I hope tecnolover learns to quote soon.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ierxium I hope tecnolover learns to quote soon.

Sorry about that I'm just lazy sometimes.

quote:

Originally posted by Arbiter [QUOTE]Originally posted by Arbiter The free will argument doesn't hold a drop of water, as I've posted before. A creator could have imbued his creations with any of the following levels of "free will": The ability to make no choices and decide nothing. The ability to make some choices but not others. Or, the ability to make any choice. Proponents of determinism aside, the middle one is obviously what he would have had to do, given that there are choices I cannot make: I cannot make the morally wrong choice to kidnap someone I don't like, kill them, resurrect them, kill them again, and repeat ad nauseum. This is because I don't possess the free will to perform the act of resurrecting them. I don't possess that degree of free will because any creator I might have arbitrarily decided that this wasn't a choice he wanted to give his creation. The problem lies here: He could have just as easily arbitrarily decided not to give me the choice to kill the person to begin with, either. He could have, but he didn't. Thus, he either doesn't care about the victims of murder enough to stop them from suffering when he easily could, isn't aware that murder exists, or isn't capable of preventing it. Any of these possibilities still results in the explicit logical contradiction. The only way to remove this contradiction is to assume God doesn't exist. Since logical contradictions cannot occur, God cannot exist.

Arbiter- I see you have put on your war helmet now. I didn't recognize you at first. This example is exactly what I've said. The premises can always be debunked. I've explained why Liebnizs' premise isn't necessarily true just as you have given a counter to mine. As i've said logical arguments alone can not prove truth.

Your reasoning for thinking that the fourth premise must be true doesn't hold water either. Like I said, Liebniz's entire argument is weak because of a weak premise. Nowhere does the existance of a deity (especially in the bible) suggest that He controls our lives and that we are puppets or slaves with no freedom will. Just the opposite. The fact that Gods commandments are that we shouldn't sin show that we obviously have that choice to sin. If it was not so there would be no need for commandments or laws.

quote:

It's difficult to address this block of text because it's really nothing more than a rambling sequence of non sequiturs and semi-intelligible rhetorical questions.

True it is a sequence of rhetorical questions. I'm trying to get you to think. To open up your mind. I'm not trying to form an logical argument.

quote:

You first problem is another logical fallacy: equivocation. The "feeling" of, say, pain from a headache and the "feeling" of, for example, the presence of a deity are two totally distinct and largely unrelated neurological phenomena. Sensory "feelings," that is, the neurological reception and interpretation of touch need not be external - if you stick your thumb up your ass and feel it, it's still touch. The human brain can perform a variety of functions. It can store or process information received from the senses, send instructions to the rest of the body, and create new "thoughts" or "emotions" by analyzing data received from the senses. When you or anyone else believes you "feel" God, you aren't feeling him like you feel that thumb stuck up you ass, you're feeling him an entirely different way - with an emotion. For reasons inexplicable to me, you seem to believe that this emotion is a new piece of sensory data. It isn't. It is simply your brain's expression of some emotion, prompted by a combination of data recieved via the five senses and stored data inside your brain. Then, when you "feel" that emotion, you use affirmation bias to convince yourself that it must be God. Well, sorry to be the one to break it to you, but no, that isn't valid cognition.

If I had to pin you to a philosophical ideology I would say you are a true 'materialist'. You only believe what your five senses tell you. Well let me input this concerning my experience if I may. First, i'm not trying to prove anything in these posts because I can't prove anything to you Arbiter or anyone else. You can not prove to me otherwise either. I know what my experiences and I know to be true and can't deny that. To do so would be to say that the sun doesn't exist while looking at it with my eyes.

I will grant this to you, the 'feeling' that I've spoken of was probably not new sensory information. It was felt internally in the heart. I suggest to you that you can feel physical sensations in your heart. It is a sensory perception. As you aknowleged internal pains are felt. Such as sticking a needle in your tongue. Your tongue feels it. Ok, we should agree here. The heart is much more than just an organ that pumps blood. I suggest to you that the heart really is where emotions dwell. The ancient egyptians understood how special the heart is and believed it was more important than the brain. The brain was actually discarded durring mumification and the heart was preserved. Arbiter, that is where I felt what is called 'confirmation'. This was indeed percieved as intense emotion of the greatest joy ever felt mulitplied many times. You can't manufacture this. It feels like a swelling inside the heart that fills your whole body and it is a physical feeling so intense that you tremble. It happened multiple times within a period of maybe an half hour. This made it clear to me beyond imagination that it was true. Maybe this was necessary to indeed confirm to me without any possible doubt. This is confirmation because it was the result of sincere prayer which required faith. This confirmation not only confirms God but the truth of what you were praying to him about. It is not only enlightenment but knowlege. When I said 'pressence of God' I was referring to his Holy spirit which testifies of God and His son. This spirit also can teach all things. I know you don't understand or believe this and I don't expect you to. Maybe someday you will.

This is the best I can do to explain this to you and to any others who might be reading this. It's an experience that really can't be put into words and described so well. This indeed is empirical evidence to the reciever and of the strongest kind. I could look at something with my own eyes and possibly still doubt what my eyes are seeing. Yet when feeling it in your heart so strong that you tremble and fall to your knees...that cannot be denied nor doubted. Yet it will never be experienced by anyone who is not willing to humble themselves, open their heart and pray with sincere faith. This is the reason logic cannot prove God. It requires faith on the part of the idividual to reveal itself. It is that thing we are all here to discover for ourselves and not something that can be known without personal experience.

I hope someday you will exercise at least a small amount of faith and prayer to learn the same truth.

quote:

The fallacy here is a false analogy. If someone wants to perform an experiment to show that air exists, then they would use various tools along with their five senses to obtain the resultant data. Someone else could easily perform the same experiment with the same tools and the same five senses and obtain similar or equivalent data. You've proposed no such experiment to demonstrate the existence of God, because when you come to the conclusion that God exists you don't use any measurements or observations

I've covered as much as I can above. That experiment is faith and prayer.

quote:

You know what: you're right. I'm very experienced in dealing with mystical-con-artists and I know most - if not all - of their tricks, and I cut straight through the bullshit to address the actual argument itself, which is invariably lacking. When presented with a long winded sequence of logical fallacies trying vainly to justify religious bigotry, I point out each fallacy and correct each error. I guess that makes me closed-minded.

There is nothing wrong with being skeptical. I have no doubt there are many con artists out there. I only hope that your skepticism doesn't close your mind so much that you will never be able to exercise the faith required to recieve 'confirmation' for yourself.

quote:

Yes, and that's exactly why it's not objective. You aren't using a set of criteria to determine that it is "God's presence," you're just deciding that it is based on an emotion which is not a valid tool of cognition. That's as subjective as it gets.

Well until above, u r right I didn't disclose the events leading to the experience. Now you know what is required. Faith is something that isn't easy to have. I was an agnostic once and I had very little faith. I don't believe God expects us to believe in Him blindly. Besides, you can't have a true testimony unless you have empirical evidence. If I say I believe in God and tell that to everyone it doesn't mean I have a true testimony necessarily. It is blind faith. I have a true testimony and those who do can't deny it and will die before they deny it. Yet if you exercise a small amount of faith and humbly ask to know truth you will recieve it for yourself. I guarantee that to you.

quote:

When you don't see air, your eyes aren't decieving you. They never claimed to tell you about things that don't reflect light. You're right that you "mentioned that the metaphysical doesn't necessarily follow material laws," but you've yet to give a verifiable piece of evidence to support this claim. So unless you have an example of something metaphysical which doesn't follow material laws and can be verified outside of your own personal emotions, I'm going to have to assume this claim is nothing more than baseless conjecture.

Well they are decieving you in the sense that they aren't showing you everything that exists in front of you. Maybe decieving isn't the best word. Lets say they just don't allow you to see all things that exist outside of the frequency spectrum that they recieve. X-rays and many other types of light are not visually seen by the eyes, yet they exist but are on a frequency outside of the visual range. There are sounds outside of the audible range of 20hz-20khz and they exist yet you can't hear them. When I say the metaphysical doesn't follow material law it means that the material is of a different frequency not visible to natural eyes and not subject to natural laws. A ghost or spirit may pass through a material wall. The ghost is still matter but of a different kind or frequency. Matter is energy and always exists (Einstein) I'm not going to try to prove ghosts or spirits however, in a thread comming soon I will attempt to with a fairly strong argument using science. watch for it.

quote:

Not really. The scientist could be mistaken, or lying. But that would be easy to determine by corroborating his claims with a variety of sources. But essentially you're right. However, this continues to be a false analogy when it comes to God's presence because what you're experiencing when you "feel" his presence is different from and unrelated to an act of physical observation. Additionally, color can be measured objectively as a particular wavelength of visible light, while a "feeling" of "God's presence" cannot be measured objectively.

Well it is a physical obsevation as I explained earlier. Very much so. Can it be measured well, by each person yes. I recognize this feeling now and it is a teacher. Sometimes it's very strong other times not as much. I don't think it can be put on a universal measurement system because it's unique to the individual.

quote:

My argument has no premises, it has only a conclusion: 1. Everything is blue or something is not blue. This argument requires no premises because the conclusion is a tautology. Therefore, it is logically self-evident. If apples are red, then "something is not blue" so the statement that "everything is blue" OR "something is not blue" is logically true.

And as I said, it's not a valid arguement. It's a logical fallacy. By definition can't even call it an argument. Tautologies are just meaningless statements. The exact opposite of this type of statement would be a 'contradiction'. Another evidence of what I said about everything having an opposite.

quote:

Your emotions are not valid because they do not represent a source of new information, they only represent a "feeling" about existing information. However, this "feeling" is largely based on the compatability of that information with one's pre-existing beliefs: it is not a measure about the validity of the data being examined, it is a measure of the ease with which that data might be assimilated into your pre-existing belief structure. Therefore, it is not a valid or useful tool in determining the accuracy of that information.

True and I gave this too you. It wasn't necessarily new information but more intense than anything before so much so that it seemed different or new.

quote:

I don't necessarily disagree that speculative discussions have their place, but this was never a speculative discussion to begin with. The topic was gay marriage, you made the claim that gay marriage was wrong and should be prohibited because of its incompatability with Christianity. This wasn't a speculative claim, it was an assertion of truth. If you had been speculating, you would have written something like this: "If Christian dogma is true and if our government's role is to enforce that dogma, then I think we should prohibit gay marriage." [QUOTE] You haven't been saying anything like that. Instead, you've made a series of assertions and attempted with little success to demonstrate the truth of those assertions. If you had made the speculative statement I proposed above, I doubt many people would have disagreed with you other than perhaps saying (rightfully so) that it is irrelevant since Christian dogma is false.

Yeh, well when you have a strong belief in your religion and moral code things become less speculative. Things become black and white and not gray.

quote:

I've explained to you ad nauseum why your emotions and intution aren't valid tools to determine the truth of evidence. If you still don't understand it then I'm afraid you're forever doomed to live the rest of your life without knowing how to think properly.

Hahaha, I thought this funny! Well there is a lot you still have to learn my friend but I can understand how you would think this.

quote:

Well, given that your feelings and intution are for all intents and purposes, "no" cause, you've given me plenty of reason to believe that you dismiss evidence without sound basis.

Concerning, different sources of information...
I'm currious what your method of deciding the credibility of a source is. If you have a premise and someone presents 5 observations by 5 different sources, you will read each and then look at the source. Many ppl will be biased by the source alone and reject it. Example, this news bite came from CNN so it's not to be trusted. Let's say you aren't so biased and you research each observation and you cross reference. There comes a point where you can't go any further. You can't gain any more knowlege of the actual event without having actually been there. At this point you are going to have to chose what is the truth. If you were truly unable to allow yourself to use intuition or gut (which comes from experience and is learned) you would never be able to make a choice. But we all do make choices on what we consider truth as I'm sure you do.

quote:

I have thoroughly considered the claims you have set forth and have rejected them on the following basis: a preponderance of fallacious reasoning throughout your arguments, a failure to understand basic concepts of logic with regards to the establishment of truth or falsity, and a consistent demonstration of unsound reasoning through the attempt to determine truth via emotions. As a token of my good faith, I've taken the time above to give a detailed explanation of precisely why many of your claims are invalid and your reasoning flawed. You're welcome to respond if you feel that I've been unfair in my analysis, but I would hope for a higher standard of argumentation if you should choose to do so.

Hehe, well I've had to reject your arguements as well. This thread wasn't going to prove anything to either of us. Although, maybe it will help you to understand that things cannot be proven or disproven by logical arguments. I know I've gone off on a tangent in this thread and I appologize for losing many of you. Arbiter, if I was to explain my philosophical ideology I would say-

All that we can really know is based on our empirical evidence.
This can be percieved by any means that we are capable of.

I percieve myself thinking therfore I exist. I percieve the spirit of God testifying to me of His existance and so He exists.

God cannot be proven to anyone. God proves himself to those who desire to know truth and are willing to exercise some faith. That is one main purpose of this life. If God could be proven that purpose wouldn't exist. It's like me showing you where the treasure is. peace.

Excuse me for my late reply. Unfortunately work doesn’t allow me to post with the same frequency as before … well at least replies backed with proper research.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider tecno- nice of you to join this little discussion Occrider. Doesn't suprise me one bit. Let me start off by saying that I am quite aware of what deism is and what deists believe. Arbiter and I have been focusing on Jefferson, since I think we would all agree he was a large influence on US gov. being the drafter of the DOI and having a hand in the development of the US constitution. I've said it more than once that I agree that Jefferson at least considered himself as a deist. What were Jefferson's ethical and moral influences? My argument is that it was christianity. Certainly, you must agree that Jesus had a large influence on his moral/ethical code.

You have no basis of proof to logically conclude that Jefferson was influenced by the theology of Christianity. As a matter of fact, there’s no conclusive proof anywhere that Jefferson’s ethical or moral code was a product of anything but his own rationale and character. While it’s true that Jefferson thought of Jesus as doing good things as a common man, that’s hardly indicative of influence from Christianity the religion. An analogous misinterpretation would be if Jefferson were to think highly of the philosophical teachings of Aristotle, Plato, etc., and I were to illogically conclude that one of the great pillars influencing Jefferson’s moral and ethical code was Greco-Roman theology. No that’s absolutely incorrect, I have no basis for assuming that Jefferson’s moral or ethical code was derived from Greco-Roman theology simply because Jefferson thought highly of the men.

quote:

Also, the existance of a God or a Supreme creator I support should not be an assumed thing in a persons life. It is learned or taught and then can become belief based on personal experiences, which over the course of a persons life will strengthen belief. I can become a knowlege when the person recieves 'confirmation'. I'm getting sideracked.

Yes you are getting sidetracked. Not only are you attempting to impart your own personal experiences upon others, but according to this rationale, if you were to die today, despite all your pro-Christian writings so far, I could still put forth the claim that you were an atheist because I shouldn’t “assume” that you supported Christianity/God/or a supreme creator.

quote:

Anyway, Jefferson's inspiration came from probably more than just christianity, but I think it is quite narrow minded to base your entire assumption that Jefferson's beliefs came from deism which presupposes many things. As I stated one thing shapes another. The fact is the many of the colonists were christian and they sought religious freedom by colonizing america. They wanted to worship how they chose. Christianity in it's truest form never suggested it be ruled by a catholic authority. It is about each person having faith and learning for themselves the truth and then being able to worship God how they want to and not any authoritarian church. They were freethinkers yet they came to america with fundamental beliefs systems. Even Jefferson and his deistic peers. This is why I support that christianity shaped the US and inspired many of it's fundamental rights. Jefferson didn't just wake up one morning and he was a deist. You have to look beyond the deist writings of Jefferson and look at where there origins may have come. I don't claim to know positively the mind of Jefferson. There is evidence that men don't just become a deist one morning. Influences shape each person and I believe christianity were the influence of Jeff and most of the founding fathers. That is why I suggested our nation was founded on christianity. This gets taken the wrong way and threatens some because they think this belief is going gradually remove freedom. Well I am all for freedom and believe God blesses and strengthens the US because of it's freedom to chose. Free agency is so important in the sheme of things and a democracy such as ours allows the most.

Ok let me summarize your argument:

1. People are influenced by different things
2. Most of the colonists were Christians
3. One cannot develop deistic beliefs independently and there is evidence of this!!!
4. Christianity has no set rules about the worship of God
5. Some nonsense about freedom which has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion

Hooboy … where to begin.

Point 1: while it is true that people are often influenced by different things, you have consistently failed to make a substantive case demonstrating how Jefferson has derived his moral or ethical code from Christianity. I could just as easily follow your example, of showing no evidence, to support my premise that Jefferson derived his moral and ethical code from Satanism under the ridiculous qualifier that people are influenced! I, on the other hand, quoted Jefferson’s own words where he has rejected Christianity, rejected the major tenants of Christianity, and castigated Christianity time and time again. Despite all of this, you still come to the conclusion that Jefferson was inspired and influenced by the very religion he despised???

Somebody please make me a pope or a bishop … no as a matter of fact, crown me as the reincarnation of Jesus himself, because inexplicably, most enigmatically, I emerge from my vehement protests of religion to become the ultimate paradigm of Christianity!!! While your at it, somebody please appoint Arbiter as a cardinal at least. Truly one of the most holy men I've met.

Point 2: That’s an unsubstantiated assumption. Simply because popular religious sects emigrated to escape religious persecution, such as the puritans, they remain by and large a small percentage of the total population. Lynn R. Buzzard, executive director of the Christian Legal Society (a national organization of Christian lawyers) has admitted that there is little proof to support the claim that the colonial population was overwhelmingly Christian. "Not only were a good many of the revolutionary leaders more deist than Christian," Buzzard wrote, "but the actual number of church members was rather small. Perhaps as few as five percent of the populace were church members in 1776" (Schools They Haven't Got a Prayer, Elgin, Illinois David C. Cook Publishing, 1982, p. 81).

This is corroborated by historians: Richard Hofstadter says that "perhaps as many as ninety percent of the Americans were unchurched in 1790" (Anti-Intellectualism in American Life, New York Alfred A. Knopf, 1974, p. 82) who goes on to say "mid-eighteenth century America had a smaller proportion of church members than any other nation in Christendom," noting that "in 1800 [only] about one of every fifteen Americans was a church member" (p. 89). Historian James MacGregor Burns agrees with these figures, noting that "(t)here had been a `very wintry season' for religion every where in America after the Revolution" (The American Experiment Vineyard of Liberty, New York Vintage Books, 1983, p. 493). He adds that "ninety percent of the people lay outside the churches."

To further bolster this argument historians have found censuses conducted in the 1770s to bolster these claims:

“In 1775, by a census Rossiter viewed as reliable, there were 668 Congregationalist churches or congregations, 588 Presbyterian, 495 Anglican, 494 Baptist, 310 Quaker, 159 German Reformed, 150 Lutheran, 65 Methodist, 56 Catholic, 31 Moravian - and a sprinkling of Congregational-Separatists, Mennonites, French Protestants, Dunkers, Sandemanians and five Jewish congregations. Many colonists belonged to no church at all and attitudes toward religion were quite casual among the upper class and the poorest of the colonists. “
http://www.ocregister.com/commentary/bock/bock81102.htm

If you have any credible accounts from historians or statistics from that time period than by all means post it.

Point 3: I find this to be the most amusing argument of all. One cannot become a deist without influence from a religion, particularly Christianity??? Deism, which requires the simplistic theological step of merely believing in a higher power cannot independently evolve without the influence from an extraordinarily complex belief structure involving the bible, the holy trinity, resurrection, ascension, virgin births, etc., etc., etc. And there’s EVIDENCE of this??? By all means elaborate on the mind-numbing complexities of deism such that it is out of the reach of independent development … oh and of course post your evidence. Oh yea and I would assume that since Deistic theology must evolve from some other form of religion that Christianity or any of the other modern religions pre-date any accounts of Deism.

Point 4: Christianity is about “being able to worship God how they want to”??? So one need not believe in all that hooey spouted in the New testament? You know, all this crap:

"He who believes on the Son has everlasting life: and he who believes not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abides on him." (John 3:36)

¨"And they said, Believe on the Lord Jesus Christ, and you shall be saved, and your household." (Acts 16:31)

¨"To Him give all the prophets witness, that through His name whoever believes in Him shall receive remission of sins." (Acts 10:43)

¨"For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16)

¨"And many other signs truly did Jesus in the presence of His disciples, which are not written in this book: but these are written, that you might believe that Jesus is the Christ, the Son of God; and that believing you might have life through His name." (John 20:30, 31)

"Jesus said to him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man comes to the Father, but by Me." (John 14:6)

¨"Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is no other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved." (Acts 4:12)

¨"Jesus said, I am the resurrection and the life: he that believes in Me, though he were dead, yet shall he live: and whoever lives and believes in Me shall never die. Do you believe this?" (John 11:25, 26)

¨"For there is one God, and one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus." (l Timothy 2:5)


Wonderful, guess all those Christian churches are completely wrong about Christianity! It’s good that you cleared things up for me.


My Rebuttal to Your Point 5: The theme for the Hispanic Organization of Latino Americans (HOLA) network group's Hispanic Heritage Month activities this year was “L.E.A.D. – Leadership, Empowerment, Achievement and Determination.” Through their series of events, the group led the way in educating both young and old on diversity, leadership and achieving our mission. HOLA and the Freddie Mac Foundation collaborated with organizations such as the Department of Agriculture and the National Council of Hispanic Employment Program Managers to create the first Greater Washington, D.C. Hispanic Youth Symposium. The event encourages Hispanic high school juniors and seniors to seek brighter futures through higher education, community service, and personal responsibility.

quote:

Maybe so, but everything has it's influences. I at one point rejected everything I was taught about religion and became agnostic. Thats right Aribter/Occrider. I honestly didn't know either way. I actually opposed religious laws and most authority. This country isn't truly 'free' both of you must agree. There are laws which many coincidentally happen to be similar if not exactly the same as those of the bible. This isn't coincidence. Most of these laws came about by states governing themselves and christian biases were and are strong in the judiciary system. This cannot be overlooked and is another reason why I made a general claim that the US gov. is based on christianity. Whether you like it or not the evidence is everywhere. Is that good or bade? Well it has for the most(excluding the civil war) part kept a nation of people comprising every culture, religion and ethnicity of the world living at peace and living together since it's foundation. That is quite remarkable.

Evidence??? What evidence? You haven’t shown an iota of evidence demonstrated Jefferson was in any way Christian or that he modeled the US government on Christian ideals. As a matter of fact, this statement by Jefferson shows us EXACTLY what he thought about modeling the gov’t from Christian influence.

In a letter to Major John Cartwright:

quote:

"I was glad to find in your book a formal contradiction at length of the judiciary usurpation of legislative powers; for such the judges have usurped in their repeated decisions, that Christianity is a part of the common law. The proof of the contrary which you have adduced is incontrovertible; to wit, that the common law existed while the Anglo-Saxons were yet Pagans, at a time when they had never yet heard the name of Christ pronounced, or knew that such a character had ever existed. But it may amuse you to show when and by what means they stole the law in upon us. In a case of quare impedit in the Year Book 34 H. 6, folio 38, (anno 1458,) a question was made, how far the ecclesiastical law was to be respected in a common law court. And Prisot, Chief Justice, gives his opinion in these words: 'A tiel leis qu'ils de seint eglise ont en ancien scripture covient a nous a donner credence,' etc. See S.C. Fitzh. Abr. Qu. imp. 89. Bro.; Abr. Qu. imp. 12. Finch, in his first book, c. 3 is the first afterwards who quotes this case, and mistakes it thus: 'To such laws of the church as have warrant in Holy Scripture our law giveth credence;' and cites Prisot, mistranslating 'ancien scripture' into 'Holy Scripture.' Whereas Prisot palpably says 'To such laws as those of holy church have in ancient writing it is proper for us to give credence;' to wit, to their ancient written laws. This was in 1613, a century and a half after the dictum of Prisot. Wingate, in 1658, erects this false translation into a maxim of common law, copying the words of Finch, but citing Prisot. Wing, Max. 3. And Sheppard, title 'Religion,' in 1675, copies the same mistranslation, quoting the Y.B. Finch and Wingate. Hale expresses it in these words: 'Christianity is parcel of the laws of England.' 1 Ventr. 293. 3 Keb. 607. But he quotes no authority. By these echoings and reechoings from one to another it had become so established in 1728 that, in case the King vs. Woolston, 2 Stra. 834, the court would not suffer it to be debated, whether to write against Christianity was punishable in the temporal courts at common law. Wood, therefore, 409, ventures still to vary the phrase, and say that all blasphemy and profaneness are offenses by the common law, and cites 2 Stra. Then Blackstone, in 1763, 4.59, repeats the words of Hale, that 'Christianity is part of laws of England,' citing Ventris and Strange. And finally, Lord Mansfield, with a little qualification in Evans's case, in 1767, says that 'the essential principles of revealed religion are part of the common law.' Thus engulfing Bible, Testament, and all, into the common law, without citing any authority. And thus we find this chain of authorities hanging link by link, one upon another, and all ultimately on one and the same book, and that a mistranslation of the words 'ancien scripture' used by Prisot. Finch quotes Prisot; Wingate does the same. Sheppard quotes Prisot, Finch, and Wingate. Hale cites nobody. The court in Woolston's case cites Hale. Wood cites Woolston's case. Blackstone quotes Woolston's case and Hale. And Lord Mansfield, like Hale, ventures on his own authority. Here I might defy the best read lawyer to produce another scrip of authority for this judiciary forgery; and I might go on further to show how some of they Anglo-Saxon priests interpolated into the texts of Alfred's laws 20th, 21st, 22d, and 23d chapters of Exodus, and the 15th of the Acts of the Apostles, from the 23d to the 29th verse. But this would lead my pen and your patience too far. What a conspiracy this between church and state! Sing Tantarara, rogues all, rogues all!" (Works, Vol. iv., pp. 397, 398).

There in Jefferson’s own words you can see him criticizing those who claim that Christianity had any influence on the state. I mean what else do you want??? Shall we perform a séance to bring Jefferson’s spirit back from the grave so he can do a little song and dance for us about how retarded the church is?

quote:

occrider - This is for my own benefit. My reply shall be forthcoming.

Thanks occ, your efforts to make my reply easier was certainly appreciated.

Christ now when am I going to find time for that "explosives" thread?

___________________
Retro ...

Last edited by occrider on Oct-27-2004 at 19:04

quote:

Originally posted by D.Edge i think you are abusing the term "empirical evidence". * i don't see how it is possible to confuse "perception" with "observation".

As I suggested it is very much percieved and is an experience. It's like feeling the 'sunlight' permeate your entire body and knowing it is the sun because of the direct relationship. You asked the sun itself and then it manifested itself to you by permeating you with it's light. Make sense? probably not. Anything/everything you percieve or observe in your life is empirical evidence.

empirical {Ger. Erfahrung}

Based on use of the senses, observation, or experience generally. Hence, the empirical coincides with what is a posteriori. http://www.philosophypages.com/dy/e5.htm#empl

quote:

in other words, God only exists to those who believe in Him. so does Santa Claus, funnily enough.

Those who believe in him don't necessarily know He (sun) exists though. Not until they recieve confirmation by the power of the holy spirit(sunlight) and that requires prayer and sincere asking of Him(sun) also. Hopefully that makes sense. It's the best I can do.

Well??? I'm waiting for my coronation as Jesus 2 ... none of you get any salvation until it's official.

___________________
Retro ...

I think the name of this thread should be chaged.

And occrider, what are you going to save us from exactly?



When you are coronated please take time to send me converted wine. I'm in need of that.

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by ierxium And occrider, what are you going to save us from exactly?

Darwinian extinction due to the lack of common sense as a byproduct of religious idolatry.

quote:

When you are coronated please take time to send me converted wine. I'm in need of that.

Sorry, Jesus 2 drinks all the wine himself.

___________________
Retro ...

quote:

Originally posted by tecnolover Arbiter- I see you have put on your war helmet now. I didn't recognize you at first. This example is exactly what I've said. The premises can always be debunked. I've explained why Liebnizs' premise isn't necessarily true just as you have given a counter to mine. As i've said logical arguments alone can not prove truth.

Logical arguments can and have proven truth. They may not be enough to convince an illogical person, but that speaks to the ignorance of that person, not to the efficacy of the argument.

quote:

Your reasoning for thinking that the fourth premise must be true doesn't hold water either. Like I said, Liebniz's entire argument is weak because of a weak premise. Nowhere does the existance of a deity (especially in the bible) suggest that He controls our lives and that we are puppets or slaves with no freedom will. Just the opposite. The fact that Gods commandments are that we shouldn't sin show that we obviously have that choice to sin. If it was not so there would be no need for commandments or laws.

You haven't understood my ideas at all. God easily could have permitted sin without allowing people to gas each other to death by the millions. For example, people could still choose to carve graven images, or covet their neighbors' wives. However, he unnecessarily allowed people to kill each other - serving no purpose which could not be accomplished in a myriad of other, less offensive, ways. An omnibenevolent being, by definition, simply would not and could not make this choice.

quote:

True it is a sequence of rhetorical questions. I'm trying to get you to think. To open up your mind. I'm not trying to form an logical argument.

Well if you want me to think then why don't you give me something to think about? You know, like facts, or logic, or maybe even both? Conjecture and demagoguery doesn't really do it for me.

quote:

If I had to pin you to a philosophical ideology I would say you are a true 'materialist'. You only believe what your five senses tell you. Well let me input this concerning my experience if I may. First, i'm not trying to prove anything in these posts because I can't prove anything to you Arbiter or anyone else. You can not prove to me otherwise either. I know what my experiences and I know to be true and can't deny that. To do so would be to say that the sun doesn't exist while looking at it with my eyes. I will grant this to you, the 'feeling' that I've spoken of was probably not new sensory information. It was felt internally in the heart. I suggest to you that you can feel physical sensations in your heart. It is a sensory perception. As you aknowleged internal pains are felt. Such as sticking a needle in your tongue. Your tongue feels it. Ok, we should agree here. The heart is much more than just an organ that pumps blood. I suggest to you that the heart really is where emotions dwell. The ancient egyptians understood how special the heart is and believed it was more important than the brain. The brain was actually discarded durring mumification and the heart was preserved. Arbiter, that is where I felt what is called 'confirmation'. This was indeed percieved as intense emotion of the greatest joy ever felt mulitplied many times. You can't manufacture this. It feels like a swelling inside the heart that fills your whole body and it is a physical feeling so intense that you tremble. It happened multiple times within a period of maybe an half hour. This made it clear to me beyond imagination that it was true. Maybe this was necessary to indeed confirm to me without any possible doubt. This is confirmation because it was the result of sincere prayer which required faith. This confirmation not only confirms God but the truth of what you were praying to him about. It is not only enlightenment but knowlege. When I said 'pressence of God' I was referring to his Holy spirit which testifies of God and His son. This spirit also can teach all things. I know you don't understand or believe this and I don't expect you to. Maybe someday you will. This is the best I can do to explain this to you and to any others who might be reading this. It's an experience that really can't be put into words and described so well. This indeed is empirical evidence to the reciever and of the strongest kind. I could look at something with my own eyes and possibly still doubt what my eyes are seeing. Yet when feeling it in your heart so strong that you tremble and fall to your knees...that cannot be denied nor doubted. Yet it will never be experienced by anyone who is not willing to humble themselves, open their heart and pray with sincere faith. This is the reason logic cannot prove God. It requires faith on the part of the idividual to reveal itself. It is that thing we are all here to discover for ourselves and not something that can be known without personal experience. I hope someday you will exercise at least a small amount of faith and prayer to learn the same truth.

What you experienced wasn't just "confirmation," it was "confirmation bias":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

Once again, this is a flawed/invalid form of cognition. It really isn't a matter of conjecture at this point what organ emotions are located in. It is universally accepted biological fact that emotions occur in the brain, primarily in the limbic system where emotions such as fear, anger, and pleasure have been confirmed to arise. Other emotions may be more complex and/or use different mechanisms in order to manifest themselves, but one thing we can be sure of is that they don't come from the heart.

quote:

I've covered as much as I can above. That experiment is faith and prayer.

Your experiment is fundamentally flawed because the hypothesis is not verifiable, nor is the induction that "God" is the source of one's feeling falsifiable. Ergo, it provides evidence for nothing.

quote:

Well until above, u r right I didn't disclose the events leading to the experience. Now you know what is required. Faith is something that isn't easy to have. I was an agnostic once and I had very little faith. I don't believe God expects us to believe in Him blindly. Besides, you can't have a true testimony unless you have empirical evidence. If I say I believe in God and tell that to everyone it doesn't mean I have a true testimony necessarily. It is blind faith. I have a true testimony and those who do can't deny it and will die before they deny it. Yet if you exercise a small amount of faith and humbly ask to know truth you will recieve it for yourself. I guarantee that to you.

Faith is the antithesis of valid rational cognition. Any postulate which requires faith to justify or demonstrate is false.

quote:

Well they are decieving you in the sense that they aren't showing you everything that exists in front of you. Maybe decieving isn't the best word. Lets say they just don't allow you to see all things that exist outside of the frequency spectrum that they recieve. X-rays and many other types of light are not visually seen by the eyes, yet they exist but are on a frequency outside of the visual range. There are sounds outside of the audible range of 20hz-20khz and they exist yet you can't hear them. When I say the metaphysical doesn't follow material law it means that the material is of a different frequency not visible to natural eyes and not subject to natural laws. A ghost or spirit may pass through a material wall. The ghost is still matter but of a different kind or frequency. Matter is energy and always exists (Einstein) I'm not going to try to prove ghosts or spirits however, in a thread comming soon I will attempt to with a fairly strong argument using science. watch for it.

Certainly, there may be things we cannot perceive, but so what? We can neither claim to know they exist, or claim to know they do not exist, so long as they possess internally consistent characteristics. To make either claim would be irrational and have no sound basis.

quote:

Well it is a physical obsevation as I explained earlier. Very much so. Can it be measured well, by each person yes. I recognize this feeling now and it is a teacher. Sometimes it's very strong other times not as much. I don't think it can be put on a universal measurement system because it's unique to the individual.

It is not a phsyical observation, it is a serious of non sequitur leaps of faith based on confirmation bias and a priori assumptions. Thus, it is not a valid analogy.

quote:

And as I said, it's not a valid arguement. It's a logical fallacy. By definition can't even call it an argument. Tautologies are just meaningless statements. The exact opposite of this type of statement would be a 'contradiction'. Another evidence of what I said about everything having an opposite.

Yes, the opposite of this statement would be a contradiction - that is exactly why the statement must logically be true. It is impossible for it to be false, just as it is impossible for a contradiction to be true.

It is a valid argument whether you have the education in logic to understand it or not. If it is a fallacy, then what fallacy is that? It is no fallacy: it is perfect and irrefutable mathematical reasoning; hence, your failure to refute it.

quote:

Yeh, well when you have a strong belief in your religion and moral code things become less speculative. Things become black and white and not gray.

That's called oversimplification and just plain ignorance.

quote:

Concerning, different sources of information... I'm currious what your method of deciding the credibility of a source is. If you have a premise and someone presents 5 observations by 5 different sources, you will read each and then look at the source. Many ppl will be biased by the source alone and reject it. Example, this news bite came from CNN so it's not to be trusted. Let's say you aren't so biased and you research each observation and you cross reference. There comes a point where you can't go any further. You can't gain any more knowlege of the actual event without having actually been there. At this point you are going to have to chose what is the truth. If you were truly unable to allow yourself to use intuition or gut (which comes from experience and is learned) you would never be able to make a choice. But we all do make choices on what we consider truth as I'm sure you do.

It's fairly simple, to be honest. I collect as many different points of view on a single piece of information as possible, and examine which side better refutes the arguments of the other side. If one side tends to rely on logical fallacies and the other side provides falsifiable evidence which has not been falsified, then I'll tend to believe the latter.

In some cases, neither side makes a compelling rational case and I have a choice between relying on my "intuition" or simply not professing a belief in either. In such a case, I will not believe either, but rather simply say "I do not know."

quote:

Hehe, well I've had to reject your arguements as well. This thread wasn't going to prove anything to either of us. Although, maybe it will help you to understand that things cannot be proven or disproven by logical arguments.

You've rejected my arguments, yes. But have you provided a sound basis for such rejection? Most certainly not. I have proven or disproven several "things" by logical arguments in this thread alone - a refusal to accept them is mere ignorance.

quote:

Arbiter, if I was to explain my philosophical ideology I would say- All that we can really know is based on our empirical evidence. This can be percieved by any means that we are capable of. I percieve myself thinking therfore I exist. I percieve the spirit of God testifying to me of His existance and so He exists. God cannot be proven to anyone. God proves himself to those who desire to know truth and are willing to exercise some faith. That is one main purpose of this life. If God could be proven that purpose wouldn't exist. It's like me showing you where the treasure is. peace.

Your philosophical ideology is one which will simply affirm whatever you wish to believe. Your methodology for the determination of truth is one which will never yield a result inconsistent with your preconceived ideas which were likely based on no evidence, or misinterpreted evidence. It is, ultimately, the philosophy of ignorance, as it seeks to avoid obtaining new information at any cost.

quote:

Originally posted by D.Edge empirical perhaps. however, evidence is a different matter. can this "experience" be observed/percieved by more than one person at the same time? will everyone's observed/perceived "experience" be consistent with each other's? can this "experience" be examined and/or verified by an impartial arbiter?

Evidence
Noun
1. Your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief; "the evidence that smoking causes lung cancer is very compelling".

2. An indication that makes something evident; "his trembling was evidence of his fear".

3. (law) all the means by which any alleged matter of fact whose truth is investigated at judicial trial is established or disproved.

http://www.websters-online-dictiona...v/evidence.html

Where does the definition of 'evidence' require that it be witnessed by many people 'at the same time'? Or even more than one person? If I percieve something it is evidence to me regardless who else might else percieve it. Even still the answer is Yes it has. It is quite obvious that this evidence has been recieved by many many people through out human history. And Yes at times it has been manifested to entire groups or populations of people. All of the prophets of the Bible were certainly people who recieved this same evidence. People every day do, just as you can as well. It is personal evidence. A direct communication from God to you. This is the 'best evidence' and most credible of all.

I am inclined to say usually that it can not be recieved by an impartial individual because it requires an effort on your part. That effort being some faith in Him and His son. People who are truly seeking to know if God exists are willing to humble themselves before Him in prayer and ask Him. They must be able to lay aside all pre-conceptions if only for a moment and come before Him as a child asking their father for the truth. If they do this, He has promised that He will answer. There have been some special accounts however, of individuals who opposed God and persecuted those believing in Him that were litteraly 'struck' as if by lightening or another force and shown the error of their ways and became true believers.

quote:

i appreciate your efforts, but i remain unconvinced by this analogy. the sun is visible. God is not visible, not even to those who believe. also, the sun provides sunlight whether you ask for it or not.

First let me just suggest that people actually have seen God. Moses and others did. Yet with their spiritual eyes, not physical eyes. Our physical eyes do not see everything that exists. Air, x-rays ect ect. They are all invisible yet they exist.

Yes, the sun does provide sunlight but you don't always get that sunlight do you? sometimes you are inside your house enclosed. Like the sun, God's spirit is everywhere like a light but is not felt unless the person opens his heart to recieve it. Unbelievers and skeptics have closed their hearts.

quote:

Originally posted by occrider After going through about a decade of Sunday school, the one thing I can say for certain is that Christianity requires belief in a whole lot more than simply believing in God.

Occy... could you expound on this statement? I am just curious.

I'm still trying to sift through this post... although I can see the main point of argument is Jefferson and the writers of the DOI believing in God and whatnot... I can't figure out the exact purposes of Arbiter's and technolover's exchanges.