I would argue that one shouldn't use fallacious excuses to accept something either. But that brings me back to my original question. If the bible isnt the complete word of god, then what method of determination are you using to determine what is the word of god. I will copy and send this as a personal message as you requested.
@ilrichard ah okay now i know what you mean. the bible is not the entire word of God, i meant; its only a part. to believe the bible is Scripture, and then to equate the bible with the ufll extent of God's word is ignorance of what the Scriptures claim. now, whether the Bible is true or not, is a whole different discussion. but we should not use fallacious excuses for rejecting something.
So the 'word of god' is not the word of god? There are other real words of god out there? What is the method to determine which word of god is real and which is metaphoric? I agree that the original vid was dumb to suggest that god was an ass for not sharing electricity. But to use the "holy book" argument again just because you found another book that says something convenient to the point you are trying to make doesnt really hold up.
@ilrichard huh? when did i say the word of god is not the word of god? the method of determination i have worked out, but if you want to know, send me an email. these comments are insufficient. and i dont use the holy book argument. you dont know me well enough to make that kind of judgment of what i believe. i can assure you my religion is so far off from every other religion, it is almost insulting to group them together.
You CAN choose to do what you want for fulfillment. But you do no do it. You do not do it because it will cause more harm to yourself. By nature you are selfish and it is not the afterlife that stops you from doing acts that are harmful to others. People by nature feel sympathy for others in pain and that is not because everyone has a belief in afterlife. Human nature precedes the belief in an afterlife.
@lutzkn my entire rational basis for morality is benefit of the self.belief in afterlife has led me 2b sinless except 4 1 sin i'm struggling with.sympathy is based on ur moral beliefs,not on instinct.
Criminology is a multifaceted study that studies sociology, psychology, politics, philosophy, law, anthropology, etc... Hegel suggested empirical study of philosophies as to attribute them to practical use and reality. This is what these forms of study do. Fortunately, many, if not all of the empirical experiments are subject to a much narrower interpretation than some scripture. Scripture, does not hold proof. Religion has created more wars and killed more people than oil...
@lutzkn without religion, i seriously have no concern who dies; without an afterlife, everything is meaningless, and i will not waste time stressing about something vain.
your criticism of Scripture while supported by the majority use of Scripture is not sync with the concept of Scripture itself. logic is superior to Scripture. those that elevate scripture above logic are idiots.
@lutzkn it matters not who has killed more.what maters is who has done more evil.ponder and think for a moment: whats so bad about dying if there is an afterlife?death is just window into a new world.i believe murder is evil, but its not end of the world.its just someone stealing from you.what matters to me is the level of evil.as to nonreligions,its unfair to compare atheists,which have always been minority,to the majority.the more who agree with you,the easier it is to commit atrocities.
@carlsonap16 so to be an atheist would make it more difficult to commit atrocities? It seriously concerns me that you have no concern who dies without religion. Should someone who has done very little evils go to hell for eternity because they did not follow divine command to kill millions? Hitler claimed to be Christian. For all I know, the killing of the Jews was done under divine command. Hitler could be in Heaven and the Jews could be in hell for eternity.
@lutzkn no, being an atheist for me would make it much easier to commit atrocities. divine command is not a sufficient logical basis of morality and therefore i reject such a warped concept. i have concern for those who die without them having a religion, but i don't care about others if i were to have no religion.
@carlsonap16 With religion, there is no understanding of right or wrong. Religion is contradictory within itself and serves us nothing. Without an afterlife nothing is meaningful? You live your life for fulfillment. This doesn't mean go rape or kill everyone you want. Then nobody would respect your wishes and may rape or kill you. Balancing rights, having an enjoyable life containing love, happiness and respect is meaningful. I suggest you read some atheist works such as 'The God Delusion'.
@lutzkn it is not religion which guides more moral beliefs but i determine what is moral through logic alone. this brands me as a heretic by nearly all religious groups.
i've read portions of the God Delusion and its incredibly lacking in logic. it certainly finds flws in the christian religion, but my religion is not theirs. mine is my own that i determine through obedience to logic. as an atheist, one can only have an enjoyable life if they embrace the illusion of importance.
@lutzkn if its fulfillting to rape and kill and i did not believe in an afterlife, i would seek it. whatever is fulfilling to me i would go after.thing is without an afterlilfe, what you choose to be fulfilling doesn't matter. you can make anyting fulfilling and thus, your choice does not matter as whatever you choose for fulfillment, you will be fulfilled
@shedininja001 i accept any book that claims to be Scripture as Scripture so long as there is no sufficient reason to be suspicious of the sincerity of the claim. I wear what the Bible commands me to wear: traditionally the Jews refer to it as tefillin. it is symbolic of the dedication to God; identifies me as belonging to Him and being set apart from the rest of the world and symbolizes having the word of GOd in my mind and in my strength: this is why Scripture is inside the box.
@johnfenn23 answer: omnipotence as you define it I do not believe in. my God is very very limited, and I am okay with that. those who argue for an unlimited god are absurd and illogical
@TheNotKyleSullivan yes a limited god created the whole universe. he is prone to making mistakes but can only make them if he is intentionally choosing to do so.
If God were to provide tangible evidence of his existence, I'm sure most of the world's population would accept it. Much like how practically no one rejects that gravity exists.
and even if we did turn evil, it still wouldn't change the fact that more advanced medicine can help save lives.
We can divide the population of this world into 2 parts, by philosophical views:
one that relies on faith and one that relies on logic
@ronaldwangdra1995 I rely solely on logic and not what you know of as faith. As to gravity, there is something keeping down, but whether or not its gravity hasnt been proven to me so i dont know if its true.thecevidence is solely in the realm of logic.this should suffice as a proof if ur interested in hearing the arguments.you think that if the evidence suggests it most would accept it?if so then why do you believe that evolution which is "obviously" true is rejected by millions upon millions?
@carlsonap16 Evolution is rejected because some people rely on faith.
Even when there is not tangible evidence for most parts(if not all) holy scriptures, they believe it anyway. Not to mention there are those who don't even read the Bible at all and call themselves Christians.
Evolution is not obvious. The evidence that supports it are stuff that most ordinary people don't study about. Radiometric dating, the genetical similarities between species, etc.
@ronaldwangdra1995 exactly people may still reject things if they do not submit to logic. thus, when i have used logic with atheists, they have criticized me for thinking that we can know what the truth is objectively with absolute proof. they also say that fuzzy logic sometimes overrides pure logic which is absurd logically
@ronaldwangdra1995 i define evil as contrary to the nature of the mind. anything that is contrary to the cultivation and conduciveness of minds is evil and the laws of nature will punish disrespected minds in the same way disrespect bodies will be punished when someone jumps off a cliff and nature punishes their body with death.
If God were to provide tangible evidence of his existence, I'm sure most of the world's population would accept it. Much like how practically no one rejects that gravity exists.
and even if we did turn evil, it still wouldn't change the fact that more advanced medicine can help save lives.
We can divide the population of this world into 2 parts, by philosophical views:
one that relies on faith and one that relies on logic
7. The science taught wasn't exactly mentioned in detail, right? I don't see how one could use medicine to sin. Maybe the angels taught them stuff like nuclear bombs? Then that's kinda instigating war and the fault does not fully lie on humans.
8. If someone knows practically everything about the universe(including heaven and hell) for sure, as in they have no doubt it's true, I seriously doubt anyone would choose hell... would you? So if God were to provide tangible evidence, well.. you get it
@ronaldwangdra1995 medicine can be used as sin when its not actually medicine or it requires a defiling of oneself or others dignity and if its contrary to nature. i do not seriously doubt it. i have heard many say they prefer hell rather than heaven.furthermore hell is not purely torture; you can still have pleasure in hell. the question is what pleasure do you want for yourself? if you want pure pleasure then if you choose it you'll be saved. if you want impure pleasure, you will be condemned.
@ronaldwangdra1995 i believe if u dont stop sinning ull go to hell.yet im not yet saved bcuz i haven't stopped sinning yet for 40 days.but i soon will.when i do, then Ill be saved if i never sin after those 1st 40 days of sinlessness.so the fact ive known how to be saved for a while & yet given in to my addiction merely means ive gambled with my eternal soul,knowing i could still bcom saved if i put off my repentance.but i want to stop; ive gone 6 days without sin now.my record is about 20 days.
@carlsonap16 When it's not actually medicine, then I think we can all agree that it's not medicine... :\
... sinning is a very broad word...
Are we talking Christian sinning or what?
In any case, I highly doubt anyone can stop their minds from even thinking of bad thoughts completely. Calling it an addiction is going a bit too far, don't you think? Most humans don't feel the compulsive need to do bad things...
@ronaldwangdra1995 we don't all agree; that's why the modern world thinks vaccines, drugs, etc are good for their health lol; in reality they are destroying themselves and causing billions to die that would have otherwise survived. all the "medicines" of our day at best resolve health problems by creating new health problems. hardly medicine =).
i am talking about sinning in accords with the laws of nature which have nothing to do with the religion of christianity.
@ronaldwangdra1995 you say he's healthy. on what standard do you base that? if he dies younger than 100 years old without being killed by someone, he is not healthy. the experts want you to think the medicines are helping save people when they are not. they schew the data. consider that the medical groups are a business and not solely interested in the health of people. if our experts were interested in health, they would not be pushing their gmos on us.
@ronaldwangdra1995 its not subjective because something is only a sin if it can be proving to be a sin. and its not whats contrary to the beliefs of a mind, but its what is actually in an objective sense contrary to minds regardless of what the mind thinks is contrary to it
@carlsonap16 The word sin itself is man-made... and you say no one can have a second say in what it is...
My uncle has no major diseases that would cause him to die in the predictable future, nor does he show symptoms. He is able to do what most people could. Stuff like that... He is relatively healthy compared to the major population. He's had fevers before that would've killed him if medicine was never invented(heard stories of fever reaching almost 40 degrees celcius)
@ronaldwangdra1995 im seeking to argue for my concept of morality which is not related tot he ignorant christian dogma nor dogmas of most religions.morality is simply the laws of nature at work & not caused by God.to deny a law of morality would be the same foolishness as denying the law of 1+1=2.
how old is ur uncle?Hes relatively healthy sure,but thats not the measure of good health.yes,as i said,modern medicine resolves health problems.but they do this by creating new health problems always.
@carlsonap16 Morality is differentiating between right and wrong. That is how it is defined. The concept of morality is created by humans because we have empathy. If it were absolute, no one should be able to deny it, but then we have masochists, we have racists, etc.
Also, if it were something not borne from opinion, one would be able to prove morality. Which is quite impossible.
late 70s
could you please give me an example I'm at quite a loss about the problems you speak of
@ronaldwangdra1995 if that's how u define morality fine,but i'm seeking 2 defend a specific concept rather than the words themselves.how do u base that if it was absolute we wouldn't be able to deny it?do u have a logical argument to prove that?every drug creates new problems.all "health" foods are unhealthy because theyre infested with either gmos or toxic chemicals.i used to get sick all the time;i switched to organic a year ago & havnt gotten sick 1ce.vaccines r well known 2 cause autism.
@ronaldwangdra1995 "Also, if it were something not borne from opinion, one would be able to prove morality. Which is quite impossible." i contest that the concept which i am advocating for is not borne from opinion but is borne from the laws of nature/science at work. health foods are foods touted as "good for you". such as the defiled plants and defiled animals.also they have a very flawed system of nutrition; you do not need to eat a special diet to be healthy. you just need to eat pure food.
@ronaldwangdra1995 every action we do is an addiction if done long enough consistently. thus, only bad addictions are bad. now, people do feel a compulsive need to do bad things often, that's why you find many often compelled to do drugs, to sexually defile others, to get into fights, to eat unhealthy and drink oneself to near death, to stir up envies and gossips and many are addicted to abusing others verbally and physically.
@ronaldwangdra1995 someone who does an action repeatedly it will become second nature and they will not want to stop doing it and will resist it. that's why everyone is resistant to change to some degree. breathing is involuntary primarily and therefore we are not addicted to it. some peole are addicted however to the high of not breathing.
@carlsonap16 It is plainly obvious you do not rely SOLELY on logic. One who only uses 100% proven facts as factors to take into consideration would become agnostics because God has not been proven nor disproved.
and you said "I believe if you don't stop sinning you'll go to hell"
@ronaldwangdra1995 "It is plainly obvious you do not rely SOLELY on logic. One who only uses 100% proven facts as factors to take into consideration would become agnostics because God has not been proven nor disproved." prove it. i have proven the existence of God, so your claim is wrong. if you think God's existence is unproven show me the proof it is unproven. if i can show you the proof that god exists, which i believe i can, then your objection is false
@ronaldwangdra1995 believe is equivalent to know as i undersand it based on an analysis of mine of the dictionary. now if you want to see the proof, i need to send you an email, since its too long for comments
@ronaldwangdra1995 belief does not equate "faith". belief equates with confidence in the truthfulness of something. some belief is based on logic and some is based on faith. belief based solely on logic is valuable
4. Angels had sex with other creatures? The Bible doesn't exactly support having sex with animals, does it? but this is not an important point...
5. I don't know this for sure, but I don't think in any of the scriptures was it mentioned that angels came down to give knowledge AND it caused sin to become greater.
6. If God knew that it would cause more sin, why do it in the first place? Yahweh is supposed to be omniscient = knows EVERYTHING past, present and FUTURE.
@ronaldwangdra1995 yes angels had sex with creatures; they sinned. The Bible supports it, but most bibles do not. the true bible contains many books which were wrongly rejected. In the Scriptures book of Jubilees and the book of enoch it states angels came down and gave knowledge by command of God and caused us to sin greater by revealing tings they weren't supposed to and procreating with all of creation. God was morally obligated to create us. God is not above the laws.
@ronaldwangdra1995 don't mistake what christians believe with what the bible teaches =). most christians teach that angels had free will to make a one time choice and 1/3 chose evil and 2/3 chose righteousness. but that is absurd: if angels they exist, they necessarily must have free will. thus, angels are not perfect inherently but can only be perfect if they choose to be. SImilarly, God can only b e perfect if he chooses to be.
@carlsonap16 That logic would result in a paradox. Since if we were never created in the first place, it wouldn't be evil.
and under that logic, God is also obliged to create unlimited amount of species that is capable of thought similar to ours but is varies in an infinite number of ways.
If we were there in the first place, then we wouldn't need creation.
If we needed to be created, there must've been a time, the moment before our creation and the process of us being created when we were yet to be created.
It's one or the other... Or it's something we can't understand, and subsequently cannot prove, no?
@ronaldwangdra1995 we were created the very first moment. we were there in the first moment only because we were created. God's act of creating occurred simulteneously with the first moment of our existence.
@carlsonap16 So you're saying that God also existed at the same time as us.
By logic, something that started existing at the same time as us couldn't possibly have created us.
Go ahead, send me a message :)
a habit is not an addiction... One is not addicted to waking up at 8 just because its his daily routine. My point was that not every repeatedly done action is an addiction as what you've said and that "most" humans don't derive pleasure from doing bad things.
@ronaldwangdra1995 there is a fuzzy line painted by people between habit and addiction.i argue there is no line,& its merely more intense addictions versus less intense.u say that most humans don't derive pleasure from doing bad things,& yet most humans do things & then feel guilty & regretful for doing those things afterwards.that is the essence of getting pleasure from bad things.God didn't start existing.God exists in the 1st dimension of time always.but the 2nd dimension of time was created.
@ronaldwangdra1995 of course no one does something bad with a pupose of regretting it. i'm saying that most people do things they know are wrong but justify it before they do it, and then afterwards feel guilty and regretful. He could've chosen not to creat enything but my conention is if He had done that He would have been damned eternally to torments.
@carlsonap16 Again, to be addicted is to feel dependence on it. I don't see how that is being dependent on doing bad stuff. They did it for their own reasons, and I must say that most of the time out of selfishness(doing bad stuff) and not addiction.
Ok, I just realized that my original point was to refute your points in the video... which has nothing to do with what we're talking about now..
and it's late here and I've gotta go to work later
@ronaldwangdra1995 everything we do is for selfishness. no one does anything except to get pleasure. the question is, are you going to hurt others to please yourself or deprive some pleasure from yourself so that others won't be hurt.
lol okay well, let's focus then on the original points of the video. send me an email on that and list my points in the video you are contesting and why they are wrong in your belief, etc. hope to hear from you
@ronaldwangdra1995 simply this:I show in logic that God must exist and that God is morally obligated to create all minds and that morality which is proven also to exist can only exist if moral obligations can be achieved.since creating an infinite number of minds cant be achieved & since minds must be able to achieve moral obligations, there are thus a finite number of minds that can possibly exist.i believe just as there are finite combinations of DNA,so also the mind itself has a distinct dna.
@carlsonap16 As I said, the God is morally obligated thing is a paradox that creates a circular argument. In a rational debate, it would be considered void.
Since creating an infinite amount of minds can't be achieved ... thus a finite number of minds that can possibly exist.
@ronaldwangdra1995 as i said, God and absolute morality must exist is my contention. if that contention is proven to be true, then that fact proves that there are a finite number of minds that can exist. its only a fallacy if the starting contention is false. i don't see how its a paradox.
@carlsonap16 Once again, you are using your conclusion as an argument to prove itself.
Your points has a basic flaw in that it holds true under the assumption that your conclusion is true. If the conclusion is false, then the argument is false. It is circular argument.
@ronaldwangdra1995 its not a circular argument; ur misunderstand the principle of circular reasoning. i'll show u the difference:
noncircular:
1.If absolute morality exists, it must by definition be achievable by minds
2.absolute morality requires necessarily that a mind not existing is contrary to its mind.
3.If absolute morality exists & morality requires necessarily that a mind not existing is contrary to its mind & if morality must be achievable, then there can only b finite # of minds.
@ronaldwangdra1995 that is good in your questions: #1 both can only be true if my claims are themselves proven. the conclusion logically follows IF the two given premises are true. if absolute morality exists and cannot exist without it being achievable, and if minds not existing is absolute immorality, then if absolute morality exists absolute immorality must be possible to not do, and it can only be possible to not be able to create an infinite # of minds if you cant create an infinite #.
@ronaldwangdra1995 my points rst on a series of arguments which ultimately go back to whether God exists or not so i'd have to show that first. i saw you said go ahead so i will send you an email in a moment
1.Absolute morality cannot exist with an infinite number of minds being able to be created
2.Therefore because an infinite number of minds are not able to be created absolute morality exists.
its circular because there are no premises given that support number 1, and so 2 cannot be true because of 1, but would have to require other things beside one to establish.
1. It being a small portion doesn't mean it's not God's words.
2. The angels suggesting and sighing was obviously just to create an interesting scenario. If God were an omniscient being, all that would've been redundant 'coz he would know everything that would go on during the meeting before the angels were even created.
3. I'd wager that 6000 years ago, a light bulb would've been considered a miracle. The "amazing science" you speak of couldn't even estimate the number of species on the Earth.
@ronaldwangdra1995 all science is amazing when it is years beyond the times. species are equivalent to human races. there are many human races: black white, etc. so also their are many species of animals, but as long as you know the one base animal, it doesn't matter if you know all the species and it is foolish to think you can learn them all as it is unnecessary and impossible to learn them all as new species continue to be developed. so no the bible obviously does not do the impossible.
@carlsonap16@carlsonap16 I'm talking about how it is said that only a few thousand animals went into the ark with Noah and the concept that God created the world as it is.
not to mention the size of the ark would make even a few thousand species impossible to fit in.
@ronaldwangdra1995 i have studied the numbers, and at most only 30000 were in the ark. the Bible does not say species, so its wrong of you to conclude such. don't impose your modern classifications into an ancient text. the ancients classified according to the taxonomic family and not according to species. there were no problems of food as they all were vegetarian originally.
@carlsonap16 Do you realize how much food would need to be on board for those 30K animals? The elephant alone could eat food the volume of the ship in a year. Plus the hippos.
and it still does not take into account habitats and how they are now a variety of different animals from the same taxonomical family
@ronaldwangdra1995 truthfully, i don't really care much if the Bible is false. if it is so what? we would reject it and move on. my beliefs are not based on the bible but based on philosophy and logic, so if you were to prove the entire bible was false, it would do very little to my religion. we could argue the science all day long but ultimately it is a red herring regarding whether my beliefs about morality are correct.
@GraveDigger0 prove it doesn't exist. i base my beliefs on logic and philosophy only, so if you can show me where i am in error solely on logical grounds and not on emotionalism as most are wont to do, the i will concede to you. nevertheless, if there is no afterlie, everyting is a waste so it really doesn't matter.
The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the believer. If others are supposed to disprove the existence of god, then everything exists until it is disproven. Also what’s with the assumption that atheism leads to nihilism. Atheism makes life more important. It frees you from commands and allows you to decide what is important. And as for logic: There is no logical path that leads to a definitive requirement for a god. Belief in them requires faith in the supernatural at some point
@CrimsonVoid i do not believe there is a burden of proof for anything. everyone has the burden of proof for everything in my understanding. while one can't say that something is proven merely because ther e is no proof to the contrary likewise someone can't say something is proven false because there is no proof to the contrary.
Actually you did say there is a burden of proof. You asked me to prove that god doesn't exist. That's exactly what burden of proof is. And yes, everything must be proven if it is to be considered within the realm of the natural. I never said that he doesn't exist, and we obviously can't prove that right now. I just don't believe in things that have no proof and serve no purpose.
@CrimsonVoid no that's not burden of proof. i ask you to prove that god doesn't exist. that doesn't mean he does. similarly you ask me to prove that god does exist, that doesn't mean he doesn't. no matter what, either position requires proof to be accepted as proven, and thus, the burden of proof is on both sides and no sides. no sides because its on both sides.
Not really. You are saying that god exists. I'm saying that it doesn't matter. I can't say that there is no god. All I can say is that I personally don't because I don't see a reason to. The world as it is can be explained very well and introducing a god into it would destroy the beauty and wonder. There may be a god, but I am pretty much positive that the major religions of today know nothing about him.
@CrimsonVoid i'm saying that god exists, and that is morally necessarily to affirm such if that is true. that is my contention but whether i can substantiate that is another issue entirely."I am pretty much positive that the major religions of today know nothing about him." i agree 100% "All I can say is that I personally don't because I don't see a reason to. " All i can say is that personally i do because i see a logical necessity for believing in such.
@CrimsonVoid god doesn't destroy the beauty of the world; his existence allows for it to exist. as a clarifier i do not believe in intelligent design at least not int he traditional sense.
@CrimsonVoid agreed i donot believe in things that have no proof or purpose either. that's the sole reason i believe in God: because of what i see as proof and purpose/explanation.
@CrimsonVoid if there is no objective basis to what is important, then what you choose to make important is ultimately vain. i don't believe in the supernatural. the only thing that exists is the natural. i could be happy if you proved god didn't exist. i could not be happy if you proved there was no afterlife
There is only an objective basis if there is no god. If you are forced to follow rules that have been put forth by a god then you have no objective basis to work with because you are stuck following that. However if you are free to make your own decision then you can objectively decide what is important based on what you perceive. I cannot prove that god doesn't exist. I don't even care. But belief in an afterlife is belief in the supernatural because it has not been shown to exist
@CrimsonVoid how is there only an objective basis if there is no god? i think you are inserting definitions of god that are not justified. i am forced to follow the rules of nature NOT God. God does not make the rules. to believe God makes the rules of nature is logically absurd.
Exactly. It is absurd. What the hell do you believe. You say that you follow gods rules, but then claim that he is completely illogical and pretty much not a god? Whatever it is you believe it seems to be extremely convoluted. What is the purpose of god for you?
@CrimsonVoid If God's rules are valid, they are only valid to the exent they accurately reflect the laws of nature. if the rules of God contradict the laws of nature, then the laws win hands down. the purpose of God for me is that he is necessary for all things to exist, he is the creator of all temporal things, and he is the manipulator of the universe.
If he didn't make the rules then how can he be the creator of all temporal thins and manipulate the universe? If he can only manipulate things within the rules of nature then he can't really do anything, because if he did he would be breaking natural laws. You have to realize my confusion. Unless you can fully define your belief system then I can only ask questions based on what I know of others' beliefs.
@CrimsonVoid " If he can only manipulate things within the rules of nature then he can't really do anything, because if he did he would be breaking natural laws." disagree. in the same way you can interact/manipulate with nature, so also he can. he just has more knowledge about scientific laws than we do. fair enough regarding your confusion. just know that i am entirely different from every other religion. i am quite gnostic and i am hardcore rationalist and skeptic.
@CrimsonVoid i believe He created merely by activating things that existed already. thus in one sense all of creation is created. in another sense, no creation was created.
@CrimsonVoid i can show that the aterlife does exist through the concept of eternity in which everything that is created must continue to exist. energy cannot be created or destroyed. thus, the energy of our minds cannot cease to exist and so we will always be iving..
That's not a proof. It is a thought experiment based on an assumption. If that convinces you, then that's great. Obviously nothing I ever say will convince you otherwise.
Let's get down to an important question on my end. What is your view on evolution?
@CrimsonVoid what's the assumption i based it on? if u want to contest any assumption ive made, be my guest.but if the premise is proven, the conclusion logically follows.my view on evolution is show me the scientific proof & i'll believe it even if the Scriptures teach otherwise.there may be scientific proof of evolution, but i can only state what i believe based on the evidence that has been shown to me.feel free to send me in email links to learn about arguments for evolution scientifically.
You made two assumptions. The first is that everything created must continue to exist. You can’t prove that’s true. In fact, there are several scientific hypotheses that suggest that everything might eventually be destroyed. Also, your conscious mind is stored chemically, not in electrical signals.
You can’t use seemingly common sense in scientific proofs. If we did then we never would have learned about relativity, since it goes against our common sense.
@CrimsonVoid the assumption was in accords with generally accepted scienific principle that energy cannot be destroyed. do you have an example of a case in which energy can be destroyed? evidently not being able to cite a time does not prove it can't be destroyed.
as to consciousness: how do you explain the experience of what consciousness is? as in, where is our thoughts? sum have committed murder while sleep walking.evidently they were not conscious. so where is the energy of consciousness?
Look up virtual particles. They pop into existence and then are annihilated. For that moment of time energy is created.
Again, you are assuming that our consciousness lives on, or is separate from us, without any supporting evidence. I don’t have to prove that you are wrong. You have to prove that you are correct. Until then it is an assumption. You can believe whatever you want. But don't say you can prove something without evidence. You don't seem to know what “prove” means.
@CrimsonVoid they pop into observation and pop out of observation. i think its a bit much to assume they pop into and out of existence just because we can no longer observe them. you are assuming it doesn't live on without any supporting evidence. so, our objections are on an equal level. now we should try and offer actual grounding evidence, or else both of our positions fail as convincing."You have to prove that you are correct. Until then it is an assumption." correct.
Once again, I don't have to prove that we live on. I'm not saying that we don't. You said that you can "prove" that there is an afterlife. All I'm saying is that you haven't. So you don't have proof, you have a belief. I just have issue with people using the word "proof" because it implies that you have backing evidence. But you just said you don't.
@CrimsonVoid to make any claim of what something is you must prove it. to say "prove that we live on" is perfectly legitimate of you to say to me. but so also me to say "prove that we don't live on". we both can only make a statement of how things are if we can prove it. if we can't prove it, at best we can say it might be true or its possible its true.i believe i have backing evidence, but i concede that i have not presented the exhaustive evidence here on this page with you.
@CrimsonVoid thus if you say "god might exist, but i don't believe he does" for me to say to you "prove it" would be an illogical thing to say. your statement god might exist reflects your uncertainty on the topic and so you don't need to prove that you are uncertain; it should be taken at facevalue. if i want to convince you something is certainly true, i must show you the evidence or else you should not regard my claim as legitimate logic.
@CrimsonVoid to me, what is logically necessary is the sole means of proof. so if i show that something is logically necessary then it is proven. that being said, i stated that with the assumption that energy cannot be destroyed, it is proven that the energy of the mind cannot be destroyed. now, if i want my argument to be valid, i have to prove that energy cannot be destroyed, which i have not done yet here.
@CrimsonVoid relativity is also something you and scientists assume, and can't be proven either. so c urrently our claims proposed to one another are based on assumptions, and now we have to attempt to prove our assumptions if we are interested in gaining ground in that specific argument.
What?!? See this is what I was worried about. You do not know enough about what you are discussing. Relativity has been tested and is observable. They have even succefully proven that gravity can alter time. Before you keep going on about how science lives off of assumptions you should go educate yourself. I can not take any of your responses seriously if you don't know what you are talking about. That was my main reason for asking about evolution, but your response here answers it
@CrimsonVoid i always maintain the position of show me the proof & i'll believe it.u might b right,but until i see the evidence,how can i believe it?such would be absurd.so if u have evidence 4 relativity,please send me it.otherwise,i can't believe something i haven't yet seen the evidence 4;can u not at least respect that perspective?i believe i no what i'm talking about,but u have the permission 2 show me wrong.also i might be misunderstanding ur usage of relativity. perhaps you could clarify.
The theory of relativity is the fact that people experience time differently based on their relative speed or gravity. I.e. if u stand still and I am going really fast relative to u then time will go slower for me.
I don’t respect that perspective. You are saying you chose to remain ignorant unless someone decides to educate you? How can u accept any reality if u aren’t willing to learn for yourself? The evidence is out there, you just have to be curious enough to find it.
@CrimsonVoid no i don't choose to remain ignorant.im always seeking truth and always studying.but i have priorities.so the things that are more basic to truth and reality i wish to master first so then i can easier understand the rest.i ask people for help just in case i am missing something.im one of the most curious of them all. i plan on studying everything.but again i operate on a basis of priority and practicality. its silly to learn the advanced things if the basics haven't beenmastered.
@CrimsonVoid i will look up what you say; i have heard of that before, but i'd have to see an experiment or do one myself which would corroborate it. or see a philosophical explanation which makes it undeniable to be true.
I can understand the need to see something personally to believe it. But then you can't really learn much. You don't have access to a lot of tools that others do. So you have to be able to accept other peoples' work to some extent.
The philosophical side will really get you into trouble. As I said, there are a lot of things about nature that can not be discovered through pilosophy. If you want to live by logic and nature then you better leave philosophy for thoughts, not proofs.
@CrimsonVoid i regard philosophy merely as seeking the truth. but how can you understand the advanced truth without knowing the basics?
i think to a certain extent you are correct regarding the tools. though i plan on eventuaoly coming into much money,and so eventually i will be able to have the tools that are necessary for testing =). but at the very least i need to see an experiemnt in which the experimenters proved through their experiment that what they are claiming is in fact true.
Promise me you will actually look into evolution. Start with the video “Evolution: How We Know it Happened & Why it Matters.” It’s here on YouTube. Unfortunately, it only covers the fossil record. Even without the fossil record the theory of evolution is completely supported by genetics, virology and embryology alone. After watching that the next best place would be documentaries or other lectures. Let me know what you think. I sincerely want to know.
@CrimsonVoid i will look into evolution. But i get discouraged if it doesn't pass the test. also it needs to be practical. imagine saying to someone okay here's a 5 year video series to watch; it will take you your entire life. that's soomethinig i'm not interested in. but something that presents the facts in a way that can be understood in a timely fashion as well as offers at least the reasons and methods which lead them to conclude what they believe, that is something i will look into.
What have you found that takes a lifetime of studying to understand the basics? The video I sent you is 1.5 hours long. You can skip the first 15 minutes or so. You could spend a couple hours and learn most of what you need to understand why it obviously happened. Of course, you could take the path that a lot of people take and come up with ways deny the evidence. If you decide to take that path then please dont fill their heads with disinformation. Let them learn and figure it out
@CrimsonVoid 1.5 hours is fine. i never deny evidence. i do however propose alternate theories which are logically possible. i see kto evaluate all possibilities, not just the most likey or most popular ones. then taking all the theories, i compare them with the evidence and see what is true based on the evidence at hand.
That's kind of where I was a month or so ago. I assumed that scientists were correct because they have spend the last 150 years or so studying the subject. But I had never really looked into it before. However, once I did actually go study it I realize that there really isn't an argument. On one side there is a sound representation of what happened based on tons and tons of info. On the other side there is a denial because it doesn't fit with what they believe.
@CrimsonVoid fair enough.im the opposite;i assume that scientists might b right,but that i cant trust wat they say until i see the proof myself.thus im a hardcore skeptic on pretty much everything in life.i trust generally the sincerity of sources,but very rarely trust the authenticity of sources that undergo interpretations.sources that show the data i highly value.sources that muddle it with their interpretation,i tend 2 ignore,unless they offer sufficient justification 4 their interpretation.
@CrimsonVoid in response to your first question: nothing =). so that's good. i was just stating the obvious i suppose =). but i have seen people before when i ask them for evidence for evolution, tey sent me close to twenty or more websites and expect me to read them all. t is much easier to have just one source at a time, unless i will only have that one communication with them. so i appreciate you not overloading me and starting me off with just a video. i will watch it and get back to u
@CrimsonVoid Its traditionally called Tefillin. The traditional Jews wear it only during prayer time (hence the name tefillin). But, i follow the Scriptures rather than tradition, and Scripture says to wear it all the time when you have clothes on. It is a symbol, meant to indicate that the word of God is bound to one's mind, seeing as how there is a piece of Scripture inside the box. Similarly, i wear one on my arm, as a symbol that the word of God is bound to my arm, which represents strength.
@CrimsonVoid the why is that God commanded it and unless God commands something unjust, we must obey it. Morality requires us to set ourselves apart as a people which belong to God and this setting apart because God chose to have this distinction marked by teffilin is the means of obeying the requirements of morality for being set apart,
Wait, what? "Unless he commands something unjust"? Doesn't that suggest that there is a morality above god? Also, where did he mention the teffilin, it seems odd that I've never even heard of it.
@CrimsonVoid Yes morality is above God. i am not your typical theist. it doesn't mention the word teffilin but the concept. see Deut 6:8 11:18 and Exodus 13:9 13:16
@CrimsonVoid depends how you define fallible depending how you define fallible, i have no problem with him being fallible. I just try and believe what logic what dictates me to believe. If it brings down God lower than what others think about Him then so be it. =)
Why worship someone that is fallible? If we can recognize the ways that he is unjust than doesn't that put us on a somewhat higher platform? Why follow the orders of someone that can't even deduce something that we can?I didn't take orders from bullies in school just because they were stronger than me, because I knew they were acting immorally.
@CrimsonVoid worship is synonymous with due reverence and respect. it is merely honoring God for what he deserves to be honored for. similarly, since every mind is a god, we should worship all minds for what they deserve to be worshipped for. He is not unjust but if He was, it is only because He intentionally chose to be evil, so that wouldn't make us know more than Him it would simply make us more righteous than Him. if God makes an evil decree, we are obligated to pppose it.
So you believe in a kind of mono-pantheism? If god is to be revered for what he deserves to be revered for, then surely he must be despised for the deplorable atrocities that he has committed. And if we are supposed to oppose his atrocious decrees then why are there so many examples of people following through with his most grotesque commands?
@CrimsonVoid everything evil should be despised and that includes anything God does.however, i would contest various things you believe are atrocities are in fact such. i would require solely the logical proof that something is an atrocity; otherwise with no proof ur appealing to emotion and that is a logical fallacy.as to peole following through, its irrelevant towhat the bible says: truth isnt created by the bible so don't base the principles of reality on a book; rather base them on logic..
@carlsonap16 "...know anything about what I believe?" I think saying, "...don't even know anything..." is a bit much considering that you reveal things that you believe in through this video response. I make my claim based on the evidence you've given me. However, I apologize for that usage, and concede that I should've used a different description. I should've said misguided.
@falcon55356 not quite. my beliefs are extremely radical and like nothing you have encountered before. you make assumptions without getting to know me. i bet if you were to list off one hundred things you think i believe, i would believe less than ten of them.
@falcon55356 i am aware of the absurdities of most religions. that's why i left christianity! i despise hypocrisy and illogical beliefs, and especially i detest blind faith and believing that Scripture is the foundation of truth.
you are right that most christian believe without any knowledge about it.
but im gonna dislike this, because your not exactly conveying your knowledge properly.
you mention jews book that mention angel already did give knowledge for human but human became too corrupt for it, but you didnt continue.
and i also agree that knowledge maybe too dangerous, but it can also help, if only medicine been revealed milions could be saved.
and weird is ANY religion book is as stupid as people as that time.
superstd 1 week ago
I would argue that one shouldn't use fallacious excuses to accept something either. But that brings me back to my original question. If the bible isnt the complete word of god, then what method of determination are you using to determine what is the word of god. I will copy and send this as a personal message as you requested.
ilrichard 1 week ago
@ilrichard ah okay now i know what you mean. the bible is not the entire word of God, i meant; its only a part. to believe the bible is Scripture, and then to equate the bible with the ufll extent of God's word is ignorance of what the Scriptures claim. now, whether the Bible is true or not, is a whole different discussion. but we should not use fallacious excuses for rejecting something.
carlsonap16 1 week ago
So the 'word of god' is not the word of god? There are other real words of god out there? What is the method to determine which word of god is real and which is metaphoric? I agree that the original vid was dumb to suggest that god was an ass for not sharing electricity. But to use the "holy book" argument again just because you found another book that says something convenient to the point you are trying to make doesnt really hold up.
ilrichard 1 week ago
@ilrichard huh? when did i say the word of god is not the word of god? the method of determination i have worked out, but if you want to know, send me an email. these comments are insufficient. and i dont use the holy book argument. you dont know me well enough to make that kind of judgment of what i believe. i can assure you my religion is so far off from every other religion, it is almost insulting to group them together.
carlsonap16 1 week ago
I'm spreading the real word.the race is on
thanksforthemessdick 1 week ago
I,m spreading the real word.the race is on
thanksforthemessdick 1 week ago
@thanksforthemessdick what race? the only real word is the word that is based on 100% logic. not foolish blind faith.
carlsonap16 1 week ago
fail
thanksforthemessdick 1 week ago
You CAN choose to do what you want for fulfillment. But you do no do it. You do not do it because it will cause more harm to yourself. By nature you are selfish and it is not the afterlife that stops you from doing acts that are harmful to others. People by nature feel sympathy for others in pain and that is not because everyone has a belief in afterlife. Human nature precedes the belief in an afterlife.
lutzkn 2 weeks ago
@lutzkn my entire rational basis for morality is benefit of the self.belief in afterlife has led me 2b sinless except 4 1 sin i'm struggling with.sympathy is based on ur moral beliefs,not on instinct.
carlsonap16 2 weeks ago
Criminology is a multifaceted study that studies sociology, psychology, politics, philosophy, law, anthropology, etc... Hegel suggested empirical study of philosophies as to attribute them to practical use and reality. This is what these forms of study do. Fortunately, many, if not all of the empirical experiments are subject to a much narrower interpretation than some scripture. Scripture, does not hold proof. Religion has created more wars and killed more people than oil...
lutzkn 2 weeks ago
@lutzkn without religion, i seriously have no concern who dies; without an afterlife, everything is meaningless, and i will not waste time stressing about something vain.
your criticism of Scripture while supported by the majority use of Scripture is not sync with the concept of Scripture itself. logic is superior to Scripture. those that elevate scripture above logic are idiots.
carlsonap16 2 weeks ago
@lutzkn it matters not who has killed more.what maters is who has done more evil.ponder and think for a moment: whats so bad about dying if there is an afterlife?death is just window into a new world.i believe murder is evil, but its not end of the world.its just someone stealing from you.what matters to me is the level of evil.as to nonreligions,its unfair to compare atheists,which have always been minority,to the majority.the more who agree with you,the easier it is to commit atrocities.
carlsonap16 2 weeks ago
@carlsonap16 so to be an atheist would make it more difficult to commit atrocities? It seriously concerns me that you have no concern who dies without religion. Should someone who has done very little evils go to hell for eternity because they did not follow divine command to kill millions? Hitler claimed to be Christian. For all I know, the killing of the Jews was done under divine command. Hitler could be in Heaven and the Jews could be in hell for eternity.
lutzkn 2 weeks ago
@lutzkn no, being an atheist for me would make it much easier to commit atrocities. divine command is not a sufficient logical basis of morality and therefore i reject such a warped concept. i have concern for those who die without them having a religion, but i don't care about others if i were to have no religion.
carlsonap16 2 weeks ago
@carlsonap16 With religion, there is no understanding of right or wrong. Religion is contradictory within itself and serves us nothing. Without an afterlife nothing is meaningful? You live your life for fulfillment. This doesn't mean go rape or kill everyone you want. Then nobody would respect your wishes and may rape or kill you. Balancing rights, having an enjoyable life containing love, happiness and respect is meaningful. I suggest you read some atheist works such as 'The God Delusion'.
lutzkn 2 weeks ago
@lutzkn it is not religion which guides more moral beliefs but i determine what is moral through logic alone. this brands me as a heretic by nearly all religious groups.
i've read portions of the God Delusion and its incredibly lacking in logic. it certainly finds flws in the christian religion, but my religion is not theirs. mine is my own that i determine through obedience to logic. as an atheist, one can only have an enjoyable life if they embrace the illusion of importance.
carlsonap16 2 weeks ago
@lutzkn i meant my not more. horrible typos i do sometimes
carlsonap16 2 weeks ago
@lutzkn if its fulfillting to rape and kill and i did not believe in an afterlife, i would seek it. whatever is fulfilling to me i would go after.thing is without an afterlilfe, what you choose to be fulfilling doesn't matter. you can make anyting fulfilling and thus, your choice does not matter as whatever you choose for fulfillment, you will be fulfilled
carlsonap16 2 weeks ago
So what are some examples of the things they taught us?
CrikeyTomatoes 1 month ago
@CrikeyTomatoes give me a sec and i'll list you what i accept as Scripture claims they taught us.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@CrikeyTomatoes i sent you it in email
carlsonap16 1 month ago
Interesting, thanks for the reply... A god that is not omnipotent! You have given me something to think about there
johnfenn23 1 month ago
@johnfenn23 lol yes its the only deity worth thinking about =)
carlsonap16 1 month ago
How do you know its God's word. What parts are accepted and what ones are rejected, and why. What the bleep is on your head?
shedininja001 1 month ago
@shedininja001 i accept any book that claims to be Scripture as Scripture so long as there is no sufficient reason to be suspicious of the sincerity of the claim. I wear what the Bible commands me to wear: traditionally the Jews refer to it as tefillin. it is symbolic of the dedication to God; identifies me as belonging to Him and being set apart from the rest of the world and symbolizes having the word of GOd in my mind and in my strength: this is why Scripture is inside the box.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
How can an omnipotent god come up with a plan that "backfires"?
johnfenn23 1 month ago
@johnfenn23 answer: omnipotence as you define it I do not believe in. my God is very very limited, and I am okay with that. those who argue for an unlimited god are absurd and illogical
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 Wow, so a very limited god created the whole universe? Yes sounds like a being prone to making many mistakes. lolnope
TheNotKyleSullivan 1 month ago
@TheNotKyleSullivan yes a limited god created the whole universe. he is prone to making mistakes but can only make them if he is intentionally choosing to do so.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
9. That would depend on what evil is for you.
If God were to provide tangible evidence of his existence, I'm sure most of the world's population would accept it. Much like how practically no one rejects that gravity exists.
and even if we did turn evil, it still wouldn't change the fact that more advanced medicine can help save lives.
We can divide the population of this world into 2 parts, by philosophical views:
one that relies on faith and one that relies on logic
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 I rely solely on logic and not what you know of as faith. As to gravity, there is something keeping down, but whether or not its gravity hasnt been proven to me so i dont know if its true.thecevidence is solely in the realm of logic.this should suffice as a proof if ur interested in hearing the arguments.you think that if the evidence suggests it most would accept it?if so then why do you believe that evolution which is "obviously" true is rejected by millions upon millions?
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 Evolution is rejected because some people rely on faith.
Even when there is not tangible evidence for most parts(if not all) holy scriptures, they believe it anyway. Not to mention there are those who don't even read the Bible at all and call themselves Christians.
Evolution is not obvious. The evidence that supports it are stuff that most ordinary people don't study about. Radiometric dating, the genetical similarities between species, etc.
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 exactly people may still reject things if they do not submit to logic. thus, when i have used logic with atheists, they have criticized me for thinking that we can know what the truth is objectively with absolute proof. they also say that fuzzy logic sometimes overrides pure logic which is absurd logically
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 i define evil as contrary to the nature of the mind. anything that is contrary to the cultivation and conduciveness of minds is evil and the laws of nature will punish disrespected minds in the same way disrespect bodies will be punished when someone jumps off a cliff and nature punishes their body with death.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
9. That would depend on what evil is for you.
If God were to provide tangible evidence of his existence, I'm sure most of the world's population would accept it. Much like how practically no one rejects that gravity exists.
and even if we did turn evil, it still wouldn't change the fact that more advanced medicine can help save lives.
We can divide the population of this world into 2 parts, by philosophical views:
one that relies on faith and one that relies on logic
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
7. The science taught wasn't exactly mentioned in detail, right? I don't see how one could use medicine to sin. Maybe the angels taught them stuff like nuclear bombs? Then that's kinda instigating war and the fault does not fully lie on humans.
8. If someone knows practically everything about the universe(including heaven and hell) for sure, as in they have no doubt it's true, I seriously doubt anyone would choose hell... would you? So if God were to provide tangible evidence, well.. you get it
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 medicine can be used as sin when its not actually medicine or it requires a defiling of oneself or others dignity and if its contrary to nature. i do not seriously doubt it. i have heard many say they prefer hell rather than heaven.furthermore hell is not purely torture; you can still have pleasure in hell. the question is what pleasure do you want for yourself? if you want pure pleasure then if you choose it you'll be saved. if you want impure pleasure, you will be condemned.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 i believe if u dont stop sinning ull go to hell.yet im not yet saved bcuz i haven't stopped sinning yet for 40 days.but i soon will.when i do, then Ill be saved if i never sin after those 1st 40 days of sinlessness.so the fact ive known how to be saved for a while & yet given in to my addiction merely means ive gambled with my eternal soul,knowing i could still bcom saved if i put off my repentance.but i want to stop; ive gone 6 days without sin now.my record is about 20 days.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 When it's not actually medicine, then I think we can all agree that it's not medicine... :\
... sinning is a very broad word...
Are we talking Christian sinning or what?
In any case, I highly doubt anyone can stop their minds from even thinking of bad thoughts completely. Calling it an addiction is going a bit too far, don't you think? Most humans don't feel the compulsive need to do bad things...
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 we don't all agree; that's why the modern world thinks vaccines, drugs, etc are good for their health lol; in reality they are destroying themselves and causing billions to die that would have otherwise survived. all the "medicines" of our day at best resolve health problems by creating new health problems. hardly medicine =).
i am talking about sinning in accords with the laws of nature which have nothing to do with the religion of christianity.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 ... I've an uncle that regularly takes vaccines and he's healthy and quite old, to boot... :|
Medicines have side-effects but I've heard no medical treatment that has killed more people(that would have otherwise survived) that save people.
Then it is a subjective matter, what you consider sinning, others might not so it's hard to argue on that point... for the both of us
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 you say he's healthy. on what standard do you base that? if he dies younger than 100 years old without being killed by someone, he is not healthy. the experts want you to think the medicines are helping save people when they are not. they schew the data. consider that the medical groups are a business and not solely interested in the health of people. if our experts were interested in health, they would not be pushing their gmos on us.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 its not subjective because something is only a sin if it can be proving to be a sin. and its not whats contrary to the beliefs of a mind, but its what is actually in an objective sense contrary to minds regardless of what the mind thinks is contrary to it
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 The word sin itself is man-made... and you say no one can have a second say in what it is...
My uncle has no major diseases that would cause him to die in the predictable future, nor does he show symptoms. He is able to do what most people could. Stuff like that... He is relatively healthy compared to the major population. He's had fevers before that would've killed him if medicine was never invented(heard stories of fever reaching almost 40 degrees celcius)
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 im seeking to argue for my concept of morality which is not related tot he ignorant christian dogma nor dogmas of most religions.morality is simply the laws of nature at work & not caused by God.to deny a law of morality would be the same foolishness as denying the law of 1+1=2.
how old is ur uncle?Hes relatively healthy sure,but thats not the measure of good health.yes,as i said,modern medicine resolves health problems.but they do this by creating new health problems always.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 Morality is differentiating between right and wrong. That is how it is defined. The concept of morality is created by humans because we have empathy. If it were absolute, no one should be able to deny it, but then we have masochists, we have racists, etc.
Also, if it were something not borne from opinion, one would be able to prove morality. Which is quite impossible.
late 70s
could you please give me an example I'm at quite a loss about the problems you speak of
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 if that's how u define morality fine,but i'm seeking 2 defend a specific concept rather than the words themselves.how do u base that if it was absolute we wouldn't be able to deny it?do u have a logical argument to prove that?every drug creates new problems.all "health" foods are unhealthy because theyre infested with either gmos or toxic chemicals.i used to get sick all the time;i switched to organic a year ago & havnt gotten sick 1ce.vaccines r well known 2 cause autism.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 The concept you're defending itself is borne of your opinion. Isn't that true?
Well, we would technically be able deny it verbally, but it would still hold true to us.
That is what it means to have an absolute concept. That there is no exception.
Like... No human can float around under the influence of gravity...
What are health foods, actually? I've actually never heard of it. Not to mention organic stuff does not really = opposite of medicine.
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 "Also, if it were something not borne from opinion, one would be able to prove morality. Which is quite impossible." i contest that the concept which i am advocating for is not borne from opinion but is borne from the laws of nature/science at work. health foods are foods touted as "good for you". such as the defiled plants and defiled animals.also they have a very flawed system of nutrition; you do not need to eat a special diet to be healthy. you just need to eat pure food.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 every action we do is an addiction if done long enough consistently. thus, only bad addictions are bad. now, people do feel a compulsive need to do bad things often, that's why you find many often compelled to do drugs, to sexually defile others, to get into fights, to eat unhealthy and drink oneself to near death, to stir up envies and gossips and many are addicted to abusing others verbally and physically.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 Not true... Addiction: to cause to become physiologically or psychologically dependent
You don't call a hobby an addiction. Neither do you call breathing an addiction.
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 someone who does an action repeatedly it will become second nature and they will not want to stop doing it and will resist it. that's why everyone is resistant to change to some degree. breathing is involuntary primarily and therefore we are not addicted to it. some peole are addicted however to the high of not breathing.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 It is plainly obvious you do not rely SOLELY on logic. One who only uses 100% proven facts as factors to take into consideration would become agnostics because God has not been proven nor disproved.
and you said "I believe if you don't stop sinning you'll go to hell"
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 "It is plainly obvious you do not rely SOLELY on logic. One who only uses 100% proven facts as factors to take into consideration would become agnostics because God has not been proven nor disproved." prove it. i have proven the existence of God, so your claim is wrong. if you think God's existence is unproven show me the proof it is unproven. if i can show you the proof that god exists, which i believe i can, then your objection is false
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 Ok, go on... What is the proof that God exists?
You might want to publish it so the rest of the world can know as well... If it is fact...
and you said "I believe" not "I know" which means it's not based on something you know 100%
No one depends solely on something. At least not that I know of.
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 believe is equivalent to know as i undersand it based on an analysis of mine of the dictionary. now if you want to see the proof, i need to send you an email, since its too long for comments
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 belief does not equate "faith". belief equates with confidence in the truthfulness of something. some belief is based on logic and some is based on faith. belief based solely on logic is valuable
carlsonap16 1 month ago
4. Angels had sex with other creatures? The Bible doesn't exactly support having sex with animals, does it? but this is not an important point...
5. I don't know this for sure, but I don't think in any of the scriptures was it mentioned that angels came down to give knowledge AND it caused sin to become greater.
6. If God knew that it would cause more sin, why do it in the first place? Yahweh is supposed to be omniscient = knows EVERYTHING past, present and FUTURE.
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 yes angels had sex with creatures; they sinned. The Bible supports it, but most bibles do not. the true bible contains many books which were wrongly rejected. In the Scriptures book of Jubilees and the book of enoch it states angels came down and gave knowledge by command of God and caused us to sin greater by revealing tings they weren't supposed to and procreating with all of creation. God was morally obligated to create us. God is not above the laws.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 I've been told that Angels were perfect, but I guess I might've been wrong and my point is void. My bad.
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 don't mistake what christians believe with what the bible teaches =). most christians teach that angels had free will to make a one time choice and 1/3 chose evil and 2/3 chose righteousness. but that is absurd: if angels they exist, they necessarily must have free will. thus, angels are not perfect inherently but can only be perfect if they choose to be. SImilarly, God can only b e perfect if he chooses to be.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
How is God morally obligated to create us?
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 Because anything that is contrary to minds is evil by definition, and us not being created is contrary to our minds.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 That logic would result in a paradox. Since if we were never created in the first place, it wouldn't be evil.
and under that logic, God is also obliged to create unlimited amount of species that is capable of thought similar to ours but is varies in an infinite number of ways.
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 no, we were created in the first place. there was never a moment of time where we were not existing
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 Your point on belief, accepted.
and that would be another paradox.
If we were there in the first place, then we wouldn't need creation.
If we needed to be created, there must've been a time, the moment before our creation and the process of us being created when we were yet to be created.
It's one or the other... Or it's something we can't understand, and subsequently cannot prove, no?
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 we were created the very first moment. we were there in the first moment only because we were created. God's act of creating occurred simulteneously with the first moment of our existence.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 So you're saying that God also existed at the same time as us.
By logic, something that started existing at the same time as us couldn't possibly have created us.
Go ahead, send me a message :)
a habit is not an addiction... One is not addicted to waking up at 8 just because its his daily routine. My point was that not every repeatedly done action is an addiction as what you've said and that "most" humans don't derive pleasure from doing bad things.
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 there is a fuzzy line painted by people between habit and addiction.i argue there is no line,& its merely more intense addictions versus less intense.u say that most humans don't derive pleasure from doing bad things,& yet most humans do things & then feel guilty & regretful for doing those things afterwards.that is the essence of getting pleasure from bad things.God didn't start existing.God exists in the 1st dimension of time always.but the 2nd dimension of time was created.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 There is a clear definition for both and they're not that similar.
... I can't speak for all humans but never in my life have I done a bad thing with my purpose being to regret it afterward... That's silly...
Which means he could've chosen not to create humans or any "minds" at the start of creation.
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 of course no one does something bad with a pupose of regretting it. i'm saying that most people do things they know are wrong but justify it before they do it, and then afterwards feel guilty and regretful. He could've chosen not to creat enything but my conention is if He had done that He would have been damned eternally to torments.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 Again, to be addicted is to feel dependence on it. I don't see how that is being dependent on doing bad stuff. They did it for their own reasons, and I must say that most of the time out of selfishness(doing bad stuff) and not addiction.
Ok, I just realized that my original point was to refute your points in the video... which has nothing to do with what we're talking about now..
and it's late here and I've gotta go to work later
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 everything we do is for selfishness. no one does anything except to get pleasure. the question is, are you going to hurt others to please yourself or deprive some pleasure from yourself so that others won't be hurt.
lol okay well, let's focus then on the original points of the video. send me an email on that and list my points in the video you are contesting and why they are wrong in your belief, etc. hope to hear from you
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 no, there is a finite limit to how many minds can exist.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 Why do you say there is a finite limit?
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 simply this:I show in logic that God must exist and that God is morally obligated to create all minds and that morality which is proven also to exist can only exist if moral obligations can be achieved.since creating an infinite number of minds cant be achieved & since minds must be able to achieve moral obligations, there are thus a finite number of minds that can possibly exist.i believe just as there are finite combinations of DNA,so also the mind itself has a distinct dna.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 As I said, the God is morally obligated thing is a paradox that creates a circular argument. In a rational debate, it would be considered void.
Since creating an infinite amount of minds can't be achieved ... thus a finite number of minds that can possibly exist.
That's using the conclusion to prove itself.
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 as i said, God and absolute morality must exist is my contention. if that contention is proven to be true, then that fact proves that there are a finite number of minds that can exist. its only a fallacy if the starting contention is false. i don't see how its a paradox.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 Once again, you are using your conclusion as an argument to prove itself.
Your points has a basic flaw in that it holds true under the assumption that your conclusion is true. If the conclusion is false, then the argument is false. It is circular argument.
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 its not a circular argument; ur misunderstand the principle of circular reasoning. i'll show u the difference:
noncircular:
1.If absolute morality exists, it must by definition be achievable by minds
2.absolute morality requires necessarily that a mind not existing is contrary to its mind.
3.If absolute morality exists & morality requires necessarily that a mind not existing is contrary to its mind & if morality must be achievable, then there can only b finite # of minds.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 and why is the conclusion that there can only be a finite # of minds?
and point 2. Why do you say that this point is absolutely true?
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 that is good in your questions: #1 both can only be true if my claims are themselves proven. the conclusion logically follows IF the two given premises are true. if absolute morality exists and cannot exist without it being achievable, and if minds not existing is absolute immorality, then if absolute morality exists absolute immorality must be possible to not do, and it can only be possible to not be able to create an infinite # of minds if you cant create an infinite #.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 So, if you're interested in continuing this, my e-mail is ronald_wangdra@yahoo.com
I look forward to it... Good day to you sir :)
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 my points rst on a series of arguments which ultimately go back to whether God exists or not so i'd have to show that first. i saw you said go ahead so i will send you an email in a moment
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 circular:
1.Absolute morality cannot exist with an infinite number of minds being able to be created
2.Therefore because an infinite number of minds are not able to be created absolute morality exists.
its circular because there are no premises given that support number 1, and so 2 cannot be true because of 1, but would have to require other things beside one to establish.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
1. It being a small portion doesn't mean it's not God's words.
2. The angels suggesting and sighing was obviously just to create an interesting scenario. If God were an omniscient being, all that would've been redundant 'coz he would know everything that would go on during the meeting before the angels were even created.
3. I'd wager that 6000 years ago, a light bulb would've been considered a miracle. The "amazing science" you speak of couldn't even estimate the number of species on the Earth.
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 all science is amazing when it is years beyond the times. species are equivalent to human races. there are many human races: black white, etc. so also their are many species of animals, but as long as you know the one base animal, it doesn't matter if you know all the species and it is foolish to think you can learn them all as it is unnecessary and impossible to learn them all as new species continue to be developed. so no the bible obviously does not do the impossible.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 @carlsonap16 I'm talking about how it is said that only a few thousand animals went into the ark with Noah and the concept that God created the world as it is.
not to mention the size of the ark would make even a few thousand species impossible to fit in.
and problems with food, habitat, etc.
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 i have studied the numbers, and at most only 30000 were in the ark. the Bible does not say species, so its wrong of you to conclude such. don't impose your modern classifications into an ancient text. the ancients classified according to the taxonomic family and not according to species. there were no problems of food as they all were vegetarian originally.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 Do you realize how much food would need to be on board for those 30K animals? The elephant alone could eat food the volume of the ship in a year. Plus the hippos.
and it still does not take into account habitats and how they are now a variety of different animals from the same taxonomical family
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 truthfully, i don't really care much if the Bible is false. if it is so what? we would reject it and move on. my beliefs are not based on the bible but based on philosophy and logic, so if you were to prove the entire bible was false, it would do very little to my religion. we could argue the science all day long but ultimately it is a red herring regarding whether my beliefs about morality are correct.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 Ok, I'm not really interested in what your belief about morality is because everyone has different beliefs on it.
I simply wish to point out what I think it wrong with the arguments you made on the video.
and I want to know what your evidence of God is, cause you were implying that you had irrefutable evidence.
ronaldwangdra1995 1 month ago
@ronaldwangdra1995 fair enough. but my video's points rest on my beliefs about morality, so its all tied together when you look at it.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
Why waste your life believing in something that doesn't exist. Get a hobby besides being annoying.
GraveDigger0 1 month ago
@GraveDigger0 prove it doesn't exist. i base my beliefs on logic and philosophy only, so if you can show me where i am in error solely on logical grounds and not on emotionalism as most are wont to do, the i will concede to you. nevertheless, if there is no afterlie, everyting is a waste so it really doesn't matter.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16
The burden of proof is on the shoulders of the believer. If others are supposed to disprove the existence of god, then everything exists until it is disproven. Also what’s with the assumption that atheism leads to nihilism. Atheism makes life more important. It frees you from commands and allows you to decide what is important. And as for logic: There is no logical path that leads to a definitive requirement for a god. Belief in them requires faith in the supernatural at some point
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid i do not believe there is a burden of proof for anything. everyone has the burden of proof for everything in my understanding. while one can't say that something is proven merely because ther e is no proof to the contrary likewise someone can't say something is proven false because there is no proof to the contrary.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16
Actually you did say there is a burden of proof. You asked me to prove that god doesn't exist. That's exactly what burden of proof is. And yes, everything must be proven if it is to be considered within the realm of the natural. I never said that he doesn't exist, and we obviously can't prove that right now. I just don't believe in things that have no proof and serve no purpose.
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid no that's not burden of proof. i ask you to prove that god doesn't exist. that doesn't mean he does. similarly you ask me to prove that god does exist, that doesn't mean he doesn't. no matter what, either position requires proof to be accepted as proven, and thus, the burden of proof is on both sides and no sides. no sides because its on both sides.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16
Not really. You are saying that god exists. I'm saying that it doesn't matter. I can't say that there is no god. All I can say is that I personally don't because I don't see a reason to. The world as it is can be explained very well and introducing a god into it would destroy the beauty and wonder. There may be a god, but I am pretty much positive that the major religions of today know nothing about him.
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid i'm saying that god exists, and that is morally necessarily to affirm such if that is true. that is my contention but whether i can substantiate that is another issue entirely."I am pretty much positive that the major religions of today know nothing about him." i agree 100% "All I can say is that I personally don't because I don't see a reason to. " All i can say is that personally i do because i see a logical necessity for believing in such.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid god doesn't destroy the beauty of the world; his existence allows for it to exist. as a clarifier i do not believe in intelligent design at least not int he traditional sense.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid agreed i donot believe in things that have no proof or purpose either. that's the sole reason i believe in God: because of what i see as proof and purpose/explanation.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid if there is no objective basis to what is important, then what you choose to make important is ultimately vain. i don't believe in the supernatural. the only thing that exists is the natural. i could be happy if you proved god didn't exist. i could not be happy if you proved there was no afterlife
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16
There is only an objective basis if there is no god. If you are forced to follow rules that have been put forth by a god then you have no objective basis to work with because you are stuck following that. However if you are free to make your own decision then you can objectively decide what is important based on what you perceive. I cannot prove that god doesn't exist. I don't even care. But belief in an afterlife is belief in the supernatural because it has not been shown to exist
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid how is there only an objective basis if there is no god? i think you are inserting definitions of god that are not justified. i am forced to follow the rules of nature NOT God. God does not make the rules. to believe God makes the rules of nature is logically absurd.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16
Exactly. It is absurd. What the hell do you believe. You say that you follow gods rules, but then claim that he is completely illogical and pretty much not a god? Whatever it is you believe it seems to be extremely convoluted. What is the purpose of god for you?
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid If God's rules are valid, they are only valid to the exent they accurately reflect the laws of nature. if the rules of God contradict the laws of nature, then the laws win hands down. the purpose of God for me is that he is necessary for all things to exist, he is the creator of all temporal things, and he is the manipulator of the universe.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16
If he didn't make the rules then how can he be the creator of all temporal thins and manipulate the universe? If he can only manipulate things within the rules of nature then he can't really do anything, because if he did he would be breaking natural laws. You have to realize my confusion. Unless you can fully define your belief system then I can only ask questions based on what I know of others' beliefs.
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid " If he can only manipulate things within the rules of nature then he can't really do anything, because if he did he would be breaking natural laws." disagree. in the same way you can interact/manipulate with nature, so also he can. he just has more knowledge about scientific laws than we do. fair enough regarding your confusion. just know that i am entirely different from every other religion. i am quite gnostic and i am hardcore rationalist and skeptic.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid i believe He created merely by activating things that existed already. thus in one sense all of creation is created. in another sense, no creation was created.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid i can show that the aterlife does exist through the concept of eternity in which everything that is created must continue to exist. energy cannot be created or destroyed. thus, the energy of our minds cannot cease to exist and so we will always be iving..
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16
That's not a proof. It is a thought experiment based on an assumption. If that convinces you, then that's great. Obviously nothing I ever say will convince you otherwise.
Let's get down to an important question on my end. What is your view on evolution?
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid what's the assumption i based it on? if u want to contest any assumption ive made, be my guest.but if the premise is proven, the conclusion logically follows.my view on evolution is show me the scientific proof & i'll believe it even if the Scriptures teach otherwise.there may be scientific proof of evolution, but i can only state what i believe based on the evidence that has been shown to me.feel free to send me in email links to learn about arguments for evolution scientifically.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16
You made two assumptions. The first is that everything created must continue to exist. You can’t prove that’s true. In fact, there are several scientific hypotheses that suggest that everything might eventually be destroyed. Also, your conscious mind is stored chemically, not in electrical signals.
You can’t use seemingly common sense in scientific proofs. If we did then we never would have learned about relativity, since it goes against our common sense.
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid the assumption was in accords with generally accepted scienific principle that energy cannot be destroyed. do you have an example of a case in which energy can be destroyed? evidently not being able to cite a time does not prove it can't be destroyed.
as to consciousness: how do you explain the experience of what consciousness is? as in, where is our thoughts? sum have committed murder while sleep walking.evidently they were not conscious. so where is the energy of consciousness?
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16
Look up virtual particles. They pop into existence and then are annihilated. For that moment of time energy is created.
Again, you are assuming that our consciousness lives on, or is separate from us, without any supporting evidence. I don’t have to prove that you are wrong. You have to prove that you are correct. Until then it is an assumption. You can believe whatever you want. But don't say you can prove something without evidence. You don't seem to know what “prove” means.
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid they pop into observation and pop out of observation. i think its a bit much to assume they pop into and out of existence just because we can no longer observe them. you are assuming it doesn't live on without any supporting evidence. so, our objections are on an equal level. now we should try and offer actual grounding evidence, or else both of our positions fail as convincing."You have to prove that you are correct. Until then it is an assumption." correct.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16
Once again, I don't have to prove that we live on. I'm not saying that we don't. You said that you can "prove" that there is an afterlife. All I'm saying is that you haven't. So you don't have proof, you have a belief. I just have issue with people using the word "proof" because it implies that you have backing evidence. But you just said you don't.
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid to make any claim of what something is you must prove it. to say "prove that we live on" is perfectly legitimate of you to say to me. but so also me to say "prove that we don't live on". we both can only make a statement of how things are if we can prove it. if we can't prove it, at best we can say it might be true or its possible its true.i believe i have backing evidence, but i concede that i have not presented the exhaustive evidence here on this page with you.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid thus if you say "god might exist, but i don't believe he does" for me to say to you "prove it" would be an illogical thing to say. your statement god might exist reflects your uncertainty on the topic and so you don't need to prove that you are uncertain; it should be taken at facevalue. if i want to convince you something is certainly true, i must show you the evidence or else you should not regard my claim as legitimate logic.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid to me, what is logically necessary is the sole means of proof. so if i show that something is logically necessary then it is proven. that being said, i stated that with the assumption that energy cannot be destroyed, it is proven that the energy of the mind cannot be destroyed. now, if i want my argument to be valid, i have to prove that energy cannot be destroyed, which i have not done yet here.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid relativity is also something you and scientists assume, and can't be proven either. so c urrently our claims proposed to one another are based on assumptions, and now we have to attempt to prove our assumptions if we are interested in gaining ground in that specific argument.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16
What?!? See this is what I was worried about. You do not know enough about what you are discussing. Relativity has been tested and is observable. They have even succefully proven that gravity can alter time. Before you keep going on about how science lives off of assumptions you should go educate yourself. I can not take any of your responses seriously if you don't know what you are talking about. That was my main reason for asking about evolution, but your response here answers it
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid i always maintain the position of show me the proof & i'll believe it.u might b right,but until i see the evidence,how can i believe it?such would be absurd.so if u have evidence 4 relativity,please send me it.otherwise,i can't believe something i haven't yet seen the evidence 4;can u not at least respect that perspective?i believe i no what i'm talking about,but u have the permission 2 show me wrong.also i might be misunderstanding ur usage of relativity. perhaps you could clarify.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16
The theory of relativity is the fact that people experience time differently based on their relative speed or gravity. I.e. if u stand still and I am going really fast relative to u then time will go slower for me.
I don’t respect that perspective. You are saying you chose to remain ignorant unless someone decides to educate you? How can u accept any reality if u aren’t willing to learn for yourself? The evidence is out there, you just have to be curious enough to find it.
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid no i don't choose to remain ignorant.im always seeking truth and always studying.but i have priorities.so the things that are more basic to truth and reality i wish to master first so then i can easier understand the rest.i ask people for help just in case i am missing something.im one of the most curious of them all. i plan on studying everything.but again i operate on a basis of priority and practicality. its silly to learn the advanced things if the basics haven't beenmastered.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid i will look up what you say; i have heard of that before, but i'd have to see an experiment or do one myself which would corroborate it. or see a philosophical explanation which makes it undeniable to be true.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16
I can understand the need to see something personally to believe it. But then you can't really learn much. You don't have access to a lot of tools that others do. So you have to be able to accept other peoples' work to some extent.
The philosophical side will really get you into trouble. As I said, there are a lot of things about nature that can not be discovered through pilosophy. If you want to live by logic and nature then you better leave philosophy for thoughts, not proofs.
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid i regard philosophy merely as seeking the truth. but how can you understand the advanced truth without knowing the basics?
i think to a certain extent you are correct regarding the tools. though i plan on eventuaoly coming into much money,and so eventually i will be able to have the tools that are necessary for testing =). but at the very least i need to see an experiemnt in which the experimenters proved through their experiment that what they are claiming is in fact true.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16
@carlsonap16
Promise me you will actually look into evolution. Start with the video “Evolution: How We Know it Happened & Why it Matters.” It’s here on YouTube. Unfortunately, it only covers the fossil record. Even without the fossil record the theory of evolution is completely supported by genetics, virology and embryology alone. After watching that the next best place would be documentaries or other lectures. Let me know what you think. I sincerely want to know.
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid i will look into evolution. But i get discouraged if it doesn't pass the test. also it needs to be practical. imagine saying to someone okay here's a 5 year video series to watch; it will take you your entire life. that's soomethinig i'm not interested in. but something that presents the facts in a way that can be understood in a timely fashion as well as offers at least the reasons and methods which lead them to conclude what they believe, that is something i will look into.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16
What have you found that takes a lifetime of studying to understand the basics? The video I sent you is 1.5 hours long. You can skip the first 15 minutes or so. You could spend a couple hours and learn most of what you need to understand why it obviously happened. Of course, you could take the path that a lot of people take and come up with ways deny the evidence. If you decide to take that path then please dont fill their heads with disinformation. Let them learn and figure it out
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid 1.5 hours is fine. i never deny evidence. i do however propose alternate theories which are logically possible. i see kto evaluate all possibilities, not just the most likey or most popular ones. then taking all the theories, i compare them with the evidence and see what is true based on the evidence at hand.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16
That's kind of where I was a month or so ago. I assumed that scientists were correct because they have spend the last 150 years or so studying the subject. But I had never really looked into it before. However, once I did actually go study it I realize that there really isn't an argument. On one side there is a sound representation of what happened based on tons and tons of info. On the other side there is a denial because it doesn't fit with what they believe.
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid fair enough.im the opposite;i assume that scientists might b right,but that i cant trust wat they say until i see the proof myself.thus im a hardcore skeptic on pretty much everything in life.i trust generally the sincerity of sources,but very rarely trust the authenticity of sources that undergo interpretations.sources that show the data i highly value.sources that muddle it with their interpretation,i tend 2 ignore,unless they offer sufficient justification 4 their interpretation.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid in response to your first question: nothing =). so that's good. i was just stating the obvious i suppose =). but i have seen people before when i ask them for evidence for evolution, tey sent me close to twenty or more websites and expect me to read them all. t is much easier to have just one source at a time, unless i will only have that one communication with them. so i appreciate you not overloading me and starting me off with just a video. i will watch it and get back to u
carlsonap16 1 month ago
Is that a spelunking lamp on your head?
kaloschroma 1 month ago
@kaloschroma =). see comments below. i used to get that a lot on my way to work lol . usually i was a camera man they thought.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
Wtf is on your forehead?!?
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid Its traditionally called Tefillin. The traditional Jews wear it only during prayer time (hence the name tefillin). But, i follow the Scriptures rather than tradition, and Scripture says to wear it all the time when you have clothes on. It is a symbol, meant to indicate that the word of God is bound to one's mind, seeing as how there is a piece of Scripture inside the box. Similarly, i wear one on my arm, as a symbol that the word of God is bound to my arm, which represents strength.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16
Interesting. But why?
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid the why is that God commanded it and unless God commands something unjust, we must obey it. Morality requires us to set ourselves apart as a people which belong to God and this setting apart because God chose to have this distinction marked by teffilin is the means of obeying the requirements of morality for being set apart,
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16
Wait, what? "Unless he commands something unjust"? Doesn't that suggest that there is a morality above god? Also, where did he mention the teffilin, it seems odd that I've never even heard of it.
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid Yes morality is above God. i am not your typical theist. it doesn't mention the word teffilin but the concept. see Deut 6:8 11:18 and Exodus 13:9 13:16
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16
If morality is higher than god, doesn't that mean that he is fallible?
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid depends how you define fallible depending how you define fallible, i have no problem with him being fallible. I just try and believe what logic what dictates me to believe. If it brings down God lower than what others think about Him then so be it. =)
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16
Why worship someone that is fallible? If we can recognize the ways that he is unjust than doesn't that put us on a somewhat higher platform? Why follow the orders of someone that can't even deduce something that we can?I didn't take orders from bullies in school just because they were stronger than me, because I knew they were acting immorally.
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid worship is synonymous with due reverence and respect. it is merely honoring God for what he deserves to be honored for. similarly, since every mind is a god, we should worship all minds for what they deserve to be worshipped for. He is not unjust but if He was, it is only because He intentionally chose to be evil, so that wouldn't make us know more than Him it would simply make us more righteous than Him. if God makes an evil decree, we are obligated to pppose it.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16
So you believe in a kind of mono-pantheism? If god is to be revered for what he deserves to be revered for, then surely he must be despised for the deplorable atrocities that he has committed. And if we are supposed to oppose his atrocious decrees then why are there so many examples of people following through with his most grotesque commands?
CrimsonVoid 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid everything evil should be despised and that includes anything God does.however, i would contest various things you believe are atrocities are in fact such. i would require solely the logical proof that something is an atrocity; otherwise with no proof ur appealing to emotion and that is a logical fallacy.as to peole following through, its irrelevant towhat the bible says: truth isnt created by the bible so don't base the principles of reality on a book; rather base them on logic..
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@CrimsonVoid @kaloschroma You two just can't help yourselves but get involved with ignorant people on the internet, can you? ;)
falcon55356 1 month ago
@falcon55356 how can you say i am ignorant when you don't even know anything about what i believe?
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@carlsonap16 "...know anything about what I believe?" I think saying, "...don't even know anything..." is a bit much considering that you reveal things that you believe in through this video response. I make my claim based on the evidence you've given me. However, I apologize for that usage, and concede that I should've used a different description. I should've said misguided.
falcon55356 1 month ago
@falcon55356 not quite. my beliefs are extremely radical and like nothing you have encountered before. you make assumptions without getting to know me. i bet if you were to list off one hundred things you think i believe, i would believe less than ten of them.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
@falcon55356 i am aware of the absurdities of most religions. that's why i left christianity! i despise hypocrisy and illogical beliefs, and especially i detest blind faith and believing that Scripture is the foundation of truth.
carlsonap16 1 month ago
You do know there is no proof that these books are true, right?
So nothing you have to say has any significance. Not trying to be rude, but it's true.
MeepullStewray 1 month ago