CAMPBELL34 VS. LIBERTINE :The War To Settle The Score...

Not so fast Libertine, I know you want to pull the plug on this debate. Yet it would be nice, if you could back up one of your statements with a fact. You stated that other religions have their prophecies to, and I said yes, and I also said they are mostly all false prophecies. I will repeat my last question. I believe I asked you to show us other prophecies from other religions outside of the Bible, which would demonstrate that the Bible was not so special. Another words, if there are other religions that have accurate prophecies to, well then, perhaps the Bible is over rated. And if those prophecies don't exist, may be then, we should consider looking at some of the prophecies in the Bible. We might just find, that some of them, are rather easy to understand. Yet, if you can show us other more accurate prophecies, that come from other faiths or religions from outside Christianity, and portraying the world we live in with accuracy. Well then, this debate will just about be over. So Libertine, can you show us some accurate prophecies, from other religions, that are even more accurate, than those that I claim are in the Bible?

 

Well if you have never researched it, how can you make that statement.
As far as the stone tablets, I believe the Jews already have them. If you remember there are two sets of them, but even if they come to light, I can tell you, that those who do not want to believe will claim they were carved by man. Just like the Bible telling you the story of the Red Sea Crossing and Mount Sinia, and giving you all the evidence to look for, and finding above it all, the mountain with the burnt top, only to have you come here and say, the burnt top got that way by natural causes. This mountain is the only one on earth that has a burnt top, and it just so happens to have all the Biblical evidence at it's base, which is spoken of in the Bible. No evidence of God?

 

Easily, i may not have researched it, but others have.....and their is nothing on Sinai that is not of earthly origin, scorch marks or no..

No, i'm afraid not...no evidence of God here.....an event can inspire a story....or a story can be added to an avent.....only physical evidence can prove fable from fantasy....important to remember that

As for Mt Sinai.....I don't know if the big Yin visited it or not....but i do know of several Iron Age sites here in the UK that have been blasted with so much heat, granite melted and glass formed, and we still have no idea exactly what caused it......but, it's apparent, that extreme heat from lightning etc do very much exist in nature, it's hardly unusual ... keep searching

ps. several cultures claim to own the ark.....mostly in Ethiopia....facinating reading if yer interested...

 

Childishly blaming "he said so I said too" in no way absolves you from your repeated lying and manipulation, which you continue.
You're not christian campbell34, you're deceiptful.

 

I'm sorry but scientist believe that the age of the earth can be determined by strata, and this is no hidden mystery. Some coal strata is believed to be 100 million years old. The remains of humans have been found in this same strata which according to evolution would be impossible, because the Theory of Evolution believes that man did not show up until 3 or 4 million years ago, and long after the dinosours died off. And if you think what they find in geologic strata and Darwin's Theory of Evolution has no relationship, your dead wrong. For in Evolution, timing is everything. Some of these bodies have been found hundreds of feet below the surface in coal mines. If the theory of evolution was correct, why are they finding human remains hundreds of feet below the surface of the earth in coal deposits that scientist are claiming to be 100 million years old. They also have found man made objects in these same deposits. One such object, was a brass bell.

 

So, you mean to tell me all I have to do to "overrate" the Bible is to name "prophecies" that have come true predicted by non-Bible "prophets"? *lol*

Three things :

1- There is plenty of evidence of Non-Biblical "prophecies" which have been "interpreted" to come true from Nostradamus. Modern day "psychics" such as Jeane Dixon and Sylvia Browne have predicted many, many things accurately as well. The Bible is not alone in "hits". That is a fact.

2- I could take Nostradamus, for example, and "interpret" him to mean anything I wanted, just like you can take the Bible and do the same thing. What, I ask, does this prove? It sure offers NO EVIDENCE of your Invisible Sky friend.

3- This is a red herring. You are trying to change the subject to "prophecy" (your apparent strength) and AVOID THE LEADING QUESTION ONCE MORE. Unlike less qualified debators, I do not fall for such trickery.

It has been multiple avoidances on your part. Just answer the leading question, for your "God's" sake, if not for the sake of the debate.


:H

 

Okay then. Perhaps we should define sentience as "recognized self-awareness"?

Certainly a robot, if it sees itself in the mirror, will not recognize its own form, and will not realize that when it moves, the object in the mirror moves, unless of course it is programmed for this specific purpose.

The short answer: Yes and no, mostly no. Depends on your frame of reference.

The long answer: What is life? Life, in my opinion, is a cycle of existance that ends in non-existance and typiaclly involves production and reproduction. For something to be "alive," it must have some form of awareness (such as that of, say, a dog, an ant, or *perhaps* even a tree, I haven't decided as of yet whether or not I consider plants with no sense faculties to be alive).

I'm leaning towards "life" being defined as sentience, though many will argue with me that a flower is alive (though I argue a flower is no different than a robot, as it cannot percieve, nor can it react, it just "happens" and is there, although it does grow, reproduce, and die).

Anyway ... In the instant that we are copied, we are a conscious and sentient lifeform, thus, the copy is "alive." In the instant that our original bodies are destroyed, the original lifeform dies. So in a sense, "you" are not still alive, but a different "you" still lives on.

The reason I would not want to DO that is because, the same being will not still be alive. There will be two different beings. And "I" would die. But a copy of me which is identical to me and has the same awareness as I do, would still live.

Compare to programming concepts of objects. You have a blueprint for an object, called a "class." And then of course, you have the object itself, which is created from the blueprint. The object has three unique attributes: Behaviour (which is defined by the class, sort of like "DNA"), state (which is defined by how the object is being used or what the object has experienced already, sort of like "environment"), and identity (what separates two objects with identical state from being the same object).

If you make a copy of an object. The new object is NOT the original object. If you then destroy the original object, that object is destroyed. I think, it is as simple as the language we use. The original object is destroyed. The new object still exists. They aren't the same, but they are very similar.

Nothing special. You (the object) might recognize that there is a copy of yourself, but other than that, it's not like some kind of Back to the Future scenario would happen, where if you saw your other self, you'd either faint, or the universe would collapse unto itself.

It'd be very similar to having an identical twin.

Not if you consider a volcano to be a mountain. Which many geographers do.

Perhaps your religion offers a better explaination? I seriously doubt it.

 

No... No, it doesn't. The Literalist Christian believes that G-d spoke, and "BAM" it happened. Not only that, many Literalists don't seem to understand that the numbers of the Bible have a much deeper meaning and significance than to give a literal timeline. It seems that they're missing the point entirely.

I know I'm not adding much to this, but it seems that some people (obviously not *you* Hikky ) need to understand that you simply cannot "explain away" all of the paradoxes between the Literalist interpretation and scientific discoveries. When a book penned by the hands of erronious men is considered an "infallible" source of absolute truth, you're bound to run into these problems.

However, if one views it as but a source of understanding and spirituality, it actually holds up as a firmer foundation. If the Genesis creation story is interpreted as merely an explanation of human existance and our separation from the "whole" (the "whole" being *ALL* of our human brothers and sisters, and perhaps even something bigger than that), it can offer insight that cannot be destroyed just because it didn't happen when the Literalist believes it did.

*smiles at Libertine* LOL! I'm not sure your opponent knows what the Red Herring fallacy is, even though he's employing it.

Not so fast, Mr. Campbell. In a debate, your argument must draw the clear conclusion you first claimed you could prove. The Red Herring fallacy, simply put, is an attempt to use a decoy to throw our "hounds" off track (no offense guys, but that's really what the name is taken from... rubbing a red herring over a scent trail, trying to throw off a hunting dog's tracking abilities).

Decide what conclusion you're trying to prove and stick to it. I still wish you'd consider conceding the victory, because you really have chosen to try and prove a point you CANNOT PROVE against an experienced philosopher. Maybe if you were debating a bunch of simpletons, you'd have better luck, but you can't employ logical fallacies in a debate and expect no one here to notice.

Have you considered looking up the rules of a debate or logical fallacies? I think I've suggested that the last few times I've been in here, but I feel as though you're deliberately ignoring me at this point. Are you afraid that if you looked these things up, you would realize that you can't do what you claim to be able to? It's okay if that's what occurs, you're only human, and you're gonna make mistakes... You don't know everything about every subject. It's worse to remain ignorant when someone's told you how to enlighten yourself on this particular subject of proper philosophical debate.

When, oh when, Mr. Campbell are you gonna play by the rules of this game?

 

Apparently, he'll never answer my question.

 

I will never answer your question? I answered the first part of your question in post 12 when I stated that I believed God does exist. And if you remember your first question. You asked me why ( I ) believe God exist, which I attempted to explain to you. But then there was a sudden ruel change, and you were no longer interested in hearing why ( I ) personally believe in God, but the question was framed much differently in order to barr any personal experience I may of had with Him. So then I decieded to approach the subject on the merits of Bible proofs, and all of a sudden, you are accuseing me of changeing the subject. You make it almost impossible to offer any proof, because from what ever angle I approach the topic, you seem to have a new complaint. And when I ask for some detail on a broad statement you made about prophecies found in other religions, all of a sudden we are talking about Nostradoums what religion was he? You make broad statements, but give few details to back them up. If other religions have prophecies, tell us where they are, and where can they be found? And remember what you told us Christians, put up, or shut up.

 

Campbell, the leading question was meant to give YOU a chance to PROVE the existence of your "God" objectively.

You seem INTENT on pushing ME (the atheist) into a defensive position and use your "prophecy" bullshit as a red herring.

Give me some good (objective) evidence of the existence of GOD. It's fairly simple. Yet it has taken you 35 pages to FAIL to respond to this.

You bring up "PROPHECIES", so I answered with Non-Christian "prophets". It doesn't matter if they worship the red rooster, they were NON-CHRISTIAN, NON-BIBLICAL. But, this doesn't matter because you are changing the subject.

Answer the question: DOES A GOD EXIST? If so, evidence, please.

 

to love is proof there is god

 

To have a chemical reaction (subjective emotion) in your brain is evidence of an Invisible Sky Daddy. *lol*

 

especially so when its a majestic sunset

 

so all you feel for your kids is a chemical reaction?

 

Seahorse, I can't help what it IS naturally. It is what it is.

That does not make it of any lesser value, because it is subjective.

The key word you used here is "feel".

And feelings (subjective) don't prove an objective "God".

 

but you tell them you love them right? and what do you think that means to them?

 

Love is subjective. What they "feel" and what things "mean" are relative to the individual.

I love them and it means a lot, but that doesn't prove Invisible Sky Daddy exists.

 

what they feel from your love defines what your love for them IS. I'm sure your love makes them feel safe, secure, special, ect..ect.....we dont feel that way simply because of chemical reactions.
There is no remedy..no anecdote, no potion of love.
It is the most powerful force on earth and should be known as nothing less.

dont go changing the subject, i wasnt talking about God, i was talking about love

 

love is at the core of most religons.This "cehmical raction" in the brain is odd...if this existence is pointless then love keeps pepole going that they one day may find love.Its such a pure emotion to when not infuenced by lust. God seems to see exteram vaule of this extrodenary emotion that brings pepole toegther.