Not sure what it would take to convince you then. Matthew 5:17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them. 18 For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. "
He's talking about the law - go on to read the next few lines therein before he begins to talk about murder, adultery, etc. Not random - it's right there. I'd be interested to see another interpretation - could you perhaps link to a bible commentary that explains an alternate view? (I'm sure I can find one to support my view and will try to do so if you wish) Once again - it's not the actual looking by itself - it's the lusting after. Easy way to avoid that - imagine she's your sister. (I'm not saying it isn't hard at first, but you can train your reactions to go away from putting the person into your personal sexual fantasy, and into seeing them as a human being and an equal who is no more sexual to you than your sister). You want sex? Say hi to your wife. Ok, thanks - I'll not infer that from you in the future. yes, it takes effort, but is quite possible - see above. "I'm sure" isn't an argument (As I'm sure you'll agree ;) And I'm sure we should follow Jesus)
Again - what some, or even many, Christians behave like doesn't actually change the meaning of Jesus' words. "If I don't want to" - you can tell it to the judge - "I didn't want to obey the speed limit" , "I didn't want to get a taxi home after drinking." -> obey the law or face the penalty - that's how justice works.
The laws aren't arbitrary - they're there for our own good.

You seem rather analogically challenged. The purpose of an analogy is not to say that two things are identical in every way, but that they are alike only in the ways that are specifically mentioned. If an unrelated difference could show an analogy to be wrong, then you could defeat every analogy ever created. That being said, ontological arguments have since improved a lot as well, so that would still fit with the analogy, but that's beside the point. The reason why you've dismissed ontological arguments is because you have assumed that they are outdated and not actually dealt with the arguments, which is a logical fallacy. Furthermore, infinite regression has nothing to do with them. Science is capable of telling us only about things that are observable, measurable, and repeatable, so it can not tell us anything about whether or not God exists. Once again, Aquinas only said that in your fanciful imagination and you are completely unable to quote him. It is amazing how much cognitive dissonance you must have in order to make up things you think he wrote without bothering to read him, and and then act like I'm the one who hasn't read him. I'm well aware that you can start reading what he wrote in under a minute, and I strongly encourage you to go do so. Once again, your inability to understand his arguments or show where they are illogical does not mean they are illogical. You can begin by reading ancient Greek cosmology, starting with Parmenides, or you can just continue to make up when you think they could know. A baseless assertion is claiming that something is true without giving reasons for why you think it is true, such as you claiming that we know infinite regress is possible. If you give your reasons like WLC has, then it is not a baseless assertion. If you're not able to use the term correctly, then you should stop using it. Indeed, you have tried to address this, but not in a way that is intelligible. One of the things they'll teach in the first week of logic class is that only one conclusion logically necessarily follows from a sound syllogism. Switching out the conclusion for any other conclusion, even if true, makes the argument invalid, so switching in team jamotide or pixies or anything else does not show the original argument to be invalid. The reason why I'm advising you to take a logic class is not so that I can win some sort of competition with you, but because you would benefit from learning how logical arguments function. I can tell you what faith is, but I can't force you to learn.

Convince me of what, your interpretation of the bible? It would take the same it would take to convince you of mine.

What prophets he doesn;t want to abolish is he talking about?

Too lazy, and maybe everyone agrees about this specific section. But I'm sure we can agree that there are many interpretations of other passages.

Wow, you really do that?


Not everything has to be an argument, Jesus...

If I don't agree with laws, I won't obey them. And if I don't get caught, I don;t have to face the penalty. You might be this docile, I am not. I'm sure (yes) that I don;t have to start quoting terrible laws of the past.
Yeah yeah I know you are talking about your gods laws, but I just can't resist picking apart specious analogies.

Another wall of text from you to distract from your failed logic. You said we should not dismiss old stuff and presented Darwin as example. I told you how that was wrong. Result alot of distracting BS from you to avoid the issue.

Neither can you. Unless by "tell" you mean make up.


But if I had quoted this to you from the start, I could not have determined that you don't know fuck all about it, now I know that!

The second way is from the nature of the efficient cause. In the world of sense we find there is an order of efficient causes. There is no case known (neither is it, indeed, possible) in which a thing is found to be the efficient cause of itself; for so it would be prior to itself, which is impossible. Now in efficient causes it is not possible to go on to infinity, because in all efficient causes following in order, the first is the cause of the intermediate cause, and the intermediate is the cause of the ultimate cause, whether the intermediate cause be several, or only one. Now to take away the cause is to take away the effect. Therefore, if there be no first cause among efficient causes, there will be no ultimate, nor any intermediate cause. But if in efficient causes it is possible to go on to infinity, there will be no first efficient cause, neither will there be an ultimate effect, nor any intermediate efficient causes; all of which is plainly false. Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God

Summary for the mentally challenged: Everything was caused by something else except god IF it is impossible to go on to infinity, which you maybe member from earlier in this discussion. Dare I say it? Owned.


Illogical, false premises, bad assumptions, call it what you will.

So you are saying that even back then they knew there is no nothing? That what we thought of nothing is all something like dark energy or whatever you wanna call it? Then wtf is all this god and first cause shit about. That would make all the religions even more stupid, they would not even have the excuse of ignorance,which is really their best one.

If the reasons are more baseless assertions, then yeah...

Yes it does not show other arguments invalid, it just ridicules them because they are ALL invalid. Btw..you took a logic class? LOL

It is more likely,though.

fair enough - I wasn't actually expecting to convince you, just wondering what the threshold was. See the Old Testament. If everyone agrees about this specific section, then doesn't that counter your argument of it being full of wildly different interpretations? I'd suggest that your idea that this is then ridiculous should be reexamined.
I'm more than happy to accept another quote from a section you feel is more open to interpretation. I try - and my life is actually better for it now. (I know that might sound weird but it's true). ok - I just meant that your conclusion of 'it's pick and choose' doesn't negate what was said. would that change if the chance of getting caught was 100%? And would you not consider the laws to be in society's interests? I could understand not obeying a law that said 'you mustn't drink water on the train' if you're thirsty on a hot day - but laws that (try to) help everyone live together in peace and safety? indeed, and if it's a terrible law that goes against God's laws, you wouldn't have to obey it. But when the law is good? I was giving an example of a law that was for everyone's good. Of course, any analogy is not direct 100% - same with metaphors. You can stretch them and take them apart, but that's to miss the point. If you disagree with the point, then say so and why.

As much as you'd like it to, asserting that I'm wrong and calling an argument BS or outdated doesn't count as a counterargument. Ontological arguments have also improved, so your point that Evolution has improved works perfectly with my analogy. Even if the analogy was way off, it still stands that it is a logical fallacy to dismiss arguments as being outdated with actually dealing with the arguments themselves and showing why they are wrong. Science is limited to only being able to tell us about things that are observable, measurable, and repeatable, but that does not mean logic or philosophy are. I'm impressed that you were able to quote Aquinas on your own, but not so much by your lack of reading comprehension. In this argument, Aquinas is talking about a causal series ordered per se, which is shown by his statement that taking away the cause is to take away the effect. In a causal series order per accidens, such as someone who begets someone who begets someone else, if the first person dies, then the effect still remains. Aquinas thought it was theoretically possible for this ordered series to regress to infinity, but that is not the same as with a causal series order per se. If you take away primary cause of the hand, then the secondary cause of stick wouldn't cause the rock to move, which then wouldn't cause the leaf to move, and so on down the series, so removing the primary cause would remove all of the secondary causes as well. It is therefore illogical for there to be any series of secondary causes, infinite or not, without a primary cause.

Aquinas never stated that everything was caused by something else except god, but that everything that begins to exist has a cause. So if the universe began to exist, then it has a cause, but if it is eternal, then it doesn't need a cause. This is far from stating that the universe had a beginning. "Nothing" is non-being, so it doesn't exist by definition. It something exist, such as dark matter, then it is something rather than nothing. The issue with the Greeks was whether something could come from non-being. If it would make you feel better, we don't have to call the first cause God, it just has a number of attributes that correspond to our idea of what God would be if God existed. You excel at repeating that Craig makes baseless assertions, etc., but you're not very good at showing where he actually makes those. You don't have to take a logical class to know that just asserting the form an argument is invalid doesn't make it invalid. You need to show where.

We need to close this thread; every time someone post in it my rep drops. :P Funny but true.

There are over 1600 posts in this thread and you're still at 437. Obviously, some people have been slacking.

We've exchanged a few barbs, but it's been civil for the most part, so I'm happy with that.

I didn't actually ask you not to pick stuff from the old testament - I mentioned Genesis specifically as being more difficult to understand from a non-literal perspective. I asked you to pick something from the New Testament that you thought was 'ridiculous'.
Old Testament just gets more difficult to understand due to the language involved "[discussing insects]..and those which crawl on all fours and have legs above their feet..." - I had to look up what it meant (merely discussing what's good-eating) - New Testament is (usually) easier to grasp for the layman, plus Jesus spends some time explaining the Old Testament. ok Ok - fair point. Though we're not taking about your typical dictatorship - we're talking about one with everyone's best interests at heart. And one capable of absolute justice. Or you could, if you found faith in it, change. Forgiveness is there for a reason (I'm guilty of many of the thought crimes myself, but trying to do better). Agreed, though again, I'd argue that these particular laws (God's) are good and helpful for a harmonious society. The eating thing (I suggested earlier) was more down to health. Jesus explicitly made any food acceptable.
Not worrying? Why would you want to? It's not about not worrying, it's about trusting in God. Ah, I see. Then we merely disagree over the law's usefulness. To reiterate - treating your fellow humans as people first, not objects, even in your mind, is conducive to a harmonious society.

I did all of the above.

That's the problem, philosophy was useful before quantum physics, but for about a hundred years now it hasn't helped.


No, it is illogical that to assume that there must be a being without cause after declaring that everything must have a cause.

So he basically said the universe could have a cause or not, thanks.

Why do you always have to distract from the issue? There is no nothing, and back then they could not suspect this.


If only ANY religious person would think like that, It would make me feel better,yes.


Really? He assumes that everything that began to exist must have had a cause. He assumes the universe began to exist. From these two assumptions he concludes his whole BS.

Apparently taking one doesn't help, see above. Why couldn't you see this before embarrassing yourself by having it explained to you by me, the analogically challenged guy/

Oh, I thought you asked me that because you are like most christians who try to forget parts of gods message because it is so disgusting and horrible. Do I really have to find disgraceful stuff from Leviticus now before you admit these morals are atrocious?

Uhm yeah, I am sure most dictators say that.

So all this hellfire talk is just a bluff?

Maybe these particular ones, but now the old testament is fair game for us, I doubt this claim can hold up.

For all the shit I talk I actually find it very inspiring that it has been as restrained as it is. The occasional bit of mudsling tends to come from someone who isn't taking an active part in the conversation. Man, maybe Congress should be paying more attention to you guys, something might get done over there. :D

Apologies for the massive jump backwards in topic, but for those of you talking about lack of evidence for evolution and the fossil record, a friend of mine (who is an eminent palaeontologist) has just published the following article in The Guardian:

http://www.theguardian.com/science/lost-worlds/2014/feb/13/birds-and-dinosaurs-one-of-the-great-fossil-connections

I guess so. Though I suspect you won't like my answers.
My point was that if you follow Jesus' teachings from the Gospel then you're good to go. I'm sure they do - but they're not God. No - but you have a chance to avoid it. Did you miss the part in the Gospels where Jesus was forgiving sinners? If you've done wrong in the past, you can still return to God for forgiveness and be welcomed back. (NB: need to be actually sorry and repentant, not just say it). I refer you to the parable of the prodigal son. If you like.
(Though there's a difference between laws and actions under certain circumstances - remember the Old Testament is an account of history, not just a rule-book. Even the Jews of Jesus' time had taken them the wrong way, hence His needing to explain a lot of it).

No, this is super wrong and you should study algebraic functions and/or conical sections and/or differential equations. Gravity is a reverse square. It's not a linear spring, it's not even constant. Reverse squares collapse. Gravity is "finite", it's something you can run away from given sufficient energy. And no, we don't know that the expansion of the universe is slowing - in fact, it's shown to be accelerating (hence "dark energy"). And even a decreasing rate of expansion doesn't mean it will ever fall below zero. Basically, it's the difference between an ellipse, a parabole, a hyperbole, and a straight line.

Ultimately, we don't know. But without weird-ass empirical factors like dark energy and universe curvature, the universe should asymptotically reach a specific size as the kinetic energy is converted to the potential energy of gravity and stay that size forever. Because it's not a spring and it's not going to "roll back".