Brainteaserfan

Justification is a purely subjective term. It justifies my belief, in my opinion. And that's all that matters. It's really not that hard a concept.

Not always. Should my justification for 2+2=4 be, "it looks beautiful," or "it sounds right?"

Sure, I agree with you that God's moral code is beautiful, but don't you think we should believe for more than that? I cannot comprehend following not telling a lie when it would benefit me, if I just believed in not telling a lie, "because it sounds beautiful."

Many people think of God as not being "somewhere", but everwhere, as everything.

Do you have a statistic to show this? And by the same token, I'm sure many believe that Mr. Obama should be jailed for life too. There are almost 7000000000 opinions on earth, so if your "many" is .000001 of them, there are still, "many."

I might say it a little differently. I see it as one of the worst possible reasons to accept something, and wonder why you accept faith as justification for one set of beliefs, but not others which are also held based on faith alone.

 

In most of the rest of your life, you reject faith. You don't jump off a cliff with faith you can fly. You don't drive full speed into a brick wall with faith you will survive. You don't go a month without drinking any liquids with faith that you'll survive. You don't accept that 2+2 = cheese on faith, and you don't accept that the best treatment for diabetes is listening to punk rock based on faith.

 

You apply faith to one specific aspect of your life, and reject it elsewhere. Faith is ignorant, and you choose to follow an ideology which demands it of you. You're right. I do feel like I'm better off without that kind of personally imposed enslavement and break from reality.

Not that I agree with A Tripolation, but one major difference between jumping off a cliff and hoping that you can fly, and religion, is that you hope to get something out of religion.

Also, there is a little more evidence for religion than any of your analogies IMO.

I found him. Really. I actually found him. Now, I see him all the time. I split a piece of wood and find him. I turn over a stone and find him. He is just everywhere. He is hard to miss.

 

 

 

 

Yes, it makes perfect sense. You look at something but you do not realize what it is that you are looking at. Your hearts become hardened because you do not realize what it is that you are looking at, all the time, and what you are a part of. Then you will not see.

 

Have a nice day or be part of nice day. Choose one.

Evil bible says that Jesus spoke to them in parables lest they be healed. The NIV says that He spoke to them in parables because they have already hardened their hearts, to me meaning that they would choose not to understand if He spoke to them about heaven directly. I may be wrong, if I am, please explain it to me, I don't want any more than anyone else to follow a false religion.

Funny thing is...that IS my justification for belief. So. Where do you go from here? Are you going to attempt to tell me that my reason for believing in a deity isn't my reason?

 

 

 

I don't really care what you think is justifiable and isn't. It is my reason. No more, no less.

 

 

 

Which would definitely place you under the "hardened hearts" category. Religion is faith. Blind faith. You see this as ignorance and narrow-mindedness, if I recall correctly. Ergo, your heart is hardened by your own wish for clear, logical mechanisms in something as supernatural as religion.

Blind faith? Sort of, but not completely. Many sections of the Bible have been supported by archeology and written records. Also, many have been supported through science. (note: not the same as proving false or dealing with miracles.) How so? For instance, times such as when a baby is to be circumcised, how to wash your body after messing with dead people, closely approximate what science seems to recommend today. By history, things such as cities which have been discovered that were mentioned in the Bible. If you want more items, ask me, or better yet, google them or do some other research in sites that claim to support the Bible. Then check with sites that don't on the same things. My conclusion is that there is substantial evidence for the Bible.

To simplify things, let's call everything that only a supernatural, omnipotent being could do a "miracle", or "miraculous". And to begin with, until we determine there is no other explanation, let's not call anything else that.

 

I argued with a family member once who insisted that a woman who survived a plane crash on Christmas Eve with only a broken collar bone after falling 10,000 feet was an example of a miracle. That she was the sole survivor and also managed, at the age of 17, to survive long enough to be rescued from the Peruvian jungle was supposed to be further proof. [1]

 

There are many natural explanations for an incident like this. She was still buckled into her seat which slowed her descent and provided a cushion on landing. The rainforest trees also provide a way to slow descent. And the girl had been taught some survival skills by her father so once she landed she was able to make her way to safety. My relative argued that the hand of God was at work here, but I pointed out that it was lightning that struck the plane in the first place, and if it truly was a miracle, why the broken collarbone? Wouldn't an omnipotent, perfect God be able to do that? And I'm not saying that it would have proven divine intervention if she had been completely unharmed; there have been incidences where people survive things like this completely unscathed.

 

But I would like to hear other examples of "miracles", as long as this is part of what constitutes a justification for the existence of God as the OP is asking for.

Sure, I can give you one. A man at our church was diaganosed with cancer. They held an anointing service and when the doctors went in, no cancer. Ready for another? Our pastor (he wasn't our pastor then), was involved in a severe accident. After several weeks of recovery, he could still not lift more than 25 lbs. Again, the church held an anointing service. The next day, he could lift >100 lbs. You can choose to believe in an alternate explanation, but it seems likely to me that they were miracles. These are not the only examples of modern miracles in our <50 person church.

Except these, I would presume?

I picked a random one as an example, honest.

Here is what the NIV says for Matthew 13 10-15

 10 The disciples came to him and asked, “Why do you speak to the people in parables?”

 11 He replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them. 12 Whoever has will be given more, and they will have an abundance. Whoever does not have, even what they have will be taken from them. 13 This is why I speak to them in parables:

   “Though seeing, they do not see;

   though hearing, they do not hear or understand.

   14 In them is fulfilled the prophecy of Isaiah:

   “‘You will be ever hearing but never understanding;

   you will be ever seeing but never perceiving.

15 For this people’s heart has become calloused;

   they hardly hear with their ears,

   and they have closed their eyes.

Otherwise they might see with their eyes,

   hear with their ears,

   understand with their hearts

and turn, and I would heal them.

This says something quite different than what the evil bible quote seems to say. The NIV seems to indicate that the people won't understand because they have calloused, or in other words, hardened, their hearts.

Is hell a good place?

 

We cannot know how the first iniquity demonstrated itself but we can know that rebellion begins with questioning the status quo.

 

The moment God was questioned in any way, he responded with an evil punishment.

 

Evil as I class it in any case. He does not tolerate anyone doing their will, if it does not comply with his will. Obey or else. Not quite what scriptures say he should be doing.

 

Romans 12:21 Do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with good.

 

It would seem that God let himself be overcome by evil and responded with evil. Or evil must be good. God created the first division in his once united kingdom.

 

It appears that God does not follow his own good advise. Or does he? If God was following his WORD, then hell must be a good place somehow.

 

Strange but true.

 

Are their any theists who would like to show how this is not back sliding?

 

That is of course, a rhetorical question as back sliding cannot be denied.

 

Was God overcome by evil?

 

Did God follow his literal WORD or not?

 

Should we?

 

 

 

Is hell a good place or is Gods WORD worthless since he himself ignores them and breaks his own laws?

 

Regards

 

DL

You keep wanting to point out that God punishes people needlessly. I have tried to sensibly refute this, but your definition of punish does not seem to agree with my dictionary, as pointed out quite a while ago. Are you going to make a new point?

I don't understand your disagreement. All I said was that that the physical sciences provide no support for the claim that God doesn't exist.

So you believe because physical science can't prove your beliefs wrong? I'd write up why I believe, but I have many assignments due right now.

There are good philosophical reasons for believing God exists.

There are no physical science reasons for believing he does not.

There is good evidence that miracles have occurred, and miracles are possible only if he exists.

I disagree. How does science support miracles? How could science falsify things that (supposedly) didn't happen?

However, history and archeology can, and have, supported miracles and God IMO. So have many investigations into the Bible.

A trick to solving this is to multiply by 1: (1/x + 4)/(1/x + 4), then you have a way to split this equation into (2/x)/(1/x + 4)² and 8/(1/x + 4)²

I don't understand why I should split it. I didn't need to simplify past the first fraction on the initial question. Dr Rocket answered my question perfectly.

I have another quick question: if you are finding the (sqrt of 2x)/(the sqrt of x), can you just cancel the x's and get sqrt of 2, x positive for an answer? And if the numerator was x squared, you'd have sqrt of x for your answer?

Thanks!

I have another question too. If the conjugate of a + b is a - b, is -a + b also a conjugate?

[math]2x/(1+4x) = (2x/x)/(1/x+4x/x) = 2/(1/x+4) \ne 2(x/1)+2(1/4) = 2x+1/2 [/math]

Thanks!

I got this wrong in a test. Now I'm sitting and puzzling. The initial fraction is what the answer key said, the last, mine.

What did I do wrong in: 2x/(1+4x) = (2x/x)/(1/x+4x/x) = 2/(1/x+4) = 2(x/1)+2(1/4) = 2x+1/2

When I substitute 10 for x, the answers are different. If there is a link or source, it would be very helpful too. Thanks!

Tetrahedron, not pyramid.

 

Note: in paint there are straight lines and regular text.

Actually, it is a pyramid. From the wiki you provided: "The tetrahedron is one kind of pyramid,"

I made it

 

P=0

T+E = 8

Q+O = 10

 

With the given clues, find the sum of the letters T R E E. (Each letter represents a number if you didn't know already)

 

Have fun!

Do you want us to answer in letters?

"umm.... Men throw away people too. Ever hear of abortion?"

For some definitions of the word "people", but not most.

Most perhaps, but not by much. http://www.gallup.com/poll/118399/more-americans-pro-life-than-pro-choice-first-time.aspx

Thanks!

Do you have the nerve to call him out on the immoral concept of any infinite punishment.

Infinite torture without purpose other than revenge is quite immoral.

It won't help to get upset with A Tripolation.

Not really. Jesus has left no own writings, Sophocles left numerous plays. Jesus isn't mentioned in any writing until quite a long time since he supposedly died, Sophocles is mentioned in at least one concurrent book. And you would assume that someone who stops the sun in the sky would be mentioned in at least Roman documentation. Not to mention they would most likely write about one of the most successful rioters ever. Furthermore, it seems most of what Jesus is described as is a collage of previous mythology, which further increases suspicions he's not a historical figure.

 

Thus, the existence of Sophocles is a more solid fact than Jesus having existed.

The Romans may have written about Jesus; it may have been lost.

It was not, "quite a long time" when compared to several other major historical figures.

How do you view wealthy people?

I said:

IMO, there is no such thing as too rich. I think this for a few reasons. Firstly, they do help bail out our country via (a) the taxes while they are alive, and (b) from the death tax. (not to mention the tax on whoever receives some of their fortune as an inheritance, I'm not certain of the current rules.) Secondly, a rich person generally will want a nice house, clothes, car, mowed lawn etc, and will create jobs for others who are not as fortunate. IMO, wealthy people are essential to our economy.

Edit: I should add, as long as their wealth is acquired honestly.

Greg said:

In th usa all that wealthy people seem to do is evade taxes. It is the majority of ordinary people who can't afford the smart ar$e lawyers and accountants who collectively pay the bulk of the tax revenue.

Wealthy people might therefore be regarded as a drain on the economy - taking a great deal of wealth and funnelling it off shore into Swiss bank accounts and not purchasing locally etc.

---------------

Maybe, but I see no evidence that they aren't paying taxes. If they weren't, this would partially fall into the category of not honestly acquired wealth, which I didn't claim to support. Even if they didn't pay any taxes, though, they would still create jobs.

--------------

Tony said:

Obviously there is much truth in what you say and I did say I might be biassed. I am not trying to make a case for equality of income but I do feel that some people and some organisations are so rich that they could afford to put more into the national pot. I also feel that rewards for effort could be more sensibly distributed. I find it obscene that a pop singer can earn many times the income of a brain surgeon or that many people in local government in the UK earn much more than the salary of the Prime Minister. I feel that we are getting rather off topic so I will repeat the point that I originally made - I think that allowing the National Debt to increase year on year is dangerous and a sensible strategy would involve shrinking it year by year.

----------------------

It is strange how much celebrities make, but if people want to pay them lots, they'll probably help bail us out and create jobs, so I won't complain.

Jesus is God manifesting himself in human form, and being nothing but love and forgiveness. And what would be harder, a father dying in place of his son, or having to watch his son die? God created a way for humanity to be redeemed from their awful nature. I find it hard to believe that that means he is not stepping up to his responsibilities.

Not to mention that He isn't really responsible for Our sins.

Jesus also said you'd know his disciples by their fruit (Works).

 

..14.. How does it help, my brothers, when someone who has never done a single good act claims to have faith? Will that faith bring salvation?..

 

 

....15.. If one of the brothers or one of the sisters is in need of clothes and has not enough food to live on,..

 

 

....16.. and one of you says to them, 'I wish you well; keep yourself warm and eat plenty,' without giving them these bare necessities of life, then what good is that?..

 

 

....17.. In the same way faith, if good deeds do not go with it, is quite dead...

 

 

....18.. But someone may say: So you have faith and I have good deeds? Show me this faith of yours without deeds, then! It is by my deeds that I will show you my faith...

 

 

....19.. You believe in the one God -- that is creditable enough, but even the demons have the same belief, and they tremble with fear...

 

 

....20.. Fool! Would you not like to know that faith without deeds is useless?..

 

 

....21.. Was not Abraham our father justified by his deed, because he offered his son Isaac on the altar?..

 

 

....22.. So you can see that his faith was working together with his deeds; his faith became perfect by what he did...

 

 

....23.. In this way the scripture was fulfilled: Abraham put his faith in God, and this was considered as making him upright; and he received the name 'friend of God'...

 

 

....24.. You see now that it is by deeds, and not only by believing, that someone is justified...

 

You should study James a bit more if you think there is no contradiction between James and Peter.

 

http://bible.org/article/faith-demons-james-219

 

Regards

DL

I hope I'm not misunderstanding your post. I was replying to RealityCheck on whether an atheist could reach heaven, and your conclusion is that it takes works and believing to make it to heaven? That's what is was telling RealityCheck, only emphasizing the belief part. Are you trying to support my position? confused...

Well, yeah, if you're going strictly by the Bible, but then you would have to accept all of the fantasy, as well. I think the church is trying to reach for a more enlightened crowd. But beware of the worldly!

Under, "christianity".

Quote, "based on the Bible"

http://i.word.com/idictionary/christianity

Read what I had written more closely. I was saying that, in the modern version of Christianity, good deeds and your own merit are not enough to allow one access to heaven.

I see what you meant now. However, "Good deeds do not matter," can be taken two ways.

I've seen some positions taken (I think I even posted them) that an atheist could even make it to heaven based on acts alone.

I see no evidence for this in the Bible.

John 14:6 KJV

6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

Well, that's the shortest argument I've ever had lol.

More seriously, if you think my post #42 is wrong then you must think the premise that lies behind my statement is also "wrong".

As I see it in a democracy the government is elected by the People in order to run the country in accordance with the wishes of the People. This work necessitates the spending of money. If we discount the idea of printing money (which devalues all money in existence) the money needed must come from the People. If the money coming into the government's coffers and the money the government has to spend to meet the wishes of the People do not balance then I see only two sensible options for long term stability. The People must reduce their demands concerning what the government is expected to do or they must provide the government with more funds. Perhaps I am biassed in what I say next because (although I feel richer than America) I live on a very modest income. There are many people and concerns that are so rich that it is obscene. These people and concerns could probably bail out their respective countries if they so wished. They could certainly pay a lot more tax! I can see reasons why they would not wish to do that because the whole sorry mess would just start again.

Seriously this time. I don't want to go too far off topic, but....

IMO, there is no such thing as too rich. I think this for a few reasons. Firstly, they do help bail out our country via (a) the taxes while they are alive, and (b) from the death tax. (not to mention the tax on whoever receives some of their fortune as an inheritance, I'm not certain of the current rules.) Secondly, a rich person generally will want a nice house, clothes, car, mowed lawn etc, and will create jobs for others who are not as fortunate. IMO, wealthy people are essential to our economy.

Edit: I should add, as long as their wealth is acquired honestly.

Very odd here in this forum. A most unscientific approach. And such optimism. I have an 85 year old friend who, because of actual personal experience, does not have your pie in the sky faith. Short? Really? Why?

 

Government even in times of robber barons and before in times of landed gentry never ever left the economy alone. Such an intense radical departure would indeed be a large experiment without any scientific basis whatsoever.

Oops, I hit post too soon.

What I meant to say is that when in a depression, the government shouldn't do anything that they wouldn't do when the economy is going well.

Well, that's the shortest argument I've ever had lol.

No.

If a government prints money to pay it's debts surely this will weaken it's currency exchange rates even if it makes it look like they have more money .

I suppose you are talking to me.

It will devalue their currency, however it will effectively be a tax on everyone who holds their currency, instead of just those who live in their country.

If tony lives in the US, or whatever country does this, then they will be taking money from him if he holds that currency.

And whatever your doctor does for you- especially with the common cold then you can get lots of rest and drink plenty of fluids. One reason they can all agree is because it is incurable.

Okay, now let's apply that to the economy. A depression too is incurable; the government, like the doctors, should do nothing.

However, I would disagree that a cold is incurable, we just don't know how to cure it yet. Similarly, a depression is not/may not be incurable, we don't know how to cure it yet though. Besides, our body will get rid of it fast enough, just like the economy will get rid of a depression by itself quickly.

Just like we don't try out new medicines or techniques on humans first, we shouldn't try them out on the US first. Let the little economies try them out first, and we won't use them unless there is almost certain evidence that a procedure will help the economy. In the meantime, I propose the gov should leave the economy alone.