 |
Duration: 02:51 minutes Upload Time: 2007-12-29 20:52:44 User: jayls5 :::: Favorites :::: Top Videos of Day |
|
Tags:
Proving existence eternal god real venomfangx shawn refute response criticism atheism christianity proof
Description: I respond to the claim that time cannot logically be eternal. |
|
Comments | |
| friendlydiplomat ::: Favorites 2008-01-09 22:43:24 Well, that's what faith is. If I really, truely have faith that there's an afterlife or a God or etc...and I am not mad, then that, according to it's definition is evidence that it may just be true. __________________________________________________ | |
| jayls5 ::: Favorites 2008-01-09 00:27:19 How was I supposed to know that? That sounds like an incredibly vague quote from some religious guy attempting to be poetic. According to that definition, electromagnetic radiation outside the human visible spectrum such as X-rays, gamma rays, and microwaves would all be a matter of faith. This makes me inclined to say it's an inadequate definition. __________________________________________________ | |
| friendlydiplomat ::: Favorites 2008-01-08 22:17:52 FAITH: the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things unseen. __________________________________________________ | |
| jayls5 ::: Favorites 2008-01-08 17:19:00 If you meant something else by faith, then it would probably need to be explained. That's the problem with using vague language. __________________________________________________ | |
| jayls5 ::: Favorites 2008-01-08 17:16:24 I understand a particular use of the word "faith" quite well. I take a basic dictionary definition of a "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence." I do not use faith in any other sense because there are other words of the English language that are fine alternatives without the cultural baggage. __________________________________________________ | |
| friendlydiplomat ::: Favorites 2008-01-08 13:53:52 You must have a very poor understanding of faith, that is if you understand it at all. __________________________________________________ | |
| jayls5 ::: Favorites 2008-01-07 22:44:59 The logical argument supports the necessity to abandon logic. Brilliant. __________________________________________________ | |
| friendlydiplomat ::: Favorites 2008-01-06 02:37:24 Speaking of the Bible (which I never explicitly brought up) anytime God kills someone or wipes out a mass of people, it's for a very, VERY good reason. Read it in context. __________________________________________________ | |
| ariakokoschka ::: Favorites 2008-01-05 14:51:06 Second, stop being so touchy; I never insulted your personality excluding perhaps this last remark but you left me no choice. As a matter of fact, I don't think this will go anywhere, so let's just drop it. __________________________________________________ | |
| ariakokoschka ::: Favorites 2008-01-05 14:50:00 You explicitly referred to Bible that consists of such pernicious aphorisms as inspiring to those who inscribed it (not saying you in particular) which makes the whole content questionable. Again, not claiming every single passage follows this pattern but many do. Hitler's writing was inspiring to many with regard to nationalism and race ideology but it does not make them a valid point of view. __________________________________________________ | |
| friendlydiplomat ::: Favorites 2008-01-05 14:29:56 I never told you I am inspired by passages of butchering non-believers for their lack of faith. You continue to use straw men and intrinsic ad-hominem attacks to be-little my character. Infact, it looks as though this is evolving into a debate. I thought we were just having a good exchange of words regarding what we personaly find 'inspiring'?? __________________________________________________ | |
| ariakokoschka ::: Favorites 2008-01-05 09:16:35 That's called slippery slop. You can't possibly tell me you are inspired by passages in which butchering non-believers for their lack of faith in his concept remotely civilized. Unless you tend to "pick & choose" which verses carry a more meritorious weigh and that's exactly my point: maybe that was an inspiration to the composers of such text, but their conviction only suits their understanding of the world. As a matter of fact, their whole conceptualization of God is fundamentally flawed. __________________________________________________ | |
| friendlydiplomat ::: Favorites 2008-01-05 01:33:31 The argument simply supports the necessity for FAITH. __________________________________________________ | |
| friendlydiplomat ::: Favorites 2008-01-05 01:27:29 When ever did I introduce a doctrine instituted by man??? Please refrain from using straw men. I know it's tempting (not being sarcastic) but please try harder. I simply stated that I find scripture inspired by him for us to be a beautiful concept. __________________________________________________ | |
| jayls5 ::: Favorites 2008-01-04 14:02:39 With all due respect, if you already had the premise of "there is a beginning" then you merely used circular reasoning. René Descartes was guilty of the exact same thing some 500 years ago. Your premise can't be your conclusion. It's a logical fallacy. If you're going to go out of your way to have faith, it begs the question why you made the argument in the first place. __________________________________________________ | |
No comments:
Post a Comment