The Religion Discussion

[bluesclues]

Again... back to the original question York...

How do you know that the "book and narrations" from your prophet are true?

faith is belief in the unseen but you can test the book and narrations.

i asked habit to say which prophesies of muhammad were not fulfilled, that's the one thing he did not respond to. Now i'm not silly or gullible like most christians (whatever the pastor say the verse means well dais it)...

I encourage u to read the Quran and a sample of the tafsir / explanation as well as the hadith / narrations with detailed explanations. If u do this, you will see the extent of detail and precision that is contained in the religion of Islam. It's nothing like the loose, vague interpretations according to whims and fancies of others. I'll just leave it at that.

yes but this also differs among the various muslim factions. just as it does in christianity. at least in the catholic church, a priest will convene with vatican sources for an explanation, or if he offers something unacceptable to his congregation could be called to adjust or reinterpret his teaching. but there is no control over all factions and their inspiration to rise forward. some muslim factions complete regard jihad as an inner struggle, while another faction will insist that the metaphor also translates to external struggle, another will equate struggle with fighting, another will equate fighting with war instead of debate or dispute. and then it all goes to hell.

so maybe we will see why unifcation under agreement of all that is good is best for everyone.

[Slartibartfast]

Again... back to the original question York...

How do you know that the "book and narrations" from your prophet are true?

faith is belief in the unseen but you can test the book and narrations.

i asked habit to say which prophesies of muhammad were not fulfilled, that's the one thing he did not respond to. Now i'm not silly or gullible like most christians (whatever the pastor say the verse means well dais it)...

I encourage u to read the Quran and a sample of the tafsir / explanation as well as the hadith / narrations with detailed explanations. If u do this, you will see the extent of detail and precision that is contained in the religion of Islam. It's nothing like the loose, vague interpretations according to whims and fancies of others. I'll just leave it at that.

Faith is pride in being gullible.

So if someone were to prove one prophecy that didn't come true or that could be interpreted otherwise then you will agree that Islam is false?

There are areas (as Habit pointed out) where the Quran and/or Muhammed were clearly wrong. Is you faith strong enough to go against/ignore the truth?

Edit: York, give me a link to the list of the prophecies foretold in the quran. Are the writings on this site in line with yours

https://www.alislam.org/library/article ... ecies.html

If so I can reply to these.

[bluesclues]

try it without redefining the dictionary meaning of the words being used lol. i am sure that that is not the definition of faith.

faith is still what a scientist uses to perform an experiment. he must have some measure of faith that the experiment will be successful. but all before the actual successful result he is having pride in his own gullibility? lol

[Slartibartfast]

try it without redefining the dictionary meaning of the words being used lol. i am sure that that is not the definition of faith.

faith is still what a scientist uses to perform an experiment. he must have some measure of faith that the experiment will be successful. but all before the actual successful result he is having pride in his own gullibility? lol

Faith

noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence; More
2.
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

I meant faith in this context
i.e. "Faith without reason/proof"
Happy?

Scientists have reason to have faith. They don't just start an experiment willy nilly. But anyway, I'm getting to your post now.

[Slartibartfast]

Sigh... Ok I'll see how far I can make it before I give up.

what you think is not much different from what alot of ppl think. why dont you google 'where does marriage come from'. or 'who performed the first marriage'. theres a reason for everything.

http://bfy.tw/3Jky From the very first link.

The best available evidence suggests that it’s about 4,350 years old. ... As hunter-gatherers settled down into agrarian civilizations, society had a need for more stable arrangements. The first recorded evidence of marriage ceremonies uniting one woman and one man dates from about 2350 B.C., in Mesopotamia. Over the next several hundred years, marriage evolved into a widespread institution embraced by the ancient Hebrews, Greeks, and Romans. But back then, marriage had little to do with love or with religion.

Right, so you disproved your own point.

my point is to state definitively that marriage is a creation of the church, disproved by youwas performed by the church and is still performed by the church. u asked me if that is what i was stating and to that i say. yes. that is what i am stating. even down to the ring, is a symbol so much i can tell u. the ring u place on ur wife's ring finger is no ordinary ring, it is circular, without beginning or end, it is complete. see the drift?I'm guessing you are going to tell me that the church invented rings now? Have you ever tried wearing a ring of any other shape on your hand. Triangular, Square, oblong. Rings are round because that is the closest approximation to the shape of the cross section of your finger. furthermore, the ringfinger. do u know why the ring is placed on THAT finger and no other?Having a ring can impede mobility of a finger. The ring finger and the little finger are the least used. But this ring finger is bigger, stronger and more noticeable. because, in that particular finger of the left hand, runs an vein called vena amoris(latin for vein of love) which runs and connects directly to the heart.A vein.... that connects... directly to the heart you say... that is why the ring finger was chosen so they placed a symbol of completeness on a finger that connects to the symbol of love on 2 people to symbolize the unification that is found in achieving oneness with God. i tell u the things i say not even the pope will refute.The pope is infinite in his kindness towards you.

the practice may predate the church but not with such detail of explanation and reason.So the church didn't invent marriage? previously, unions were formed for the primary purpose of propogation of species. u cannot expect polygamy to remain moral in an overpopulated world. but it can be moral in an underpopulated one.Don't confuse taboo and moral now.

u say, we didnt need God to figure all these things out. then why is it our ancestors say God told them so,Lack of knowledge and understanding of the universe. They also thought the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth and you trying to test it thousands of years later still find it to be right. if by right you mean "wrong"... then yes tell me which of man's philosophies have been so attributed without the contributor giving glory to God? all of man's contributions change with time. because their philosophies are prone to error and imperfection and mostly, the inability to adapt and evolve.You mean religion. Science by definition adapts and evolves. i see a stark difference in the things that come from God and the things that come from man. and quite frankly, any one man's philosophy can never be complete or perfect.Religion came from man and you find that perfect which is why i say, atheists are philosophers with disjoint philosophies. theres really nothing respectable about that if u cant even agree on the sensible parts of your philosophical contribution. how then do u expect the world to find peace if everyone were to adopt an atheist way of life? i guess, just let the serial killer roam free and pick u off like lions pick off which deer in the herd to attack. and do nothing. Dude, it's Wednesday. Atheists busy robbing river limers today. But I see what you mean. The recent atheist terror attacks in the name of atheism are getting out of hand.

so there i hope u can see my point now.Yes... you are clearly mad u say man can do it allll by himself.Not can... did i say, everytime man does it by himself it gets him in trouble because marx/stalin.You say a lot of sh!t only guidance that truly came from a spiritual source is pure and perfect in interpretation.... and who is interpreting it? Man or God? man keeps trying to immitate prophets but i tell u it just cannot be done. the wisdom of the spirit far supercedes the singular thoughts of man. for ever action in the spirit is seen the full butterfly effect in completeness. a man, a normal man, just cannot measure.

and so, today a man's philosophy may seem to work, but tomorrow he's killing millions because they dont agree with his philosophy.Like religion and something inside everyone tells them, his philosophy must be wrong if so much of us disagree and failed to achieve the promise set by his philosophy.juuuuust like religion

but the things of God, and of law, beginning with the 10 commandments. they are timelessly beneficial and benevolent to the development of the human race.

now, which man invented the 10 commandments? is at least one of us father did. and if he did why would he say God told him so? just to confuse us??Because primitive people are more likely to listen to a "God" that a man. You are a prime example of this.

Blues, I think you in a bad state if you start an argument by disproving yourself.

[bluesclues]

try it without redefining the dictionary meaning of the words being used lol. i am sure that that is not the definition of faith.

faith is still what a scientist uses to perform an experiment. he must have some measure of faith that the experiment will be successful. but all before the actual successful result he is having pride in his own gullibility? lol

Faith

noun
1.
complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction, credence, reliance, dependence; More
2.
strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof.

I meant faith in this context
i.e. "Faith without reason/proof"
Happy?

Scientists have reason to have faith. They don't just start an experiment willy nilly. But anyway, I'm getting to your post now.

if we stick with english, though there may not be the most apparent evidence. there surely is a reason. and the reason exposes us to evidence little by little. it also depends on our ability to notice, the evidence.

in case u forgot, scientific experiments begin with a theory, a hypothesis and then the means to test the hypothesis is devised. when that is done, the experiment is documented and it's results logged.

we are waaay past that with religion. we are into peer review now. the experiment has been done numerous times before and reported. the fruit was tested and found to be good. hence the teachings were passed down for thousands of years. now is the time where we supposed to read up on that experiment and perform it ourselves. not talk about argroo about. do it! and thats what most ppl not doing. they may read, but the dont practice. they hop from verse to verse out of context missing completely the order of instruction of the experiment. its not the experiment or the original scientist fault if those who come to peer review dont do what was stated.

u know chemistry right? if an experiment says 1:1 ratio and u add 2millileter for every gram of salt and ur salt crystals come out chinky chinky, who fault is that? if u watch the experiment and find it too tedious and go play football. who fault is that? in fact anything u do other than the exact experiment before u talk means ur speaking from a position of ignorance. so what kind of peer review did u do? walk in class, watch the hypothesis, say that waste of time and walk out without performing the experiment. of course to you there is no evidence because u have to do the experiment to get the result and the result is evidence. ... ... does that sound logical?

so sure u dont recognize what others cast as evidence. and u may not see the logic in their reasoning. however, not being able to see the logic doesnt mean there is none. consider the possibility that u may not be able to see all logical things even though they are there. consider that you may not have the highest logical thinking factor in the world and thus there are things u simply do not know or cannot reason. and maybe also consider stop calling everyone stupid for having faith in something just because u cant logicize it but they do.

[bluesclues]

well the source needs some help. obviously, 4500 years ago in mesopotamia we are dealing with ancient babylonians and sumerians. look in the bible, who was their God? who was instructing them even there? even there there were Gods. and that article can state what it wants, but it is obvious, that marriage is religiously designed. the mesopotamians were not atheists! even in that ancient culture the teaching of spirituality and unification existed. i can even interpret it from archaeological findings for u. i mean all those clay mouldings representing fertility stood for something. dating way back. this first introduction of the mystics. and well thats what i mean by the church btw. spiritual teachers, from the beginning of time are the source of the teaching of marriage. it did not come from an atheist.

so no i did not disprove anything nor did that article. the article has very little if any cohesion between mysticism and the source of marriage in ancient cultures. as i pointed out. with respect to the bible, it began with eve possessing one of adam's ribs and the only way for him to be whole would be to unify with her. as long as u dont think that means the two of them sat in a pot until they melted together and then hardened as one. we might be able to get somewhere. there is still a reason why u chose that link over the wikipedia link just 2 links down eh?

so who is the church? the church began with the first prophet and his story and every prophet after up to the formation of the catholic church after the coming of christ, who instituted democracy and performed the only official marriage ceremonies for that denomination. there are jp's now but if u look closely, u will see that marriage is authored by the religious groups. each having their own ceremony which throughout gives glory to God through ritual and symbol. the ceremony is carefully designed u know? its not just a get together. special songs are sung. special arrangements of persons are made. things like bride family on one side groom family on the other and then when they get married both sets of pews intermix and move between eachother. them ting is symbol boy. to symbolise the unification aspect but it is not of just man and woman but of God. because that is what the religion about in the first place. it about God. marriage ceremonies is a byproduct. the marriage ceremony itself is more about God than the people getting married. seriously.

[Habit7]

^^^why being a sceptic of all religions would automatically make me arrive at atheism? Won't I be just as sceptical of atheism too?

you still don't understand what atheism is don't ya

Well whether it is the scholastic philosophical definition of atheism of there being no God or the internet level debate of a lack of faith in God, it is still subject to scepticism. If an ideology is above scepticism that is 'blind faith' land.

i asked habit to say which prophesies of muhammad were not fulfilled, that's the one thing he did not respond to.

So to say that these books were corrupted and the original no longer exists would make Muhammad a false prophet because he said nobody can change Allah's word.
To say that they not corrupted would make him a false prophet since they dont corroborate his message.

Either way he is false prophet. And if you hold him to the Deuteronomy 18:18 standard, Deuteronomy 18:20-22 identifies him as a false prophet because he recites the Satanic Verses. This is just another example of the Torah not corroborating him.

Lol. Habit, that video makes some unwarranted leaps of faith and still doesn't get away from the circular reasoning of "God being the answer because God is the answer".

Now let's assume the 1st and 3rd premises are true. The universe exists and everything that exists must have an explanation. i.e. The universe must have an explanation. This seem both true and logical.

You will see that this proves the first part of the second premise

Second Premise
If the universe has an explanation of its existence [the other premises show that the universe must have an explanation]. That explanation is God <---- Why is this part of the premise. Why must it be God?

Therefore the conclusion "The explanation of the Universe is God" is only reached because of he premise "The explanation is God". See the Circular reasoning.


Now in addition to his circular logic he assumes the following two premises without any explanation why.
1. God exists necessarily
2. God is not abstract

Therefore, to prove his conclusion true he needs to prove those two premises.

Edit: He still never tackled why the existence of God doesn't need an explanation. And no "God existing necessarily" is not an explanation. Numbers exist necessarily but they exist as a means of quantification.

It would appear that you didnt watch anything past the fourth minute. You are not interacting with much said thereafter and you are asking questions he addressed. You are claiming his argument is circular but where is the circle? Leibniz is one of the most prominent philosophers and accusing him of committing a logical fallacy of circular reasoning is a tall task, so try harder.

[bluesclues]

u see all what u have in red in your post. is YOUR REASONING. now while i dont denounce your reasoning as it could fall into a logical possibility. i can say from my pov ur assessment is not only wrong, but biased and a bit pointed.

u say that he said God did it because primitive ppl would easier believe that. umm ok, where is your evidence to that reasoning? i can say that there is evidence however that that reasoning does not apply, since, the first time that happened.. noone listened and all drowned in the flood because they didnt listen and take time to build a boat. they had years of noah saying.. flood coming God say, build a boat.

they too laugh. called him a madman and of course.. didnt build no boat.

[Slartibartfast]

Nice appeal to authority Habit. Does this mean that you think I am a greater philosopher than him now? I'm flattered.

Lol. Habit, that video makes some unwarranted leaps of faith and still doesn't get away from the circular reasoning of "God being the answer because God is the answer".

Now let's assume the 1st and 3rd premises are true. The universe exists and everything that exists must have an explanation. i.e. The universe must have an explanation. This seem both true and logical.

You will see that this proves the first part of the second premise

Second Premise
If the universe has an explanation of its existence [the other premises show that the universe must have an explanation]. That explanation is God <---- Why is this part of the premise. Why must it be God?

Therefore the conclusion "The explanation of the Universe is God" is only reached because of he premise "The explanation is God". See the Circular reasoning.


Now in addition to his circular logic he assumes the following two premises without any explanation why.
1. God exists necessarily
2. God is not abstract

Therefore, to prove his conclusion true he needs to prove those two premises.

Edit: He still never tackled why the existence of God doesn't need an explanation. And no "God existing necessarily" is not an explanation. Numbers exist necessarily but they exist as a means of quantification.

It would appear that you didnt watch anything past the fourth minute. You are not interacting with much said thereafter and you are asking questions he addressed. You are claiming his argument is circular but where is the circle? Leibniz is one of the most prominent philosophers and accusing him of committing a logical fallacy of circular reasoning is a tall task, so try harder.

I guess looks can be deceiving.
4:00-4:10 - The second premise is stated and it's accuracy questioned
4:10-4:30 - States that what created the Universe must exist necessarily and cannot be of the universe
4:30-4:40 - States that only two things fit this criteria; 1. God and 2. Abstract Objects.
This is precisely what I was "interacting" with when I stated

Now in addition to his circular logic he assumes the following two premises without any explanation why.
1. God exists necessarily
2. God is not abstract

Therefore, to prove his conclusion true he needs to prove those two premises.

4:40-5:07 - States the conclusion/ 2nd premise
5:08-5:14 - Credits

[Slartibartfast]

u see all what u have in red in your post. is YOUR REASONING. now while i dont denounce your reasoning as it could fall into a logical possibility. i can say from my pov ur assessment is not only wrong, but biased and a bit pointed.

u say that he said God did it because primitive ppl would easier believe that. umm ok, where is your evidence to that reasoning? i can say that there is evidence however that that reasoning does not apply, since, the first time that happened.. noone listened and all drowned in the flood because they didnt listen and take time to build a boat. they had years of noah saying.. flood coming God say, build a boat.

they too laugh. called him a madman and of course.. didn't build no boat.

1. I said "easier believe" not "definitely believe". How many virgin births do you believe in? How many of them don't include divine conception? See my reasoning now?
2. You cannot quote a fictional source to backup your argument.... Noah... really...
3. Is having your arguments disproved a fetish of yours or something? Now, I'm not against it but at least have the common courtesy to give me the chance to consent before we get involved like this.

Blues, I don't know where you are getting your information from. I seems like you just make up sh!t as you go along. All of your arguments so far have been poorly backed up, logically flawed or just plain retarded and I'm getting tired. If you want to get started on your path to sanity you can re-read everything I wrote so far.... a couple times... then a few more.

[bluesclues]

u see all what u have in red in your post. is YOUR REASONING. now while i dont denounce your reasoning as it could fall into a logical possibility. i can say from my pov ur assessment is not only wrong, but biased and a bit pointed.

u say that he said God did it because primitive ppl would easier believe that. umm ok, where is your evidence to that reasoning? i can say that there is evidence however that that reasoning does not apply, since, the first time that happened.. noone listened and all drowned in the flood because they didnt listen and take time to build a boat. they had years of noah saying.. flood coming God say, build a boat.

they too laugh. called him a madman and of course.. didn't build no boat.

1. I said "easier believe" not "definitely believe". How many virgin births do you believe in? How many of them don't include divine conception? See my reasoning now?
2. You cannot quote a fictional source to backup your argument.... Noah... really...
3. Is having your arguments disproved a fetish of yours or something? Now, I'm not against it but at least have the common courtesy to give me the chance to consent before we get involved like this.

Blues, I don't know where you are getting your information from. I seems like you just make up sh!t as you go along. All of your arguments so far have been poorly backed up, logically flawed or just plain retarded and I'm getting tired. If you want to get started on your path to sanity you can re-read everything I wrote so far.... a couple times... then a few more.

im sorry but fictional or not. these stories are what the entire world's societies are based on today! you going to deny that? isnt the muslim caliphate countries believing in the story of noah? entire countries have formed out of this. before christianity it was the old testament.

you actually are jumping around at various points in my argument to throw it off topic and then talk stupidness. havent i made my point excessively clear? that you by yourself are not a sufficient source of morality. and that the morality you devise in your mind is not necessarily fair or even moral from an external point of view. hence you would be a tyrrant. where your vote overules that of the entire population at your whim and fancy. and to make it excessively excessively clear. the bible and most religious instruction are geared towards a focus of the good things we can learn from them. not to criticize from a literary point of view. that is much too basal for the profundity which religion aims to address. and u are thinking basal, so ur philosophy will be basal and thus ur an atheist. like i said before. ur level of logic is the level of reasoning u can process. some people just mistakenly attribute to them selves more reasoning capability than they are truly capable of. and judge things in a way they shouldnt be judged yet attribute themselves some discovery.

next time u watching an action movie and your favourite star dies go buy a gun and shoot the producer. you know how to write the movie better.

[Habit7]

Now in addition to his circular logic he assumes the following two premises without any explanation why.
1. God exists necessarily
2. God is not abstract

1. 3:30-4:40
2. He never said God is not abstract. He said He is not an abstract object, which is a philosophical term. Abstract objects are not materially causal agents.

Where is the circular logic?

[rspann]

Blues clues,when the couple agrees to swing,no one is hurt you say.however this pact of marriage was made before God with God as the witness and the promise starts of with the premise of being blessed by God.how do you resolve their actions from that perspective?

[nareshseep]

12246684_10153039210146511_1325548595795389312_n.jpg (15.1 KiB) Viewed 2782 times

[Habit7]

[Slartibartfast]

Now in addition to his circular logic he assumes the following two premises without any explanation why.
1. God exists necessarily
2. God is not abstract

1. 3:30-4:40
2. He never said God is not abstract. He said He is not an abstract object, which is a philosophical term. Abstract objects are not materially causal agents.

Where is the circular logic?

LMAO! Is that really your argument? Fine, go ahead and change number 2 to
"God is not an abstract object"

He assumes God is not an abstract object yet he offers no reason for the assumption.

The circular logic was highlighted in the earlier part of my post.

[Slartibartfast]

Lol. Habit, that video makes some unwarranted leaps of faith and still doesn't get away from the circular reasoning of "God being the answer because God is the answer".

Now let's assume the 1st and 3rd premises are true. The universe exists and everything that exists must have an explanation. i.e. The universe must have an explanation. This seem both true and logical.

You will see that this proves the first part of the second premise

Second Premise
If the universe has an explanation of its existence [the other premises show that the universe must have an explanation]. That explanation is God <---- Why is this part of the premise. Why must it be God?

Therefore the conclusion "The explanation of the Universe is God" is only reached because of he premise "The explanation is God". See the Circular reasoning.


Now in addition to his circular logic he assumes the following two premises without any explanation why.
1. God exists necessarily
2. God is not abstract

Therefore, to prove his conclusion true he needs to prove those two premises.

Edit: He still never tackled why the existence of God doesn't need an explanation. And no "God existing necessarily" is not an explanation. Numbers exist necessarily but they exist as a means of quantification.

Here you go Habit. See the circular reasoning?

[Slartibartfast]

u see all what u have in red in your post. is YOUR REASONING. now while i dont denounce your reasoning as it could fall into a logical possibility. i can say from my pov ur assessment is not only wrong, but biased and a bit pointed.

u say that he said God did it because primitive ppl would easier believe that. umm ok, where is your evidence to that reasoning? i can say that there is evidence however that that reasoning does not apply, since, the first time that happened.. noone listened and all drowned in the flood because they didnt listen and take time to build a boat. they had years of noah saying.. flood coming God say, build a boat.

they too laugh. called him a madman and of course.. didn't build no boat.

1. I said "easier believe" not "definitely believe". How many virgin births do you believe in? How many of them don't include divine conception? See my reasoning now?
2. You cannot quote a fictional source to backup your argument.... Noah... really...
3. Is having your arguments disproved a fetish of yours or something? Now, I'm not against it but at least have the common courtesy to give me the chance to consent before we get involved like this.

Blues, I don't know where you are getting your information from. I seems like you just make up sh!t as you go along. All of your arguments so far have been poorly backed up, logically flawed or just plain retarded and I'm getting tired. If you want to get started on your path to sanity you can re-read everything I wrote so far.... a couple times... then a few more.

im sorry but fictional or not. these stories are what the entire world's societies are based on today! you going to deny that? isnt the muslim caliphate countries believing in the story of noah? entire countries have formed out of this. before christianity it was the old testament.

you actually are jumping around at various points in my argument to throw it off topic and then talk stupidness. havent i made my point excessively clear? that you by yourself are not a sufficient source of morality. and that the morality you devise in your mind is not necessarily fair or even moral from an external point of view. hence you would be a tyrrant. where your vote overules that of the entire population at your whim and fancy. and to make it excessively excessively clear. the bible and most religious instruction are geared towards a focus of the good things we can learn from them. not to criticize from a literary point of view. that is much too basal for the profundity which religion aims to address. and u are thinking basal, so ur philosophy will be basal and thus ur an atheist. like i said before. ur level of logic is the level of reasoning u can process. some people just mistakenly attribute to them selves more reasoning capability than they are truly capable of. and judge things in a way they shouldnt be judged yet attribute themselves some discovery.

next time u watching an action movie and your favourite star dies go buy a gun and shoot the producer. you know how to write the movie better.

Lol... whut?!

[bluesclues]

Blues clues,when the couple agrees to swing,no one is hurt you say.however this pact of marriage was made before God with God as the witness and the promise starts of with the premise of being blessed by God.how do you resolve their actions from that perspective?

again this whole marriage thing is about symbolism, and representing your faith. though holding rigid to a symbol is important for spreading the message. our choices and the way we actually live with eachother in daily practice is more important. our ability to compromise. our ability to forgive and empathize etc.

remember when it was ok to stone your wife for adultery? this was a law that a previous prophet had allowed into the lawbooks. he did so in all wisdom, because the men of the time simply could not tolerate the idea of NOT PUNISHING for betrayal or dishonour or what have you. fatal punishment. it was from a time the men hearts were tuned to that it could not come out. then jesus came and he said to spare the adulterer, because we all sin. he did not contradict the prophet, he explained simply that it was always part of God's plan for us to learn to forgive but before then, they werent ready("their hearts were too hardened). then they allowed a man to divorce his wife if she was adulterous, and that was the only condition which he was allowed to divorce her. and then it was known once a couple was married the thought of divorce could not be entertained, and the church used to tell women to go back home to their abusive husbands and seek counselling etc. until the church was forced to recognize that their ideals do not fit perfectly into this world. and christian churches started to allow divorce. some still dont allow it in their church. because that symbolic union is meant to be permanent and forever. what it really symbolizes is that when God completes us, he doesnt take it away. hence this is why even though Ham and David sinned after achieving prophethood. their prophethood was not taken away because God's blessing is eternal. God's blessing comes through unification and this is what the marriage ritual is all about. it really is just a ritual. just like a screen play. an act. a theatre which expresses the wisdom of the path to God in it's ceremony.

noted you can take it very seriously and vow with all your heart but this isnt a perfect world and well things dont always go according to plan. the only perfect love is God's love and we are to love him and not be adulterous to him most of all. love meaning.. to seek unification or communion with.

now taking these two facets into consideration. remember the daily living practice that we are actually supposed to do to please God is more important than the symbol/ritual theatre productions we perform in church. honour, loyalty, trustworthiness, benevolence, forgiveness, unconditional love.. these are the things we have to aspire to with our lives and our marriage and all our relationships. those are the things God wants to see. the honour is maintained in the marriage where both partners agree. much like the bdsm scenario. and its much better than running behind wifey back in the eyes of God im sure ud find no reason to disagree.


so the whole physical marriage thing is more important when dealing about furthering the ideology of the message of a particular religion which all just happen to point to the same God. the real marriage occurs when we marry ourselves to the way of life God intended for us and finally obtain his blessing and the awareness of him. that isnt obtained by making symbols or holding them out as a beacon for all to see.

i hope u understand. ive pointed you to have the true life actions and way of life outweigh that of the symbol. in this case, what goes on in the church. pretty much.. everything that happens in the church during ceremonies is symbolism. theatre. do the good things God instructed in the real world. its like i said before. alot of religious fanatics, zealots or other avid enthusiasts take their religion seriously in all the wrong places. they consume themselves in fruitless endeavours of ritualism but forget to do the real work. the real hidden, silent, asknoreward work.

it is like the "rend your heart and not your garment" scenario.
for a while it was that the people could just cry out to God and God would send them relief. Then, they became apathetic, robotic, they start to just cry out but with no true emotion, as though is just press a button and it will be served. they took for granted and lost their passion. so the prophet had to correct them. he said Rend your hearts and not your garment because the emotion that comes out of your heart is the truth that speaks to God. and it overrides anything that comes out of your mouth or any action you perform in 'Enactment'. this was the whole issue with the rend your heart scenario. in essence to make things really simpple.. a man who loves God with all his heart can say F u God with his mouth and I love you God with his heart and God will hear the I love you louder.

[bluesclues]

u see all what u have in red in your post. is YOUR REASONING. now while i dont denounce your reasoning as it could fall into a logical possibility. i can say from my pov ur assessment is not only wrong, but biased and a bit pointed.

u say that he said God did it because primitive ppl would easier believe that. umm ok, where is your evidence to that reasoning? i can say that there is evidence however that that reasoning does not apply, since, the first time that happened.. noone listened and all drowned in the flood because they didnt listen and take time to build a boat. they had years of noah saying.. flood coming God say, build a boat.

they too laugh. called him a madman and of course.. didn't build no boat.

1. I said "easier believe" not "definitely believe". How many virgin births do you believe in? How many of them don't include divine conception? See my reasoning now?
2. You cannot quote a fictional source to backup your argument.... Noah... really...
3. Is having your arguments disproved a fetish of yours or something? Now, I'm not against it but at least have the common courtesy to give me the chance to consent before we get involved like this.

Blues, I don't know where you are getting your information from. I seems like you just make up sh!t as you go along. All of your arguments so far have been poorly backed up, logically flawed or just plain retarded and I'm getting tired. If you want to get started on your path to sanity you can re-read everything I wrote so far.... a couple times... then a few more.

im sorry but fictional or not. these stories are what the entire world's societies are based on today! you going to deny that? isnt the muslim caliphate countries believing in the story of noah? entire countries have formed out of this. before christianity it was the old testament.

you actually are jumping around at various points in my argument to throw it off topic and then talk stupidness. havent i made my point excessively clear? that you by yourself are not a sufficient source of morality. and that the morality you devise in your mind is not necessarily fair or even moral from an external point of view. hence you would be a tyrrant. where your vote overules that of the entire population at your whim and fancy. and to make it excessively excessively clear. the bible and most religious instruction are geared towards a focus of the good things we can learn from them. not to criticize from a literary point of view. that is much too basal for the profundity which religion aims to address. and u are thinking basal, so ur philosophy will be basal and thus ur an atheist. like i said before. ur level of logic is the level of reasoning u can process. some people just mistakenly attribute to them selves more reasoning capability than they are truly capable of. and judge things in a way they shouldnt be judged yet attribute themselves some discovery.

next time u watching an action movie and your favourite star dies go buy a gun and shoot the producer. you know how to write the movie better.

Lol... whut?!

dont worry about it. what you havent learned from others will.

[Habit7]

Now in addition to his circular logic he assumes the following two premises without any explanation why.
1. God exists necessarily
2. God is not abstract

1. 3:30-4:40
2. He never said God is not abstract. He said He is not an abstract object, which is a philosophical term. Abstract objects are not materially causal agents.

Where is the circular logic?

LMAO! Is that really your argument? Fine, go ahead and change number 2 to
"God is not an abstract object"

He assumes God is not an abstract object yet he offers no reason for the assumption.

The circular logic was highlighted in the earlier part of my post.

Do you know what an abstract object is?

If the universe exists, it's cause must be "non-contingent, non-physical, immaterial beyond space and time" which leaves with only God and abstract objects, and he eliminates abstract objects. This is deductive, no circular reasoning. And I wasn't appealing to authority in a final sense but that your accusation was kinda pedestrian for weight of the argument. It is like you are saying the argument lasted almost 500yrs, countless theses and discussions, only for you to come along and point out the obvious circular reasoning. Try harder.

In fact the narrator said if you don't want to call Him God call Him:

[Slartibartfast]

Now that assumes that it is a being. What proof is there that a being created the universe. It also still doesn't take away from the circular reasoning I outlined before.

He says the explanation must be God (which is a being with all those attributes) amd then says therefore the conclusion is God (or by his definition a being with all those attributes).

The only was around this is of he defines God as "whatever created the universe". But this definition does not get rid of the circular argument that I outlined earlier.

Now to call God all of that he has to prove
1. A being created the universe (this implies consciousness and decision)
2. Beings can be uncaused.
3. Beings can exist necessarily

... basically that beings can have all of the attributes that he outlined there. Whoch part of the video did he prove that.

He just says the explanation must be God amd therefore the explanation is God. It's also laughable that the only relevant part of the argument was just thrown in at the end with no real proof.

But again, I'm honoured that you think of me as better than one of the best philosophers to have ever lived (in your opinion).

[Habit7]

Do you know what an abstract object is?

[Slartibartfast]

Why don't you give me your definition and proof that God is not an abstract object (or the idea of God since that is all that can be proven to exist).

[Habit7]

I think you are a better philosopher than Leibniz, tell me what you define as an abstract object.

He says the explanation must be God (which is a being with all those attributes) amd then says therefore the conclusion is God (or by his definition a being with all those attributes).

The only was around this is of he defines God as "whatever created the universe". But this definition does not get rid of the circular argument that I outlined earlier.

"1. Everything that exist has an explanation of its existence, either in its necessity of its existence, or an external cause"
The universe has an external cause.
That external cause is either God or abstract objects.
Abstract objects don't create.
It is God.

Where is the circle?

Now to call God all of that he has to prove
1. A being created the universe (this implies consciousness and decision)
2. Beings can be uncaused.
3. Beings can exist necessarily

The universe is a causal result, from either an abstract object or a non-contingent, non-physical, immaterial beyond space and time cause. As said before, abstract object can't create and that other cause to create the universe (eternal, immaterial, non-spatial entity) must commence within it, decision. And the fine tuning of the universe represents consciousness.

Your 2 and 3 is the same thing. If there is anything caused, there must be at least one thing uncaused.

[Slartibartfast]

Abstract Object (Via Google)
An abstract object is an object which does not exist at any particular time or place, but rather exists as a type of thing, i.e., an idea, or abstraction.

Do you agree with this definition?

[Habit7]

I can help but feel you had no idea of what you were talking about before about abstract objects but was just dragging me into a long thread of you be being intellectually belligerent.

[maj. tom]

lol

[Slartibartfast]

Well seeing that you can help it, let's move on. It's common for you and blues to constantly switch up the meanings of words and use your own unknown definitions in an argument. I am therefore not going to proceed until we agree on what we are arguing about. I think you can at least agree it is pointless to engage in an argument where we are talking about two different things.


Anyway just a taste of your circular reasoning while I await your definition or your agreement to mine.

The universe has an external cause.
That external cause is either God or abstract objects.
Abstract objects don't create.
It is God.

Removing the impossibilities from your argument (an abstract object creating)

and ignoring that any other means of creation exist your argument becomes

The universe has an external cause.
That external cause is...God ...
[Therefore] It is God.

How did "God" become part of that premise?

You are basically just saying "God is the only thing that could have created the Universe" as your premise therefore "God created the Universe". See the circular reasoning.