'Sin'

[wigginhall]

Stephen Taylor - interesting point that you made earlier, that ontological naturalism (there is only nature) is on a a par with theism.  Well, I think you were saying that.   

I think you mean that neither can be defended.   Well, there are obviously philosophers who are naturalists, but I'm not sure if they are 100% naturalists, and how they would argue for that.    I suppose you could argue that we've never seen anything non-natural, therefore it is very unlikely that it exists.  But then 'very unlikely' doesn't rule it out.

You could also argue that since the non-natural has never been defined, (and as you are saying, there is no method for demonstrating it), it can be dismissed.   Hmm. 

It's the point where the implausible becomes impossible, I don't know if there is such a point. 

The comparison with the Matrix is interesting here - since the Matrix is very very unlikely and implausible, but I suppose one could stick one's neck out and say that it's impossible.   

[Gonnagle]

Dear Stranger,

I know where this is going, Fine tuning get yer fine tuning here, Am I on any safer ground with, this Universe, the one we occupy, the one we can study, or this World the one we occupy and lets not forget my third part of the equation, we are mere mortals trying to be gods.

Why can't I see it, then?

You have your God spot switched off.

Gonnagle.

[Stranger]

I know where this is going, Fine tuning get yer fine tuning here, Am I on any safer ground with, this Universe, the one we occupy, the one we can study, or this World the one we occupy and lets not forget my third part of the equation, we are mere mortals trying to be gods.

Yes, well, the thing is, if this universe is supposed to be designed to make us (or allow for us) then it's damnably inefficient. There is the anthropic principle; only those parts of reality that are capable of supporting the existence of observers can ever be observed. That's part of an answer.

Thing is, I don't know how much of reality there is or why it is like it is but I see no reason to think there is an intelligence behind it and, even if we posit such a being, how do we then explain its existence? We end up explaining nothing; just moving the mysteries one step away and anthropomorphizing them. I refuse to call my ignorance god and worship it (that's a half remembered quote from somebody - not original).

You have your God spot switched off.

Since your god is omni- that will be its fault then; it's hiding from me.

[floo]

Yes, well, the thing is, if this universe is supposed to be designed to make us (or allow for us) then it's damnably inefficient. There is the anthropic principle; only those parts of reality that are capable of supporting the existence of observers can ever be observed. That's part of an answer.

Thing is, I don't know how much of reality there is or why it is like it is but I see no reason to think there is an intelligence behind it and, even if we posit such a being, how do we then explain its existence? We end up explaining nothing; just moving the mysteries one step away and anthropomorphizing them. I refuse to call my ignorance god and worship it (that's a half remembered quote from somebody - not original).

Since your god is omni- that will be its fault then; it's hiding from me.

Exactly.

[Sassy]

Ho Ho Ho Ho.

Ha Ha Ha Ha.

Seriously I need to lie down.

You are a funny guy.

Do you believe mocking believers is acceptable?

Oh, I forgot, you don't mock do you?

[Sassy]

I was getting fed up with the word ontological seeping through to all the threads 

I think, therefore I am....

Just keep thinking Rose you will know you exist...

[Sassy]

Dear Horsethorn,

Yes, I am a ontologicalist. Although I am well aware I may be jumping into the abyss, entering the mind of Vlad.

1. The Universe works, oh yes it does!

2. This little world of ours works, oh yes it does!

3. Man, us, spend our whole lives trying to be small gods, oh yes we do! may be that is why God does not make his presence more noticeable, he/she/it is shit scared of what we have become and where we are going.

Gonnagle.

Couldn't have anything to do with God revealing himself to mankind through the Prophets and Christ etc?
Revealing himself with Christ to believers in a personal relationship?
When we get to the nitty gritty, people ask for proof. When you ask what type of proof. They ask for him to show himself yet he is telling everyone that if they believe in Christ and obey his words he will show up and reveal himself.

You have God revealing the way to know him. And man ignoring the way wanting things his own way.
Arrogant to say you want to know if God is true and then ignoring the way he has made it possible.
A little like history repeating itself. Man wanting his own way over Gods way and ignoring what he is told.

God is the creator will you ever use your brain as he intended or your will to seek his truth?
A question all can ask themselves and then try and answer.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Oh, I forgot, you don't mock do you?

I wasn't mocking him because he was a believer, but because of the atrocious and dishonesty of the argument.

He was suggesting that anyone who disagrees with him is a liar. i.e. that if you don't accept his arguments then you are ontological naturalist.

However, I don't tell out and out lies like you do. How is the apology coming along by the way? Doesn't need to a long one, just to say that you were totally wrong to say that I have discriminated against Christians.

[floo]

Do you believe mocking believers is acceptable?

Oh, I forgot, you don't mock do you?

And your posts aren't mocking are they?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

I wasn't mocking him because he was a believer, but because of the atrocious and dishonesty of the argument.

He was suggesting that anyone who disagrees with him is a liar. i.e. that if you don't accept his arguments then you are ontological naturalist.

However, I don't tell out and out lies like you do. How is the apology coming along by the way? Doesn't need to a long one, just to say that you were totally wrong to say that I have discriminated against Christians.

How are you getting on with that apology. Really, one line will be sufficient.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

How are you getting on with that apology. Really, one line will be sufficient.

Stephen. Are you asking for an apology from yourself?

[Shaker]

Stephen. Are you asking for an apology from yourself?

No, from Sassy - she accused him of discriminating against Christians.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Without gravity of hydrogen a universe would work yes. Just not this one. There is nothing special about this one though.

If god is not hiding, why can we not detect him easily?

If their is hiding it might be in the sense you are playing hide and seek with him.

There is nothing special about this universe? You have seen another one?
If not then you are trouser talking again.

[Shaker]

If their is hiding it might be in the sense you are playing hide and seek with him.

Hide and seek as a game tends to rely on there being at least two parties known to each other however.

[Khatru]

Do you believe mocking believers is acceptable?

Oh, I forgot, you don't mock do you?

Why not?

Your holy book refers to unbelievers as fools.

[Khatru]

Couldn't have anything to do with God revealing himself to mankind through the Prophets and Christ etc?
Revealing himself with Christ to believers in a personal relationship?
When we get to the nitty gritty, people ask for proof. When you ask what type of proof. They ask for him to show himself yet he is telling everyone that if they believe in Christ and obey his words he will show up and reveal himself.

You have God revealing the way to know him. And man ignoring the way wanting things his own way.
Arrogant to say you want to know if God is true and then ignoring the way he has made it possible.
A little like history repeating itself. Man wanting his own way over Gods way and ignoring what he is told.

God is the creator will you ever use your brain as he intended or your will to seek his truth?
A question all can ask themselves and then try and answer.

Did your god show up for you?

[Sassy]

Stephen. Are you asking for an apology from yourself?

He wants an apology from me because I told the truth about him.
He is wolf in sheeps clothing.. Mocks believers and even their beliefs. He says he is sat on the fence but the fence is imaginary and his posts can be belittling as was his reply to you.

He needs to apologise for pretending.

[Sassy]

Why not?

Your holy book refers to unbelievers as fools.

Whose book?

That right... it is Gods book. You going to take it up with him? Why is that? Because you haven't the first idea what is written in the book but think you understand what it really says...

[Shaker]

He wants an apology from me because I told the truth about him.
He is wolf in sheeps clothing.. Mocks believers and even their beliefs. He says he is sat on the fence but the fence is imaginary and his posts can be belittling as was his reply to you.

He needs to apologise for pretending.

Mockery is not discrimination, and you accused him of discrimination.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

GRRRrrrrrr, sorry I mean Baaaaaaaaaaa

He wants an apology from me because I told the truth about him.

No, you told a straight out lie.

He says he is sat on the fence but the fence is imaginary and his posts can be belittling as was his reply to you.

He needs to apologise for pretending.

What fence? When have I ever claimed to sit on the fence?

[Khatru]

Whose book?

That right... it is Gods book. You going to take it up with him? Why is that? Because you haven't the first idea what is written in the book but think you understand what it really says...

Such a shame your god couldn't be content with just the one book.

Still, it's funny to hear you complaining about being mocked when your holy book does just that to non-believers.

I guess it's that persecution complex you have.

[Sassy]

Mockery is not discrimination, and you accused him of discrimination.

Re: Ole Miss, some mainly Christians, the whole gays aren't equal thing
« Reply #55 on: April 08, 2016, 10:43:22 AM »
QuoteModifyRemove
Quote from: Stephen Taylor on April 07, 2016, 04:20:32 PM
I simply don't understand it. Why would anybody want to discriminate against someone just because they have a different sexuality to your own?

I just can't understand it at all.

Why do you discriminate against Christians because they hold different beliefs about God, to those held by you?

Doesn't work does it?  Of, course you understand it... Some people do not like people who hold different beliefs to that of their own.

You expect people to believe you can be unbias to one whilst holding bias views to another... Fickle ain't you?

Shaker get your facts right before you attempt to stir things up....
Stephen tried to maintain he was on the fence with no beliefs one way or the other. But so far he has disproved any claim by his discrimnation and the fact he mocked Christians.

Do keep up, and keep the above with you. Is it still throbbing the fact you were called out?

[Sassy]

Re: Ole Miss, some mainly Christians, the whole gays aren't equal thing
« Reply #55 on: April 08, 2016, 10:43:22 AM »
QuoteModifyRemove
Quote from: Stephen Taylor on April 07, 2016, 04:20:32 PM
I simply don't understand it. Why would anybody want to discriminate against someone just because they have a different sexuality to your own?

I just can't understand it at all.

Why do you discriminate against Christians because they hold different beliefs about God, to those held by you?

Doesn't work does it?  Of, course you understand it... Some people do not like people who hold different beliefs to that of their own.

You expect people to believe you can be unbias to one whilst holding bias views to another... Fickle ain't you?

People can twist things many ways. But I believe it is clear why I called Stephen Taylor out.

He needs to apologise and so does Shaker now....Fat chance, hey?

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

Why do you discriminate against Christians because they hold different beliefs about God, to those held by you?

Doesn't work does it?  Of, course you understand it... Some people do not like people who hold different beliefs to that of their own.

You expect people to believe you can be unbias to one whilst holding bias views to another... Fickle ain't you?

Shaker get your facts right before you attempt to stir things up....
Stephen tried to maintain he was on the fence with no beliefs one way or the other. But so far he has disproved any claim by his discrimnation and the fact he mocked Christians.

Do keep up, and keep the above with you. Is it still throbbing the fact you were called out?

Still telling lies I see.

[Étienne d'Angleterre]

People can twist things many ways. But I believe it is clear why I called Stephen Taylor out.

He needs to apologise and so does Shaker now....Fat chance, hey?

You can barely open your mouth without lying can you.

My comments were directed at those who wanted to treat people differently in law based on their sexuality. e.g. same sex marriage should not be allowed.

That is what discrimination is.

You need to show where I have suggested that Christians should be treated differently in law based on the fact that they are Christians.

You won't be able to find such evidence because that is not what I believe.

So stop lying about me and apologise.