To beat a dead horse

[Logician]

Odd.  I recall making my own decisions of what to and not to believe as a child, even as young as 5.

Hmm. Did your parents give you something of a choice, or simply present it as fact?

What do you mean by, "after I had no more reason to believe it on my own"?

I thought you said your questioning came first?

It was during the quesitoning that I accepted it as true for a while even though I didn't know how it could be, simply because I felt it to be unfair to my parents to change my beliefs.

I'll put it to you this way.  Remember the account in the Gospels about the Samaritan woman Jesus met at the Well of Jacob?  From speaking with Jesus, she believed that He is the Messiah.  So, she ran to the city to tell this to everyone.  Her words persuaded them, and so they came to Him and learned from Him themselves.  Later they reported back to the woman, "Now we believe, not because of what you said, for we ourselves have heard Him and we know that this is indeed the Messiah, the Savior of the world."

You see after just two days with Jesus, they were persuaded in their own minds of who who He is with their own reasoning.

Were you ever persuaded in your own mind the way these Samaritan men were?

(Isn't this the same question I've been answering for 5 or 6 pages?)

Yes.

That and other such contradictions created by the definition of "God."

Do you have a definition of omniscience and/or omnipotence that do not lead to such contradictions?

From what I've heard from you so far, it doesn't sound like you care if the existence of God would lead to contradictions.

You make it sound like the existance of God is a choice!

No, it's not a choice. (If God exists, then there's nothing humans could do to make him not exist, and if he doesn't then there's nothing humans could do to make him exist.) But, it's the choice of every person to believe, with or without verification, that God exists, or doesn't.

I believe God doesn't exist because logic seems to dictate that he doesn't.

The point I'm making is that you don't really seem to care what logic or science says about the existence of God. No matter whether logic or science said that God exists, or whether logic or science said that he didn't, you'd believe he exists.

I challenge that the premice of your logic is based on the idea of what you understand is omniscient and omnipotent, not what they are meant to mean.

Ok, then as I've asked before, what definitions of omniscent and omnipotent will not create contradictions?

Sigh.  What is this obsession you atheists have with pink unicorns?

The point of the invisible pink unicorn is to show those theists who make logical arguments as to why God exists how silly they sound to the atheist.

And, I'd not classify this technique as a valid logical argument, but if the other party begins stating that logic doesn't really work, then there's really no reason to continue using logic.

Let me ask you something - is mathematics an invention or a discovery?

Hmm. An interesting question, but pretty meaningless without proper definitions.

Edited May 15, 2005 by Logician

[Logician]

1. The act or process of inventing: used a technique of her own invention.

  2. A new device, method, or process developed from study and experimentation: the phonograph, an invention attributed to Thomas Edison.

  3. A mental fabrication, especially a falsehood.

  4. Skill in inventing; inventiveness:

[Logician]

I was just making the point that you can show me evidence of the existence of love, but you can't show me love. Nor can you prove that it exists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, you're saying that I can give you evidence that love exists, but I can't prove it exists?

Well, that would depend on your definition of love.

1. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.

  2. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.

  3.

        a. Sexual passion.

        b. Sexual intercourse.

        c. A love affair.

  4. An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.

  5. A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.

  6. An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.

  7.

        a. A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.

        b. The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.

  8. Love Mythology. Eros or Cupid.

  9. often Love Christianity. Charity.

  10. Sports. A zero score in tennis.

Let's get rid of inapplicable definitions. Let me know if you disagree with my taking any of them out, but I doubt you're talking about tennis.

1. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.

  2. A feeling of intense desire and attraction toward a person with whom one is disposed to make a pair; the emotion of sex and romance.

  3.

        a. Sexual passion.

        b. Sexual intercourse.

        c. A love affair.

  4. An intense emotional attachment, as for a pet or treasured object.

  5. A person who is the object of deep or intense affection or attraction; beloved. Often used as a term of endearment.

  6. An expression of one's affection: Send him my love.

  7.

        a. A strong predilection or enthusiasm: a love of language.

        b. The object of such an enthusiasm: The outdoors is her greatest love.

  8. Love Mythology. Eros or Cupid.

  9. often Love Christianity. Charity.

Now, do I really have to prove numbers 1 through 7? I probably could give something at least very close to proof for most of them, but is it really necessary? I'm sure you know affection exists which implies number 1, desire and attraction exist, implying number 2, sexual passion, intercourse, and love affairs exist, implying number 3, emotional attachment exists, implying number 4, objects of affection exist, implying number 5, expressions of affection exist, implying number 6, and enthusiasm and objects of enthusiasm exist, implying number 7.

I mean, if you would contest that any of these exist, let me know, but unless you would contest any of these, you must necessarily accept that love exists, or derive a contradiction.

As for number 8, I guess that seems to be defining the gods Eros and Cupid as love. I don't know.

And, in definition 9, they seem to be saying that Christianity would define love as "charity." Since charity exists, then the given Christian definition of love exists.

I imagine that you would contest definition 9, though.

Perhaps you have another definition of "love" that you would say cannot be proven.

[Fiosh]

I was just making the point that you can show me evidence of the existence of love, but you can't show me love. Nor can you prove that it exists.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So, you're saying that I can give you evidence that love exists, but I can't prove it exists?

Well, that would depend on your definition of love.

1. A deep, tender, ineffable feeling of affection and solicitude toward a person, such as that arising from kinship, recognition of attractive qualities, or a sense of underlying oneness.

[Logician]

Well, the American Heratige dictionary defines agape as:

  1. Christianity. Love as revealed in Jesus, seen as spiritual and selfless and a model for humanity.

  2. Love that is spiritual, not sexual, in its nature.

  3. Christianity. In the early Christian Church, the love feast accompanied by Eucharistic celebration.

Number one. I don't have sufficient evidence that Jesus exists (or that he existed), so I cannot prove definition one is reflected in reality.

I don't have sufficient evidence (or proof) that the spiritual exists, so I can't prove that number 2 is reflected in reality.

And, I doubt you're talking about anything remotely close to definition 3.

As for your definition of agape, apparently it's love by the same definitions I've given, but to the point where you take the object of your love/affection/etc... as even more important than self-preservation. In other words, love to the point of altruism. Is this accurate?

Actually, altruism, as a rule of thumb (although it depends on your definition of "altruism"), shouldn't exist according to science. When somehow allowing (or possibly allowing) one's own genes to continue to be passed on, it's quite common (such as mother birds risking their own lives in an attempt to distract predators from their offspring, or ants banding together to care for the queen so that her genes, half of which are shared by all of the other members of the colony, will be passed on), but in other cases, should have been weeded out.

However, many forms of modern entertainment would have me believe that altruism still happens today.

And, actually, the existence of altruism has been argued about for much longer than the theory of evolution has existed, so it's not as if only evolution implies that altruism doesn't exist.

So, really, I have conflicting evidence, although I'd consider the first piece to be much more compelling than the second.

So, I'll not conclude with certainty that love to the point of altruism exists, or that it doesn't, except in the case of family, where just about all evidence points to it's existence, unless I happen to come up with more evidence on the subject.

Or, I could take up tennis.

But, anyway, you're right. I cannot prove the existence of agape love by that definition. (In fact, I'd say that evidence suggests, that it doesn't except within family.) Although, it might be possible to show you agape love, if it indeed exists, and I happened to have my video camera with me when I saw it expressed.

But, to what end would I do this? Are you implying that showing you agape love, or proving it would prove my point somehow?

Or are you saying something like "I can't prove God exists, just as I can't prove agape love exists, but I know God exists in the same way I know agape love exists."?

Edited May 15, 2005 by Logician

[Fiosh]

Tennis anyone?????

Actually, Logy, there is plenty of historical evidence of the existence of Jesus. I would have a harder time proving to you that He is God, though.

Interesting factoid: the early Christian church used the pelican as a symbol for Jesus. It was said that in times of drought, the mother pelican will peck open her own breast and let the babies feed on her blood.

BTW: Did you catch my post about the findind of the books of Isaiah and Psalms in the Dead Sea Scrolls? They were dated hundreds of years before the birth of Jesus, yet are filled with Messianic prophecies.

Go figure?

[Logician]

What I am seeing is that your logic is circular.

You have figured what "best," "highest," "complete," "perfect," etc. mean.

Then you put these terms next to the God of your parents.

Then you rationed that your logical understanding of these terms could not exist in such a being, and thus manipulated your own interpretation that God cannot exist.

Actually, this argument didn't originate with me, so it's unclouded by whatever biases I might hold.

And, it's still valid.

If you wish to see where I found this argument, you can go to http://www.evilbible.com/Impossible.htm

Although, if you're easily offended, I'd recommending not visiting that site.

I don't agree with everything this guy says, but some of it is valid reasoning.

You said that to be complete means to have no needs, but since God created the universe this disprovves He has no needs; therefore, God doesn't exist.

Actually, I said that to be complete means to have no needs or wants, and the assumption that God created the universe would require that God has wants. Therefore a perfect God does not exist.

I may have gotten sloppy and dropped the "want" part a few times though. If I did, I didn't mean to.

However, this allows for the existence of incomplete gods.

Tell me, did your mother become pregnant because she and your father "needed" you?

No, they did it because they wanted to.

Do you plan on having your own children someday?

I don't have any definite plans as of yet, but it's certainly a possibility.

Edited May 15, 2005 by Logician

[Logician]

Is this out of "need"?

No, but it would be out of want.

Or even if you don't want to have children or even a wife because you are so complete in your own ration and logic -

What of others who get married and have children?

Right. Again, it's out of want.

Ask your friends - are they doing it to fulfill needs?

No, they're doing it to fulfill their wants.

Why even bother having friends?

Actually, by Maslow's definition of "need," this does fulfill a need posessed by all humans. http://web.utk.edu/~gwynne/maslow.HTM

However, even if you're using a different definition of need, it's still fulfilling a want.

Do you have friends to fulfill needs?

Depends on your definition of "need," but whether or not it satisfies a need, it satisfies a want.

Are they friends with you to fulfill their own needs?

Again, it depends on your definition of "need," but whether or not it satisfies a need, it satisfies a want.

Is that what relationships are all about - needs?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Once more, it depends on your definition of "need," but whether or not it satisfies a need, it satisfies a want.

Now, since the argument was based not just on needs but on needs and wants, and since God would have had to want to create the universe in order to decide to create the universe, he'd have to have wants, which would mean he's not complete, which would mean he's not perfect.

Again, I'm sorry if this part of the argument was based on my laziness in not including "wants" in my posts.

[Logician]

My applogies for not getting back to the rest of your responses.

I have A&P case studies I need to get graded.

No problem. Actually, any more and I probably wouldn't have gotten back to you on all of them.

But, BTW - I never said I didn't believe the Genesis account, nor did I say I "believe in evolution."

What I said, or meant to say, or express, was that Gen. 1 wasn't written from the perspective of Western tought, and as such should not be interpreted with Western thinking.

I know evolution occurs - but I don't "believe in it" the way secularists mean it.  There is a huge difference.

Actually, every Christian I've ever spoken to on the subject agrees that evolution occurs today, although they'd put it under the category of "microevolution."

What many don't agree with is the age of the earth (and therefore the time required to account for the evolution of all creatures on the planet) and "speciation," which is the process by which one species becomes two in evolution.

And honostly, as a scientist, you should learn to have a critical eye of every theory, at least to some degree, knowing that new evidence can quicky invalidate an old line of thinking.

Yes. Quite right. Being so concerned with certainty, I find myself questioning myself as a precaution quite often. And, I make it a point to keep up with the latest findings and such.

However, evolution has stood so many tests and survived as the only plausible scientific theory for so long that I can't really see it being disproven. It'd take a mountain of evidence against it to prove it wrong.

For instance, one problem that people thought to be a huge problem for evolution was the relative lack of transitionary fossles. This was remedied by a hypothesis known as "punctuated equilibrium" (or, as a shorthand, "punk eek") and has since been confirmed by lots of evidence. At this point, it's generally accepted.

Yes, evolution occurs - but to be the "driving force" of life on Earth. . . hmmm?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Define "driving force." I don't see how the statement applies.

[Logician]

Forgot to mention -

A friend recommended a book called Critique of Pure Reason by Immanuel Kant.

This is his comment on the book: "Kant clearly deomonstrated the insufficiency of ANY secularist system to relate the particulars to the general, or to put it another way: 'to explain our lives, existence, and the fact that thoughts exist.'"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. It's one I've been meaning to read for quite some time. It's a book I've heard a lot about but not one I've ever read.

Although, by the way, it is a more than 200 year old book. At that time, secularist systems were insufficient to explain our lives, existence, and the fact that thoughts exist.

Anyway, if and when I feel I'll have time, I'll read it.

And, luckily, it seems to be available free online at http://www.hkbu.edu.hk/~ppp/cpr/toc.html