Christian Discussion Thread IV

[Aelex]

Considering no evidence was provided (not that I know that anything can actually be evidence for a god)...clearly not.

Still, I found the whole "I won't believe 'till they're evidences" to be quite an intellectual humbug, because arguing of the validity of the existence of a superior with as only argument the fact that we never found proof of it's existence it's like arguing that we're not conscious because we never found proof of our consciousness.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Considering no evidence was provided (not that I know that anything can actually be evidence for a god)...clearly not.

Still, I found the whole "I won't believe 'till they're evidences" to be quite an intellectual humbug, because arguing of the validity of the existence of a superior with as only argument the fact that we never found proof of it's existence it's like arguing that we're not conscious because we never found proof of our consciousness.

One of our Philosophy Professors was asked "What is Consciousness?" Proceeded to laugh,... and laugh...and laugh.

[The Alma Mater]

There is evidence that God exists, it is all around us.

You can't really expect an atheist to convert just because of this argument...

Nor, of course, does it convince people who believe in a different deity. Or deities.

[Lleu llaw Gyffes]

That tends to differ depending on who you ask.

That being said, how do you know your right about what you believe his nature to be?
Because that is where a lot of problems come from.

If you wartch the Star Trek next generation episode "who watches the watchers?" A primitive alien race mistakes Picard to be a god.
And they start speculating about what he wants from them and making assumptions about his nature.

That's why it's hard to really trust a Christian or the bible to actually be right about god.

That episode was retarded. It starts with Picard logically explaining to the Mayor that he is just a man and she believes him. But the Priest still believes that Picard is a god. Picard tells the Priest, "Kill me and on the 3rd day, I shall rise again. And THAT will prove that I am a man."

Priest kills Picard, Beverly does magic tech-tech to resurrect him and everbody is convinced that Picard is human. WTF???

[Tarsonis Survivors]

That being said, how do you know your right about what you believe his nature to be?
Because that is where a lot of problems come from.

If you wartch the Star Trek next generation episode "who watches the watchers?" A primitive alien race mistakes Picard to be a god.
And they start speculating about what he wants from them and making assumptions about his nature.

That's why it's hard to really trust a Christian or the bible to actually be right about god.

That episode was retarded. It starts with Picard logically explaining to the Mayor that he is just a man and she believes him. But the Priest still believes that Picard is a god. Picard tells the Priest, "Kill me and on the 3rd day, I shall rise again. And THAT will prove that I am a man."

Priest kills Picard, Beverly does magic tech-tech to resurrect him and everbody is convinced that Picard is human. WTF???

Yeah I've made complaints about ST logic before, just the last page actually. I blame shitty writing.

I'm guessing the idea was "Gods can't die" so by dying he proved he wasn't a God, but then he rose again which totally would have wiped that out.

[Angleter]

If god is so powerful, that must mean he is capable of anything right??

So does that mean he is capable of not existing?
Is he capable of creating a boulder so massive he can't lift it?

Ah, here's fun. I'm going to go with 'yes'.

[Neutraligon]

Considering no evidence was provided (not that I know that anything can actually be evidence for a god)...clearly not.

Still, I found the whole "I won't believe 'till they're evidences" to be quite an intellectual humbug, because arguing of the validity of the existence of a superior with as only argument the fact that we never found proof of it's existence it's like arguing that we're not conscious because we never found proof of our consciousness.

Why should I believe something exists when there is no evidence. First define consciousness.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Still, I found the whole "I won't believe 'till they're evidences" to be quite an intellectual humbug, because arguing of the validity of the existence of a superior with as only argument the fact that we never found proof of it's existence it's like arguing that we're not conscious because we never found proof of our consciousness.

Why should I believe something exists when there is no evidence. First define consciousness.

See my post about a Philosophy Professors response.

[The United Neptumousian Empire]

That being said, how do you know your right about what you believe his nature to be?
Because that is where a lot of problems come from.

If you wartch the Star Trek next generation episode "who watches the watchers?" A primitive alien race mistakes Picard to be a god.
And they start speculating about what he wants from them and making assumptions about his nature.

That's why it's hard to really trust a Christian or the bible to actually be right about god.

That episode was retarded. It starts with Picard logically explaining to the Mayor that he is just a man and she believes him. But the Priest still believes that Picard is a god. Picard tells the Priest, "Kill me and on the 3rd day, I shall rise again. And THAT will prove that I am a man."

Priest kills Picard, Beverly does magic tech-tech to resurrect him and everbody is convinced that Picard is human. WTF???

That is indeed dumb, and quite sacrilegious as well.

[Neutraligon]

Why should I believe something exists when there is no evidence. First define consciousness.

See my post about a Philosophy Professors response.

See my response depending on the definition of consciousness we might be able to show evidence for it. For instance if you define it as being aware of my surroundings and responding to it, then the fact that I am typing this to you is evidence of it.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

That episode was retarded. It starts with Picard logically explaining to the Mayor that he is just a man and she believes him. But the Priest still believes that Picard is a god. Picard tells the Priest, "Kill me and on the 3rd day, I shall rise again. And THAT will prove that I am a man."

Priest kills Picard, Beverly does magic tech-tech to resurrect him and everbody is convinced that Picard is human. WTF???

That is indeed dumb, and quite sacrilegious as well.

Yeah Roddenberry tried to go all Richard Dawkins and pretty much failed miserably. DS9 toyed with the God(s) as Aliens much better.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

See my post about a Philosophy Professors response.

See my response depending on the definition of consciousness we might be able to show evidence for it. For instance if you define it as being aware of my surroundings and responding to it, then the fact that I am typing this to you is evidence of it.

Except all life is somewhat aware of its surroundings and responds to it. Does that mean all life experiences consciousness?

[Herskerstad]

That is indeed dumb, and quite sacrilegious as well.

Yeah Roddenberry tried to go all Richard Dawkins and pretty much failed miserably.

Not as if Dawkins made himself seem much the wiser talking about religion in the first place.

Though I suppose one of the cosmic ironies is that whenever an atheist professor and a preacher debate, the Christian preacher tries to sound like a natural scientist, and the atheist professor attempts to sound like a preacher.

[Neutraligon]

That is indeed dumb, and quite sacrilegious as well.

Yeah Roddenberry tried to go all Richard Dawkins and pretty much failed miserably. DS9 toyed with the God(s) as Aliens much better.

My guess is a god cannot be killed thus being able to kill Picard meant Picard could not be a god.

[Neutraligon]

See my response depending on the definition of consciousness we might be able to show evidence for it. For instance if you define it as being aware of my surroundings and responding to it, then the fact that I am typing this to you is evidence of it.

Except all life is somewhat aware of its surroundings and responds to it. Does that mean all life experiences consciousness?

Hence why I asked for a definition first. I need a definition in order to be able to provide evidence.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Except all life is somewhat aware of its surroundings and responds to it. Does that mean all life experiences consciousness?

Hence why I asked for a definition first. I need a definition in order to be able to provide evidence.

Hence the Philosopher laughing his ass off.

[Neutraligon]

Hence why I asked for a definition first. I need a definition in order to be able to provide evidence.

Hence the Philosopher laughing his ass off.

In which case there is no need to provide evidence for it since I do not have a clear definition. Since there is no clear definition I cannot assume that Consciousness exists.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Hence the Philosopher laughing his ass off.

In which case there is no need to provide evidence for it since I do not have a clear definition.

Nor must we provide evidence of God then, as we have no clear definition of what God actually is.

[Tarsonis Survivors]

Yeah Roddenberry tried to go all Richard Dawkins and pretty much failed miserably. DS9 toyed with the God(s) as Aliens much better.

My guess is a god cannot be killed thus being able to kill Picard meant Picard could not be a god.

Literally my response above.

[Neutraligon]

In which case there is no need to provide evidence for it since I do not have a clear definition.

Nor must we provide evidence of God then, as we have no clear definition of what God actually is.

I edited. Since there is no clear definition of consciousness there is no reason to think it exists. Similarly if there is no clear definition for god there is no reason to think it exists. In order for me to think something exists there must first be a clear definition. Until then you could be saying afh[erh;d exists.

[Herskerstad]

In which case there is no need to provide evidence for it since I do not have a clear definition.

Nor must we provide evidence of God then, as we have no clear definition of what God actually is.

That's not how I'd define it. Those given the gift of faith and all it encompasses from God certainly has some level of understanding. For those without such it is another thing entirely, but I doubt we'd ever get to the point where human instruments can gauge God's presence or such.

[Neutraligon]

Nor must we provide evidence of God then, as we have no clear definition of what God actually is.

That's not how I'd define it. Those given the gift of faith and all it encompasses from God certainly has some level of understanding. For those without such it is another thing entirely, but I doubt we'd ever get to the point where human instruments can gauge God's presence or such.

If faith is a gift (I don't see it that way but I will go with it) from god, and god chooses whom to give it to, then why would god blame those of us who have not received that gift?

If hell is a place of torture that seems like a pretty mean thing to do
If hell is separation from god, aren't those of us without faith already separate from god?

[The Alma Mater]

That is indeed dumb, and quite sacrilegious as well.

Yeah Roddenberry tried to go all Richard Dawkins and pretty much failed miserably. DS9 toyed with the God(s) as Aliens much better.

Though it never came nowhere near Babylon 5. Where the Vorlons were slightly more ontopic for Christians

[Aelex]

I edited. Since there is no clear definition of consciousness there is no reason to think it exists. Similarly if there is no clear definition for god there is no reason to think it exists. In order for me to think something exists there must first be a clear definition. Until then you could be saying afh[erh;d exists.

I just have one thing to say.
"Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn".

[Aelex]

I edited. Since there is no clear definition of consciousness there is no reason to think it exists. Similarly if there is no clear definition for god there is no reason to think it exists. In order for me to think something exists there must first be a clear definition. Until then you could be saying afh[erh;d exists.

So, what you're saying is that you don't believe in consciousness?
So how are we even able to argue?