• Home
• Archives
• Tag Cloud
• SEBpedia
• Reviews
• About
• Members
• Login
• Register

I’m sure he did get his feelings hurt.  But since when does someone get to take a substantial sum of money from others because life took a sucky turn?

A good point and well made to boot. Although I would have liked to seen the Bad Boys of Iraq taken alive, I did kinda realize that the situation probably made that unrealistic after hearing how the firefight took 6 hours or so.

 Signature 

Gods dont kill people. People with Gods kill people. - David Viaene

Guys

I am retired USAF and spent 21 years working on everything from 9mm pistols to “special” weapons that leave big smokin’ holes where cities use to be!  As a wise old boss of mine once told me:

“No job is too big for the man who doesn’t have to do it”

Think about it…

Our troops surround the house

They tell the occupants to surrender

The occupants say “bite me” and start blasting

Our guys try to go in and capture them

Some of our guys get wounded

Our guys decide it is better for the other guy to give his life for his country

Our guys annihilate the occupants

I think the fact that they had a six-hour firefight (and didn’t call in a flight of my beloved A-10 Warthogs to level the place) proves that they were trying to take these guys prisoner.  They could have also called in an F-117 to give them a 2,000 pound “enema” from 40,000 feet, but I never worked on those venerable aerial machines.

No disrespect intended, but when I hear statements like Ken’s, “…why were they killed instead of captured”, it makes me cringe.  We do not succeed in combat operations simply because we are Americans or we have excellent weapons.  We succeed because of the quality of our people and their training. 

I remember after the first missions of the first Gulf War that all the imbecile reporters were asking Gen Schwartzkopf, “Why do the Iraqis still have SCUD missiles?” The general had to explain little details like how Iraq’s large size and the fact that Iraqi’s don’t want to be killed precludes the destruction of their military capability in 6 hours.  He had more patience then me.  The incredible expectations of “armchair warriors” simply astound me.

Criticize Bush (I certainly do), but just remember…

“No job is too big for the man who doesn’t have to do it!”

Les…you are a madman.  Quite a rant… Very Stimulating

Interesting point “Down Under” Joe makes about Pleiades and Orion.  A few things puzzle me though.  When you mention the speed of the stars in Orion’s belt, what does “exactly the same speed mean” and what is that speed?  I couldn’t find anything that mentioned speed.  I did find this info online:

“The identification of these three stars as a belt is a very old one. The Arabic names of two of the stars reflect this: Mintaka means ‘the belt’ and Alnitak means ‘the girdle’. (The name of the third star, Alnilam, means ‘the string of pearls’.) It has been suggested that the three Belt-stars influenced the placing of the Pyramids at Giza, and it is certainly true that there is a remarkable correspondence of position between the Pyramids and the stars.“

http://www.glyphweb.com/esky/constellations/orionsbelt.html

If both constellations were observable in ancient times, which they apparently were, why would the statements in Job be revelations?  I do not intend to impugn your logic; I just want to understand where you’re coming from.

Do you appreciate the irony of the NKJV with God calling a constellation by the name of a character in heathen (Greek) mythology?

It’s rather unfortunate that people have pulled their donations for him, as I’m sure he (as a minor) has very little to do with the lawsuit.  I’m sure if it were up to him he’d rather let the matter drop than invite more ridicule and attention by suing his classmates, especially since one of the main points of the suit is that he’s still being harassed by people at school.

If I were him I’d turn around and sue my parents for whatever monies they’re awarded in this stupid lawsuit.  That’d teach ‘em.

If I thought for even a second that he was not trying to ridicule Darwinism through a faulty understanding of stellar processes I would go sit in the corner wearing a funny hat.

If people are giving SWK a hard time then they are a bunch of dicks. So what is he looks a little silly or awkward, he is obviously having a good time. I never understood people’s need to ruin someone else’s day for no apparent reason.

If he ends up in Episode 3 it might be an inducement for me to actually go see it...Jar Jar has pretty much soured me on the 1st and 2nd episodes. Me thinky he no a-funny.

Let me define then, the God I am setting out to prove. A theistic God is an infinitely powerful, intelligent, and moral Creator who is absolutely perfect. He transcends yet sustains His creation and intervenes in it supernaturally from time to time.

I also like your point about the possibility of correctness. The bar I’d like to set is “reasonable possibility”. Or, would a person, in possession of a set of facts, reasonably conclude something.

Fair enough. I’m listening.

Actually, I’m not working towards why there is a difference between faith in Christ as savior and belief in the existence of Christ. But I just read an excellent but very short work on that subject that I’d be happy to send you a copy of, Les, called “Simply Jesus” by Stowell. But it comes to this: I know lot’s of things that don’t actually make me act any different. I should exercise more and spend less time on my PC. But I don’t. It’s in my head, and I know it’s true, but I don’t act on it – so I don’t truly have faith in it, believe it. And if I did start exercising and spent less time on my PC, I’d only be going through the motions – I don’t really WANT to. It’s still just head knowledge. Also, look at Christianity. Satan knows who God is, but Satan doesn’t want to go to heaven and be with God, he wants to be God. So his knowledge of God does not give him peace or salvation, only the desire for more personal power.

I would be interested in reading Stowell’s writing and would be happy to receive a copy. I can also agree with the idea that one can know things without it affecting one’s behavior. I share with you the bad habits of too much time in front of the PC and not enough time spent exercising and I am aware of the damage it’s causing to my health, but haven’t been able to motivate myself to do much about it as of yet as well. That is a tendency which seems to be a common part of human nature.

I look forward to you continuing on your return. This is certainly one of the better conversations I’ve had with anyone stopping by SEB and I’m intrigued enough to see it through.

 Signature 

Gods dont kill people. People with Gods kill people. - David Viaene

OK Joe (from Australia), put the crack pipe down and slowly back away. You’ve had enough for one day.

Seriously, the answer to your over-punctuated question depends on what you meant by the word “evolved.” Are you speaking in a biological context? If so then the answer is no, all the stars didn’t evolve as they are not living organic creatures. If you meant it as a synonym for “changed over time” then the answer is yes, all the stars evolved and continue to do so.

I suspect what you really meant to ask was something along the lines of “And all these happened by chance?” Except you would have avoided capitalization and added more punctuation to emphasize how stunning you find the concept of random chance as an explanation for anything ever happening anywhere in the entire universe.

To which I answer, yes, all of these stars just happened to develop by chance. Pure old dumb luck as it were. Does that take “incredible faith,” as you so eloquently put it? I’d say it takes less faith than believing some supernatural dude made it all happen by simply thinking about it.

 Signature 

Gods dont kill people. People with Gods kill people. - David Viaene

Racheal, I stopped by your site and read the entry related to your comment here and I’m sorry for your loss. There’s nothing I can say that will ease the pain, but hopefully the few bucks I raise for cancer research will put them that much closer to finding a cure sooner rather than later.

You’ve brought the significance of this little gesture of mine into a sharper focus and I appreciate that very much indeed. Thanks for sharing it with us.

 Signature 

Gods dont kill people. People with Gods kill people. - David Viaene

i got linked in through the blogathon page. i think i went searching to fill a void somewhere....a very good friend succumbed to neuroblastoma yesterday, it’s been a long day. one of those days where you’re not quite sure if this dragon will ever be beaten down, i guess i just wanted to say thank you.

thank you for still providing hope.

peace and hugs

Stars evolve? What are you thinking that they start of as tiny litte asteroids, crawl out of the great cosmic soup to become planets, and then “evolve” into stars? This is what happens when religion tries to replace science...please do not fear books and knowledge.

They are your friends.

and all these evolved!?!!?!??!?!? that takes INCREDIBLE FAITH

AMEN

Why is it that America is so preoccupied with swearing on TV? In the UK or Australia I really don’t think these complaints would cut any mustard, especially since the creators of South Park make it so clearly understood that their show is not aimed at kids.

Saw a preview of Tomb Raiders cradle of life here in Houston Texas on July 24th.  Its crammed with special effects, thin plot, flat feeling acting, drags at time, and a ending that really wasn’t that thrilling.  give it a 5, don’t waste your 8 bucks seeing this on its first opening night.

Is anyone else troubled by the hoopla being made over the deaths of these two assholes?  I know I’m being naive, but a country like ours should be above viewing state-level conflicts as personal vendettas against comic-book villains.  I certainly hope that the attacks on American soldiers will subside now that they have been eliminated, but its far from a sure thing. 

A great question raised by Brock is: why were they killed rather than captured?  Wouldn’t you think that #2 and #3 might have a few pieces of information relevant to shortening the mess over there?

Now it certainly wasn’t me creeping up on their position under fire, and in a situation like that, a few missiles would seem to be the better part of valor.  However, I would have thought that the chain of command might have devised some way for 200 special forces guys to apprehend four to six enemies without undue risk to our people (bribing? lying? valium gas?).  The two brothers might have supplied answers to many nagging questions.  But wait a minute, what am I saying… this is the administration that hates to have questions answered - and the cable news folks seem so excited by the fact that the “kids” are dead.

Just came across this, had a look at their latest site. How lunatic fringe are they? They broke away from their website host because of their string objection to Triclavianism. This belief holds that Jesus was nailed up by three and three only, not two, and not four, Nails.

These people crack me up. Talk about an obsessive Cult.

They had the building surrounded. All they had to do was shoot in some tear gas and wait. Then we could question the sons on the possible location of Daddy.

“The night before, an unidentified Iraqi had tipped off the Americans that Odai and Qusai were in the house, Sanchez said afterward. But all Sgt. George Granter knew on that blistering hot Tuesday morning was that intelligence was reporting the house was occupied by Baath Party members.”

Perhaps the Brits were working Intelligence that day, and since they’d already burned us once, their information was automatically suspect. If any two guys needed to be taken alive, these two did. Check out these guys and their TOW missiles and high tech aircraft, not to mention their love for overwhelming shock and awe. Either we have some extremely cold-hearted soldiers and C/O’s who just love to play war or we’re not being told everything; I have to suspect the latter. Can anybody say “body double”?

I find it highly suspicious to have happened on the heels of Bush’s mounting troubles over who to blame next for those now infamous 16 words and his subsequent decline in popularity polls. The only buck that stops anywhere near Bush is the opportunity buck.

 Signature 

“At six I was left an orphan.  What the hell is a six year old supposed to do with an orphan?”
Unknown

If there’s anything that ticks me the most, its that Avril/Good Charlotte/Sum 41/ whatever MTV generated “punks” listen to nowadays. Especially when they are 13.

Give them a break...it takes a long time to bore two men to death.

Since I believe we are all gods, which means I believe in more gods than Scott does, why not set up a charity for me (...I mean for you, Les)?

You’re right David; there is no reason for you to share my belief concerning the nature of reality. Eventually it comes down to subjective awareness. My intuition tells me the christian god I’ve considered is an insecure, insensitive, uptight brat. Actually, my perception is that he was invented by numerous writers who didn’t check each other’s works or were moved to reinvent some of them.
Christianity seems to have done little to help the world’s inhabitants, in spite of a lengthy cast of movers and shakers willing to justify and represent it. I propose that the bible has created discord, diminishing peaceful positive co-existence, inspiring hate and disharmony and worst of all, it is really hard to read with little tiny print and way too much attitude and man does it ever go on and on, as does this post. Why so much effort validating a failed, often destructive ideology? Until I get a better bunch of experiences and stories on the subject to consider, and can forget all that has gone before, I’m not going to feel differently. I never understood how it could become such a best seller, but realize word of mouth played a big part and people love to see themselves or their friends in print (myself included).
It seems to me, David, you are reading too much and feeling too little. No offense intended, and I hope you read this as well meant, if you can.
I have equal disdain for the idea that it all ends after here. I can’t prove it doesn’t. I can’t accept that it does. Sorry.

I’m still a really good guy, better than many self-professed christians, and I manage it without fear, reward or individual cessation as motivators.

 Signature 

“At six I was left an orphan.  What the hell is a six year old supposed to do with an orphan?”
Unknown

Scary beard?  Lets see!  It can’t be worse than my scary face (with goatee): http://gallery.arcterex.net/2003-07-22/2003-07-22%20059.jpg

A 6 hour firefight?  And they killed two people?  While taking 4 casualties?  Somehow those numbers seem a bit scewed somehow.

I always find it amusing that people right away start trying to defeat Christianity or the Bible. So far, I’ve not said a peep (in this proof) about the nature of God, or even if God actually exists (that is in the next point). And I’m not using the Bible at all. I won’t get to that for some time. We are using reason to determine the validity of a point of view. And I do apologize if I seem to be talking down to anyone. I am stating a proof (as I was asked), and the nature of that is going to sound dogmatic and unyielding. I naturally tend that direction anyway, so I’m bound to offend someone. Hey, I say when you’re good at something, stick to it . People change thier beliefs everyday. Les used to be a Baptist. Every Christian used to be something else. Thrity somethings stop being liberals and turn into conservatives like lemmings running to the sea. If you can’t change your mind when faced with new data, what is the point of human interaction?

Les, you make a couple of excellent points. One is that unless we define what black is, we can’t very well call something black except as a opinion. If we say black is the absence of all color, or blue is a range between so many angstroms wavelength of reflected light, then our opinion no longer matters. When we have a definition, the thing either fits the definition, or it does not. Lastly, the thing is what it is: it is black by our definition of black, or it is not. If you want to call it grey, you can, but that doesn’t make it grey. This is the difference between reality and perception.

Let me define then, the God I am setting out to prove. A theistic God is an infinitely powerful, intelligent, and moral Creator who is absolutely perfect. He transcends yet sustains His creation and intervenes in it supernaturally from time to time.

I also like your point about the possibility of correctness. The bar I’d like to set is “reasonable possibility”. Or, would a person, in possession of a set of facts, reasonably conclude something. Brock makes his statement of his belief about the nature of reality and then says we shouldn’t expect him to prove it. I would say then there is no reason for me to believe it. It’s widely accepted that we are creating or enlarging the hole in the ozone layer. It seems reasonable enough on the surface. Unfortunately, all the tests we’ve devised to come to actual knowledge have not produced any proof (and we’ve spent billions). Since we cannot directly disprove the theory, the theory still gets acceptance. I would ask: is it reasonable to still believe that we are affecting the ozone? Are there not other forces at work that make our contributions to the problem insignificant? I can make a better theory, that I can support better. Therefore, in the absence of empirical observation, I accept, and live by, the best explanation I have. And to be sure, I’ve even carefully examined the alternatives and come up dry. To do otherwise would be, well, unreasonable.

I think Sherlock Holmes said “Once one has eliminated all the possible solutions, one must believe in the impossible”. That may not be exactly what he said, I’m working from memory, but it captures the essence.

Actually, I’m not working towards why there is a difference between faith in Christ as savior and belief in the existence of Christ. But I just read an excellent but very short work on that subject that I’d be happy to send you a copy of, Les, called “Simply Jesus” by Stowell. But it comes to this: I know lot’s of things that don’t actually make me act any different. I should exercise more and spend less time on my PC. But I don’t. It’s in my head, and I know it’s true, but I don’t act on it – so I don’t truly have faith in it, believe it. And if I did start exercising and spent less time on my PC, I’d only be going through the motions – I don’t really WANT to. It’s still just head knowledge. Also, look at Christianity. Satan knows who God is, but Satan doesn’t want to go to heaven and be with God, he wants to be God. So his knowledge of God does not give him peace or salvation, only the desire for more personal power.

Well, I’m off to DC for a few days and won’t have web access. I look forward to where we are going in this conversation. My leettle grey cells are all atwitter.

Indecision is a terrible thing. It affects the lives of millions of people who end up being too wishy-washy to trim down their choices. Please, give generously so that one day Scott might be able to narrow his religion down to one or two Gods.

Make all checks payable to Les Jenkins, c/o Stupid Evil Bastard… :LMAO:

 Signature 

Gods dont kill people. People with Gods kill people. - David Viaene

Barb, I’m happy to hear that as I sometimes wonder if anyone finds them interesting. I don’t write about my ADD as much as I’d like to, but I’m trying to come up with more to say about it. It’s a very misunderstood condition and the more people can learn about it the better things will be for those of us who have it as well as those folks who don’t. Understanding often makes troubles easier to bear for both parties.

 Signature 

Gods dont kill people. People with Gods kill people. - David Viaene

Like the person on a chat line a year ago who threatened to report me for criticizing the “pResident”.

“Report me to the KGB, comrade?” I replied back.

What about us heathens? I have a multitude of gods.

Give me some of that REAL old time religion, baby!

It’s $15 million PER son.

But they have to apply for the money, and will likely see little or none of it.

Have you heard about Ann’s next book! I believe the title is HITLER: Genius Misunderstood

I’m a recent reader here and I like what you have to say.  My 13 year old son is severely ADHD and I find your stories concerning your struggles with this most enjoyable.

~ Barb

Gheeesh, with you guys its god or nothing. David, you need to stop trying to talk down to everyone. I believe we will/do exist as aware energy after physical life, and time is an artificial construct, so we are in the next place being the next thing now. I don’t believe there is created or maintained by a god, but by all aware energy equally. Don’t expect me to try to prove that though. I don’t believe proving there is possible while focused on here. David, where would you be without the Bible? Les and Eric, where would you be without Scientific American? We’ll all retain our same beliefs regardless of what the others say.

 Signature 

“At six I was left an orphan.  What the hell is a six year old supposed to do with an orphan?”
Unknown

OK, I’ve read through this clarification and I feel I have a better feeling for where you’re headed. Your previous response wasn’t as clear and while I still have some reservations, I am willing to admit that I have no problems with the idea that we can know the truth about reality in general if not in whole. I scrapped an earlier attempt at a response here in which I tried to clarify my statements because it would’ve only dragged things out further though there are still one or two points I want to address:

Relativism always defeats itself, but I think I can show that in my response to Eric. And if you’re going to continue with the idea that it’s possible, then the possibility exists that I am correct. Which would be to say, that it’s reasonable to believe that God exists. Which is all I set out to show you.

I fully accept the idea that I could be wrong about my stance on God’s existence. I am not, as so many people have pointed out time and again, omniscient and as such there is the possibility that somewhere there exists such creatures as God, unicorns, anal-fixated aliens and creatures similar to the Loch Ness Monster. I have no problems with the idea that you could possibly be correct about God and all those other things. The possibility that you could be correct, however, isn’t enough in and of itself to convince me of the validity of their existence.

I see your attempt is for the middle ground, a kind of “I’m not sure”. Things either are or are not, nothing sorta is. Yes, it’s black and white – and since you mention it, you just admitted that there is black, which is undeniably not white. I’d call that fairly absolute, and a statement of the nature of reality.

My problem with this statement is that you’re trying to apply an absolute stamp to a subject that is inherently intangible. Namely the concept of color. The truthfulness of whether or not that sheet of paper is black or not is dependent upon an agreement on what the color “black” happens to be and even then you can find differences of opinion on how “black” something has to be before it’s considered black. At what point, for example, does it stop being black and become gray? Or stop being gray and become white? In general you can often get consensus, but that truth is only true because of the consensus on what it means for something to be a particular color. To a color-blind person blue, red, green, yellow, and chartreuse are all different shades of gray. You can insist to them that the paper is a lovely blue, but they still have to take your word for it. For you, the paper is absolutely blue. For them it’s absolutely gray. Both are valid viewpoints based on the knowledge they have at hand. The existence of the paper is an absolute, but the color is often up for debate.

And I began this particular area by saying “I can walk you through a proof of Christian faith (i.e. Jesus is God and the Bible is the Word of God) that is completely rational, and the claims are quite verifiable. But it really doesn’t do much good, except for making Christians more comfortable because their faith can be described rationally. But an intellectual understanding of who God is, or even that he exists, is not faith – and gives nothing.”

Yes, you’ve said that before. I still disagree with the idea that knowing for certain God exists would give you nothing. but I’m assuming you’ll explain why faith gives you something that direct knowledge would not in due course.

 Signature 

Gods dont kill people. People with Gods kill people. - David Viaene

Oh yeah, almost forgot:

I’m pretty sure you could not get me to agree to the absolutes necessary to prove you are god. I *am* interested in seeing you try. And I am not trying to get to agree to any particular absolutes, just that there are absolutes.

Les:

All knowledge has it’s base in philosophy. All science is based on that principle. All branches of the pursuit of knowledge we have, have their base in philosophy. Perhaps taking note that degrees handed out by universities are Doctorates of Philosophy, not Doctorates of Empirical Observation might help you. Are you telling me that you cannot accept the Pythagorean Theorem because the proof is not empirical? If such is the case, then you should change the stupid (in SEB) to vacuous.

There are possibly some absolutes? Isn’t that in itself a statement of absolute? Likewise, if you say the truth about reality cannot be known, then you’re making a statement about truth (defeating your own argument). You’re right, if you cannot believe there is truth, the pursuit of it is fairly pointless. So then, all science is worthless. I hereby lay claim to all that the pursuit of science has given you, since you’re renouncing it. I’ll take your car, your house, and your computer – how could you use something you don’t believe in?

I see your attempt is for the middle ground, a kind of “I’m not sure”. Things either are or are not, nothing sorta is. Yes, it’s black and white – and since you mention it, you just admitted that there is black, which is undeniably not white. I’d call that fairly absolute, and a statement of the nature of reality.

I won’t quote entire works for you, but I suggest reading Descartes’ Evil Demon Hypothesis. It’s a philosophical proof of the nature of reality. If you don’t like his treatment, I think Kant and Plato both give the nature of reality a fair shake. I can get you specific titles if you’d like. But if I were you, I’d stick with Descartes. His is the most simple, and his general writings hit more directly at your reluctance to accept the idea that one can obtain new knowledge from reason alone. And note that I never said all the truth or the complete truth is known but that truth can be known about reality.

Relativism always defeats itself, but I think I can show that in my response to Eric. And if you’re going to continue with the idea that it’s possible, then the possibility exists that I am correct. Which would be to say, that it’s reasonable to believe that God exists. Which is all I set out to show you.

Eric:

I again suggest some reading, and again, Descartes’ Evil Demon Hypothesis would be a good start. Apparently, you’ve heard the phrase “Perception is reality” so many times you actually believe it. Perception is what you think reality is. Reality is what something actually is. Truth is an accurate perception of reality. Since none of us are in full possession of the facts (truth about reality) we deal with a specific instance. Truth corresponds, then, to a specific object to which it refers. Ex. I say “This piece of paper is black.” You can deny it or accept it. If it is in reality black, then your perception is wrong if you think it’s white. If it is in reality black, then I spoke truth. If you want to say it’s possibly black (a la Les) then if it is actually black, you are wrong – it’s not possibly black: it is black, and if your perception is telling you otherwise, your perception is false.

How, then, could truth, which corresponds to reality, not perception, be relative? If you claim something is true, it is or it is not – proving it may be interesting. Something cannot be black and at the same time be white. You know this empirically. You also know from your own experience that everything you perceive is not as it is. You certainly believe by your own statements that my perception of God is not reality. By making your claim to atheism, you make a claim to knowing the truth about reality. Or are you saying that it’s only true for you? Wouldn’t that still be making an absolute claim about nature of reality?

We could get into a lovely discussion of what reality is, but I don’t need that to prove my point. I just need us to agree that it’s possible to know what it is.

Now Descartes says my perception is as close to reality as I can get by myself, but never actually confuses the two. If your perception was the only reality, then yes, you’d be God, but we’re getting ahead of ourselves here. However, you touch on the key point, reason leads to knowledge of the truth, and the truth has to include information about the nature of God. Or, as someone far wiser than I said “The truth shall set you free”.

And I began this particular area by saying “I can walk you through a proof of Christian faith (i.e. Jesus is God and the Bible is the Word of God) that is completely rational, and the claims are quite verifiable. But it really doesn’t do much good, except for making Christians more comfortable because their faith can be described rationally. But an intellectual understanding of who God is, or even that he exists, is not faith – and gives nothing.”

Come now Les...this was a war of liberation...you know to depose despots...like Charles Taylor of Liberia. Oh wait, maybe I meant like Kim Jong-il of North Korea.

Let me get back to you when I can find another despot in a country that has resources the U.S. wants.

Be fair, Scott - Bush knows what he’s doing.

Joshua engaged in very little logistical planning as God directed him, step by step, through the conquest of Canaan etc.  Similarly, the initial explosion of Mohammed’s tribal armies out of Saudi Arabia was carried not by confidence in any careful strategies of the leadership, but by the knowledge that the Big Guy was calling the shots.

Bush is merely adhering closely to well-known historical/mythological precedent as he blindly trundles our nation into endless war.

It’s now something like 10 killed a week; this is becoming worse and worse as they try to spin their way out of everything, not the least being that they had no plan for invasion or for post-war Iraq.

Gheesh.

What a shame Karyn gets herself in debt spending wildly and then begs everyone to get her out of the mess she created. She should be flogged. I would be ashamed of myself if I were her but then some people have no scrupples. For months I’ve known I need major back surgery or I’ll end up in a wheel chair. But I have no insurance, so everyday I struggle to work saving every dime I can, going without meals and any extras, many days hurting so bad I wanted to cry but tears won’t solve the problem so why waste them. Yet I would not resort to begging for something so minor as paying bills I created for things that were nessesary. Why can’t she struggle though like the rest of us.

(Eric here, not Les)

I am a little fuzzy on the whole ‘truth corresponding to the object to which it refers’ statement, please clarify.

In order to state that “we can know reality” I think you first need to define reality. It would appear that you think that we have a one reality fits all scenario where I believe that reality is highly subjective. If you are saying that our own personal realities can be known then I will stipulate to that, but to say that you and I perceive reality in exactly the same way does not take into account a great number of variables.

Unfortunately I am not sure if this will be of any real value since agreeing to force large amorphous theological concepts into manageable and artificial absolute values gives the concepts a property that they do not inherently have...unquestioned validity. I would have to have ‘faith’ to do that because proof would make this entire debate pointless.

I mean if you will agree to a few absolutes that I define then I can probably prove that I am god.

Most philosophical proofs of any complexity build on themselves. To progress we need to lay down some foundation for future points.

I’m not interested in a “philosophical” proof. I’m looking for a proof of existence that is undeniable and beyond question and philosophical proofs don’t fit that bill. I believe that sort of proof I am looking for is commonly known as “empirical.”

The first point I have given you, (The truth about reality can be known) There is not much sense in continuing until we agree to that. I will give you some support for that position:

A) Truth is that which corresponds to the object to which it refers.
Any denial of this would defeat itself.
B) We can know reality (again, basically undeniable).

And I’ll give you a second foundational argument:

The opposite of true is false (again, basically undeniable).

Together, these points eliminate relativism, something we must do if we’re going to be dicussing absolutes. But I do need your agreement to them for it to be worthwile to persue the rest. And it would be some fun to discuss your alternatives should you to try to deny the above.

I like to think that the truth about reality can be known, but the honest answer is that I’m not entirely sure that it can be. The universe is too big and our likely existence is too finite in probability to ensure that some day man will know all there is to know about the nature of reality. Science is the pursuit of truth on the nature of reality, but science accepts that it often gets the truth wrong and thus makes allowances for correcting the truth as new data comes to light. What was true yesterday isn’t always true today, but for the people of that time it was the only truth they knew. Once again the Flat Earther’s provide an excellent example.

The points you provide allow only for a very black or white, either/or viewpoint and I can’t say I agree with that. Are there some absolutes? Possibly. There are certainly things that seem to have been born out enough times over the centuries to qualify as absolutes or as close to such a thing as we are likely to ever get, but I don’t fully reject the idea of relativism either. If your proof is philosophical in nature and requires the acceptance of absolutes at the cost of rejection of relativism then it probably won’t convince me and you would be, in fact, wasting your time.

 Signature 

Gods dont kill people. People with Gods kill people. - David Viaene

I am an ADHD adult, too. Huh, what was, oooooooooh yeah.... http://intelligentmess.com/adhd.html tell me what ya think… toodles, like ur site

Did Agent Trippi (suspicious name there, sounds like be a raver or something) really say “and you don’t want that”? And did he then come out with “..and you won’t like me when I’m mad”?

You couldn’t make this stuff up, no actually you could make it up, if you wrote comic books or pulp fiction…

Most philosophical proofs of any complexity build on themselves. To progress we need to lay down some foundation for future points. The first point I have given you, (The truth about reality can be known) There is not much sense in continuing until we agree to that. I will give you some support for that position:

A) Truth is that which corresponds to the object to which it refers.
Any denial of this would defeat itself.
B) We can know reality (again, basically undeniable).

And I’ll give you a second foundational argument:

The opposite of true is false (again, basically undeniable).

Together, these points eliminate relativism, something we must do if we’re going to be dicussing absolutes. But I do need your agreement to them for it to be worthwile to persue the rest. And it would be some fun to discuss your alternatives should you to try to deny the above.

The 16 hours is usually spent in discussion of the points, which if you’re going to just accept will take very little time. If I just felt like typing to myself, I’d have never made the offer. I don’t need to re-examine the proof. Although I rather suspect I’ll get plenty of quotes from infidels.org, I’m hoping instead to interact with a person that is capable of thinking for himself.

Yeesh!

Whoops, got my Bats mixed up there.. I mean Robertson of course. Damn it was a good joke too…

While I don’t doubt for a moment that Bats Pukecannon believes that the tooth fairy, sorry, “God” actually answers prayers, I think he may be cynically hedging his bet on a dead cert here. I mean, it’s only a matter of time before these old guys ‘n’ gals actually do retire/pop their clogs, and when they do… praise the lard, the power of prayer!

It’s win-win.

Well that was a big read.
Les, it’s good to know you have some morals and have a wife and kid.
You’ve read the Bible 4 times!??!??!? You must be an expert.
You won’t find it difficult to remember this passage then from Job 38:31(NKJV):
“Can you bind the cluster of Pleiades, Or loose the belt of Orion” (God speaking to Job)
Scientists have only recently found out that the 3 stars of Orion’s Belt travel at exactly the same speed (can you “loose the belt of orion”, NO) and that stars of Pleiades travel at random speeds in a cluster (can you “bind the cluster of pleiades” NO).
If the Bible is complete rubbish, how would someone 4000 years know about such a scientifically correct statement such as this.
Surely there had to be a greater knowledge to know such a thing. ie GOD
I’m expecting a backstabbing reply to this, and would love one. But try to reply on what i have actually talked about above. :D

Joe