Conquer Club, a free online multiplayer variation of a popular world domination board game.
http://www.tools.conquerclub.com/forum/
http://www.tools.conquerclub.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=47034
Dancing Mustard wrote:So, what's going on in here? Is everybody having fun?
Dancing Mustard wrote:Oh right, good stuff; 'God still isn't real no matter how much you dream about kissing Jesus' and all that jazz. I remember it well.
I'll go back to throwing popcorn and heckling from the rear of the auditorium again.
Good day to you all.
It would on matters of law and legal philosophy yes. That's why I deftly overpower you with my supreme knowledge every time those topics come up.Napoleon Ier wrote:you took a quantum course in Law, which wouldmake you a real expert, right?
Dancing Mustard wrote:It would on matters of law and legal philosophy yes. That's why I deftly overpower you with my supreme knowledge every time those topics come up.Napoleon Ier wrote:you took a quantum course in Law, which wouldmake you a real expert, right?
By the way, I note that you haven't actually taken your GCSEs yet, so by your above-quoted logic you are a self-certified expert in nothing (well, apart from playing patty-cake, hop-scotch and Jump-rope with your other playground chums). Right?
Anyway, good day to you young Padawan, have fun making a pinata of yourself.
Dancing Mustard wrote:That or it was the wind whistling merrily on its journey through the middle of your head...
got tonkaed wrote:I think snorri is pretty correct in a sense
Napoleon Ier wrote:Anyway snorrarse, you gonna try and refute the actual Ontological arguments,
or keep saying that "scientists don't believe in God and so God doesn't exist"?
Napoleon Ier wrote:Come on then Mustard. Even a below-average intelligence philosophy AS student could have googled up and pasted a chunk of the Critique of Pure Reason dealing with the subject by now...
Won't a self-proclaimed Jedi-master of philosophy such as you not be able to construct a rebuttal so powerful Kant himself would be proud to have written it?
got tonkaed wrote:Napoleon Ier wrote:Come on then Mustard. Even a below-average intelligence philosophy AS student could have googled up and pasted a chunk of the Critique of Pure Reason dealing with the subject by now...
Won't a self-proclaimed Jedi-master of philosophy such as you not be able to construct a rebuttal so powerful Kant himself would be proud to have written it?
It wasnt like Kant was some hack who came up with such complete rubbish than any joe could spend 15 minutes and put him to shame or anything.
got tonkaed wrote:I think your getting to focused on the win again.
CoffeeCream wrote:got tonkaed wrote:I think your getting to focused on the win again.
I agree. Before I became a Christian I was asking questions because I couldn't reason out certain things. The humility of people like Nate, Daddy1Gringo & CrazyAnglican attracted me more towards a reasonable view of who God is than trying to win an argument. Of course I've witnessed arrogance on the part of atheists here in the forums. I don't see how imitating that kind of behavior is supposed to attract people to a theist/Christian worldview. A Christian is supposed to be different than the world, Napoleon. Just tone it down a little. In the end, who really cares if an atheist doesn't accept our points? It doesn't change us one bit and we don't need them to accept us.
suggs wrote:CoffeeCream wrote:got tonkaed wrote:I think your getting to focused on the win again.
I agree. Before I became a Christian I was asking questions because I couldn't reason out certain things. The humility of people like Nate, Daddy1Gringo & CrazyAnglican attracted me more towards a reasonable view of who God is than trying to win an argument. Of course I've witnessed arrogance on the part of atheists here in the forums. I don't see how imitating that kind of behavior is supposed to attract people to a theist/Christian worldview. A Christian is supposed to be different than the world, Napoleon. Just tone it down a little. In the end, who really cares if an atheist doesn't accept our points? It doesn't change us one bit and we don't need them to accept us.
Jenos Ridan wrote:To put the method of determining rationallity on paper, I quote a summart of pamplet on the ten steps put forth by Philosophy Professor Tom Morris:
1. The existance of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation (this is confirmed by the definition of the term intelligiblity.)
2. The existance of the Universe is therefore either:
a. unintelligible, or
b. has an explanation
(logical deduction from #1)
3. No rational person should accept 2a. (confirmed by the definition of rationallity.)
4. Therefore, 2b is the rational conclusion and the Universe has an explanation.
5. But there are only three kinds of explanation:
a) Scientific: C + L = E (Independent physical, initial conditions, plus relevant laws, yield the Event explained.)
b) Essential: the essense of the thing to be explained requires it's existance.
c) Personal: this posits explanations that cite the intentions and powers of some personal Agent.
6. The existance of the Universe cannot be explained Scientifically; if the Universe is just natural conditions and laws, there can be no initial physical conditions or laws outside of it--independent of it--to explain it.
7. The explanation cannot be an Essential one; the Universe is a contingent one, and therefore is not necessary. It could just as well 'not exist' as exist. Its essence doesn't require it to existence.
8. So a rational person should believe that the Universe has a Personal explanation.
9. The only personal agent capable--having the power and wisdom--to create the entire universe out of nothing is 'God'.
10. Therefore, a rational person believes there exists a God.
It all the rage these days in alot of university and other colliegate settings to equate religious belief with irrationallity. It should come as a cold splash of water to the face that in light of that, a good number of the major names in science were/are strong believers in some sort of deity; examples being Boyle, Babbage, Davy, Fabre, Faraday, Pascal (of the Wager), Kelvin, Lister, Maxwell, Newton, Pasteur, Riemann and Simpson. It should be a little supprising to learn that as our knowledge of the Universe increases, it becomes ever clearer that there indeed is a God and it is quite rational to believe in one. The next logical step is to ask "can this God be known?" The reassuring answer is yes. Since He created the human mind, He is more that able to communicate with us in a logical, reasonable manner. Whatsmore, He wants to have a truelly one-on-one relationship with each of us. To facillitate this understanding, Jesus came to us and will, as He said, come back soon.
In linking up with the Source of Wisdom we become rational in the fullest sence.
Napoleon Ier wrote:Dancing Mustard wrote:So, what's going on in here? Is everybody having fun?
Yeah...the fun really started for me when no-one respondd to the actual ontological argument, but started debating racism instead. Then called that a victory for the "non-fundies".
Jenos Ridan wrote:Jenos Ridan wrote:To put the method of determining rationallity on paper, I quote a summart of pamplet on the ten steps put forth by Philosophy Professor Tom Morris:
1. The existance of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation (this is confirmed by the definition of the term intelligiblity.)
2. The existance of the Universe is therefore either:
a. unintelligible, or
b. has an explanation
(logical deduction from #1)
3. No rational person should accept 2a. (confirmed by the definition of rationallity.)
4. Therefore, 2b is the rational conclusion and the Universe has an explanation.
5. But there are only three kinds of explanation:
a) Scientific: C + L = E (Independent physical, initial conditions, plus relevant laws, yield the Event explained.)
b) Essential: the essense of the thing to be explained requires it's existance.
c) Personal: this posits explanations that cite the intentions and powers of some personal Agent.
6. The existance of the Universe cannot be explained Scientifically; if the Universe is just natural conditions and laws, there can be no initial physical conditions or laws outside of it--independent of it--to explain it.
7. The explanation cannot be an Essential one; the Universe is a contingent one, and therefore is not necessary. It could just as well 'not exist' as exist. Its essence doesn't require it to existence.
8. So a rational person should believe that the Universe has a Personal explanation.
9. The only personal agent capable--having the power and wisdom--to create the entire universe out of nothing is 'God'.
10. Therefore, a rational person believes there exists a God.
It all the rage these days in alot of university and other colliegate settings to equate religious belief with irrationallity. It should come as a cold splash of water to the face that in light of that, a good number of the major names in science were/are strong believers in some sort of deity; examples being Boyle, Babbage, Davy, Fabre, Faraday, Pascal (of the Wager), Kelvin, Lister, Maxwell, Newton, Pasteur, Riemann and Simpson. It should be a little supprising to learn that as our knowledge of the Universe increases, it becomes ever clearer that there indeed is a God and it is quite rational to believe in one. The next logical step is to ask "can this God be known?" The reassuring answer is yes. Since He created the human mind, He is more that able to communicate with us in a logical, reasonable manner. Whatsmore, He wants to have a truelly one-on-one relationship with each of us. To facillitate this understanding, Jesus came to us and will, as He said, come back soon.
In linking up with the Source of Wisdom we become rational in the fullest sence.
Nobody has refuted this, just dodged it with "it points to agnosticism" or some such. Interesting.
Jenos Ridan wrote:Jenos Ridan wrote:To put the method of determining rationallity on paper, I quote a summart of pamplet on the ten steps put forth by Philosophy Professor Tom Morris:
1. The existance of something is intelligible only if it has an explanation (this is confirmed by the definition of the term intelligiblity.)
2. The existance of the Universe is therefore either:
a. unintelligible, or
b. has an explanation
(logical deduction from #1)
3. No rational person should accept 2a. (confirmed by the definition of rationallity.)
4. Therefore, 2b is the rational conclusion and the Universe has an explanation.
5. But there are only three kinds of explanation:
a) Scientific: C + L = E (Independent physical, initial conditions, plus relevant laws, yield the Event explained.)
b) Essential: the essense of the thing to be explained requires it's existance.
c) Personal: this posits explanations that cite the intentions and powers of some personal Agent.
6. The existance of the Universe cannot be explained Scientifically; if the Universe is just natural conditions and laws, there can be no initial physical conditions or laws outside of it--independent of it--to explain it.
7. The explanation cannot be an Essential one; the Universe is a contingent one, and therefore is not necessary. It could just as well 'not exist' as exist. Its essence doesn't require it to existence.
8. So a rational person should believe that the Universe has a Personal explanation.
9. The only personal agent capable--having the power and wisdom--to create the entire universe out of nothing is 'God'.
10. Therefore, a rational person believes there exists a God.
It all the rage these days in alot of university and other colliegate settings to equate religious belief with irrationallity. It should come as a cold splash of water to the face that in light of that, a good number of the major names in science were/are strong believers in some sort of deity; examples being Boyle, Babbage, Davy, Fabre, Faraday, Pascal (of the Wager), Kelvin, Lister, Maxwell, Newton, Pasteur, Riemann and Simpson. It should be a little supprising to learn that as our knowledge of the Universe increases, it becomes ever clearer that there indeed is a God and it is quite rational to believe in one. The next logical step is to ask "can this God be known?" The reassuring answer is yes. Since He created the human mind, He is more that able to communicate with us in a logical, reasonable manner. Whatsmore, He wants to have a truelly one-on-one relationship with each of us. To facillitate this understanding, Jesus came to us and will, as He said, come back soon.
In linking up with the Source of Wisdom we become rational in the fullest sence.
Nobody has refuted this, just dodged it with "it points to agnosticism" or some such. Interesting.
silvanricky wrote:Napoleon, I can't understand why you would list sound and valid as options. What is the difference? You either think it's a good argument or it's stupid. Why didn't you offer different levels of disagreement in your poll?