For My Beloved Ally...

[DaveIsKing]

Recently I was on a debate forum with a religious person giving me the same jive about "free will". Yeah...ok. That really flies as a legitimate argument with a MORON, but not with me.

#1) Free-will and god's attributes conflict.
#2) Is is really "FREE" will?
( Hmmm... love me or die. Not much of a "free" choice there. More like "consequential" decision. Working straight from the pleasure/pain principle--typical, though, of religion.)
#3) Why the hell do we need this shit?

No, god, if IT/HE/SHE exists, should make everything perfect. Then there would no lessons to learn, everyone would know. No tests to pass, everyone is exempt. No pain, no sorrow, no suffering...kind of like...I don't know...HEAVEN? So, let's just skip the silly puppet show and get to point--god, if IT/HE/SHE existed and is all-good and all-powerful should have and WOULD have created a wonderland of pleasure for all without silly tests and trials for us to "learn" from. That's a sorry excuse.


From: DaveIsKing To: Ally...with love.

[Jesterstar]

I think alot of this is based on a single interpertation of god.

I'm always fasinated at how the Christian, Islamic and Standard relegeions interpertation of God and God's Duties carry into non relegeious peoples arguments.

I disagree with the philosophy that if God Exists then it would do this or that. The best lessons taught are the ones we learn ourselves. Is it nessisary to be babysat by a devine being who's concentration is on keeping the Vibrations of Color and sound together so that we have a consistant image created for us to destroy. For us to sit and Deny the creator whatever or whoever it may be is silly. Not that your thoughts are silly because I don't think that. But all that we exist comming out chos and thinking it just came to be is rediculaou. Be cause the arugument for that goes even furthur back than the big bang. If the Big Bang is what created us then what created the big bang. Well many say it's the bringing together of chemicals floating around space. Well what made these chemicals floating around space. Well they were just there??? But that isn't a scientific conclusion.

There are more Theories and Mathmatical Equations proving that there is a consistant Energy that flows through all things that exist than there are that there is no god. But that is my take on it and have no ultamate answer.

[DaveIsKing]

Ahh...the old "Cosmological" argument coming out of the bucket. The old washed-out, ALREADY refuted "First Cause" argument.

Ok, Jester...

“Everything that exists must have a cause. The Universe exists it must have a cause. Therefore, God, of course being transcendent, caused the Universe.”

Although this argument sounds reasonable, there are some inquiries.

First, causal arguments can be debated, but even it this is true and everything must have a cause, the Universe could be a cycle of infinite causes and effects--a circle rather than a straight line. And no, this misunderstood view of the 2nd law of thermodynamics doesn't hold water against this.There is no need to bring forth the supernatural or a Transcendent Being for which there is no evidence. This is unnecessarily mutiplying entities--a logical fallacy. The infinite regression of causes/effects is just as logical as the infinite progression.
That the Universe had a beginning is also arguable. The ‘Big Bang’ which science uses to describe the beginning of our world, may apply to the OBSERVABLE Universe, but the entire Universe itself reaches far beyond observation and the so-called ‘expansion’ of the Universe has to be applied only to the observable Universe. If not, where is the Universe (everything the exists including time and space) going? Where is it expanding? It would obviously need more space to expand, so that would mean more Universe. The observable Universe is not the entire Universe and to say it is or is not infinite is theoretical only and proof of nothing ‘supernatural’ nor a God.
If we determine that all things need a cause, then God needed a cause. If God was caused, then God is not the true Creator of all things. If God was not caused, then not everything needs a cause.
The rebuttal to this would be that God is Transcendent of Nature, Logic and the limits of natural law (both physically and rational). This type of Being, however, has been proven to be in direct conflict with the law of non-contradiction and thus, refuted.

Shall we continue?

[Jesterstar]

Dude please Stop first of off with the "I think I have a incredible intallect" tone to your conversation.

You repeted yourself alot in that last post. My point was not so much on a "GOD" as you are hung up on as it is on a Mathmatically Provable Energy that Physisists have almost proven existance of a force similar to the existance of god.

The problem with your debate is your trying to conclude this debate when science nor Relegeion has concluded it. Your theory's and idea's hold the same amount of berring as anyone else's. And even if Science or Relegeion or the route you are trying to take which is the Excessive intallectual they all share one thing in common. They all have a agenda. To be the Feild that concluded the mysteries of man. Anytime anyone claims to have the answer to this it's to fullfill the need all mankind has which is to define and control their reality.

I've heard your argument before and yet your so certain your cutting edge and one the way to a solid conclusion. I've heard the same theory a thousand times before. I'm not even saying your wrong. I'm just saying your not right.

[LoungeMachine]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
I
I'm always fasinated at how the Christian, Islamic and Standard relegeions interpertation of God and God's Duties carry into non relegeious peoples arguments.
.

I'm always fascinated when adults can't spell the word RELIGION

But then you're the first one I've met

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I'm always fascinated when adults can't spell the word RELIGION

But then you're the first one I've met

DEWD I Dont CAIR aboot SPELLINK because I exist in another frame of mind that your simple mind isn't capable of understanding.

Be bound by the laws of man let them dictate how you spell silly mortal.

AAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHHAAHHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[DaveIsKing]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Dude please Stop first of off with the "I think I have a incredible intallect" tone to your conversation.

Ad Hominem.

Originally posted by Jesterstar
You repeted yourself alot in that last post. My point was not so much on a "GOD" as you are hung up on as it is on a Mathmatically Provable Energy that Physisists have almost proven existance of a force similar to the existance of god.

Energy. Thus, the "first cause" argument is irrelevant. Because, energy has always existed in some form. Thus, no need for a "god". Well, I don't see where you and I would disagree then.

Originally posted by Jesterstar
The problem with your debate is your trying to conclude this debate when science nor Relegeion has concluded it. Your theory's and idea's hold the same amount of berring as anyone else's. And even if Science or Relegeion or the route you are trying to take which is the Excessive intallectual they all share one thing in common. They all have a agenda. To be the Feild that concluded the mysteries of man. Anytime anyone claims to have the answer to this it's to fullfill the need all mankind has which is to define and control their reality.

I have no answers. Only questions, facts and opinion. However, just as the religious feels the need to convert one to "faith" over reason, I have the opposite desire--It's a hobby. I like it. If I convince people, great! If not, no skin off my back. I am expressing my RIGHT to free speech and free idealism! It's a wonderful thing!

Originally posted by Jesterstar
I've heard your argument before and yet your so certain your cutting edge and one the way to a solid conclusion. I've heard the same theory a thousand times before. I'm not even saying your wrong. I'm just saying your not right.

More ad hom in your first sentence. You are generalizing my arguments and trying to ridicule me by saying I think I am "cutting edge" when no such thing was ever mentioned by me. It's an attempt to downplay the person rather than the argument. How do you know I'm not right? Are you "all-knowing"? :confused: I could very well be right. Just as I could be wrong, but you don't KNOW it either way.

[DaveIsKing]

Originally posted by LoungeMachine
I'm always fascinated when adults can't spell the word RELIGION

But then you're the first one I've met

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by DaveIsKing
Ad Hominem.



Energy. Thus, the "first cause" argument is irrelevant. Because, energy has always existed in some form. Thus, no need for a "god". Well, I don't see where you and I would disagree then.



I have no answers. Only questions, facts and opinion. However, just as the religious feels the need to convert one to "faith" over reason, I have the opposite desire--It's a hobby. I like it. If I convince people, great! If not, no skin off my back. I am expressing my RIGHT to free speech and free idealism! It's a wonderful thing!



More ad hom in your first sentence. You are generalizing my arguments and trying to ridicule me by saying I think I am "cutting edge" when no such thing was ever mentioned by me. It's an attempt to downplay the person rather than the argument. How do you know I'm not right? Are you "all-knowing"? :confused: I could very well be right. Just as I could be wrong, but you don't KNOW it either way.

But you are. First don't wayste time talking to me about english I've communicated my points without it.

You did present this as a end to a discussion about the theory of god. You also presented yourself as the know it all when you say "Shall we continue"

Reread what you wrote dude. I'm not getting down on you I'm just pointing out you've presented your theory as end final statement on it. I corrected you on it. My personal theory on god is neither of these. energy has to have a source and isn't just created. A event must take place for energy to exist. What would create the energy. Your not getting past the typical definition of god either. If god Exists then it would intangable to the human mind. I think this conversation is a excellent example of that.

[DaveIsKing]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
But you are. First don't wayste time talking to me about english I've communicated my points without it.

Ok?? :confused:

Originally posted by Jesterstar
You did present this as a end to a discussion about the theory of god. You also presented yourself as the know it all when you say "Shall we continue"

"Shall we continue?" is a statement meaning "I know it all" ??? That's an odd assessment, in my opinion, but all I meant was "Do you want to continue debating the issue?". Too bad I don't really think with my emotions. So, I didn't "read into it" like you seem to.

Originally posted by Jesterstar
[BReread what you wrote dude. I'm not getting down on you I'm just pointing out you've presented your theory as end final statement on it. I corrected you on it. My personal theory on god is neither of these. energy has to have a source and isn't just created. A event must take place for energy to exist. What would create the energy. Your not getting past the typical definition of god either. If god Exists then it would intangable to the human mind. I think this conversation is a excellent example of that. [/B]

I presented my theory, yes. You "corrected" me, not hardly. I fail to see any "correction" of any "error" made. Could a third party please point this out?? If God exists he is "intangible" to the human mind...hmm..as in "incomprehensible"? Is that your approach to this? And please...this conversation is hardly an example of anything.

[DavidLeeNatra]

if god existed he wouldn't have let van hagar happen...period

[Jesterstar]

Originally posted by DaveIsKing
Ok?? :confused:



"Shall we continue?" is a statement meaning "I know it all" ??? That's an odd assessment, in my opinion, but all I meant was "Do you want to continue debating the issue?". Too bad I don't really think with my emotions. So, I didn't "read into it" like you seem to.



I presented my theory, yes. You "corrected" me, not hardly. I fail to see any "correction" of any "error" made. Could a third party please point this out?? If God exists he is "intangible" to the human mind...hmm..as in "incomprehensible"? Is that your approach to this? And please...this conversation is hardly an example of anything.

Your eleitest attitude twards the conversation is proof enough. Noone says "Shall We"In any way shape or form today unless they are trying to sound smarter than they are.

I have no time to read Broken up Quote conversations. You've proven nothing other then perpetuated a Eternal Debate plain and simple. It's nother more than that. It's over dude. Your attempts at being philosphical were weak at best.

[DaveIsKing]

Originally posted by Jesterstar
Your eleitest attitude twards the conversation is proof enough. Noone says "Shall We"In any way shape or form today unless they are trying to sound smarter than they are.

I have no time to read Broken up Quote conversations. You've proven nothing other then perpetuated a Eternal Debate plain and simple. It's nother more than that. It's over dude. Your attempts at being philosphical were weak at best.

Yes, the hallmark of a poor debator. Misdirection and running away. Not to mention the 31 spelling errors (although 3 were intentional) you've made. I mean we all make grammatical errors here and there, but...anyway...I've leave that one alone. It's pointless.

I am so glad a psychic like you exists to read the mind's of people without looking at the words themselves. You feel-gooders have to pick "between the lines" for a "hidden agenda" without ever examining the facts and being open to anything else.

Yes, it was over the moment you responded. :eek:

[Ally_Kat]

Please don't address me in your religion rants where you act as if you are the know-all end-all about this topic. Like I told you before, I'm not getting involved in them anymore with you because you know nothing about the Catholic faith yet like to walk around like you understand because you went to one Mass and because you learned about the Protestant faith.

You must have some insecurity about it all because you always start threads about how you were in a religious debate and then come here to finish the debate. What's the matter? Could you not finish the topic with the person you were talking to to begin with? Why must you come here and "finish" it?

I honestly feel like changing the subject of this thread, but I'm not going to abuse my powers like that.

And yes, you'll respond and insult my intelligence or the fact that I do believe in a higher power. Whatever makes you sleep better at night dude.

I'm strong in my faith and I've stated many time what I believe and what you were incorrect with reguarding the Catholic Church. You didn't want to listen and attacked my faith. I don't call that debate, I call that insulting.

Again, I wash my hands of you with this topic.

[DLR7884]

DLR7884
Like talking to a wall, isn't it? :p