Religion II

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I did. You have no memory, and those idiotic comments is why I stopped posting here. Seems whenever you get stuck, (which is quite often) you babble nonsense. And please no comments re: my children from a childless misanthrope who believes his god can kill as many children and infants as he chooses (let alone farm animals) in the name of justice

No, you're fibbing again. You never have revealed to us where the Present is relative to the Past and Future in your version of the arrow of time. We know you have the Future coming out of the Past, but where is the Present in your scheme? Are you too ashamed to tell us that the Future in turn flows into the Present? It must be in your bat-crazy scheme! But then it's begging to be asked: What happens to time after it leaves the Present? To where does it flow? Does your time arrow do a big U turn and the Present flows back into Past?

[hcap]

Originally Posted by Misdirecting-Car

No, you're fibbing again.

What does this have to do with your lame prime mover argument?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

What does this have to do with your lame prime mover argument?

First off, it's not my argument.

Now, you claim that the argument is not logically sound...so, the onus is on you to prove that. And how you can do that is by applying Aquinas' argument to your syllogism -- the way I would apply, for example, a contradiction to the Law of Noncontradiction.

Then after you do that, I'm dying to know where you have the Present in relation to the Past and Future in your lame arrow of time theory.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

First off, it's not my argument.

Then why are you talking Aristotle and Aquinas" And asking me if I read doc's link to Aquinas?

Ok, down the rabbit hole again with misdirecting babble-car. What is your argument if it is not almost the same as Aristotle and Aquinas?

And whatever it is, I bet the fallacy of composition still shoots it out of the water.

Give it up, you can not prove god.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

Then why are you talking Aristotle and Aquinas" And asking me if I read doc's link to Aquinas?

Ok, down the rabbit hole again with misdirecting babble-car. What is your argument if it is not almost the same as Aristotle and Aquinas?

And whatever it is, I bet the fallacy of composition still shoots it out of the water.

Give it up, you can not prove god.

Because it is Aquinas' argument you're calling into dispute. And, yes, I'm on board with HIS argument -- but that doesn't make it my argument in the sense I formulated it.

So, get busy and apply Aquinas' argument to your s[y]lly syllogism.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Because it is Aquinas' argument you're calling into dispute. And, yes, I'm on board with HIS argument -- but that doesn't make it my argument in the sense I formulated it.

So, get busy and apply Aquinas' argument to your s[y]lly syllogism.

You went on and on about how there is a first or prime mover. Of course it is your argument which is refuted by the fallacy of composition.

Faced with that, now you are obviously getting cold feet to defend your difficult to support medieval prime mover.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

You went on and on about how there is a first or prime mover. Of course it is your argument which is refuted by the fallacy of composition.

Faced with that, now you are obviously getting cold feet to defend your difficult to support medieval prime mover.

Apply Aquinas' argument to your sylly syllogism and then we'll see if you have refuted it.

[hcap]

Originally Posted by boxcar

Apply Aquinas' argument to your sylly syllogism and then we'll see if you have refuted it.

I did. Pay attention

[Actor]

Originally Posted by PaceAdvantage

This is fairly impossible, since Google Adsense wouldn't allow such an ad to be placed on their system in the first place...but whatever.

The ads come and go but there's one right now that reads "meet tender girls nearby" (if memory serves). That seems like a (ahem) solicitation. Google Adsense allows this?

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by hcap

I did. Pay attention

No, you did not! You posted a syllogism but now you have to apply the salient parts of Aquinas' argument to your syllogism to show us that your syllogism is valid as it pertains to his First Mover premises and conclusion.

Good luck with that.

[Light]

Originally Posted by boxcar

But listen to yourself. You're still ranting like a raving madman.

You are the madman. I am simply disagreeing with Trump. I did not condemn him to Hell. Contrast that to when you disagree with any of us, you condemn us to Hell which is what madmen do.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Explain to us in coherent terms how Trump can debase himself before God when his immigration policies are amoral in nature. Why are you making a moral judgments of Trump for his amoral acts? Since his immigration policy is neither good or evil, how can you possibly rail against perceived "harm" or "pain" to others, when these too are neither good or evil? [b]Why are YOU under the illusion that Trump's policies are evil!?

If putting children in cages and separating them from their parents which results in unimaginable heartache does not strike you as inhumane, then I suggest you reconsider your theory that you are saved. You cannot be saved when you condone immoral acts of cruelty against God children.

Originally Posted by boxcar

Since Evil doesn't actually exist, what does Mr. Trump or anyone else in this world, for that matter, have to fear.

Karma. You reap what you sow.

Originally Posted by boxcar

PLUS...Everyone is covered by God's unconditional love. God loves Trump no matter what he does!

Yes God does love Trump unconditionally. He also loves Hitler unconditionally. But as I have repeatedly told you, there are consequences for one's actions
that we create for ourselves. We will judge ourselves,not God.

All God will do on the "judgement day" is lift the illusions you lived by on Earth and the clarity of your actions, the pain and suffering one brought to all of Gods children will be clear. It is you who will want to make it up to those people and God because your heart will have no defenses there.

Originally Posted by boxcar

So, tell us, when did you discover that you, a "disciple" of Jesus, became greater than your Master? Do you disciple Jesus now? Do you instruct him?
Have you told Jesus that his eternal written Word has become obsolete and has been replaced by the much cooler written traditions of the Eastern religions of the world? Have you told your "best friend" how much cooler and smarter and more spiritual Buddha is than he is?

Pathetic.

[Buckeye]

Well used word Light and one of my favorites.

I feel sorry for non-believers but not that much.

That's their most serious problem and leads to insanity.

There's only so much that can be done.

[thaskalos]

Originally Posted by Buckeye

Well used word Light and one of my favorites.

I feel sorry for non-believers but not that much.

That's their most serious problem and leads to insanity.

There's only so much that can be done.

If people don't believe in what we'd like them to believe...does that make them "non-believers"? I mean...since we all believe in "something"...NONE of us are "non-believers".

[Light]

Mr. boxcar

Before you continue to attack my belief that life is an illusion, you should be aware it is also backed by science.

Einstein said "reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one"

In the quantum field it has been proven that physical reality changes depending on whether you are observing an event or not observing it. In other words, the observer creates his or her own reality mentally through the direction of his energies.

However the deepest level of truth discovered by science on a sub nuclear reality and by philosophy is that of unity. That we are all one. The belief that we are different is the illusion.

And I take it one step further in that the unifying force is love or God since God is love.

[boxcar]

Originally Posted by Light

Mr. boxcar

Before you continue to attack my belief that life is an illusion, you should be aware it is also backed by science.

Einstein said "reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one"

In the quantum field it has been proven that physical reality changes depending on whether you are observing an event or not observing it. In other words, the observer creates his or her own reality mentally through the direction of his energies.

However the deepest level of truth discovered by science on a sub nuclear reality and by philosophy is that of unity. That we are all one. The belief that we are different is the illusion.

And I take it one step further in that the unifying force is love or God since God is love.

Do you understand what an illusion is? How long have you believed that the Creator of the universe is a deceiver?

And if life is such an illusion, why do you continue in it? Would it not be infinitely better to escape the illusion and enter immediately into reality?