What you're talking about is supported by logical analysis and holds up to various forms of scientific testing. Please tell me that you can find it in within yourself to determine the difference.
"The 'salvation of the soul' - in plain words: 'the world revolves around me.'" - Nietzsche I will never have a relationship with God, because I don't think God exists. I can't prove that he doesn't, but even if there were a supernatural being that created the universe, in my opinion it wouldn't have any relevance to my life anyway. It's a supremely egotistical belief that such a being would care about the trivialities of daily human existence. In my opinion, that is a corruption of the event of Christ's death. Perpetuated of course by the Church. "To which the deranged reason of the little community formulated an answer that was terrifying in its absurdity: God gave his son as a sacrifice for the forgiveness of sins. At once there was an end of the gospels! Sacrifice for sin, and in its most obnoxious and barbarous form: sacrifice of the innocent for the sins of the guilty. What appalling paganism! - Jesus himself had done away with the very concept of "guilt", he denied that there was any gulf fixed between God and man; he lived this unity between God and man, and that was precisely his "glad tidings". - F. N.
Logical analysis? You just made my point for me. By your logic, God doesn't exist. By my logic, God is very real. Can you tell me conclusively which one of us is correct? If you think you can, then what you perceive as logical simply doesn't agree with what I perceive as logical. That's all there is to it. Bottom line is the mathematical postulate I mentioned has never been proven in the history of human mathematics, but it holds up to logical conventions. What are logical conventions then? They're basically just what the majority of people accept as immutable without the need for proof. You take it on faith in your own deductive reasoning that if a=b and b=c, then a=c. If you woke up the next morning and everyone in the world suddenly told you that if a=b, and b=c, then a is not equal to c, what would you do? Ask them to explain it? What if all they said was, "Well...it's just common sense and logic." Would that convince you? I doubt it. In your head, the so-called logic everyone else follows would be wrong. Scientific testing is no different. Scientific proof is nothing more than finding a result that no contemporary scientist is capable of refuting based on his/her perception of how the world should work. Hundreds of years ago, it was scientific fact that there was no western hemisphere and the world was flat. Now, we have conclusive scientific evidence that proves otherwise, and it's universally accepted...again because nobody can (or even wants to) prove otherwise based on our current perception of reality. Just to clarify, I'm not here to argue with you whether God exists or not. I'm just trying to tell you that "God's existence can't be scientifically proven" is a meaningless argument. First of all, God's existence can't be scientifically disproven either. Second, His existence doesn't need to be proven to Christians. We accept His existence and sovereignty on faith alone. His existence makes sense to us. It's logical, the same way 1+1=2 is logical to you despite the lack of "scientific" proof...the same way you accept on faith that your wife/parents/children love you...and of course, the same way that you're completely sure God does not exist.
Nomar, your current mancrush on the sickly Freddie sure is cute. Since you are regurgitating him so well, here ya go: "We are like shop windows in which we are continually arranging, concealing or illuminating the supposed qualities other ascribe to us - in order to deceive ourselves."
I do have a mancrush on him, it's absurd. I've never read anything like him, where it's almost uncanny in that everything I read seems to be something I have already known to be true in my own mind. It's like he's repeating my own reasoning in a more eloquent way. That's an interesting quote, what book is it from? Am I deceiving myself rimmy? Am I just busting people's balls because I have a deep seated desire to be loved by God? Am I just an internet persona that has to live up to the hype? Enlighten me, oh lord of the D&D.
1) I never said that God's existence has to be proven to Christians. 2) Believing in the existence of God cannot be supported by logical reasoning, period. 3) It isn't faith that justifies belief in mathematics. Math is arbitrarily created and given definitions. 1+1=2 not because of faith, but because the truth is inherent in the system. God is not an artificial contruct (at least not for those that believe in his existence). You think that there is a supernatural entity out there. This entity by nature cannot be bound by your definitions and guidelines. It is completely different from mathematical postulates.
Okay then. Damnit Nomar, how many times do I have to say this? By your logical reasoning He doesn't exist. By mine, He does. Likewise, (and excuse the controversial choice of example)...by a bigot's logical reasoning, one ethnicity has superiority over others. By our logical reasoning, no ethnicity has superiority. That wasn't my point. It's not about believing in mathematics. It's about having faith that the mathematics, science, and logic we've created accurately models the way the universe behaves. The universe's behavior is not an artificial construct. Arbitarily created axioms and postulates are accepted on "faith" because we (using your word here) think that's the way things work in the universe. There's no way to prove whether or not these postulates are in fact the way things really are. We just accept them as "inherently true" Faith in God is very much the same. For me, logic of how the universe works MUST include God. Without God in the picture, it just doesn't make any sense. Ergo, by my logical deduction His existence must be "inherently true" as well.
Keep in mind his reasoning and perception brought about his own mental breakdown...you might want to see if you have the same thing and act preventively. Daybreak Perhaps you should read it a little more closely as you missed the point. I could guess that your ending insult was in the correct light, but I know it was not that thought out. His statement is about vanity and deceiving oneself about being as great as others may think (or pretend) you to be. All superficial nontheless. You no doubt think that applies to me so I thought you might like it.
1) Logic is an absolute thing, it doesn't vary based on different perspectives. There is no "my" logic or "your" logic, there simply is logic. 2) A bigot's reasoning is not necessarily illogical. However, any arguments a bigot makes are subject to logical analysis. This will render those arguments either logical or illogical. There is no such thing as an argument that is logical based on the bigot's logic, and then illogical based on your logic. 3) Math has nothing to do with faith. Get over it. The postulates are inherently "true" because we contruct and define them. Does God exist based on your definition? 4) Hilarious. Your "logical deduction" is flawed because you presuppose the existence of the entity which you seek to prove by deduction. This, by definition is illogical.
LOL. Wasn't his breakdown more a product of syphillitic infection than a result of his philosophy? And you know I always use protection. I didn't exactly miss the point, I just wasn't sure which way you were going with it. You definitely have to live up to the hype, but I'm trying to shy away from the hype. What should I read after Anti-Christ?
Well just about everyone who was anyone in the late 19th century had syphilis but I am on the side of scholarship that says he did not...or at least it was his main malady. Good arguments have been made about him being schizophrenic. He also had migraines and I am think he also was epileptic...but am fuzzy on that. Regardless, one who sees things as he did has no choice but to go mad, it would seem. Physical sickness would only add to it. If you have not already, Thus Spake Zarathustra. For a somewhat different read, though, Ecce Homo is his fun autobiography with chapter titles such as "Why I Write Such Good Books" and "Why I am a Destiny".
This is going to be my last post on this topic, since you're obviously incapable of making a point without sneering at what other people believe. It's no wonder you were banned before. Yes, pure logic is an absolute thing. Things that are true are true. Things that are false are false. However, there are no guarantees that what you and I perceive to be "logically true" are in fact true of the entire universe. As a result, everyone has his/her own perception and interpretation of what is "true" and "logical." Again, yes there is such a thing. And why do we construct and define them to be true? Because some guy just woke up, scratched his ass, and said so? No, we accept that our "arbitrary" definitions are the way things work in the universe. How is that not faith? If you're accepting something as truth without proof...it is faith. You're just too busy trying to be pseudo-intelligent and quoting Nietzsche to actually read what I'm saying. I've had to explain this argument 3 times already: It's as simple as this: my view of the way the universe works is different from yours. That's all. Regardless of what you think "faith" actually is, there ARE things about the universe that you simply accept to be true. No matter how insignificant, each of those things you accept as truth are leaps of faith buddy. The only thing that's hilarious here is the fact that you're utterly convinced your own personal perception of truth is equivalent to the "one true logic" of the universe. I think that in itself speak volumes about your arrogance. In any case, I'm done with you.
Syhpillis was what all the cool people were doing, so to speak. BTW, do you think he was anti-semitic? I can't really tell from AC so far, but it seems like he regards the Jews with more admiration than hatred. After I finish AC, I will be moving on to the Gospel of Matthew, and then The Fielding Bible. Zarathustra will now be third on my list, much thanks.
1) I'm not sneering at your beliefs. You are trying to justify your beliefs by saying that they are based in logic, which is flat out insulting to somebody that thinks rationally. 2) Nobody thinks that mathematical postulates are the way "things" work in the universe. Everybody thinks that mathematical postulates are the way mathematics works in the universe. Stop trying to bridge that gap. 3) I understand that the way I view the world is different than the way you view the world. I draw the line when you say that it's our logic that differs. Faith, in fact, is the absence of logic. Interestingly enough, one of the dictionary definitions of faith is: "Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence."
These statements lead me to infer (logically, for what it's worth) that you allow the possibility of different realities, and the corresponding "truths" in each of these realities. You are also conceding that the Christian worldview is not the "one true logic" of the universe either, because that is your personal perception of truth and it would be, in your own words, "hilarious" if you were utterly convinced of that. If this is so, I am glad to say we are on the exact same page concerning "truth" and "reality" - although I would like to remind you that this viewpoint we share completely contradicts your Christian tenets If you truly believe in ascribing equal validity to each and every person's worldview (as I do), you wouldn't be subscribing to any form of organised religion at all
What I find annoying about the "I know for a fact" statement is that somehow these people are above faith. They don't need faith because they know. They are no longer believers, like the apostles of Jesus called themselves, they are knowers. There is no more need to question etc. Sorry, but I just have to call bs and honestly do not trust them.
The fact that God exists and my faith in Jesus Christ are 2 very different things. I have the same faith - the faith that Jesus Christ is the Only Son of God and only His work will save me. That is faith. Not in my works. Not in that night. That night He pointed me to the Bible. I wasn't saved after the "event" was over so the "event" didn't save me. Did it cause be to believe in God? Instantly, but Satan believes in God. I was saved when I had 100% faith in Jesus and his work - and that work is documented in the Bible. All that happened later that night. Maybe someone here can tell me what "really" happened. Personally, I don't know for sure but I do know it was real and that it changed my life. If you could have known me then and you could really know me now, you might still question that night, but you would not question the radical change. But that change didn't happen until I had put my faith and trust in Him. He change me after I put my faith and trust in Him.
They don't seem like two different things. They seem very related to me. I don't think people know as much as they are afraid to doubt and think. A lot of people are changed by all kinds of different ideas and practices. I recently read a book about a homeless Vietnam veteran who's life was completely changed after committing himself to the Buddha's teachings - without your God. Now he is a Monk dedicated to non-violence and peace, much more than so called God-knowers imo. So you changed, that doesn't prove the existence of your god to me.
My apologies...very poor choice of wording on my part on the second statement. What I should have said was something along the lines of "What I find hilarious is that you instantly disregard anything that doesn't agree with own perception as irrational thinking." I allow for the possibility of different perceptions of reality, and I try my best to respect and understand all types of worldviews. However, in my mind (my own perception of reality), the fact that Jesus died on the cross to save us is the only reality...much in the same way that God's nonexistence is the only reality for Nomar. In any case, it's evident that Nomar and I have different views on what defines rational thought. Because I'm Christian, I don't agree with atheism or agnosticism. In fact, I flat out think those two lines of thinking are incorrect. Nevertheless, I can still see the rational reasoning (from a human thinking perspective) behind them. On the other hand, Nomar doesn't seem to think anyone who thinks rationally or logically (again from a human thinking perspective) can possibly view the existence of God as immutable truth. Moreover, I was also trying to point out that my faith in God is no more "irrational" than the the little things we take for granted every day. For example, is there a quantitative way to prove that your spouse loves you? Clearly there isn't, but yet you "know" that he or she does. Is that not a leap of faith in itself?
God doesn't believe in atheists. Does any of us comprehend the intelligence and power necessary to create something out of nothing? God doesn't try to prove He exists and why should He? God said He was the Creator and explained His character, His will and His purposes; none of which is a explanation of His existence. God has given us the information we need not the information we want. Denying God requires faith. You must believe that the universe came from nothing. Hebrews 11:3 By faith we understand that the universe was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible.
