Personally, I don't feel as though it would benefit either of us. You do not believe in prayer and I respect your position. If that is the view you hold then so be it. No matter what I say will change that view, and vice versa. If you feel though as a debate may be beneficial to you, then I will go ahead with it. I will say that we have fundamental differences of opinion on this topic, and I do not believe we can come to the same conclusion no matter what each of us says.
I think it also has to do with the perceived notion that they (conservative commentators) never use facts or anything to back up what they say; they just ramble on about topics in which they have no clue on. I disagree with some of Beck's views from time to time, but its a waste of my time to dispute them. What good what that do for me? It would make me feel better about myself to a certain degree, but other than that its useless. If you disagree with his views, there is something called a remote control, and when you push a certain button, you don't have to hear from him anymore. ;)
The Holy Spirit needs a medium through which to perform the miracles, namely human beings. Why he can't just do it himself I do not really know. I have not put in the research to figure it out. I speak in tongues. Does that therefore make me unnatural? No, not at all. I am not perfect; I am just like everyone else. Of course, I have a lot more responsibility, but I am still treated the same as everyone else in God's eyes. So by your logic, miracles and speaking in tongues does not exist, or if they did than the people who have the gifts are not human or are not of this world? I've never had a discussion with a person who held this view before, so I am just intrigued as to your reasons why you have that certain view.
In order to show that a book is factual, I have to show that it has facts in it. How can I prove a book is factual if you deny my evidence that there are any facts in it? I am not going to continue putting up with your pathetic ad hominems either. Unless you tone it down, i'm not continuing this discussion. Go bug someone else.
Here are a few. I like the one about the elephants the best. ;)
http://www.rock107.ca/morningshow/
http://www.jacanaent.com/Photos/
http://www.scotthyoung.com/blog/
http://fliiby.com/images/_original/
http://www.motifake.com/
I agree as well. I do not believe the founders intended for the US government to become as influential as it has become today. I think a lot of people are against the health care reform proposed, because they feel that government is getting too involved in the lives of private citizens. But I also feel that the government should do something about the high health care costs and to put some form of regulation on it so it doesn't spiral out of control. After all, we have followed the Keynesian model now for 80 years, what is going to stop us now? :) I find it odd how my economic college textbooks discuss only the Keynesian model, while dismissing Hayak, the Chicago school, and the Austrian school of thought. I think the government has something to do with it... :)
---
Concerning the plutocracy, I see it more and more nowadays. Whether its Congressmen accepting money from lobbying groups to vote a particular way to the presidency being determined on who can trash talk the other candidate in more commercials so that Americans will vote against him or her, everything in our government revolves around money. The more money you have, the more power and influence you have. Look at the Kennedy's for instance. Look at where money got them. I can see the argument that you cannot win solely by having more money, in that you need to have other characteristics as well. However, money has a great influence not only in how influential a person can be, but also how they can change the views of Americans on a particular candidate all at the snap of a Benjamin. It is getting worse and worse, and I hope that someone can someday convey this to Americans.
I believe that he thinks about what to put into the teleprompter before he speaks from it every show. A lot of people have views of Glenn Beck solely by what they see on Youtube, which is unfair to the man. Yes, he does say wacky things at times, but a lot of the time he brings up important ideas and information about the United States and its government. I mean, I am a republican and I hardly watch his show. But, for instance, there was one show I watched where he and an economist (forgot the name, think it was Payne) were showing how the treasury and the federal reserve were creating a circular movement of money in which the treasury sold bonds or something similar and the federal reserve was buying it all up. So basically, the government is just dealing with itself. :/ If anyone is interested about the fed reserve, I recommend The Creature from Jekyll Island by G. Edward Griffin. Although its 600 pages, its worth it in the end; it really opens your eyes.
Okay, yes I get what you are saying now. That was actually exactly what I was thinking before you posted. How can you prove that the universe specifically began at the big bang? You cannot. Therefore, it is not a good argument to use. Thanks for clearing it all up now. I thought there was a problem with that Apologetic line of thinking, but I couldn't grasp exactly what it was.
Okay, i'll try not to look at it with offense. Your bold has me all screwed up. :/ I can't tell whether I am talking or you are. Can you just like put mine in italics or something?
---
That is false, for it is written:
Like I have stated previously, God existed before the universe was even made. Yes, he was originally the God of the Israelites in the Old Testament, but you are forgetting about Paul's ministry. Now Christianity is available to both Jew and Gentile (non-Jew).
---
cognizant of God’s existence by natural means
So what are miracles then? We are aware of the supernatural qualities he possesses, because he gives some to us in 1 Corinthians 12. Do you believe in tongues and miracles? Do you believe that Jesus is God, according to the trinity?
---
lies outside the scope of this debate
Yes, I agree that it does. Maybe during a future time we could debate this.
---
I'm not really understanding your point of view. What exactly are you trying to say? That the Bible contains no evidence of God? The Bible discusses topics that can be used to prove the existence of God. There are some topics that require faith, such as the verse you mentioned. Can I provide rigorous proof that God created the heavens and the earth? No, I cannot. I have faith in the Bible that what it is saying is true. Therefore, I am using the Bible as an argument for the existence of God. I have to believe that what the Bible is saying is true before I can believe that God created the heavens and the earth. If you never looked at the Bible before, what would be your view on the universe? You would believe that some natural process created it. Yet, when you read the Bible and believe what it says, you instead come to the conclusion that no, God created the heavens and the earth, not natural processes. Does this make sense?
1. So you don't think it is possible for a human being to heal another human being through the Holy Spirit? I'm talking about no medicine or physical means involved here. Say God gives someone the gift of healing (1 Corinthians 12). By healing someone, God gives the person healing the ability to do it through the Holy Spirit, which is on the earth. It is not natural indeed, but I believe that it is very possible.
2. Okay I understand now.
1. Yes, I agree. I also believe that human beings now (presently) have that same capability to perform miracles, albeit to a lesser degree (i.e. not walking on water but healing a sickness). What do you believe in this matter?
2. belief- something believed; an opinion or conviction; confidence in the truth or existence of something not immediately susceptible to rigorous proof. I see now that my first example wasn't a good one. :) Let's try this one. Say there is some weird religion out there that believes in flying hamsters as gods. If I said, I believe in flying hamsters, how could you use philosophy to disprove this? It is a subjective opinion that I hold (for example purposes). Now let's apply that to Christianity. I believe in God. This is also a subjective opinion. I have confidence that God exists, yet I don't have rigorous proof to back it up. How could philosophy prove my statement wrongly? I am saying all of this because I cannot see how someone can use philosophy to justify or unjustify a religious view.
This really is pathetic. I am beginning to think more and more that the government in the United States is not a representative democracy, but a chrysoaristocracy/chrysocracy/
So, to sum up what you are saying, we just don't know about the origins of the universe at this place and time, and that the big bang theory is just an assumption and cannot be considered as the beginning of the universe. What about the R in the acronym though concerning the cosmic background radiation? Scientists predicted that if the Big Bang happened, there would be this type of radiation. The G in the acronym follows as well, saying that if the Big Bang actually occurred, we should see slight variations in the temperature of the cosmic radiation Penzias and Wilson discovered in 1965. In 1992 NASA's COBE found the ripples, showing that the explosion and expansion of the universe was precisely tweaked to cause just enough matter to allow the formation of galaxies, but not enough to make the universe collapse on himself. Hawking even said it himself that it was 'the most important discovery of the century, if not of all time.' ( http://www.leaderu.com/offices/schaefer/
It's not an easy decision to make. I believe that porn degrades women, gives men an addiction, and is overall detrimental to society. On the other hand, couples who may want to learn 'techniques' or want to use it in a way that is beneficial to them should be allowed to do so. However, you could find all the information you need without having to watch porn, so I don't see a good reason for why porn is not wrong, unless you look at it in the perspective of the women and men who make a living off of it.
Jesus was a unique person though, wouldn't you agree? I believe that he was a natural being with supernatural abilities, i.e. God in the flesh. How can you use philosophy to dispute a belief? I believe hamburgers are tastier than hot dogs. How can you use philosophy to dispute this? It is a belief. I do not have to provide rational evidence for why I believe hot dogs are not tastier.
With such great importance (around 20% of GDP), I do not think this is something that we can or should push through very fast. Obama wants to push it through imo because he knows that this is probably the only time he can do it with great majorities in both houses. Come next election, I don't see the senate with more than a 55-45 majority and about a 30 seat majority in the house of representatives for the democrats. I could be wrong, that is just my opinion. Without a 60 vote majority, Obama has no prayer of getting the health reform through. It's pretty sad too. I wish Republicans would stop saying no to everything and come up with their own solutions. And this is coming from a Republican myself.
Now you have me even more confused. :( So Jesus never existed on the earth? By natural being do you mean human being? Jesus was God in the flesh when he was on the earth ("I am in the Father and the Father is in me"). When he died, he became spirit and is now seated at the right hand of God. It can be confusing if you do not understand the trinity aspect of it. By all means, you are right when you say a human being cannot heal by himself or herself. What happens is, God gives the human being the ability to heal someone through the Holy Spirit. God is in heaven, and the Holy Spirit is on the earth. You are looking at it from a rational viewpoint, without an open mind that Jesus performed miracles.
I hope you realise that when religions try to align themselves with scientific theories a LOT of what they say gets taken out of context.
I read your wiki article before posting my statement. Yes, Christian Apologists as well as others in the religion try to use the big bang theory to prove that God created the universe. What does this have to do with proving the acronym wrong? I see no specific evidence in the article that shows that the acronym I provided is false in any way, just that religions twist the big bang theory to fit their views. I do not agree with the big bang theory nor do I believe that it can be used to prove that God exists. Where is your counterargument to the acronym specifically? The acronym supposedly is proof that the big bang existed, which proves the cosmological argument for God. I want to see your counterargument. Now, are you going to post it, or are you going to keep making excuses and ad hominems?
I have heard about the acronym and wanted to see what people thought about it. If I had agreed with it, I would have posted reasons for it, but I disagree with it. Well, yeah, saying that I "failed to provide any reason" is true. I never intended to provide a reason in the first place, but now that you asked, I will show some to you.
---
I'm not really getting what you are saying. The acronym is an explanation for the existence of the big bang, proving one part of the cosmological argument:
1. Everything that had a beginning had a cause (law of Causality)
2.The universe had a beginning (Big Bang)
3. Therefore the universe had a cause ( i.e. God created it)
---
The First Law of Thermo talks about the universe being constant, in other words, that it only has a finite amount of energy. There is a car analogy associated with this. If your car has a finite amount of gas (First law), and whenever its running it continually uses gas (Second law), would your car still be running if you started it up an infinitely long time ago?
With the Law of Entropy, things naturally fall apart over time, right? If the universe is becoming less ordered, then where did the original order come from? This is where the wind-up clock analogy comes in. If a wind-up clock is running out, then someone must have wound it up. The universe could not be eternal, because if it were, we would have reached complete entropy by now.
---
Now, this is what I have learned from reading Christian Apologetic books. I do not believe in the Big Bang theory, but I believe that God had a role in the making of the universe. I am just interested in seeing the counterarguments to these claims.
The first part doesn't make much sense to me. You say you are not trying to undermine my faith, yet what exactly are you trying to do by proving my arguments are weak?
---
It is inspired by God. That is, God gave man the information, and they wrote it in their own certain perspective. To say that it is man's god is untrue, the Biblical God is supernatural. Man did not invent God. He has always existed.
---
I see your point about the Bible. That does not mean though that the Bible does not provide arguments for the existence of God. Ecclesiastes 3:11 states that God has "set eternity in the hearts of men." Hebrews 11:6 says that we have to accept that God exists by faith. It makes an argument in Psalm 19:1-4 and Romans 1:18-22 that the vastness of the universe, the beauty of a sunset, etc. points to God.
---
What you are saying is true. I cannot prove or disprove the existence of God by solely using the Bible, for it states that you need faith as well. Whether or not you have that faith is dependent on the individual. You can either choose to believe or not. You have free will.
I agree with you on most fronts, however I am interested in this segment: As a natural being, it can not. Who do you believe Jesus was then? If you look at it from the trinity perspective, Jesus is God, God is God, and the Holy Spirit is God. Now, that's all dependent on your beliefs and such, I am just interested about your views on Jesus.
