Christian Arguments for God’s Existence - Refutations
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
again, what is "mixed"?
In chemistry, there is reversible reaction and irreversible reaction.
when red and blue color mix, it becomes violet, and you cannot separate violet and return it to blue and red color again. that is 1 + 1 = 1.
Oxygen and hydrogen can mix to become water, but water can be separated to form oxygen and hydrogen again. that is reversible.
In chemistry there are many many irreversible reactions!!
Don't jump into conclusion and pass judgement so quickly, there are many things you don't know.
sgdiehard
We are talking about the colours here, so dont shift attention to oxygen or hydrogen.
You mean there is only 1 solution in the mixed color? Only one component?
I stand corrected if indeed I am wrong about "2 solutions" in the mixed colour.
But I realise, you are always right. Lol..
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
sgdiehard
We are talking about the colours here, so dont shift attention to oxygen or hydrogen.
You mean there is only 1 solution in the mixed color? Only one component?
I stand corrected if indeed I am wrong about "2 solutions" in the mixed colour.
But I realise, you are always right. Lol..
What is 1 solution? what is one component?
I talked about oxygen and hydrogen in water as a reversible reaction. Adding a red color and a blue color to get a violet color is an irreversible reaction. In an irreversible reaction, 1 + 1 = 1. Your father and mother gave birth to you, you are 1, you are not two compenents of your parents, that is also 1 + 1 = 1!!
It is not important what you realize about me, it is very important that you realize that you can be wrong. So don't jump to make conclusion and judgement that "you are wrong"!!!
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
What is 1 solution? what is one component?
I talked about oxygen and hydrogen in water as a reversible reaction. Adding a red color and a blue color to get a violet color is an irreversible reaction. In an irreversible reaction, 1 + 1 = 1. Your father and mother gave birth to you, you are 1, you are not two compenents of your parents, that is also 1 + 1 = 1!!
It is not important what you realize about me, it is very important that you realize that you can be wrong. So don't jump to make conclusion and judgement that "you are wrong"!!!
1. Issue is not reversible or not. Issue is whether 1+1=2. Answer me - How many "solutions of colors" are there in the mixture of blue and red? How many components make up violet in that mixture? ANswer straight pls and stop diverting attention to the issue at hand.
2. Yes I can be wrong that is why I stand corrected if I am. But clearly you are wrong about the number of components in the mixture.
You're telling me 1 red + 1 blue = 1 violet . Yes 1 violet, but how many componenets in there? 2.
It is still universally accepted that 1+1 = 2
-
Maybe maths and chemistry produces different results lah....Hahaha!
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
1. Issue is not reversible or not. Issue is whether 1+1=2. Answer me - How many "solutions of colors" are there in the mixture of blue and red? How many components make up violet in that mixture? ANswer straight pls and stop diverting attention to the issue at hand.
2. Yes I can be wrong that is why I stand corrected if I am. But clearly you are wrong about the number of components in the mixture.
You're telling me 1 red + 1 blue = 1 violet . Yes 1 violet, but how many componenets in there? 2.
It is still universally accepted that 1+1 = 2
1 + 1 = 2 is mathematics, I am just showing you that in art, in many other fields, 1 + 1 may not be 2, because not everything is quanitfiable.
If you talk about chemistry, there are reversible or irreversible reactions, I am talking about chemistry, don't bring in your mathematics and don't say that I am diverting attention. The attention now is in art, in chemistry, not mathematics. You put on your mathematical hat and try to use you statistics and mathematics to prove chemistry is wrong, art is wrong. Get this in your mind, we are in different fields, same goes for religion!!
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
1 + 1 = 2 is mathematics, I am just showing you that in art, in many other fields, 1 + 1 may not be 2, because not everything is quanitfiable.
If you talk about chemistry, there are reversible or irreversible reactions, I am talking about chemistry, don't bring in your mathematics and don't say that I am diverting attention. The attention now is in art, in chemistry, not mathematics. You put on your mathematical hat and try to use you statistics and mathematics to prove chemistry is wrong, art is wrong. Get this in your mind, we are in different fields, same goes for religion!!
No you havent answered me . How many solutions/componenets in the red-blue mixture?
Also, I agree we should let religion people believe in their religion. But then do religion people leave non-religion people alone?
No. They promote and sell in our face.
-
Originally posted by Demon Bane:
Maybe maths and chemistry produces different results lah....Hahaha!
mathematicians see color, they try to understand with 1, 2, 3....physics scholars see color, they look at spectrum, frequencies....chemists look at color, they want to understand the chemical components, the toxicity....an artists look at color, they see beauty....the color remains the same, what is perceived in their minds are different. -
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
mathematicians see color, they try to understand with 1, 2, 3....physics scholars see color, they look at spectrum, frequencies....chemists look at color, they want to understand the chemical components, the toxicity....an artists look at color, they see beauty....the color remains the same, what is perceived in their minds are different.Well said...so different people see things differently and thus so many different religious beliefs...
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
You still have NOT given me a clear method to know which christian's interpretation is correct. Pls focus.
You say by
a) prayer
b) studying scripture
c) stuyding christian articles
You will know that baptism isnt needed for salvation
BUT
The other christians also tell me that by
a) prayer
b) studying scripture
c) stuyding christian articles
You will know that baptism IS needed for salvation
Please advise a clearer and different method for me so I can differentiate who is right and who is wrong. I have to make a safe decision to be saved.
Tcmc, stop patronising the Christian faith lah. Are you looking to be saved from sin in the first place?
And since when did I say anything about praying, study the Scriptures, study Christian articles to know the right interpretation? Not that I am denying the need for them, but you clearly MISSED the point about the need to know the rules of interpretation, hermeneutics. I even gave you a book reference. You went lalalala over it.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc, stop patronising the Christian faith lah. Are you looking to be saved from sin in the first place?
And since when did I say anything about praying, study the Scriptures, study Christian articles to know the right interpretation? Not that I am denying the need for them, but you clearly MISSED the point about the need to know the rules of interpretation, hermeneutics. I even gave you a book reference. You went lalalala over it.
You never answer me.
You are lalalala and sticking your fingers into your ears.
Please help me. thanks
-
Originally posted by sgdiehard:
Thank you for sharing. You use "conventionlly speaking" and "conventiional truths", what exact does "conventionally" mean? do you mean "this is what the normal worldly thoughts, or perception"?
The two truths doctrine (Tibetan: bden-pa gnyis):
- a "relative", commonsense, conventional truth (Tibetan: kun-rdzob bden-pa; Sanskrit: samvá¹›tisatya); and
- an "ultimate", deepest, absolute truth (Tibetan: don-dam bden-pa; Sanskrit: param�rthasatya).
The Sanskrit term for relative, "samvá¹›ti", also implies false, hidden, concealed, or obstructed, as well as other nuanced concepts. Translator Jules Levinson interprets the conventional truth as "obscurative truth" or "that which obscures the true nature" as a result.[1]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine
As an analogy: the word 'weather' is a conventional truth. Ultimately, can it be found as a real thing? Not really. It's just a label collating a conglomerate of everchanging rain, clouds, wind, sunshine, etc. No graspable entity called 'weather' can be located or found somewhere. It is a human created label for conglomerate of ephemeral appearances that has no tangible substance to it. The same goes for 'self', 'universe' and the likes.
If you hold 'self' to be eternal, 'universe' to be eternal, or infinite, or finite, etc... those are notions that obscure you from realizing the true nature of yourself and the universe. The true nature is that of emptiness.
If science comes to a conclusion that 'the universe is finite' that is purely from a conventional viewpoint. On the conventional level, there are conventional truths and conventional falsities so we have to accept science's explanation on that level, but on the ultimate level, what is conventional/relative is not true - it is completely illusory.
As an analogy, if you're in a dream, you say that it is true you saw the tiger chasing after you, and this is conventionally true in the context of the dream. Ultimately, what is conventional has no truth to it, there is no tiger at all, and no dream character being chased by the tiger, so to begin to even ask whether the tiger is infinite, finite, eternal or temporary is just dream-talk, unhelpful for waking up.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
The two truths doctrine (Tibetan: bden-pa gnyis):
- a "relative", commonsense, conventional truth (Tibetan: kun-rdzob bden-pa; Sanskrit: samvá¹›tisatya); and
- an "ultimate", deepest, absolute truth (Tibetan: don-dam bden-pa; Sanskrit: param�rthasatya).
The Sanskrit term for relative, "samvá¹›ti", also implies false, hidden, concealed, or obstructed, as well as other nuanced concepts. Translator Jules Levinson interprets the conventional truth as "obscurative truth" or "that which obscures the true nature" as a result.[1]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine
As an analogy: the word 'weather' is a conventional truth. Ultimately, can it be found as a real thing? Not really. It's just a label collating a conglomerate of everchanging rain, clouds, wind, sunshine, etc. No graspable entity called 'weather' can be located or found somewhere. It is a human created label for conglomerate of ephemeral appearances that has no tangible substance to it. The same goes for 'self', 'universe' and the likes.
If you hold 'self' to be eternal, 'universe' to be eternal, or infinite, or finite, etc... those are notions that obscure you from realizing the true nature of yourself and the universe. The true nature is that of emptiness.
If science comes to a conclusion that 'the universe is finite' that is purely from a conventional viewpoint. On the conventional level, there are conventional truths and conventional falsities so we have to accept science's explanation on that level, but on the ultimate level, what is conventional/relative is not true - it is completely illusory.
As an analogy, if you're in a dream, you say that it is true you saw the tiger chasing after you, and this is conventionally true in the context of the dream. Ultimately, there is no tiger at all, and no dream character being chased by the tiger, so to begin to even ask whether the tiger is infinite, finite, eternal or temporary is just dream-talk, unhelpful for waking up.
Thank you for sharing your wonderful buddhism insight !
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
You never answer me.
You are lalalala and sticking your fingers into your ears.
Please help me. thanks
I answered you, even gave you book reference to check up. And I don't think you are honestly seeking help either.
-
Originally posted by An Eternal Now:
The two truths doctrine (Tibetan: bden-pa gnyis):
- a "relative", commonsense, conventional truth (Tibetan: kun-rdzob bden-pa; Sanskrit: samvá¹›tisatya); and
- an "ultimate", deepest, absolute truth (Tibetan: don-dam bden-pa; Sanskrit: param�rthasatya).
The Sanskrit term for relative, "samvá¹›ti", also implies false, hidden, concealed, or obstructed, as well as other nuanced concepts. Translator Jules Levinson interprets the conventional truth as "obscurative truth" or "that which obscures the true nature" as a result.[1]
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_truths_doctrine
As an analogy: the word 'weather' is a conventional truth. Ultimately, can it be found as a real thing? Not really. It's just a label collating a conglomerate of everchanging rain, clouds, wind, sunshine, etc. No graspable entity called 'weather' can be located or found somewhere. It is a human created label for conglomerate of ephemeral appearances that has no tangible substance to it. The same goes for 'self', 'universe' and the likes.
If you hold 'self' to be eternal, 'universe' to be eternal, or infinite, or finite, etc... those are notions that obscure you from realizing the true nature of yourself and the universe. The true nature is that of emptiness.
If science comes to a conclusion that 'the universe is finite' that is purely from a conventional viewpoint. On the conventional level, there are conventional truths and conventional falsities so we have to accept science's explanation on that level, but on the ultimate level, what is conventional/relative is not true - it is completely illusory.
As an analogy, if you're in a dream, you say that it is true you saw the tiger chasing after you, and this is conventionally true in the context of the dream. Ultimately, what is conventional has no truth to it, there is no tiger at all, and no dream character being chased by the tiger, so to begin to even ask whether the tiger is infinite, finite, eternal or temporary is just dream-talk, unhelpful for waking up.
thanks for sharing....the concept is not easy to grasp.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
No you havent answered me . How many solutions/componenets in the red-blue mixture?
Also, I agree we should let religion people believe in their religion. But then do religion people leave non-religion people alone?
No. They promote and sell in our face.
what solutions, or components or sulutions/components are you talking about?
go tell whoever promote their religion to you in their face....did they sell you their religion? how much are they asking for?
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc, stop patronising the Christian faith lah. Are you looking to be saved from sin in the first place?
oh my goodness, see this zealot jesuit comments? really irksome and annoying, not to mention idiotic and you know it all atttiude
I shall not waste time replying you, dun bother replying back.
-
Originally posted by Jacky Woo:
oh my goodness, see this zealot jesuit comments? really irksome and annoying, not to mention idiotic and you know it all atttiude
I shall not waste time replying you, dun bother replying back.
Yes
At least despondent is not so haughty like BIC.
BIC...is just a hypocrite.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
I answered you, even gave you book reference to check up. And I don't think you are honestly seeking help either.
You gave me a book reference.
Then you use
a) christian articles
to interpret
But other christians also do that.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
Yes
At least despondent is not so haughty like BIC.
BIC...is just a hypocrite.
worse than that
dun waste time replying him, not worth your effort. you might as well post paradoxical qns here.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
You gave me a book reference.
Then you use
a) christian articles
to interpret
But other christians also do that.
It never fails to bemuse me how you keep avoiding the need to grapple with the contents if the answers given but keep harping on the methodologies. So what if other Christians also use my methods? You mean you are that incompetent to evaluate the arguments? If that is so, then don't project your own incompetence and ignorance to everyone else. -
It's Advent! Churchgoers here, take a break, next week is christmas, spend your time to prepare to celebrate! A season of love, gift and peace!!!!
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
It never fails to bemuse me how you keep avoiding the need to grapple with the contents if the answers given but keep harping on the methodologies. So what if other Christians also use my methods? You mean you are that incompetent to evaluate the arguments? If that is so, then don't project your own incompetence and ignorance to everyone else.No thing is,
Every christian, including you, claims that he is absolutely right and that your knowledge is guided by holyspirit/god.
So it is important to know WHICH christian is trutly guided by the holyspirit/god.
But since you guys all use the same methods to derive interpretation, how am i supposed to know which one of you is guided by god?
Unless theres a different method.
-
Originally posted by Tcmc:
No thing is,
Every christian, including you, claims that he is absolutely right and that your knowledge is guided by holyspirit/god.
So it is important to know WHICH christian is trutly guided by the holyspirit/god.
But since you guys all use the same methods to derive interpretation, how am i supposed to know which one of you is guided by god?
Unless theres a different method.
Tcmc,
1. I don't claim I am absolutely right, that would be to claim infallibility. But I would claim that I am absolutely right on SOME things, but tentatively right on other things. And for some things I am absolutely wrong.
2. You know what's your problem dude? You claimed to want to know the right method ya? So let's grant your argument. Let's say someone finally declare there is a right method and claims that now everyone can know the truth. What then? You gonna just accept everything he says? No need to think anymore? I don't think so. You forget why people bled and died for the Bible to be made available to us in our vernacular language, it is such that people can be free to discover for themselves what the Bible says. You are simply wanting to be told what to believe, yet you keep harping that Christians are just being told what to believe. You are really one inconsistent dude!
3. It is much better and to be preferred that people read the Bible for themselves and diligently study it, debate over it, and mature in their understanding of the Bible over time than to check their brains at the door and blindly accept that someone has the right interpretation and just accept it as it is.
-
Originally posted by BroInChrist:
Tcmc,
1. I don't claim I am absolutely right, that would be to claim infallibility. But I would claim that I am absolutely right on SOME things, but tentatively right on other things. And for some things I am absolutely wrong.
2. You know what's your problem dude? You claimed to want to know the right method ya? So let's grant your argument. Let's say someone finally declare there is a right method and claims that now everyone can know the truth. What then? You gonna just accept everything he says? No need to think anymore? I don't think so. You forget why people bled and died for the Bible to be made available to us in our vernacular language, it is such that people can be free to discover for themselves what the Bible says. You are simply wanting to be told what to believe, yet you keep harping that Christians are just being told what to believe. You are really one inconsistent dude!
3. It is much better and to be preferred that people read the Bible for themselves and diligently study it, debate over it, and mature in their understanding of the Bible over time than to check their brains at the door and blindly accept that someone has the right interpretation and just accept it as it is.
1. Can you highlight to me which thinga about Christianity and God that you are not 100% about? Cos it seems that all throughout our convo, you were always right? I need to know which issues about Christianity and God you arenot 100% sure about? Thanks.
2. Yes if you give me a different method from what the other camps of christians, I will believe you. Because up to now, you keep telling me your interpretation about "certain" issues is correct by praying, reading scripture and articles. But thats what other christians do too, to COUNTER YOUR interpretations.
3. " It is much better and to be preferred that people read the Bible for themselves and diligently study it, debate over it, and mature in their understanding of the Bible over time than to check their brains at the door and blindly accept that someone has the right interpretation and just accept it as it is."
yea and another christian who counters your interpetation will also say to you " It is much better and to be preferred that people read the Bible for themselves and diligently study it, debate over it, and mature in their understanding of the Bible over time than to check their brains at the door and blindly accept that someone has the right interpretation and just accept it as it is."
-
BIC,
Any response?