This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Craig Rock
31
« on: October 11, 2014, 01:36:46 PM »
He must exist.
But he doesn't HAVE TO exist
Something that set in the first movement;
Yes, it's called nature.
Call Him what you want. I prefer to call Him God.
32
« on: October 11, 2014, 01:34:21 PM »
If I didn't make it clear enough before, I recognize that we do not know what God is, only that He must exist.
Why's that?
See the post above.
33
« on: October 11, 2014, 01:32:47 PM »
Just out of interest, Door.
Would it not be prudent to stop the idiotic and delusional from choosing their leaders?
Why do you think prisoners aren't allowed to vote?
34
« on: October 11, 2014, 01:31:19 PM »
He must exist.
But he doesn't HAVE TO exist
Something that set in the first movement; created matter; and started time itself, had to exist. We don't have to call it God if you don't want, we can it Barny if you really insist.
35
« on: October 11, 2014, 01:22:55 PM »
1. If you don't believe in the free market you're an idiot
Sorry, I don't trust companies enough to not ruin the planet or exploit child labor.
I guess people do think I'm that stupid. Fine, I'll clarify.
Well you did say that anyone who disagreed with you was idiotic, delusional, and scum.
36
« on: October 11, 2014, 01:21:11 PM »
Uhhhhhh...
This was a bad thread to step into...
37
« on: October 11, 2014, 01:19:08 PM »
Those who participate in the free market are the masters of our Dustiny.
FTFY.
Sorry?
38
« on: October 11, 2014, 01:13:39 PM »
1. If you don't believe in the free market you're an idiot
Sorry, I don't trust companies enough to not ruin the planet or exploit child labor.
Problems are solved via the free market. If child labor is happening, then clearly it's not a problem the market cares to solve or otherwise we'd have stopped business with those involved with it. The same goes for environmental degradation. Those who participate in the free market are the masters of our destiny. And that kind of incentive only increases economic prosperity.
39
« on: October 11, 2014, 01:01:48 PM »
Look at it like this. The secular argument is that the big bang was the first event that set everything else in motion. But how logical is that? How could there be a first event? Believers in God make the same fallacy; how could God create Himself? And so, we give a definition to God that can explain how this could be. We don't know what God really is, but we know something of His nature must exist.
Seems like a very diffuse God of the Gaps argument. However, it doesn't work as a justification for theism (in case you're trying that), only deism.
Nonetheless, not knowing what first caused the Big Bang is no justification for attributing agency to it. You can call whatever that cause was "God", but that's so diluted of meaning as to be synonymous with anything you want to make it.
If I didn't make it clear enough before, I recognize that we do not know what God is, only that He must exist.
40
« on: October 11, 2014, 12:54:31 PM »
I don't know what an upvote is
41
« on: October 11, 2014, 12:52:18 PM »
The definition of God only represents his existence, it's not to say that it's actual working proof.
Okay, so what I'm getting from you is that God's definition is proof of his existence while not being proof.
Right, makes perfect sense.
Look at it like this. The secular argument is that the big bang was the first event that set everything else in motion. But how logical is that? How could there be a first event? Believers in God make the same fallacy; how could God create Himself? And so, we give a definition to God that can explain how this could be. We don't know what God really is, but we know something of His nature must exist.
42
« on: October 11, 2014, 12:47:26 PM »
You're only assuming it's circular, however it actually isn't. Take for example the big bang. We say that there may have been many other big bangs before that due to inevitable collapse/expand cycles, culminating in the extended theory of the big crunch.
"What started the big bang?"
"The big crunch"
"How do you know? What was before that?"
"Another big bang"
Point is, just because we don't know everything doesn't mean the argument is any less valid.
The Big Crunch is by no means the dominant cosmological model. Not to mention, you have a serious deficit in your scientific understanding if you think that's how logic works. Nobody, with any sense of intelligence, engages in circular logic around the Big Crunch model as you are claiming they do.
Regardless, I feel I should point out that sort of reasoning if much more satisfying of Ockham's Razor than yours.
The big bang/big crunch was just one example. I'm just trying to point out that it isn't circular logic as our understanding for His existence does not culminate from His definition.
43
« on: October 11, 2014, 12:45:12 PM »
The definition of God is a supreme being, among other predicates, whom exists.
You can't say God doesn't exist when it's in his definition that He exists.
If you ever have a child, you'll probably end up seeing the fallacy in your argument here. The definition of anything includes, in one way or another, its existence. To claim the definition of God as proof of his existence is merely to fall foul of ontological sophistry.
"Daddy, where do dragons live?"
"Oh honey, dragons aren't real."
"If dragons aren't real, why do we have a word for them?"
The definition of God only represents his existence, it's not to say that it's actual working proof.
44
« on: October 11, 2014, 12:43:50 PM »
"Under God" is actually secular.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
How is that appropriate on a board that's supposed to exclude immaturity? Unless I'm overestimating the level of professional-ness on this board then excuse me for this post, but after reading the rules I really don't think spamming childish acronyms are getting us anywhere.
Why should I treat you maturely and seriously when you are neither serious nor mature?
There's nothing secular about having to pledge allegiance to a deity. Grab a dictionary and educate yourself.
You may as well scream at me that 2 + 2 = 5 and then call me an idiot for disagreeing. Once again, mature behavior is necessary on this board as per accordance to the rules. Why don't you start by telling me why you disagree rather than having a fit?
45
« on: October 11, 2014, 12:41:54 PM »
The definition of God is a supreme being, among other predicates, whom exists.
You can't say God doesn't exist when it's in his definition that He exists.
Dat circular logic. jesus christ you're stupid, if that's your reasoning for a god/gods existing then you need help.
To the third person I've had to say this to, and as it is my understanding of the rules, that this kind of immature behavior isn't allowed on this board. Please stop.
46
« on: October 11, 2014, 12:40:12 PM »
The definition of God is a supreme being, among other predicates, whom exists.
You can't say God doesn't exist when it's in his definition that He exists.
That's one of the most blatant displays of circular logic I've ever seen.
"How do you know God exists?"
"Because some people who wanted to define the word 'God' define it as a being that exists"
"Why did they define it as a being that exists?"
"Because he exists"
"How do you know God exists?"
Ad infinitum.
It doesn't help that the definition you gave isn't the common one, I already gave you both of them and neither had that silly "he exists" clause.
And here I was hoping you were trying to use the Ontological argument, that could have actually been interesting.
You're only assuming it's circular, however it actually isn't. Take for example the big bang. We say that there may have been many other big bangs before that due to inevitable collapse/expand cycles, culminating in the extended theory of the big crunch. "What started the big bang?" "The big crunch" "How do you know? What was before that?" "Another big bang" Point is, just because we don't know everything doesn't mean the argument is any less valid.
47
« on: October 11, 2014, 11:42:45 AM »
God is simply a definition and a word. And it's built within its definition that He exists. You may not know what exactly God is, but you can't say He doesn't exist without contradicting the definition.
If you have something to say about my argument, then say it.
I'd like to know what your definition of God is, since that makes no sense.
According every dictionary I own;
Lowercase god means a supernatural being, a synonym for deity.
Uppercase God is the English title for a supreme creator and ruler.
I don't see where his existence is built in to the definition. What the hell does "it's built within its definition that He exists" even mean?
The definition of God is a supreme being, among other predicates, whom exists. You can't say God doesn't exist when it's in his definition that He exists.
48
« on: October 11, 2014, 11:36:12 AM »
It's still going?
http://sep7agon.net/index.php?topic=4477.1500
Yeah I saw idiot. That's why I asked when the next one was.
Chill out bud. :l
Am I not allowed to say idiot? I thought that was only a rule for the Serious Board? Let me go back and read the rules again.
49
« on: October 11, 2014, 11:32:27 AM »
God is simply a definition and a word. And it's built within its definition that He exists. You may not know what exactly God is, but you can't say He doesn't exist without contradicting the definition.
If you have something to say about my argument, then say it.
50
« on: October 11, 2014, 11:30:34 AM »
I want us all to go to Heaven.
frack that.. Unless of course I get my own piece of Heaven were I can live whatever reality I want. Play in the Halo universe one time, then the Middle Ages another.. Otherwise, I want to be reborn into a far more advance alien civilization. But just plain old Heaven.. sounds lame after an hour.
It's not about what you want, it's about what's real.
51
« on: October 11, 2014, 11:28:08 AM »
"Under God" is actually secular.
LOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOL
How is that appropriate on a board that's supposed to exclude immaturity? Unless I'm overestimating the level of professional-ness on this board then excuse me for this post, but after reading the rules I really don't think spamming childish acronyms are getting us anywhere.
53
« on: October 11, 2014, 11:18:05 AM »
I want a happy life for my family and a happy end; I want us all to go to Heaven.
54
« on: October 11, 2014, 11:16:51 AM »
I loved to play these on Reddit back when I frequented the site.
55
« on: October 11, 2014, 11:10:28 AM »
I refuse to say the pledge till this nation is restored.
Two more years and the damage will be done.
56
« on: October 11, 2014, 10:59:27 AM »
What's mythic?
57
« on: October 11, 2014, 10:58:20 AM »
"Under God" is actually secular. No religion owns God, His presence is simply inferred as per its definition.
Secular by definition is "not connected with religious or spiritual matters", which god is.
It also discriminates the nonreligious and polytheistic religions.
God is simply a definition and a word. And it's built within its definition that He exists. You may not know what exactly God is, but you can't say He doesn't exist without contradicting the definition.
58
« on: October 11, 2014, 10:03:13 AM »
let them run loose without consequence just because they have a harder time controlling themselves.
Not holding them morally accountable doesn't mean there are no consequences for their actions.
Let me clarify: there should be no different consequences for the same actions.
So a schizophrenic who murders a 25-year-old man with a knife should be given exactly the same punishment as a psychopath who murders a 25-year-old man with a knife?
Just because some have more motivation to commit a crime doesn't make what they did any less heinous.
59
« on: October 11, 2014, 10:01:24 AM »
No. It is irresponsible to provide resources without being able to secure them for their intended purpose. We should not be providing aid without military assistance.
I personally believe we need boots on the ground.
60
« on: October 11, 2014, 09:59:59 AM »
let them run loose without consequence just because they have a harder time controlling themselves.
Not holding them morally accountable doesn't mean there are no consequences for their actions.
Let me clarify: there should be no different consequences for the same actions.
|
Show Posts