40 Days of Indefatigable Copying and Pasting

[Travler]

For the next 40 days I will be presenting some reasons why I believe in Jesus. Each day I will make one additional post. Enjoy

Today I’d like to start at the beginning with the basics: There is a God.

The law of physics that states “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” depicts the operational manner of our universe. Therefore, it is impossible that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, or that it should be able to move itself. Everything, consequently, is moved by something else. Therefore, it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this, I submit to you, is God.

[acropolis]

actually, that statement disproves your conclusion.

alternatively, it could be possible that our universe is some type of supercircle, with the one thing moving the next the next all the way around, simply looping.

not that i think that is the case, but it fulfills the criteria you lay out, where your hypothesis fails.

[s|k]

Travlr, here's your problem:

Very few people here care to hear what you have to say. You've already demonstrated an inability to respond to arguments. You do not talk with anyone, you simply talk at people, and listen to nothing we have to say. I think we've all accepted that you just don't understand anything anyone else is saying.

Nobody wants to talk with people who do not listen to them.

Here's another problem:

You already know you are right. This is probably related to the first problem. You're not open to the possibility that you may be wrong.

Another one:

Your motive. It's really despicable. Nobody here is looking to be converted, nobody here gives you any credibility (at least that I know of). Thank you for trying to save us, I'm sure you've scored some bonus points with the Jesus. It's duly noted somewhere in his big naughty and nice list.

Finally:
You're as shallow and pointless as any human I have ever met. You string words together in a sentence the way a 5 year old places shiny plastic beads on a makeshift neclace during a kindergarden art session. You post quotes you yourself don't understand. You are dogmatic. You are an attention whore, a troll, and an evangalist. A trifecta responsible for the worst of posters online. You relish in the negative attention, you're a martyr for your own twisted cause, and you pride yourself on all the abuse we heap on you.

[Boogster]

Whew. Travler, this could be interesting.

[Dace]

There isn't a God.

The law of physics that states “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” depicts the operational manner of our universe. Therefore, it is possible that anything could be both mover and the thing moved, or that it could be able to move itself. Everything, consequently, is moved by something. Therefore, it is not necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by something---and this, I submit to you, is because of physics.



DAY 1 BABY AND YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN OWNED!

[Travler]

Originally Posted by Dace

There isn't a God.

Hard Atheist sentiment with no basis in logical thought.

Originally Posted by Dace

The law of physics that states “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” depicts the operational manner of our universe. Therefore, it is possible that anything could be both mover and the thing moved, or that it could be able to move itself. Everything, consequently, is moved by something. Therefore, it is not necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by something---and this, I submit to you, is because of physics.

Everything is able to move under its own power? So gravity, heat energy, and binding force are just icing on the cake then? What you are proposing is called perpetual motion and according to the laws of physics and the laws of thermodynamics perpetual motion is simply not possible in the macroscopic world

Originally Posted by Dace

DAY 1 BABY AND YOU HAVE ALREADY BEEN OWNED!

Subject statement.

Sorry But I am bit busy today being bashed by a few GD posters while playing in the 24 hour Planetarion World Cup Competition. With about 4 hours to go I think jer is going to win highest scoring planet and his galaxy 1:2 will win the WC unless something drastic occurs to prevent this.


In addition to how we’ve already been able to argue the existence of God, we can continue to use scientific laws and the natural order of the universe to also show that there is a God.

The “Garden Allegory” demonstrates this proof well. For instance, if in a jungle there is a patch of land resembling a garden that is cultivated, planted and weeded, then there must be a gardener. In other words, things that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent. Therefore, there is something intelligent by which all natural things are arranged in accordance with a plan because order does not appear randomly in chaos. Take, for example, Fibonacci's number, or pi. These numbers appear all over the natural world. Take also, for example, the law of gravity or the truths of mathematics. These axioms are all a natural order which humans do not create. Therefore, these laws must imply a lawmaker. This Lawmaker can be no other than God Himself.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Travler

Hard Atheist sentiment with no basis in logical thought.

Actually, it's the only logical standpoint.

Logic tells us that empiricism is the way forward, and, empirically, there is no god.

Originally Posted by Travler

Everything is able to move under its own power?

Quite a few things start to move under their own volition. Take a proton, for example, which decays into a neutron, a positron and a neutrino. The proton may well be stationary, but the resulting particles aren't. The "first mover" statement is invalid because it presumes this kind of interaction cannot exist.

Originally Posted by Travler

So gravity, heat energy, and binding force are just icing on the cake then?

Obviously this isn't a counterargument to what you posted either.

Originally Posted by Travler

What you are proposing is called perpetual motion

Actually, it isn't. He doesn't imply a 100% efficiency in his interactions.

Originally Posted by Travler

and according to the laws of physics and the laws of thermodynamics perpetual motion is simply not possible in the macroscopic world

Physics is grand isn't it, especially when we ignore the bits that are in direct opposition to the bible.

Originally Posted by Travler

The “Garden Allegory” demonstrates this proof well. For instance, if in a jungle there is a patch of land resembling a garden that is cultivated, planted and weeded, then there must be a gardener.

Doesn't follow. And if you're trying to compare this universe (and, perhaps, evolution?) to a well organised garden, you're laughably off. The natural world is a terrible hodgepodge of random entities.

Originally Posted by Travler

In other words, things that do not have intelligence do not tend toward a result unless directed by some one knowing and intelligent.

Again, incorrect. Simple logic arrives us at evolution (which is a counter example to your claim) purely based upon the assumption that there is random genetic change.

Which there is.

Originally Posted by Travler

Take, for example, Fibonacci's number, or pi.

I hope you mean the golden ratio, phi, by "Fibonacci's number", although noone ever calls it that.

The Fibonnaci numbers are an infinite sequence.

Pi occurs all over the place, but that's mostly an artifact of the measuring of angles in radians; pi wouldn't occur in many things if this wasn't the case, and the constant of proportionalities would change accordingly.

Originally Posted by Travler

Take also, for example, the law of gravity or the truths of mathematics.

There is no "law of gravity", and mathematics is an inevitabilitiy of the logical system under which it is constructed.

Originally Posted by Travler

These axioms are all a natural order which humans do not create.

Misuse of "axioms", and no scientific theory is an axiom.

Originally Posted by Travler

Therefore, these laws must imply a lawmaker. This Lawmaker can be no other than God Himself.

Neither of these bits follows. It's the classic "A->B, therefore God" fallacies.

I'm becoming more and more convinced that you're just copy and pasting these from somewhere, as you appear not to have a clue what you're talking about.

[xtrasyn]

My great fear is that, as promised, this travesty will continue for 40 days...

I swear that even Jesus would denounce God at the mere sight of this thread by then.

[Dotatrix]

I'm sure we're all going to believe in Jesus when Travler has made his 40 very informative and interesting posts.

[Tactitus]

"To whom also he shewed himself alive after his passion by many infallible proofs, being seen of them forty days, and speaking of the things pertaining to the kingdom of God" -Acts 1:3

[Cooling]

Originally Posted by Travler

For the next 40 days I will be presenting some reasons why I believe in Jesus. Each day I will make one additional post. Enjoy

Today I’d like to start at the beginning with the basics: There is a God.

The law of physics that states “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” depicts the operational manner of our universe. Therefore, it is impossible that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, or that it should be able to move itself. Everything, consequently, is moved by something else. Therefore, it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this, I submit to you, is God.

It's Philosophy 101 all over again.

And this, I submit to you, is the Big Bang. And this, I submit to you, is Purple Space Elephants. And this, I submit to you, is anything you want to believe.

"God" obviously does not follow from "First Cause". Even Aquinas realised this.


Secondly the argument does not show that there is precisely one first cause, it only shows that there is at least one first cause. More gods? Are you prepared to accept Polytheism might be true?

1) Every event in the natural world traces back to an event that occurs outside nature.

2) There is a single event outside of the natural world to which each event traces back.

The argument only 'proves' (1), it does not prove (2).


You really ought to give up this pointless excercise. You won't convert anyone on this forum. Take your nonsense ministry elsewhere.

[milo]

who moved god?

[Proxi]

He was moved to tears by Bambi, if that counts.

[Deepflow]

Originally Posted by Proxi

He was moved to tears by Bambi, if that counts.

God killed Bambi's mother

[Proxi]

Originally Posted by Deepflow

God killed Bambi's mother

It had to be done to teach the world about the evil that resides within all Deer, lest we be taken in by their doe-eyed stares and empty promises!

Yay, rejoice in the fact the deer was punished by our lord, for she hath not been to confession her whole life, even though a church hath resideth downeth only yon street from her house. Eth.

Lazy bitch!

[Yahwe]

We should ban Travler under the advertising clause

[SYMM]

Ban.
User.
Please.

[xtrasyn]

[JonnyBGood]

Travler, if you're not going to respond to other posts in this thread I'm going to delete this as it's the sort of shit we banned Texan over (actually he might not have been banned, he might just have been on a final warning or something). This is a discussion forum, not a well-placed pulpit.

[Nodrog]

I would support deleting this thread; I'd rather hear 5 good arguments than 40 bad ones, and if Travler isnt going to bother engaging in debate then the whole enterprise is pointless. If I wanted to read an endless list of arguments for God's existence then I could just google for philosophy of religion 101.

However you should bear in mind I'm part of the IRC anti-christian conspiracy which is actively victimising Travler for his religious beliefs rather than for his terrible posts.

[cura]

Originally Posted by Nodrog

However you should bear in mind I'm part of the IRC anti-christian conspiracy which is actively victimising Travler for his religious beliefs rather than for his terrible posts.

where do I sign up?

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Travler

The law of physics that states “for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction” depicts the operational manner of our universe.

Newton's Third Law, which is (ignoring Newton's claim that he argued them from first principles, because they only an approximation in many cases) an empirical approximation.

Originally Posted by Travler

Therefore, it is impossible that anything should be both mover and the thing moved, or that it should be able to move itself.

That's an incorrect interpretation of Newton III. It just states that if something starts moving, something else starts moving, because momentum is conserved.

Originally Posted by Travler

Everything, consequently, is moved by something else. Therefore, it is necessary to go back to some first mover, which is itself moved by nothing---and this, I submit to you, is God.

There's quite a few missing steps here, and, has been pointed out, this has been rejected as an argument for god by christian scholars for nearly a thousand years.

[Travler]

As I stated at the beggining I would only post once a day for 40 days. 40 Days is symbol of change through out the Bible so I don't plan on breaking that tradition. It also helps me time manage since I am quite a bit busier than expected this summer due to my greatest household helper jaunting off to Guadulara yesterday to visit his grandparents until August.

I though this was General Discussion and not an interrogation or a witch trial. I will attempt to respond to some pertinent questions but I don't think I can answer everyone. So here goes with day #2.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

Newton's Third Law, which is (ignoring Newton's claim that he argued them from first principles, because they only an approximation in many cases) an empirical approximation.

True that these principles only seem to apply under normal speeds and only with larger objects such as molecules and larger.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

That's an incorrect interpretation of Newton III. It just states that if something starts moving, something else starts moving, because momentum is conserved.

Newtons principles also don't take into account stored or resonant energy within a body.

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

There's quite a few missing steps here, and, has been pointed out, this has been rejected as an argument for god by christian scholars for nearly a thousand years.

First I would like to point out that Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published in 1687. We are currently in the year 2006. By my calculations this would only indicate that the longest these Laws of Motion could be in debate is 319 years which is far short of the "nearly a thousand years" you indicated MrL_JaKiri.

My original thought was that at the beginning there was nothing, or non-existance. Since there is obviously something here now or existance if you will then at some point in time this change from nothing to something occurred. Some would say that moment was the "Big Bang."

I also thought of the idea of zero kelvin or absolute zero where there is no heat energy and nothing moves. Nothing would really exist since atoms could not function without the movement of the electrons around the protons and neutrons. What if the begging of time was zero kelvin? The non-universe could have existed is this non-existant state for trillions upon trillions of years before something acted upon it and created the known universe we have today. Scientist believe our Universe is actually growing. This website will explain the growing universe in greater detail than I can post:
http://www.astrosociety.org/educatio...universe3.html
Hopefully that will sufficiently argue both an expanding universe and and a 3 dimensional universe. Our universe is in 3 dimensions. Height, width, length. I have also heard some arguments that time is the 4th dimension. Newton observed that "Objects in motion tend to stay in motion, and objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless an outside force acts upon them." So at the beggining of time everything was at rest. God does not have to be one of the things in the 3 known dimensions and the 4th debatable dimension. God could exist in a 5th dimension and still be able to act as an outside force upon the 3 known dimensions since I personally believe that God exist outside of space and time being the Alpha and the Omega or the Beggining and the End. I think this next point should answer the circular continuance ideas I read in this thread. So here is what I would have originally posted for day two had I not had to stop and rebuke some points:

Continuing on with the truth that “There is a God,” I offer the following observation:

The proven notion of “cause and effect” concludes that you cannot have any effect without first having a cause. Every thing that exists currently is a result of a previous action because “nothing” cannot create “something.” In other words, without an initial cause there can be no effect. We can then deduce logically that to remove any cause is to remove its effect. Furthermore, it is impossible for an effect to be its own cause which would require it to exist prior to itself. Neither can there be an endless regression of cause and effect; thus, requiring there to be a first cause. Therefore, I submit to you that this “first cause” is God, and every actual thing is His effect.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Travler

I though this was General Discussion and not an interrogation or a witch trial. I will attempt to respond to some pertinent questions but I don't think I can answer everyone. So here goes with day #2.

So your "replies" amount to "Yeah, my argument was dumb lol" twice and then a willful misunderstanding?

Originally Posted by Travler

First I would like to point out that Philosophiae Naturalis Principia Mathematica was published in 1687. We are currently in the year 2006. By my calculations this would only indicate that the longest these Laws of Motion could be in debate is 319 years which is far short of the "nearly a thousand years" you indicated MrL_JaKiri.

The "First Mover" argument predates Newton, and was, among other things, roundly dismissed by Thomas Aquinas, who lived about 800 years ago. 800 years is, at least in my mad little world, 80% of a thousand.

Originally Posted by Travler

My original thought was that at the beginning there was nothing, or non-existance. Since there is obviously something here now or existance if you will then at some point in time this change from nothing to something occurred.

Not necessarily. String Theory, at the moment, has suggested that other universes may start within our own, and manmade ones could, at some point be created. Something from something, in that case.

Originally Posted by Travler

I also thought of the idea of zero kelvin or absolute zero where there is no heat energy and nothing moves.

That's not what 0K means (the "nothing moves" part anyway).

Originally Posted by Travler

Nothing would really exist since atoms could not function without the movement of the electrons around the protons and neutrons.

Atoms can exist at 0K.

Originally Posted by Travler

What if the begging of time was zero kelvin? The non-universe could have existed is this non-existant state for trillions upon trillions of years before something acted upon it and created the known universe we have today.

Doesn't work. Forces still exist at 0K, you know.

Furthermore, as the big bang was by far the hottest thing ever to occur, it makes little sense to have it start as the coldest thing ever to occur then suddenly gain an enormous amount of heat.

Originally Posted by Travler

Hopefully that will sufficiently argue both an expanding universe and and a 3 dimensional universe.

It didn't really argue anything about a three dimonsional universe, and the universe being three dimensional doesn't really have anything to do with what you're arguing. It's just putting more words in.

Originally Posted by Travler

Our universe is in 3 dimensions. Height, width, length. I have also heard some arguments that time is the 4th dimension.

Mathematically (with a constant of proportionality that becomes unity if you set the speed of light to 1) time and the physical dimensions are indeed the same, by Special Relativity (and other things, but SR has such an enormous amount of evidence for it, and a lack of argument against it, that it's by far the best example).

So, as far as we can measure, time is "the fourth dimension". Or the second one, or whatever. The label is entirely arbitrary.

Originally Posted by Travler

Newton observed that "Objects in motion tend to stay in motion, and objects at rest tend to stay at rest unless an outside force acts upon them."

Can you stop basing your "arguments" upon Newton? As you say, he was working 300 odd years ago, science has moved on a tiny bit since then.

Originally Posted by Travler

So at the beggining of time everything was at rest. God does not have to be one of the things in the 3 known dimensions and the 4th debatable dimension. God could exist in a 5th dimension and still be able to act as an outside force upon the 3 known dimensions

Doesn't work, the existance of a (non-infinitisimal) fifth dimension would have experimental repurcussions, most notably when you're talking about force propogation.

Originally Posted by Travler

since I personally believe that God exist outside of space and time being the Alpha and the Omega or the Beggining and the End. I think this next point should answer the circular continuance ideas I read in this thread. So here is what I would have originally posted for day two had I not had to stop and rebuke some points:

You didn't stop and rebuke anything. You agreed that your "infallible proof" was flawed, then danced about naked singing "tralalalala". You haven't addressed any of the issues brought up, other than to agree with them.

Originally Posted by Travler

Continuing on with the truth that “There is a God,” I offer the following observation:

Circular logic ahoy!

Originally Posted by Travler

The proven notion of “cause and effect” concludes that you cannot have any effect without first having a cause. Every thing that exists currently is a result of a previous action because “nothing” cannot create “something.” In other words, without an initial cause there can be no effect. We can then deduce logically that to remove any cause is to remove its effect. Furthermore, it is impossible for an effect to be its own cause which would require it to exist prior to itself. Neither can there be an endless regression of cause and effect; thus, requiring there to be a first cause. Therefore, I submit to you that this “first cause” is God, and every actual thing is His effect.

This is exactly the same argument as the first one, and it STILL has been rejected by christian scholars.

[Cooling]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

This is exactly the same argument as the first one, and it STILL has been rejected by christian scholars.

Of course it is, thats because he is reading from his "big book all about St Thomas Aquinas", which probably paraphrases the Five Arguments found in the Summa Theologiae.

I too have a big book about Thomas Aquinas, it's called Philosophy of Religion for Idiots.

The first argument on motion, and the second on causation are indeed exactly the same. The latter is a generalised analogy of the former. Most of the criticisms that apply to the former, unsurprisingly apply to the latter with equal force.

THe argument essentially goes:

(1) Causes must preceede effects.
(2) There are no infinite cause/effect chains.
===========
(3) Therefore there "must" be an entity outside the natural world which acts as a 'first cause'
===========
(4) Therefore God.


Needless to say, this argument can be used to 'proove' the big bang happened, or that the Flying Spagetti Monster created the Universe.

It is dated, it is fallicious, and yes Aquinas knew (3) does not proove (4)


Now children, tomorrows infallible undeniable argument for the existance of God is called "The Argument from Contingency". It has just about as many holes as swiss cheese, but let us endure it nonetheless.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

This is exactly the same argument as the first one, and it STILL has been rejected by christian scholars.

Ah but all human beings have two legs, therefore the human race has two legs.


Now shut up and hand over your legs you reality-defying heathen

[qebab]

Originally Posted by Travler

Cause and effect

I did shorten this a bit, as it seemed pointless to quote your entire post for a one-line question. But here goes:

If there must be a cause for all effects, what caused God? If nothing caused God, there must not be a cause for all effects and your argument about cause and effect is void, isn't it?

I don't know much about the Big Bang, or the String theory, so this could well be flawed. If that is the case, I apologize.

[Cooling]

Originally Posted by qebab

I did shorten this a bit, as it seemed pointless to quote your entire post for a one-line question. But here goes:

If there must be a cause for all effects, what caused God? If nothing caused God, there must not be a cause for all effects and your argument about cause and effect is void, isn't it?

I don't know much about the Big Bang, or the String theory, so this could well be flawed. If that is the case, I apologize.

No that's nonsense.

"God" in this sense is a placeholder for something special that acts as the first cause.
God is not the effect of anything, she is special.

If you do not understand this, then you have failed to comprehend the argument.

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Cooling

No that's nonsense.

"God" in this sense is a placeholder for something special that acts as the first cause.
God is not the effect of anything, she is special.

If you do not understand this, then you have failed to comprehend the argument.

That said there is no reason for assuming "god". You could quite easily assume "universe", and in fact occam's razor would tend towards supporting the later (in terms of assuming things that is).

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Cooling

No that's nonsense.

"God" in this sense is a placeholder for something special that acts as the first cause.
God is not the effect of anything, she is special.

If you do not understand this, then you have failed to comprehend the argument.

No, what qebab said is entirely correct. If everything must have a cause then there is, by definition, no 'first cause'. If your argument starts with P as a premises and has ¬P as a conclusion, then it is invalid regardless of the intermediate steps.

Originally Posted by MrL_Jakiri

Mathematically (with a constant of proportionality that becomes unity if you set the speed of light to 1) time and the physical dimensions are indeed the same, by Special Relativity (and other things, but SR has such an enormous amount of evidence for it, and a lack of argument against it, that it's by far the best example).

So, as far as we can measure, time is "the fourth dimension". Or the second one, or whatever. The label is entirely arbitrary.

Meh, maths isnt everything; the fact you can create a simpler mathematical model by assuming X doesnt necessarily imply that X is real -there are quite obvious differences between time and the physical dimensions which are easily perceivable by anyone just by looking around. In any case, time doesnt function exactly like the spatial dimensions within Minkowski space since it has a different sign in the metric signature. 3+1, not 4.

[s|k]

Originally Posted by Travler

As I stated at the beggining I would only post once a day for 40 days. 40 Days is symbol of change through out the Bible so I don't plan on breaking that tradition. It also helps me time manage since I am quite a bit busier than expected this summer due to my greatest household helper jaunting off to Guadulara yesterday to visit his grandparents until August.

I don't give a **** about your symbolism. Tradition? Is there a Christian tradition of posting on forums?

Originally Posted by Travler

I though this was General Discussion and not an interrogation or a witch trial.

Here he is, thinking he's being persecuted for his beliefs again, and not for being generally ignorant. Incidentally, the witches were burned by Christians.

I predict that this thread will end with it being either locked, and/or Travler banned (hopefully). By the time it is all through, I predict the man will have thouroughly have 0 credibility left, and look like the biggest jackass to grace GD since TSM.

Originally Posted by Travler

... a lot of rubbish...

You see what Travler is doing here is inventing his own obtuse understanding of what he's read in Popular Science magazines, with what's in the bible. just making it up as he goes along. He's mixing science and biblical myth, and has completely gone off the deep end here, abandoned the creation story and created some sort of amalgamation of his own in order to explain one of these fallible 'proofs.'

The moment Travler began his counter argument and began talking about Kelvins, the big ban, the expansion of space, and using what 'scientists' have said as evidence, he's shot himself in the foot. Now how does any of that fit in with creation story Travler? Are you just going to pick and chose the observations in science that suit whatever you have to say at any particular point in time, or are you embracing science, giving it credence? If so, let's talk about the formation of the solar system. Let's talk about 7 days of creation, where there was night then day then a firmament and whatever the **** else the gobbelty bullshit genesis is rife with. Let's talk about women being made from a rib, let's talk about being swallowed by a fish for three days, let's talk about 'stopping the sun.' Hmm k.

Don't use science. You don't believe in it, and you don't understand it. You're just making shit up as you go along.

Originally Posted by Travler

Continuing on with the truth that “There is a God,” I offer the following observation:

The proven notion of “cause and effect” concludes that you cannot have any effect without first having a cause. Every thing that exists currently is a result of a previous action because “nothing” cannot create “something.” In other words, without an initial cause there can be no effect. We can then deduce logically that to remove any cause is to remove its effect. Furthermore, it is impossible for an effect to be its own cause which would require it to exist prior to itself. Neither can there be an endless regression of cause and effect; thus, requiring there to be a first cause. .

I submit to you that without chickens there can be no eggs, and without eggs there can be no chickens. The chicken, cannot be without an egg, and an egg, cannot exist without a chicken. However, because both chickens and eggs exist, at some point there must have been a half chicken half egg creature which spawned from an eggplant.

Originally Posted by Travler

Therefore, I submit to you that this “first cause” is God, and every actual thing is His effect.

I submit to you that this first cause is my penis, which existed before all else.

[Travler]

Originally Posted by s|k

I don't give a **** about your symbolism. Tradition? Is there a Christian tradition of posting on forums?

Of course you don't care. You hate and you are quite vocal and repulsive in the way you do it. You don't present a logical argument other than "Your Crap" and "I'm right and your wrong ****ing Christian."

Originally Posted by s|k

Here he is, thinking he's being persecuted for his beliefs again, and not for being generally ignorant. Incidentally, the witches were burned by Christians.

I am attacked by the likes of you for my beliefs. I use the phrase "Witch Hunt" to mean an unfounded accusation and attack and an almost mass histeria regarding belief in a greater power. Not the sad history of radical so-called Christians in early New-England.

Originally Posted by s|k

I predict that this thread will end with it being either locked, and/or Travler banned (hopefully). By the time it is all through, I predict the man will have thouroughly have 0 credibility left, and look like the biggest jackass to grace GD since TSM.

If I do get banned then my work on these forums will be done and I will no longer be held responsible for your or anyone else's soul. As it stands now I am given the daunting task of finding those who are lost and bringing them home. If that make me a jackass then fine. I believe what I am saying about God. If God was evil and selfish then I would not be sharing the "Good News" and people without faith would be left on their own to suffer.

Originally Posted by s|k

You see what Travler is doing here is inventing his own obtuse understanding of what he's read in Popular Science magazines, with what's in the bible. just making it up as he goes along. He's mixing science and biblical myth, and has completely gone off the deep end here, abandoned the creation story and created some sort of amalgamation of his own in order to explain one of these fallible 'proofs.'

I never said I was a creationist. The bible depicts God creating Man but never goes into the detail of that creation. The only clue we get is the "Dust of the Earth." I tend to think God is complex enough to create a system of evolution and adaptation.

Originally Posted by s|k

The moment Travler began his counter argument and began talking about Kelvins, the big ban, the expansion of space, and using what 'scientists' have said as evidence, he's shot himself in the foot. Now how does any of that fit in with creation story Travler? Are you just going to pick and chose the observations in science that suit whatever you have to say at any particular point in time, or are you embracing science, giving it credence? If so, let's talk about the formation of the solar system. Let's talk about 7 days of creation, where there was night then day then a firmament and whatever the **** else the gobbelty bullshit genesis is rife with. Let's talk about women being made from a rib, let's talk about being swallowed by a fish for three days, let's talk about 'stopping the sun.' Hmm k.

I started out believing in the Big Bang long before I believed there was a God. I just was not satisfied with the Hydrogen In Rush Idea. I thought It was unfounded and pure speculation. How could the entire universe collapse entirely into one convenience package without multiple bangs occuring due to density overload before all could come together as one. Much to perfect for science.

Originally Posted by s|k

Don't use science. You don't believe in it, and you don't understand it. You're just making shit up as you go along.

As opposed to your non-scientific rants. You have presented nothing to this forum other than hatred and an obvious loathing for the Christians and the Bible. Take your doctrine of hate somewhere else. Personally I thing science is mans way of ultimately understanding the universe and God. There is so much still to learn. I wonder if we have even seen 1% of it yet.

Originally Posted by s|k

I submit to you that without chickens there can be no eggs, and without eggs there can be no chickens. The chicken, cannot be without an egg, and an egg, cannot exist without a chicken. However, because both chickens and eggs exist, at some point there must have been a half chicken half egg creature which spawned from an eggplant.

This is an example of all your "logical" arguments. Pure heckler.

Originally Posted by s|k

I submit to you that this first cause is my penis, which existed before all else.

That would explain why your such a ****. Get some therapy before you give yourself an aneurysm.

Hmm, seems you have figured out the first part of my argument. Well here is point #3 from St. Thomas then.

Today I will focus on the distinction between the two objects in our universe: contingent beings and necessary beings.
We know from history and experience that all existing things change in one way or another. Thus every tangible thing in the world is conditional; that is, it may or may not exist. So every being which is contingent can not have the reason of its existence in itself, but in another, that is, in something which is not contingent. Hence there must exist a necessary being. In other words, 1) Contingent beings are caused. 2) Not every being can be contingent regressively (from day 2; every effect demands a cause). 3) There must exist a being which is absolutely necessary to cause contingent beings. 4) This “absolute necessary” being is God.

If you want a better explaination then you might want to read this argument from Peter Kreeft.

Mr_L Mentioned String Theory. I find this to be the one scientific theory that best explains God and the Bible. String Theory Basics

So how does string theory relate to the Bible?
John 1:1 (King James Version)
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Genesis 1:3 (King James Version)
And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

Basically God spoke everything into existance using these strings. You can read more about this idea if your interested.

Can you feel the love yet?

[Nodrog]

Originally Posted by Travler

We know from history and experience that all existing things change in one way or another. Thus every tangible thing in the world is conditional; that is, it may or may not exist. So every being which is contingent can not have the reason of its existence in itself, but in another, that is, in something which is not contingent. Hence there must exist a necessary being. In other words, 1) Contingent beings are caused. 2) Not every being can be contingent regressively (from day 2; every effect demands a cause). 3) There must exist a being which is absolutely necessary to cause contingent beings. 4) This “absolute necessary” being is God.

This is the exact same argument as your first one, except that youve replaced a scientifically respectable concept (causation) with a philosophical fiction (necessity/contingency). Its invalid for the exact same reasons - if you start with the idea that everything is 'contingent' /caused, then you cannot validly end up with the conclusion that there is something necessary/uncaused.

edit: String theory has nothing to do with God or religion. I'm assuming the site you linked to is a joke because noone could possibly write that in a serious manner (although admittedly Biblical scripture is probably the strongest evidence in support of string theory which has so far been produced).

[Squidly]

Originally Posted by Travler

stuff

Are you mormon or jehovah's witness? If so, that would seriously explain a lot of things for me =/

[Tomkat]

I don't see why people can't just let him submit his 40 reasons.

What, so you don't believe in God? So what - he evidently does. He isn't trying to force you to believe in God either, he's just giving reasons for his belief.

I'm curious to see what these 40 reasons for believing in God are, actually.

Stop being stubborn jerks and let him post. I'd like to see him respond to a few of the above posts though (mainly s|k's).

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

I don't see why people can't just let him submit his 40 reasons.

Because it's not a lecture hall, it's a discussion forum. It might be slightly different if he posted them all at once. It'd be very different if he posted them all at once and then responded to replies. However he appears to be doing neither.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by Tomkat

I don't see why people can't just let him submit his 40 reasons.

He can do that elsewhere if he doesn't want to discuss it. As has been pointed out, this is a discussion forum, not a lecturn that grants immunity to criticism.

Furthermore, if he doesn't want people to pick apart his arguments, he shouldn't label them as infallible. That's just asking for trouble.

Originally Posted by Tomkat

What, so you don't believe in God? So what - he evidently does. He isn't trying to force you to believe in God either, he's just giving reasons for his belief.

It isn't a believing in god/not believing in god dichotomy; one of the longest and most heated (although not from my side) arguments I've had recently was on the scientific method and how it relates to String "Theory".

Originally Posted by Tomkat

Stop being stubborn jerks and let him post. I'd like to see him respond to a few of the above posts though (mainly s|k's).

Eh?

"Stop posting, I want to see him respond to posts"?

If he actually replied to people, there wouldn't be a problem. But he doesn't.

[Phang]

he is a proselytizing idiot and/or a troll. If he believes the nonsense he is posting, I frankly don't give a shit: he isn't defending it against legitimate criticism and as such this is to all intents and purposes spam.

[Cooling]

Perhaps if people played devils advocate (hoho) on some of his points we could have an interesting discussion in any case.

I've never been to a lecture where the lecturer has been shouted down by most of the students

[JonnyBGood]

Originally Posted by Cooling

Perhaps if people played devils advocate (hoho) on some of his points we could have an interesting discussion in any case.

I've never been to a lecture where the lecturer has been shouted down by most of the students

Clearly you've never been to a sociology lecture in ireland where the lecturer advocated outlawing alcohol to lower crime rates.

[xtrasyn]

Well it seems a good meeting to try your roller skates.

With noone being there etc.

[lokken]

In all honesty, I think we should delete any thread about the validity of religion or whether there is a god etc, as quite frankly they near always end up descending into absolutely terrible, terrible threads, with or without travler. What people believe or don't believe in this regard is up to them and in all honesty leads to an almost pointless discussion. As JBG says it leads to something akin to lecturing rather than discussion and thus it shouldn't be present here.

travler obviously has his own reasons for being a christian, they're his own and I don't actually care what they are or why and i don't want to read them. I don't want to persuade him otherwise or like to see him ridiculed nor do I want to do it with other users regarding atheism as in all honesty, the thread will almost certainly be shit.

There's a strong qualitative argument for following my proposal and I hope the mods on here take note.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by lokken

In all honesty, I think we should delete any thread about the validity of religion or whether there is a god etc, as quite frankly they near always end up descending into absolutely terrible, terrible threads, with or without travler.

Most threads descend, at some point or level, into direness or bile; the fact that religion ones tend to more is merely an expression that people tend to care more about this debate, at least on the religious side of things.

Are we only meant to debate things we don't care about?

Originally Posted by lokken

What people believe or don't believe in this regard is up to them and in all honesty leads to an almost pointless discussion.

I disagree. I like finding out other viewpoints; I'm not so arrogant as to presume that I have thought of every argument upon every topic (although I will admit that, on the topic at hand, I have encountered a great amount of argument and discussion), and threads where there are frank exchanges of views give me an opportunity to evaluate my own beliefs and knowledge, and, if appropriate, adjust them accordingly.

Originally Posted by lokken

As JBG says it leads to something akin to lecturing rather than discussion and thus it shouldn't be present here.

That's a question of presentation, not of topic. I could make a lecturing thread about the scientific method, about making pizza, about Rise of Legends. It doesn't make them invalid areas for discussion, and indeed this wouldn't be a lecturing thread if Travler actually replied to people, which was part of J's post which you have chosen to ignore.

Originally Posted by lokken

travler obviously has his own reasons for being a christian, they're his own and I don't actually care what they are or why and i don't want to read them. I don't want to persuade him otherwise or like to see him ridiculed nor do I want to do it with other users regarding atheism as in all honesty, the thread will almost certainly be shit.

You don't. Are you so arrogant as to claim that you speak for everyone?

When people get uppity about the number, or mere presence, of football threads, do you argue with them because, obviously from their point of view, removing the football threads will improve the forum?

The entire point of the forum is to discuss things, if we have to have discussions only where everyone enjoys or understands them we'd never get very far.

Originally Posted by lokken

tThere's a strong qualitative argument for following my proposal and I hope the mods on here take note.

If you're using "qualitative" in its conventional meaning, then it's redundent in this sentence. Furthermore, your argument is based on opinion where it has any logical merit at all, and thus, ironically, is rather appropriate for this thread.

[lokken]

OK, i'll put it in simple terms for you as you want to pedant your way to some kind of success.

These kinds of threads are shit from pretty much reply 1 downwards, I don't enjoy reading them and I doubt there are many others who do either. These threads have always been crap, are crap and always will be crap. Trolling is more or less guaranteed and I think you can't get worse than threads like these.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by lokken

OK, i'll put it in simple terms for you as you want to pedant your way to some kind of success.

If you're complaining about pedantry, then your argument is one of:

• Stated badly
• Worded incorrectly
• Logically wrong

Which one are you complaining about, because from my point of view it seems to be (3).

Originally Posted by lokken

These kinds of threads are shit from pretty much reply 1 downwards, I don't enjoy reading them and I doubt there are many others who do either.

Good for you. Don't read them.

Originally Posted by lokken

These threads have always been crap, are crap and always will be crap.

Good for you. Don't read them.

Originally Posted by lokken

Trolling is more or less guaranteed and I think you can't get worse than threads like these.

Good for you. Don't read them.

Once again, you're being wonderfully appropriate for the thread, as you have chosen to ignore all the points I have made; are you obliquely commenting upon the problems that Travler has when constructing such a thread? Well done sir!

[lokken]

No, I'm just fed up of seeing shit threads like this. So bad we should just get rid and quit the fannying about that inevitably results.

It's not hard to understand.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by lokken

No, I'm just fed up of seeing shit threads like this. So bad we should just get rid and quit the fannying about that inevitably results.

It's not hard to understand.

I'm glad you're a moderator on AD and not on here, as you don't appear to have gathered that the moderator's job is not to decide what kind of discussion lives or dies.

Having said that, on GD the moderator's job certainly appears to be to not post for months.

[lokken]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

I'm glad you're a moderator on AD and not on here, as you don't appear to have gathered that the moderator's job is not to decide what kind of discussion lives or dies..

I understand this, but any debate on the merits of religion always descend into the shitness of flaming, trolling and spouting bile at anyone who dare claim they are religious and thus rules always are broken within the first few replies.

It's a pretty much repetitive and near masturbatative activity of "lol i did a religious nut today lol" proportions, fundamentally shit and in fact is pretty much inviting travler to troll you all back in pretty stunning fashion. I see a point that if a topic just results in constant breaking of the rules, **** any kind of principles and put a stop to it because here I believe it's an issue where large numbers of GD users can't help but make threads like these really really poor.

While perhaps I can understand that a rule might be too drastic, the mods at least be more strict with a thread like this the very minute rule breaking starts as they descend into despair pretty pretty quickly, far faster than others.

[MrL_JaKiri]

Originally Posted by lokken

in fact is pretty much inviting travler to troll you all back in pretty stunning fashion

If he does, then he's gone (as J said above). If he isn't, then it's a worthwhile discussion.

I don't think many people have come into this thread expecting the latter, so it's not like you're revealing some mystical truth.

Originally Posted by lokken

I see a point that if a topic just results in constant breaking of the rules, **** any kind of principles and put a stop to it because here I believe it's an issue where large numbers of GD users can't help but make threads like these really really poor.

If people cause problems in a thread like this, then tell them to stop it, or moderate the thread in question. Simply banning a kind of discussion is not only morally wrong, it's also pretty laughable when this is supposed to be a discussion forum. Discussions sometime invite controversy, that's just part of the way things are.

Further to this, the same argument can be applied to many, many other threads on these forums.

If your intent is to drive people away, then your plan is a fine one.

[All Systems Go]

Originally Posted by MrL_JaKiri

If he does, then he's gone (as J said above). If he isn't, then it's a worthwhile discussion.

I don't think many people have come into this thread expecting the latter, so it's not like you're revealing some mystical truth.

I fear we may not get either.

Originally Posted by Travler

Each day I will make one additional post. Enjoy