Originally posted by PalynkaNot really. You cannot deny, for instance, your own existence without contradicting yourself. Nor the fact that you think or will.
I'd say all ontological truth propositions are based on evidence, so you can always find a non-zero probability of being false. Even your examples are based on evidence.
Originally posted by lucifershammerOf course you can, by putting in check what you define as your existence. The mere difficulty in defining a 'self' serves as evidence that one should be more careful when making such sweeping statements.
Not really. You cannot deny, for instance, your own existence without contradicting yourself. Nor the fact that you think or will.
The FSM and the cosmological argument were made by humans so they both have flaws. The Bible was God-inspired, and the only book that was ever God-breathed as stated in 2 Timothy 3:16.
But the Koran is the only true word of God. It has just as much validity. Even the Gospel of the Flying Speghetti monster could be divinely inspired.
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
But what makes the scripture of the Bible any more right than that of the Koran, of hiduism, Judaism, Buddhism or FSMism?
Scripture is God-breathed. Therefore it is holy writ, a canon.
See above.
The FSM and Thomas Aquinas both had flaws and so do you.
And there was I thinking I was perfect.
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by liteswordatlitespeedThis is amazing logic. God exists because the Bible exists and was inspired by God.
The FSM and the cosmological argument were made by humans so they both have flaws. The Bible was God-inspired, and the only book that was ever God-breathed as stated in 2 Timothy 3:16.
"All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness."
Scripture is God-breathed. Therefore it is holy writ, a canon.
The FSM and Thomas Aquinas both had flaws and so do you.
ok i admit that form of logic i used was wrong, and as a matter of fact a rhetorical fallacy (circular reasoning).
Come on! Cut me some slack!
Im 16 and im in 11th grade and im arguing against adults, and most of them geniuses, and I can hold a...
well...
semi-solid argument.
Not solid to the point where I can take everyone, but not unsolid enough to the point where everyone rejects everything i say.
I took Apologetics last year and I'm working hard...
But I don't think I could hold my own in the real world...
I suck at faith defense. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Now, who admits to the existence of a God? or not even a God, just some power that's up there controlling us, or watching us move around like little ants on earth?
Not written by Timothy first off, t'was written by Paul to Timothy.
Second off, Paul was in jail in Rome while writing this. He was sentenced to die. And he's telling Timothy that the scripture is God-breathed. The romans never sentenced a date to die. you died any day they chose. You have to admire this man for saying this.
Thirdly, he was inspired by God to write this.
Why can noone see that God, in the form of the Spirit, puts a conviction on these peoples hearts to write the story of Jesus Christ?
Originally posted by liteswordatlitespeedOh this is getting better! You're telling me that Timothy himself got the information from another person sentenced to death? And I take it that Paul himself never met God either, huh? Ummm... I'm having trouble "admiring this man for saying this."
Not written by Timothy first off, t'was written by Paul to Timothy.
Second off, Paul was in jail in Rome while writing this. He was sentenced to die. And he's telling Timothy that the scripture is God-breathed. The romans never sentenced a date to die. you died any day they chose. You have to admire this man for saying this.
Thirdly, he ...[text shortened]... m of the Spirit, puts a conviction on these peoples hearts to write the story of Jesus Christ?
Originally posted by liteswordatlitespeedMy guess is that there is indeed some great power which have created us. I'm not too sure about doing it in 6 days though. I'm not sure about controlling us either. But this is just a guess. I don't claim to have any evidence since I reject the so-called holy books outright.
Now, who admits to the existence of a God? or not even a God, just some power that's up there controlling us, or watching us move around like little ants on earth?
Originally posted by David CI said Krishn was the same person as Vishnu, not merely the same being (there's a difference).
Huh? And Jesus isn't an incarnation of God, i.e. the same being?
The Logos (the Son) is the same being as God (the Father), but not the same person. Jesus is the same person as the Logos, but not the same being.
Originally posted by PalynkaThe difficulty in defining a "self" does not mean it is any less clear what it is or make it impossible to speak of it. I can't define "sorrow" clearly to a person who never has any emotions; that doesn't mean I have trouble identifying it when I'm sad!
Of course you can, by putting in check what you define as your existence. The mere difficulty in defining a 'self' serves as evidence that one should be more careful when making such sweeping statements.
Originally posted by PenguinThe Gospel of the FSM came through a Physics undergrad from Kansas who was protesting intelligent design.
[b]The FSM and the cosmological argument were made by humans so they both have flaws. The Bible was God-inspired, and the only book that was ever God-breathed as stated in 2 Timothy 3:16.
But the Koran is the only true word of God. It has just as much validity. Even the Gospel of the Flying Speghetti monster could be divinely inspired.
"All Scri ...[text shortened]... s both had flaws and so do you.
And there was I thinking I was perfect.
--- Penguin.[/b]
Paul, from the Bible, was given a view of Jesus.
Well, not a view of Jesus because he was blinded, but he heard Jesus' voice and from this was converted.
You guys argue well. I have to give you some credit for bashing me on some points.
The Koran was given to Muhammad by what he thought was an "angel", but would an angel give you seizures when it came upon you?
No. That is more the characterization of a demon.
Scripture interprets history correctly.
There are over 120 prophecies on Jesus in the Old Testament. There was 400 years between the end of the OT and the beginning of the NT. then the 120 prophecies all came true...
THe Koran can't say that. It has no prophecies.
I stopped being a smart-...you-know-what. You should too.
Originally posted by lucifershammerI don't understand your scenario. If one religion says X and the other says ~X then evidently at most one of them can hold The Truth. But who can say wich hold The Truth? And there can be also a third alternative: Neither X nor ~X might be The Truth. Neither cannot ever have the monopoly of The Truth.
I am still not sure what you mean by "no religion has monopoly on The Truth". If religion A says that X is true about God, and religion B says that ~X is true about God -- then one and only one of them can be correct (given that God exists). On this matter, religion A (and other religions that agree with it) would indeed have a "monopoly on The Truth".
If any God makes a message on the sky with a force not possible by man or other method within the Laws of Nature, sying "My name is *** and I am the one and only God", then I will instantly be a beliver of this God and then I would no longer strive for The Truth.
Is this going to happen? I don't think so.