KungKras said:
First off, the guy was not trying to discuss what the bible was saying. His argument was about OP being evil, but could still be saved if he accepted christianity. The way he went about this was to quote the bible as authority. And that's probably also the single context he had. So I fail to see the point you're making about Washington. You need to realize that there are different branches of satanism, and while the atheistic one which you described
he was response to claims the evil banana said that bible said like blasphem and many others if you read the whole thing. He was attacking the issues banana said about what the bible says.what he said had nothing to do with him being evil from what I read. The evilbanana claimed claimed he committed blasphem and then he showed he didn't by quoting what the bible says on how commit it. " obviously not the one that OP is describing, and the enki (?) branch might have it's own holy texts" the only book I found was the black pope if there no other holy book with this guy hasn't said otherwise then they are just deis which again goes to my point. thunderfoot used academic record (h-index which isn't academic record but simply cititions) used for scientist based on how many times you are quoted from your works but what he will not tell you is that you can quote yourself and you will increase in the system there was report on this. http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus/2007/10/the_hindex_has_its_flaws.html William lane craig is philosopher and not scientist so why would his work be citied more than an actual scientist in whatever field thunderfoot is in? Do you know how h-index works?may be the most popular branch, it's obviously not the one that OP is describing, and the enki (?) branch might have it's own holy texts. Just a quickie on William Lane Craig. Some youtuber called Thunderf00t has already shown that WLC's academic record isn't all that great, (worse than thunderf00ts). Also, there is a reason why WLC's domain is philosophy and not say, string theory or astrology. The inductive reasoning that he uses for his cosmological argument is similar to the reasoning used by 19th century physicits when they predicted that light would be measured as slightly slower and slightly faster when moving along or against the earths orbit, and they got their asses handed to them by the experimental data showing that the speed of light is absolute. I don't even understand how his premise of "All objects have a cause" can be framed in physics theory. If WLC has even seen what a mindfuck quantum mechanics and string theory is, I doubt he'd be so confident in his arguments. |
"You claimed you have committed the unforgivable sin, I.E. blaspheming the Holy Spirit. Fortunately for you, it is said in 1 John 1:9, "If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.""Quote
In his arguments was the response to claims that evil banana said that bible and blasphemy and many others if you read the whole thing. He was attacking the issues banana said about what the bible says.what he said had nothing to do with him being evil from what I read. The evilbanana claimed claimed he committed blasphem and then he showed he didn't by quoting what the bible says on how commit it.
thunderfoot used academic record (h-index which isn't academic record but simply cititions) used for scientist based on how many times you are quoted from your works but what he will not tell you is that you can quote yourself and you will increase in the system there was report on this.
http://blogs.nature.com/nautilus/2007/10/the_hindex_has_its_flaws.html
William lane craig is philosopher and not scientist so why would his work be citied more than an actual scientist in whatever field thunderfoot is in?
Do you even know how h-index works? To even compare the two using this has to be dumbest thing I read so far.
Philosophy of time is something Craig deals with which he has done on many peer review papers on.
"The inductive reasoning that he uses for his cosmological argument is similar to the reasoning used by 19th century physicits when they predicted that light would be measured as slightly slower and slightly faster when moving along or against the earths orbit, and they got their asses handed to them by the experimental data showing that the speed of light is absolute"
umm no inductive reasoning is still used in even metaphysics and the example you gave isn't a good inductive reasoning. Inductive reasoning is used in geometry. One might observe that in a few given rectangles, the diagonals are congruent. The observer could inductively reason that in all rectangles, the diagonals are congruent. Although we know this fact to be generally true, the observer hasn't proved it through his limited observations. However, he could prove his hypothesis using other means (which we'll learn later) and come out with a theorem (a proven statement). In this case, as in many others, inductive reasoning led to a suspicion, or more specifically, a hypothesis, that ended up being true.
Also dealing with history it is common to use inductive reasoning.
But on the topic of the Kalam it's based on deductive reasoning
- P→Q
- Q→R
- Therefore, P→ R
Wow, sorry for the mess up with my iPad it moved everything some reason. My iPad did this another thread when copying and pasting.
"Excuse me sir, I see you have a weapon. Why don't you put it down and let's settle this like gentlemen" ~ max
