Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
And more insults as with just about every post you make.
Quite often in science however the how is the why. Asking "why" assumes an answer that may not even be there. And assumes a why-how distinction that is often not valid. It is just a human failing that we require a _story_ behind things when explaining them. But things do not owe us a story.
Nor is "emergence" the mere -"poof it exists"- cop out ploy that you pretend. Emergence is merely the label used to describe that fact that there is no reason to think there is any external source of the thing observed. With consciousness for example there is no reason at this time to think there is any explanation for it - other than the processes we observe in the brain.
We might not - (we do not) - understand how those processes achieve this. But that does not mean much in and of itself. It certainly does not validate assuming the processes can not be what is achieving it - as you do. (such as in your bogus claims that machines could never be built that are conscious and sentient).
Could there be some other explanation for it? Sure! There very much could! Some magical conscious universe could be broadcasting bits of itself into each of our antennae brains so that each of us is merely one sub-section of a manifestation of a conscious whole! And while I am sitting here talking to you - and you insulting back at me (most likely) - we could actually be one part of a single brain talking to itself. All absolutely totally utterly possible. No doubt what-so-ever about it. Though one would wonder about the sanity of a mind that thinks rationally in one part and merely throws insults at itself from another part.
There is just no evidence at this time to think that _is_ what is happening and the gulf between "sure it is possible" and "yes this looks likely" is a wide one that you are not going to cross on a bridge of insult. And certainly not by using the gap _as_ the bridge to cross the gap as you so often do in your approach to conclusion you want to reach rather than are led to by evidence.
Even back when I was a fundie christian, in the back of my mind I found it odd that the Bible "had an answer for everything" when it came to our faith not actually making any sense.
If your brain tells you something the Bible or your pastor says doesn't make sense, well that's because "My ways are not your ways, and My thoughts are not your thoughts."
If science tells you the world can't possibly be only 6000 years old, or that a global flood could not have happened, remember, "The wisdom of the world is foolishness to God."
When you see things that contradict scripture, well, "We walk by faith, not by sight."
When anything about our beliefs didn't make sense, "Now we see dimly, as through a glass, but then we shall see face to face."
It was as if the less sense the Bible made, the more it proved itself as being true, because it wasn't supposed to make sense to our human brain.
Yet when other religions and other holy books had things that didn't make sense, we didn't extend that same acceptance. The Bible just conveniently had all these verses that would shut down our questioning and our critical thinking.
Nope, the Bible doesn't have an answer for everything. That would be the Book of Mormon.
Just kidding! No book has the answer for everything. Neither does any church or any religious leader. People need to get over this black and white kind of thinking.
Nope, the Bible doesn't have an answer for everything. That would be the Book of Mormon.
Just kidding! No book has the answer for everything. Neither does any church or any religious leader. People need to get over this black and white kind of thinking.
I actually agree with you, in the fact that the Bible is not the end-all, be-all repository of all knowledge. It is God's story of Creation, the Fall of man, and his redemption of man--and for that it's the final, authoritative source. On other things, maybe not so much...for example it does not have a good recipe for cheesecake for me to make for dessert tonight.
2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." That is a 100% accurate statement. "Scripture" is "any writing or book, especially when of a sacred or religious nature." All scripture absolutely is given by inspiration and yet you don't even believe the all of the scriptures used by Roman Catholicism are given by inspiration. Where, in the scriptures you do accept as inspired does it say that the Apocrypha doesn't count as "scripture"?
All scripture is not only "given by inspiration of God," but is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction [and] for instruction in righteousness." Nowhere in the Bible does it say, "The Protestant version of the Bible is the final authoritative source of information on the Creation, the Fall of man, and the redemption of man." You can claim that it does until you are blue in the face, but the FACT is that it doesn't.
Quote:
Since there are no apostles today, the Scripture is authoritative. Teach what you will, but if it conflicts with the Bible, it's wrong.
You just love to spout off this nonsense to the effect that "if something conflicts with the Bible," but when pressed, you can't give me a single, solitary example of where the Book of Mormon (which is what we all know you are talking about) conflicts with the Bible -- at least not even to the degree that the various books in the Bible conflict with each other. And when I try to engage you, you give me a bunch of crap about not being able to discuss the matter without getting in trouble. Well, I have news for you, Vizio... As long as you stay within the rules of the forum, you won't get in trouble. I just don't think you're capable of doing so.
2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." That is a 100% accurate statement. "Scripture" is "any writing or book, especially when of a sacred or religious nature." All scripture absolutely is given by inspiration and yet you don't even believe the all of the scriptures used by Roman Catholicism are given by inspiration. Where, in the scriptures you do accept as inspired does it say that the Apocrypha doesn't count as "scripture"?
The apocrypha is not inspired, and the Catholic church would agree with me on that statement.
Quote:
All scripture is not only "given by inspiration of God," but is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction [and] for instruction in righteousness." Nowhere in the Bible does it say, "The Protestant version of the Bible is the final authoritative source of information on the Creation, the Fall of man, and the redemption of man." You can claim that it does until you are blue in the face, but the FACT is that it doesn't.
Is there any other Scripture? If so, prove it.
Quote:
You just love to spout off this nonsense to the effect that "if something conflicts with the Bible," but when pressed, you can't give me a single, solitary example of where the Book of Mormon (which is what we all know you are talking about) conflicts with the Bible -- at least not even to the degree that the various books in the Bible conflict with each other. And when I try to engage you, you give me a bunch of crap about not being able to discuss the matter without getting in trouble. Well, I have news for you, Vizio... As long as you stay within the rules of the forum, you won't get in trouble. I just don't think you're capable of doing so.
I didn't bring up the Book of Mormon. Is there something you'd like to talk about? If you, or your Book of Mormon contradict with the Bible, the Bible wins.
The apocrypha is not inspired, and the Catholic church would agree with me on that statement.
Well, they believe it is "scripture."
Quote:
Is there any other Scripture? If so, prove it.
I can't do that any more than you can "prove" the Bible is scripture. And when you figure out how to do that, let us all know, okay?
All I can do is prove that the Bible does not claim to be "the final authoritative source" regarding the Creation, the Fall or the Redemption. I have proven that by simply examining 2 Timothy 3:16. The words "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction [and] for instruction in righteousness" do not mean "the final authoritative source." They simply don't.
You can accept only the Bible as scripture. I don't really give a damn. You can claim to believe it's the "final authoritative source," but just don't say it makes that claim when it clearly doesn't.
Quote:
I didn't bring up the Book of Mormon.
Oh, I see. I guess I was mistaken. What book were you referring to?
Quote:
Is there something you'd like to talk about?
Yeah. Your claims that the Book of Mormon contradicts the Bible.
Quote:
If you, or your Book of Mormon contradict with the Bible, the Bible wins.
I'm in good shape then, because I don't, and neither does the Book of Mormon.
2 Timothy 3:16 says, "All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness." That is a 100% accurate statement. "Scripture" is "any writing or book, especially when of a sacred or religious nature." All scripture absolutely is given by inspiration and yet you don't even believe the all of the scriptures used by Roman Catholicism are given by inspiration. Where, in the scriptures you do accept as inspired does it say that the Apocrypha doesn't count as "scripture"?
All scripture is not only "given by inspiration of God," but is "profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction [and] for instruction in righteousness." Nowhere in the Bible does it say, "The Protestant version of the Bible is the final authoritative source of information on the Creation, the Fall of man, and the redemption of man." You can claim that it does until you are blue in the face, but the FACT is that it doesn't.
<snip>
When 2 Timothy was written, the only documents anybody would have referred to as "Scripture" were the Torah/Tanakh/Talmud used by the Rabbis in the Jewish Synagogues and Temples. There wouldn't be any New Testament for a few hundred more years. Even if NT writings were circulating, they were not referred to as "Scripture" when 2 Timothy was written.
When 2 Timothy was written, the only documents anybody would have referred to as "Scripture" were the Torah/Tanakh/Talmud used by the Rabbis in the Jewish Synagogues and Temples. There wouldn't be any New Testament for a few hundred more years. Even if NT writings were circulating, they were not referred to as "Scripture" when 2 Timothy was written.
Excellent point. When you study how the various books of the bible were selected, and how verses have been changed, omitted, etc through the centuries, how much HUMAN involvement went into the process, and the fact that we have not only catholic and protestant forms now, but numerous differing translations.....sheesh, how can anyone believe that it is infallible??
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No book has the answer for everything. Neither does any church or any religious leader. People need to get over this black and white kind of thinking.
What book were you referring to?
