Over 90% of us believe in God and half don't believe in . . .

PhilHartman

HR Heisman
Nov 21, 2005
9,957
2
36
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
Originally posted by PhilHartman:
Yes, and because of that logical conflict the Christian version (all Abrahamic versions) of god is inherrently, irrevocably flawed. Right to the core.

According to your flawed logic, that is. The truth is that there is no logical conflict, there is only ignorance on your part. However, ask the next logical question and I will enlighten you on it.


Whether you want to believe it or not, a "want" or "desire" is a sign of weakness because you cannot want what you already have. Sure, you can want to hold on to something you already have, but that's different. Even then, you must acknowledge that that thing could be taken away, otherwise the concept of wanting to keep it is irrelevent, since it couldn't be lost.

If something can be taken away from a god, or that god doesn't control everrything for even a mircosecond, that god is not omnipotent. That's the god you believe in. A flawed god.
 

PhilHartman

HR Heisman
Nov 21, 2005
9,957
2
36
Read closely. God wants humans to praise Him and submit to Him because that is exactly what the creation should do towards the Creator. It's what logic and justice demands.


That's the whole point hounded, your version of god is not God. Your god isn't the creator. It's just a flawed man-made explaination for God. It's NOT logical to praise a false god like you do.

If your god wants, requires, desires or needs anything from us in any way, then that is proof that your god is not omniporent. If it's not omnipotent, it's not God.

You've admitted that your god "wants" prayer from us but yet you still worship this flawed god knowing that. "By your own words you will be judged.".



This post was edited on 4/3 11:54 PM by PhilHartmanif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by PhilHartman:
Whether you want to believe it or not, a "want" or "desire" is a sign of weakness because you cannot want what you already have.
This is based on the false premise that not having something is a weakness. God does not want domination of our wills, but wants us to have free will. It is a strength.

Originally posted by PhilHartman:
Sure, you can want to hold on to something you already have, but that's different. Even then, you must acknowledge that that thing could be taken away, otherwise the concept of wanting to keep it is irrelevent, since it couldn't be lost.

If something can be taken away from a god, or that god doesn't control everrything for even a mircosecond, that god is not omnipotent. That's the god you believe in. A flawed god.

Just because He doesn't live up to your definition of omnipotence doesn't mean He is flawed. The point is that He could control everything IF He wanted to. He intentionally chooses not to because it is the just thing to do. This only makes Him better than an entity that would control everything. As I said, whatever angle you come from, there will be an honest & logical answer to demonstrate God's perfection.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by Scott Plate:
Hounded- Do you understand that god granting free will is in and of itself and act of determination?
Yes. It is a wonderful act of determination.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by PhilHartman:
Read closely. God wants humans to praise Him and submit to Him because that is exactly what the creation should do towards the Creator. It's what logic and justice demands.


That's the whole point hounded, your version of god is not God. Your god isn't the creator. It's just a flawed man-made explaination for God. It's NOT logical to praise a false god like you do.
Your statement is based on the false notion that my God is not the true God. Prove it and I will listen.

Originally posted by PhilHartman:
If your god wants, requires, desires or needs anything from us in any way, then that is proof that your god is not omniporent. If it's not omnipotent, it's not God.
My God does not need anything. Wanting some noble things is only a sign of His pure majesty.

Originally posted by PhilHartman:
You've admitted that your god "wants" prayer from us but yet you still worship this flawed god knowing that. "By your own words you will be judged.".


I am very thankful to be judged by this standard. I am very thankful my God wants prayers. It only proves He is a God of purpose and the wonderful Creator of the universe.
 

slyhawk

HR Heisman
Sep 30, 2001
5,626
0
36
Originally posted by Warrior20:

Originally posted by Rambam99:

Originally posted by Warrior20:


Originally posted by Rambam99:


Originally posted by Warrior20:
Where did God come from? Why did he only present himself to certain people? Did he forget about Native Americans and others?

Blasphemer.

Hey, it's only a few harmless questions. I was just hoping to hear an answer or two.

You gotta watch your words, dude.

They can condemn you. Harmless? Jesus doesn't think so.

If answers to those questions cannot be found, why wouldn't Jesus forgive a person for having doubts? Is an Indian supposed to trust the words of the people who hand them blankets infected with small pox?

Just to clarify, the Indians were never given blankets infected with small pox. Carry on God debate.
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
Just to clarify, the Indians were never given blankets infected with small pox.


Really? Could you provide some links?
 

slyhawk

HR Heisman
Sep 30, 2001
5,626
0
36
Originally posted by Rambam99:
Just to clarify, the Indians were never given blankets infected with small pox.


Really? Could you provide some links?

Sure. This myth mainly developed out of two stories, on involving Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado.

Please post your links where you read about these incidents.
 

CeMar_Clone

HR Legend
Jul 20, 2001
14,477
2,327
113
I used to believe that there was other life out there, but know I really doubt that there is. There is that formuala that predicts that there is a small % of planets that have life out there. Well in recent years, there have been additional variables that can be added to that equation that literally can reduce that formula to evn less then one planet in the entire universe (meaning we should not be here statisitaclly speaking). Sure there are billions of billions of stars, but what most people don't relalize is that most stars are in the so called death zones. If you look at most galaxies, they have central cores where the vast majority of the stars in that galaxy are. But in these cores, the stars are very close and the gamma radiation put off in these cores will fry EVERYTHING in those regions. On earth, our atmosphere protects us, but move the earth closer to the core of the Milkyway and even with an atmophere. all life on this planet would be fried by gamma radiation. The only reason we can exist is BECAUSE we are FAR from the galaxy center. So right off the bat, the vast majority of stars in the universe are in these core death zones, and have basically 0% probablity of life.
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
Originally posted by slyhawk:

Originally posted by Rambam99:
Just to clarify, the Indians were never given blankets infected with small pox.


Really? Could you provide some links?

Sure. This myth mainly developed out of two stories, on involving Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado.

Please post your links where you read about these incidents.

I don't think you realize that what you linked doesn't prove your claim.
The first link spreads doubt on whether the smallpox plan was actually carried out but does not say that it was not done. You have shown that one should be skeptical about these claims, not that they did not happen.
 

slyhawk

HR Heisman
Sep 30, 2001
5,626
0
36
Originally posted by Rambam99:

Originally posted by slyhawk:


Originally posted by Rambam99:
Just to clarify, the Indians were never given blankets infected with small pox.


Really? Could you provide some links?

Sure. This myth mainly developed out of two stories, on involving Ward Churchill of the University of Colorado.

Please post your links where you read about these incidents.

I don't think you realize that what you linked doesn't prove your claim.
The first link spreads doubt on whether the smallpox plan was actually carried out but does not say that it was not done. You have shown that one should be skeptical about these claims, not that they did not happen.

The first one gives some very plausible alternatives, and the second debunks quite thouroughly the other claim. So to come out and say that smallpox blankets were given to anyone is unverifiable.
 

dwghawk

HR Legend
Sep 3, 2003
10,294
0
36
If God exists and he did create everything. Why did he see fit to tell only a small group of people in the Mideast about it? I mean during the time the Old Testament was written, there were more people on earth that had never heard the creation story set forth in The Bible than people who had. You would think he would have let everybody in on it.
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
Do you see why these two statements are not the same, and why you have not proved your claim?

Just to clarify, the Indians were never given blankets infected with small pox.


vs.

So to come out and say that smallpox blankets were given to anyone is unverifiable.
 

slyhawk

HR Heisman
Sep 30, 2001
5,626
0
36
Originally posted by Rambam99:
Do you see why these two statements are not the same, and why you have not proved your claim?

Just to clarify, the Indians were never given blankets infected with small pox.


vs.

So to come out and say that smallpox blankets were given to anyone is unverifiable.


lol. Show me the clear evidence it happened, NPR. Til then, you got nothin'. I more than made my case.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by dwghawk:


If God exists and he did create everything. Why did he see fit to tell only a small group of people in the Mideast about it? I mean during the time the Old Testament was written, there were more people on earth that had never heard the creation story set forth in The Bible than people who had. You would think he would have let everybody in on it.
Originally, at the beginning, everybody did know. Many of these things God wanted was passed on down through the Patriarchs. But the core of what we need to know is based all around us and in us. According to the Bible, the Creation is proof enough that God exists and it declares only the fool has said in his heart there is no God. Also, within our code is the instinctive concept of treating other people the way you want treated. This is all that was necessary for people to be covered by the blood of Christ until His message hit that area.

And as far as the message making it places, it has been postulated there are more Bibles than all the other books of the planet combined, and the Bible is in more languages than any book in history. So it doesn't matter where it started, but where it eventually spread.

And as far as the Old Testament, there was no reason for others to know about it except for the Israelites. It was just a temporary covenant for a specific race to bring about the Christ for all mankind. The New Covenant when formed immediatley started spreading across the planet.
 

Rambam99

HR All-American
Sep 29, 2004
3,655
0
36
Originally posted by slyhawk:

Originally posted by Rambam99:
Do you see why these two statements are not the same, and why you have not proved your claim?

Just to clarify, the Indians were never given blankets infected with small pox.


vs.

So to come out and say that smallpox blankets were given to anyone is unverifiable.


lol. Show me the clear evidence it happened, NPR. Til then, you got nothin'. I more than made my case.

Sly, your lack of clarity in thought forces me to conclude you are operating under limited cognitive skills.

What one can say from your links is that one should be skeptical of the smallpox infected blanket claims and that there is no written record of this actually having been carried out. One cannot make the claim, however, that it was never done. We just don't know that. So sadly, you did not "make your case".

I question, based on past posts, whether you will even understand this.
 

fsu1jreed

HR Legend
Apr 1, 2002
47,861
4,373
113
Originally posted by CeMar_Clone:
I used to believe that there was other life out there, but know I really doubt that there is. There is that formuala that predicts that there is a small % of planets that have life out there. Well in recent years, there have been additional variables that can be added to that equation that literally can reduce that formula to evn less then one planet in the entire universe (meaning we should not be here statisitaclly speaking). Sure there are billions of billions of stars, but what most people don't relalize is that most stars are in the so called death zones. If you look at most galaxies, they have central cores where the vast majority of the stars in that galaxy are. But in these cores, the stars are very close and the gamma radiation put off in these cores will fry EVERYTHING in those regions. On earth, our atmosphere protects us, but move the earth closer to the core of the Milkyway and even with an atmophere. all life on this planet would be fried by gamma radiation. The only reason we can exist is BECAUSE we are FAR from the galaxy center. So right off the bat, the vast majority of stars in the universe are in these core death zones, and have basically 0% probablity of life.


You're making some assumptions there.

1. That all life is carbon based like here on Earth

2. That life need certain "stable" variables(eg, liquid water, sun as heat source, low radiation, etc.)

And that formula that you're referring to is the Drake equation and it's for Intelligent life, not just any form of life.

Drake equation
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
fsu,

Thanks for that link. I found this part interesting as to problems in the equation.

Earth (a single model planet), and contains anthropic bias, as the planet of study was not chosen randomly, but by the living organisms that already inhabit it (ourselves). (Whether this is actually a case of anthropic bias has been contested, however; it might rather merely be a limitation involving a critically small sample size, since it is argued that there is no bias involved in our asking these questions about life on Earth.) Also countering this argument is that there is no evidence for abiogenesis occurring more than once on the Earth—that is, all terrestrial life stems from a common origin. If abiogenesis were more common it would be speculated to have occurred more than once on the Earth.
As it states it's contested, and should be, whether abiogenesis actually has ever occurred. That equation is a hair away from calculating the chance at ZERO.

It's practicing science with a great deal of faith mixed in.
 

fsu1jreed

HR Legend
Apr 1, 2002
47,861
4,373
113
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
fsu,

Thanks for that link. I found this part interesting as to problems in the equation.

Earth (a single model planet), and contains anthropic bias, as the planet of study was not chosen randomly, but by the living organisms that already inhabit it (ourselves). (Whether this is actually a case of anthropic bias has been contested, however; it might rather merely be a limitation involving a critically small sample size, since it is argued that there is no bias involved in our asking these questions about life on Earth.) Also countering this argument is that there is no evidence for abiogenesis occurring more than once on the Earth—that is, all terrestrial life stems from a common origin. If abiogenesis were more common it would be speculated to have occurred more than once on the Earth.
As it states it's contested, and should be, whether abiogenesis actually has ever occurred. That equation is a hair away from calculating the chance at ZERO.

It's practicing science with a great deal of faith mixed in.



Valid point, but in that respect it points more to panspermia than abiogenesis. Add to that abiogenesis could have happened more than once, we just haven't found the fossil evidence for it yet.


And maybe it is "faith", but it's "faith" dealing with observable evidence and extrapolating, not blind faith as in dealing with some omnipotent being outside our universe.
 

iowahawkeyes1986

HR Legend
Jul 14, 2003
11,849
2
36
Originally posted by CeMar_Clone:
I used to believe that there was other life out there, but know I really doubt that there is. There is that formuala that predicts that there is a small % of planets that have life out there. Well in recent years, there have been additional variables that can be added to that equation that literally can reduce that formula to evn less then one planet in the entire universe (meaning we should not be here statisitaclly speaking). Sure there are billions of billions of stars, but what most people don't relalize is that most stars are in the so called death zones. If you look at most galaxies, they have central cores where the vast majority of the stars in that galaxy are. But in these cores, the stars are very close and the gamma radiation put off in these cores will fry EVERYTHING in those regions. On earth, our atmosphere protects us, but move the earth closer to the core of the Milkyway and even with an atmophere. all life on this planet would be fried by gamma radiation. The only reason we can exist is BECAUSE we are FAR from the galaxy center. So right off the bat, the vast majority of stars in the universe are in these core death zones, and have basically 0% probablity of life.
\

You're speaking of the Drake Equation and no there isn't any "new" variable that has reduced the chances of there being life out there. Planets do not have to be close to the parent star to support life, they just need an energy source and Jovian planets provide that with tidal forces(See Europa and its liquid oceans beneath the ice layer). You are correct that there are areas where life probably won't arise and in the cores of each galaxy, but we ourselves are only 26,000 light years away from that core, that galaxy is 100,000 light years across. There are hundreds of billions of stars in this galaxy which are located far enough away from the core. Beyond that, there are billions and billions of galaxies in the universe. While a majority of stars are in the core(very dense in there) there are plenty outside of it. Most of the stars we have studied for planets shows that planets, even in a conservative estimates, should exists around atleast 50%+ of the stars(more likely to be higher than that), and then you add on to the fact that stars can have many planets, and the chances of life improve.

The drake equation, even when used conservatively, still shows there should be atleast 10 other advanced civilizations in the milkway. Now 10 in 300 billion stars is like trying to find a needle in a hay stack. So it is not surprising that we, only having this technology for 50 years, haven't really begun the search. Also, remember, the equation is only counting 1 galaxy, there are hundreds of billions of galaxies.

Also, it is imporant to know that our magnetic field and our distance from the core doesn't shield us from these issues. If a star close to us goes supernova, we will be fried, and we won't know it went supernova until the Earth starts to fry. Beyond that, we are, even under a magnetic field, constantly bombarded by cosmic rays, which as a nice coincidence, also can cause genetic mutations and perhaps led to our evolutionary changes.
This post was edited on 4/4 1:08 PM by iowahawkeyes1986if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by fsu1jreed:
And maybe it is "faith", but it's "faith" dealing with observable evidence and extrapolating, not blind faith as in dealing with some omnipotent being outside our universe.
Actually, faith that there is a God, and even biblical faith is commanded as to be from evidence. "Blind faith" is something I never want to participate in.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by castichawk24:

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

it has been postulated there are more Bibles than all the other books of the planet combined


/images/smilies/roll.gif
Don't laugh too hard. Last year alone it is estimated over 160 million bibles/testaments were produced.

One study I saw said that 1.8 billion pieces of Scripture were reproduced in some way each year.

Regardless, of the actual numbers it is the best selling book of all time.
This post was edited on 4/4 3:18 PM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

fsu1jreed

HR Legend
Apr 1, 2002
47,861
4,373
113
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
Actually, faith that there is a God, and even biblical faith is commanded as to be from evidence. "Blind faith" is something I never want to participate in.


Other than a book, what evidence do you have?
 

hawkeyekid

HR Legend
Dec 2, 2001
12,613
2,732
113
In this poll, did it happen to answer how well the cologne Sex Panther works.

I'm thinking about buying it but I want data to back it up.
 

P Shiver

HR MVP
Feb 19, 2007
1,429
0
36
Originally posted by fsu1jreed:

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Actually, faith that there is a God, and even biblical faith is commanded as to be from evidence. "Blind faith" is something I never want to participate in.


Other than a book, what evidence do you have?

Didn't the Council of Nicaea make up something?
This post was edited on 4/4 3:51 PM by P Shiverif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}
 

castichawk24

HR Heisman
Mar 14, 2006
9,781
88
48
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
Originally posted by castichawk24:



Originally posted by HoundedHawk:



it has been postulated there are more Bibles than all the other books of the planet combined





/images/smilies/roll.gif
Don't laugh too hard. Last year alone it is estimated over 160 million bibles/testaments were produced.

One study I saw said that 1.8 billion pieces of Scripture were reproduced in some way each year.

Regardless, of the actual numbers it is the best selling book of all time.
This post was edited on 4/4 3:18 PM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}

how many other books were 'estimated' produced? i bet it is a heck of a lot more than 160 million.

your 'postulation' that there are more bibles than all other books combined is absurd, at best.

i never said it wasn't the best selling book of all time. that's great. doesn't mean there are more bibles than any other books combined.
 

ThadHawk

HR All-American
Aug 19, 2002
3,687
0
36
Originally posted by castichawk24:

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by castichawk24:






Originally posted by HoundedHawk:






it has been postulated there are more Bibles than all the other books of the planet combined







/images/smilies/roll.gif
Don't laugh too hard. Last year alone it is estimated over 160 million bibles/testaments were produced.

One study I saw said that 1.8 billion pieces of Scripture were reproduced in some way each year.

Regardless, of the actual numbers it is the best selling book of all time.

This post was edited on 4/4 3:18 PM by HoundedHawk
if(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}

how many other books were 'estimated' produced? i bet it is a heck of a lot more than 160 million.

your 'postulation' that there are more bibles than all other books combined is absurd, at best.

i never said it wasn't the best selling book of all time. that's great. doesn't mean there are more bibles than any other books combined.

Hounded has run as many tests as he could possibly muster, and he's not finding any proof that there are more "other" books than the bible. You forget, he's a skeptic by nature.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by fsu1jreed:

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Actually, faith that there is a God, and even biblical faith is commanded as to be from evidence. "Blind faith" is something I never want to participate in.


Other than a book, what evidence do you have?
First, the book gives scores of evidence.

Second, there are numerous logical arguments for God's existence, which have been used by famous scientists over the centuries.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by castichawk24:
your 'postulation' that there are more bibles than all other books combined is absurd, at best.

i never said it wasn't the best selling book of all time. that's great. doesn't mean there are more bibles than any other books combined.
It wasn't my postulation. I said it had been postulated. And I've heard it numerous times. Regardless, the original point was concerning the availability of Scripture. It's more available than anything else.
 

castichawk24

HR Heisman
Mar 14, 2006
9,781
88
48
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
Originally posted by castichawk24:
your 'postulation' that there are more bibles than all other books combined is absurd, at best.

i never said it wasn't the best selling book of all time. that's great. doesn't mean there are more bibles than any other books combined.
It wasn't my postulation. I said it had been postulated. And I've heard it numerous times. Regardless, the original point was concerning the availability of Scripture. It's more available than anything else.

the fact that you believe that 'postulation' explains perfectly why you believe in your made up god, and are getting owned in this thread.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by castichawk24:
the fact that you believe that 'postulation' explains perfectly why you believe in your made up god, and are getting owned in this thread.
As I've said, I'm not sure about the postulation.

But one thing I am sure of. I know I haven't in the slightest been owned in this thread. Not even close.
 

PhilHartman

HR Heisman
Nov 21, 2005
9,957
2
36
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:
Originally posted by castichawk24:
the fact that you believe that 'postulation' explains perfectly why you believe in your made up god, and are getting owned in this thread.
As I've said, I'm not sure about the postulation.

But one thing I am sure of. I know I haven't in the slightest been owned in this thread. Not even close.

You've most definitly been "owned" in this thread numerous times.

You've admitted that your god is lacking in certain aspects, that it want's prayers from us. You can try to change the meaning of the word "want" all you want(no pun intended), but it won't cahnge the fact that your concept of god is not omnipotent.


Your statement is based on the false notion that my God is not the true God. Prove it and I will listen.

Originally posted by PhilHartman:
If your god wants, requires, desires or needs anything from us in any way, then that is proof that your god is not omniporent. If it's not omnipotent, it's not God.


My God does not need anything. Wanting some noble things is only a sign of His pure majesty.



LOL, what does the concept of "majesty" mean to an all knowing, all powerful being? The fact that it CAN want anything proves it's not omnipotent. Remember the definition of "want".

want (wnt, wônt)
v. want·ed, want·ing, wants
v.tr.


- have need of; "This piano wants the attention of a competent tuner"
- lack: the state of needing something that is absent or unavailable;
- hunt or look for; want for a particular reason; "Your former neighbor is wanted by the FBI"; "Uncle Sam wants you"
- need: anything that is necessary but lacking; "he had sufficient means to meet his simple needs"; "I tried to supply his wants"
- wish: a specific feeling of desire; "he got his wish"; "he was above all wishing and desire"
- be without, lack; be deficient in; "want courtesy"; "want the strength to go on living"; "flood victims wanting food and shelter"


Your concecpt of god is "wanting".
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by PhilHartman:
You've most definitly been "owned" in this thread numerous times.
Yeah, "definitly" (sic). LOL - You can't even spell it, let alone pronounce it.

Originally posted by PhilHartman:


You've admitted that your god is lacking in certain aspects, that it want's prayers from us. You can try to change the meaning of the word "want" all you want(no pun intended), but it won't cahnge the fact that your concept of god is not omnipotent.
I have not admitted my God is lacking in any area. You are a liar.

And it appears about the whole world understands the difference between a "need" and a "want" except you.

Originally posted by PhilHartman:
LOL, what does the concept of "majesty" mean to an all knowing, all powerful being? The fact that it CAN want anything proves it's not omnipotent. Remember the definition of "want".
"Majesty" means what it means. It is an impressive dignity and royal power. He has it all.

The very definitions you give back up what I'm saying. Words have variable meaning and I've plainly explained it. You need to learn the definition before you ask somebody else to remember it.

My God does have a want. It is a noun that means (1) a desire for something, or (2) a lack or deficiency.

There's a choice, as is very normal with English words. My God has wants, that is, a desire for something, but He has no deficiency. He needs nothing.

Now go away and bore somebody else. You're the one on here who has a true deficiency, a terrible wanting.

Daniel 5:27 - You have been weighed in the scales and found wanting.
 

slyhawk

HR Heisman
Sep 30, 2001
5,626
0
36
Sly, your lack of clarity in thought forces me to conclude you are operating under limited cognitive skills.

What one can say from your links is that one should be skeptical of the smallpox infected blanket claims and that there is no written record of this actually having been carried out. One cannot make the claim, however, that it was never done. We just don't know that. So sadly, you did not "make your case".

I question, based on past posts, whether you will even understand this.


lol. So, we have no written record that it was ever done, but we still don't know that it wasn't? Am I following your reasoning close enough?
 

overeasy

HR Legend
Gold Member
Jan 28, 2004
15,558
4,022
113
Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Originally posted by fsu1jreed:
And maybe it is "faith", but it's "faith" dealing with observable evidence and extrapolating, not blind faith as in dealing with some omnipotent being outside our universe.
Actually, faith that there is a God, and even biblical faith is commanded as to be from evidence. "Blind faith" is something I never want to participate in.

John 20: 24-26: Jesus saith unto him, "Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed. / Blessed are they that have not seen / and yet believeth."

My faith in God is not limited by evidence.
 

HoundedHawk

HR Legend
Oct 2, 2001
20,350
3,561
113
Originally posted by fsu1jreed:

Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

First, the book gives scores of evidence.

List some please.


Originally posted by HoundedHawk:

Second, there are numerous logical arguments for God's existence, which have been used by famous scientists over the centuries.

Really? List some. Please, list some. I can't wait to read this.
I already alluded to one in this very thread, from the father of thermodynamics.

All these believed in a creator and are basically founders of modern science: Copernicus, Kepler, Faraday, Galileo, Maxwell, Newton, Boyle, Pascal and Nicolas Steno. It's not like these people had no logic. They had their reasons, whether teleological, cosmological, ontological, etc.
This post was edited on 4/5 10:28 AM by HoundedHawkif(GetAdminCookie() != 0) {document.write(' (Revisions[/URL])');}