Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Thats an old and innacurate translation.Unless you seriously think the Bible was written in English using Arabic numerals.
dude stick to comicst this is not Marvel. The new testament was written in greek,armaic, hebrew it's been prove that 666 is the mark of the beast by greek, christian,hebrews and non christians scholars.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What I think you are saying is that there is not natural world only supernatural. You just don't like to use the word supernatural.
I'm not using the word "supernatural" because it's not accurate. I've already explained this. And I even asked you what specifically wasn't making sense to you but you've decided to not interact with my argument and simply assert that I am splitting hairs. You haven't even tried to exlplain how I'm splitting hairs.
Originally posted by Ytse
I'm not using the word "supernatural" because it's not accurate. I've already explained this. And I even asked you what specifically wasn't making sense to you but you've decided to not interact with my argument and simply assert that I am splitting hairs. You haven't even tried to exlplain how I'm splitting hairs.
I'm not your therapist.
Originally posted by Ytse
Haha. Just don't enter into any discussion with me if you aren't able to intelligently defend your poisiton. It's rather frustrating to have someone claim you're wrong without any reasoning behind it.🙂
You know quite well, that I defended my positions, and shot down your position. I just got tired of your diverting tactics. Now, you come in making false claims. Next you will ask me what those false are. You will have to find that out on your own.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You know quite well, that I defended my positions, and shot down your position.
In my estimation merely telling someone they're splitting hairs and leaving it at that isn't being "shot down." As I said, you simply refused to interact with what I said and made your own assertions.
😉
Originally posted by Ytse
In my estimation merely telling someone they're splitting hairs and leaving it at that isn't being "shot down." As I said, you simply refused to interact with what I said and made your own assertions.😉
I only went back 3 pages.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your statement is less reasonable and extraordinary. Adam_PoE's statement is more reasonable and not at all extraordinary. Let me give you an example of why:What is an echo?
1. A spirit that hears your voice in a cannon will repeat your voice back to you.
2. Your voice is being reflected back to you by the walls of the cannon.Witch is more reasonable and less extraordinary?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your statement is less reasonable and extraordinary. Adam_PoE's statement is more reasonable and not at all extraordinary. Let me give you an example of why:What is an echo?
1. A spirit that hears your voice in a cannon will repeat your voice back to you.
2. Your voice is being reflected back to you by the walls of the cannon.Witch is more reasonable and less extraordinary?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your statement is less reasonable and extraordinary. Adam_PoE's statement is more reasonable and not at all extraordinary. Let me give you an example of why:What is an echo?
1. A spirit that hears your voice in a cannon will repeat your voice back to you.
2. Your voice is being reflected back to you by the walls of the cannon.Witch is more reasonable and less extraordinary?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Then what you are saying is that the universe is natural and God is natural. God created the universe naturally.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It all depends on what is meant by "creation" and "god". If "creation" is natural processes, and god is the universe, then you have no problem. However, you can't take the bible literally in that case.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Your statement is less reasonable and extraordinary. Adam_PoE's statement is more reasonable and not at all extraordinary. Let me give you an example of why:What is an echo?
1. A spirit that hears your voice in a cannon will repeat your voice back to you.
2. Your voice is being reflected back to you by the walls of the cannon.Witch is more reasonable and less extraordinary?
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The above is the same kind of thinking as the kind of thinking that you are putting forth.We make observations about the universe. We have found that there are laws that govern the universe. These laws can be tested. Now you are saying that these laws do not exist. That somehow a god is doing all of the things that we see as laws. That is the same as saying that an echo is really spirit calling back to us instead of a wall reflecting a sound.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The above is the same kind of thinking as the kind of thinking that you are putting forth.We make observations about the universe. We have found that there are laws that govern the universe. These laws can be tested. Now you are saying that these laws do not exist. That somehow a god is doing all of the things that we see as laws. That is the same as saying that an echo is really spirit calling back to us instead of a wall reflecting a sound.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That sounds like a naturalist world to me. I believe that universe is God. As for creation, God was never created, therefore that universe was never created.But I don't think that is what you are saying. What I think you are saying is that there is not natural world only supernatural. You just don't like to use the word supernatural. So, you made up a distinction that somehow changes a supernatural world into a “created world”. Spilt hairs if you like, but a “created world” is a supernatural world.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I only went back 3 pages.
I responded to all of those. And it came back to the "supernatural" thing. And I explained what I meant when I was saying that the created world isn't the same thing as a supernatural world. I explained that it would imply that there is such a thing as a natural world which I do not subscribe to.
If you're going to keep ignoring my reasoning then why don't you explain what you mean when you say a created world is a supernatural one.
Originally posted by Ytse
I responded to all of those. And it came back to the "supernatural" thing. And I explained what I meant when I was saying that the created world isn't the same thing as a supernatural world. I explained that it would imply that there is such a thing as a natural world which I do not subscribe to.If you're going to keep ignoring my reasoning then why don't you explain what you mean when you say a created world is a supernatural one.
I am not ignoring your reasoning; I'm saying that your reasoning is not reasonable.
The words "created world" and "supernatural" mean the same thing to me. How are they different? If you say that a "created world" does not have a natural world, to me, that is just a "supernatural" world without a natural world.
There is a natural world, because we can observe this world and predict outcomes in the natural world. If there was no natural world, then we could never predict any outcome, unless god (a spirit) was making all of the things we are trying to predict, predictable. That is the same as saying that an echo is really a spirit (god) calling back to you.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I am not ignoring your reasoning; I'm saying that your reasoning is not reasonable.
I meant in regards to supernatural having no meaning outside the context of dualism. You're ignoring my reasoning there totally. Just like this next quote:
If you say that a "created world" does not have a natural world, to me, that is just a "supernatural" world without a natural world.
Again, you're just reasserting the same thing with no reasoning behind it other than the "to me" part. If referencing yourself as an authority is all we need to do to justify our argument then we'd get absolutely nowhere.
The words "created world" and "supernatural" mean the same thing to me. How are they different?
Here's a good article dealing with dualism in a Christian worldview. If I cannot get my meaning across then perhaps this can:
http://www.mckenziestudycenter.org/philosophy/articles/dualism.html
If there was no natural world, then we could never predict any outcome, unless god (a spirit) was making all of the things we are trying to predict, predictable. That is the same as saying that an echo is really a spirit (god) calling back to you.
God sustains reality (cf. Genesis 8:22). If it were meant to be an illusion of naturalism as you seem to be claiming then why would god interact with mankind at all?
Originally posted by Ytse
I meant in regards to supernatural having no meaning outside the context of dualism. You're ignoring my reasoning there totally. Just like this next quote:Again, you're just reasserting the same thing with no reasoning behind it other than the "to me" part. If referencing yourself as an authority is all we need to do to justify our argument then we'd get absolutely nowhere.
Here's a good article dealing with dualism in a Christian worldview. If I cannot get my meaning across then perhaps this can:
http://www.mckenziestudycenter.org/philosophy/articles/dualism.html
God sustains reality (cf. Genesis 8:22). If it were meant to be an illusion of naturalism as you seem to be claiming then why would god interact with mankind at all?
I'm not a Christian, so, I'm not interested in "dualism in a Christian worldview". Let us stay in the real world instead of referring to a sub-culture.
IMO your reasoning including the Christian worldview, is not reasonable.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm not a Christian, so, I'm not interested in "dualism in a Christian worldview". Let us stay in the real world instead of referring to a sub-culture.
What a useless thing to say. As far as I am concerned that is the "real world." And as far as you're concerned however you view reality is the "real world." That's the whole reason this debate is taking place. If we agreed on what the true nature of reality was then we'd not need to debate it.
Now, are you going to interact with my previous post or not? If you're going to continue with this "its just my opinion" stuff then there is no point.
IMO your reasoning including the Christian worldview, is not reasonable.
\/
Originally posted by Ytse
If referencing yourself as an authority is all we need to do to justify our argument then we'd get absolutely nowhere.
Originally posted by Ytse
What a useless thing to say. As far as I am concerned that is the "real world." And as far as you're concerned however you view reality is the "real world." That's the whole reason this debate is taking place. If we agreed on what the true nature of reality was then we'd not need to debate it.Now, are you going to interact with my previous post or not? If you're going to continue with this "its just my opinion" stuff then there is no point.
[b]\/
[/B]
You are not the boss of this thread. Please refrain from telling me what to do.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are doing it again.
I'm asking a leading question in that post? Um, no.
Yes, you asked a question, but it was a leading question. Maybe you don't know what a leading question is. Do not ask me leading questions.
I know what a leading question is. And asking if you are going to interact with my arguments instead of just saying "IMO" isn't leading. It's a legit question because that how arguments work. Your opponents states his/her position and his reasoning, then you counter with your own, and so on.
But whatever, believe what you want because now we're arguing about arguing apparently. And that seems a bit silly to me. But I will say I apologize if I've somehow offended you. It is not my intention to do that despite what you might infer from my posts.
Originally posted by Ytse
I'm asking a leading question in that post? Um, no.I know what a leading question is. And asking if you are going to interact with my arguments instead of just saying "IMO" isn't leading. It's a legit question because that how arguments work. Your opponents states his/her position and his reasoning, then you counter with your own, and so on.
But whatever, believe what you want because now we're arguing about arguing apparently. And that seems a bit silly to me. But I will say I apologize if I've somehow offended you. It is not my intention to do that despite what you might infer from my posts.
Apology accepted.
I never stated that you were wrong, just that your point is not reasonable. If anyone thinks they understand the true nature of reality, then they are wrong. That includes you and me. All we can do is say, what is more reasonable and what is less reasonable.
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I never stated that you were wrong, just that your point is not reasonable.
The bottom line is, all of your argument fail and you're not willing to do anything but reassert them.
So, I suppose our particular discussion is over but I'm not going to enter into anymore arguments with you on this issue unless you start actually doing more than making unsubstantiated claims. It's a waste of our time.
Originally posted by Ytse
The bottom line is, all of your argument fail and you're not willing to do anything but reassert them.So, I suppose our particular discussion is over but I'm not going to enter into anymore arguments with you on this issue unless you start actually doing more than making unsubstantiated claims. It's a waste of our time.
You are just being spiteful. 😆
Do I need to quote my posts for the last three pages?
You are the one with the unsubstantiated claims. You say there is no natural world, and that is something that a loon would say. Then you say there is no supernatural world. Now there is nothing left. You make up something that you call the "created world" and say it is not supernatural. Well it’s not natural and it’s not supernatural, is it sub-natural? Then you give me this Christian propaganda web site to support your insane claims.
Then to top it off, this has nothing to do with 666. 😆
Originally posted by Shakyamunison
You are just being spiteful. 😆
How so?
Do I need to quote my posts for the last three pages?
I've responded to all of those and all you've managed to do is requote them over and over.
You are the one with the unsubstantiated claims. You say there is no natural world, and that is something that a loon would say.
See, this shows the kind of person I'm dealing with here. I'm trying to have a meaningful discussion and this is what you have to say about me. You've said I was delusional more than once. How can I argue with someone who resorts to personal ad hominem attacks like that? You're old enough to know better aren't you?
You make up something that you call the "created world" and say it is not supernatural. Well it’s not natural and it’s not supernatural, is it sub-natural?
I explained this more than once and you simply ignore my explanation and say I'm splitting hairs. You won't even tell me how I'm splitting hairs aside from saying "in my opinion." Apparently you cannot deal directly with my argument or you would. Shall I quote it once more or are you going to give me the "in my opinion" routine again?
Then you give me this Christian propaganda web site to support your insane claims.
I bet you didn't even bother to read it, did you?