In answer to: How do you know you are right?

Well, to clarify, how do you know that the Old Testament is not like other ancient works, such as the Odyssey, the Icelandic Sagas, and the Celtic myths, all of which involve the supernatural?

 

Because events that happened after these alleged events can be verified. And there is evidence of Israelites being in Egypt, and across the Red Sea. How they got there is up for debate, but many people agree -- Moses did, in fact, have the power to part it.

 

So, the Israelites got from Egypt to Israel...and because an ancient text says that it happened in a paranormal manner, it must have? I see.

 

Lol, no no no - but how else COULD it have happened? Haha I know I know, stop making fun of me But seriously, you're lucky I'm tired or you would have had to make fun of me even more ^_^

 

Well there is the alternative explanation of earthquakes and tsunamis:

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-religion/1686422/posts

Or, you could follow the "coral exposed by strong eastern wind" theory, a source for which I am unable to find.

Or, you could look at the hundreds of alternative hypothesises: The Hebrews crossed through the Red Sea Wilderness, they crossed a dried shallow lake, etc.

Or, perhaps most rationally at all, perhaps you should not take an ancient text as literal truth.

 

Ouch.

[Note to self: If Shredderbeam wants to jostle, just throw in the towel]

 

1. Reality is objective.
2. Rationality is valid.
3. The rational validity and truth value of a statement is how well it conforms to objective reality.

"objective" has several, very different meanings.
i believe that you use the word in your arguments to mean based on facts and unbiased by personal emotions.

i do not know the exact definition of "rationality" but i do know that to be rational is to be in accordance with reason. reason is common sense. "good sense" "sound" judgement. but who decides what is common sense?

i believe this is what you attempt to relate in your 3rd point. a statement is considered "true" if it is in accordance with reality, regardless of emotional bias.

common sense (REASON) tells us that grass is green.
it is FACT. regardless of how you FEEL about the subject, anyone who can see grass will tell you it is green.(this is disregarding petty points such as "well it's not green ALL the time", etc. i will keep my examples simple for now to keep on topic).

a blind man can REASONABLY and RATIONALLY say that grass is not green. he may even argue that grass is colorless or black. is he wrong?

sandpaper is a rough surface. this is a FACT. a person who has no nerve endings in their skin may argue, however, that sandpaper has no texture at all. would they be wrong?

no. it is also a FACT that grass is black and it is also REASONABLE and RATIONAL that sandpaper has no texture.

the FACT of the matter is that all reality is relative to the point of view from which it is percieved. but how can i possibly argue that this is true without admitting that there is in fact ONE RATIONAL REALity?

i cannot.

thus proving my point. you cannot accept one reality as unchanging and completely objective, because information is biased before our brains our able to contemplate them (based on our knowledge prior to perception). but SYTHE CAN do just that because he has not yet considered how much he contradicts himself. to someone (such as sythe) who had never thought of the impossible conondrum that they have themselves presented, their argument is FACT. upon reading my response, the FACTS WILL CHANGE. or will they?

NO! the fact is that i am right AND sythe is right. god exists AND god doesn't exist. the glass is half empty AND half full. all argument is futile!



AND

all argument is reasonable.

 

First, please know i never tried to insult you. the fact that you are so violently defensive about a calm and thoughtful response displays something about yourself.

also i am sorry that i may have misunderstand your use of the word "reason". but you must understand that the word has several meanings. i suppose you were attempting to convey it as a verb (to reason). i understood it in its noun form.

i dont believe you understand the way that YOU contradict YOURSELF. you say that reality is objective (unbiased by feelings/preconcieved notions). you have said it yourself:
"One only need provide a single counter example to disprove his point."
you need to proof to come up with your fact.
this is when it no longer becomes objective. the facts in your reality have been altered by this new information. it is BIASED by your new knowledge.

you clearly did not understand my post at all (maybe it IS my grammar. if so, i apologize).

YOU ARE RIGHT. I AM RIGHT. the one thing you have missed from my post is that i am not THE correct person in this discussion (not debate).

REALITY IS NOT OBJECTIVE.<<<<<<<<<<unless you believe it to be.
in which case it is.

thus disproving the existence of an objective reality because you are basing the fact that reality is objective on your FEELINGS.
but i cannot say that i have disproven the idea.
this is using the same logc as yourself.

but the most important thing (and i may have failed to convey this in my previous post) is that:
for people who have not read my posts and do not think the same way as i, there is one reality.

attempting to prove that there is only one reality by using examples of things you can DO to PROVE it so is pointless. unless someone has the same point of view as yourself. in which case it is the epitome of importance.

my being unable to PROVE my point is the reason why i am correct.
does this make anyone who says i am wrong incorrect?
i dont believe so.

the fact that you attempt to PROVE that reality is unaltered by one's point of view only becomes wrong when you understand that it is wrong! my point of view is only wrong to you, because you believe that YOU are right. but this contradicts the idea that the one true reality (which is that i am DEAD WRONG) is objective. it is not.

unless you believe that i am dead wrong. then i am. but i think ive talked in circles enough.

i wish that you and i could sit down in person and discuss this. not because i am determined to prove myself correct, but because the thought process you used in your original post displays a higher level of intellect. i will not post further on the subject because i would only be saying the same thing.

i do not have my head in my ass.
the complex problems in the world may just be slightly more complicated than you want them to be. i enjoy debate because it helps me to understand the way people think. debating is not pointless. unless you believe it so.

and by the way. there is no god. i do not believe in someone/thing simply because others do. i simply believe that for someone who does believe that "god" exists. he does.

EDIT: (to add one thing)
i have read the things you have typed all around this website.
i think you are more intelligent than most. at first i was thinking of insulting you for banning someone with an opposing point of view, but i understand your decision after reading all of the posts and i have grown to respect your intellect. i always crave intellectual conversation.
i will stop talking in circles for a moment to more clearly and calmly deliver my point of view.
our reality is not objective. it is subjective.
there IS one set of reactions that will always follow corresponding actions. there is one set of objective facts. however, the objectivity of our reality is lost when we attempt to speak about them or even THINK about them. we are able to function, discuss, and debate because we all accept a set of subjective definitions for the phenomena in our lives. in realizing this, one must wonder at the immense power of words and thoughts. i simply believe this is terribly interesting to consider and think about.

perhaps some people use "god" as a way to describe things happening around them that we do not yet fully understand. there WAS some form of energy that set the universe in motion, regardless of your religion or lack thereof. depending on your definition of "god", could this not be defined as an almighty power or a god? perhaps all of the new scientific findings of late could be defined as god by some.

saying that someone who believes in god based on the things i have just described is "wrong" is as irrational as saying that someone who uses "guten tag" to say "good day" is wrong.

i do, however, firmly believe that people who sit in church imagining a muscular man in a robe sitting on a throne and imposing his will on humanity are sadly misguided.

 

Just to be clear:

Is that an accurate view of your position?

Logic, actually.

 

Quote:
Omnipotence is an attribute which means unlimited in power - without limitations to action. This attribute is paradoxical and can be shown as impossible through the following argument: Question: Can an omnipotent entity, X, create a rock that X can not lift? If yes, then X is not omnipotent; if no, then X is not omnipotent.
Therefore X is not omnipotent.
Therefore god is a contradiction, therefore god cannot exist in reality.

Sythe I am sorry your small mind (mine also) cannot grasp the concept of being omnipotent, or eternal. That is sad how you use reality to contradict it when God is not part of this world. You can go and argue how he can't pick up a rock all day, but in the end it has nothing to do with that. Do you really think that all the forces on earth are the only forces there are. You think the laws of nature are universal?? If so you are more ignorant then I would like to believe. Just because you cannot explain something does not mean it is not real. God is imensly infenent. He can not be defined with your square box. Excuse my refrence but there is no way to describe him. He is and was and always will be. Can you explain that one? No, you can't. You will say "Well that is a contradiction right there.", but if you would put your mind to work and think about it earths laws are not universal. Just because it is that way here doesn't mean it is like that everywhere. If you can grasp the fact that he is INFINITE then I'm sure it wouldn't be to far to be able to grasp the fact that at the same time he is omnipotent. Ha, I do not have all the answers because I do not know it all, but there are many people I know that could out rationilize you any day of the week. You think you know it all about "God" but you are far from knowing anything. God NEVER contradicts himself, but the way you look at it his whole nature is contradictory because our (your) small mind cannot grasp the facts that are presented and those facts are that God is almighty, all knowing, ever present, enternal, omnipotent, and much more. You can try and rationalize it all you want, and you can try to put me down all you want, but the matter of the fact is if you do not accept Jesus Christ as your savior you are going to Hell. I will be praying for you daily and I really hope it does some good. You are wrong is your rationalization and in your ways. If you would like to talk to me more about it I am wide open for discussion, but I hate to say you are 100% completely WRONG.

I hope you have a good life, and I really hope you come to the Lord sooner or later, but if not I warned you of the consequences. =/

 

Oh boy, I can't wait 'till he rips this post to shit. I can already see a ton of argumentative fallacies and contradictions.

 

You're missing the point - omnipotence is a logically impossible concept.

If you argue that God cannot be constrained by "logic" and "rationality", then there is no use in debating his existence. You have yourself an unfalsifiable hypothesis.

Please justify your assertion, preferably beginning with empirical evidence for the existence of God.

 

This is in response to your argument Sythe. I am not trying to win an argument. This is from a very highly regarded apologetics scholar. (In my mind and in many others. Please reply. I would love to hear what you have to say. Please don't see this as me being cocky, arrogant, or ignorant, and please respond I would really like to see your side of the story and what you have to say about all this.

 

If omnipotence is defined to mean "the ability to do anything logically possible", then your friend is correct.

Generally, though, this is an argument against those who argue that God can do anything, anywhere, with no limitations of any sort whatsoever.

 

That is the way that omnipotence is defined, and many Christians have different views on this subject like you mentioned. I am just wondering what sythe has to say about all this too. If I could his impute it would be very helpful. I am just wondering what he has to say and how he thinks on what my friend says. I like to be very open minded to the thoughts of others. (Not saying my views will change, because they probably won't, but I do like to hear the other side of the story too.)

 

i had to make a new sythe account, anyway. I would just like to say that i am infact athiest.

I read how sythe said god himself is a contradiction, in reality. However isnt god supposed to exist out of reality? And is able to do things our human minds cannot comprehend, our definition of god could be limited. If god can do anything then he can make a rock that he cannot lift. However since he exists out of reality it would not make him not omnipotent. He deliberately made something he cannot lift, therefore; he still has the ability to do anything, he cannot lift it because he made it so, and he can undo his actions being omipotent and all.

 

Hey Sythe I am really want to hear what you have to say about my friends thoughts. Not because I am trying to gloat, but you are a very intelligent person and I'm sure you have a response to it (and a very good one at that). I would like to hear what you have to say about it because Shedder tore my thoughts to piece lol, and I'm just wondering what it is you think about what my friend has to say.