WHAT makes a person saved in Christ Jesus?

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

What a truly shallow, if not actually ignorant, comment.

Why? What qualitatively is the difference between your arguments for a god and someone else's arguments for fairies?

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

What a truly shallow, if not actually ignorant, comment.

Why? What qualitatively is the difference between your arguments for a god and someone else's arguments for fairies?

The difference is that Floo's stance is one borne out of blind, indeed, prejudiced, lack of imagination and failure to accept any other point of view.

[Outrider]

BA,

What a truly shallow, if not actually ignorant, comment.

Why? What qualitatively is the difference between your arguments for a god and someone else's arguments for fairies?

The difference is that Floo's stance is one borne out of blind, indeed, prejudiced, lack of imagination and failure to accept any other point of view.

If I had an imagination, I'd imagine that constituted an ad hominem, which I'd then conclude from exhaustive learning was a logical fallacy.

Good thing someone's already used up all the imagination...

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

What a truly shallow, if not actually ignorant, comment.

Why? What qualitatively is the difference between your arguments for a god and someone else's arguments for fairies?

The difference is that Floo's stance is one borne out of blind, indeed, prejudiced, lack of imagination and failure to accept any other point of view.

If I had an imagination, I'd imagine that constituted an ad hominem, which I'd then conclude from exhaustive learning was a logical fallacy.

Good thing someone's already used up all the imagination...

O.

Usual off the peg comments  -  no substance.  Read what Einstein said about imagination (and he's as far above you in intellect and perception as you are from the ants.)

[floo]

Having a good imagination I have created stories, which kids seem to enjoy, so I am pretty good at spotting fairy tales like those in the Bible!

[Outrider]

BA,

What a truly shallow, if not actually ignorant, comment.

Why? What qualitatively is the difference between your arguments for a god and someone else's arguments for fairies?

The difference is that Floo's stance is one borne out of blind, indeed, prejudiced, lack of imagination and failure to accept any other point of view.

If I had an imagination, I'd imagine that constituted an ad hominem, which I'd then conclude from exhaustive learning was a logical fallacy.

Good thing someone's already used up all the imagination...

O.

Usual off the peg comments  -  no substance.  Read what Einstein said about imagination (and he's as far above you in intellect and perception as you are from the ants.)

So your rebuttal to my point that you employed an ad hominem in place of actually having an argument is to deploy a further ad hominem (carefully secreted within an appeal to authority). Genius. Remind me again of what this 'imagination' thing is?

O.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

What a truly shallow, if not actually ignorant, comment.

Why? What qualitatively is the difference between your arguments for a god and someone else's arguments for fairies?

The difference is that Floo's stance is one borne out of blind, indeed, prejudiced, lack of imagination and failure to accept any other point of view.

If I had an imagination, I'd imagine that constituted an ad hominem, which I'd then conclude from exhaustive learning was a logical fallacy.

Good thing someone's already used up all the imagination...

O.

Usual off the peg comments  -  no substance.  Read what Einstein said about imagination (and he's as far above you in intellect and perception as you are from the ants.)

So your rebuttal to my point that you employed an ad hominem in place of actually having an argument is to deploy a further ad hominem (carefully secreted within an appeal to authority). Genius. Remind me again of what this 'imagination' thing is?

O.

Read what Einstein said of imagination.  He expressed it far more eloquently than I.  Of course, it won' resonate with you, since you cannot comprehend it.

[BeRational]

BA,

What a truly shallow, if not actually ignorant, comment.

Why? What qualitatively is the difference between your arguments for a god and someone else's arguments for fairies?

The difference is that Floo's stance is one borne out of blind, indeed, prejudiced, lack of imagination and failure to accept any other point of view.

If I had an imagination, I'd imagine that constituted an ad hominem, which I'd then conclude from exhaustive learning was a logical fallacy.

Good thing someone's already used up all the imagination...

O.

Usual off the peg comments  -  no substance.  Read what Einstein said about imagination (and he's as far above you in intellect and perception as you are from the ants.)

So your rebuttal to my point that you employed an ad hominem in place of actually having an argument is to deploy a further ad hominem (carefully secreted within an appeal to authority). Genius. Remind me again of what this 'imagination' thing is?

O.

Read what Einstein said of imagination.  He expressed it far more eloquently than I.  Of course, it won' resonate with you, since you cannot comprehend it.

Einstein was brilliant and moved us on in terms of physics.

Of course you do realize he also made mistakes?

Newtons theory of gravity was brilliant, but not quite right.

Einstein moved us on, but again he was not quite right either.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

What a truly shallow, if not actually ignorant, comment.

Why? What qualitatively is the difference between your arguments for a god and someone else's arguments for fairies?

The difference is that Floo's stance is one borne out of blind, indeed, prejudiced, lack of imagination and failure to accept any other point of view.

If I had an imagination, I'd imagine that constituted an ad hominem, which I'd then conclude from exhaustive learning was a logical fallacy.

Good thing someone's already used up all the imagination...

O.

Usual off the peg comments  -  no substance.  Read what Einstein said about imagination (and he's as far above you in intellect and perception as you are from the ants.)

So your rebuttal to my point that you employed an ad hominem in place of actually having an argument is to deploy a further ad hominem (carefully secreted within an appeal to authority). Genius. Remind me again of what this 'imagination' thing is?

O.

Read what Einstein said of imagination.  He expressed it far more eloquently than I.  Of course, it won' resonate with you, since you cannot comprehend it.

Einstein was brilliant and moved us on in terms of physics.

Of course you do realize he also made mistakes?

Newtons theory of gravity was brilliant, but not quite right.

Einstein moved us on, but again he was not quite right either.

I am not talking of his achievements, but of his philosophy.  However, he certainly moved us on in our understanding in physics.

[Outrider]

Read what Einstein said of imagination.  He expressed it far more eloquently than I.  Of course, it won' resonate with you, since you cannot comprehend it.

I can comprehend it, I suspect you've missed an important implication.

"Imagination is more important than knowledge. For knowledge is limited to all we now know and understand, while imagination embraces the entire world, and all there ever will be to know and understand."

Knowledge is still important, you realise. He knew that, he said that, I suspect you've missed it. My imagination's fine, I can comprehend the idea of billions of years of universal expansion, millions of years of evolutionary change leading to you and I discussing those things over the internet.

I have a good balance between imagination and knowledge, because I base my imagination on what we do know, I don't let myself be limited by it. You don't, you base your imagination on what you want to be true.

O.

[BeRational]

BA

I am not talking of his achievements, but of his philosophy.  However, he certainly moved us on in our understanding in physics.

He certainly did.

But his theories are not quite right, and he did not like quantum mechanics, but he was wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

The difference is that Floo's stance is one borne out of blind, indeed, prejudiced, lack of imagination and failure to accept any other point of view.

But what I asked you was what the qualitiative difference is between your arguments for a god and someone else's arguments for fairies. Your reply is just an ad hominem - much as a four-year-old would lash out at something he didn't like but couldn't rebut either.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

Read what Einstein said of imagination.  He expressed it far more eloquently than I.  Of course, it won' resonate with you, since you cannot comprehend it.

Of course he can comprehend it - for what it's worth I'd suggest too that the imagination needed to conceive of the unfathomably vast majesty of the universe is greater than that needed to settle for the tawdry, unambitious folk tales of bible myths about blood sacrifices, suicidal pigs etc but hey ho.

The point though is that imagination is fine so far as it goes - it opens our minds to possibilities we can explore and test, just as Einstein suggested. Your problem however is that you blithely substitute your imaginative fancies about a god for supposed objective facts about that god with no intervening argument in between. 

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

Read what Einstein said of imagination.  He expressed it far more eloquently than I.  Of course, it won' resonate with you, since you cannot comprehend it.

Of course he can comprehend it - for what it's worth I'd suggest too that the imagination needed to conceive of the unfathomably vast majesty of the universe is greater than that needed to settle for the tawdry, unambitious folk tales of bible myths about blood sacrifices, suicidal pigs etc but hey ho.

The point though is that imagination is fine so far as it goes - it opens our minds to possibilities we can explore and test, just as Einstein suggested. Your problem however is that you blithely substitute your imaginative fancies about a god for supposed objective facts about that god with no intervening argument in between.

You do me, and other theists, a disservice.  I do not for a moment accept that it is any less of a leap of imagination to accept the existence of God, than any other concept, in science, or anything else.  Certainly not tawdry  -  and why "tawdry" anyway?  My belief in God, however, is based on the teaching and life of Jesus, and His early followers.

  When we consider the advancements in technology over the last century, when we are doing things now that weren't dreamt of a hundred years ago, how can any person with an iota of imagination, rule anything out  -  "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

[BeRational]

BA,

Read what Einstein said of imagination.  He expressed it far more eloquently than I.  Of course, it won' resonate with you, since you cannot comprehend it.

Of course he can comprehend it - for what it's worth I'd suggest too that the imagination needed to conceive of the unfathomably vast majesty of the universe is greater than that needed to settle for the tawdry, unambitious folk tales of bible myths about blood sacrifices, suicidal pigs etc but hey ho.

The point though is that imagination is fine so far as it goes - it opens our minds to possibilities we can explore and test, just as Einstein suggested. Your problem however is that you blithely substitute your imaginative fancies about a god for supposed objective facts about that god with no intervening argument in between.

You do me, and other theists, a disservice.  I do not for a moment accept that it is any less of a leap of imagination to accept the existence of God, than any other concept, in science, or anything else.  Certainly not tawdry  -  and why "tawdry" anyway?  My belief in God, however, is based on the teaching and life of Jesus, and His early followers.

  When we consider the advancements in technology over the last century, when we are doing things now that weren't dreamt of a hundred years ago, how can any person with an iota of imagination, rule anything out  -  "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

We can rule out the Sun orbiting the Earth.

There are lots of things we can rule out, as in think they are extremely unlikely given our present understanding of how the universe works.

Stuff like dead people coming back the life. This can be safely ruled out until someone explains how all our current understanding is wrong and this can happen.

I get the impression that truth is low on your list, whilst being happy is high on your list of things for your beliefs.

So science does allow us to consider things that are more likely than others.
The only way to change that is not just assume it might happen (as you do), but to demonstrate where the current understanding is wrong.

[bluehillside Retd.]

BA,

You do me, and other theists, a disservice.  I do not for a moment accept that it is any less of a leap of imagination to accept the existence of God, than any other concept, in science, or anything else.  Certainly not tawdry  -  and why "tawdry" anyway?  My belief in God, however, is based on the teaching and life of Jesus, and His early followers.

Tawdry because they're delineated by the limitations of their tribal authors - local rivalries, the keeping of slaves, killing livestock or cheeky children etc might have seemed important at the time, but now they just seem cheap, unambitious, trivial. I don't doubt that your belief in "God" is based on the "teachings" of Jesus, just as the beliefs of others in broomstick flying might be based on the "teachings" of JK Rowling but neither would have any basis whatever to claim those beliefs as objective facts for the rest of us too.

And that's your problem. 

When we consider the advancements in technology over the last century, when we are doing things now that weren't dreamt of a hundred years ago, how can any person with an iota of imagination, rule anything out  -  "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

No-one is "ruling anything out". Your problem though is that you then overreach - not ruling out something and insisting that it's actually true lands you with the burden of proof problem. Confine yourself just to not ruling out "God" (whatever you mean by it) and no-one cares, any more than you would care if I didn't rule out fairies. The moment though either of us claims that not ruling out our beliefs has anything to say to whether they're more likely to be true than not then we each have a problem - God and fairies alike.     

[BashfulAnthony]

BA,

You do me, and other theists, a disservice.  I do not for a moment accept that it is any less of a leap of imagination to accept the existence of God, than any other concept, in science, or anything else.  Certainly not tawdry  -  and why "tawdry" anyway?  My belief in God, however, is based on the teaching and life of Jesus, and His early followers.

Tawdry because they're delineated by the limitations of their tribal authors - local rivalries, the keeping of slaves, killing livestock or cheeky children etc might have seemed important at the time, but now they just seem cheap, unambitious, trivial. I don't doubt that your belief in "God" is based on the "teachings" of Jesus, just as the beliefs of others in broomstick flying might be based on the "teachings" of JK Rowling but neither would have any basis whatever to claim those beliefs as objective facts for the rest of us too.

And that's your problem. 

When we consider the advancements in technology over the last century, when we are doing things now that weren't dreamt of a hundred years ago, how can any person with an iota of imagination, rule anything out  -  "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."

No-one is "ruling anything out". Your problem though is that you then overreach - not ruling out something and insisting that it's actually true lands you with the burden of proof problem. Confine yourself just to not ruling out "God" (whatever you mean by it) and no-one cares, any more than you would care if I didn't rule out fairies. The moment though either of us claims that not ruling out our beliefs has anything to say to whether they're more likely to be true than not then we each have a problem - God and fairies alike.     

I simply will not respond to an infantile person who talks in terms of "fairies."  Grow up!  Anyway, for you and that other guy to suggest that you have imagination in the sense that Einstein was suggesting is both laughable, and absurdly arrogant.

[BeRational]

BA

I think it's pretty obvious who needs to grow up because he cannot defend his ridiculous position, and simply resorts to insult.

If fairies are different to god, then explain why.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA

I think it's pretty obvious who needs to grow up because he cannot defend his ridiculous position, and simply resorts to insult.

If fairies are different to god, then explain why.

I said I wouldn't respond, but just finally: you use the playground vocabulary, you say why it equates with intelligent discussion.

[BeRational]

BA

I think it's pretty obvious who needs to grow up because he cannot defend his ridiculous position, and simply resorts to insult.

If fairies are different to god, then explain why.

I said I wouldn't respond, but just finally: you use the playground vocabulary, you say why it equates with intelligent discussion.

You respond, but you never answer.

In what way is believing in fairies,unicorns,loch ness monster any different to believing in any god?

The fact you never answer this SIMPLE question, and instead pretend you are insulted by the question, shows that you cannot answer the question, and you do not like it.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA

I think it's pretty obvious who needs to grow up because he cannot defend his ridiculous position, and simply resorts to insult.

If fairies are different to god, then explain why.

I said I wouldn't respond, but just finally: you use the playground vocabulary, you say why it equates with intelligent discussion.

You respond, but you never answer.

In what way is believing in fairies,unicorns,loch ness monster any different to believing in any god?

The fact you never answer this SIMPLE question, and instead pretend you are insulted by the question, shows that you cannot answer the question, and you do not like it.

I'll answer it as I would any child-like query.  "Got io bed now, dear, and we'll read about some little fairies that live at the bottom of the garden, tomorrow.  Night."

[BeRational]

BA

I think it's pretty obvious who needs to grow up because he cannot defend his ridiculous position, and simply resorts to insult.

If fairies are different to god, then explain why.

I said I wouldn't respond, but just finally: you use the playground vocabulary, you say why it equates with intelligent discussion.

You respond, but you never answer.

In what way is believing in fairies,unicorns,loch ness monster any different to believing in any god?

The fact you never answer this SIMPLE question, and instead pretend you are insulted by the question, shows that you cannot answer the question, and you do not like it.

I'll answer it as I would any child-like query.  "Got io bed now, dear, and we'll read about some little fairies that live at the bottom of the garden, tomorrow.  Night."

And I would say do not debate with adults until you are sufficiently educated to do so.

At the moment your logic is child-like.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA

I think it's pretty obvious who needs to grow up because he cannot defend his ridiculous position, and simply resorts to insult.

If fairies are different to god, then explain why.

I said I wouldn't respond, but just finally: you use the playground vocabulary, you say why it equates with intelligent discussion.

You respond, but you never answer.

In what way is believing in fairies,unicorns,loch ness monster any different to believing in any god?

The fact you never answer this SIMPLE question, and instead pretend you are insulted by the question, shows that you cannot answer the question, and you do not like it.

I'll answer it as I would any child-like query.  "Got io bed now, dear, and we'll read about some little fairies that live at the bottom of the garden, tomorrow.  Night."

And I would say do not debate with adults until you are sufficiently educated to do so.

At the moment your logic is child-like.

Poor response!  It leaves you with nothing new to say if you rule out your "fairies" and "magic" vocabulary.

[BeRational]

BA

Perfectly good response, for which you have no answer.

You are beaten, you position is logically defeated.

You offer nothing but insult.

[BashfulAnthony]

BA

Perfectly good response, for which you have no answer.

You are beaten, you position is logically defeated.

You offer nothing but insult.

What position? If you think I have no answer, then why keep asking me?  Doesn't seem logical to me.