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

Lack of proof of something, say "A," existing is not 'strict' proof that "A" does not exist; no matter the statistical determinations based in assessment of existing evidence acquired by 'physical' and/or 'thought experiments.' And to use a 'philosophical copout' based on difficulties thus far experienced, or projected, in seeking proof, is illogical; I believe that for any question connected with the afore mentioned difficulties that we can likely find a good course of action without 'strictly' arrived at 'positive' or 'negative' proof.

What "we" are doing here is trying to get at a "specific something," this is to say seeing if it is possible to find the existence of God to be so through the use of word-based logical expressions. Now I believe that this can actually be accomplished but through the support of additional evidence that is not yet known or commonly known and that is rooted in a viable and properly detailed hypothesis, rooted in scientific experimentation and, yes, rooted in, and prompted by, anecdotal evidence. "We," presently, have not proven that God does or does not exist and the only 'healthy' and 'strictly' logical answers, in terms of verbally expressed, and shared, proof that we can provide to another, understanding that there may be relevant inutitive knowledge that cannot presently be expressed in words, is that "we do not know" or "we cannot say." Now the experimenter(s) could say, "from my(our) observations it does not appear likely that God exists." But I argue that this is a 'feeling' or a 'sense' based, ultimately, in "'intuitive' awareness" and is not actually 'strictly' arrived at proof. Without forcing conclusion but simply allowing experience to be communicated and to evolve; if one adjusts, by truly rational cognitive dissonance reduction, to the "tension" associated with feelings about the question then the mind becomes powerfully freed to think with great lucidity and available insight. There are forms of meditation that are based in this and that tend to evoke these states. One of the interesting things about all this is that, even though this argument can strongly appeal to the intuition, this argument in the 'strictest' sense is based in intution and it can be shown to be illogical. Words "originally come from" what I will term "non-verbal languages of the brain." As we find masters of a spoken and or written language there are those who are advanced, and there are, I sense, masters, of these aforementioned "non-verbal languages of the brain." We might also look at this view point by using the term "mind" or "mind/body" in place of the term "brain." The foundations of science and logic are, ultimately, "firmly" based on intuition.

Now given the above (pun intended), I believe that these experiments, these debates, are useful and can yield insight and strengthen the mind emotionally, strengthen the mind in so far as the use of logic and argument, and strengthen the mind through the gaining of knowledge. This is a powerful social experience whether we realize it not; there are many situations where humans cannot advance their minds or their societies far because they immediately go into "violence or shutdown modes" over such discourse or attempted discourse. So we, and the like, are a powerful and important component of our world and, frankly I believe, the only hope for a good, harmonious and just world. I want to sincerely thank all of you and I hope that we all give our thanks to one another.








[modified from original post]
.

 

Campbell34, we are not denying your experience. We are asking you prove that "God" is the cause of these experiences. The whole debate is to prove whether or not "God" exists.

You automatically presuppose "God" by saying "God" gives you these experiences and trying to use them to prove "God".

I am sorry but those experiences do NOT prove "God". They prove that you, campbell, attribute these events to "God" (an entity of which you have provided no proof of existence). Your argument is dangerously close to a circular argument.

If "personal revelation" could be used as objective evidence we'd have to take into consider ALL personal experiences (Buddhists, Christians, Atheists, Satanists, Pagans...) as OBJECTIVE EVIDENCE, not merely subjective, and this would inevitably lead to contradiction.

And "ultimate reality"... what exactly does THAT mean? There is subjective reality (love, perception, etc.) and objective reality (universe, energy, etc.), but this vague description of your "God" doesn't quite cut it.

Let's begin here. Do you believe that your "God" holds the qualities of omnipotence, omniscience, omnipresence, and omnibenevolence at the same time, all the time?

 

You try loving a God that, no matter how much you pleaded to, turned a blind eye just because you weren't born again?

And, that's baloney; I already went to meet God halfway. Jesus wasn't born again, he believed in God his whole life, so your idea that only born-agains are saved doesn't make sense.

I went to meet God halfway; I went to the *BRINK OF DEATH*. That's as far as I can go. And God didn't show up. So I turned around and walked the other direction, and no, I don't even care if he shows up at the halfway mark in the future, maybe I'll leave HIM hanging instead. Maybe *I* should have my own set of strict rules, like God must apologize (like every other being), before I'll go back to meet him.

Also, the calling God a prick part was a hyperbole. I don't actually mean it literally, I mean it like "If God is so strict and demanding in today's day and age ..."

So would you then believe everything written down in the Da Vinci Code? I have the book on hand, let me read the preface for you:

"The Priory of Sion--a European secret society founded in 1099--is a real organization. In 1975 Paris's Bibliotheque Nationale discovered parchments known as Les Dossiers Secrets, identifying numerous members of the Priory of Sion, including Sir Isaac Newton, Botticelli, Victor Hugo, and Leonardo Da Vinci. The Vatican prelature known as Opus Dei is a deeply devout Catholic sect that has been the topic of recent controversy due to reports of brain-washing, coercion, and a dangerous practice known as 'coporeal mortification.' Opus Dei has just completed construction of a $47 million National Headquarters at 243 Lexington Avenue in New York City. All descriptions of artwork, architecture, documents, and secret rituals in this novel are accurate."

Now, read the last part there ... just because every description of artwork, architecture, et cetera is accurate, DOES NOT MEAN THE BOOK IS REAL!

In fact, in the Da Vinci Code, the author makes SO many points about how Jesus lived, had a wife, and a daughter, and how a secret organization that actually exists (the Priory of Sion) has been guarding the information outlining that lost information, and how the Church has been trying to destroy it. It also explains how in the Dead Sea Scrolls, there are over 100 Gospels that were NOT included in the Bible, because they make references to Jesus' humanity and make mentions of his wife (Mary Magdalene, the now-known-as-prostitute) and child.

Now, if you are going to believe that the Bible actually happened JUST because they can find some mountain and point at the sea where most of this happened, then you are going to ALSO have to believe that the correllations between the Church, and Jesus, and the Priory of Sion that are found in the Da Vinci code, because most parts of the book are factual instead of just plain fiction.

But of course, a person who is blinded into seeing this will never admit that the Bible might contain fictional parts, or that gospels may have been left out of it for a reason ...

What salvation? I don't even believe in an afterlife ... or God for that matter, considering he has never shown me that he exists, despite the fact that he has the power to. As far as I'm concerned, salvation is relative ... in order to appreciate the good, one must know evil. What worth is an eternity in heaven surrounded by good if you cannot appreciate it? Or is this "salvation" something more devious?

 

Isn't it that if God is the one in whom we all are dwelling, it could be quite difficult to show some particular evidence about God? SHould you take this conversation to concern about existing of anything? How you determine that something exists? And can the same be supplied to God?

Because isn't it true that we do not really know everything about world but only little and we say that only those things exist that we can find empirically in some way? So what would be the empirical evidences of God if God is something we cant separate from the world because the world is in God? Could it be the experiences and revelation, God saying something about himself?

I just mean that I believe that God cant be proved to exist without giving him a possibility to express himself, because otherwise we shut out the only way God being something totally different than anything can be acknowledged.

Libertine: this doesnt shut out your statements about other experiences in other religions. It would only lead to accept that there are a possibility to experience something that we cant in other ways study. This would lead you to a conversation about how to determine what experience is from God and what is not. I would like to see campbell34 trying to give some arguments about that.

 

We say only those things DEFINITELY exist that we can find empirically in some way. And we suspend judgment regarding the existance of things that we cannot prove or disprove. Hence agnosticism.

 

I just realized that I am not going to post my two paragraphs here, right now. As I did a few post ago, I broke my rule. This a Campbell and Libertine debate.





.



.

 

Just because you weren't born again? That's it friend, thats the the whole problem. God died on the cross and made salvation easy for all of us. Yet, you call the Born Again experience baloney. God has given you the way of salvation in His Word the Bible, but you wanted to do it your way, and failed. Now you say God is not real. Being Born Again makes all the sense in the world, if you know anything about the Bible. From the beginning, the Bible has stated that without the sheading of blood there is no remission of sin. The Jews use to sacrifice animals to God for a covering for their sins. When Christ died on the cross he became the blood sacrifice for the sins of the world. In the Old Testament, it stated that someday a man would come and offer Himself as a sacrifice for the sins of the world. Jesus Christ was that man, and you acknowledge His sacrifice, when you become Born Again. Please, the Da Vince Code? It's authors have been sited by Biblical scholars world wide for past attempt's, and shotty and tortured interpretations. Don't take my word for it, do a little research.

 

Who asked him to die on the cross? If we are all men here, I'd rather bear the burden of my own sins than be forgiven from them. That's the whole precept of honour.

Anyway, don't speak like "if you know anything about the Bible" unless you've at least read parts of a Bible that is not the King James version. The King James version is SO full of bullshit that its absurd. Like I said, a study showed that 83% of the KJ Bible's statements are inaccurate translations from the original texts.

Oh, and I definitely shed blood. My own. Not even that of another animal's. My OWN. If that isn't good enough for God ... so be it.

And, I've done my research on the Da Vinci Code. I was using that was an example, in case you couldn't tell. I'm saying, if you believe what the Bible says to be true, just because a few locations of physical places are correct, then by that same virtue, you'd have to believe in the Da Vinci Code. And it's absurd to believe in the Da Vinci Code, as you already stated. It's equally absurd to believe in the Bible.

 

Ok, you shed your own blood. So does that mean you deserve to go to heaven. Your life is perfect before God. You never did one wrong thing in your life, so that means you have earned eternal life. Because according to the Bible those who enter heaven are perfect. Who asked Him to die on the cross? In the Old Testament, which was written long before Christ showed up, stated, that God would send a man to die for the sins of the world. The Bible stated that those who sought God, loved God, and were wise, would accept His sacrifice. It also stated that those who were filled with evil would reject His sacrifice. And then stated that most people would reject Him. Those who reject Him, would be sent into outerdarkness for eternity.
The evidence found is a little more involved than just a few locations. When you assemble all of the evidence you come to the conclusion that something supernatural happen there, and something is about to happen in our generation. And you have extra Biblical writings chiseled in stone to back up the Bibles account. Today you have the Jews back in Israel, and Jerusalem. You have a sealed East Gate. You have Jews demanding that their third Temple be Rebuilt. You have America as the world leader involved in the Middle East, which is talked about in the New and Old Testaments. You have nations that can destroy other nation in one hours time, which the Bible speaks about. The Bible speaks about an astroid that will strike the earth and sink on third of the ships in the sea. That is remarkable especially when you consider that science only discovered astroids a couple hundred years ago. You have world attention focused on Jerusalem. Just 60 years ago Jerusalem would not even come up in conversation. But the Bible said that the last battle on earth well be fought over who controls Jerusalem. The Bible states that at the time of the end the Kings of the East would raise up an army of 200 million men. At the time the Bible was written I doubt if there was even 200 million people on earth. In 1960 China said they could raise up an army of 200 million men. We are living in the last days. Jesus Christ indicated that the Generation that saw Israel become a nation, would not pass away until all end Bible prophecies would be fulfilled. What is absurd, is to reject the mountain of evidence which can be found in the Bible. The prophecies are vast and detailed. And the more you consider the evidence, the more you realize that the Bible is a Book of truth.

 

Only on the last day when we all stand before God will that be proof enought. Today we donot have that kind of proof, yet we have strong indications who is controling things in the lives of those who believe in the God of the Bible.
Are objective is to consider proof for God, it matters little if we bring in proof for other Gods. I just happen to be a Christian, so what does it matter to you if I prove the Christian God. Proof of any God, would be a landmark. If I speak to Christ and something follows that is realvent to what I was speaking to Him about, I believe this can be considered as evidence. If I repeat this a number of times, and we have dramatic results, that could be considered even greater evidence. As you know, they have done similar things by praying for patients who were ill. They discovered in the vast number of case where patients were prayed for, their health improved. This was done a number of times, and was considered a scientific approach to see if God answered prayer. It appears He does. I will begin where ever you would like me to begin, but we need to keep this an open debate, I believe neither one of us should tell the other you are not allowed to speak of personal experiences. And how can I prove that God caused those experiences, unless I first tell you of those expericences? I can tell you this, when God speaks to me, I know who is speaking. We could take you arguement a step further, let us say we were standing together and God appeared to us. You could then say well this does not prove that God exist. Perhaps this was just a projection that was done by others for our benifit. You can taint any evidence put forward. My God is Jesus Christ, if you want to search for others that's ok, but I am here to tell you of the one I know of.

 

And yet ... I am damned to Hell, because I don't specifically believe in God. I don't even disbelieve in him. I'm damned to Hell for ALL ETERNITY, no matter how good I try to be, just because God hasn't shown enough proof of his existance for me to believe it. Funny how that is justified ...

And yet, you fail to note the prophecies that have NOT been fulfilled.

Here's a link to one hundred and ninety (190) prophecies that failed, and promises that were not kept:

http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/proph/long.html

I, myself, could make many predictions about the future, and I bet about half of them would come true. That'd put me on par with about ... oh, I don't know, the prophets of the Bible?

The prophecies may be vast and detailed, but MANY, including those that God himself supposedly spoke of, were FALSE prophecies and did not happen.

That being said, the Bible is no more a book of truth than the Da Vinci Code. But at least that book doesn't spit out prophecies.

 

it does talk about some knife in peters hand, that i cant find in the picture, and it really bugs me

 

Ok, so basically here's what we've got:

Campbell admits he can't prove "God".
Campbell admits there is no evidence of "God"...(at the moment)
Campbell offers more testimony.
Campbell preaches.

So, according to the leading question (the rules), Campbell has admitted he cannot answer it, so I'll take my "W" and trophy now, please.

 

Now that Libertine has declared himself the debate winner...

Campbell...some observations regarding prophecy. I'd like to see your comments.

In Luke Ch. 21, Jesus describes the signs of the coming end of time, and finishes with Verse 32: "Verily, I say unto you, this generation shall not pass away, until all be fulfilled".

Jesus specifically describes observable phenomena, and then states that it will all happen within the lifespans of those to whom he is speaking.

In Luke Ch. 17, Verses 20 and 21, Jesus had previously stated: "...The Kingdom of God cometh not with observation: Neither shall they say, Lo here!, or Lo there!, for, behold, the Kingdom of God is within you."

He dismisses those who would predict his second coming and states that the Kingdom of God is an inner and individual matter.

In Matthew Ch. 24, Verse 24, Jesus states that the end will come only after the gospel is preached to the entire world.

2000 years ago, from a Rome-centered point of view, the known world extended West to the British Isles, North to barbarian lands in central and northern Europe, South to North Africa and Egypt, and East perhaps to Western India.

The concusion that I draw is that Jesus directly predicted that the end of the world would come in his time of history, after the gospel had been preached to the known world. He also cautioned against listening to those who purport to know when these events will happen.

I'm definitely no Bible expert, but I do recall reading that most of the books of the New Testament had been written by 50 to 100 years after the death of Jesus. There is no direct connection that I've read of between Jesus and the actual writing of Revelation. It was written by the Apostle John or more possibly his followers, around 80 A.D., as a series of letters of encouragement for the early followers of Jesus during a period of intense persecution in Rome.

 

im dissapointed that ive come here on the pretense that this debate has been going for 14 pages but that its no longer only between campbell and libertine hehe what happened to making your own thread, hikaru?

 

im disappointed campbell didnt convince me that god actually existed

 

Honestly, at this point, our dear Mr. Campbell's argument is so badly wounded that there is no recovery for him. I don't see this thread continuing for much longer, so why not let Hikky interject his thoughts? End it swiftly, you guys.

Could you choose someone better for the Christians next time? I mean, someone with some actual sense who stands a chance at making a point, even if it isn't an absolute?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not volunteering myself. There's certainly better than me. But pitting Libby against Campbell is like locking a lion in a cage with an antelope. Gee, I wonder what the outcome is gonna be...?

 

Although I am most often reserved, I must say "Ditto."

 

*giggles* Yeah, I usually am too. But the Kid Gloves are off, now.

It's playtime.

 

Some observations that I put into a letter about a friend of mine, here is a post:

http://www.hipforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=102848


Peace to all.


Love,

David


.