- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Coaching Changes
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Good for Pope Francis
Posted on 12/20/16 at 1:08 pm to AUveritas
Posted on 12/20/16 at 1:08 pm to AUveritas
quote:But we can't prove it one way or the other so a claim that "it could be intelligent or it could be not" is more logical than a claim which is a specific subset of that (it is intelligent).
Wrong, it falls to the person making the positive claim. That the cause of the universe doesn't need to be intelligent is a positive claim.
1
Posted on 12/20/16 at 1:13 pm to FooManChoo
The act of selling indulgences was a practice by individual priests and were condemned by the Pope and at the Council of Trent. Luther knew that.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 1:14 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
I have proved it through the use of logic and simple science. Your hand waving and out of hand dismissal of them doesn't negate them.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 1:17 pm to AUveritas
quote:
I have proved
You've done no such thing. Saying something doesn't make it true. It's interesting that you invoked First Cause...very Craig-ish of you.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 1:22 pm to AUveritas
quote:
If you were sitting in a chair for all eternity, would it take an act of your will to stand up?
What a silly question in the context of this discussion.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 1:24 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Saying something doesn't make it true.
Exactly. Little ironic coming from you I must admit.
quote:
It's interesting that you invoked First Cause...very Craig-ish of you
Actually, the Kalam Cosmological Argument predates Craig by about 1200 years.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 1:24 pm to AUveritas
quote:
It's obvious he viewed it as something not to be desired, but ultimately meaningless in matters of salvation.
So you retract what you said earlier then?
quote:
Luther wanted to the freedom to "sin bravely" without fear of judgement so he created a God in his image.
It seems here that you were impugning his character for wanting or desiring to sin bravely, but as you said it is "obvious he viewed it as something not to be desired".
Posted on 12/20/16 at 1:25 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
Yeah, I'd avoid answering the question also. Logical ramifications and all...
Posted on 12/20/16 at 1:27 pm to Sapere
Not at all. Luther's "do as I say and not as I do" attitude disprove nothing I've said.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 1:31 pm to AUveritas
quote:
Exactly. Little ironic coming from you I must admit.
Which assertions have I made that are not correct?
quote:
Actually, the Kalam Cosmological Argument predates Craig by about 1200 years.
Neat.
My point still stands.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 1:32 pm to AUveritas
quote:
Yeah, I'd avoid answering the question also. Logical ramifications and all...
Your question is irrelevant and doesn't match the discussion.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 1:34 pm to AUveritas
quote:No. You didn't prove it. You provide a plausible reason for your hypothesis, but that's not proof of it.
I have proved it through the use of logic and simple science.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 1:36 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
quote:
Which assertions have I made that are not correct?
That's I haven't shown why the ultimate cause of the universe has to be personal and intelligent.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 1:38 pm to buckeye_vol
quote:
No. You didn't prove it. You provide a plausible reason for your hypothesis, but that's not proof of it.
Fair enough. Given what we know about science and logic at this moment, it's the only hypothesis that makes sense.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 1:42 pm to AUveritas
I said that are not correct.
That is correct. You've proven nothing.
That is correct. You've proven nothing.
Posted on 12/20/16 at 1:47 pm to AUveritas
quote:
Not at all. Luther's "do as I say and not as I do" attitude disprove nothing I've said.
So you believe Luther desired to sin and create this system where he is free to do so, but that he also believed that one ought not sin as it is not something to be desired?
This post was edited on 12/20/16 at 1:49 pm
Posted on 12/20/16 at 1:52 pm to AUveritas
quote:
Given what we know about science and logic at this moment, it's the only hypothesis that makes sense.
First, this is wrong.
Second, this sounds very familiar...
Posted on 12/20/16 at 2:02 pm to Sapere
I believe Luther was deeply conflicted. He was doctrinally wrong and knew it on some level. He spent the rest of his life trying to justify his behavior through bad exegesis. How else to explain why he mutilated the New Testament and wanted to do more. I think he was especially despondent about the ramifications of his choices when thousands followed his lead. His words to and about his fellow Reformers bear this out.
This post was edited on 12/20/16 at 2:04 pm
Posted on 12/20/16 at 2:03 pm to DisplacedBuckeye
No other logically sound explanation has been offered by you
Posted on 12/20/16 at 2:04 pm to AUveritas
None has been offered, period. That's the point.
Page 13 of 15
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News