atheists aren't going to touch the deist argument because few deists are out and about causing trouble or claiming their God has a stake in humanity. They're busy I dunno... living their lives without evangelizing. Right. I've stated multiple times, do your research and make your own decision. I'm not trying to "convert" anyone. The real reason I am playing this game, is because I enjoy sparring with people. Sometimes I even hear a new idea that I didn't think about, or get a perspective I wouldn't have thought about. In the process, I also get to test some of my own ideas and find out what arguments there are against them, which serves to help me refine those arguments. I am by no means attempting to convert anyone. Odin.Blazeoffury said: » Evolution is still a theory. Theism is an concept that can never be proven. Which one holds true more, a theory or concept? Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: » ScaevolaBahamut said: » Quote: Apparently you fail to notice the one thing common in every religion there is: A creator is born from the mind of a man. If religion never existed, there would be no concept of God, and without a concept of God, he would cease being God and will be known as an unknown. Since the unknown cannot be known without evidence of existence, the being formally known as God would not exist because by definition of the (now nonexistent religious text) concept of God requires a defined existence which never existed. Ok, I have to stick up for Alexandero here and say you're begging the question in a real and serious way; saying God wouldn't exist without mortals to worship it is just starting from the premise that God is a work of fiction, unless you're relying on some silly D&D/Gaiman cosmology where the gods rely on human worship for power. Plenty, if not all religions suppose divine forces that exist without the consent of mortals, and some (Sikhism is awesome about this) are explicit that God is indifferent to mortal worship; the worship is for the benefit of the mortals. God is a primal? It all makes sense now. I...can't believe I'm actually gonna oh what the hell The primals draw power from aetherite, not worship. The worship is only important insofar as it motivates mortals to actually go out and get more aetherite. The D&D/Gaiman thing is a system where mortal belief itself empowers supernatural beings because Reasons. Hallowed are the Ori
Great holy armies shall be gathered and trained to fight all who embrace evil. In the name of the gods, ships shall be built to carry our warriors out amongst the stars, and we will spread Origin to all the unbelievers. I believe in the light of the Mothercrystal.
Changed lives, mine personally is a strong testament for the faith i hold. But in the long run i think i bother answering or attempting to answer questions for the dozens of lurkers who read. No ones ever changed their mind but i know there are many onlookers and i suppose were both giving them perspectives to look at from each side.
Odin.Blazeoffury said: » Bloodrose said: » You can strongly disagree that ground morals are inherent, even in the face of over overwhelming evidence to the contrary all you like. If, in fact morals such as killing people is wrong - why are there so many people who do it without remorse? Remorse comes from a feeling of empathy - understanding the other person. It's learned behavior. Morals are subjective, and you don't learn about what morals you have, until you see the effects around you. You would have to have a conscious awareness of the world at large, at the time of your birth, to even contemplate such things, yet the world at the fingertips of an infant is extremely limited. The concept of the "human heart", in this context that you are personally trying to pitch, is a man-made concept as well, and is often only used to equate one's idea of humanity to another person's view. There are children who grow up believing that lying is good, and feel good doing so. More still that believe they are better than others, simply by virtue of birth, and use it as a means to step all over others. Yet, by your logic, because that is what they inherently believe from birth, that they can do no wrong. (that's the logic, not what you actually said) I quite clearly stated "inherent at birth", as well as learned behavior. Now, please do stop making false arguments. You only really hurt your cause. @Alexandero, Gospels are not used as a means of record-keeping, but faith building. Hence the term "The Gospel Truth" comes from taking the Gospel as truth, despite evidence to the contrary. Additionally, there are records of Alexander of Macedon from the date of his birth, to the time he died, and the explicit details of his inner sanctum, and his conquests to his concubines. Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Asura.Alexandero said: » Come on King. We've been through this. If he actually exists, then he would exists regardless of religion, or our beliefs, or w/e. If God really exists and humans never did, he wouldn't cease to exist. He is either there or he isn't and it doesn't matter if we think he is or isnt. If we go by your way of thinking. If god exist, something created it, if something created it, something created what created it and so on infinitely. So which god do you want to believe in? Why would God need to have been created by something? Look, I don't believe in God but the Church was willing to say Go Home Aquinas You're Drunk like 500 years ago so I don't know why you guys think you're scoring points here. Odin.Blazeoffury said: » Changed lives, mine personally is a strong testament for the faith i hold. But in the long run i think i bother answering or attempting to answer questions for the dozens of lurkers who read. No ones ever changed their mind but i know there are many onlookers and i suppose were both giving them perspectives to look at from each side. Plus, blind faith is not faith, it's ignorance. Odin.Blazeoffury said: » Changed lives, mine personally is a strong testament for the faith i hold. But in the long run i think i bother answering or attempting to answer questions for the dozens of lurkers who read. No ones ever changed their mind but i know there are many onlookers and i suppose were both giving them perspectives to look at from each side. Asura.Alexandero said: » Odin.Blazeoffury said: » Changed lives, mine personally is a strong testament for the faith i hold. But in the long run i think i bother answering or attempting to answer questions for the dozens of lurkers who read. No ones ever changed their mind but i know there are many onlookers and i suppose were both giving them perspectives to look at from each side. Valefor.Sehachan said: » I believe in the light of the Mothercrystal. You should, it's how you get to Al'Taieu. Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Asura.Alexandero said: » No, that isn't what I said. I said if something exists within our space time continuum then something created it. This doesn't and wouldnt apply to something existing outside of our space-time continuum. If there is no time, then there is no beginning, thus, you don't need a creator. infinite regression only works when time is present. Ok so God doesn't exist because it never began. Makes sense. Something with no beginning cannot exist. The Christian God/Jesus specifically addresses this. "I am the Alpha and Omega", etc. He IS the beginning. ScaevolaBahamut said: » Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Asura.Alexandero said: » No, that isn't what I said. I said if something exists within our space time continuum then something created it. This doesn't and wouldnt apply to something existing outside of our space-time continuum. If there is no time, then there is no beginning, thus, you don't need a creator. infinite regression only works when time is present. Ok so God doesn't exist because it never began. Makes sense. Something with no beginning cannot exist. The Christian God/Jesus specifically addresses this. "I am the Alpha and Omega", etc. He IS the beginning. Except, "Alpha" and "Omega" are Greek and Roman terms, which predate the bible, and the concept of a singular God.
Bloodrose said: » Odin.Blazeoffury said: » Bloodrose said: » You can strongly disagree that ground morals are inherent, even in the face of over overwhelming evidence to the contrary all you like. If, in fact morals such as killing people is wrong - why are there so many people who do it without remorse? Remorse comes from a feeling of empathy - understanding the other person. It's learned behavior. Morals are subjective, and you don't learn about what morals you have, until you see the effects around you. You would have to have a conscious awareness of the world at large, at the time of your birth, to even contemplate such things, yet the world at the fingertips of an infant is extremely limited. The concept of the "human heart", in this context that you are personally trying to pitch, is a man-made concept as well, and is often only used to equate one's idea of humanity to another person's view. There are children who grow up believing that lying is good, and feel good doing so. More still that believe they are better than others, simply by virtue of birth, and use it as a means to step all over others. Yet, by your logic, because that is what they inherently believe from birth, that they can do no wrong. (that's the logic, not what you actually said) I quite clearly stated "inherent at birth", as well as learned behavior. Now, please do stop making false arguments. You only really hurt your cause. @Alexandero, Gospels are not used as a means of record-keeping, but faith building. Hence the term "The Gospel Truth" comes from taking the Gospel as truth, despite evidence to the contrary. Additionally, there are records of Alexander of Macedon from the date of his birth, to the time he died, and the explicit details of his inner sanctum, and his conquests to his concubines. Source please. There were early records of Alexander, but they were lost. We know of these records because people used them to write their own version centuries later. We don't have any original sources, only the sources of the sources. In contrast, we have the original sources of Christ. Maybe they were faith building gospels, that doesn't change whether they were true or not. Nor, does it explain how multiple independent sources accounted for the same things. If you can disprove the "Independent and Correlated" source criteria and show that they were not, then contact the scholars and tell them. It will change the historicity of the Gospels. They've devoted their life to scholarly historical documents, I doubt you can prove they are wrong. At least in a meaningful sense that is accepted by the general scholar community. Go for it though. Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Asura.Alexandero said: » No, that isn't what I said. I said if something exists within our space time continuum then something created it. This doesn't and wouldnt apply to something existing outside of our space-time continuum. If there is no time, then there is no beginning, thus, you don't need a creator. infinite regression only works when time is present. Ok so God doesn't exist because it never began. Makes sense. Something with no beginning cannot exist. Asura.Kingnobody said: » ScaevolaBahamut said: » Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Asura.Alexandero said: » No, that isn't what I said. I said if something exists within our space time continuum then something created it. This doesn't and wouldnt apply to something existing outside of our space-time continuum. If there is no time, then there is no beginning, thus, you don't need a creator. infinite regression only works when time is present. Ok so God doesn't exist because it never began. Makes sense. Something with no beginning cannot exist. The Christian God/Jesus specifically addresses this. "I am the Alpha and Omega", etc. He IS the beginning. Bloodrose said: » Except, "Alpha" and "Omega" are Greek and Roman terms, which predate the bible, and the concept of a singular God. you can't see it but i am rolling my eyes SO HARD right now there is a ton wrong with this but let's start here: why would you think that God, if he deigned to speak to mortals, would not choose to speak to them in a way they would understand Asura.Alexandero said: » Source please. There were early records of Alexander, but they were lost. We know of these records because people used them to write their own version centuries later. We don't have any original sources, only the sources of the sources. In contrast, we have the original sources of Christ. Maybe they were faith building gospels, that doesn't change whether they were true or not. Nor, does it explain how multiple independent sources accounted for the same things. If you can disprove the "Independent and Correlated" source criteria and show that they were not, then contact the scholars and tell them. It will change the historicity of the Gospels. They've devoted their life to scholarly historical documents, I doubt you can prove they are wrong. At least in a meaningful sense that is accepted by the general scholar community. Go for it though. Seriously? Asura.Kingnobody said: » Asura.Alexandero said: » Source please. There were early records of Alexander, but they were lost. We know of these records because people used them to write their own version centuries later. We don't have any original sources, only the sources of the sources. In contrast, we have the original sources of Christ. Maybe they were faith building gospels, that doesn't change whether they were true or not. Nor, does it explain how multiple independent sources accounted for the same things. If you can disprove the "Independent and Correlated" source criteria and show that they were not, then contact the scholars and tell them. It will change the historicity of the Gospels. They've devoted their life to scholarly historical documents, I doubt you can prove they are wrong. At least in a meaningful sense that is accepted by the general scholar community. Go for it though. Seriously? Who is questioning the sources of sources? Could you quote were I said I didn't believe in Alexander? Time is our perception of the transformation of matter/energy. If god is timeless it means it's still and immutable. Which kinda begs the question of how something can create anything without having any impact at all on its surroudings. Of course this all based on our comprehension, which can obviously be missing concepts beyond our reach. Our imagination is big but it is limited by known patterns(ie: you cannot visualize in your head a new colour).
Asura.Alexandero said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » ScaevolaBahamut said: » Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Asura.Alexandero said: » No, that isn't what I said. I said if something exists within our space time continuum then something created it. This doesn't and wouldnt apply to something existing outside of our space-time continuum. If there is no time, then there is no beginning, thus, you don't need a creator. infinite regression only works when time is present. Ok so God doesn't exist because it never began. Makes sense. Something with no beginning cannot exist. The Christian God/Jesus specifically addresses this. "I am the Alpha and Omega", etc. He IS the beginning. First, you have yet to provide a source that the earliest documentation we have of Alexander the Great, were from 600 years after his death.
Even though you admit there were early records. Except they aren't their "own" versions, but historically accurate copies, which reference the prime material - of which not all was lost. And it does bring into question whether the gospels were true or not, as over 90% of the information contained in the gospels, have been tried, tested, and proven to be false. Even among Biblical scholars, which very few actually agree on, barring certain limited knowledge. Additionally, we do *not* have the original sources of the Gospels, but various, inconsistent, retellings compiled in a book 400-600 years after the Advent of Christ. They continue to try and prove each other wrong, and that their suppositions and interpretations (of which is lost in translation due to the ancient language being very poorly recorded) Asura.Kingnobody said: » Asura.Alexandero said: » Asura.Kingnobody said: » ScaevolaBahamut said: » Caitsith.Shiroi said: » Asura.Alexandero said: » No, that isn't what I said. I said if something exists within our space time continuum then something created it. This doesn't and wouldnt apply to something existing outside of our space-time continuum. If there is no time, then there is no beginning, thus, you don't need a creator. infinite regression only works when time is present. Ok so God doesn't exist because it never began. Makes sense. Something with no beginning cannot exist. The Christian God/Jesus specifically addresses this. "I am the Alpha and Omega", etc. He IS the beginning. |
||
|
All FFXI content and images © 2002-2025 SQUARE ENIX CO., LTD. FINAL
FANTASY is a registered trademark of Square Enix Co., Ltd.
|
||