I think that he was referring to the Christian belief that if you haven't accepted their solution, you are already spiritually dead, so God won't have to kill you in order to torture you eternally.
Agapooka wrote:The argument that because a premise cannot be proven false, it must be true, is known as a Negative Proof Fallacy in logic.
Mister Sandman wrote:Nothing at all near the negative proof fallacy in logic. If it cannot be proven false, it has to be true.
Agapooka wrote:I think that he was referring to the Christian belief that if you haven't accepted their solution, you are already spiritually dead, so God won't have to kill you in order to torture you eternally.
However it is not a Christian belief that if the person in question isn't a Christian that they are already spiritually dead. They can do whatever they want with their life and choose the destiny of their own soul. But as non-Christians believe they have no soul. Anyone has the potential to become a Christian if they want to be. Its not God that will torture you eternally but yourself. You choose your own destiny.
A choice implies that you know what your options are. The Bible tells you which options you have, but that does not mean that that is the truth. Your perspective has the arrogance of one who is certain of reality, whereas it is impossible to be certain of any absolute truth without omniscience.
Thriller and I argued this and the nature of our disagreement with one another boiled down to practicality and the use of fallible inductive reasoning as opposed to the only reasoning capable of conclusively proving something: deductive reasoning. Science works on inductive reasoning and this is why it is sometimes proven wrong, but gets back up and comes up with a new theory. Deductive reasoning is so impractical that using it for everything would most probably result in all our deaths fairly rapidly. Then there's a total lack of reasoning called "faith", where one arrogantly believes that what they read in a book is infallible. Sometimes people try to reason and have faith, but the inherent properties of faith rarely allow them to see the world outside the perspective allowed by their faith.
Agapooka wrote:The argument that because a premise cannot be proven false, it must be true, is known as a Negative Proof Fallacy in logic.
Mister Sandman wrote:Nothing at all near the negative proof fallacy in logic. If it cannot be proven false, it has to be true.
Agapooka wrote:I think that he was referring to the Christian belief that if you haven't accepted their solution, you are already spiritually dead, so God won't have to kill you in order to torture you eternally.
I don't see a difference pooka
Spoiler
Universe wrote:You don't have a case, as Lord Thriller clearly explained.
MajorLeeHurts wrote:^ stole the car and my Booze and my heart * sobs*
Jack wrote:
Just wanna be more like you, Master Thriller.
Agapooka wrote:A choice implies that you know what your options are. That's correct. The Bible tells you which options you have, Correct againbut that does not mean that that is the truth. In your opinion. Your perspective has the arrogance of one who is certain of reality, 1. FYI that's not arrogance 2. I am certain of reality, you will never be able to understand that whereas it is impossible to be certain of any absolute truth without omniscience. I know what your saying but I would have to disagree.
For it to be possible to perceive something as necessarily true, one must have enough information to make a valid and sound, deductive argument proving it. All I said is that that which is written in the Bible is not necessarily true. It may be completely true, partially true or completely false.
In terms of where both parties seemed to have been in agreement, it has been agreed that the current translations of the Bible are not perfect, and so, that leaves us with it being either partially true or completely false. Yet again, we've agreed that some details may in fact be true. In the scope of the above premises, which are based on the agreement to which we've subjectively come, our only conclusion is that the Bible, as we know it today, is partially true. It is not a conclusive conclusion, nor is it an opinion. It also allows for the current disputed details to fall in various categories as concerns levels of truthfulness.
It is arrogant to claim to be certain of something, of which one cannot be certain. It is more accurate to say that you believe yourself to be certain, but if your certainty were tested (as all certainty is supported by conclusive evidence), the conclusive evidence would not be found, as it would either not exist or be ambiguous to a degree that it would not be conclusive, unless you happen to meet the requirements of conclusivity, in which case you could promptly demonstrate it.
The concept of faith is that one must not be certain in order to convinced that they are certain. The Bible uses the word "hope" in its more archaic sense, referring to something that one truly believes will happen. In fact, it is stated that one is blessed if they do not require conclusive evidence, as is revealed when Thomas asks to see Jesus' pierced body.
This raises many questions. For example, who would be motivated to motivate their followers not to require conclusive evidence? Would it be easier to package a lie? Of course it would be easier. Many groups claim to be as certain as you are. Because of the exclusive nature of many of these groups' beliefs, it is safe to say that many of them are deceived, if not all. What do you have that they do not also claim to have? Furthermore, is there anything in the Bible that could not theoretically have been said by any entity, supernatural or otherwise, who would have the motivation to be deceptive? If everything in the Bible could have been contrived* by an entity with the motivation to deceive, why have faith in it?
*to contrive: I use the word to mean any, many and/or all of the following: 1. To make up something 2. To twist the truth, or something that is commonly thought to be true 3. To give a truth, or something that is commonly thought to be true, the knowledge of which would not necessarily be exclusive to a true, divine creator 4. Truths stolen from a theoretically divine source, but adapted to the motive of deception (see number 2)
Agapooka wrote:The argument that because a premise cannot be proven false, it must be true, is known as a Negative Proof Fallacy in logic.
Mister Sandman wrote:Nothing at all near the negative proof fallacy in logic. If it cannot be proven false, it has to be true.
if life on mars is definitively proven, what implications will this have for christianity, and for the bible which says life on earth is unique and special?
this is quite unrelated but did anyone see that islamic extremist who said his fanatical views should be spread throughout the galaxy? he actually wished to convert little green men to little green jihadists. i found that hilarious and scary
Well, for me the validity of the bible is sort of weakened. I mean, it's written by man. And man can lie and distort the meaning of the words to fit their own needs. What ever maybe have been the original words could have been changed through the centuries? How many editions are out there? How many times has the Bible been edited?
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
~Albert Einstein
"Those who criticize our generation forget who raised it."
~ Unknown
if life on mars is definitively proven, what implications will this have for christianity, and for the bible which says life on earth is unique and special?
this is quite unrelated but did anyone see that islamic extremist who said his fanatical views should be spread throughout the galaxy? he actually wished to convert little green men to little green jihadists. i found that hilarious and scary
The catholic Church has addressed this issue by making it... I'm not sure what the term would be.. canon? Idk but the Church and the current Pope have stated that the belief in life beyond earth does not go against the teachings of the bible.
Our failure is obvious, we had our foot on the throat of Humanity and we failed to step down hard enough.
Spyridon wrote:Well, for me the validity of the bible is sort of weakened. I mean, it's written by man. And man can lie and distort the meaning of the words to fit their own needs. What ever maybe have been the original words could have been changed through the centuries? How many editions are out there? How many times has the Bible been edited?
dude the answer the religious fanatics will give is that the bible is entirely perfect and correct. and the editing and changes would apparently be god working through the thousands of people who made the changes. they have a blind and pointless answer for everything lol but they are wrong.
if you really want to see the more creative and groundless stuff just mention the biblical age of the earth. thats like their hallucinogenic drug. they think its around 10,000 years old. they is reality impaired.
dont worry. come judgement day (next wednesday) they will go to hell for lying
The catholic Church has addressed this issue by making it... I'm not sure what the term would be.. canon? Idk but the Church and the current Pope have stated that the belief in life beyond earth does not go against the teachings of the bible.
thats not surprising. the christian church is as big as it is now because it abandoned many beliefs and adapted to suit a mass audience. will have to look into that it should be funny hearing the pope talking about aliens. perhaps he will whip out his AK-47 and save the world with will smith when the time comes
*crosses fingers
edit actually i think the church has banned the clergy from whipping things out. maybe he will take the AK-47 out when at least 2 other independant adults are present in accordance with their rules
Agapooka wrote:A choice implies that you know what your options are. The Bible tells you which options you have, but that does not mean that that is the truth. Your perspective has the arrogance of one who is certain of reality, whereas it is impossible to be certain of any absolute truth without omniscience.
I disagree. And again it is not arrogance, look up in a dictionary if you have to.
Agapooka wrote:Then there's a total lack of reasoning called "faith", where one arrogantly believes that what they read in a book is infallible. Sometimes people try to reason and have faith, but the inherent properties of faith rarely allow them to see the world outside the perspective allowed by their faith.
I disagree about that faith. I think it's the person's ability to make faith something that must be held to the highest esteem. How they use it can make them seems like good or bad people. It's okay to have to a degree but when that faith is taken to the extreme, to the point it begins to create harm to other people is where it has now become a weapon. Any religion has people like this. But if your faith is true and you don't impose it on others it's okay. Faith in and of itself won't inhibit you to understanding or even seeing other different views. It's that belief that you are always right so that makes the other argument wrong.
Plus, I hope I didn't confuse anyone. I just wrote what I think and I don't think I wrote it very good. Just a long incoherent thought.
"Two things are infinite: the universe and human stupidity; and I'm not sure about the the universe."
~Albert Einstein
"Those who criticize our generation forget who raised it."
~ Unknown
Agapooka wrote:In terms of where both parties seemed to have been in agreement, it has been agreed that the current translations of the Bible are not perfect, and so, that leaves us with it being either partially true or completely false. Yet again, we've agreed that some details may in fact be true. In the scope of the above premises, which are based on the agreement to which we've subjectively come, our only conclusion is that the Bible, as we know it today, is partially true. It is not a conclusive conclusion, nor is it an opinion. It also allows for the current disputed details to fall in various categories as concerns levels of truthfulness.
These minor disputed translation errors and the likes mean nothing in the main scheme of things. Its the same message that's coming though.
Agapooka wrote:It is arrogant to claim to be certain of something, of which one cannot be certain. It is more accurate to say that you believe yourself to be certain, but if your certainty were tested (as all certainty is supported by conclusive evidence), the conclusive evidence would not be found, as it would either not exist or be ambiguous to a degree that it would not be conclusive, unless you happen to meet the requirements of conclusivity, in which case you could promptly demonstrate it.
Don't know how many time I have to tell you people. Look outside and take a look at the sun, you're more than certain its there. It would be insane to deny the existence of the sun when its right there in front of you. When the sun goes behind the clouds or has set you know its still out there. If a baby was born that night they wouldn't know the sun existed until they saw it for them self (not that they could comprehend it). I am more than certain that God is real. If you don't want to believe that God is real or that I am 100% certain that God is real, then that is your belief. I know some of you wont be able to comprehend that and will never understand.
Agapooka wrote:The concept of faith is that one must not be certain in order to convinced that they are certain. The Bible uses the word "hope" in its more archaic sense, referring to something that one truly believes will happen. In fact, it is stated that one is blessed if they do not require conclusive evidence, as is revealed when Thomas asks to see Jesus' pierced body.
