For Those Who Do Believe In God...

[AllieBaba]

You know, my sister is a Baptist. She lives in a $400,000 home (it would be worth a million in a city) drives SUVs (we have a big family).

She's been to Europe three times, her husband's entire family speaks Chinese because during the Vietnam War they moved to Taiwan in order to be there when he had weekend R&R. Her children are grown now, and lovely people who believe in the salvation of Jesus. One just finished her 3rd year of med school (Case University, Cleveland, OH), after attending school at Wheaton (Chicago) for 4 years. The kids have been to Europe once, and the medical student used to go to Taipai regularly, starting at age 9, by herself, to spend time with her cousin who was living there.

So spare me the bigoted assumption that all those who choose faith over a meaningless existence are backwards hicks, or that being devoted to your family means you're uneducated and untraveled.

 

[AllieBaba]

And then there are the people of my church. One family travels to Mexico by van, hauling a U-Haul, every year, to visit the home village of the father. They fill the van and the u-haul with clothes, medicine (legal ones), toys and food for the village. One of the girls who grew up in my church is a missionary to Indonesia. She's a nurse and goes once a year or more often when she can to help with the local hospitals. She risks all sorts of hideous diseases and witnesses first hand the lack of adequate medical care in third world countries.

I've no doubt the education of any of these fine people would put you to shame, as would their experience of different cultures. My niece's cousin (the one she used to visit) was born in a hospital in Iman, where her mother contracted a hideous infection and almost died. That girl, who was raised primarily in Taipai, but has family in Ireland and the States, is embarking on her missionary career after GRADUATING FROM PRINCETON.

So spare me your ridiculous progressive posturing.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

You know, my sister is a Baptist. She lives in a $400,000 home (it would be worth a million in a city) drives SUVs (we have a big family).

She's been to Europe three times, her husband's entire family speaks Chinese because during the Vietnam War they moved to Taiwan in order to be there when he had weekend R&R. Her children are grown now, and lovely people who believe in the salvation of Jesus. One just finished her 3rd year of med school (Case University, Cleveland, OH), after attending school at Wheaton (Chicago) for 4 years. The kids have been to Europe once, and the medical student used to go to Taipai regularly, starting at age 9, by herself, to spend time with her cousin who was living there.

So spare me the bigoted assumption that all those who choose faith over a meaningless existence are backwards hicks, or that being devoted to your family means you're uneducated and untraveled.

Don't be a jerk, Allie. I didn't say that being devoted to your family means you're uneducated and untraveled. Nor did I say that practicing an organized religion makes one a backwards hick. I just said, there's more to life than that.

Now, what have YOU done that's just, oh so, special? Not that I'm saying that you haven't done anything, but you haven't talked about your own experiences, now, have you?

 

[Dante]

I love bait threads.

God knows if you really have faith and are saved. If you don't, you go to hell. Pretty simple.

And what makes my religion right is that it is right, it is of God, by God and for God. God indwells in those with faith, and in the Holy Word. But you can't see those things unless you ask to see them.

Just because you don't believe it and mock it doesn't mean it isn't true, and in the end, every person in hell will believe. But of course, it will be too late.

And the bible tells us not to waste pearls before swine. People who bait, torment and tease Christians are not worth the effort of trying to convert. You aren't interested in being converted. You simply want to humiliate and torture those who believe, and perhaps make them lose faith.

Have fun.

"You simply want to humiliate and torture those who believe..."

why would anyone bother when you do It to yourself so well?

God knows.

 

[AllieBaba]

You know, my sister is a Baptist. She lives in a $400,000 home (it would be worth a million in a city) drives SUVs (we have a big family).

She's been to Europe three times, her husband's entire family speaks Chinese because during the Vietnam War they moved to Taiwan in order to be there when he had weekend R&R. Her children are grown now, and lovely people who believe in the salvation of Jesus. One just finished her 3rd year of med school (Case University, Cleveland, OH), after attending school at Wheaton (Chicago) for 4 years. The kids have been to Europe once, and the medical student used to go to Taipai regularly, starting at age 9, by herself, to spend time with her cousin who was living there.

So spare me the bigoted assumption that all those who choose faith over a meaningless existence are backwards hicks, or that being devoted to your family means you're uneducated and untraveled.

Don't be a jerk, Allie. I didn't say that being devoted to your family means you're uneducated and untraveled. Nor did I say that practicing an organized religion makes one a backwards hick. I just said, there's more to life than that.

Now, what have YOU done that's just, oh so, special? Not that I'm saying that you haven't done anything, but you haven't talked about your own experiences, now, have you?

"Go read your Bible, work your job for thirty years, buy stuff, get married, have kids, buy a home, retire, die and pray to God that there is an afterlife so that you didn't just waste the only time you have, out of all eternity, living as a little cog. Meanwhile I'll be doing something more meaningful and worthwhile with my existence, just in case there isn't something more.

That's what you said, idiot.

What have I done...I'm not into travel, I've traveled the states and that's it.

I've raised my kids. I tithe.

And I've worked and volunteered in human services. I've worked with addicts, with their children, with juvenile delinquents (in lock down, not just kids who piss of their parents. Murderers, rapists, extortionists and fire starters). I've worked closely with diminished capacity sex offenders and crazy people who are violent and dangerous. Now I work with the poor, the old and the disabled. And not because I make the big money, believe me. I live in an area that nobody wants to live in, I live in an awful house because there just aren't any nice ones available. My son's in National Guard waiting shipment to either Iraq, Afghanistan or Africa. My daughter in law is already in Afghanistan.

So I do what I can and am able to do. If my boy goes to Africa, I'm seriously considering packing up the kids and moving over there to be closer to him.

Any more questions? What have you done, you asshole?

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh, and btw, I don't "buy stuff". The only "stuff" I own are my two horses, one of which was given to me, and my furniture. My mother, a nurse, gave me my car.

She's 74 and still working, the meaningless little cog. She's worked in the ICU of Los Alamos, and worked with vets in a VA hospital until her first retirement. She's worked with the criminally insane, and is currently working nights at a residential treatment facility, where she deals with the "scum" (Boobo's words) who are the dregs of our society. And their pitiful kids, who have bounced from foster home to often abusive foster home, and who want nothing more than to live with their druggie parents. But according to Shoog we should not allow those parents foodstamps if they can't kick their habits, and I'm not sure what his plans for the kids would be. Perhaps just continue bumping them from unloving home to unloving home, or leave them with their parents to starve or be sold off for food.

Yes, you all certainly have the moral high ground.

 

[Dante]

Oh, and btw, I don't "buy stuff". The only "stuff" I own are my two horses, one of which was given to me, and my furniture. My mother, a nurse, gave me my car.

She's 74 and still working, the meaningless little cog. She's worked in the ICU of Los Alamos, and worked with vets in a VA hospital until her first retirement. She's worked with the criminally insane, and is currently working nights at a residential treatment facility, where she deals with the "scum" (Boobo's words) who are the dregs of our society. And their pitiful kids, who have bounced from foster home to often abusive foster home, and who want nothing more than to live with their druggie parents. But according to Shoog we should not allow those parents foodstamps if they can't kick their habits, and I'm not sure what his plans for the kids would be. Perhaps just continue bumping them from unloving home to unloving home, or leave them with their parents to starve or be sold off for food.

Yes, you all certainly have the moral high ground.

moral high ground? you wouldn't know morality if it bit you in the arse and called your momma a fattie.

 

[AllieBaba]

Wow. That was an enlightening reply, and certainly proved your point. Whatever it was.

 

[AllieBaba]

Oh, no, wait. It proved my point. Thank you.

 

[Coloradomtnman]

Oh, and btw, I don't "buy stuff". The only "stuff" I own are my two horses, one of which was given to me, and my furniture. My mother, a nurse, gave me my car.

She's 74 and still working, the meaningless little cog. She's worked in the ICU of Los Alamos, and worked with vets in a VA hospital until her first retirement. She's worked with the criminally insane, and is currently working nights at a residential treatment facility, where she deals with the "scum" (Boobo's words) who are the dregs of our society. And their pitiful kids, who have bounced from foster home to often abusive foster home, and who want nothing more than to live with their druggie parents. But according to Shoog we should not allow those parents foodstamps if they can't kick their habits, and I'm not sure what his plans for the kids would be. Perhaps just continue bumping them from unloving home to unloving home, or leave them with their parents to starve or be sold off for food.

Yes, you all certainly have the moral high ground.

What ARE you talking about Allie? Did you read my reply to your last post? Read it. Then comprehend it. Fully. Then reply. Okay?

Now let's see if that works out...

 

[Dante]

Oh, no, wait. It proved my point. Thank you.

did you know suicide is always an option?

 

[AllieBaba]

You mean non-consentual euthanasia?

No thanks. I don't believe in legalizing the killing off of opponents to any particular philosophy.

 

[Newby]

If nothing else, you've exposed yourself quite well in that response. You're a Marxist, you're not an American, you don't believe in the American Constitution or American Law. You want to subvert and overturn the Constitution and insert in it's place what you deem to be morally correct. You don't believe in individual liberty or individual freedom. Maybe someday you'll grow up and learn that you cannot legislate fairness and understand what the real world is about instead of sticking your head firmly in the sand and pretending that the world is something that it is not and never will be. If anything else comes out of this, I hope people are able to read your thoughts and what those like you are thinking and realize and understand how dangerous you are to this country.

And you've exposed yourself as a nationalist and a slave to corporations, propaganda, and religious indoctrination. I admit that I relate to some of the things Marx wrote, but I was born in Denver so I am an American. I'm not a Marxist or a socialist or a communist, but I am an American. I'm me. That's what the US is all about - tolerance and individuality. Just because I don't believe the Constitution is the end all be all of ethical guidelines for governance or that American Law is the embodiment of all that is just doesn't mean I'm any less American than you. It means I dissent. It means that I don't just prostrate myself before the ruling and wealthy classes. I do believe in individual freedom and liberty, its just that my definition of those is different than yours: in that I believe you should have liberty to the point until it treads on the rights and liberties of others. And I believe in human rights and equality. I have hopes for the human race and believe it can do better than it has; aka idealism. I might be dangerous to your notion of what this country is supposed to be, but you, and folks like you, are dangerous to the future of the human race, this planet and all life on it.

Go read your Bible, work your job for thirty years, buy stuff, get married, have kids, buy a home, retire, die and pray to God that there is an afterlife so that you didn't just waste the only time you have, out of all eternity, living as a little cog. Meanwhile I'll be doing something more meaningful and worthwhile with my existence, just in case there isn't something more.

You're so closed minded, it's pathetic, and what's even more funny is that you don't even recoginize it in yourself. Thanks for showing what's truly under the hood where a lib is concerned.

 

[Newby]

Oh, and btw, I don't "buy stuff". The only "stuff" I own are my two horses, one of which was given to me, and my furniture. My mother, a nurse, gave me my car.

She's 74 and still working, the meaningless little cog. She's worked in the ICU of Los Alamos, and worked with vets in a VA hospital until her first retirement. She's worked with the criminally insane, and is currently working nights at a residential treatment facility, where she deals with the "scum" (Boobo's words) who are the dregs of our society. And their pitiful kids, who have bounced from foster home to often abusive foster home, and who want nothing more than to live with their druggie parents. But according to Shoog we should not allow those parents foodstamps if they can't kick their habits, and I'm not sure what his plans for the kids would be. Perhaps just continue bumping them from unloving home to unloving home, or leave them with their parents to starve or be sold off for food.

Yes, you all certainly have the moral high ground.

What ARE you talking about Allie? Did you read my reply to your last post? Read it. Then comprehend it. Fully. Then reply. Okay?

Now let's see if that works out...

Who me???? I'm just little Mr. Innocent, I didn't mean to insult anyone.... Go sell your shit somewhere else, your little routine isn't working anymore.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Oh, and btw, I don't "buy stuff". The only "stuff" I own are my two horses, one of which was given to me, and my furniture. My mother, a nurse, gave me my car.

She's 74 and still working, the meaningless little cog. She's worked in the ICU of Los Alamos, and worked with vets in a VA hospital until her first retirement. She's worked with the criminally insane, and is currently working nights at a residential treatment facility, where she deals with the "scum" (Boobo's words) who are the dregs of our society. And their pitiful kids, who have bounced from foster home to often abusive foster home, and who want nothing more than to live with their druggie parents. But according to Shoog we should not allow those parents foodstamps if they can't kick their habits, and I'm not sure what his plans for the kids would be. Perhaps just continue bumping them from unloving home to unloving home, or leave them with their parents to starve or be sold off for food.

Yes, you all certainly have the moral high ground.

moral high ground? you wouldn't know morality if it bit you in the arse and called your momma a fattie.

ROFL... Oh now THAT's POWERFUL STUFF, right there...

LOL... Leftists...

 

[LOki]

The universe cannot be an actual infinity because a portion of an actual infinity is equal to infinity. If an infinite amount of time had passed before this moment in time, this moment in time would never have been reached. One part of an actual infinity is indistinguishable from another. If time was actually infinite, there would be no discernible sequences of events. The argument that the universe cannot be actually infinite simply because things in nature cannot be actually infinite was made in support of the KCA, not by the KCA itself.

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe must have a cause.

Petitio principii.

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what question-begging is, or you're being disingenuous. Repeating an inaccurate accusation over and over again won't make it any more true.

You'd be making a point if your accusation was applicable--it's diversionary bullshit. I have explained each time, for each reiteration of your argument where it's question-begging, and not even once did you attempt refutation, except for creating another question-begging reiteration. Rewording, while maintaining the same question-begging presumptions in your argument, over and over again won't make your argument any more valid.

I can provide another rephrasing of the argument, if you'd like.

1. Every event has a cause.
   Does your definition of "event" insist we accept the existence of the "cause" in your conclusion? If your definition of "the universe is" "every event", or you if you presume that "the universe" is included in "every event", then this premise is contingent upon first accepting your conclusion to be true--if you don't think this might be question begging, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what question-begging is.​
2. The physical universe has a beginning.
   Well, the first law of themodynamics suggests otherwise, but that's of course is not the point I'm trying to make. I only have to accept that the universe has a beginning, if I accept that the universe has a cause. The truth of this premise is, again, contingent upon the conclusion first being accepted as true--if you don't think this is question begging, then you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what question-begging is.​
3. All beginnings involve an event.
   Only relevent if the universe had a beginning, and if you're asserting that the universe is an event, then you're only saying (for the case of the universe) that all beginnings involve a [the] universe.​
4. This implies that the beginning of the physical universe involved an event.
   No. It implies that events (which have a beginning) involve the universe.​
5. Therefore, the physical universe has a cause.
   This is just restating your 2nd premise, and most likely your first.​

Once again, the conclusion does not appear as a premise.

It certainly does. Predictably so.

And I say predictably so, because those who submit these kinds of "arguments" already "know", through faith, that their creator exists and they invariably fit their premises to match their conclusions--they have to. In their world, their reality begins in belief rather than their belief beginning in reality--the faithful are the truest of subjectivists--it's not at all surprising that their premises are contingent upon accepting their conclusion to be true first.

For illustrative purposes, let me build for you a competing syllogism, contructed the same way [premises from conclusion] as the KCA:

1. Everything that exists has a cause;
2. The creator of everything has no cause;
3. Therefore the creator of everything does not exist.

I'm hoping you can see the question-begging presumtions in the first premise; I'm hoping you can see the patent question-begging in the second premise; I hoping you can see every criticism I've made to your presentation of KCA applied to this argument; and I'm also hoping you're able to imagine dozens of ways to reword those premises to obsfucate the question-begging nature of the premises.

Just like the KCA, the above argument--that "proves" that a creator of the universe does not exist--is entirely fallaceous due to being built from the conclusion to the premises. I would ask those making this fallaceous argument, in this invalid manner, to please stop.

And now, I'm asking you to stop. Ok?

EDIT: BTW, "a portion of an actual infinity is equal to infinity" is an example of a compositional error,

How's that? Poor word choice, maybe, but what I said is correct. The number of natural numbers, a subset of real numbers, is equal to the number of real numbers.

[5,6,7,8] is a subset of real numbers, it is also a subset of natural numbers, and it is NOT equal to infinity, it is NOT equal to the set of natural numbers, it is NOT equal to the set of real numbers, and it is fully distinguishable from both. What you said was incorrect.

Maybe you meant to say "An infinity is indistinguishable from another infinity."

as is "One part of an actual infinity is indistinguishable from another". For instance, there are infinite real numbers; pi, a part of the the actual infinity of real numbers, is distinguishable from the infinity it is part of, and each part of the infinity that constitutes the infinity of real numbers.

Time and number sets are completely different.

Not if you're saying (Just to be clear, I'm not asserting you're saying this), "An infinity is indistinguishable from another infinity."

As I've said, if the universe had always existed, it would have reached maximum entropy an infinite amount of time ago. It would be impossible to pinpoint exactly when maximum entropy was reached. No clear chronological distinction could be made between the point at which the universe was formed and the point at which it attained maximum entropy, as both events would have occurred an infinite amount of time ago.

Only if "always existed" requires an infinite regession into the past--rather than a beginningless past--or requires a notion of infinity in time that excludes any finite boundaries.

Consider the notion of an infinite area. It does not need to have infinite length, AND infinite width--if one dimension is infinite, the area is necessarily infinite, yet that area still has boundaries; finite boundaries. I don't know if time is one dimensional or not, but just as the universe doesn't have to be infinite in length, width, height, mass, matter, energy, probabilities, entropy, . . . etc., to be infinite, it does not have to be infinite in time, to be infinite--it just has to be infinite in something--yet it can have ALL KINDS of boundaries.

But that is still beside the valid point I made. "Compositional error" stands.

"If an infinite amount of time had passed before this moment in time, this moment in time would never have been reached." See Zeno's paradox; you're just spinning up a similar divisional fallacy.

How can you travel from point X (the universe's beginning) to point Y (now) if an infinite amount of points exist between X and Y?

The same way your fingers can travel an infinite amount of points, from from point X (your kitchen) to point Y (your keyboard), to attempt to refute my point.

 

[ItsFairmont]

Why do you believe?

Explain faith.

I surrendered my heart and soul to Jesus Christ. I now live a much happier life.


You can believe it or not....that's your choice.

The fact that you ask shows you seek answers.

You said, "Maybe you'll make a believer out of someone."


Well, whatever. All I know is that if an atheist and a Christian talk long enough, it's not the Christian who is most likely to be converted.

 

[Father Time]

Why do you believe?

Explain faith.

I surrendered my heart and soul to Jesus Christ. I now live a much happier life.


You can believe it or not....that's your choice.

The fact that you ask shows you seek answers.

You said, "Maybe you'll make a believer out of someone."


Well, whatever. All I know is that if an atheist and a Christian talk long enough, it's not the Christian who is most likely to be converted.

And you base that off of?