SabaAba 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 No one has to.It's abstract. That's what abstract means. Terrible example.Why don't you elaborate a little more on this ...So if I say G-d is abstract, will you believe in him/her? Link to post Share on other sites
Smasharoo 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 I'm just saying be the better man. Sit this one out for the respect you have from the kids in the forum. People still look up to your opinions.Hey, if I save one Chrisan kid from no pre-marital sex...I'm a saint, baby! Link to post Share on other sites
TJ_Eckleburg 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Guess we reached diffrent conclusions. I went on to read some people born after 1920 though...Touche.I guess we'll call C.S. Lewis a push for that time frame... but he's bigger on the "objective Christianity being the truth and that's it" bit than the "existentialist" bit anyway.I'm curious though...Free Will vs. Determinism. Thoughts? Your track record would imply determinism, but I'm not going to put words in your mouth. Link to post Share on other sites
poguemahone68 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Smash is just saying that he wasn't being exclusive with his statements. It's like saying, "Guys hate fat women." Obviously this is not true for every guy in the world -- in fact, some cultures prefer extra curvature. It just so happens that Smash is exceptional at saying it in a manner that strings you along and ticks you off.Not really. You're on the right track though. Link to post Share on other sites
Smasharoo 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 Why don't you elaborate a little more on this ...So if I say G-d is abstract, will you believe in him/her?Of course not.Because no one belives in infity. It's a place holder for an abstract concept.Like the word "God".The fact that I use the word "God" doesn't imply belief. Just a tool to talk aobut an abstract conept.Same with infity or imaginary numbers, etc.I mean hell, they're imaginary! Link to post Share on other sites
Nate Dogg OC 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Acesgotcracked, firstly how could you name someone like Cheserton in the same sentence as Socrates, Aristotle, and Aquinas, and second of all I suggest you read Ayn Rand because she finished what Aristotle started and corrected his philosophic flaws, of which there were not many, but the few were important, and his theory of an immovable mover can be interpreted as the universe in general and not necessarily as God as a side note. Also, to whoever posted about the infinite regress thing being proof that God exists, honestly do I have to ask the question? Isn't God's existence subject to the same logical criterion as that to which you are subjecting the Big Bang theory? In any case everyone ought to read Ayn Rand's novel Atlas Shrugged, it will clear up a lot of questions. By the way Smash for some reason I think you have probably already read Atlas Shrugged or at least The Fountainhead.....just hazarding a guess. Link to post Share on other sites
JTPHS 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Why don't you elaborate a little more on this ...So if I say G-d is abstract, will you believe in him/her?Of course not.Because no one belives in infity. It's a place holder for an abstract concept.Like the word "God".The fact that I use the word "God" doesn't imply belief. Just a tool to talk aobut an abstract conept.Same with infity or imaginary numbers, etc.I mean hell, they're imaginary!wow this is my belief exactly. i was wondering if anyone else figured this out. i always relate god to infinity because i feel that saying god is just a way of putting a name on whatever it is that "started" the universe and brought us to this point. is "god" a person? i think "it's" whatever you want it to be. Link to post Share on other sites
Pupsta 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 not going to read through 6 pages of this...here's my takei don't know shit, you don't know shit, smash doesn't know shit, daniel doesn't know shit, reverend jimbob doesn't know shit, pope benedict XKFJDSKJ doesn't know shit...it's all speculation. I'd prefer not to know shit... gives the end of life some sort of mystery. Link to post Share on other sites
TJ_Eckleburg 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 By the way Smash for some reason I think you have probably already read Atlas Shrugged or at least The Fountainhead.....just hazarding a guess.I enjoyed "Anthem" more than "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."Personal opinion, though. Link to post Share on other sites
SabaAba 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Of course not.Because no one belives in infity. It's a place holder for an abstract concept.Like the word "God".The fact that I use the word "God" doesn't imply belief. Just a tool to talk aobut an abstract conept.Same with infity or imaginary numbers, etc.I mean hell, they're imaginary!Exactly! And there is no way to prove that anything imaginary exists unless you see it, right? Well if, like most religions, you believe that G-d is not something we can see, hear or touch, then there is no way to prove that G-d exists. Which just means that in your attempt to not want to believe in G-d, you take the route of prove to me that he exists, when you clearly know that such evidence is not possible. Hence you agree with everyone who believes in G-d about what G-d is. And just because you don't want to follow some religion, doesn't mean you don't believe in G-d, because you obviously think that G-d is abstract as do I. I happen to follow the Jewish faith, where as you follow the no faith, yet we both agree that G-d is abstract and therefore exists in an abstract state.So in essence, we are all agruing that he exists. I thought that debates where supposed to have two different sides? Link to post Share on other sites
DCWildcat 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 By the way Smash for some reason I think you have probably already read Atlas Shrugged or at least The Fountainhead.....just hazarding a guess.I enjoyed "Anthem" more than "Atlas Shrugged" and "The Fountainhead."Personal opinion, though.Capitalism: The Unknown Ideal and The Virtue of Selfishness kinda sucked though Link to post Share on other sites
KingAustin 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 let's just all watch this and laughhttp://www.ebaumsworld.com/fartingpreacher4.html Link to post Share on other sites
Smasharoo 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 Free Will vs. Determinism. Thoughts? Your track record would imply determinism, but I'm not going to put words in your mouth.Doesn't matter. Link to post Share on other sites
Guest Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Where the fuck is Bob C. for all of this? Link to post Share on other sites
Smasharoo 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 Which just means that in your attempt to not want to believe in G-d, you take the route of prove to me that he exists, when you clearly know that such evidence is not possible. That's just horrible...I hesitate to even all it logic.Replace God with Easter Bunny. If the case seems the identical, not a good case for god. Easy test.Ayn Raynd was all penis envy. She wanted Frank Loyyd Right's and couldn't have it. Objectivism is a sad joke. Link to post Share on other sites
Don Giovanni 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 lol there is no proof there isn't a God so its a pointless argument,Or an Easter Bunny.Pointless to argue about the Easter bunny. He's as likely to exist as not. well one easter i stayed up all night so i could see the easter bunny come in the morning. it never came so thats kinda proof isnt it. Link to post Share on other sites
Smasharoo 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 well one easter i stayed up all night so i could see the easter bunny come in the morning. it never came so thats kinda proof isnt it.Sure.I did the same for God.No dice. Link to post Share on other sites
SabaAba 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 well one easter i stayed up all night so i could see the easter bunny come in the morning. it never came so thats kinda proof isnt it.Sure.I did the same for God.No dice.Yeah but the EB is an actual Bunny whereas G-d is not an actual person, nor is he anything you could see, so staying up all night waiting for him to show up is not a good argument for G-d but sure is for Santa or the EB. I think you just lost this one. Link to post Share on other sites
Smasharoo 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 Yeah but the EB is an actual Bunny whereas G-d is not an actual person, nor is he anything you could see, so staying up all night waiting for him to show up is not a good argument for G-d but sure is for Santa or the EB.I think you just lost this one.You don't know for sure what God or the Easter Bunny look like.No one's met either one and told us about it.Nice try. Link to post Share on other sites
SabaAba 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Sorry.You clearly see that the EB is not a good comparison, anyone who believes in the EB, believes it's a bunny, i.e. something you can see. Anyone who believes in G-d believes you can't see him.Besides, what kind of proof are you looking for? I can give you the proof if you tell me what kind of proof you want. The thing is you can't ask me for physical proof because I don't believe G-d has any physical atributes. Link to post Share on other sites
Smasharoo 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 Sorry.You clearly see that the EB is not a good comparison, anyone who believes in the EB, believes it's a bunny, i.e. something you can see. Anyone who believes in G-d believes you can't see him.Not at all.Don't make silly blanket statments. Lots of people think EB can turn invisible at will.Also that he's omnicient.Besides, what kind of proof are you looking for? I can give you the proof if you tell me what kind of proof you want. The thing is you can't ask me for physical proof because I don't believe G-d has any physical atributes.You can't offer me any proof of God and I can't offer you any of EB. Diffrent people experience their belief in both of them diffrently. Christians would tend to think God was a humanoid, no? "In his own image" after all.The cases are equal.Sorry. Link to post Share on other sites
DCWildcat 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 Anyone who believes in G-d believes you can't see him.Are you referring to Judeo-Christian believers?I'd assume you are, since it's obvious that you can see God in other religions.Genesis 32:30 Link to post Share on other sites
DCWildcat 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 If God doesn't have physical attributes, can he be directly observed? Link to post Share on other sites
Smasharoo 0 Posted June 23, 2005 Author Share Posted June 23, 2005 If God doesn't have physical attributes, can he be directly observed?Doesn't matter.Existance is predicated on observilbility in a rational sense. Metaphysically, who cares? Link to post Share on other sites
crowTrobot 2 Posted June 23, 2005 Share Posted June 23, 2005 "it's so hard to believe in anything these days, religion seems so mythological, and seems so arbitrary. and then science is just pure empericism, and by virtue of its method excludes metaphysics.i guess i wouldn't belive in anything.... if it weren't for my lucky astrology mood watch!"steve martin Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now