About this "terrorism" crap

Fallacious argument:I don't agree with you = not listening to reason.

Actually, I am alive because the *alternatives* to God Almighty = eternity seperated from God and I am not interested in being seperated from God for any *reason*.

Another fallacious argument: Since I've rejected your argument I must have a closed mind.

Ending with a fallacious argument:I have disagreed with your argument, therefore religion has had a negative effect on me. The reality is, my Faith has saved me from certain damnation in the next life and has dramactically improved my quality of life in this one.

God has given us all an intellect. I pray we all use it in way He finds pleasing. May the Peace of Our Lord be with you!

 

dangit..i was hoping i would get quotes to kai *pout*

seriously tho..you cant make this discussion valid from either perspective on a physcological/emotional level...comes down to..what he believes and what he believes...spirituality comes from within and it is no more tangible than the air we breathe...but the way we express it..the way you live..the way you conduct yourself...i believe...is what gives us truth...one way or the other...did that make sense? i hope that came out right..heh

 

This is not some Christian website that uses it's own belief to prove God exists. This is the studies of a public school teacher in Indiana. I will post more of these as I find them.

Practical Man's Proof of God

ABOUT THIS WEB SITE: The basic theme of this web site is that science and faith are not enemies, but are friends. It is not our purpose to support a denomination nor is it our purpose to sell something. This is not a creationist site defending a doctrinal stance, nor is it seeking debate. Our material is practical and designed to answer questions. The author is John Clayton, a retired physics, chemistry and earth science instructor from the public schools in South Bend, Indiana. Mr. Clayton holds a B.S. and M.S. from Indiana University in math and physics and a M.S. from Notre Dame University in Earth Science. He taught in the public schools for 41 years and has been doing presentations on the compatibility of science and faith for 38 years. If you have questions, do not hesitate to e mail Mr. Clayton. We are not interested in argument just for the sake of arguing, but if you have questions and concerns we will be glad to try to be of assistance to you. E-mail Mr. Clayton at jncdge@aol.com or write him at this address: 1555 Echo Valley Dr., Niles MI 49120 U.S.A.

Does God Exist?

 

The method of argument presented on the page you linked is essentially to examine and refute a single demonstrably incorrect assertion (that matter is self-existing and has always existed) from something called the Humanist Manifesto. This method, in which a weak argument is set up to be easily refuted, is known as a strawman.

The author begins with the assumption "that we exist, that there is reality, and that the matter of which we are made is real." This can be a fairly complex concept, as it really depends on one's perspective. For example, on a subatomic level, the observer of matter actually plays a role in its existence. In any case, for the purpose of the author's argument, the assumption works for the most part.

The author goes on, in the section "The Beginning", to provide some excellent scientific evidence for the universe having a beginning at some point. Then, in the section "The Cause", he attempts to prove that the matter that makes up the universe could not have come out of nothing. He is somewhat successful, though the only statement of any scientific value in this section is "In order for matter to come out of nothing, all of our scientific laws dealing with the conservation of matter/energy would have to be wrong, invalidating all of chemistry." It's not entirely correct, as scientific theory dealing with the conservation of matter/energy is closer to the domain of physics than chemistry, but that's honestly just splitting hairs. It suffices to say that the author is indeed correct -- the existence of the universe requires a cause.

The final section, "The Design", attempts to disprove the notion that humanity is the product of chance. The anthropic principle is an interesting vehicle for this, though the author demonstrates a poor understanding of it -- he contends that "The basic thrust of the anthropic principle is that chance is simply not a valid mechanism to explain the atom or life." In actuality, the anthropic principle attempts to explain the structure of the universe by way of the conditions that exist and are necessary for carbon-based life to exist. As an example, if the nuclear force which binds subatomic particles together were slightly stronger, neutrons and protons would bind together in a way which would result in the existence of hydrogen atoms (with only one neutron) being astronomically unlikely. Thus, all of the hydrogen in the early universe would have quickly coalesced into helium, and there could be no water, which is essential for the development of carbon-based life. The problem with the anthropic principle, though, is that when the examples are set aside, the core principle is reduced to an absurd tautology: "If the universe were different, it would be different."

This is not to say that the author's point is invalid, however. He is absolutely correct that life could not have arrived at its current state by chance. Indeed, the law of natural selection leaves little to chance, and holds that environmental conditions are the greatest single determinant of the genetic traits which persist through time. In a way, this does echo the anthropic principle; life exists as it does because conditions in the universe favor life existing that way.

So, when the site is reduced to its essential information, we have three assertions which the author provides more or less reasonable proof for:

1. The universe had a beginning.
2. The beginning of the universe had a cause.
3. Life as we know it didn't arrive at its current state by chance.

All of these are correct according to our current understanding of the universe, and although taken together they don't prove the existence of God, they certainly don't disprove it. However, the article is, contrary to your statement, certainly a Christian website that uses its own belief to attempt to prove the existence of God. The approach taken by the author is, "This atheistic statement is incorrect, science has proven it incorrect, and these Biblical assertions agree with the science, therefore God must exist."

All that said, though, I found it to be quite an interesting read, and very thought-provoking. Thanks very much for posting it!

 

Not once have you given any reasonable proof that your religion is factual. For the last 2-3 pages you have given one line replies that hold absolutely no value. The arguments are valid, you're just labeling them otherwise.

I'll say it again. Close your mind and keep believing what you've been told. You have helped reinforce my statement that religion tends to have negative effects on people by directly stating that you would refuse reality if it went against your religion. Keep on being a sheep.

Not just because you reject my argument, but because you reject it in the way that you do. "I believe this is right, thus it *is* right, and everything else is wrong." What is your basis? Jack and squat. I don't care about that funny feeling you got in church the other day which you now believe was the presence of God. That's all in your mind, and holds absolutely no validity. Oh, and please don't try to change the subject as you have in previous posts by saying "well how would you know how I've felt God's presence?" Because it's all the same. Your feelings have no authority outside of your mind.

See above paragraph.

To disagree is a different matter than to disregard. It is because you have become so dependent on your religion that you close your mind to new ideas and disregard the questioning of it. That is the negative effect. You've lost the element of human curiosity. We all have a right to question things. You can't though, because to question your beliefs, and ultimately your reality, goes against what you've been told to do. I feel for your handicap.

You're sadly mistaken if you think you're using your mind in a way any being with love for its creation would find pleasing. You fear intellect.

Don't need it. I live my own life, thanks.

 

In response to Symen's post...


I think the universe is pulsing. Big bang, expands, slows down, collapses, big bang. Each time this happens the universe basically resets, but some genetic material from life throughout the universe is preserved, and thusly, begins to evolve again once the conditions are right. Scientists theorize that the universe is roughly 15-20 billion years old. That of course could just be this cycle, and millions may have happened before it. That could explain how the system of things, atoms, organisms, etc, is so advanced. There is a driving force behind everything, governing how and why everything is. I also believe that very force can be explained through science eventually.

To have a complete and accurate understanding of the universe. Something religion could never accomplish.

 

You were discussing religion. I was talking about my Faith. Apples and oranges.

Another fallacious argument. You assume I try to live my Faith because of what I have been "told". You are again putting yourself inside my head: a place you have never been nor ever will be. You are making an assumption. An invalid one at that.

Please share with us where I "directly stated I would refuse reality if it went against my religion." This should be fun...because I made no such statement.

Another fallacious statement. You presume to know I am blindly following my Faith. This couldn't be further fromt the truth.

You are again putting words in my mouth. I never suggested *everything else is wrong* in any fashion.

More fallaciousness. Whether you care or not about my experience with God the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit doesn't invalidate the reality of the experiences in any way. Also, you have no direct or indirect knowledge of what has, is happening or will happen in my mind. If you did: you would be God

LOL!!!! Fallacious argument, but a funny one.

Yup, we do.

Again, you play the "amazing familiarity" card in your fallacious argument. You presume to know things about me you cannot possibly know. You have no idea what new ideas I may or may not have listened to, considered or rejected. A comic note, you suggest I have a *handicap*, which is an ad hominem.

More of the same, disordered thinking/argument. You presume to know what I fear.

I've added your name to my Morning Offering Prayer List. May the Peace of Our Lord be with you!

 

just wondering..you keep saying fallacious...in what way? if someone knew how they were being...fallacious..or whatever..maybe they would try to word things differently...i don't even know what the word means..im guessing false...but if you say it is false...give us some explaination of the truth?

 

I'm was just thinking the same thing Test

To quote Inigo Montoya from the Princess Bride:
"You keep using that word -- I do not think it means what you think it means."


To quote our friend, dictionary.com

See.. I think you read this on your "Word of the Day" Toilet paper and thought "Wow!! That's a cool word!!"

Kai isn't trying to mislead anyone... therefore he isn't being Fallacious.

Try using "False". It would be a much better word.

 

Your debating technique is flawed as you omit one of the most fundamental parts, the support. You make statements like the one quoted above, however, you provide nothing to back them up. Saying things like "I can point to specific times and dates, definite moments during the course of many days where God reveals Himself to me" does nothing to help persuade anyone. For example, I could say, "On December 12, 2000 at 1:23 PM I was teleported to a parallel universe where Lincoln was never shot. I then teleported back, but no one knew I was gone." There you go, I just named a specific date and time when this event took place but I am sure you do not believe that actually happened.

The point of a debate is to try to get your idea/belief across to others, if all you will say is, "Well I know this is true" then there is no point in debating.

 

You speak for *anyone*?

Which from where I sit, has zip to do with this discussion. Are you in a position to know what I have or have not experienced? Seen? Touched? Been touched by? Heard? Methinks not

I'm very content that I am getting my point across. What's interesting to me is the responses. I find it very interesting that I have been accused of being afraid, close minded, and having a handicap, to name of a few. Thus far, I've focused entirely on the arguement(s), fallacious as it has been, put forward by Kaikou

 

Examples of fallacious arguments

I don't disagree with your definition, nor do I think Kai is consciously trying to mislead. However, the arguments he has presented are fallacious. Which is why I have always used the phrase, "fallacious argument(s)" vs you are a fallacious person.

 

i believe ing was speaking about the people who have a different viewpoint...or who might feel differently...or have contributed to the opposite side of this discussion of where you are...being too literal can often lead to closemindedness...not saying you are...but it has the potential for it...and also does not do well in debates

it has alot to do with the discussion..i realize your faith and experiences are yours and yours alone and are to be shared only by your choice...and they are very private affair...yet we have nothing from you defining your moments of..umm..how do i say this in the proper context without offending because its not what i intend to do...but...enlightenment...

altho this isn't a debate..it is more of a discussion...the discussion lends itself to trying to explain to a three year old why the sky is blue because that project is due in the office at 9 a.m tomorrow and you haven't even started it..."because it is"



*edit* i gotta get that sloganzer thing arg..thats great! lol

 

Appreciate the sentiment. However, I am a firm believer that words mean things. It's not about being literal or closeminded. It's about the meaning of the terms any person may use when expressing themselves.

Again, I find this discussion interesting because no one has actually asked, "What did you see?" "What did you hear?" But rather, "you're close minded", you have a "handicap" or a total dismissal; "it was all in your mind." Suddenly, after a reading a few paragraphs some have asserted they know what I think and fear, that I feel the way I do because of what I have been told--when there is no way possible, short of actually being God Himself, they could know anything of the sort about me.

Interesting and fun too

May the Peace of Our Lord be with you!

 

ugh..try looking outside the box...just because you are perfect in your words and sentiments expressed*cough* doesn't mean everyone else falls into that same catagory...be willing to give a little for them..and they might give for you...and don't put some faith based spin on what i have said about giving...im talking outside the box step outside with me and listen...

you have said that no one can know what you are thinking or how you approach your faith...and in that you are correct...but realize that other people deal with things and communicate on a different level...if...you cannot see that level or join a person on that level...in any form..acceptance...tolerance..understanding...compromise...then you have placed yourself in an enviornment that does not welcome a different prospective or opinion...i should go to dictionary.com here but that sounds like closedmindedness to me...not saying you are...but from your responses...that is what i have gathered is all...

i like discussions because you learn something about people every day...even someone you might think you despise might actually shed a little light on an aspect of life that you had no idea about...and if i have to crawl into a box and talk to someone in thier territory...so be it...maybe it will get too crowded and they might be forced out...if only for a peak

 

actually i was trying to ask without prying...i have offered up the nice polite way many times refering that it was yours to share as you will...but you mentioned that you will write what you want when you want..or something to that effect...

so...to go the route you have just laid out for us...what did you see...what did you hear?

i was trying not to be rude because i realize it is a private affair...between you, your god and your faith...but you opened the door..thank you...


btw...good music on your cd..i have several friends who i am sending that link to..i think they will enjoy it..and hopefully buy it

 

LOL!!! I suggested I was *perfect*?

Now you're telling me what to do?

Thank you.

1st off, I am not *accepting* a fallacious argument. Lastly, I've been understanding, tolerant--there's been nothing to compromise about--and I've not suggested anyone not share their opinion or perspecitive.

I love dictionary.com. I used to drive posters at the old ACLU forums (2000-2004) mad with it hehehe.

American Heritage Dictionary - Cite This Source
close-mind·ed (klsmndd, klz-) or closed-mind·ed (klzd-)
adj.
Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.

There ya go

I concur.

Possible, but unlikely.

Crawl where ya chose to crawl. Tis' your knees you're crawlin' on

 

Yeah, I don't follow orders too well

Which example would you prefer? The time I saw angels in the sanctuary at Church during Communion? The time I heard someone say to me, "It will be all right" when I was in the Adoration Chapel and turned to see who was there and found myself alone, but yet 100% certain I was not, to the point I could feel the presence of someone else as if they were standing just off my left arm? Or the night, after my Son and Daughter were brought into the Church I saw a Light in their eyes which had zip to with the light in the room, a Light I still see in their eyes on a regular basis? The times I have listened to guitar tracks I have recorded and realized there is no way I can physically do what I just recorded? Vocal parts I've recorded and to this day cannot reproduce? The fact the gal singer you hear singing my music showed up in my life 3 days after I wrote my 1st faith-based song (It's on the CD you mentioned below: Need to Hear)? The fact we can record 50 of her vocal tracks in a 2 hour period on the faith-based songs and she never ever hears the songs or practices them till the morning we record them? The songs God has given to me to share with others? The songs I was given last fall (2005) to perform for an event for the Blessed Mother Mary in a 3 week period? I can go on and on...

Never felt like you were trying to be rude. I did *open the door*, so to speak. No problem there, either I have no problem answering questions about my personal experiences with God. I do have problems with fallacious arguments, however

Thank you for very much! I appreciate you taking the time to do that.