Alot of Bible is Allegory.

Im Christian and I believe the very words of Christ are within the Gospels.

I have already given you a website that tells a very different story then you.

This is a political forum.

Logic is a real science, it does not belong in theology dept. Ergo it does not belong as branch of philosophy logic was the FIRST science.

I am not a politician. I am a statesman who understands who rules in this country and it does not relate to "headmans Table" no kings or queens. Here sir, the people govern and makes the laws.

And---you sir, DO NOT get to tell me what my calling is. I do.

I have asked what them natural means are. You have provided "nothing" and claimed that "nothing" as an Hypothesis. This is what I see here. If there is something more then nothing as an answer, please elaborate.

What I have provided is "I don't know", which is not the same thing as "nothing". No one knows what it was that caused the Big Bang. There are many ideas and hypothesis, but no way to test the veracity of any claim.

You used the word 'super-natural'. And I have provided you with evidence. You reject it. Beats me why?

I used the word super-natural because that is what a God being would be called. You have yet to provide any physical evidence to support your claim that it was a being that caused the Big Bang. Philosophy is not evidence.

I have told you of odds of a chance happening of the universe and that of life itself. The odds of this are long indeed, beyond that of the life we know the universe to have.

It has also been shown that you do not understand the "odds" equation properly, and you continue to show that you refuse to gain a better understanding.

I have also offered logic. That of Aquinas and Aristotle.

Logic is a line of reasoning. Without physical evidence to support the line of reasoning, it is nothing more than mental masturbation. Logic and philosophy do not provide physical evidence to support one's grand claims.

I will point out that you have ignored the Unmoved Mover argument.

On the contrary, I have provided other people's arguments that Aristotle's philosophical claims are not accurate. How is that ignoring? It would seem that you have ignored the posts where I have provided you with competing ideas, which is why people accuse you of dancing around a topic and not answering a question.

Once again, this is not a circle of logic.

Yes, it is if you cannot provide physical evidence to support a logical claim.

Observable and repeatable, the thing you want. Such a thing as 'observable and repeatable' only works like we divined the atom, yet, here we come to a point that the matter cannot be further halved. And in that case it might very well be called, The God Particle/Higgs boson, and this begs the question of the Unmoved Mover...

So you are suggesting that because physicists have nick-named the particle that explains why other particles have mass the "God" particle, and the unverified opinion that the Higgs Boson cannot be split further as evidence of God?

Please provide the connecting evidence. Why is the existence of a particle that explains why all particles have mass proof of the existence of God? Try to remember that philosophy and logic are not physical evidence of proof.

Logic is a real science, it does not belong in theology dept. Ergo it does not belong as branch of philosophy logic was the FIRST science.

ROFLMAO Boy, you have a lot of learnin' to do.

Ok, let me type more slowly.

I'm saying without a nation's majority belief in God, we are doomed.

I haven't said this directly, but I'll say it directly now. I believe those who want to remove God from everyone's lives are actively working to destroy humanity. I consider proselytizing atheists a threat to humanity.

I don't care if you're an atheist. I do care if you are a proselytizing atheist.

Your personal opinions aside, you again demonstrate an advocacy for double standards;

You are OK with a man and woman getting married, but you are not OK with two men or two women getting married because you believe it to be an "attack" on the institution of marriage. Also, you are OK with a priest or minister proselytizing about God, but you are not OK with an Atheist proselytizing against faith. You claim to be a statesman in favor of our Bill of Rights, with the first Right usually held in highest regard - that of freedom of speech, yet you have a problem with people who would like to propose a different set of ideas about life without faith, and it sounds to me like you would go so far as to wish to silence those who want to argue in favor of a different view on life.

Please do us a favor and never call yourself a Libertarian. We do not want extreme conservatives like you in our party of Free Thought.

P2) Humanity is the most successful species in known history

Cockroaches, sharks, and crocs, along with a few other species have lived a few million years longer than us mere humans.

Now if your talking intelligence thats a different story. But the way we have acted in the last 5,000 years Im not to sure about that.

---

[/quote]

Old James

Logic is a real science, it does not belong in theology dept. Ergo it does not belong as branch of philosophy logic was the FIRST science.

ROFLMAO Boy, you have a lot of learnin' to do.

+1

---

"I do not know" is not a answer. It is no-thing.+1

And logic is the first science and that has been proven. The atom, by halving which begs the question of an Unmoved Mover.+1

1+1=2

0+0=no-thing

P2) Humanity is the most successful species in known history

Cockroaches, sharks, and crocs, along with a few other species have lived a few million years longer than us mere humans.

Now if your talking intelligence thats a different story. But the way we have acted in the last 5,000 years Im not to sure about that.

Want to do that by a count of how many there are?

Of ambulatory I think mites win hands down.

---

Alot of Bible is Allegory.

Im Christian and I believe the very words of Christ are within the Gospels.

I have already given you a website that tells a very different story then you.

This is a political forum.

Logic is a real science, it does not belong in theology dept. Ergo it does not belong as branch of philosophy logic was the FIRST science.

Logic is the study of reasoning. Science is the study of the natural universe and employs reasoning. Logic is not science. Conflating theology with philosophy is another error, though I'd agree that neither science nor logic belong in the theology department, just as theology has no place in the science department.

I am not a politician. I am a statesman who understands who rules in this country and it does not relate to "headmans Table" no kings or queens. Here sir, the people govern and makes the laws.

And---you sir, DO NOT get to tell me what my calling is. I do.

Well if Sirius did that I missed it, his words were "I think you missed your calling", not "Your calling is". Can we say "strawman"?

---

I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that ...

Alot of Bible is Allegory.

Im Christian and I believe the very words of Christ are within the Gospels.

I have already given you a website that tells a very different story then you.

This is a political forum.

Logic is a real science, it does not belong in theology dept. Ergo it does not belong as branch of philosophy logic was the FIRST science.

I am not a politician. I am a statesman who understands who rules in this country and it does not relate to "headmans Table" no kings or queens. Here sir, the people govern and makes the laws.

And---you sir, DO NOT get to tell me what my calling is. I do.

Before you type one more character you better go and read up what logic is.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logic might be a starting point.

And if you had any understanding of History you would know that in this country it is the people who vote for their lawmakers, and have done so since 1215. And your founders used the same document as a starting point for your Constitution.

Stop being so insulting.

"I do not know" is not a answer. It is no-thing.

Admitting that you don't know something due to a lack of available evidence is a perfectly acceptable answer. Any answer given would be proffered without evidence and therefore would only be a hypothesis with no way to verify the claim. Stating that I believe any hypothesis without evidence would be an act of faith, which I do not possess. I am equally open to trying to understand any given hypothesis, but I do not believe in any of them with conviction.

I understand that such concepts are beyond your grasp, and expecting you to keep up is an exercise in futility, but please understand that your insistence that "I don't know" is nothing is just as false as claiming Atheism is a belief in nothing.

And logic is the first science and that has been proven. The atom, by halving which begs the question of an Unmoved Mover.

...and you can't see why people accuse you of circular logic. You simply repeat the same claims as if the more you state them, the more truthful they become. This is why people go back and forth with you and no advancement to the discussion ever happens - because you won't let it. Then Dullnando wonders why so many Brainiacs to argue with you; you keep coming back for more without ever having expanded your understanding of others.

Stop being so insulting?

Disagreeing is not being insulting.

Perhaps you should grow a thicker skin?

Stop being so insulting?

Disagreeing is not being insulting.

Perhaps you should grow a thicker skin?

I am a statesman who understands who rules in this country and it does not relate to "headmans Table" no kings or queens. Here sir, the people govern and makes the laws.

Implies that the people in this country do not make the laws.

That is insulting.

Chris, definitely not a Wobbly:

Wob·bly (wbl)
n. pl. Wob·blies
A member of the Industrial Workers of the World, a chiefly US labor organization dedicated to the overthrow of capitalism, active especially in the early 1900s.

Stop being so insulting?

Disagreeing is not being insulting.

Perhaps you should grow a thicker skin?

I am a statesman who understands who rules in this country and it does not relate to "headmans Table" no kings or queens. Here sir, the people govern and makes the laws.

Implies that the people in this country do not make the laws.

That is insulting.

They don't. Nor do we in our country.

When you give up rights for what we would like to call 'Security' we always get--neither. I mean this on many, many different levels.

As I said--Im a statesman. I also believe in God. And I have shown you good reason for my belief.

If God is the Giver of Rights, no man can take away.

And law was started in your Country in 1066. Sir William Blackstone,
"so long as the English constitution lasts … the power of Parliament" is "absolute," "despotic," and "without control." Because England had no written constitution that constrained the legislative power of Parliament, "every act of Parliament was in a sense part of the [English] constitution, and all law … was thus constitutional."


The American colonists soon discovered that a legislative despot was just as tyrannical as a monarchical despot. The U.S. Constitution, but mostly the U.S. Declaration of Independence which told the world where rights came from, God, put an end to the notion of absolute power resting with any one sovereign, by separating the powers of government into three branches — executive, legislative, and judicial — and carefully delegating the powers of each. This did indeed at one time told the world that man could rule his own affairs while living on this earth. Later, at the start of the 19th century men like George Bernard Shaw with the The Fabian Socialist changed your Country as well as mine and not for the betterment of man kind either. It's just another kind of slavery. And George Bernard Shaw is no fan of the Blackman.

So, the answer is no, you don't make law in your own country. Nor do we here in mine.

We did for a time. That time came to an end in 1913. If you would have a look at our Constitution and see the amendments added at that year we can see the doom of a nation.

So I know that YOU know what Im talking about DATE the end of your own Constitution. Show me where self-rule was taken from you.

Im not a wobble, Im a statesman, rule of law man, a God Given Rights man. I even like Blackstone.

UK law is called Common law and was started by the anglo saxons way before 1066 and the Norman invasion.

See Textus Roffensis the first entries are dated to between 560–616.

Seems besides Religion, Science, Logic and Philosophy you know very little about History as well.

Poster with no name and no afterlife, quit putting words in my mouth. Just how are you imagining this stuff? Have you recently turned on, tuned in, and dropped out?

I'm simply commenting on your statements that make up your opinions. If my perceptions are imagined, I must have had a reason to imagine them.

Again, without the majority of a nation believing in God, that nation is doomed.

Proof please.