[One-eyed Jack]

Re: I want you to prove to me that god is real.

Oho! Very good reply, EnigmaticHarpo.

1. On applicability to Christianity: As you may know, Richard Dawkins is the guy who coined the term "meme" and applied it to belief-systems. (See http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-R.../dp/0618680004 -- Warning! Link is not suitable for Christians who are weak in their faith!) And he -- in his foul atheistic bigotry -- does indeed think that it applies to Christianity as well as other religions.

He's wrong, as a simple logic-loop demonstrates: The Bible says that Christianity is divinely inspired, and the Bible is infallible truth. Why is the Bible infallible truth? Because the Bible itself says it is. (Yes, a logician would call this circular reasoning, but faith is different from logic. We Christians are not "people of logic" we are people of faith.)

2. On contradicting other True Christians: I am heartily sorry. Old and flatulent OEJ is something of a loose cannon. I sometimes write things that fall outside the proper and prudent doctrine of the True Church. The other brethren and sistern are probably right and I am probably wrong. The Lord will judge me harshly for this, I just know He will.

3. On truth in non-Christian religions: Well, actually I did not in this case mean the philosophical tenets of Satanism (or Hinduism, or whatever) so much as the metaphysical assertions. My point was that if belief systems evolved as meta-parasites of individuals and societies then their assertions about afterlife, the nature of gods, and man's relationship to these gods do not have to contain any objective truth whatsoever. Convenient lies are more effective....and that puts my argument in a nutshell: Religion is a convenient lie.

(Except for Christianity, which I believe is a divine revelation straight from God precisely because I choose to believe that it is.)

4. Demons and whatnot: The meme model would shake its head sadly at this. When you can repeatably produce a demon in scientifically-controlled experiements, weigh it, take its black-body spectrum, and get all observers to agree on its properties, then -- says the meme-model -- then you have some claim that the metaphysical idea of demons is something other than a convenient lie.

Now: Yes, Christianity credits demons to some extent. Christ cast "demons" out of a crazy man -- a psychiatric miracle, if you will. And overexcited Pentacostals sometimes see demons and whatnot. (Landover Baptists are NOT Pentacostals, and regard them with considerable disdain. Pentacostals are NOT True Christians.)

But I personally would lump the conventional idea of demons in with Ganesh, Shiva, bhodisatvas, Thoth, Dionysus, Mr. T, Quetzalcoatl, and other mythical nonsense.
----

EnigmaticHarpo, I appreciate your intelligence and sincerity. Now, hypothetically, you could read Dawkins' book and decide that Christianity is, indeed, nothing but a convenient lie -- a self-righteous, fundamentally elitist lie. That would seem logical. But, again, faith is not logic! And Landover is all about the Faith that transcends logic, transcends reason, transcends rational thought entirely! Hallelujah!

Repent! Become a True Christian -- it's rewarding, fun, and can even be intellectually stimulating! And the Lord will speak inside your head, softly and persuasively, words of comfort and joy. As Woody Allen (a Jew, so not to be trusted) said, "The Lord is merciful. He maketh me to lie down in green pastures. The problem is, I can't get up. ..."

~~ OEJ

[Enigmatic Harpo Marx]

Re: I want you to prove to me that god is real.

One-Eyed Jack:

First of all, I would like to thank you for the enlightening reply....I do quite enjoy these descusions.

As to your arguments, I must say that I think we have done a thorough job of grinding these points down to their nuts and bolts, and I find it very difficult to fight you on many of them (perhaps because I would be inlclined to agree with you in most of what you say). The logic behind much of this topic seems sound to me and I am not one to deny sound reasoning. This is actually something I find delightfuly ironic since you refute the use of logic with respect to God. There are somethings that you said though that I feel are lacking to say the least.

1. On applicability to Christianity: As you may know, Richard Dawkins is the guy who coined the term "meme" and applied it to belief-systems. (See http://www.amazon.com/God-Delusion-R.../dp/0618680004 -- Warning! Link is not suitable for Christians who are weak in their faith!) And he -- in his foul atheistic bigotry -- does indeed think that it applies to Christianity as well as other religions.

He's wrong, as a simple logic-loop demonstrates: The Bible says that Christianity is divinely inspired, and the Bible is infallible truth. Why is the Bible infallible truth? Because the Bible itself says it is. (Yes, a logician would call this circular reasoning, but faith is different from logic. We Christians are not "people of logic" we are people of faith.)

Now, this point which has been used so many times over that it makes my head spin is, I belive, the foundation for your beliefs and many other Christians' beliefs as well, so I will start here since it is the source of the problem:

In the same breath you describe a meme and say that Christianity is not one even though it fits so well that the definition of a meme could have been custom made for Christianity itself. Your basis for why it is not, strangely enough, is also characteristic of a meme.

Tell me, what is to stop me from claiming that I have been divinely inspired and having just as much credibility as your Bible. There is no difference other than that so many people believe the Bible that few are willing to question it.

Joseph Smith did exactly this. How is your Church more true than the Mormon Church.

From what I can understand, you have no more reason to believe the Bible, and the Landover Church to boot, other than it was taught to you by somebody who was influenceable to make an impression (once again those memes rear their ugly heads). Plenty of people claim to know the truth; what makes you so sure you are right when you have no more evidence (even a great deal less in many cases as far as I'm concerned) than everbody else.

I am afraid though that this is the key stone to all other possible arguments regarding Christianity and that until this question (whose importance we may have underestimated) can be answered, there is no further descusion to be had.

On a happier note though, I will say that I recognize Christianity's role throughout the devolpment of humanity as a race; I just doubt its worth as a source of Truth.

[One-eyed Jack]

Re: I want you to prove to me that god is real.

EnigmaticHarpo: Yes, you've put your finger on the crux of One-eyed Jack's religious schizophrenia.

A Christian who uses rationality to attack other religions nevertheless has to abandon rationality when looking at his own faith.

The English novelist -- and Catholic -- Graham Greene carried in his wallet a photograph of the Italian priest Padre Pio, whose hands and feet displayed stigmata mimicking the wounds of Christ. Greene apparently did not care to know whether the marks were of miraculous or of psychological (neurotic) origin: he chose instead to believe in mystery, in irrationality.

He chose that. Made a willful choice. In a self-aware man like Greene, that can only have been an conscious choice. He decided to choose irrationality instead of to seek objective, scientific truth.

Is Christian "rationality" therefore fundamentally schizoid...to put it more strongly, is any claim to a rational Christianity merely hypocrisy?

One-eyed Jack...recuses himself. He cannot answer that question. Not rationally!

-----

Now I have to back off a moment. You do realize that anyone who writes on a forum is creating a semi-literary character, yes? I think that the person that everyone on Landover "sees" as OEJ depends only on what words I happen to choose. How I happen to structure the sentences I write.

All that is kind of didactic and academic. But the message is: No matter how honest I may try to be about what I think, what you read is just words. It contains an irreducible amount of fiction.

I first saw Landover Baptist's website many years ago and recognized the (Godly!) nature of the Blessed Church immediately. The forum in those days was hosted by Voy Forums; it was kind of primitive and barely moderated. Very rough-and-tumble. By necessity my character varied between pure a**hole and a sort of clownish rustic philosopher. What the writer behind the character was "really" like was not very important -- there were trolls and idiots to be dealt with, and the Faithful to be encouraged and entertained.

I guess I would hope that our discussion is useful (to both of us and perhaps to some other readers as well) in thinking about religion. That's about it. Probing very far into what the character One-eyed Jack "really" believes is probably not very fruitful. What the writer behind the character is really like is still not very important.

(All posters to blogs and forums are to some extent fictional creations. No one can write themselves with perfect transparency, if only because words have slightly different flavors and meanings to different readers. Some writers accept that and create their impressions with intent and care; others simply write what they must and let the cards fall where they may. But never mind all that...)

-----

In closing, I exhort all to accept the Merciful Promise of Christ the Savior! Because if you don't, the Merciful Christ promises that you burn in Hell. For God so loves His children that if they step wrong they is gwine to be DEAD MEAT!

It is useless to reason with God!

How much less shall I answer him, and choose out my words to reason with him? Job 9:14

~~ OEJ

[Enigmatic Harpo Marx]

Re: I want you to prove to me that god is real.

EnigmaticHarpo: Yes, you've put your finger on the crux of One-eyed Jack's religious schizophrenia.

A Christian who uses rationality to attack other religions nevertheless has to abandon rationality when looking at his own faith.

The English novelist -- and Catholic -- Graham Greene carried in his wallet a photograph of the Italian priest Padre Pio, whose hands and feet displayed stigmata mimicking the wounds of Christ. Greene apparently did not care to know whether the marks were of miraculous or of psychological (neurotic) origin: he chose instead to believe in mystery, in irrationality.

He chose that. Made a willful choice. In a self-aware man like Greene, that can only have been an conscious choice. He decided to choose irrationality instead of to seek objective, scientific truth.

Is Christian "rationality" therefore fundamentally schizoid...to put it more strongly, is any claim to a rational Christianity merely hypocrisy?

One-eyed Jack...recuses himself. He cannot answer that question. Not rationally!

I do see the intended point of what you say, though I can't help the feeling that we've managed to skirt around the original problem at hand without answering it. At the very least we may have eluded to the fact that there is no right answer or that (in a sense of optimism on my part) there is no good reason for people to believe in their religious doctrine other than it answers all the really hard questions for them with minimal amounts of contemplation. It is a shame though that none of your fellow Christians could come to your aid on this point. Just hope it's not because there is no further point to be made!

Now I have to back off a moment. You do realize that anyone who writes on a forum is creating a semi-literary character, yes? I think that the person that everyone on Landover "sees" as OEJ depends only on what words I happen to choose. How I happen to structure the sentences I write.

All that is kind of didactic and academic. But the message is: No matter how honest I may try to be about what I think, what you read is just words. It contains an irreducible amount of fiction.

I first saw Landover Baptist's website many years ago and recognized the (Godly!) nature of the Blessed Church immediately. The forum in those days was hosted by Voy Forums; it was kind of primitive and barely moderated. Very rough-and-tumble. By necessity my character varied between pure a**hole and a sort of clownish rustic philosopher. What the writer behind the character was "really" like was not very important -- there were trolls and idiots to be dealt with, and the Faithful to be encouraged and entertained.

I guess I would hope that our discussion is useful (to both of us and perhaps to some other readers as well) in thinking about religion. That's about it. Probing very far into what the character One-eyed Jack "really" believes is probably not very fruitful. What the writer behind the character is really like is still not very important.

(All posters to blogs and forums are to some extent fictional creations. No one can write themselves with perfect transparency, if only because words have slightly different flavors and meanings to different readers. Some writers accept that and create their impressions with intent and care; others simply write what they must and let the cards fall where they may. But never mind all that...)

Belive me when I say that I understand very much what you mean about forum characters being at least slightly fictional. When I post on forums I speak as one character to another with very little regard to the writer on the other side. Why would I have any consideration about the writer when I obviously do not know them and do not presume to know them. I think we have begun chip away at the illusional characters generated by a forum in our philosophical debate (I do have trouble resisting a good descusion of philosphy) so in an effort to reinforce it: All Hail Satan and all His dark Minions! I will admit though I think some very good points were brought up concerning religion.

In closing, I exhort all to accept the Merciful Promise of Christ the Savior! Because if you don't, the Merciful Christ promises that you burn in Hell. For God so loves His children that if they step wrong they is gwine to be DEAD MEAT!

It is useless to reason with God!

How much less shall I answer him, and choose out my words to reason with him? Job 9:14

~~ OEJ

And in closing I deny your God and substitute my own.

[Ahimaaz Smith]

Re: I want you to prove to me that god is real.

Congratulations, it's official. I counted them up, and the anti-God posts in this thread have the highest ratio of words to ideas of any online forum since the beginning, when Al Gore invented the Internet.

[Paladin]

Re: I want you to prove to me that god is real.

To try to bring this thread back around...

I challenge the original poster to prove God -doesn't- exist. It's feasibly impossible, but we can easily start with some interesting questions...

When has a positive mutation ever been observed in nature?
When has multiple endosymbiosis ever been observed?
If creatures adapted to a hostile environment, how did they adapt to the environment post mortem, after the environment killed them off?
Is matter finite or infinite? Does time have a beginning?
If infinite, what does this mean in terms of the red shift?
How do you explain the utter precision of physics? If you use the "infinite universes" explanation, would you not admit that with infinite universes, everything that can be imagined exists? AKA, with infinite chances to create that which you see on TV, would that not mean that there is nothing imaginary, only things that exist in another universe?

Both the Big Bang and Evolution are called theories for a reason. It basically means that's the best explanation science has at the time. Science tries not to delve into matters of God, as God is not measured by empirical evidence (somewhat like psychology, really.) However, the Intelligent Design theory has been recently coming about, but it's important to note that this is -not- tied to religion. This is simply explaining the root of all that exists.

It's also important to note that any theory regarding the beginning of the universe/life can never be accepted on anything more than faith. No one was there to witness it, and we cannot recreate it.

I'm inclined to believe that while we do not and have never seen positive mutations or one species become another, we do see people fashion and form things in factories and such from existing matter.

I'm more likely to believe that some person (probably in a third world country) assembled my computer, rather than all the parts of my computer sitting in a desk for a million years and forming a computer. I realize that's somewhat of a strawman, but that's just about how the first strand of DNA is said to come about in evolution.

Now, with that said (sorry for the drifting focus), the following link is a pretty good, logical argument, if a little tedious.

http://www.doesgodexist.org/Pamphlets/Mansproof.html

[Enigmatic Harpo Marx]

Re: I want you to prove to me that god is real.

One of my main problems with the question of "does God exist" is that scientists started out with no preconcieved notions of an answer to this question. They simply took what they observed and tried to apply the most logical explanation to their observations. Creationists, on the other hand, already had an idea that they are biased towards; they don't want the truth. They want to think they're right to save themselves at least some dignity. They have something to prove so they only see what they want to see. It is impossible to have this kind of discussion with a devout Christian because they are unwilling to look at the world from a different perspective than the one they already have.

[ThankGOD]

Re: I want you to prove to me that god is real.

At the end of the day, an argument concerning the reality of God is futile. God exists, he is a great and kind God who rewards his beloved children with eternal life in heaven.
Anybody who disagrees will discover their mistake when they writhe in eternal torturous agony.

[nikestinks]

Re: I want you to prove to me that god is real.

hope you will prove it

[Paladin]

Re: I want you to prove to me that god is real.

One of my main problems with the question of "does God exist" is that scientists started out with no preconcieved notions of an answer to this question. They simply took what they observed and tried to apply the most logical explanation to their observations. Creationists, on the other hand, already had an idea that they are biased towards; they don't want the truth. They want to think they're right to save themselves at least some dignity. They have something to prove so they only see what they want to see. It is impossible to have this kind of discussion with a devout Christian because they are unwilling to look at the world from a different perspective than the one they already have.

You clearly need to look at how science works.

Much of science itself has already stated that is seeks to acquire naturalistic answers, i.e., answers that do not resort to the supernatural. While this is admirable in many regards, it also means that they have a strong bias against God. Regardless of evidence, they will not resort to a creationist point of view because it isn't naturalistic. They also refuse to as God is not quantifiable or measurable by empirical evidence. For this reason, God is considered outside the realm of science. It is not formally stated that he exists or not, as a result.

Second, many creationists happen to be former non-Christian scientists that came to their conclusion like a normal scientist, not looking for a specific answer. There are multiple people that set out to -disprove- Christianity that became Christians in the process.

I, myself, have poked and prodded my faith to death, researched scientific explanations, and measured everything against each other. Given my life experience and all the years of study (even studying other religions), I'd be downright idiotic if I didn't believe in God.

I contend that in the question of "Does God Exist", those that don't want him to are just as biased in their research as any Christian. Look at people like Dawkins, who is vehement in his anti-faith. Would you call that a neutral scientist? I think not.

It isn't as cut and dry as you put it, it's much more complicated than that.

[TheBlindPupil]

Re: I want you to prove to me that god is real.

Why should we, the unwaveringly faithful lemmings of Providence, buy into a system of deduction and demonstrability (the trappings of science) to affect the opinions of self-righteous nonbelievers?

Ontological discussions concerning the Lord take place in the dialogue of our hearts, with all of which he praise His Glory, His Plan, and His compassion in engendering the existence of Nachos.

[Enigmatic Harpo Marx]

Re: I want you to prove to me that god is real.

You clearly need to look at how science works.

Much of science itself has already stated that is seeks to acquire naturalistic answers, i.e., answers that do not resort to the supernatural. While this is admirable in many regards, it also means that they have a strong bias against God. Regardless of evidence, they will not resort to a creationist point of view because it isn't naturalistic. They also refuse to as God is not quantifiable or measurable by empirical evidence. For this reason, God is considered outside the realm of science. It is not formally stated that he exists or not, as a result.

What evidence? So far you've failed to put forward any "evidence" that proves what you say. Also, what do you consider supernatural? There are plenty of ideas out there that are beyond our ability to percieve. Can you prove empirically the 26 or so dimensions required for string theory? Dark matter or black holes? How about the human consciousness? No you can't. It is not a matter of what is "naturalistic" but a matter of what has evidence. Where is the evidence for God?

Second, many creationists happen to be former non-Christian scientists that came to their conclusion like a normal scientist, not looking for a specific answer. There are multiple people that set out to -disprove- Christianity that became Christians in the process.

Please give some names of examples so your statement is not so baseless

I, myself, have poked and prodded my faith to death, researched scientific explanations, and measured everything against each other. Given my life experience and all the years of study (even studying other religions), I'd be downright idiotic if I didn't believe in God.

What credibility do you have to give your "years of study" any weight. Let alone your "life's experiences". Show me some accredited college degrees, then maybe you can make comments like that.

I contend that in the question of "Does God Exist", those that don't want him to are just as biased in their research as any Christian. Look at people like Dawkins, who is vehement in his anti-faith. Would you call that a neutral scientist? I think not.

Everybody is biased in some sense of the word. That is why we must take initiative to look through the scientists themselves and examine the actual evidence and instead of being spoonfeed all the answers, come up with our own conclusions.

It isn't as cut and dry as you put it, it's much more complicated than that.

You tell me I am wrong and the do me the disservice of not elaborating on how you are right.

[Meserti]

Re: I want you to prove to me that god is real.

excellent forward of points my friend, at least you are someone without a melted brain. maybe they would do better if they didn't use a book with so many contradictions and weren't so narrow minded

[Pastor Ezekiel]

Re: I want you to prove to me that god is real.

excellent forward of points my friend, at least you are someone without a melted brain. maybe they would do better if they didn't use a book with so many contradictions and weren't so narrow minded

Please name one contradiction in God's Holy Word. Chapter and verse, lezbean.

1 John 2:22 Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son.
2:23 Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also.

You are a liar, pure and simple. all of that fake goth-talk only makes you look like a geek. Aside from that, you are an antiChrist.

[WilliamJenningsBryan]

Re: I want you to prove to me that god is real.

...........

And in closing I deny your God and substitute my own.

Well now, at least you are confessing to what most of the "atheist" unsaved heathen that show up here won't admit. It seems that modern science suggests that it may be possible for you to create your own universe (scientists for some time have speculated that it would not require much mass to do so - as little as some lint from your navel):

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=6545246

The only problem with this is that it seems that while you may be able to create a universe, you just don't get to live in it. So you are stuck with living under whoever created to present one. I would hate to think that some Emo/Goth kids playing in their parent's basement created our universe, but on the other hand persons such as you may be pleased to be worshiping such individuals.