In partnership with CBSSports.com
We aren't just committed to college football; we're early enrolling in it.
Where the madness isn't just in March.
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
Claims the tea party is racist...
What a freaking joke.
morgan freeman= fruit loop
loved him in shawshank redemption
3 time POTW, member since 2006, MLWTI: 4-3
+1 Great Actor...not so enlightened otherwise. George Clooney takes the cake for actors thinking they're smarter than they really are though.
South Carolina Gamecocks. The 2010 National College Baseball Champs.
Everyone has the right to believe in God or not. It is the most important thing that happens in life though.
Clooney= fvcking moron imo
i don't watch movies so I don't contribute any money to these effing nutjobs
There is no logical quandry. Your premise that we can not know anything if we do not know everything is just pure horse crap. Have you demonstrated this statement you are treating as a tautology to be anything other than something just made up by you on the spot? It doesn't even make sense logically. Even if there was a god that knew everything, that god would not be us. Therefore, we would still know nothing in your world. Well, now that I think of it, maybe its true for you.
I have not been shown anything that leads me to conclude that a god exists. That is after years spent looking to religion for answers.
No it is not.
That first statement, in no way shape or form, makes any sense whatsoever. That is complete nonsense.
I also love your logical thought process for believing in god:
1. I'm being 'the douche'
3. God must exist.
Thanks for the fancy philosophical term. Most epistemoligical arguments are foundational, according to the establishment. The only problem is we're all foundationalists to one extent or another. You wouldn't be arguing so stringently w/o some foundational beliefs. And again, we all use circular reasoning regardless of how hard we try otherwise.
Firstly Omega, insults are beneath you and have no place in productive debate. Be a grown up please. Those who use insults don't have much else to offer. Secondly, you haven't thought it through all the way. My understanding of the world, universe, meaning of life, etc., has grown exponentially during my lifetime. Many of my previously held beliefs have ended up wrong, sometimes even the exact opposite of right. Without a complete frame of reference many things seem true with limited knowledge only to be proven wrong when additional truth comes to the fore. So again, logically, you cannot rightfully or definitively say you know anything without knowing everything. If you cannot see all ends you always have to allow for the possibility that you're wrong. Since none of us knows everything we would need to rely one one who does know everything in order to know anything. You haven't fully and objectively looked at Jesus yet.
Welcome to the discussion rams. Ok, so why is my first statement nonsensical? It's great to make sweeping statements devoid of logical reasoning. But, all you've done so far is have an emotional reaction. I've attempted no kind of Socratic method like you've seemed to have applied to me. Your second statement doesn't make any sense at all in context of the discussion at all. Hopefully by now you know you'll have to do better with me.
This post was edited by goodnews 2 years ago
The idea that we can know nothing until we know everything is completely insane. We know, for example, that Rueben Foster has verbally committed to play football for Alabama. We also know things like gravity is a force on two objects of mass and results in the distance between those two objects shrinking.
That said, there are also things we do not know. For example, we do not know whether Robert Nkediche will play football for a particular university. We also don't know if the flying spaghetti monster is looking over us. I don't know what you had for breakfast this morning. You, on the other hand, probably do know what you had for breakfast.
And the second statement was simply me spelling out your given logical reason for believing in god (and, not just any particular god, but the one you were raised to believe as a child - what a strange coincidence that is).
Absolute truth exists. For somebody to make a statement here, they wanted all to agree was true, Truth itself would have to exist as it's own flowing end.
Therefore, "anything" now becomes based on "everything" that is true.
This is the logic the bible teaches.
I must have missed the philosophical discussion on absolute reality between all the incest, raping, murder, and pillaging. Care to show verses?
What are you trying to say about Santa?
The Greek understanding of truth and all wisdom was the "Logos" - or, designed order of all things. It was more or less the pinnacle of understanding and the place where all truth flowed. John 1 says that the logic of God came and dwelt here, and that all men in the world have some light of that logic, but that it's only a dim reflection of the "fullness".
I know that people that view the bible poorly spotlight the evil, but It's not like you don't know that the bible makes absolute claims.
There has to be absolute truth, to get me to believe otherwise, you'd have to appeal with a logic that was truer.
John 1 doesn't talk about logic at all. It says that god came here and some people were lucky enough to realize it.
The Greeks had differing opinions on the term logos, and Christians corrupted it anyway:
I also subscribe to objective reality with perception-based differences between humans. However, someone could convince me otherwise. No one will ever convince you otherwise, not when you plainly state "there has to be absolute truth".
First part of your statement, one learns as they go through life and gain experience. Check, I can get behind that. Second part of your statement, an incomplete frame of reference may skew your understanding of the world around you and lead to erroneous conclusions. Check, with you so far.
Then you make a huge nonsensical leap with the third part of your statement by saying that you can't know anything without knowing everything. The first to parts of your statement did nothing to lead you in that direction. I don't see how a third party knowing everything is necessary for me knowing anything.
There is one thing I KNOW that I do not need any foreign party to verify. "I think, therefore I am" ~ Descartes
You haven't demonstrated that there needs to be a link between one person knowing everything and another separate person knowing anything. You haven't demonstrated that there is a being that knows everything.
The last part of your statement is just the no true Scottsman falacy. You can do better than that. Though you might be right because I wasn't objective when I was searching since I wanted there to be a god.
This post was edited by OmegaBuckeye 2 years ago
No one can convince me something is true if I ascribe to there being absolute truth?
Edit: because I would contend that the only one who could be convinced of something is one that believed that something was absolutely true.
This post was edited by DookieJones 2 years ago
No - no one can convince you of anything other than absolute truth because you will readily admit that it 'has to be true'.
Your premise has absolutley nothing to do with a god.
What else would I want to be convinced of except what is true? Am I missing something?
To quote what someone once said.
Firstly Omega, insults are beneath you and have no place in productive debate. Be a grown up please. Those who use insults don't have much else to offer. ~ Goodnews
I'm pretty sure some people consider being called a baby to be an insult. In fact the entire tone of this post is insulting.
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports