Logic dictates that there is a God!

suggs · Post by **suggs** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:36 pm

Hurrah. This thread is now more ridiculous than my underwear.
It was close, for a while...

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:43 pm

Nice sig, suggs.

suggs · Post by **suggs** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 12:51 pm

Thanks. All my own work.

MelonanadeMaster · Post by **MelonanadeMaster** » Sat Dec 15, 2007 5:47 pm

Frigidus wrote:
Guiscard wrote:
MelonanadeMaster wrote:
Guiscard wrote:
MelonanadeMaster wrote:Ah, but the Kings allowed their subjects to go on to the Crusades, something that they wouldn't do if it was not beneficial for them. In the eyes of most kings of the era, peasents were fore mass-doing things, for growing mass crops, for forming mass armies, ect. Why get rid of a huge chunk of an important part of your kingdom?

Again, you're mistaken.

Firstly, the majority of soldiers on the crusade would have been either knights or men at arms. The men at arms would have been in the service of the knights. No-one needed to seek the permission of the King to take the cross. It would have been seen as the King having more authority than the Pope. And knights and men at arms are not really peasants. Furthermore, the crusades were fairly seasonal in nature. Look at the times of the crusades. Most are in the summer months. After carrying out what was essentially a pilgrimage, most would return home and those who needed to would return to harvest. Very few actually settled. It was something that cost a great deal of money. The return was spiritual, not physical.

You also over emphasize the importance and the powers of Kings at the time. The German emperor was really only the nominal leader of a great swathe of individual states led by individual rulers of various status. The King of France was, at least to begin with, in control of little outside Paris. You didn't have to write to your king and say 'please, your majesty, may I please go on crusade'.

And got tonkaed is, as usual, on the money when describing younger sons. The extension of the Peace and Truce of God I mentioned earlier was the need to find a role for younger, landless, noble sons. That place was often crusade.

Of course it would then apear as if the kings had more power, but in apparent humbleness they would have gained favor. On the topic of the monarchy have you not heard of the disputes between the Holy Roman Emperors and the Pope?

It wouldn't have really garnered them any favor though. Let's say a king did refuse to allow his subjects to go. Aside from stretching his power to the limit (as mentioned earlier his personal territory was often much smaller than many of his vassal's), it would appall his people that he essentially opposed not just the pope but the idea of reclaiming the most holy city in the Christian faith. It was basically expected that he would allow his subjects to go, it wasn't so much a matter of allowing it.

You're misunderstanding, I'm saying by not allowing his subjects to go off to the Crusades he would NOT be helping himself, for the same reasons you presesnted. Thus, it'd be in his favor to allow his subjects to go off to the Crusade.

Dancing Mustard · Post by **Dancing Mustard** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 9:05 am

suggs wrote:Hurrah. This thread is now more ridiculous than my underwear.
It was close, for a while...

Huzzah! Troll Power FTW!

Come help me kill this thread forevermore.

moo_lol · Post by **moo_lol** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 2:39 pm

Is this thread a joke? Basically 100% of scientists agree that life did in fact come from non-life. Even if you don't agree with them, you can't say that lack of evidence for theory A constitutes confirmation of hypothesis B.

Edit: This is what you sound like to me: "I can't imagine how life could have originated through natural processes, therefore I have to believe that it happened via supernatural processes. Furthermore, I will conclude (without investigation) that the specific supernatural processes that resulted in life were the actions of the God from my culture's religion." Who is this supposed to convince?

suggs · Post by **suggs** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 7:59 pm

yes this thread is a joke. well spotted. some of the GIMBOIDS on here missed that (ie, the christians).

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:33 pm

suggs wrote:yes this thread is a joke. well spotted. some of the GIMBOIDS on here missed that (ie, the christians).

(Which includes the person who made the thread.)

suggs · Post by **suggs** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 8:54 pm

yep-he's God of the Gimboids.

Aspect · Post by **Aspect** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:17 pm

I haven't read through the 200 odd posts, but I think I know the angle of this topic... A bit of a science v religion hate topic, right?

Assume that evolution is the truth. God still is not disproved. The bible loses some ground, but it has been known to be just a translation of a translation of something that may have come from anyone, as can be seen from books like "the da vinci code" (a b-quality book if I say so myself.) So evolution really doesn't hurt the religious argument at all. The people who believe blindly will continue and the people who disbelieve blindly will continue also. Nothing will change if evolution is absolutely proved. So why the argument? Go with the science here!

I think I rambled a little too much there, so I will try to put my view a little more eloquently.

God was everything. God created and that was what we call the big bang, (or as Calvin calls it, the "big space kablooey") Everything that has happened, or will ever happen, was decided in that moment.
By this reasoning, there is no free will. Evolution is moot, because God knew exactly how it would end, and thus created man. If there is a heaven and hell, our placement was decided 4.5 billion years ago in less than a second. He created man in his image? We are matter, he was all matter. God no longer exists, but his plan will carry out exactly as he planned.

"sounds nice, but where's your evidence?"

well, evidence is a tricky thing with religion but here's mine.

The laws of physics and the rules that have been discovered by scientific methods. We would only be the way we are if the laws of physics worked the way they do. Theoretically, you could predict all time with the knowledge of all the rules of gravity, electro-magnetism, and strong and weak nuclear force and the placement of all the matter in the universe.

Just an off collar view of religion...

Frigidus · Post by **Frigidus** » Sun Dec 16, 2007 10:34 pm

Aspect wrote:I haven't read through the 200 odd posts, but I think I know the angle of this topic... A bit of a science v religion hate topic, right?

Assume that evolution is the truth. God still is not disproved. The bible loses some ground, but it has been known to be just a translation of a translation of something that may have come from anyone, as can be seen from books like "the da vinci code" (a b-quality book if I say so myself.) So evolution really doesn't hurt the religious argument at all. The people who believe blindly will continue and the people who disbelieve blindly will continue also. Nothing will change if evolution is absolutely proved. So why the argument? Go with the science here!

I think I rambled a little too much there, so I will try to put my view a little more eloquently.

God was everything. God created and that was what we call the big bang, (or as Calvin calls it, the "big space kablooey") Everything that has happened, or will ever happen, was decided in that moment.
By this reasoning, there is no free will. Evolution is moot, because God knew exactly how it would end, and thus created man. If there is a heaven and hell, our placement was decided 4.5 billion years ago in less than a second. He created man in his image? We are matter, he was all matter. God no longer exists, but his plan will carry out exactly as he planned.

"sounds nice, but where's your evidence?"

well, evidence is a tricky thing with religion but here's mine.

The laws of physics and the rules that have been discovered by scientific methods. We would only be the way we are if the laws of physics worked the way they do. Theoretically, you could predict all time with the knowledge of all the rules of gravity, electro-magnetism, and strong and weak nuclear force and the placement of all the matter in the universe.

Just an off collar view of religion...

We actually have a seperate thread on the evolution thing, but fair enough. I've made my own argument on the merits of theism earlier in the thread and I stand by it. I'll quote it here.

Frigidus wrote:When the concept of god/gods came into being it was because they couldn't explain the sun, rain, and various other phenomena. They declared these things supernatural and over time they came up with legends that explained them and various other things (the creation of the earth being one of them). Religion became more complicated and ingrained in culture over time, and their explanations were taken as literal truth. The sun was a god, and he existed. Heck, just look up. Looking back these people look pretty stupid, but they simply couldn't understand something because they did not have any scientific explanation. Slowly pagan religions focusing on nature have died out (and are now known to be absolutely incorrect). However, several religions branched off from simply explaining nature. They explained how humans came into being, what happens to your "soul" when you die, and various other things we couldn't scientifically understand. Those are still around, mainly because we still don't have an answer to many of these questions.

Considering all of the above, how can you possibly believe? Religion is nothing short of mass hysteria. Relating to this thread, the above makes the idea of proving god appear laughable. About a month ago I and a friend of mine went up to a group of people on the street babbling about how we would burn forever if we weren't born again and asked them their take on this. My friend brought up some of the arguments made in the documentary Zeitgeist, which was recently posted on the forums. Although the poor guy tried his hardest to defend his delusion he eventually fell back on the "Satan is trying to sway our beliefs" line of thought. This isn't an uncommon argument among some groups of theists: God's evil counterpart is planting evidence that makes his existence appear doubtful. I don't buy that. You can't prove your faith is true by citing your faith.

I don't usually mention this among my theistic friends, since they can frankly believe what they want. But if someone comes up to me and tells me that I'm going to burn in hell or tells me that my beliefs make me inherently immoral and acts indignant when I question him about his claims I tend to get a bit preachy myself.

That all said, I have a few points I'd like to make.

1) There is no logic to theism. All but the most hardcore religious people agree that it takes a leap of faith

2) Morals aren't inherently a part of religion. Religion is inherently a part of religion.

3) Morals are far from universal. Slavery, treatment of gays, race and sex equality (or lack thereof) are proof of this.

Sorry about the tl;dr but this thread is getting more and more annoying.

silvanricky · Post by **silvanricky** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:53 am

whatever happened to CoffeeCream? He's the one that started this subject.

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:59 am

moo_lol wrote:Is this thread a joke? Basically 100% of scientists agree that life did in fact come from non-life. Even if you don't agree with them, you can't say that lack of evidence for theory A constitutes confirmation of hypothesis B.

Edit: This is what you sound like to me: "I can't imagine how life could have originated through natural processes, therefore I have to believe that it happened via supernatural processes. Furthermore, I will conclude (without investigation) that the specific supernatural processes that resulted in life were the actions of the God from my culture's religion." Who is this supposed to convince?

"Basically 100% of scientists agree that life did in fact come from non-life."

This statement is blatantly false. Seeing a scientist stated, "Life cannot come from non-life" as I recall in 8th grade science. You have to take a HUGE leap of faith to believe Life can originate from something that is not living. :roll:

got tonkaed · Post by **got tonkaed** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:59 am

silvanricky wrote:whatever happened to CoffeeCream? He's the one that started this subject.

i think he started the jesus freaks thread....but hes probably around somewhere, he usually takes a little while to respond to posts as i dont think hes on this part of the forum as much as some of us are.

muy_thaiguy · Post by **muy_thaiguy** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 1:03 am

got tonkaed wrote:
silvanricky wrote:whatever happened to CoffeeCream? He's the one that started this subject.

i think he started the jesus freaks thread....but hes probably around somewhere, he usually takes a little while to respond to posts as i dont think hes on this part of the forum as much as some of us are.

Considering that his thread was thread-jacked about 20 pages ago, yeah.

got tonkaed · Post by **got tonkaed** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 1:04 am

muy_thaiguy wrote:
got tonkaed wrote:
silvanricky wrote:whatever happened to CoffeeCream? He's the one that started this subject.

i think he started the jesus freaks thread....but hes probably around somewhere, he usually takes a little while to respond to posts as i dont think hes on this part of the forum as much as some of us are.
Considering that his thread was thread-jacked about 20 pages ago, yeah.

he rises above that though....i like how he can kinda disregard all that and pick out the stuff relavant to him. Hes like the anti-thread jack.

muy_thaiguy · Post by **muy_thaiguy** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 1:07 am

got tonkaed wrote:
muy_thaiguy wrote:
got tonkaed wrote:
silvanricky wrote:whatever happened to CoffeeCream? He's the one that started this subject.

i think he started the jesus freaks thread....but hes probably around somewhere, he usually takes a little while to respond to posts as i dont think hes on this part of the forum as much as some of us are.
Considering that his thread was thread-jacked about 20 pages ago, yeah.

he rises above that though....i like how he can kinda disregard all that and pick out the stuff relavant to him. Hes like the anti-thread jack.

True. And there we go hi-jacking an already hi-jacked thread. :lol:

Balsiefen · Post by **Balsiefen** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 5:53 am

jay_a2j wrote:
moo_lol wrote:Is this thread a joke? Basically 100% of scientists agree that life did in fact come from non-life. Even if you don't agree with them, you can't say that lack of evidence for theory A constitutes confirmation of hypothesis B.

Edit: This is what you sound like to me: "I can't imagine how life could have originated through natural processes, therefore I have to believe that it happened via supernatural processes. Furthermore, I will conclude (without investigation) that the specific supernatural processes that resulted in life were the actions of the God from my culture's religion." Who is this supposed to convince?

"Basically 100% of scientists agree that life did in fact come from non-life."

This statement is blatantly false. Seeing a scientist stated, "Life cannot come from non-life" as I recall in 8th grade science. You have to take a HUGE leap of faith to believe Life can originate from something that is not living.

Yes that statement is probably false. However, life coming from non life is not a leap of faith. It is extreamly plausable. Believing in god may not be so hard-but that is because answering every question with "God did it" is so much easier. It does not make the god theory any more or less plausable.

Frigidus · Post by **Frigidus** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:55 am

Balsiefen wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
moo_lol wrote:Is this thread a joke? Basically 100% of scientists agree that life did in fact come from non-life. Even if you don't agree with them, you can't say that lack of evidence for theory A constitutes confirmation of hypothesis B.

Edit: This is what you sound like to me: "I can't imagine how life could have originated through natural processes, therefore I have to believe that it happened via supernatural processes. Furthermore, I will conclude (without investigation) that the specific supernatural processes that resulted in life were the actions of the God from my culture's religion." Who is this supposed to convince?

"Basically 100% of scientists agree that life did in fact come from non-life."

This statement is blatantly false. Seeing a scientist stated, "Life cannot come from non-life" as I recall in 8th grade science. You have to take a HUGE leap of faith to believe Life can originate from something that is not living.

Yes that statement is probably false. However, life coming from non life is not a leap of faith. It is extreamly plausable. Believing in god may not be so hard-but that is because answering every question with "God did it" is so much easier. It does not make the god theory any more or less plausable.

I know it's a technicality, but don't creationists believe life came from non-life? We were made of dust or something along those lines.

unriggable · Post by **unriggable** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 10:56 am

Frigidus wrote:
Balsiefen wrote:
jay_a2j wrote:
moo_lol wrote:Is this thread a joke? Basically 100% of scientists agree that life did in fact come from non-life. Even if you don't agree with them, you can't say that lack of evidence for theory A constitutes confirmation of hypothesis B.

Edit: This is what you sound like to me: "I can't imagine how life could have originated through natural processes, therefore I have to believe that it happened via supernatural processes. Furthermore, I will conclude (without investigation) that the specific supernatural processes that resulted in life were the actions of the God from my culture's religion." Who is this supposed to convince?

"Basically 100% of scientists agree that life did in fact come from non-life."

This statement is blatantly false. Seeing a scientist stated, "Life cannot come from non-life" as I recall in 8th grade science. You have to take a HUGE leap of faith to believe Life can originate from something that is not living.

Yes that statement is probably false. However, life coming from non life is not a leap of faith. It is extreamly plausable. Believing in god may not be so hard-but that is because answering every question with "God did it" is so much easier. It does not make the god theory any more or less plausable.

I know it's a technicality, but don't creationists believe life came from non-life? We were made of dust or something along those lines.

Yeah, typical line in a funeral: "Ash to ash, dust to dust."

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:10 am

jay_a2j wrote:This statement is blatantly false. Seeing a scientist stated, "Life cannot come from non-life" as I recall in 8th grade science. You have to take a HUGE leap of faith to believe Life can originate from something that is not living.

C'mon guys, don't you know that Jay bases his entire life off Sunday School and an 8th grade science class? :lol:

Life has always been here...it didn't have to "start somewhere" or "come from nothing".

Our universe is infinite. It doesn't need a creator because it has always been here and always will be.

For those of you who still believe that we were all created, some simple questions. What was there before we were created? What was your magical god doing for the eternity before we were created?

No "mysterious ways" cop outs please.

jay_a2j · Post by **jay_a2j** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:40 am

Backglass wrote:
For those of you who still believe that we were all created, some simple questions. What was there before we were created? What was your magical god doing for the eternity before we were created?

Before we were created , God had created angels. Later, Lucifer rebelled, was kicked out of heaven along with 1/3 of the angels who chose to follow Lucifer. Lucifer's name was changed to Satan and the 1/3 are what we now know as demons.

A degree in Human evolution....$10,000/semester

A KJ Bible...... $15.00

Eternal life through Jesus Christ...... Priceless.

Snorri1234 · Post by **Snorri1234** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:48 am

jay_a2j wrote:
Backglass wrote:
For those of you who still believe that we were all created, some simple questions. What was there before we were created? What was your magical god doing for the eternity before we were created?

Before we were created , God had created angels. Later, Lucifer rebelled, was kicked out of heaven along with 1/3 of the angels who chose to follow Lucifer. Lucifer's name was changed to Satan and the 1/3 are what we now know as demons.

Okay....and what about before God created angels?

Backglass · Post by **Backglass** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 11:55 am

jay_a2j wrote:A degree in Human evolution....$10,000/semester

A KJ Bible...... $15.00

Lifelong delusion through fairy tales......Sad.

Agreed.

Balsiefen · Post by **Balsiefen** » Mon Dec 17, 2007 12:43 pm

jay_a2j wrote:
Backglass wrote:
For those of you who still believe that we were all created, some simple questions. What was there before we were created? What was your magical god doing for the eternity before we were created?

Before we were created , God had created angels. Later, Lucifer rebelled, was kicked out of heaven along with 1/3 of the angels who chose to follow Lucifer. Lucifer's name was changed to Satan and the 1/3 are what we now know as demons.

A degree in Human evolution....$10,000/semester

A KJ Bible...... $15.00

Eternal life through Jesus Christ...... Priceless.

So what your saying is while evolution has better evidence, religion is better value for money?

Logic dictates that there is a God!

Does God exist?