Jump to content


Senior Members
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by jryan

  1. He doesn't hire union labor, for starters. The house is an easy target, but it's really fleshed out by the fact that behind the scenes Moore is just as capitalist as the next guy, hiring cheaper labor and suing partners over royalties while living the good life. I don't fault Moore for doing what he is doing, but he is a giant hypocrite that doesn't actually seem to believe what he says.
  2. I'm guessing you can't know how you would respond until your country's government starts shelling your town.
  3. Whoa, thanks. I was worried there for a minute. This is a misunderstanding of what "God-Believers" actually believe. In fact you'd be hard pressed to find a "God-Believer" who believes that this world is a fair place.
  4. Well.... I addressed it because you brought it up again. I didn't originally address it because I saw the two proofs you offered as essentially the same thing. So you offer a proof, it gets challenged and you simply move along without evaluating the counter argument? That doesn't bode well for the diligence with which you evaluated the "countless" other reasons.
  5. jryan

    The power of God.

    When you are talking about omnipotence you have to accept infinity as something more than a concept. If you don't assume that in the proof then your proof is simply assuming its conclusion is true before setting out to prove it. But consider what you are asking while using infinite logic: An infinite being creates an infinite rock in an infinite universe, the resulting growth in the infinite universe is zero. You began with an infinite universe and you ended with an infinite universe. Now you ask the infinite being to move that infinite rock so they move it an infinite number of light
  6. jryan

    The power of God.

    I understand it perfectly well. I have simply boiled it down to it's stated truth and the conclusion it attempts to draw from it. There is no need to rehash all the various steps in the proof when simply referencing it. But if you think I misunderstand it then feel free to show how well you understand it by address my counterargument at some point detailing where I got the proof wrong. Cutting and pasting the link doesn't really show that you understand what the link includes. This too is a false argument as it could be used to argue that infinity doesn't exist because yo
  7. I have just linked you to the Catholic Catechism view on Salvation so an argument of what that Church might have once believed is immaterial. If you wish to counter this then show where my quote is not from the Catholic Catechism or that it doesn't say what I have already stated. Showing me that some third party says that the Catholic church believes otherwise isn't compelling in the slightest as the authoritative word on the Roman Catholic faith in the Catholic Catechism, not some blogger at "Bigthinking.org". Second, as I have already pointed out through scripture, unless spelled out o
  8. So you can make the contrary claim without evidence and yet you demand that I provide evidence that your non-evidence statement is not true? I've provided you the scripture which puts your scriptural evidence in context. Well, I will offer the Catholic Catechism on the subject first: Lumen Gentium #16: 16. Finally, those who have not yet received the Gospel are related in various ways to the people of God.(18*) In the first place we must recall the people to whom the testament and the promises were given and from whom Christ was born according to the flesh.(125) On account of thei
  9. jryan

    Heaven or Hell

    Well, I can't speak for that person, but there are billions of Christians out there so one person doesn't quite breach the threshold for "most". Also, it depends on the church. Not all religions spell it out explicitly as the scripture does, but the difference is really semantic. The Catholic Church is fairly explicit on the subject as stated. I'm not sure where you got the idea. In fact I am saying precisely the opposite of what you state. The man who lives a good life bringing good to others is saved as they have demonstrated a belief in God and God's law whereas the man
  10. Whether you are incredulous or not doesn't change things. I have already shown in Biblical scripture that the knowledge of good and the following of your good conscience is, by scripture, an intrinsic belief in God and God's Law. Jesus is God's word made flesh and God's word is written on everyone's heart as their conscience. As such you can interchange God, "Jesus", God's Word" and "Good Conscience" and never lose the meaning. Most Christian religion isn't about establishing the goal or the rules, those have been literally set in stone since Moses, it's about how to follow the rules an
  11. jryan

    The power of God.

    How many different ways can the same question be asked? There are critical flaws in the reasoning that "Evil Exists, therefor God doesn't". In fact, apart from my previously stated argument that such a proof is circular (you have to not believe in God for the proof to prove there is no God), there is the big leap in the formulation of the proof from the "Why doesn't God..." opener to "He should, and therefor..." closer. While the first question is valid (though unknowable), the final and crucial step doesn't flow from the first because it requires the assumption that we can know the infi
  12. jryan

    Heaven or Hell

    Heaven. The reason, as I pointed out in another thread, is that built into your knowledge of what is good is the intrinsic belief in God's Word written on your heart. As such, God doesn't play semantics.
  13. Yes, I am suggesting that. They all base this core belief on two repeated articles of faith in the Bible: We all know God's word instinctively through our conscience. God's word is "written on our heart" Romans 2:12-15 - 12 All who sin apart from the law will also perish apart from the law, and all who sin under the law will be judged by the law. 13 For it is not those who hear the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but it is those who obey the law who will be declared righteous. 14 (Indeed, when Gentiles, who do not have the law, do by nature things required by the law, they ar
  14. I think you would have to establish the "Most" claim with some actual evidence that demonstrates that you understand the tenets of any religion, let alone "most" religions. I would never claim to know the tenets of most religions, but even on my limited exposures to various religions your statement doesn't stand. In fact, most religions I have studied believe we are all praying to the same God, and most even believe in the righteous path of other faiths. Only in the minority of religions (some Fundamentalist branches of Christianity and Islam) do they believe they are the only path to s
  15. I'm well aware of the argument, iNow, in both forms. You weren't breaking any new ground. I have offered my counter argument to both version that they each have the very same catastrophic logical flaw. Refute my argument or not, but don't try to claim that my response is incorrect on the grounds that your argument was incomplete. That line of argument doesn't flatter you. No, I am not speaking of the God of Abraham specifically. I am not arguing as any particular type of theist here, but as a theist in general and the many versions of punishment in the after life. Since your
  16. As I said in my edit, if it's true then you sure couldn't argue that you didn't have fair warning. And you can't know that all punishments would be the same either, so you are simply speculating yourself.
  17. To understand the justice in such a plan requires you to understand the complexities of the infinite system they govern. Since you can't comprehend the infinite you are incapable of judging the purpose -- and therefore the justice -- of such plans. Edit: Even on the finite scale your argument doesn't work. IF There is a God and IF he is Omniscient and Omnipresent and Morally Perfect and IF His teachings are in fact the path to eternal salvation then you would have a really hard time arguing that your weren't warned well in advance.
  18. You meant this one? It's the same basic argument with the same shortcoming. The argument presupposes the omnipotent, omniscient and morally perfect God, but then attempts to show this to be impossible using an apparent contradiction on Earth. The problem is that IF man's soul is eternal then while you could argue that in human history on Earth Evil is winning,it is finite. Evil's punishment and Good's reward,on the other hand, is infinite, and all the time on Earth is divided by the infinite which gives us a percentage where this contradiction applies as 0.00%. So, for the
  19. If you suppose that the outside of our universe is finite.
  20. All parents must let the children learn some lessons themselves. Be glad we don't have to make dirt. In other words: "When I get to heaven I want to ask God why it is he allowed famine, starvation and war... but then I fear he would just ask me the same thing." Also, to all atheists, . Edit: Also, the quote is silly as an argument against God (The God of Abraham, anyway) because it presupposes the absence of an after life in it's very premise. So it is only a meaningful argument to those who already don't believe in God. It's atheistic preaching to the Choir. Bonus ir
  21. Uh, no? Where did I say that? I call as my first witness.... MOONTANAMAN!! crowd: *murmur murmur murmur* Mister Moontanaman, do you believe that the growing secularization of western civilization is a good thing? Do you also believe that Western civilization is as dominant now as it has ever been? Do you believe this will remain so? Indeed, do you even believe it should? Crowd: *murmur murmur murmur*
  22. How so? God is thought of as an infinite, not a finite, being. There was no "before God"
  23. I feel the same way! That is why I take my instruction on how to live a fulfilling life from a set of instructions that has been seasoned over thousands of years rather than from modern alternatives. It seems illogical when people argue that western civilization is declining while also arguing that our rulebook is getting better.
  24. Well, given the general structure of an essay I would assume that you understand that this is the assertion on which the rest of the essay sets to demonstrate, not a stand alone statement that requires internal reference. So you support replacing the first three pages of that textbook with a retelling of Genesis? Why not just start with the science given that it is a SCIENCE textbook? This is already happening. But in either case it's not the role of science education to do this. Her point was that this particular textbook allowed this bizarre tangent
  25. I know. I'm just poking. Also, on your initial question, I think it is apples and oranges, and your apples are wrong (at least as far as I understand the state of the scientific theory). First, currently it is believed that there is an imbalance between matter and anti-matter and it has existed since the big bang. In fact, the theory goes that if the balance was perfect at the moment of the big bang then the universe would have annihilated itself on creation. Visible matter exists for lack of corresponding anti-matter to annihilate it. We wouldn't add to zero, we would be zero.
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.