01-03-2002 03:04									#31
	Support Apolyton

When man first looked up at the sun and wondered, "How does it move by itself?", he had no telescopes or advanced optical instruments to to tell him what was happening. So the idea of a god that rode across the sky in a flaming chariot was feasible.

Today it is the same thing. We still seek miraculous explanations for the wonders of the world, only now we call them science. To believe blindly in science is no different that believing blindly in religion. They do the same things: fudge the basic questions, demonize those who do not agree, change the rules whenever it suits them ("Weee-elll, I'll say that there's a particle called a tachyon that moves faster than light and backwards in time, and whose properties are just so that they satisfy my observations . . .).

	01-03-2002 03:15									#32
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by MacTBone How pray tell, do you get anything from nothing? If it is nothing, by definition, there isn't anything there. It's not like you have an empty banl account, you don't have a bank account at all.

Well actually, I would say there is no such thing as nothingness. We define (any)things by their attributes, and in order for something to be nothing(ness) it must not have any attributes. That very fact is an attribute in and of itself.

Put another way, nothingness is nothing in no dimensions which is still by definition something, as represented in the mathematical statement: 0⁰ =1

	01-03-2002 03:25									#33
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Ahhh, but how do you define 0/0 or 1/0, it's not the same as 0/1.

	01-03-2002 04:19									#34
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Mr. President When man first looked up at the sun and wondered, "How does it move by itself?", he had no telescopes or advanced optical instruments to to tell him what was happening. So the idea of a god that rode across the sky in a flaming chariot was feasible. Today it is the same thing. We still seek miraculous explanations for the wonders of the world, only now we call them science. To believe blindly in science is no different that believing blindly in religion. They do the same things: fudge the basic questions, demonize those who do not agree, change the rules whenever it suits them ("Weee-elll, I'll say that there's a particle called a tachyon that moves faster than light and backwards in time, and whose properties are just so that they satisfy my observations . . .).

Bullcrap. People used to look to deities and spirits to explain the world around them. But as a species we have accrued a lot of experience over the millennia and now we have something called the 'scientific method', a doctrine whereby which a human can rationalise the universe around him, study it and play with it, and try and get some real answers, thus dispensing of the emotional and psychological need for a higher divine force.

	01-03-2002 06:16									#35
	Remove this text

God could exist or could not, I'm not sure. However, if God's existence is impossible to discern from logic and sensual perception then God does not influence our world. Therefore, whether or not God exists is irrelevant to us.

	01-03-2002 06:18									#36
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MacTBone Ahhh, but how do you define 0/0 or 1/0, it's not the same as 0/1.

1/0 is undefined, while 0/0 is indeterminate. You can make 0/0 equal anything you want.

	01-03-2002 06:24									#37
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Mr. President Today it is the same thing. We still seek miraculous explanations for the wonders of the world, only now we call them science. To believe blindly in science is no different that believing blindly in religion.

Scientific laws are experimentally verified. Religion defies verification. So no, science and religion are by no means identical; religion is mystical, science is not.

If someone says "This object will fall at approximately 9.8 meters per second squared when I drop it from the top of a tower," and you say "Prove it!", then voila, they proceed to drop the object and measure its descent, and have once again reaffirmed Newton's laws of motion. If someone says "This bread is actually the body of Christ," or maybe "You're going to Hell when you die," and I say "Prove it!", they cannot experimentally reaffirm their statement.

	01-03-2002 09:50									#38
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns Oh yes I can, lots and lot's of times. In fact, usually it is much easier to find proof of not existence than of existence.

Oh really? Here's a small test. Prove that there crows with white feathers do not exist.

quote: Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns Oh but I have evidence! Evidence in which I have chosen to believe in.

That's not evidence. Just because you have chosen to believe that the earth is flat, or the sun goes around the earth, doesn't mean they are true.

quote: Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns Evidence that comes from the testimony given on the words and actions of one Man that coherently demonstrated the He could be the Son of God.

If there were such testimonies, why didn't Paul use them?

quote: Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns I also have evidence on the words and actions of those who followed Him, particularly after His death, when no particular rational reason can explain why they would keep, follow and proclaim the words and actions of someone that suffered the most humiliating death in the Roman Empire.

The funny thing about that is, if Jesus of Nazareth did exist and he was found guity of blasphemy, why was he punished by Roman laws, while he was only guity of Jewish laws? Care to explain that?

quote: Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns Of course, I believe those men and women, and those who wrote their testimonies were honest. Therefore I believe them.

Even with such quotes such as,

"But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ...and that ye might have life through his name."(John 20:31)

	01-03-2002 09:56									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin I think more relevant questions go along the lines of "Why is nature the way it is?"

I am sure you know that science does not deal with the "why's," just the "how's." Why are rubies red? Why do people walk on their feet, not their hands?

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin If the ultimate axiomatic answer is "just because", it is as unsatisfactory an answer as saying "because God made it that way". All you do is replace "God" with "Science".

If you posit a god, all you have accomplished is to push the whole thing one step further, as in, "Why is there a god?"

	01-03-2002 10:01									#40
	Re: ... Therefore God does not exist. Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns The chalenge I pose here to all atheists is to try and prove, through reason, logic and known facts that God does not exist. Anyone care to give it a try?

The question itself is vague.

If the challenge is to refute the existence of the orthodox Christianity god, with a clearly defined set of characteristics, it has been done before.

If the challenge is to refute a more nebulous god who is just some vague notion, the answer is no.

	01-03-2002 15:57									#41
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Oh really? Here's a small test. Prove that there crows with white feathers do not exist.

Let's see...
Facts:
1. I never saw one, therefore, as far as I know, there is no strong evidence of it's existence;
2. There is no need for it's existence.
Therefore, by the use of Okhams Razor, it doesn't exist.
I believe that puts the burden of proof on your side.
Unless you show me evidence of its existence, I can be fairlly sure that my reasoning disproved its existence.

Easy, no?

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger That's not evidence. Just because you have chosen to believe that the earth is flat, or the sun goes around the earth, doesn't mean they are true.

Your right. The only problem is that there is strong empirical evidence of those facts.
Curious enough is to try and apply Okham's Razor prior to Magellan's Expedition or Galilleo Discouvery. You surelly agree with me that it will leed to the conclusion that they could not proclaim that the world was round or that the Earth revolved around the Sun.

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger If there were such testimonies, why didn't Paul use them?

Whould you care to elaborate on that?
I can't figure out what you mean when you say that a converted person does not uses the testimonies that contributed to his conversion.

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger The funny thing about that is, if Jesus of Nazareth did exist and he was found guity of blasphemy, why was he punished by Roman laws, while he was only guity of Jewish laws? Care to explain that?

Jesus alleged crimes:
- Under the Jewish court: Blasphemy
- Under the Roman court: Sedicion (said to proclaim Himself as the King of Jews).
I think that much is explained.

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Even with such quotes such as, "But these are written, that ye might believe that Jesus is the Christ...and that ye might have life through his name."(John 20:31)

Which, I gather, automatically means they are lying, right.
More or less like nowadays newspapers: they describe what happen so that you understand what happen. As the survival of a newspaper lies on it's credibility, I must deduce, from your logic that all news are lies, right?

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Maybe because there's no external evidence of the existence of Jesus of Nazareth?

The appearance of many Christian Comunities is an external evidence of the following facts:

- After the death of Jesus, a bunch of guys that had never left there homes prior to knowing Jesus started to proclame His words and actions, not only near there homes but in far, unknown places. That, even though the person Whose words and actions they were proclaiming had been condemned by both Jewish and Roman courts to the most humiliating of deaths.

- In far away communities, some people that had never heared of Jesus believed in them, without any shred of factual proof, not a single written external record... nothing. In those places many people did the so called "miracles" so why would they believe in these guys that also performed those "stunts"? Maybe because the message was different, because they actually were coherent with that message and the Apostles took no personal advantage of proclaiming the message (Peter and Paul, for instance, were condemned/killed for it).

This facts do not point to clear evidence on the fact that a God exists and particularly that Christians have some leads on How is this God. But it should make us ponder.

And one interesting test about miracles is the one suggested by Hume in the link Zyu offers in this thread. It says that a miracle can only be proved if it's disproval is more miracoulous than that.
For me, it strickes as much more miracoulous that men such as Peter, Paul and the other Apostles decided to waste their lives defending the most wonderfull values Humankind as yet reached in one single attempt and doing that under totally wrong and mistakened basis. However, that's my interpretation of the facts

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger Such questions are either rhetorical due to cultural bias (you'll see no such questions in, say, India or China), or raised by those who think the Christian god does exist.

That is a matter of opinion.
However, cultural bias derives from diferent knowledge of things and different ways of interpreting the things we know.
Usually, cultural bias allows to different and equally important questions, that, after being answered or in the attempt of answering them contribute to the general good.
So I don't think we can disregard questions out of cultural bias.

	01-03-2002 16:27									#42
	Increase the size of your Attachments

It's a known fact that the Human concept of the existence of something that allows the explanation of all we currently don't know is driven by our need to fit all things togheter and explains why most of us (I would risk all of us) place something in a role of Ultimate Explanation (God or superior entity) or Ultimate Explanation Tool (Science).

This means that this discussion between theists and atheists will never end, because we will never understand all. Even know, with current Humankind's expanded knowledge, some people don't trust some of the scientific findings just because they cannot fit them in their own partial knowledge of things and how they construct their understanding of the world based on that knowledge. So even Science is bound to be questioned on it's eficacy, particularly every other Science in every other area of knowledge.

Also Science and Religion aren't incompatible. Because there is still something to better understand and to discouver, a religious person can always have an open mind about science as iluminating the path on the works of God. And he can do that, because there will still be something that Science still can't answer.

So trying to reason on the existence of God is, in my opinion, an interesting, maybe usefull is some sort but surelly unfinished task.
The main reason we believe in God?
- This belief help us answer unanswered questions.
Does this mean that God actually exists?
- Not at all.
Does the answer to the prior question justify the assertation of the non-Existence of God?
- Actually... no. God may exist, so I can believe He exists not by reason but by Faith.
Is the belief in God construtive to Humankind?
- In my opinion, the body of what we currently defend as Human Values is indebted to religion if not for his origin that for being the most effective mechanism to proclaim and spread them.
Was in any occasion the belief in God destructive?
- Unfortunatelly, yes. But in every of those ocasions it is possible to demonstrate that the first thing that was atacked were the defining values of the religions that are responsible for those errors (particularly the Christian religion).

So religion derives from Human need and it is actually beneficial to individual and social Human existence.

So why to try and substitute that for a equally difficult to prove theory: claiming that God does not exist and that all derived from Chaos?

	01-03-2002 17:16									#43
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by MacTBone See, one of the problems with the NT, is that they were written after Jesus died. How do we know they didn't embellish the truth? If they embillished the truth, how hard is it to think that they may have added false things?

Noone can ever be 100% sure of that. It is even likelly that some things where.
But the question is, although it is a dearing task to prove all to be truth, what justifies the conclusion that it is all a lie?
The testimony was not only what was written, and in fact, during some time not even that was needed for people to believe.
The Gospels were not written as a story but as a record, to prevent that the memories where lost. Ok, everybody knows what happens to memories - they tend to get fuzzy and usually only the essential or the things that hasd the most impact remain more or less intact. But what atheists proclaim is that all were lies.
How could so blatant lies got so many followers? Because those that presented the message were credible, I suppose. But how could they credibly present such dificult notions as love you enemy, don't deny help to noone, do not try to be rich for the poor are blessed... without practiving that, themselves? And how could con men die deaths like those of many of the Apostles and other Jesus' followers without ever gaining something in return or even being whoshiped themselves?

quote: Originally posted by MacTBone Also, none of those miracles have been recreated. If you can claim that they have happened, then I may as well claim I can see ghosts, only, noone can be around while I do it.

I confess, I don't buid my Faith over miracles (not the mediatic ones that is) other than Ressurection. And that one (conveniently you might add) I actually do not expect to be recreated.

quote: Originally posted by MacTBone 1. God is omnipotent 2. God is omnibenevolent 3. God created a good world (being all together good, he couldn't do anything but)

3.a God gave us free will

quote: Originally posted by MacTBone 4. There is evil

or alternately

quote: Originally posted by MacTBone 1. In the beggining there was only God (and nothing) 2. God created the world out of nothing 3. You cannot get anything from nothing 4. God does not exist

Now, you mean the God couldn't also have created something out of Himself, right?

- Oh... wait... He can't because He is said to be Perfect and something out of Himself must be Perfect also!!!

Not really! An Omnipotent God is, by concept, able to do more than whatever pre-determined Human restraints we may conceive.

	01-03-2002 18:22									#44
	Re: ... Therefore God does not exist. Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns The chalenge I pose here to all atheists is to try and prove, through reason, logic and known facts that God does not exist. Anyone care to give it a try?

Why should I try to prove or not something that I have never seen in my life yet some claim he's everywere.

I cannot prove he exists but I cannot prove he does not exist either.
Let the scientists do their job who have proven almost anything they have said so far and when they unlock the secrets of creation and completely comprehend how the Universe works then I will have my final conclusion (I will probably not be alive by then ).

In the meanwhile permit me to reject the existance of god at list in the way religion present him and beleive on what I see and conclude after studing well tested and multiple proved scientific theories and personal speculations

BTW, many things that major religions refer in their scripts I found them very wise and the world would be much better if their followers would apply them in their daily life

	01-03-2002 19:27									#45
	Keygen Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Keygen BTW, many things that major religions refer in their scripts I found them very wise and the world would be much better if their followers would apply them in their daily life

I second that, Keygen!!!
The world would be much better if all of us did, whether believing or not on their devine or plain human origin, just for the goodness in them.

	01-03-2002 20:08									#46
	Re: Keygen Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by Ecowiz Returns I second that, Keygen!!! The world would be much better if all of us did, whether believing or not on their devine or plain human origin, just for the goodness in them.

The world would be a better place if I went on a pilgrimmage to Mecca? Why?

	01-03-2002 23:33									#47
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by loinburger The world would be a better place if I went on a pilgrimmage to Mecca? Why?

Didn't thought of that one!

Maybe that's why Keygen wrote "many things" and not all things.

	02-03-2002 00:07									#48
	Increase Your PM Length

A little of what I have read or thought.

Take nothing, how long can you have nothing?
Forever!
A unit of measurement has be evoked, a rule, a law.
Time has just been created out of nothing, applying a rule that forever is indeed a unit of measurement, a yardstick!

The Bible tells the rest, that certain attitudes lead to Hell for life, as in a terrible War, that people have free will to change anything for the better, instead of for the worse.

But knowing that humans are only humans, the thought of the existence of God can be debated probably forever.

If you have forever to debate the existence of God, God must exist!

"And he made us in his image"

What proof can God give himself that he truly exists.

Parameters and actions would have to apply.
Wisdom, love, all the positive emotions and thoughts and deeds.

Humanity places their own 'rules' on what they think is acceptable.

Evil must exist, therefore Good must exist.

Therefore, a proof for a God is possible to discern eventually even if it takes -- forever.

	02-03-2002 00:26									#49
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by Sagacious Dolphin When it comes to debates about God's existance I try to forget religion, dogma and beleif entirely. It detracts from the facts. I think more relevant questions go along the lines of "Why is nature the way it is?". If the ultimate axiomatic answer is "just because", it is as unsatisfactory an answer as saying "because God made it that way". All you do is replace "God" with "Science". If you believe that science will lead to our ultimate understanding of axiomatic laws, then you are believing we shall one day be omniscient and therefore be our own virtual Gods - for any God would understand His creation.

Exactly somewhere in the evolutionist idea there should be a moment in the infinite future - if the nature evolves, where they will be god. Well someone will eventually evolve to that status will it be humans? Who knows, but if this happens "If you believe that science will lead to our ultimate understanding of axiomatic laws, then you are believing we shall one day be omniscient and therefore be our own virtual Gods - for any God would understand His creation" than we might just become like God one day... or will we well the time is infinite as far as we know now. Or at least it could be long enough for someone to get to that stage as time and amount of knowledge is linear and knowledge of itself increases exponetially trough evolution. Well there might be someone like that already .

But that surely doesn't correspond to Christian God. On the other hand there might be a Christian/ Jewish GOd in existance but the religions got some of his attributes wrongly and many more other options availabe.

At the end what everyone says: nor approve nor disapprove, have your own reasons to believe what you will. If you have personal experience that God / or some such entity exists - and many people claim so - believe that there is one. Simple as that. Science cannot prove you wrong, nor can you prove scientific methods wrong. (obviously not ) Just don't kill or do harm in that name, (even simpler do good to othere in that name if it helps you do it, and nobody will complain - like Mother Theresa) if there is someone who is omnipotent and omnipresent he can manifest to whomever he wants or who asks him to do it at will, so why do you puny human even bother to prove its existance. (There is more historical reasons to try and disapprove the existance of God, but we can't do that either - disapprove scientifically).

	02-03-2002 01:04									#50
	Full PM-box? Change here!

--"I have no evidence that Wraith exists"

Post your address. I'll swing by and bonk you with a cricket bat.

If god ever gives me a thick ear, then I'll start believing in him.

--"Oh yes I can, lots and lot's of times."

I'd like to see that.

May I ask if you've ever taken a formal logic class?

--"Evidence in which I have chosen to believe in."

See, this is the problem. For me, for it to qualify as evidence it has to be empirical and reproducable. Evidence that requires "belief" is, by definition, no evidence at all.

--"Atheists, however choose not to regard those testimonies as truthfull."

Well, I can't answer for atheists, since I'm an agnostic. I would suggest, however, that it's probably because there are other records with more evidence supporting them that make contradictory claims to these testimonies.

--"Entities are not to be multiplied nor integrated.
By how much are we multiplying God?
With what is God being integrated?"


Please take some philosophy and logic courses and get back to me later.

--"I would disagree and there is such a thing as a free lunch."

Sign me up. I could always use something for nothing.

--"A little of what I have read or thought"

Oh dear. Were you thinking quite sarcastically at the time?

Everyone, please take note that this is exactly the sort of thing I'm talking about when I say the public school system needs serious attention. They obviously do not bother to teach the little things like logic, reasoning, or debate any more.

Wraith
"Some would ask, how could a perfect God create a universe filled with so much that is evil. They have missed a greater conundrum: why would a perfect God create a universe at all?"
-- Sister Miriam Godwinson

	02-03-2002 01:59									#51
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

My search for a good Bible has ended!!

I went to one of the theology professors on campus, who is also a Catholic priest for our university's chapel. He said that one Bible I might want to consider is this one:

The New Oxford Annotated Bible, Third Edition--New Revised Standard Version with the Apocrypha

After talking with him, and reading some samples of this Bible in his office, I decided that I will buy this copy ASAP.

	02-03-2002 02:15									#52
	Got spare money?

Love the quote Wraith.

Alright, as to Ecowiz's 3.a., explain to me this.
1. God is omniscient (covered under omnipotence)
2. God creates humans
3. God gives humans free will
4. omniscience = all knowledge, and the future = knowledge, therefore God knows the future
5. By knowing the future, the future cannot change
6. If the future cannot change, humans have no true free will

Secondly, you argue that the world is created from God (which btw, I don't think is church doctrine).
1. God is omnipotent
2. God is omni benevolent
3. God creates world from self
4. World must = God which must = Good
5. There is evil

So, God is a contradiction.

You know, I just heard about Abelard's book, written in the thirteenth or twelfth century "Sic et Non"; translated means "Yes and No". Apparently this french catholic gathered together 158 contradictions set forth by various church founding fathers, such as Augustine, Jerome, and Paul.

	02-03-2002 04:03									#53
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by DinoDoc Eli: Sid is God. Therefore God must exist.

Sid is God.
Therefore, God is dead.

	02-03-2002 04:14									#54
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

quote: Originally posted by Wraith Post your address. I'll swing by and bonk you with a cricket bat.

I'd be careful about the different meanings of the word 'bonking' in different parts of the English-speaking world. I would imagine that bonking with a cricket bat is illegal in most US states

	02-03-2002 16:20									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Urban Ranger I am sure you know that science does not deal with the "why's," just the "how's." Why are rubies red? Why do people walk on their feet, not their hands?

And there-in lies its failings. That is why I am perplexed when people say science explains/can explain all.

quote: If you posit a god, all you have accomplished is to push the whole thing one step further, as in, "Why is there a god?"

I am not attempting to give answers, I have yet to fully comprehend the criteria of the questions.

Having said that, the conclusion I have drawn is that there is more to "it" than what is observable and measurable. Science is not enough, and anyone who does not go beyond science is limiting their scope of thought.

	02-03-2002 23:04									#56
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Wraith, I thought of answering your post.
I tryed to address your points, as I've done with others, one by one.

But by reading them I came to realize that you shown a shamefully pedantic atitude.

I never have taken formal Logic classes, nor will I ever take phillosofy. In a normal exchange of thoughts between reasonable inteligent people the knowledge one lacks is introduced in the discussion through another's disposition to share his. When a pedantic character comes and claims intelectual superiority out of the single formal teaching that becomes impossible.

I know I went on a limb to ask the question of by which unit is God multiplied. Taking literally, the definition of Okam's Razor does not disalow the existence of a single God (it disallows two, though). If there is more than such a literal interpretation and I failled to perceive it, it would be with great satisfaction that I would understand my mistake. But I take no satisfaction on paternalistic pedantic atitudes.

I hope that in other discussions you will be a bit more polite.

Be sure that if you, in a forum on Economics say something blatantly stupid I will not adress you to Economics classes. I will try an show you where you made your mistake.

	02-03-2002 23:33									#57
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by MacTBone Alright, as to Ecowiz's 3.a., explain to me this. 1. God is omniscient (covered under omnipotence) 2. God creates humans 3. God gives humans free will 4. omniscience = all knowledge, and the future = knowledge, therefore God knows the future 5. By knowing the future, the future cannot change 6. If the future cannot change, humans have no true free will

It depends of how you define future.
Actually the future is always out of your complete control, for what we control (and not always) is the present.
My definition of free will requires that you take control of your own destiny, given the many contingencies that forces you sometimes to make some decisions that were not your prefered ones.
It's a bit odd to imagine what would happen if I knew all my future, but I'll try. All my actions would, therefore be like the realization of a predetermined plan, like a play. I would not be living it in the way we alway perceive life, with the necessary uncertainty, the courrent discouvery and surprises. It would seem, to me, that I had lost all free will, even though all the actions I was doing were exactly the ones I would make if I didn't know the future.
But the point is that I don't know my future. So what if some entity, if existent, knows? That doesn't mean I'm given the "script" of the "play". It only means that that entity knows me all too well, well enough to know how I will act, not just because He predetermined it, but because I am who I am and I live in particular conditions fully known by Him. I would be using my free will, but He would know what my choice would be. It doesn't seem that contradictory to me.

quote: Originally posted by MacTBone Secondly, you argue that the world is created from God (which btw, I don't think is church doctrine). 1. God is omnipotent 2. God is omni benevolent 3. God creates world from self 4. World must = God which must = Good 5. There is evil So, God is a contradiction.

I'm not sure if it is church doctrine either, but I see no other reasonable explanation. I'll try and confront a Priest with that question and then I'll share His answer with you.
However, your conclusion number 4 isn't necessarilly true. The World does not need to equal God, even if being made from Him or a part of Him. Hope this example helps: my heart is a part of me but surelly does not equal me. Also, the church's explanation of evil usually give us all the "blame". I believe it is a bit of a Philosofical question so it would be advised to leave this to brilliant minds with formal education such as Wraith's .

quote: Originally posted by MacTBone You know, I just heard about Abelard's book, written in the thirteenth or twelfth century "Sic et Non"; translated means "Yes and No". Apparently this french catholic gathered together 158 contradictions set forth by various church founding fathers, such as Augustine, Jerome, and Paul.

It would be an interesting reading.

	03-03-2002 01:19									#58
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

--"Love the quote Wraith."

Amazing what you can get from video games, isn't it?

--"I'd be careful about the different meanings of the word 'bonking'"

I didn't even think about that...

--"But by reading them I came to realize that you shown a shamefully pedantic atitude."

Shamefully? The devil, as they say, is in the details.

--"Taking literally, the definition of Okam's Razor does not disalow the existence of a single God"

Which is what I found so incredibly amusing. You quite obviously did not understand the basic terminology being used, and just as obviously had no intention of actually checking it for yourself.

See this page for an explanation of Ockham's Razor. This was the second link in a Yahoo search.

Your reading of "entities" is incredibly too literal. Perhaps Rand's phrasing, concepts, is clearer.

In addition, this is a principle, not a proof. You cannot "prove" anything, as you claim to have done, using Ockam's Razor. It is nothing more than a guide as to which hypothesis should be tested first. (This is, btw, why I am an agnostic rather than an atheist.)

--"I hope that in other discussions you will be a bit more polite."

Probably not, if they're at all like this one. I've seen this subject, and the same arguments, mis-statements, mis-conceptions, and irrational assumptions, too many times to care any longer about being polite to the people who advance and support them.
Nothing I've talked about is beyond the basics of logic or philosophy. I do not believe it unreasonable to expect that people have at least a passing knowledge of the fundamentals when they choose to engage in a debate on such a subject.

Wraith
"When I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn't work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me."
-- Emo Philips.

	03-03-2002 01:24									#59
	Increase Your PM Length

Bah! you people talk too much.... it goes like this:

1) Giancarlo says god does not exist.
2) Therefore god does not exist.
3) Giancarlo does not make a mistake.
4)

	03-03-2002 04:04									#60
	Let's end, shall we? Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Wraith Which is what I found so incredibly amusing. You quite obviously did not understand the basic terminology being used, and just as obviously had no intention of actually checking it for yourself. See this page for an explanation of Ockham's Razor. This was the second link in a Yahoo search. Your reading of "entities" is incredibly too literal. Perhaps Rand's phrasing, concepts, is clearer.

Thanks for the link (yeah, go figure, I actually read it!).
And it is clearly a reasonable concept.
To make it clear I'll write the sintesis of my understanding:
the point it presents is that, if there is no need to introduce an assumption, when conceiving a theory, that assumption should not be introduced.
It is a very good principle and those who say that it acts against many of the pseudo-cientific proposals about the existence of God are right.
But in what way that reasoning serves to those that when confronted with questions like
"What was there before the Big Bang?"
"What is there, after the single most simple unit of matter?"
says,
"God is"?
Am I to hope that Science will ever give me a complete answer on issues such as these?

Thanks for your honesty.
Although you keep an anoyningly pedantic atitude, requiring everybody to have that particular minimum level of knowledge only you can define, you actually had a positive contribution to the discussion. To bad not even that was in your own words. The link was good, though, so, thanks again.

Before ranting about my ignorance of minimum concepts you should have noticed that I only argued with the definition that was offered. You are right when saying that I didn't understood the concept of Ockam's Razor. Now I do (I hope). That is what usually happens in discussions: we are not always in the same level of knowledge about the themes we discuss and hopefully all learn something more.

I know I've learned from the contributions and discussions I had here.
On what you are concerned, thank you for the link and I won't, most likelly take Philosophy just to have a discussion in these forums. Thank you for the suggestion, though, oh Enlightened One .

One small advice: don't assume things about people you don't know. You are bound to have many compromising surprises, if you keep saying things like "you obviosly had no intention".