Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-01-2016, 10:50 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(30-01-2016 09:24 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(29-01-2016 07:51 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  There is nothing in the Bible that says he raised himself.

"Your honor, I reserve the right to not only ignore the nonsense that comes from Bucky's finger tips, but I also reserve the right to respond to his nonsense accordingly. This particular time, my response to him brings honor and glory to Jesus Christ, so I reserve that right for this case."

John 2:19, sir.

I guess being wrong doesn't bother you much. *shrugs*

It doesn't say anything of the sort. You are interpreting a *supposed* "prophecy" about the TEMPLE, not himself. I stand by my assertion. Acts 13:30 "But God raised him from the dead". Says nothing about raising himself. In fact it actually implies he was not only NOT a god, but needed one to do it. You lose again.

Quote:"Your honor, I reserve the right to not only ignore the nonsense that comes from Bucky's finger tips, but I also reserve the right to respond to his nonsense accordingly. This particular time, my response to him brings honor and glory to Jesus Christ, so I reserve that right for this case."

All that means, is that you have nothing to refute ANYTHING I say about your garbage. Occasionally you think you might, and in those cases, even after having LIED, and saying you would no longer interact with me, you do it anyway. It's obvious to all you are an incompetent apologist. If your Jebus needs some "glory", he better send someone a hell of a lot better than the likes of you.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
30-01-2016, 11:32 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(30-01-2016 10:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It doesn't say anything of the sort. You are interpreting a *supposed* "prophecy" about the TEMPLE, not himself. I stand by my assertion. Acts 13:30 "But God raised him from the dead". Says nothing about raising himself. In fact it actually implies he was not only NOT a god, but needed one to do it. You lose again.

Ohhh, I'm sorry. I meant John 2:18-22 Laugh out load
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2016, 12:08 PM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2016 12:47 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(30-01-2016 11:32 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-01-2016 10:50 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  It doesn't say anything of the sort. You are interpreting a *supposed* "prophecy" about the TEMPLE, not himself. I stand by my assertion. Acts 13:30 "But God raised him from the dead". Says nothing about raising himself. In fact it actually implies he was not only NOT a god, but needed one to do it. You lose again.

Ohhh, I'm sorry. I meant John 2:18-22 Laugh out load

Laugh out load
He who laughs last ....
It says "was raised" .... it does not say "raised himself" ... you're still interpreting.
"Was raised" is passive perfect (past) tense. (I know this is pretty complicated for you, but "passive" means it was done to him, not he did it. So ... now, you better sign up for :
1. Logic
2. Philosophy
3. English

You're gonna be busy.
Rolleyes

Oh,
4. Bible Studies.
1 Peter 1:3
"All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is by his great mercy that we have been born again, because God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Now we live with great expectation"

It's very clear, that this early on, the doctrine of the ''trinity" had not been cooked up yet, and that the "god" spoken of here, was an external force. Paul said the same thing.

For an extensive discussion of the subject and the nuances of the Greek verbs and language used here, see Christian seminary professor of NT, Dr. BB Scott's "The Trouble With Resurrection".

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2016, 12:53 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(30-01-2016 12:08 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Laugh out load
He who laughs last ....
It says "was raised" .... it does not say "raised himself" ... you're still interpreting.
"Was raised" is passive perfect (past) tense. (I know this is pretty complicated for you, but "passive" means it was done to him, not he did it. So ... now, you better sign up for :
1. Logic
2. Philosophy
3. English

You're gonna be busy.
Rolleyes

I did say John 2:18-22, right?? I thought I did. So instead of relying on you to read the shit yourself and dealing with your reading comprehension flaws, how about I just post it on here.

18 The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”

19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.

22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.


(30-01-2016 12:08 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Oh,
4. Bible Studies.
1 Peter 1:3
"All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is by his great mercy that we have been born again, because God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Now we live with great expectation,

The raising of Jesus from the dead was a joint operation at which all person's of the Trinity played a part.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2016, 01:02 PM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2016 01:11 PM by GirlyMan.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
I can almost see my belly button. Then the gazing will begin. If I can only silence the Call_Of_The_Cartilage_In_My_Brain. ... God, you're a dim one. ... Have you imagined a world where 1+1 does not equal 2 yet? ... Of course not. It eludes you. You have a child's mind.

[Image: yoga-guy.jpg]

#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2016, 01:46 PM (This post was last modified: 30-01-2016 02:32 PM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(30-01-2016 12:53 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(30-01-2016 12:08 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Laugh out load
He who laughs last ....
It says "was raised" .... it does not say "raised himself" ... you're still interpreting.
"Was raised" is passive perfect (past) tense. (I know this is pretty complicated for you, but "passive" means it was done to him, not he did it. So ... now, you better sign up for :
1. Logic
2. Philosophy
3. English

You're gonna be busy.
Rolleyes

I did say John 2:18-22, right?? I thought I did. So instead of relying on you to read the shit yourself and dealing with your reading comprehension flaws, how about I just post it on here.

18 The Jews then responded to him, “What sign can you show us to prove your authority to do all this?”

19 Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.”

20 They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” 21 But the temple he had spoken of was his body.

22 After he was raised from the dead, his disciples recalled what he had said. Then they believed the scripture and the words that Jesus had spoken.


(30-01-2016 12:08 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  Oh,
4. Bible Studies.
1 Peter 1:3
"All praise to God, the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. It is by his great mercy that we have been born again, because God raised Jesus Christ from the dead. Now we live with great expectation,

The raising of Jesus from the dead was a joint operation at which all person's of the Trinity played a part.


Prove it. Doesn't say that. Peter didn't say that. Paul didn't say that. YOU know more than they did ? LOL. You made it all up. You also have not a shred of evidence that the trinity existed yet as a doctrine. Putting your nonsense in big letters doesn't make it any more real. You're a charlatan. A snake-oil salesman. Thumbsup
First you say "he raised HIMSELF", now you say it's a "joint operation". Look up "moving the goalposts" COTW. Which was it, anyway ?
Can't have referred to him anyway. Friday afternoon to Sunday morning is 1 3/4 days, not three.
Big Grin

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2016, 07:42 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(30-01-2016 10:10 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(29-01-2016 10:25 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Well right away we realize that for a proposition to be true, it must not violate any of these principles. What would truth mean in a universe that conforms itself to conscious wishes? Truth would be whatever some conscious mind decided it would be.

A conversation about objective morality is brewing on this one.

Let's not change the subject. We aren't discussing ethics here. We are discussing metaphysics. I'll be glad to discuss the objective theory of ethics with you at another time.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2016, 07:47 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(30-01-2016 10:10 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(29-01-2016 10:25 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Truth then rests conceptually on the primacy of existence principle. What would be the implications for logic if existence conformed to conscious activity. Well obviously, there goes the law of identity. A would no longer be A but A would be whatever some conscious subject wanted it to be. There goes the law of non contradiction and logic right out the window.


The question seems to be "If the conscious subject wanted something to be A, could it actually be A?? The answer is YES.

The truth value of whether or not it is "A", is independent of what the conscious subject wants it to be.


It's clear that you still are not grasping the concept here because these two statements directly contradict each other.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2016, 07:59 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(30-01-2016 10:10 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(29-01-2016 10:25 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  This is the flaw that my argument made explicit. Any argument that seeks to prove that the god of theism exists, in the content of the conclusion would negate the laws of logic. It would be self refuting. It would be an instance of using logic to negate logic. It would commit the fallacy of the stolen concept by using logic to prove something which violates the primacy of existence, a concept at the genetic root of the concept logic. This means that any argument which seeks to establish the existence of the god of theism commits this fallacy. Every single one. Kalam. Commits the fallacy of the stolen concept and refutes itself. Ontological argument? Commits the fallacy of the stolen concept and refutes itself. Argument from miracles. Commits the fallacy of the stolen concept and refutes itself.

What? Each one of those arguments are deductive...syllogisms...so take your "primacy of existence" stuff, and tell me which premises (of any of the arguments) is false based on the primacy of existence.

I did just that above. Do you understand that knowledge has a hierarchical structure? If truth rests exclusively on the primacy of existence metaphysics then so does logic. If Theism assumes the primacy of consciousness metaphysics, then it denies the primacy of existence. If it denies the primacy of existence then it denies a concept at the foundation of logic. Therefore the arguments that I listed make use of a higher level concept (logic) while denying a concept in its direct genetic hierarchy (the primacy of existence). That's the fallacy of the stolen concept. If I told you that geometry was valid but that basic arithmetic wasn't, then I would be committing this fallacy.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-01-2016, 08:14 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(30-01-2016 10:10 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(29-01-2016 10:25 AM)true scotsman Wrote:  Here's the proof that truth rests exclusively on the primacy of existence:

1. If truth is the identification of reality based on facts which obtain independently of anyone's conscious activity such as wishing, wanting, praying, commanding, preferring, feeling, hoping, fearing, etc., then truth rests exclusively on the primacy of existence metaphysics.

2. Truth is the identification of reality based on facts which obtain independently of anyone's conscious activity such as wishing, wanting, praying, commanding, preferring, feeling, hoping, fearing, etc.

Therefor truth rests exclusively on the primacy of existence metaphysics.

This, in the shortest possible form I can present it, is the issue of metaphysical primacy."

I need to know, just like I said above, how any of this is applied directly to the arguments that I can present (and have been presenting). You are just playing around the edges instead of diving right in and applying it to the arguments.

I don't see how any of what you just said can be used as refutation of ANYTHING. Not one single thing. So go ahead, apply it to the Kalam. Tell me how is the Kalam refuted based on the "primacy of existence".

The three arguments I presented were not aimed at refuting any of the arguments that I listed directly, and I note that you still have not addressed any of them directly even though you said you would if I explained the primacy of existence to you.

They were only meant as support for the following statements which I made:

1. That truth rests exclusively on the primacy of existence.

2. That theism assumes the primacy of consciousness metaphysics.

3. That theism is incompatible with the primacy of existence and therefore can not be true.

You see, that's how it's supposed to work. You make a claim and then you back up that claim with an argument. Now since you said you would address my arguments if I took the time to explain the POE to you, let's take them one step at a time.

Step one: establish that truth rests exclusively on the primacy of existence metaphysics.

1. If truth is the identification of reality based on facts that obtain independently of anyone's conscious activity such as wishing, wanting, liking, desiring, demanding, praying, fear, dreaming, feelings, etc., then truth rests exclusively on the primacy of existence metaphysics.

2. Truth is the identification of reality based on facts that obtain independently of anyone's conscious activity such as wishing, wanting, liking, desiring, demanding, praying, fear, dreaming, feelings, etc.

Therefore truth rests exclusively on the primacy of existence metaphysics.

Now I don't want to discuss anything else with you right now. I want you to focus on and interact with this specific argument. I'll be glad to discuss other issues later but right now please address this one argument. If not then our discussion is over.

Do not lose your knowledge that man's proper estate is an upright posture, an intransigent mind and a step that travels unlimited roads. - Ayn Rand.

Don't sacrifice for me, live for yourself! - Me

The only alternative to Objectivism is some form of Subjectivism. - Dawson Bethrick
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: