-->
@Tradesecret
My weeks tend to be fun, but right now I am having a painful week. Sick and puking.
Is logic arbitrary according to Christians?
Posts
Total:
47
-->
@Stephen
@Morphinekid77
Morphinekid77,
Your response to my post #24 (https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10279/posts/420528) with your child like response in your post #28 was expected because of you being so Gawd Damned Bible Stupid, and where you cannot defend your faith, other than to RUN AWAY from it, especially in you being a Catholic! Good boy you followed the rules of Miss Tradesecret in RUNNING AWAY from Jesus' inspired words within the Bible! You must be so proud as Jesus is watching you RUN from his true words! (Hebrews 4:13)
NEXT RUNAWAY PSEUDO-CHRISTIAN FROM JESUS' TRUE WORDS WITHIN THE SCRIPTURES LIKE "MORPHINEKID77" HAD TO DO TO BECAUSE HE IS EMBARRASSED ABOUT JESUS' TRUE MO, AND HIS FAITH OF CATHOLICISM, WILL BE ...?
.
-->
@Stephen
@Best.Korea
.
Stephen,
Yes, Miss Tradesecet has foot to mouth disease again, when she said: "God doesn't do illogical things. He is entirely logical. He doesn't do absurd things."
Like I stated to the Bible RUN AWAY equal to Miss Tradesecret, MorphineKidd77, I have learned to just accept Jesus as God promoting illogical and absurd things towards His HEBREW creation to follow in His name, where poor Miss Tradesecret continues to HIDE from Jesus' "other side" of His true MO as shown again below:
1. “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.” (Exodus 21:7)
2. “And I will make them eat the flesh of their sons and their daughters, and everyone shall eat the flesh of his neighbor in the siege and in the distress, with which their enemies and those who seek their life afflict them.’ (Jeremiah 19:9)
3. "Withhold not correction from the child: for if thou BEATEST him with the rod, he shall not die. Thou shalt BEAT HIM with the rod, and shalt deliver his soul from hell." (Proverbs.23:13-14)
4. JESUS AS GOD SAID: “And why do you break the command of God for the sake of your tradition? For God said, ‘Honor your father and mother’ and ‘Anyone who curses their father or mother is to be put to death. (Matthew 15: 3-4)
5. JESUS STATED: “If anyone comes to me and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be my disciple.” (Luke 14:26)
THIS PRESTIGIOUS RELIGION FORUM WILL NOT BE ABLE TO GROW WITH ALL OF THE BIBLE STUPIDS®️ LIKE "MISS TRADESECRET" THAT CONTINUE TO TROLL THIS FORUM AND IN STILL BEING HERE!
.
-->
@Morphinekid77
A materialist must simply presuppose them without any explanation for how a material universe can have immaterial transcendent laws.In my worldview however I can have immaterial transcendent laws because they're grounded in an immaterial transcendent Mind.
Claiming that the laws of logic are grounded in an immaterial transcendent mind is not only a baseless assertion, but as I've already broken down for you, it's not an explanation at all because it tells us nothing about how any of this would actually work.
Let's first look at your god definition. It comprised of 3 words; transcendent, immaterial, mind.
Immaterial is a negative trait, it tells us only what this mind is not. It tells us nothing about what it actually is.
A mind is as far as we have ever been able to observe, the product of a functioning brain. Brains are material, so a brain that is not the product of a mind is something we can't possibly have any knowledge of with regards to how that works.
Transcendent simply means it crosses over, but crosses over to what? Don't know because we don't even know what the immaterial is let alone have the basis for understanding how a mind could cross over to it.
So not one word in your three word definition tells us anything about your claim, but the rest of your "explanation" is even worse because you assert that the laws of logic are grounded in it. What does this even mean? If the laws are grounded in it then that implies they are subject to it, meaning it's possible for this mind to be what it is not, or to exist and not exist at the same time, etc. That's logically absurd so it is at the outset missing the most basic qualifier of an explanation.
The reality is that what you're appealing to here is a silly tactic meant to sound like a reasonable argument. It fails because at it's core it is nothing more than an attempt to use logic to argue against the use of logic. That is, you're claiming that without first presupposing God, logic itself would not be valid. But you have to use logic in order to reach that conclusion. "Valid" is itself a logical term.
The reality is that logic is foundational because any attempt to justify or invalidate it requires it's presupposition. That's why it is the foundation of all intelligible thought, we cannot even begin to have a conversation until both parties accept it.
So as much as you claim our world views are different in this respect you are just flat out wrong. You do in fact presuppose logic without any explanation for it just as we do. The difference is that after presupposing it, you are then using it in order to justify it's use. That is not only unnecessary, it's self defeating.
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
I'm a runaway and a coward? Real rich coming from a guy who's been on this forum for years and doesn't have one debate.
I'll tell you what, you REALLY want to discuss those verses? Or Catholicism, or whatever topic, then you and I have a formal debate about it.
But you won't. Because you don't want an answer, you just want to misuse Scripture as a blugeoning tool.
Let the record show, that I, the fearsome and formidable, Morphinekid77, am publicly calling you out, brother Thomas, to an actual debate. Not just a poop slinging contest in the forum.
Will you do it? Or will you be another Bible runaway?
-->
@Double_R
Claiming that the laws of logic are grounded in an immaterial transcendent mind is not only a baseless assertion, but as I've already broken down for you, it's not an explanation at all because it tells us nothing about how any of this would actually work.Let's first look at your god definition. It comprised of 3 words; transcendent, immaterial, mind.Immaterial is a negative trait, it tells us only what this mind is not. It tells us nothing about what it actually is.A mind is as far as we have ever been able to observe, the product of a functioning brain. Brains are material, so a brain that is not the product of a mind is something we can't possibly have any knowledge of with regards to how that works.Transcendent simply means it crosses over, but crosses over to what? Don't know because we don't even know what the immaterial is let alone have the basis for understanding how a mind could cross over to it.So not one word in your three word definition tells us anything about your claim, but the rest of your "explanation" is even worse because you assert that the laws of logic are grounded in it. What does this even mean? If the laws are grounded in it then that implies they are subject to it, meaning it's possible for this mind to be what it is not, or to exist and not exist at the same time, etc. That's logically absurd so it is at the outset missing the most basic qualifier of an explanation.The reality is that what you're appealing to here is a silly tactic meant to sound like a reasonable argument. It fails because at it's core it is nothing more than an attempt to use logic to argue against the use of logic. That is, you're claiming that without first presupposing God, logic itself would not be valid. But you have to use logic in order to reach that conclusion. "Valid" is itself a logical term.The reality is that logic is foundational because any attempt to justify or invalidate it requires it's presupposition. That's why it is the foundation of all intelligible thought, we cannot even begin to have a conversation until both parties accept it.So as much as you claim our world views are different in this respect you are just flat out wrong. You do in fact presuppose logic without any explanation for it just as we do. The difference is that after presupposing it, you are then using it in order to justify it's use. That is not only unnecessary, it's self defeating.
I'm not sure why describing something in the negative would be an issue, given we do that in our vernacular every day with things.
But, instead of going point by point, allow me to just lay out the argument more clear.
Yes, we presuppose logic. Yes that is inevitable. Us presupposing logic is not the issue. The issue is justify the universality and immutability of said logic.
which worldview makes more sense:
World A. No immaterial, omnipresent Mind. In this material only world, we have laws of logic, that are not made of material, cannot be reduced to material. They apply everywhere, and never change. Yet, these laws cannot be traced back to a mind that shares these qualities. They just somehow are.
Or
World B. We have these same laws, but we can explain why they are. The laws are immutable, universally applicable, and immaterial because the Mind in which they originate is immutable, universally present, and immaterial.
You see?
-->
@Morphinekid77
.
Morphinekid77, the RUNAWAY from Jesus’ true words in the Discussion Forum,
YOUR PATHETIC QUOTE OF STILL RUNNING AWAY FROM MY POST #24: “I'm a runaway and a coward? “Real rich coming from a guy who's been on this forum for years and doesn't have one debate.”
No, I do not"DEBATE" Bible Stupid pseudo-christians like you since my godly arrival upon this Religion Forum in years past, BUT, I will discuss their Bible Stupidity and runaway status like yours in the "RELIGION FORUM" for quicker end results for all to see! Get it? Huh? Maybe? Just a little bit? SCARED?
YOUR QUOTE IN CONTINUING TO RUN AWAY FROM MY POST #24: "But you won't. Because you don't want an answer, you just want to misuse Scripture as a blugeoning tool."
HUH? HELLO? LOL! You say that I don't want an answer to my post #24 DIRECTED TO YOU, where this is the notion in the first place Bible runaway! LOL! Furthermore, I do not misuse scripture as shown in my post #24, whereas it is up to you to prove otherwise, understood Bible Fool? STILL SCARED?
YOUR EMBARRASSING RUNAWAY STATUS:"
1. Here is the following post #24 of mine that you have been running away from since it’s existence relative to your quote shown that I addressed!!!:
2. Here is your first "little boy pre-school mental state response" to said post above with your post #28 giving me the finger, where you are still hiding and scared of my post #24, boo hoo:
3. Here is my response to you again in you acting like a "little school-boy" in having to still run away from my post #24:
4. Now, in your post #35 you obviously borrowed the Humble Space Telescope and found your balls to at least “try” to address my initial post #24 that you have been embarrassingly RUNNING AWAY from in your pathetic attempt to save what face you have left upon this Religion Forum!
Morphinekid77, YOU are like the others that I have made pseudo-christian fools, in them being SHIT PANTS SCARED like you are to be in discussion with me where YOU have to come up with yet more EXCUSES to runaway from my revealing post #24! RUN MORPHINEKID77, RUN! LOL!
My post Number 24 that you will now address in front of the membership in the Discussion Forum, where I haven't even started with you relative to your blatant Bible Stupidity and you being SO SCARED because of it, understood?:
BEGIN:
LETS SEE WHAT MORPHINEKID77'S CHOICE WILL BE IN FRONT OF THE MEMBERSHIP, WILL HE STILL RUN, CONTINUE TO HIDE, OR ENGAGE WITH POST #24?!
.
-->
@Stephen
@Tradesecret
@Best.Korea
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
@aql_reason
No, I do not"DEBATE" Bible Stupid pseudo-christians like you since my godly arrival upon this Religion Forum in years past, BUT, I will discuss their Bible Stupidity and runaway status like yours in the "RELIGION FORUM" for quicker end results for all to see! Get it? Huh? Maybe? Just a little bit? SCARED?
Well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Here lies brother Thomas. He spent years pounding his chest, but, we've finally laid him to rest
Of course, it shouldn't surprise you that a troll, with little intention of having serious discussion, should be inclined to run away so publicly and so gloriously at the slightest challenge.
However, I didn't expect his defeat to be so deliciously obvious.
In his own words, he refuses to step into the debate arena with me.
That's right, my friends. A chubby little school boy, with a paper bag over his face, has publicly shamed, humiliated, and silenced one of the most notorious debate art trolls in history.
And what do we have left now? My dear friends?
Legends. We have legends.
"Do you remember that time Brother D Thomas got called out to a public debate?"
"Yeah...I do... Whatever happened?"
"He backed out!"
"No way!"
"Yep, the guy talked a big game, but in the end he didn't have the moxie."
"Who was the guy who challenged him?"
"Can't remember the guys name, super handsome though. He's probably on a yacht somewhere, sipping champagne as he floats off into the sunset. Chubby little bastard"
Yep, that's right folks. That's what will echo on this forum for years to come.
While users will come and go, one thing will not go... The ghost of shame. The memory that brother Thomas chickened out of a debate... After YEARS of smack talk!!!!.. Those my dear friends, are the whispers that can never truly be silent.
And now, my humble debate fellows, my work here is done. I came, I saw....I exposed.
And I shall return from whence I came.
Good day, my fellow debate art members. Just remember one thing.
The forum is now free.
-->
@Mr.BrotherD.Thomas
@Morphinekid77
No, I do not"DEBATE" Bible Stupid pseudo-christians like you since my godly arrival upon this Religion Forum in years past, BUT, I will discuss their Bible Stupidity and runaway status like yours in the "RELIGION FORUM" for quicker end results for all to see! Get it? Huh? Maybe? Just a little bit? SCARED?Well, there you have it, ladies and gentlemen. Here lies brother Thomas. He spent years pounding his chest, but, we've finally laid him to rest
Who is "we"? It is not compulsory to debate and I can't speak for Brother D. but l don't like debate forum either. I prefer to discuss here in the open forum where a conversation is more likely to get more views and discussion.
Of course, it shouldn't surprise you that a troll, with little intention of having serious discussion, should be inclined to run away so publicly and so gloriously at the slightest challenge.
There are many here that refuse point blank to have any sort of "serious discussion". but would rather use this religion forum as a pulpit. I am willing to have a discussion with you on these ambiguous and unreliable gospels anytime.
However, I didn't expect his defeat to be so deliciously obvious.
Well you keep acting like the cats that had the cream, but it doesn't impress me at all.
In his own words, he refuses to step into the debate arena with me.
And so would I for reasons I gave above. And it is in no way a reflection on my capability to hold a discussion with you or anyone else.
That's right, my friends. A chubby little school boy, with a paper bag over his face, has publicly shamed, humiliated, and silenced one of the most notorious debate art trolls in history.
Ad hominem doesn't impress me either. and neither does you gasconading.
And what do we have left now? My dear friends?
The question is what is that you have, and by what authority to claim an imagined victory over another member without discussion taking place. You offered a challenge, it was turned down. Ergo no one can claim to have won anything.
Legends. We have legends.
And who would the legend be?
"Do you remember that time Brother D Thomas got called out to a public debate?""Yeah...I do... Whatever happened?""He backed out!""No way!""Yep, the guy talked a big game, but in the end he didn't have the moxie.""Who was the guy who challenged him?""Can't remember the guys name, super handsome though. He's probably on a yacht somewhere, sipping champagne as he floats off into the sunset. Chubby little bastard"
A conversation that only appears in your own mind.
Yep, that's right folks. That's what will echo on this forum for years to come.
Only by yourself, it seems.
While users will come and go, one thing will not go... The ghost of shame. The memory that brother Thomas chickened out of a debate... After YEARS of smack talk!!!!.. Those my dear friends, are the whispers that can never truly be silent.
I don't think so.
And now, my humble debate fellows, my work here is done. I came, I saw....I exposed.
Nope. You fkn failed all round.
And I shall return from whence I came.
That is a shame. I was hoping to run rings around you in a forum discussion concerning any of the fours gospels of your choice.
Good day, my fellow debate art members. Just remember one thing.The forum is now free.
It always has been. And now you are an has-been.
-->
@Morphinekid77
Morphinekid77,
YOUR FORTH RUNAWAY POST #38 TO MY POST #24, ROFLOL!!!: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/10279/posts/420890
Okay, we got it, my post number 24 had too many biblical axioms at one time for you to try and address, I am so sorry for you to be overrun by so many passages at once where your wanting mental state obviously couldn't handle it! I apologize in the name of Jesus. Therefore, I'll just pick one passage at a time from my post #24 for you to discuss in THE RELIGION FORUM where you seem to be so afraid of, okay? Don't be embarrassingly running away again in front of the membership, tsk, tsk, tsk!
1. “When a man sells his daughter as a slave, she shall not go out as the male slaves do.” (Exodus 21:7)
Morphinekid77, what do you think that Jesus meant when His parents creation can sell their daughter into slavery, but shall not be sold as the males slaves? Since this passage is directly inspired by Jesus as God (2 Peter 1:20-21), do you think that female slaves are to be sold for pleasuring men with SEX? Where male slaves are sold to only work hard for their masters?
Jesus as God in the New Testament said we can BEAT SLAVES: “The servant who knows the master’s will and does not get ready or does not do what the master wants WILL BE BEATEN WITH MANY BLOWS. But the one who does not know and does things deserving punishment WILL BE BEATEN WITH FEW BLOW. From everyone who has been given much, much will be demanded; and from the one who has been entrusted with much, much more will be asked." (Luke 12:47)
Therefore relative to the godly passage above, would you BEAT A FEMALE SLAVE less than a MALE SLAVE for just being a weaker vessel than a man (1 Peter 3:7), or God forbid, if you BEAT A SLAVE you destroyed their eye or you knocked out a tooth of said slave, how fast would you let them be free as Jesus as God said in this passage: “If a man strikes the eye of his male or female slave, and destroys it, he shall let him go free on account of his eye. “And if he knocks out a tooth of his male or female slave, he shall let him go free on account of his tooth.” (Exodus, 22:26)
Since you should be totally aware that Christians can OWN SLAVES, as the Bible so states, then what is your position in the 21st century in owing slaves, and if Christians don't own them, are they blatantly going against Jesus as God in the above passages? Always remember regarding slaves; “EVERY word of God is flawless; he is a shield to those who take refuge in him.“ (Proverbs 30:5)
You and I in this and future discussion to my post #24 is going to really open the eyes of all Christians within this RELIGION FORUM, praise!
Morphinekid77, respectfully awaiting a cogent response this time, thank you!
.
-->
@Stephen
@Morphinekid77
.
Stephen,
You easily addressed Morphinekid77 in being so SCARED to discuss his Bible Stupidity in the Religion Forum!
OMG, how funny Morphinekid77 turned out to be in RUNNING away from my godly post #24 where I agreed with his premise that Jesus as God was logical, but when the rubber hit the road and going through all gears, he looks to be running away from my topic of SLAVERY like Miss Tradesecret had to do to save further embarrassment a while back, remember?! LOL!
Jesus and I will still be waiting for Morhpinekid77 to address my godly post #40, because how much embarrassment can a pseudo-christian like him take when I am so easily Bible Slapping him Silly®️ in front of the membership if he doesn't answer my post in question? Yes, I know, Miss Tradesecret had to learn the hard way with you and myself in easily addressing her Bible Stupidity, where now it is Morphinekid77's turn, praise!
.
-->
@Morphinekid77
what denomination of christian are you?
-->
@Morphinekid77
Good points.
24 days later
-->
@Tradesecret
Offrez-vous un accessoire polyvalent et tendance avec le tote bag personnalisé de Sajetex, parfait pour toutes les occasions et tous les styles.
-->
@johnsmith56
LOL -
-->
@n8nrgim
Hey Nate.
Just a reminder Pal.
You didn't hear back on what denomination hey ?
The required time has elapsed on that.
And you know what that means don't ya BIG FELLA.
YES
You now get to choose what denomination they are.
Please choose horribly.
( suggestions. )
The Jehovah witnesses
Or N8
What about
A seventh day adventists.
Are they christians.
Well You have like over .
ONE WHOLE DOZEN TO CHOOSE FROM.
YES.
There is that many.
The hide of em hey !
Calling themselves
( Christian )
Thats
Just...
( Christian )
And then quickly walk away.
There prob aint.
3 people on this site with the same denom.
Do you reckon N8 ?
Hey Its probs not even the multitude of denoms that differ.
Because theres like.
That Lutheran Church in your suburb N8.
And
That Lutheran church two suburbs over.
I wanna say they are ummmm.
Well.
☆☆☆☆ EXACTLY THE SAME BUT JUST DIFFERENT. ☆☆☆☆
I will however except.
There are more christians then Muslims.
-->
@Best.Korea
A God that can do anything , all knowing, what is really arbitrary?
People are arbitrary. They say one thing, do another.