Blasphemy and Duck Rape

[Weston Super Saint]

42 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Bullshit. I discussed faith in its Biblical definition in this thread.

And yet, you were the one who stated you have 'no faith at all' which encompases all types of faith, not just the religious one that you are now hiding behind.

Do you agree that you do indeed have faith - whether or not it is of the religious flavour?

[trousers]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Alannis Morisette played God in Dogma.

Just saying.

That's ironic 

[Weston Super Saint]

18 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

A) Religious people and scripture say their God wants everyone to know he exists.

B) They say that his is capable of knowing what evidence you'd need to believe in him.

And yet... he refuses to provide it.

A and B can not both be true if he fails to provide it.

You have a lot in common with God, what with your refusal to answer the question about faith  

[badgerx16]

10 minutes ago, trousers said:

True, but I like His sense of humour

Depeche Mode wrote a song about that.

[Matthew Le God]

16 minutes ago, egg said:

 

Yes or no, do you acknowledge that they took a leap of faith? 

My answer to that is in the rebuttal you keep ignoring.

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

You have a lot in common with God, what with your refusal to answer the question about faith  

I have answered it. You keep avoiding the rebuttal.

[badgerx16]

7 minutes ago, trousers said:

I'm still waiting for unrefutable evidence that we exist, by the way. Anyone? 

This thread has caused the Matrix to crash, but once it has rebooted I'll get back to you if there is a reasonably recent restore point.

[Matthew Le God]

6 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

And yet, you were the one who stated you have 'no faith at all' which encompases all types of faith, not just the religious one that you are now hiding behind.

Do you agree that you do indeed have faith - whether or not it is of the religious flavour?

I've address this in the rebuttal you keep avoiding.

[badgerx16]

47 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Science does not make infallible proclamations. If new evidence comes to light, that changes views.

Religions claim an infallible God. It is not open to change in light of new evidence. It is a deeply flawed system to get to the truth.

The C of E accepts the Theory of Evolution.

[badgerx16]

47 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

 

In religious terms, faith is the excuse you have to believe something without evidence.

And, why is that a problem ?

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

And, why is that a problem ?

Would you like to face a jury that used faith rather than evidence?

[badgerx16]

36 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Again, you ignored the rebuttal.

 

35 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Again you ignored the rebuttal. 

 

8 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

My answer to that is in the rebuttal you keep ignoring.

 

7 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I have answered it. You keep avoiding the rebuttal.

 

6 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I've address this in the rebuttal you keep avoiding.

Could you repeat the rebuttal ?

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

Would you like to face a jury that used faith rather than evidence?

Would you want to face a God in whom you had shown no faith ?

Your response is a non-sequitur to my post, your jury example does not follow from an issue of religious belief.

Edited 23 hours ago by badgerx16

[Matthew Le God]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

The C of E accepts the Theory of Evolution.

The story of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit is the moment sin entered the world. This "Fall" is seen as the reason humans are born sinful and separated from God.

Jesus is described as the solution to the Fall. Jesus's death is presented as the atonement for humanity’s original sin. So, without a real "Fall," the need for a savior (Jesus) could be called into question.

The Adam and Eve story is incompatible with evolution.

[Matthew Le God]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Could you repeat the rebuttal ?

Nope, you need to read it for once!

[trousers]

22 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

you were the one who stated you have 'no faith at all'

MLG believes we exist without being able to provide irrefutable evidence that we do exist, ergo he has faith in our existence. 

(Bingo card duly poised for the predicable MLG retort )

Edited 23 hours ago by trousers

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

The story of Adam and Eve eating the forbidden fruit is the moment sin entered the world. This "Fall" is seen as the reason humans are born sinful and separated from God.

Jesus is described as the solution to the Fall. Jesus's death is presented as the atonement for humanity’s original sin. So, without a real "Fall," the need for a savior (Jesus) could be called into question.

The Adam and Eve story is incompatible with evolution.

So, take it up with whoever becomes the next Archbishop of Canterbury if it causes you angst.

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Nope, you need to read it for once!

It's probably just more of your peurile bollox, so I don't think I will.

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, trousers said:

He believes we exist without being able to provide irrefutable evidence that we do exist, ergo he has faith in our existence. 

(Bingo card duly poised for the predicable MLG retort )

Wait for the rebuttal 😉

[Matthew Le God]

4 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

1) Would you want to face a God in whom you had shown no faith ?

Your response is a non-sequitur to my post, your jury example does not follow from an issue of religious belief.

1) Does he want me to believe in him? Does the God know what evidence I'd need to believe in him? Both can't be true.

2) It is very relevant. Faith can be used to justify opposing/contradictory beliefs.Thus making it not a reliable methodology to get to a truth as any outcome can be derived at! 

[badgerx16]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

1) Does he want me to believe in him? Does the God know what evidence I'd need to believe in him? Both can't be true.

2) It is very relevant. Faith can be used to justify opposing/contradictory beliefs.Thus making it not a reliable methodology to get to a truth as any outcome can be derived at! 

1) God doesn't need you to believe in Him, but he assured, He believes in you.

2) Faith is a foundation of religion, but not of the Courts, so your question was ridiculous.

[Matthew Le God]

4 minutes ago, trousers said:

MLG believes we exist without being able to provide irrefutable evidence that we do exist, ergo he has faith in our existence. 

(Bingo card duly poised for the predicable MLG retort )

I think, therefore I am.

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

I think, therefore I am.

How do your know you are thinking ? By what physical processes do you manage to do this ?

Edited 23 hours ago by badgerx16

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, badgerx16 said:

1) God doesn't need you to believe in Him, but he assured, He believes in you.

2) Faith is a foundation of religion, but not of the Courts, so your question was ridiculous.

1) Do you agree many Christians think God wants everyone to believe in him? Do you believe many Christians believe God knows what it would take for someone to believe in him?

2) Is something a reliable path to truth if it can be used to justify two opposing and conflicting beliefs?

[egg]

23 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

My answer to that is in the rebuttal you keep ignoring.

It's a Yes or no Matthew. 

I'll take the unwillingness to answer as "yes, I know it was a leap of faith, but I'm desperately trying to avoid admitting that because my ego won't allow me to". 

 

[trousers]

3 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I think, therefore I am.

House! 

(But just to correct you again, it's: "God makes me think that I think, therefore he makes me think I am")

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

How do your know you are thinking ? By what physical processes do you manage to do this ?

My senses corresponding in a reliable, consistent and demonstrable manner to my experiences. 

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

It's a Yes or no Matthew. 

I'll take the unwillingness to answer as "yes, I know it was a leap of faith, but I'm desperately trying to avoid admitting that because my ego won't allow me to". 

I did give a yes or no answer.

[egg]

17 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Would you like to face a jury that used faith rather than evidence?

Jury's have to draw conclusions or inferences. In civil cases the Judge's function is often to make findings of fact, but in so doing he/she must imply, impute or infer evidence. Your world appears binary. The real world isn't, and faith is put in people, and what they say, even in court rooms. 

[trousers]

I'm off to change my pants. Too much laughter = too much leakage 

(Too much information?)

[Matthew Le God]

3 minutes ago, trousers said:

House! 

(But just to correct you again, it's: "God makes me think that I think, therefore he makes me think I am")

Well if he is making me do something... then I exist. He can't though if he is outside space and time. As existence is spatial and temporal.

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Jury's have to draw conclusions or inferences. In civil cases the Judge's function is often to make findings of fact, but in so doing he/she must imply, impute or infer evidence. Your world appears binary. The real world isn't, and faith is put in people, and what they say, even in court rooms. 

It was a yes or no question.

[egg]

3 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I did give a yes or no answer.

Do tell...pretty please 🙏

[badgerx16]

9 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) Do you agree many Christians think God wants everyone to believe in him? Do you believe many Christians believe God knows what it would take for someone to believe in him?

2) Is something a reliable path to truth if it can be used to justify two opposing and conflicting beliefs?

Yes, yes, and yes.

HTH

[egg]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

It was a yes or no question.

It's a hypothetical one. I live in the real world. 

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, egg said:

Do tell...pretty please 🙏

Read it yourself

[trousers]

5 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Well if he is making me do something... then I exist

Not necessarily ... You could be a character in a computer game or simulation... Or playing a part in someone's dream...

The bottom line is, you don't have refutable evidence that you exist. 

Edited 22 hours ago by trousers

[revolution saint]

13 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

I think, therefore I am.

Descartes was wrong on this one, you can only deduce evidence of a thought rather than your own existence. Unless you have faith in your own existence……?

[badgerx16]

7 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

My senses corresponding in a reliable, consistent and demonstrable manner to my experiences. 

So, not a series of electro-chemical and physical interactions between molecules ?

[Lighthouse]

Have we come back around to, "I think therefore I am," again? Good oh.

[egg]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

Read it yourself

I'm not interested in your daft games. I'll revert to what we both know is the truth, namely that you agree that they took a leap of faith but cannot concede that here. 

[Matthew Le God]

11 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) Do you agree many Christians think God wants everyone to believe in him? Do you believe many Christians believe God knows what it would take for someone to believe in him?

2) Is something a reliable path to truth if it can be used to justify two opposing and conflicting beliefs?

 

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Yes, yes, and yes.

1) As I have not seen sufficient evidence they are wrong. As if no sufficient evidence is provided it is logically impossible for both a and b to be true for a God that wants to be known, knows what it would take but refuses to provide it.

2) Nonsense. If a system can lead to polar oppositepostions... it is not a reliable path to truth.

[Matthew Le God]

2 minutes ago, egg said:

I'm not interested in your daft games. I'll revert to what we both know is the truth, namely that you agree that they took a leap of faith but cannot concede that here. 

Asking you to read the answer I have to a question that you keep asking... is not me playing a game. 

[egg]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

 

1) As I have not seen sufficient evidence they are wrong. As if no sufficient evidence is provided it is logically impossible for both a and b to be true for a God that wants to be known, knows what it would take but refuses to provide it.

2) Nonsense. If a system can lead to polar oppositepostions... it is not a reliable path to truth.

Nonsense. The Wright Brothers could have failed or succeeded, ie polar opposites. They took a leap of faith. 

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

So, not a series of electro-chemical and physical interactions between molecules ?

Those are spatial and temporal. Both needed for existence. 

Christian God is said to be outside space and time. So is not spatial and temporal so doesn't meet existence. 

[egg]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

Asking you to read the answer I have to a question that you keep asking... is not me playing a game. 

Your post wasn't yes or no. You've typed about 500 words across multiple posts. Stop being daft and say yes or no. 

If you insist on asking people to answer questions in a binary manner, either have the courtesy to reciprocate or shut up. 

[Matthew Le God]

10 minutes ago, egg said:

Nonsense. The Wright Brothers could have failed or succeeded, ie polar opposites. They took a leap of faith. 

The individual pieces of evidence before the flight could not be used for claims of both success or failure. They stand on their own demonstrable merits. Same does not apply to faith. Faith allows someone to claim opposing positions on the same topic.

Edited 22 hours ago by Matthew Le God

[egg]

Jesus fecking wept. 

I'm off out for the evening. 

Adiós. 

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, egg said:

Your post wasn't yes or no. You've typed about 500 words across multiple posts. Stop being daft and say yes or no. 

If you insist on asking people to answer questions in a binary manner, either have the courtesy to reciprocate or shut up. 

Bullshit... my post started with a no and explained why. The post reads...

"No, because of the reasons I outlined that you ignored! It was not 'all evidence'. There was evidence it would work, so a belief it could work is based on evidence, not faith."

But you kept ignoring it!

[Matthew Le God]

1 hour ago, Matthew Le God said:

No, because of the reasons I outlined that you ignored! It was not 'all evidence'. There was evidence it would work, so a belief it could work is based on evidence, not faith.

Here it is! A clear no and a reason for the no @egg

You kept avoiding it!

Edited 22 hours ago by Matthew Le God