CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
True knowledge is possible, but absolutely true knowledge is not. The problem with radical scepticism is that it refutes the very ground that it stands on. This is really 3 questions. What is truth? What is knowledge? And what is belief?
Instead of a philosopical or religious reason let me give a practical one. Human beings have had centuries of growth and improvement and new knowledge. The mere fact we could take so many steps forward and build on what we already knew implies yes true knowledge is out there and we keep taking steps toward it. Will we ever get true knowledge on everything? No. Will we have some things we think are true knowledge ultimately disproven or changed? Yes. But yet in the act of striving to move forward it is reasonable to believe "true knowledge is possible." To conclude otherwise would mean literally we might as well stop thinking and stop trying, and there is no good whatsoever in that.
It's interesting that you frame this question in a functional manner. After all, humans view things in a functional manner: in terms of their implications for action.
There is of course always one thing that can be unquestionably known though: that I experience and therefore I am.
It's not "I think therefore I am", Descartes presumably meant "I experience thinking therefore I am". This is why I phrased it the way I did. Since I am having this experience now, I must exist in some form, otherwise how could I be having an experience? I don't see why something has to exist permanently in order to exist at all.
You can't prove that it is real if you are not permanent. If you are not you forever, then what seems to you can be nothing more than an illusion. As you frame the words, "I think, therefore I am", and somebody kills you before you can finish the sentence, are you?" If you are not, then you never really were; which is the mindless hope of atheism.
Once again, the correct framing is "I experience therefore I am". At that moment in time it is true, there is no need for it to always be true. The sky appears blue in the daytime, this is true for all non-colorblind individuals. At night, however, the sky appears black. In this case, did the sky never appear blue or black? Neither phenomenon is permanent, after all.
I don't know why you're assuming my beliefs. The only comment I've ever made on spiritual beliefs (and I doubt you ever saw it) is that I'm not a Christian.
If there is no need for the statement to always be true, there is no need for it to be true now and there is nothing wrong with killing you to prove that you do not exist, right?
I am not assuming your beliefs, you stated that your belief is unquestionable when it is questionable. The fact that you think does not prove that you exist. It might make you feel good to say "I think, therefore I am", but many people say "I think I am an illusion, therefore I am an illusion". What makes you so sure you are not an illusion? If you exist now, then you stop existing in the future, you are only an illusion now and do not really exist even if you think that you do.
"If there is no need for the statement to always be true, there is no need for it to be true now and there is nothing wrong with killing you to prove that you do not exist, right?"
There isn't any need for a statement to always be true for it to be true for a period of time. It's obviously a moral wrong to kill someone, as you are well aware.
"I am not assuming your beliefs, you stated that your belief is unquestionable when it is questionable. The fact that you think does not prove that you exist. It might make you feel good to say "I think, therefore I am", but many people say "I think I am an illusion, therefore I am an illusion". What makes you so sure you are not an illusion? If you exist now, then you stop existing in the future, you are only an illusion now and do not really exist even if you think that you do."
The fact that I am having this experience now proves that I exist in some form. Otherwise what would be having the experience? One can never be 100% sure that they are not an illusion, but then they would still be an illusion that is having an experience. Therefore despite being an illusion they must exist in some form because they are having an experience.
Once again, as with the appearance of the sky's color, things don't have to be in a given state permanently in order to be in that state. One could also apply this to ice, it is true to say that it's solid, yet apply some heat and it will become a liquid. It once was solid and now it's liquid. Your logic would appear to suggest that it was never a solid because it is now a liquid.
Yes quite right, we have to strive for the practical otherwise you are left with only abstract ideas. This distinguishes two types of knowledge; information in the form of ideas and know-how in the form of practical skills. The question is how do you define progress? And are there different values other than knowledge that could lead to progress?
This distinguishes two types of knowledge; information in the form of ideas and know-how in the form of practical skills.
Intelligence in its simplest sense is a survival tool just like claws or fangs. It helps a biological creature survive in its immediate environment. To quote myself (sorry!):-
"A man can be considered intelligent if he understands the precise system in which he is immediately involved and how to benefit from it; but without the capacity to reason he is unable to critically question the validity of the system or the behaviour it elicits from him. He can succeed only within the very limited parameters of his own environment. Intelligence teaches man how to get things and reason teaches him why he is trying to get them. Intelligence is practical and reason is abstract. Intelligence can have parameters but reason—by its very existence as an intelligence of the abstract—cannot."
Good point. Although claws and fangs are predominantly weapons, while cognitive intelligence is part of a collaborative social project. Also, separating aspects of consciousness can be a tricky business. For instance, reason and logic are present in our more primal instinctual emotional drives even before we begin to self consciously pick them apart and analyse them discursively.
Sure.. There ARE rules by which the universe operates.. We KNOW some of them already, and are on the cusp of learning the rest.. Once learned, they are TRUE knowledge, and will NEVER change..
Sure.. There ARE rules by which the universe operates.. We KNOW some of them already, and are on the cusp of learning the rest.. Once learned, they are TRUE knowledge, and will NEVER change..
I'm afraid this isn't necessarily true. Many distinguished scientists (most notably Paul Dirac) have subscribed to the belief that the fundamental constants of physics have changed over time. Whether they actually have or not doesn't even matter because the very possibility negates your theory of true knowledge.
Knowledge and truth can be slippery subjects. Knowledge is always knowledge about something and to know weather its true you have to specify the aboutness to which it must be true. This is what makes it very difficult to talk in absolutes. Even scientific knowledge, appearing very general and objective, always turns out to be a simplification based on idealised circumstances.
True knowledge does NOT depend on people BELIEVING it..
Can you even read English? I said that if the possibility exists that you are wrong, you do not have true knowledge. Twice in two posts you have completely misrepresented what I wrote. I did not even mention belief, let alone claim that true knowledge depends on belief. In fact, in your previous post you wrote:-
Because ONE guy thinks it's not so, DOESN'T make it not so.
So Dirac and other qualified scientists believe the universal constants have changed over time, and you believe they haven't. Yet your phrasing indicates you believe you have true knowledge that Dirac is wrong, even though you have no such thing. Instead of refuting my argument, you have instead refuted the argument you made in your last post. You seem to think Dirac's beliefs are beliefs and your beliefs are true knowledge.
Please stop refuting your own arguments and pretending you are refuting mine. It's fucking offensive and it makes me think you are a retard. It's really fucking annoying.
I waited a while to say anything as I didn't know what side to take:
I think I can say with absolute certainty that something exists, because if nothing existed I couldn't be here in any way. I'm sort of following the "I think, therefore, I am" idea here.
Can anybody refute that? Maybe the fact that I have to ask proves me wrong, but I'm confident that I know something exists.
Cogito ergo sum as Mr Descartes said. He was trying to empty all of his beliefs and then build from the ground up with a stable foundation. The trouble is he didn't quite reach the ground. If we want to go further we could say, who is the I that thinks? Is there such an I? And when he says 'I am' what does 'am' mean? What does it mean to be? Is it possible to non-be?
You say you're following the " I think , therefore ,I am " idea and can anyone refute that ?
Well Nietzsche certainty did in In Beyond Good and Evil, Nietzsche doubted that the statement "I think" is self-evident, noting that it requires a number of assumptions that Descartes does not justify. Probably the most important of these is that the subject "I" actually exists, such that Descartes is begging the question; another is that if a thought occurs, it is I who think it rather than it (the thought itself). In Nietzsche's words:
With regard to the superstition of the logicians, I shall never tire of emphasizing a small terse fact … namely, that a thought comes when “it” wishes, not when “I” wish, so that it is a falsification of the facts of the case to say that the subject “I” is the condition of the predicate “thinks.” It thinks; but that this “it” is precisely the famous old “ego” is … only a supposition,… and assuredly not an “immediate certainty.” After all, one has even gone too far with this “it thinks” – even the “it” contains an interpretation of the process, and does not belong to the process itself. One infers here according to the grammatical habit: “Thinking is an activity; every activity requires an agent; consequently”…. Perhaps some day we shall accustom ourselves, including the logicians, to get along without the little “it” (which is all that is left of the honest little old ego).
Last year this lead to very long debate involving myself and two others which went on for quiet a while , what do you think of Nietzsches position?
Nietzsche abrogates the rules of common language which are necessary to understand what is being said. Namely that verbs attach to subjects. Even when we say "it is raining", we are simply using short hand for what the weather is doing.
Nietzsche claims that the assumption that "I" exists is embedded in Descartes statement, making it circular, when in fact Descartes statement represents nothing more than the attachment of verbs to subjects. In recognizing that verbs attach to subjects he derives a subjects existence from knowledge of its correlating verb. Descartes may as well have said "I run therefore I am", or "it's raining therefore there is weather". The reason he used thought, is because his own subjective experience is the only verb that cannot be an illusion. You can believe you're running and be wrong, you cannot believe you're believing and be wrong. It's a truism.
Nietzsche could have just as easily thrown out verbs, rather than subjects. He could have argued that Descartes assumes the existence of verbs when there are actually only subjects. That there is you, me, and other objects but, as Parmenides argued there is no change, thus there are no verbs.
The notion that anything happens is just as much an illusion as the notion that anyone exists.
This is a good point you've made. It is interesting to focus on linguistics like that and see that you can deconstruct both the subject and the verb. Its important to be clear about Descartes' meaning otherwise we can just end up in a pedantic discussion about semantics.
Descartes was applying scepticism to get to the bedrock of belief in order to form a solid foundation. In my previous answer I agreed with Nietzsche that Descartes smuggled the in the 'I' and therefor begged the question. Obviously the self is complex unity made up of many different things, so it better to say that he wanted to demonstrated the existence of the ground of bare experience itself, the subject in your subject-verb split.
However, its important to remember that language is a tool that we use to communicate experience with each other socially. When trying to use this tool to demonstrate the existence of the very experience it's self we inevitable run up against the limits of language.
Language also forms the basis of our cognitive mind. When Descartes used the word 'cogito' was he referring specifically to the cognitive aspect of our mind? If so then bare experience its self is something more primal to this, having developed long before language. Again we see the language may struggle when trying to reach the ground of experience.
In conclusion I think that Nietzsche was still correct to say that there is circularity in Descartes argument. To turn to your examples we could say "I run therefor I am" but if there is no running then there is no runner. We could say "Its raining therefor there is rain" but if the rain does not rain then it is not the rain. You cannot take the verb out of the subject at a fundamental level. To do so is like trying to use one side of a coin to prove the existence of the other. This is why Nietzsche said the argument was circular.
Mr Nietzsche is correct, Descartes didn't have the solid premise that he thought he did.
I've always been put off of reading Nietzsche due to his reputation as anti-humanist and that he hated human weakness to the point of catastrophic mental breakdown. Perhaps I better bite the bullet and get reading.
The thing that's missing from Nietzsche's position here though is human agency. Yes thoughts appear by themselves
"The mind secretes thoughts the way the liver secretes bile" as Benjamin Rush said. However, we also have the ability to produce habitual thoughts at will and apply ourselves to producing new ones. So maybe I will therefor I am?
Even if the only thoughts that existed were secreted by the brain without agency, the experiencer of thought still knows his existence to be real by the fact of his experience. There are no verbs that are removed from subjects, which is all Descartes assumed. Nietzsche was wrong.
Nietzsche makes sense, but I was careful that I didn't use the exact wording Descartes's used. I said that I can be sure something exists. Whether or not "I", or the "thought" exists doesn't matter, but something has to exist. If nothing ever existed anywhere or at anytime then whatever this thing happening right now, which might be me thinking, surely couldn't happen. If there is nothing, then there must be nothing. But there is something. I don't necessarily know what or when or whatever that something is, but I know there is something that exists. Whatever words I use will surely contain some suppositions, but if you can look past that, surely it is a certainty that something exists. I don't think Nietzsche's words conflict with my idea, as my idea only involves the existence of something, not me or the thought or whatever.
What you're describing is experience. You know that there is something because you are experiencing. Since your experience can be externally detected by observing your brain activity, what you are saying is close enough to what Descartes said that Nietzsches position opposes yours as surely as it did Descartes. You're not wrong though, as I explained above. Your only error was in accepting that Nietzsches position was valid; it was not.
Yes, of course you can know the truth. I know the truth, I know that you can know the truth. Most people don't want to know the truth because it stands against their evil. Because they don't want to know the truth, they cannot know God's mercy. The truth is always simple.
You will never find the truth by studying the words of men who deny the truth. All they do is use human reasoning as a tool to try to convince themselves that they have the right to exist outside of Hell.
You surely would choose to exist outside of the fire of Hell if you could, wouldn't you? Some people here have actually said they would prefer frying in Hell forever like eternal smokey link sausages screaming in sizzling agony; preferring not to be with God in Heaven enjoying His blessings of life forever.
Yes you exist here, no denying that........but you cannot stay here. Where do you think you are going?
I describe people burning in agony because you are on your way to the same place those people are stuck, and you can be saved while they are forever lost. You have already done what you need to do to get where you are going, you have sinned against God and are separated from Him by your sin and you are on your way to Hell.
If where you are going depends on what you do, why are you going to die? You have already done what is worthy of death, that's why......and it's worthy of Hell the same as it's worthy of death.
I describe people burning in agony because you are on your way to the same place those people are stuck, and you can be saved while they are forever lost. You have already done what you need to do to get where you are going, you have sinned against God and are separated from Him by your sin and you are on your way to Hell.
If where you are going depends on what you do, why are you going to die? You have already done what is worthy of death, that's why......and it's worthy of Hell the same as it's worthy of death.
It sounds quite hateful to keep wishing death on people. You speak as if you know me, why is this? Again I ask what makes you think you have the truth. A person with the truth would not speak in a hateful way to others.
You speak as if you are trying to justify stealing so I think it is a fairly safe assumption to say you are a thief. If I tell you less than the truth, it would be apathetic and that is hateful. I'm telling you the truth because you are dying and need to be saved and I know how you can be saved.
You are confused. The truth is always simple. You need to know the truth or it will be forced upon you by the fire of Hell and even as you burn you will not be able to believe it is forever.
You have not once heard me say anything indicating that I want you to be in Hell or that I enjoy the idea of people being there. I don't like it any more than you do. The difference between me and you is that I know it is real while you don't believe it and are in danger of finding out the hard way. You need to be and can be saved from Hell. I want you to be saved. You are fighting against being saved and if you won't stop fighting you will lose everything you know as good and only the smoke of your torments will rise from the fire of Hell and your words will not be heard by the living while you fry like an eternal sausage.
I enjoy atheists, I try to enjoy talking with them while their is time for them outside of the fire of Hell. When they get too nasty, hateful, profane, vulgar, viscous, and asinine, it is no longer enjoyable to try to reason with them. I give up on them and leave them behind with no more obligation to try to warn them of the danger they are in.
Do you think that asking a question about a thief makes you a thief?
You don't have to say words to present the truth. You could be silent and it would not necessarily be apathetic. Besides which, apathy and hate are two different things.
You think that hell comes only after you die. I say it comes here on earth too if you behave wrongly to your fellow man.
You speak of "nasty, hateful, profane, vulgar, viscous, and asinine"
Do you say that my comments have been any of those things? I merely asked you questions, you are the one who is sounding angry and aggressive, describing graphic scenes of torture and torment and advocating murder.
You are trying to justify theft, it makes you suspicious of being a thief.
You think that you have the right to live, or to exist outside of Hell? Who are you going to sue when you lose your position?
I say Earth is where sunshine and rain are in the air you breath. In Hell it's only fire and brimstone and smoke.....if there is air, it will be too hot to comfort anybody.
You have not been too bad yet..........just getting tired of how you are trying to justify theft and ignoring my answer which is truthful. You're trying to weasel around for some reason, and I have to conclude that you are trying to hide things about yourself which you know are evil.
You misunderstand me. I have no interest in justifying theft. What I was demonstrating was that there are some instances of theft which are not sinful.
I am not interested in your gruesome descriptions of torture and torment. They serve only to demonstrate your aggression, anger and frustration.
You accuse me of justifying theft but yet you openly advocate murder and refuse to answer questions on this fact. Can you seriously present yourself as the bearer of superior truth in light of this?
If you are not trying to justify theft, why do you repeatedly ask if stealing is wrong, I say it's wrong, and then you make excuses in which you are trying to make theft justified.
I did not ask about stealing in general. My point was not about all cases of theft. I specifically asked about a person who stole out of necessity to do good.
Stealing is wrong. I will not say anything different. It is always wrong to steal. If I said stealing is not wrong under some circumstances, then I would be a liar. Stealing is always wrong.
You have already shown yourself to be a liar. Will you apologise for this and for making false remarks about my statements? If lying is always wrong do you deserve to die for this?
I think I've been fair in saying you sound like a thief who is trying to justify stealing. Stealing is always wrong even if it is to feed a starving child. People may understand your actions on behalf of a starving child but that does not make stealing right. Stealing is always wrong, and if you get shot between the eyes while you are doing it you get what you deserve.
Now if that does not answer your questions, you have to be retarded so you can't understand simple adult logic......and I'm going to ignore your continuing childish games.
you sound like a thief who is trying to justify stealing
Asking questions about what qualifies as stealing is not the same as justifying stealing. As I said before, discussing a thief doesn't make you a thief.
In order to have stealing you have to have a concept of property. Ownership has been set up in society to serve a purpose. If we are to understand stealing we need to understand property and ownership.
For example, if I go to a public park and take an apple from a tree. That apple does not belong to me so am I stealing by taking it?
You are a fool and I am tired of you, I don't like watching traffic accidents and you are one of them. You need to be saved from Hell or you will wake up in the fire haunted by your own stupidity.
You sound like you are already in a fire. If you decide to use insults and graphic violent imagery instead of engaging in a reasonable discussion then you are in no position to give advice to others concerning moral conduct.
When fools like you rant, I can respond without reading your posts and you might think I am actually reading them. You're just another trained parrot thinking that by feigning strength in bad manners you are proving that you have the right to exist outside of Hell. Whoever taught you to act and talk the way you do, they are not your friends....but you can hold their hands all the way to Hell if you like.
When fools like you rant, I can respond without reading your posts and you might think I am actually reading them.
No, it has been obvious for a while now that you're not responding to my posts but instead just repeating the same tired lines. Do you hope to ever be able to have a proper conversation by doing this?
I understand that people may have mocked you and spoken to you badly on here but I am not your enemy.
Only God can save anybody, He is Jesus who died for our sins. He took my place on the cross, died for me so by Him in His resurrection I am saved. I believed on Him, knew I was a sinner who deserves to die and burn in Hell forever, and from my heart I asked God to save me and received Jesus personally in reality as He is, the Living God the Only Savior, my Savior, My King, My God, the King of all Creation and the LORD GOD OMNIPOTENT.
I'll tell you a true story of a man who dove into an overturned minivan after an accident. There were four people inside the upside down minivan, hanging upside down in their seats, held in by their seat belts. The man thought the van could burst into flames and he would be standing there watching the four people burn to death. That thought was worse than the thought of being inside with those people trying to rescue them and getting caught in the fire with them........so the man dove headfirst in through the shattered passenger side window and one by one released the seat belts, helped the people down and out the window, and then he came out himself. The story is not unusual, similar things happen probably every day somewhere. The point is this:
Jesus, being God who created us, saw our predicament of dying and still loved us when we were sinners who deserve to die. He dove into our mess by taking on Himself the form of a man. He came to give Himself in death so He is able to pull us out of it. He rose from the dead the same as the man who dove into that minivan came out of it safe at the end, and all who trusted in Him to save them, believed on Him and received Him are saved by Him. If you fight against the Savior, He cannot save you. If you believe in Him, trust Him, ask God in His name to save you from the fire of Hell, save you from your sins, save you from the power of death, you will be saved and He will be your life, a new life in you making you a new creation in Christ, a child of God adopted with the price paid by His innocent blood. The Innocent One died for the ungodly because He loved us that much. He will save you from your sins if you will admit you have sinned against Him, believe He is God who died for you and rose from the dead, call on God in Jesus' name to save you; trusting He is willing and able to save you and you will be saved.
If you don't want to be saved, you are free to remain in your ongoing traffic accident with nothing good to look forward to and you can keep on trying to tell yourself there is no fire in your future. I have better things to do than stand around watching a traffic accident in progress when there is nothing I can do to help the people dying.
Great story, but you have to see the difference between an actual car accident and calling someone a car accident as an insult because you disagree with them. Two very different things.
Also, why should anyone take the time to read your long post after you have said you're not even interested in reading theirs and just respond with stock lines.
Finally, why do you get the opinion that I or anybody else is "fighting against the savour"? Just because they disagree with you doesn't mean they are fighting against God.
You don't need to bother talking to you, and I have tried to tell you how you can be saved by God the Savior, you don't care, so I have no further obligation to talk to you. I tried. It's time to move on and leave you in your car (that is, "carcus", the body of death you tote around with one foot in the grave and the other on thin ice melting over the fire of Hell.)
You don't believe it, or you don't want to believe it, so why bother reading my posts? Why bother responding? It's time to move on.
You only tried to make excuses for theft. I agreed with you that nobody would blame you for stealing food for a starving baby. It's still stealing and it's still wrong. You did not show that theft is right because it cannot be right, it is always wrong. You are trying to justify theft and that makes me think you are a thief. You made it pretty clear that you feel you have the right to steal from rich people who have more than you do...and that is just plain envy, greed, hatred in your evil heart.
That isn't objectively true. You have to believe in personal property rights and morality before it becomes true, and we invented both of those ourselves!
Do you realize that every time you open your mouth talking about God or His word, all you do is show how ignorant you are of the Bible? The 24 talking points of atheists are ridiculously ignorant, yet somehow they make fools feel like they have cornered the market against God.
Now you put words into my mouth. I never said I would steal from a rich person due to envy greed or hatred. I spoke about a person who was deliberately withholding the means to save a child's life.
You most certainly did say that somebody, if not you, should steal from the rich. It's obvious that you are envious of wealthy people. Envy is rottenness of the bones. You
show your envy by smearing rich people as "greedy", you are covetous, and you are trying to justify theft. Stealing is wrong, and the way you are talking I would not allow you on my property ever.....even if you are only presenting hypotheticals, you still sound like you are a thief trying to justify stealing.
Do yourself a favor; maintain your anonymity here. Anybody with a half ounce of common sense in their head would never hire you or invite you onto their property. You might want to change your tune.
Your comments are just too dumb for me to bother with. I have seen easily one hundred atheists say the exact same things you are presenting as though you have unanswerable rhetoric. You have a mental block so you can't learn, and I'm not going to bother trying to educate you. Fools will not learn, that's all there is to it. Be a fool if you want to. Go jump on somebody else's back for a while and enjoy the ride while you can.
You are jealous....envious, it's rottenness of your bones.
How am I supposed to know how rich people became rich? The ones I know of are honest and earned their riches and punks like you have no right to their possessions. Sure, there are a lot of rich thieves, I do not know them and I don't want to know them. Why don't you go ask them how they got rich and tell them you think you are entitled to their possessions and see how long you keep your stupid nose on your face.
You are only showing yourself to be greedy, envious, jealous, covetous.....I don't know about whatever rich people you are talking about, you have not named any of them and I doubt you can name any that I know personally so how do I know about them? It's obvious about you by your own words and attitude that you are greedy, jealous, envious.......typical puppet of modern anti-God public education.
What you have said here is plainly false. Are you a liar or just confused? I never once stated that it ok to steal from the rich. I never once stated that rich people are greedy. Why do you lie about my statements?
I created a hypothetical situation for the purpose of discussion in which a greedy person withheld medicine or food. What has this got to do the rich people? You should try actually listening to what is being said.
Stealing is wrong. Period. Like I said, you are jealous, greedy, and trying to justify thievery and I have to conclude that you are a thief. I would not allow you on my property or near my family.
Again you are just saying "its wrong to be wrong". This is an utterly boring conversation. You are not even willing to discuss the concept of property or ownership.
Like I said, you are jealous, greedy, and trying to justify thievery and I have to conclude that you are a thief.
Then you would conclude wrong. You cannot seem to grasp the concept that discussing a thief does not make you a thief. Come on this is not rocket science!
I would not allow you on my property or near my family.
It seems unlikely that I would come for a visit but it strikes me that you would shut anyone out who would even question your authority on truth. Sounds like an insecure power trip to me.
You have succeeded in convincing me that reading your posts is a waste of time, but you have not succeeded in proving that you have the right to live or to exist outside of Hell. You're a fool, I've had enough of your foolishness.
I'm not sure you have even read my posts. Nothing here indicates that you have acknowledged or understood anything I have said. Do you think you represent the lord by throwing insults around like this?
Why don't you just quit reading my posts? My message will not change, and you will hate it forever I guess.....and hate yourself for your stupidity in the fire of Hell if you won't repent and believe on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Let me ask another question. If someone stole medicine from Jesus' house during the night in order to save a dying child, what would Jesus say? Would he say I don't mind but my father still thinks you deserve to die for this?
Stealing is wrong. Jesus is God, He said "Thou shalt not steal". What is your problem? Why do you seem to have an obsession with trying to justify theft?
We all deserve to die for our sin. The liar deserves to die the same as the thief, the same as the murderer, the same as the adulterer, etc.
Jesus would never say anything different than God the Father says. Jesus is God.
You need to be asking more intelligent questions like "how am I going to pay for my sins?", or "what can I do to be saved from my sins?".
He also said, "Thou shalt not kill" (except non-believers, homosexuals, witches, fortune-tellers, adulterers, sorceresses and anybody who publicly challenges their mother or father).
Thou shalt not kill refers to murder. It would be wrong for me to kill you just because you are an annoying punk. God has every right to kill you at any moment for the things you have done and it's JUSTICE. You deserve to die and burn in Hell, and if God kills you tonight and leaves you frying like an eternal sausage in Hell, can you blame Him? Look at how much of a jerk you are toward Him, trying to frame Him as being bad. it's you who is the bad one, you need to be saved from Hell and only God can save you. Prepare to meet your God, you have an appointment coming soon (assuming you will remain proud in your sin, I hope that appointment is a hundred years in the future as it's all the good time you can know when eternity does not count time in Hell).
Oh, now I see. Murdering non-believers, homosexuals, witches, fortune-tellers, adulterers, sorceresses and anybody who publicly challenges their mother or father isn't murder. Now I understand. Thanks for clearing that up for me.
Why don't you get on Google and type in "how to answer this point of atheist rhetoric:_, fill in the blank with one of your talking points like "God is contradictory" and study the corrections to your illogical beliefs and terribly limited knowledge. You probably won't do it because you don't want answers, all you want is to believe that you have the right to exist outside of Hell and are exonerated in death, so keep on believing that way and you can find out for yourself if you are right.
I hope you decided to get off of my back for a while, I can deal with you without reading your posts, I know the stupid things you will say and I know what to say in response to your stupid statements so I can just answer you without reading your posts.......if you want to keep riding my back. You need to be saved from Hell. Can you save yourself? Prepare to meet your God.
You misunderstand again. I did not justify theft in general. In fact I believe that there are some instances of taking property which would not even qualify as theft. Again this is hypothetical for the purpose of discussion. Do you get angry and aggressive just by having a discussion? I which case how are you going to pay for your sins? You accuse and point the finger but you will not look at your own behaviour or answer questions on why it ok for you to commit violent murder.
What are you doing? Trying to break your own record for stupid questions? You're asking the same thing over and over and over, and trying to add a tiny little twist to make each question a little more stupid than your previous one.
When someone questions your authority on truth do you call them stupid? Is this what Jesus would do?
You think that your views are superior and that your truth is the only truth. When someone dares to question this you get angry and aggressive and misrepresent their words. Will you shoot me between the eyes just for asking you a question. Is this what Jesus would do?
You still have not answered my question. You say that God thinks we deserve to die for any case of stealing. So if someone took medicine from Jesus' house in the night to save a dying child. Jesus is God so he would say they deserve to die correct? Would Jesus shoot them between the eyes for this like you have said you would?
Truth is authoritative and the author is God. When you question God's right to rule over and against you, you are not being wise.
You can know the truth, and when you do, your view on reality is correct though at times in varying degrees may be obscured by your own sin nature.
Here's some starting points of truth you can stand on:
1) We are all dying sinners who deserve to die and are unworthy of being with God in Heaven.
2) God loves us and does not want us to be dying forever, but rather wants us to be with Him in Heaven.
3) To be with God, we must be changed, and He makes this possible by giving us a new spirit born of His Holy Spirit if we will receive His Son, Jesus (who is God incarnate and is risen bodily from the dead) as He is :The Living God the only Savior. He died for your sins so your sins can be covered by His sinless blood and He can accept you as having your account of sin paid in full by Himself....He took your death on Himself so that you can be forgiven by Him in His victory over death and not have to pay for your sins in the fire of Hell.
The soul that sins shall surely die. Stealing, murder, lying, dishonoring your parents.....whatever. The tiniest sin is punishable by death and you are in death now, dying, and dying never ends in the fire of Hell. You still have time to repent of all your sin, believe on Jesus, receive Him by faith as your Savior and be saved from Hell. Time is running out.
God can strike you dead any moment in any way He sees fit. Read The Book of the Revelation of Jesus Christ to see how God deals with sinners in the time shortly before the final Judgement. It's not pretty. If you want a namby pamby Jesus who will not execute justice on sinners, you will not be saved and you will fall under His execution.
I have answered your question many times; you don't like the answer so you pretend you are not hearing it. You are in danger of the fire of Hell now, you have one foot in the grave and the other on thin ice melting over the fire of Hell and you are trying to justify yourself as if you can make yourself look as good or better than God. You are playing a fools game and you can't expect God (nor myself) to put up with you for long.
Truth is authoritative and the author is God. When you question God's right to rule over and against you, you are not being wise.
I have not questioned Gods Authority, I have questioned your authority. Are you saying that you are God or you have perfected Gods wisdom? Quite a claim!
The tiniest sin is punishable by death
Are you saying that humans should kill anyone who commits the tiniest sin?
I have answered your question many times
You have answered a different question. You are saying that stealing is wrong by definition. You are effectively saying that is wrong to be wrong. This is trivial and not even worth mentioning. My question was about the specific circumstances that qualify as stealing. I was highlighting the nuances of different situations. If you just answer, its wrong to be wrong, that's a pretty boring conversation.
Could you just stop responding to my posts? What do you care if I say you are on your way to Hell, and only God can save you with Jesus Christ being the only way to be saved and go to Heaven.
You love your sin more than life, I guess part of that love is in making a jack ass of yourself; pumping up your ego so that you feel stronger than death, stronger and smarter than God, and better than God and/or better than me. You have only proved that you love your sin more than life and do not care if it takes you into the fire of Hell. The way you are, the best I can say for you is to enjoy yourself while you can because it's not going to get better for you.
Could you just stop responding to my posts? What do you care if I say you are on your way to Hell
Are you suggesting that you can say these things to me and I should not even comment in reply?
I guess part of that love is in making a jack ass of yourself; pumping up your ego so that you feel stronger than death, stronger and smarter than God, and better than God and/or better than me.
This is a conversation between me and you. I have no quarrels with God, you are the one who keeps bringing him into this.
I am not your enemy, I as just trying to have a discussion with you.
You are boring, and I get tired of it. Telling you the truth, if you feel any anger in it, is anger against your sin. God hates sin, His wrath is on you as you are defying Him, refusing to believe He loves you and all you are doing is piling up His wrath against your sin and He is not going to allow you to go on forever in defiance of Him. You need to turn away from and against your sin and seek His mercy which you can find in Jesus Christ who died for you and rose from the dead offering you forgiveness of all your sin.
You are trying to put a lot of words in my mouth, and if you are going to keep doing that I'm going to ignore you. No point in wasting my time on a person who wont listen and only plays childish games.
God hates sin, His wrath is on you as you are defying Him
I am not defying God I am asking you questions about the morality of stealing. Is it wrong to ask questions? If we don't ask questions how do we learn?
If you want to see how Jesus responded to antagonists like you, read the gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John). He told them the truth directly, told them they were liars, thieves, hypocrites, children of Hell of their father the devil...always directly in response to their sin. Your sin is trying to justify theft, your method and pretense is stupid, and you are on your way to Hell and I think Jesus would tell you the same thing at this point in time based on your words and attitude.....and then he would turn and walk away which is pretty much where I am at with you. Play your devil games while you can enjoy them if you want to.
Jesus told them the truth directly, told them they were liars, thieves, hypocrites, children of Hell of their father the devil
You're making Jesus sound like a bit of a nasty guy if he responded to a reasonable questions in this way.
Your sin is trying to justify theft, your method and pretence is stupid, and you are on your way to Hell and I think Jesus would tell you the same
Again, I did not justify theft. I asked about different situations that qualify as theft. If you want to apply the law you have to understand the law. This is a simple truth.
It's you who is the nasty guy, and you would think Jesus is nasty because you are against Him, you reject God's love so to you God will seem to be nasty....and His wrath is on you, you are heaping it up on yourself and if you keep on going your own way God will let you have it in the fire of Hell.
You are a fool and I am tired of you, I don't like watching traffic accidents and you are one of them.
It's you who is the nasty guy, and you would think Jesus is nasty because you are against Him, you reject God's love so to you God will seem to be nasty
Is it nasty to have a reasonable discussion? I don't think Jesus is nasty, nor do I reject Gods love. I haven't said either of these things. You should be careful, either you are confused or dishonest. My comments have been directed at you. You seem to keep confusing yourself with God and Jesus. This is a very troubling habit of yours.
You're making a loser's argument which is taking you nowhere but into the fire of Hell where all will be lost if you are not saved by God the Savior, Jesus Christ who died for your sins to save you from Hell.
If you don't want to be saved, then don't be saved. I have lost interest in reading your posts.
I'm not seeing anything here of relevance to my comments. You're not even trying have a discussion. I hate to break it to you but you are not the messenger of God or Jesus Christ and you are not the one who gets to decide who is saved.
I laugh at you.....though I try not to let it show. I feel sorry for you, there is no aggression or anger here. You find the truth aggressive because you are being defensive, fighting against the truth trying to justify your existence outside of Hell so you feel better in dying....you're playing a losing game.
I don't know where you get that I am advocating murder. If God ends your life today, He is justified in doing so. It's called justice, not murder. We all deserve to die.....and if it is not about deserve, why do you think that what you do influences what you get or where you go? Do your actions cause you to deserve good or bad things?
So you think you will get a taste of Hell on Earth if you behave badly; would that be what you deserve? Isn't death a taste of Hell, without the fire? Of course if you die in a fire, it would be like being in Hell as you are dying and it will never end if you are not saved from Hell.
You are wagering your life against God hoping He does not have the right to leave you in Hell forever. You're playing a losers game and I don't like watching a catastrophy in development. That is why I am trying to warn you and get you to see that the only hope is to be saved by God and know His mercy which He provided for by dying in your place to save you from Hell, with power to forgive and save you as He is risen from the dead and willing to save you if you will ask God in Jesus' name to forgive your sins and save you from Hell. If you believe on Him and approach God according to His terms (agreeing that you deserve to burn in Hell as a sinner), you can receive Jesus Christ personally in reality as He is, the Living God your Savior.
If you won't, He will be your judge and your sins which He died for will testify against you and His blood will not cover your sins....you will have to pay for your sins in Hell as the sinner you are forever unchanged by God and left alone in the fire. You are making your own choice, it's a poor choice to try to defy God.
Laugh while you can if you are going to enter eternity in defiance of God. You won't be laughing long, I do feel sorry for you. I hope you get saved but I doubt that you will......please remind me that you are an anti-Christ and waste of my time.
You laugh at me in a condescending arrogant manner. You pity and sneer and present yourself as Gods representative as if you are the bearer of divine truth.
You have clearly stated that the person stealing to save a child deserves to be shot between the eyes. You have said you yourself would comment violent murder against the person. Now why do you pretend that you have not said this? Are you dishonest?
People can see into the character of those who claim to being trying to save them. They can see if the person has love in their heart or not. You speak of Jesus Christ, Did he spend his time speaking of torture and torment. Would Jesus Christ murder the person whole stole to save the child. How would he react to this?
it is true that the grasping of truth is not possible without empirical basis.However,the deeper we penetrate and the more extensive and embracing our theories become less empirical knowledge is needed to determine those theories. said by ALBERT EINSTEIN
True knowledge isn't possible because cosmology will never find a definitive answer of our universe, meaning that any religion or belief can be true which can hinder true knowledge.
Falsehoods cannot be true, only the truth can be true. When two ideas are in conflict, or any number of ideas, they are either all wrong and untrue or one of them is true and right and the rest are untrue and wrong. I am speaking in truth. You can know the truth.
No, I'm afraid it isn't possible, and it is because of the way that we experience time. The best known methodology for understanding the universe in which we live is science. We measure and examine things and then that gives us information about the properties of those things. However, science itself is flawed because it can only tell us the state of things in the past (i.e. after we have measured them). Hence, science can explain the past but not necessarily the present (or the future). To "know" in its present, immediate tense, is not possible in this universe.
Time is an interesting topic because we know we experience its progression but its not clear how it fits into the laws of physics. The laws predict phenomena across time but in no way specify that time should be experienced to flow as it does, perhaps indicating that time flow is a product of consciousness. That ever elusive present moment is where the measurement takes place but certainty gained always brings with it a corresponding uncertainty. The more precisely we try to pin nature down the more she evades us.
Time is an interesting topic because we know we experience its progression but its not clear how it fits into the laws of physics
Well, it's pretty clear. Einstein wrote a theory about it you might have heard of called general relativity. In fairness however, that only applies to time in the observable universe. The effect of time at the quantum level is, concededly, not very well understood.
The laws predict phenomena across time but in no way specify that time should be experienced to flow as it does
The second law of thermodynamics (also known as the law of entropy) predicts time's arrow.
There's an important distinction to be made here. If you look at classical physics such as Newton's Laws, the equations show 'time symmetry' in that they work equally well backwards and forwards in time. This changes with probabilistic equations like the second law of thermodynamics, as you pointed out, also quantum mechanics. This is because once a statistical outcome is 'chosen' it cannot be 'un-chosen'. This seems to correspond to everyday experience pretty well. You cannot un-break an egg or un-mix a drink with any reliability. However, it would be overreaching to say that the experience of the flow of time has been predicted. The equations predict intervals of time and the order that things occur in time but no where do they say that we should experience the passage of time moving from one instant to this next. So far this can only be taken for granted from our experience. Perhaps a more sophisticated theory of consciousness will handle this.
The information (however erroneous or useful) accessible to one or more agents.
Viewing knowledge as "justified true belief" sets us up to view portions of the information we manage as errorless and our thinking becomes more rigid and dogmatically absolutist. Instead of saying "I have justified true beliefs" its better to say "I think I have adequate information".