Over the time that I have been blogging at progressiveU, I have made rather valiant attempts at disproving evolution and proving the existence of God. While I may have been valiant and stubborn, I was most certainly ignorant. I was ignorant of the science of evolution, of the philosophies surrounding it, and simply how to debate. The only back up I had for proving God's existence was the weak criterion of truth in Epistemology and logic.
I relied on the criterion of tradition, time, feelings,and instinct. All of which do nothing to prove or disprove. My lack of knowledge of evolution resulted in my lack of knowledge in how to approach the topic. Before I begin, a criterion of truth is a standard, or a rule, by which to judge the accuracy of statements. Epistemology is the branch of philosophy treating the scope and limits of knowledge. For weeks I argued about religion, appealing to what is limited in the minds of humans (including the existence or nonexistence of God) through these four criterion. Those criterion do nothing to prove the truth-especially to educated scientists and other well-read users/college graduates who are trained to accept only facts. And I don't blame them.
Firstly, I appealed to Tradition as a criterion of truth. I argued that God exists simply because the notion of his existence has always been passed on and has not disappeared. I argued that any practice which has gained the loyalty of succeeding generations must deserve a measure of credibility. However, many traditions repeat what is false and because it is repeated, assume that it is true. My claim in this area could not stand, because Buddhism was passed on from generation to generation for thousands of years. Does that prove Buddha's deity? Not according to this criterion.
Next, I appealed to Time. I argued that Christianity validity because the Bible has been around for thousands of years and It has stood the test of time. It was based on the belief that if there is nothing wrong with my belief, the passage of time can not destroy its validity. I was wrong there again. I stated that the Bible has historically been accurate in times, places and events. And therefore, no other area should be questioned. A good point was brought up that the Bible has been edited over the years and now the American version varies from the Russian, Hebrew and Greek. I was wrong in this area too. For if you were to judge by this criterion, you would most certainly deny God's existence. After all, for years people have assumed that the earth is flat and because the false belief has been around for thousands of years, it has stood the test of time and is true.
Third, I appealed [weekly] to feelings. I stated that God exists because of what I went through and what others went through. Yet, what is truth to me may not necessarily be truth to others. Therefore, you naturally stated that God doesn't exist by my own standards that I offered because YOU haven't experienced this truth for yourself. And that is perfectly understandable.
Lastly, I appealed to the criteria of instinct in one of my most recent blogs. I [weakly] debated that God is true because instinct causes all humans to cry out God's name in time of need or death. By this, I have asserted that the existence of God can be proved by reference to instinct. Yet, this argument is just as weak because by using this exact criterion one can prove God's non existence and prove evolution true by saying human instinct to peal a banana before eating it shows that we evolved from monkeys. This can not be a reliable test because it was vague, undefined, variable and undependable.
You have proven me wrong ACCORDING to my criteria. But don't get excited yet. I am not going to renounce God. I am a stronger christian than when I first started debating. I am afraid that the only thing I did through these debates was disprove myself ACCORDING TO THE CRITERIA which I myself provided. And I just realized it today. I still think that the existence of God can be proven. By researching, reading, analyzing and exploring the opposing views I will come back in due time ready to debate. This, perhaps, is the main reason why I am leaving progressiveU. I realize that to debate I need knowledge. Knowledge is power. Wish me luck on my quest. For now, I simply have to thank you for showing me the faults in my criterion. My knowledge was clearly limited and I look forward to further examining your views so I know how to best defend my faith. Thank you again for being there to debate, and debate my many silly arguments. For now, I have only two criterion to appeal to. Revelation and naive realism.
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
You're not going to convince people who believe in evolution or disblieve in God, that God exists.
All you can do is present information, or try to rebut their claims. If one operates from the perspective that there is no God, none of your thoughts or perspectives are going to be sufficient for them.
It is a matter of perspective. A christian sees a hand and sees the divine artist at work. An atheist looks at a hand and sees billions of years of evolution.
You know, this is another thing that has been bothering me. Not all Christians believe that the world was created in 6 days 6000 years ago. Not everyone that believes in God accepts the Bible as complete truth. To them, evolution and God are not mutually exclusive.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
Very true, though I often question under what authority one can just declare a section of the bible to be literal or figurative.
And where that declaration can randomly end.
Can a Christian suggest that when Christ said "no one comes to the Father but through me" that He was being figurative and the lesson to learn is that Jesus was just a good guy?
can we take as figurative the calls for holy living or humility? Perhaps Paul was being figurative when he talked about sanctification through Grace?
There are parts of the bible that are figurative... that is not really debatable... However, changing interpretations of the bible as one wills is not always a wise decision.
I DO believe that the world was created by God, in 6 days, but I'm not sure where people get this 6000 years thing. The old testiment itself is older than 6000 years, the oldest book being the Book of Job.
Through the lineage in Genesis. And actually, the OT wasn't written down until the 8th century BCE (because Hebrew didn't EXIST before that). It then gets rather difficult to trace how far back the stories go, since none were written down before that.
And I suppose I should add that my history professor teaches the Bible not as anything close to literal truth, but as a series of cycles culminating in the belief that you can't earn your way to heaven. While the people that randomly assign various degrees of literal interpretation to the Bible sometimes bother me, there are still people that do, and they still believe in and/or follow the teachings of Christ, making them Christians in some sense.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
The OT was written down LONG before 800 BC.
The book of Job was written during the times that abraham lived in, as one can gather from the wording of text, and by context.
The books of Moses were written during the exodus, which took place sometime around 1450 BC or so. (as we can tell from the reign of Ramses)
Moses died at the end of the exodus' wanderings in the desert before the entrance into the promised land.
I would suggeset that your professor is wrong. Since he holds that none of the books of moses are useable as historical text, I would also advice against mentioning that to him/her, as it might earn you scorn.
Then what language was it written in, if Hebrew (as a writing) didn't exist before the 8th century BC? I have no doubt the STORIES in the Bible date way before that, but they weren't written down. They were oral tradition before that. As was the interpretation of the Pentateuch that many Christians don't get the benefit of.
I've also heard it said that Job was written by Moses, which is pretty long after Abraham lived. And that wasn't by my history professor, it was by a Jewish History professor (although, I admit, I didn't hear it from the professor, I heard it from a friend of mine who had the professor... they spent ages on that book too).
There also isn't any historical evidence of the exodus (in terms of millions of people wandering the desert... not a trace of archaeological evidence for it), and the only mention of the Israelites in Egypt besides the Bible is a single inscription mentioning them in Egyptian Hieroglyphs.
I'll post the cycles once I finish with my history paper and don't have to worry about school any more. Regardless of whether you believe it or not, it's interesting to learn.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
The first written evidence of Hebrew is from around 1000 BC. As a spoken language, it dates WELL past that.
There is no concrete evidence as to when Job was written, but many scholars (if not most) are certain it wasn't written by Moses. Writing Style is one key way to tell. Tradition is another. Job is not included in the "Books of Moses" That would be for a reason. The themes that were covered during the time of Job match up better to the belief and system around at the time of Abraham, not that of Moses.
There is a bunch of evidence to support the Exodus, ranging from the death of many of the canaanite cultures matching up to the time the bible shows the Israelites entering the Promised Land to the loss of the Israelite Slaves that were previously under Egyptian Rule. Some have found evidence of spears, chariot wheels and skulls in the red sea (or "Reed Sea" as some suggest it was actually named then)
There have also been some reports (though I've never heard more than rumor, so I hate to reference them) to vast numbers of children dying in egypt around the time that the Jews are no longer referenced as Egyptian slaves.
According to Charles Freeman, in his time line of the Israelites (found in Egypt, Greece, and Rome: Civilizations of the Ancient Mediterranean, Second Edition)... [Dates BC unless otherwise noted]
And the rest of the time line isn't that interesting. So we have nothing from before the 9th century BC, which would be 899, at the earliest. In ANY language. My other history book doesn't give dates, other than the Old testament is a chronicle of about 2000 years starting in about 1800 BC (which I didn't dispute at all, if you'll notice). However, it does say of the commandments in Leviticus "Because they reflect a settled agricultural life rather than a nomadic life, most scholars conclude that they are from a period several centuries later than Moses and the Decalogue." (from Readings in Ancient History, edited by Bailkey and published in 2002. Page 78)
Now, I have provided my references. Please provide yours.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
Yeah, go ahead and post the cycles. I am interested in what you have to say.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
"Can a Christian suggest that when Christ said "no one comes to the Father but through me" that He was being figurative and the lesson to learn is that Jesus was just a good guy?"
I don't know how you can think of that passage as figurative. Jesus never stated that he was grace itself. He said that he is the way the truth and the life, no one can come to the father except by me. He didn't say no one can come to the father except by grace. He said no one can come except bu the way the truth and the life, which he pointed out was himself.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
Yet the Bible gives us a time frame. IN the bible it says that a day is like a thousand years and a thousand years is like a day. It could have taken the earth 6,000 years to be created or 6 days. And even if it was 6 days, gods are typically omnipotent.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
Alenka, I`m glad that you are willing to hold your notions up to scrutiny. I think it`s worth considering though, that maybe we humans don`t have the tools it would take to prove or disprove such things. I`m not sure where you would even look to find such tools. God could have left such mysteries on purpose.
Lancekates, some people believe in a god or gods, some believe in Christ and some believe in evolution. One can believe in all three of these at once, or none, or in any combination of two of them. A Christian can believe in evolution, a theist can disbelieve in Christ and an evolutionist can believe in God but not be Christian, etc. etc. They`re not in any way three mutually exclusive beliefs.
An atheist is also not necessarily an evolutionist. The atheist in your example can look at a hand and see something else (maybe just a hand}, and the Christian may look at the hand and see billions of years of evolution which is the work of the Divine Artist.
((((Edit... }}}} While I was typing the above, I see you were already beating me to it. But Lancekates, you say it`s not debatable that some statements in the Bible are figurative. Some people say that it`s all literally true word for word, that`s the basis of their religion and they won`t budge from it. This stance does seem absurd to many others who look at the stories of talking animals and magic trees and a world made in six days, especially when considering the history of how Bibles developed and changed. But it seems arbitrary that you would choose something like the `six days` figure as literal and then claim that it is beyond debate that other stories are figurative.
I don't make the call on that. That call was made long ago by people smarter than you or me. There is nothing before the creation story, but after the creation story there is nothing to suggest figurative or metaphorical writing... There is no transition from "This is make believe" to "Here's history."
Since there is no transition, and what comes after is a part of history as written by Moses (and a helper, some suggest) as dictated by God, then there is nothing to suggest that the creation story is metaphorical or figurative.
"after the creation story there is nothing to suggest figurative or metaphorical writing"
All of the details are obviously not there. That alone should suggest that it might be metaphorical. It is also a narative, without source, so we must assume it is written by a human, and there is no account of God dictating, though there are statements attributed to him. Adam and eve were not the authors, and the actual author is lost to the mists of time, but came much later.
It is an obvious canard by people who do not consider the book true to insist that this story is not a parable, but must be a false history.
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
It's complete bogus to say the Bible is figurative. In that case, do you disobey a law because youa ssume its figruative? Throughout the bible commands and laws are given and there is nothing figurative about it. It mentions the blessings and the curses and repeats itself many times for clarifications, i think saying that its figurative is a cheap way out of the situation and is pure denial or an excuse to justify one's actions.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
I agree that we don't have the tools. And I know that evidence on God's existence is shaky. Yet, I am not looking so much for God's existence as to learn about evolution, the different religions and find flaws in them that will shed new light on those topics. Simply to undermine commonly accepted beliefs. NOt to promote my own weak evidence on God's existence.
I agree with you that evolution and religion are not exclusive. I wasn' saying that they were,though.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
Alenka, please figure out how you stand before you start commenting, to avoid things like this...
WEll, by presenting opposing information what I am doing? Supporting evolution? No, I am convincing them of the opposite.
I agree with you that evolution and religion are not exclusive. I wasn' saying that they were,though.
Obviously you feel that evolution and God are opposites, because that's exactly how you've been trying to prove God exists... "Evolution doesn't work because [insert random thing here], so God must be real!" But to many people, they are not mutually exclusive, so proving one thing wrong does not prove the other thing right.
~C
Check out the latest entry in the Between The Lines column!
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
To be honest, I made those comments in the fog. I looked up exclusive in the dictionary but am still confused on the meaning. Maybe that would explain why.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
"You're not going to convince people who believe in evolution or disblieve in God, that God exists.All you can do is present information, or try to rebut their claims."
WEll, by presenting opposing information what I am doing? Supporting evolution? No, I am convincing them of the opposite.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
I eagerly await.
That was serious, actually. Just making that clear.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
Thanks for waiting! No, I understood perfeclt what you meant. I don't know how else I might have understood it.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
Learning what doesn't work is just as valuble as seeing what does. When things don't work that's fine, especially since you accept that they haven't worked.
And if you find some evidence, I'll feel cheated if you don't tell us here, so I'll be waiting.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Thomas Edison tried over 2,000 ways to make a lightbulb, when asked about his failures, he replied, "I didn't fail, I found 2,000 ways how not to make a light bulb; I only need to find one way to make it work."
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Hey! How come you got the quote that I couldn't find?
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Conspiracy.
Black Helicopters.
Shadowpeople..
get your tin foil hat.
Always on
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
You have to change them now and then... the affect the foil has doesn't last.
Also, keep the shinier side facing out.
(Yes, I used to listen to Art Bell when I worked Security... he was a hoot, though I didn't belive 99% of what he said)
If you dip the foil in olive oil and then dry it with a hair dryer, it almost triples the amount of time you can use that hat. And it makes it shinier and, therefore, more reflective. Not only do you bombard the complacent masses with the mind control waves bouncing off your hat, you also blind them.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
Very true, but I've found something that may be permanant. I don't want to discuss it online, because 'they' are watching everything we say and do (because the government has nothing better to do, I guess). ...
but, if you send me 99 dollars and 99 cents, I'll send you the plans I found on the internet (it was on the web, so it MUST be true!)
But if they're watching the internet, then won't they have already found it? I'll stick to the tin foil hats. I may have to change 'em every once and a while, but they're tried true and free as long as I'm still in my parent's house.
:)X
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
You mean it`s just a tin foil hat? Jsaj, I thought those happy face antennas of yours had grown out of your fur naturally!
Those are totally natural. I was in a ton foil room at the time, so....
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
I remember where I heard it from -- National Treasure.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Sly dragon/canine!
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
What is it with the ProU obsession with Edison?
Tesla was clearly superior in every way.
See my other reply regarding Edison and Tesla.
Also, it's the quote itself that matters, not so much who said it. It just to happened to be Edison who invented the light bulb.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
Thanks for the Thomas Edison quote! I love that quote. Out of curiosity, dragonwolf. Why does everyone post latin or greek quotes on their comments? Do they think its cool or something?
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
I would guess because they're more well-known in their Latin/Greek forms.
I just got mine from a book I read (which references it from somewhere else), it means "who will guard the guards?" and in the book refers to the US government. They're supposed to protect us from outsiders, but who will protect us from the government or even the government from themselves?
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Your Funeral Guy
R.Brian Burkhardt
http://lowercostfuneral.com
Using only historical proof, one could say with confidence.
Jesus Christ lived, died on a cross and was seen alive after his death.
There is much more proven history on this.
However believing is different.
Living and dying is one thing. The 'historical' evidence that he was seen after he died is shaky, to put it mildly.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
There has been some evidence that his disciples had been executed by the romans... That a bunch of scardy-cat fishermen, doctor and a tax collector (along with a Jew who used to try to have christians arrested) suddenly changed their lives and professed the diety of one Jesus, enough to be eventually put to death for it, is kind of telling.
SOMETHING had to have happened to move them from the "Eh, he's just a guy who is a good teacher" camp into the "He is The Messiah, God's Son!" camp.
Though, without the "Way Back" machine from the bullwinkle cartoons, there will likely never be more concrete proof. Faith often fills in the blanks until Truth is known.
Lots of people have since claimed to come into contact with god or some gods or something. They have had great changes in faith. The options we have for all of them is a) they were lying, b) they were tricked, c) they were mistaken or d) they were telling the truth. While I accept the technically possibility of the ressurection, it will take a lot more evidence than we have to convince me of it.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
A change like that doesn't indicate "truth" in any way, nor does it mean that what they say happened, happened. Religious teachers become Messiahs all the time. People's willingness to face death or spread belief isn't telling of anything except the capacity of human beings for faith and their drive to spread what they feel to be true.
Every single religion is spread by people who turn "good teachers" into Messiahs or other speakers of cosmic truth. Buddha isn't a Messiah by Western standards, but he is revered as one who knew the truth, not just a wise man. Besides, to hear Jesus tell it, he was the son of God, so his disciples would have believed that previous to his death and "resurrection."
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
The historical proof is not very hard core. I found proof that the isrealites really did cross the red sea, the chariots are at the bototm of the ocean and they have been preserved by coral. Mount Sinai has been found as well as the golden calf and the rock which Moses struck.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
I do not believe that God and the Bible, and evolution are mutually exclusive. It is not hard to read through the Bible and see what is literal and what is figurative.
I do not necessarily believe that man was apart of the evolutionary history as we are currently taught it....
man oh man, this is a carazy hard subject
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
I highly doubt that God used evolution to create us. He said specifically "let us make man in our image" and he did. He didn't start with an ape and let the ape slowly evolve. he had a specific purpose which he set out to accomplish. Unless apes are in God's image, I highly doubt it.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
How do you know, though, that "in our image" didn't mean cro-magnon? The Bible is far from detailed about what Adam and Eve actually looked like.
The story of Adam and Eve could be interpreted as humanity's evolution from those that didn't have a lot of knowledge of things beyond survival and didn't wear clothes to those that wore clothing and had systems of right and wrong.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Good luck on your search for knowledge. One can only hope that you will find what you are looking for. Proof of God's existence is always up for debate, and any argument you find will be counter argued by atheists, but the better reasoned and better evidenced your arguments... the,uh, better.
I have no doubt that you will grow greatly as a person, and as a debater. As far as I am concerned the acceptance of the flaws of the arguments you presented shows a step in the right direction.
Res ipsa loquitur.
memento mori, mahalo.
"Patriotism is often an arbitrary veneration of real-estate above principles."
Thanks for wishing me luck Dr Gonzo. I am hoping to get more into philosophy and science and evolution and alternative theories. I don't mean I am specifically going to hunt for evidence of god. Just find flaws and question.
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
I love the "if you don't believe in God you must believe in evolution" type of arguments that get thrown out there. So, assuming that if you have A, you've got B, we can figured that if we've got ~(not)A, we've got ~B. So if you believe in God, you cannot ever in a million years accept evolution as a credible theory. What? Your god does not have the faculties necessary to cause evolution? Would not evolution in and of itself be some pretty amazing PROOF that some higher power existed? I mean, if that's what you were to argue, Alenka, we'd tear you apart, but you'd be getting closer to something that's simpler to defend from your stand point than from ours.
Now, if we were to move on and assume that evolution is wrong, what are some other ways we could end up with such diverse organisms on this planet? We've got 2 theories so far: Evolution and Creation. Got anymore? Pure conjecture here. No right or wrong answers.
Also, the bible is not a credible source. It has been shown to be wrong about dates, places, and times. It was written (the NT) almost 100 years after Jesus died. It was written by men (who forget things and have the capacity to lie). It was thought about at Nicaea when Constantine integrated Pagan traditions into Christianity. Basically, when the bible was written, it was already full of "made up" facts and it only got worse. Do you know that in most bibles it still says, and this is paraphrased, "You shall not tolerate a witch to live?" Honestly, we know witches to not exist (we've got no evidence proving they do and we could build a decent case against them). What kind of credible book would talk about witches as if they were real?
And, Christianity is a young religion. It's only 600 years older than Islam. And Judaism has been around since the BCE's! This automatically excludes it from being called a lasting religion. Sure, it's lasted 2000 years, but there are other things (You mentioned Buddha) that have been around forever, basically.
You claimed that we've always had a God, but there is very little evidence of deities before Mesopotamia. Some of the first artifacts are the Sumerian Votive Statues. They've got massive eyes meant to symbolize eternal wakefulness and devotion, we think. It could be grave markers, it could be "oh great and mighty king" symbols, whatever. Also, why is God a male?
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
You asked why is God a male. Does a god HAVE to be a gender? Couldn't he jsut be God in and of itself?
About evolution, I think God might have created earth with evolution but I know for certain he didn't create animals for them to evolve into humans. read my above comment.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
Except for the fact that the Bible makes it pretty clear that God is male. Part of the Holy Trinity is Father and Son. God is constantly referred to as a father-figure.
Now, that could simply be the influence of male dominance in most human cultures, but it's pretty ingrained there and is hard to convince people otherwise.
-- quis custodiet ipsos custodes?
Which one? When you request that someone read something, it's always better to leave a link.
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
Um.....who are you talking to? Did I ask for a link? I just asked mvenus to link me to her blogs on cycles whenever she chooses to write them.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
Which comment? There are 61 comments on this blog, I'm going to guess about 20 are from you. Which comment am I to read?
Nicholas Aden
Self-Promotion
You should just stop trying, alenka. Not that I'm putting you down; I'm just saying, it's impossible to prove or disprove the existence of God to someone who disagrees with you.
As lancekates said,
"It is a matter of perspective. A christian sees a hand and sees the divine artist at work. An atheist looks at a hand and sees billions of years of evolution."
It'll always be that way. I think your time is better spent on other topics, if you ask me.
---
"Your comment doesn't make sense. Whats this about Paris hilton? What are you talking about? You don't make sense." - alenka
My Blog.
The thing is that she doesn't have to prove that god exxists. Not really. If she can provide one piece of valid evidence that points more to the existence of god than against it, she'll at least get the atheists thinking.
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
Friedrich Nietzsche
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
Sorry for double posting. That was an accident. I wish there was a way for me to delete my own comments. Anyways, THANK YOU JSAJ for being the only one to understand what I meant.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
AHH!!!!! Why does no one understand what I am saying? My lips are moving but no sound is coming out, looks like. I am not looking for evidence to prove God's existence. I am going to learn about evolution, I am going to elve into philosophy and theories and see if it could possibly be rationally possible that evolution never happened, that there might be a supreme bing. i am not going to turning over rocks looking for God. just educating myself. more.
Scyze, you do have a good point. I understand that its getting kind of boring debating the same thing. I will branch out more.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^
Take some early modern philosophy classes. Read up on guys like Descartes, Spinoza, Berkeley, Leibniz, Hume, Locke, et al.
--Mike
Check out the Topic of the Week
http://www.progressiveu.org/weeklytopic
http://www.progressiveu.org/090204-dont-miss-this-chance
Thanks for the advice embryowassup. I am reading lots of philsophy books right now and am reading on Locke as well. By the way, I remember reading a comment you posted about how the gov doesn't allow us to do stuff then they break the laws and do it themselves, like they say not bribing but they do it in their own way? I just thought that was interesting and wanted to learn but an't find your exact comment.
DISCLAIMER: I am not being rude. I'm stating my opinion. No personal attacks are meant. Please give some leniency on how you take my words. imagine me saying them with a smile. ^__^