Customer Discussions > religion discussion forum

God Does Not Exist Because... (3)

This discussion has reached the maximum length permitted, and cannot accept new replies. Start a new discussion

Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 3801-3825 of 10000 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 18:27:10 BDT
Shakepen says:
Norm: Are you certain you didn't say it was a verb? If you didn't, I really must stop drinking so much wine before posting.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 18:30:06 BDT
Tom M says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 18:35:56 BDT
Shakepen says:
Tom: Yes, computers do play games with each other if they are so designed. Have you ever played computer chess? You would swear that there was some evil genius facing you. But, alas, it is just lines of code.

Posted on 15 Jun 2012 18:37:34 BDT
Spin says:
Verb: a word denoting action. (from the Latin "Verbum" meaning "Word") Verbalisation: The action of vocally expressing a sign or word. The verbalisation of the definition of "verb"; The action of vocally expressing the sign denoting action... What about "verbal nouns"? Let me think about a definition concerning the verbalisation of verbal nouns..=0

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 18:39:11 BDT
Last edited by the author on 15 Jun 2012 18:42:00 BDT
Drew Jones says:
"Neither Sam nor Drew.. who one imagines considering that they are adding something here , apparently understands what the term principles of triangularity are."
I'm glad you said that, now's your chance to do what many have asked and explain what it is you mean by such a term. I don't actually think there is any greater meaning behind it for you other than it gets you to an argument for the transendental and at that point you assert God FTW! I'm fairly certain there is no more to it than that but I just need one of your bluster responses of how atheists understands and Dawkins is an idiot instead of substance to make sure... your choice.

"I like the quote from Russell where he mentions that people who don't understand something, retranslate the words into something they do understand and discover their ideas to be nonsense and laugh at it."
Would that be a Russell quote you actually have? One that you agree with too, that is a rare thing!

"This is indeed good for a laugh."
Constant laughter is a sign of being unbalanced not that someone else has made a howler, it's a fine line you tread.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 18:56:40 BDT
Tom M says:

Ya.. I knew throwing Behe in would ignite something.. it does with me and most catholics as well. But I did listen to his points, which most Catholic philosophers disagree with and I appreciated the fact that he was invited to give his views in an appropriate conference of very high quality.

His points were then rebutted by the following speaker rather well I thought. After 3 or 4 books on the subject I still can barely recognize the terms , let alone follow the arguments that are technical and specific in nature (pun).

For a touch of irony.. the dullards who constitute the brite lights of atheism make exactly the same mistake Behe does in their phiilosophical laugh tracks. Dawkins in particular for an even greater irony. Behe at least sticks mostly to subjects he has studied. I am long overdue to showing the painfully obvious idiocy of Dawkins in his uberdumbitudinous TGD, but this example bears on it exactly.

And, 'good soldier for Christ' or not, I'm just being me. I must confess that in your case and Gary's I do maintain a bit of hope that you guys might obtain an integrated lucidity that would certainly lead almost automatically to monotheism, which is about as far as arguments from reason alone can go, but I really do take seriously the catholic principle that it is a sin to try to convert someone.

"Sin" of course just means a moral wrong..something free-willed intelligent creatures can do.. in a purposeful universe and a life that matters.

Atheism of course has no coherent terms for it on any level. :-)

You also have the endearing and charming protestant notion of faith that Catholics don't share, and never did share. The existence of God is known to human beings and can be known by reason alone. The unconditioned cause argument and what flows from it are sufficient in themselves for this. You have to invite a surd to avoid it.

So how come you don't understand what 'faith' means and what possible warrant does blind, purposeless and radically unintelligible quantum events have for 'truth and moral warrant? Just who's visiting la-la land here? (Does La-La land refer to Los Angeles? should if it doesn't)

Once again, in your use of the word faith, you switch its meaning to that aspect that is certainly relevant, but not germane to the earlier misapplication. As far as I know, I am acting in faith right this moment. So too when I was devastating my poor opponents with a magnificent one handed topspin backhand last night and enjoying the inter-county matches.

So too when I watched TV and charged my phones.

Pauls.. "whole" message is that God can be seen in his works... I think, particularly.. human beings.

Anyone who holds that intelligent rational creatures with moral purpose and free will cannot be caused by an intelligent rational entity of moral purpose and freedom is .. self-evidently... incoherent and is indeed manifesting exactly the blind faith that is falsely ascribed (as a matter of record) to tradtiona theism.

"If it is against reason, it is sinful." - Saint Thomas Aquinas

I'll post a link to the conference. Feser was tough to follow , for he covered a huge tract of philosophy, but the speaker I mentionned at the end of the Stephen Barr section.. and Barr himself who is really good.. is well worth the price of admission.

You 'ole soldier for dustbunnies you.... :-)

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 19:25:58 BDT
Tom M says:
Hi Shakepen

I'm sure almost any computer could light my diodes at chess, but .. once again.. the computer is not rendering lines of code. You do the code. The computer, like the brain has no principle of understanding.

Its a pretty persistent myth rooted in the inability to distinguish between the sense-based imagination and the intellect, which is of a different order.

The way a philosophy prof once showed the difference that occurs within each of us was with the following examples from our own experience . Try it.

1. Imagine a beautiful young lady.

This requires ..our imaging power or imagination. Sense based.

2. Define womanliness.

Here we might refer to images and events with sensory images, but the intellectual task is different.

The human mind cannot imagine the principles of triangularity, and yet they are unavoidable properties of every triangle.

Welcome to the world of the intellect.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 19:30:08 BDT
Tom M says:
Apparently Drew wants to maintain his earlier level of content and invites me to waste even more time on his incomprehension. No sign that he understood what I already wrote so why on earth would I repeat it. It wasn't even difficult.

The revolving door.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 19:31:52 BDT
Drew Jones says:
There's the answer.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 19:33:56 BDT
"Why not stick with just faith?"

Because faith isn't enough. Try having faith in something that you know to be unreal. Faith such as religious faith must eventually make claims for reality, otherwise it's impotent and useless. In order to have faith, you must believe that the object of those beliefs is, on some level, real. That doesn't mean that it is real, of course, just that you believe that it is.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 19:49:49 BDT
Norm Deplume says:

I categorically stated that 'evolution' was a noun and not a verb. It was Karl who claimed the opposite.

The sequence (before we got into whether 'tion' words can be verbs) was:

Shakepen (13 Jun 2012 04:31:40 page 144) Evolution is a noun describing the process of changes in living things to the environment.

Karl (13 Jun 2012 15:23:32 page 146) Unfortunately evolution is a verb. Basically the term evolution simply means change.

Isobel Ayres (13 Jun 2012 15:55:49page 147) No, it isn't. 'To evolve' is a verb, but it is not necessarily the same as the noun 'evolution'..

Norm Deplume ( 13 Jun 2012 16:12:58 page 147) Evolution is a noun. If you can find a citation for "he evolutions" or "evolutioned" or "evolutioning" or something similar please show it.

Shakepen (13 Jun 2012 17:48:27 page 148) Evolution is a noun: the "tion" gives it away.

Fron your post at 17:17:30 today:
"What triggered this whole discussion was that you defined Evolution as a process and therein lies the problem."

I didn't, you did. See the extract above.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 20:21:02 BDT
Isobel Ayres says:
Yeah, Shakepen's good at misremembering how conversations started...

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 20:27:49 BDT
Tom M says:

Faith does not mean belief without evidence on any level in traditional theism. This usage applies to some variants of protestant thought and to a common mistaken view of would-be atheists, but does not represent Christian theology or philosophy at all.

It is a good criticism of some protestant principles and errors, but is irrelevant to me or traditional Christianity.

Incidentally, your belief in the intelligibility of the universe and in human reason is held in faith.

Almost everything you think you know, as is the case for everyone, is grounded in faith in something you cannot demonstrate,

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 20:30:33 BDT
Tom M says:
"There's the answer"

Exactly. You again illustrate my point.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 21:32:50 BDT
Now, can anyone spot the contradiction -- one might almost say the incoherency -- in Tom's post? It's blindingly obvious!*

* Which basically means that I don't have to actually demonstrate it, but instead just spend months on end telling everyone that they should have noticed it by now.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 21:41:24 BDT
Last edited by the author on 15 Jun 2012 22:09:08 BDT
Drew Jones says:
You've not even got the makings of a point, that's why you talk in nonsensical pseudo-philosophical buzzwords you've heard and can parrot but clearly not understood to the degree of being able to use for yourself. When asked to make your point all you can do it pretend no one could understand - it's an admission of failure of sorts.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 23:49:09 BDT
Shakepen says:
Spin: In my library I have Leonard, Sterling Andrus. The Doctrine of Correctness in English Usage 1700-1800. New York: Russell and Russell: 1962. You cannot image the heated disputes about grammar and usage. The whole problem was that the grammarians were appealing to Latin grammar as a guide to English! Consider: "All the rules of Latin syntax, it is true, cannot be applied to our is to be always remembered, that the chief and fundamental rules of syntax are common" to these languages (p. 146) This statement is laughable! Latin is a heavily inflected language and English is an analytic language, i.e., inflections are minimal and sentence position is important for parts of speech.

As for the very verbalization of verbal nouns, one must be very verbose, which is why one grunts and groans with gerunds.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jun 2012 23:58:58 BDT
Shakepen says:
Tom M: Faith is one of the most important aspects of Paul's faith. You are confusing Paul with James. James said that works were more important than faith. Paul used faith as an argument against circumcision and as the most important tenent of Christianity.

As for being a Christian, my sister is a born again, through and through. She tries to lead her entire life in accordance with her Christian beliefs. Unfortunately, she even believes that the earth is no older than 10,000 years. She refuses to accept radioactive decay measurements, inorganic evolution, which all Christians have accepted since the 18th century, and other proofs of the age of the earth. Such ignorance is rather tedious since it makes education extraneous. Can you imagine what would happen to science if such people get control of the public school curriculum?

But I would like for you to reread Paul. Then, let's discuss his views.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2012 00:06:39 BDT
Shakepen says:
Tom M: the process is the same. Patterns of neurons are used in all cases. Moreover, since language has been used, the two questions are dealt with in the left hemisphere. Also, "beautiful" is a high level abstraction. Each person will have a different referent for the word in reality. Like "womanliless" both questions will also involve culturally induced characteristics.

Sensory images are not arrived at through language, but by the sensory organs. For example, you may not have played the piano for years, but will suddenly find that your muscles have preserved the memory. the same with riding a bicycle or other activities requiring sensory imput-output to complete the task.

But, Tom, keep arguing. You bring up some interesting ideas.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2012 00:18:46 BDT
Shakepen says:
Norm: here is how I defined evolution on 13 Jun:Karl: Sorry. Evolution is a noun: the "tion" gives it away. My point is that we use this noun to describe the interaction between the environment and the genes of the organisms that inhabit that environment.

Later, I argued that nouns, though supposedly a person, place, or thing, can designate a process, which would fit under the pedagogical grammatical definition of verb. Evolution can refer to a process while remaining a noun. Please don't make me go through the posts again to document my point. It is a pain, and I don't know how you did it.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2012 00:20:07 BDT
Shakepen says:
Isobel: A little Christian charity, please. And I think my recent paste will prove that your comment about my memory will be show much exaggerated!

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2012 00:25:01 BDT
Shakepen says:
Isobel: Be gentle. I'm very sensitive. You've taken my god away, and now you're trying to do the same with my memory! I don't have a chance!

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2012 06:00:28 BDT
light says:

You are correct in saying that people can't be commanded to love, (in the way of a noun, an emotional way) but anyone can follow a command to love in the way of a verb. Love in action would change the world for the better, share with the poor, visit the sick, the elderly, the prisoners, teach others how to make a living, teach the ignorant manners and proper behavior by example, does this make more sense to you?

Love means many different things, it isn't only emotional, love is also a verb. If a person loved themself they would take good care of themself by eating right, exercising, getting enough rest, spending quality time with the family, not allowing themself speak disrespectfully, do their share to improve the world, live under the umbrella of dignity, integrity, deligence and be impeccable in everything one thinks, says, and does......

If everyone lived under the action of love then everyone would be safe because love protects us from harming ourselves and from harming others. When people are fortunate enough to find someone to emotionally love that is even better.

True love never fails, it encourages, protects and it disciplines.

Empty prayers are not loving, people should never tell someone that they will pray for them and then do not put arms and legs behind their prayer. If a person offers a prayer to someone and there is nothing that they can personally do to help then they can spread the word and look for someon who can help, that's love!

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2012 09:32:03 BDT
"Tom M", said;
Russell denied his own existence

Assertion with no supporting evidence.

"Tom M", said;
Russell denied Napoleon's existence

Assertion with no supporting evidence.

Tom M", said;
"You like to use words like "liar" etc a lot NH."

Assertion with no supporting evidence.

I'm beginning to sense a pattern here, Thommy.

In reply to an earlier post on 16 Jun 2012 10:03:21 BDT
"It is always entertaining to read non-Catholics trying to tell us what we believe."
"The 'Nobility of suffering', capitalised as if to mean something, is something you have completely invented."

I was raised a Catholic, and was an altar boy for 7 years, went to Catholic Primary and Secondary schools and most of my family remain Catholic. My teachers and parish priest taught me everything on the list including the nobility of suffering. Suffering is not a burden but a gift to be accepted humbly and offered up to God. It cleanses and purifies the soul, hence the well known expression "suffering is good for the soul".

Call it "Redemptive Suffering", if it makes you feel better.

>>Redemptive suffering (Why do I suffer?)<<

>>Those sincerely seeking to grow closer to Christ know that it must be by way of the cross. Each day brings many little opportunities to submit willingly to various kinds of self-giving that go against the grain. Like Christ, we too can pray in certain painful situations, "let this chalice pass from me" as long as we are willing to add "nevertheless, not my will but yours be done"<<

Father Paul A. Duffner, O.P.

>>Suffering is certainly part of the mystery of man. Perhaps suffering is not wrapped up as much as man is by this mystery, which is an especially impenetrable one. The Second Vatican Council expressed this truth that "...only in the mystery of the Incarnate Word does the mystery of man take on light. In fact..., Christ, the final Adam, by the revelation of the mystery of the Father and his love, fully reveals man to himself and makes his supreme calling clear"(100). If these words refer to everything that concerns the mystery of man, then they certainly refer in a very special way to human suffering. Precisely at this point the "revealing of man to himself and making his supreme vocation clear" is particularly indispensable. It also happens as experience proves-that this can be particularly dramatic. But when it is completely accomplished and becomes the light of human life, it is particularly blessed. "Through Christ and in Christ, the riddles of sorrow and death grow meaningful"<<

John Paul II

Incidentally Paul Davidson (Catholic) had no quibble with the expression "nobility of suffering", read his response here;

"do try to find out about things before you attempt to rubbish them."

Good advice, perhaps you might practise it sometime.
Discussion locked


This discussion

Discussion in:  religion discussion forum
Participants:  182
Total posts:  10000
Initial post:  6 Mar 2012
Latest post:  10 Jan 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 5 customers

Search Customer Discussions