Two questions for Christians
Posted on: July 9, 2006 - 4:00pm
Offline
Two questions for Christians
Can God make a rock so big that he can't lift it?
Could god have changed his plan for our existence before setting it into motion without affecting our free will?
Answering no to either shows us that god is not all powerful. Answering yes to the first one shows us that he's not all powerful. Answering yes to the second one shows us that God must want certain people to exist to convince others of his nonexistence.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
- Login to post comments
You're being narrow-minded if you think the question cannot be interpreted that way, because it certainly can. When people think of ice, they think specifically of a solid. When they think of water, they think of something that can be solid, liquid or gas. Is one the other? No, not if you look at it that way.
And besides that, water isn't the only substance that turns to ice if it gets cold enough, so ice isn't always water even if you interpret the question the way you do.
David
YOU ARE A FUCKING RETARD.
I base this conclusion on your view that 'No' is a rational answer for the question: 'is ice water?'.
only if you're stupid or dishonest or both, as in your case.
Again, not surprizingly, you go and change the fucking question!
Is ice water? yes
Is water ice? sometimes. THERFORE YOU CANNOT ASK IS ONE THE OTHER instead of 'is ice water?'
HOW FUCKING STUPID ARE YOU?
Ice is water in a solid state, per definition.
Humour me... what other substance turns to ice if it gets cold enough?
(PS: for the benefit of people who have not read the entire thread and are wondering why i have resorted to verbal abuse, it is because KingDavid8 is a FUCKING RETARD. If you have to know why, read the whole thread. I apologise if my words have caused emotional damage to innocent bystanders...)
OMFG.
Water-Liquid
Ice-Solid
Vapor-Gas
THEY HAVE THE SAME CHEMICAL STANCE JUST A DIFFRENT PHYSICAL STUTURE. THAT IS IT. THEY ARE ALL THE SAME STUBSTANCE JUST DIFFERENT LOOK. SO STOP TRYING TO QUESTION IT!
I'm beginning to wonder if KingDavid8 might be an undercover atheist, trying to show that some christians are irrational and dishonest...
It is certainly working...
Brian is that you?
If you hadn't gone overboard on the irrationality i would have bought it...lol! :smt023
Either that or he is mentaly reatarded.
what is H2O? water?
then isn't ICE H2O aswell?
then Water can be Gas and Gas is still H2O
. . . . . . . . . . And?
What is the point that you are trying to make exactly?
I wish, I can't even come close to acting that irrational, as hard as I try.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
No, I'm changing the interpretation of the question. If the question is intepreted the way you interpret it, the answer is "yes". If it's interpreted as "are they the same thing?", then the answer is "no", or at least "not always".
It's not stupid to acknowledge that a question which can be interpreted more than one way can be interpreted more than one way.
Ammonia, for one. Carbon dioxide, for another.
Really? I have already proven my point that questions can be interpreted more than one way, as my poll regarding the question "Are you the same person you were a year ago?" has already shown. And I've even shown that the question that started this discussion, "Can God create a rock so big He cannot lift it?" can be interpreted more than one way, with a "yes" or "no" answer both being valid (depending on whether we're talking about God "as is" or God "as He could make Himself"
. The only thing I've failed to convince you of (yet) is that the question "Is ice water" can be interpreted more than one way, which it can (even in a way I wasn't originally thinking of, whether ice can be comprised of substances other than water which have frozen solid). So as far as the major point of this discussion goes (whether a single question can be answered yes and no depending on how it is interpreted), I've already proven that. So you're a little like those Japanese soldier who continued to defend their island after WWII had ended. Even if I completely fail to convince you that the "Is ice water?" question can be interpreted more than one way, I don't really need to do so. That was just an example to prove a point that I've already proven.
David
well there is one way of looking at it.
or you could look at it as if they were different items on the list
like David is trying to make. Please correct me if I don't see your point David.
"God didn't send us a doctrine to learn, or a religion to live, or a philosophy to debate. He sent us a brother to love, a madman to trust, a servant to serve, and a mystery to embrace." ~Steven James, STORY
Your point is invalid. They are the same substance, do you know HOW the states of matter WORK? Let me explain, in case you missed middle school remedial science. When water molecules(or molecules of any matter, that is) recieve heat, which is a form of energy, the molecules begin to move more energetically as a result of the energy being put into them. These atoms move faster and faster and further and further apart until they turn into steam, or evaporate. This is NOT a fundamental change in water, it is still the same substance, just spread out over more area, therefore it holds properties as a gas and not a liquid. THat's the difference between gasses and liquids. The same thing but opposite applies to water turning into ice, a solid. It is still the same substance, just a different state of the substance. Don't go trying to decieve people into believing they are two seperate things. They have different qualities as different states of matter, but they are the same substance. You want to argue with that? go ahead, show me how water, water vapor and ice are different chemical compounds, i challenge you.
wish you could come on this muslim forum I've been debating on. cause they say all 3 substances are totally different. they may be the same based on what they are formed from. but they clearly aren't the same as to what the texture is.
"God didn't send us a doctrine to learn, or a religion to live, or a philosophy to debate. He sent us a brother to love, a madman to trust, a servant to serve, and a mystery to embrace." ~Steven James, STORY
Ask them to define texture.
I'm not saying they are different chemical compounds. Chemically speaking, they are the same. That is why if you interpret the question "Is ice water?" to be questioning their chemical structure alone, a "yes" answer would be the only valid answer. But I'm saying that the question can be interpreted as "Is ice equal to water?", and since ice is specifically a solid, and can only behave as a solid does, while water can be a solid, liquid, or gas, and can behave as solids, liquids, and gasses all do, then, in some sense, ice is not water, and a "no" answer would be valid.
And besides that, ice can also be comprised of substances other than water, such as ammonia and carbon dioxide (probably others as well, but those are two that I know of), while water cannot be.
David
Did you, perchance, come in saying that they were the same? If so, then it's possible that they're voicing a disagreement for the sake of finding something to disagree with you on, just finding a way to accuse you of being ignorant and/or dishonest.
I hear people do that on message boards sometimes.
David
I used it for the trinity concept. which they said that each compound are different in the movement of the molecules or something.
"God didn't send us a doctrine to learn, or a religion to live, or a philosophy to debate. He sent us a brother to love, a madman to trust, a servant to serve, and a mystery to embrace." ~Steven James, STORY
Sounds interesting, I'm looking forward to it. I was actually thinking about making something like that the name of that extra forum. Maybe "Observed Irrationality" or something like that. Your project reminds me of "fundies say the darndest things"
http://www.fstdt.com/
and this version: http://winace.andkon.com/fundies/
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Hahaa!
okay i'm not going to waste my time then, i'll just add some of these to the collection...
roflmfao...
some of those are brilliant...
The best evidence against christianity is the bible, and the people who are doing the most damage to the religion, are those people...(kingy and JS included)
They don't realise it but simply being on this forum is allready points for the A-team . . .
OMFG you retard!!!
Ammonia ice != Ice
Frozen Carbon Dioxide != Ice
Every time i think i've gauged your stupidity you have to go and prove you're even dumber than i thought.
I think it's more dishonesty than stupidity.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
David, so you're basically saying i can interpret the question: ' Is David a retard?' as 'Is David and a retard Always the same thing?'
The answer to the first question is Yes. The answer to the second question is no. The second question is not a valid interpretation of the first.
According to your reasoning, i can interpret the question: 'Are peanuts edible?' as 'Does David dress himself?' or 'Did the milkman come today?'
You can interpret questions in many different ways, but some of those interpretations are IRRATIONAL.
So ammonia ice is not a type of ice, and dry ice (frozen C02) is not a type of ice? And you're calling me dumb?
David
They should teach a course in Christian logic. It would consist of using every fallacy you can, twisting peoples words, using sources that have proven to be forgeries, such as the Josephus writings, as evidence, changing the subject when there is overwhelming evidence against what you're trying to prove, puting up red herrings, and basically being totally dishonest. :roll:
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
No, because of the word "a" in the first question, which implies that there are others. Though if you replace it with the word "the" (as in "Is David the retard?"
, then it implies that we're talking about the one and only. But without an "a" or "the", then it could be interpreted either way, as the question "Is ice water" can be.
Compare the questions:
"Is David a retard?"
and
"Is George W. Bush the President of the United States?"
One is asking of one is an example of the other, and one is asking if one is the same as the other.
"Is ice water?" could be interpreted either way, since there's nothing in the question declaring whether we're talking about "an example" or "the same as".
Yes, but interpreting a question regarding equality to be asking whether one is an example of the other, or if one is equal to the other, is not irrational, unless there is something in the question that removes one interpretation (such as, but not limited to, the word "a" or "the" between the two things whose equality is being questioned).
David
No.
the question asks wether ice is water, and ice is water.
if you answer 'no' . . . then you are saying ice is not water, which is a lie.
But it isn't always water, so that's not a lie. Ice can be made from carbon dioxide or ammonia, as well. Are you saying ice cannot be made from carbon dioxide or ammonia? Because if it can (and it can), then the answer to the question "Is ice water?" is not necessarily "yes." It can be water, or it can be carbon dioxide, or it can be ammonia.
Answer the question: Can ice be made from carbon dioxide or ammonia?
David
OK. Next time you ask for some ice in it in a restaurant, I'll tell the waiter to use ice made from ammonia, and you'll have no complaint coming.
:roll:
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
Saying that you are dumb would be a gross oversimplification as well as significant undersatement.
http://www.webmineral.com/data/Ice.shtml
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice
'Ice is frozen water.'
In not admitting to a certain degree of stupidity and/or dishonsety, and continuing this argument, you are proving to us in a very illustrative manner the caliber of fool that defends christianity on an atheist forum. I applaud your rediculousness.
'ice', in certain contexts, can also refer to frosting on a cake, or even to a diamond/diamonds.
if is ask you: 'is ice water?' do you think it would be rational to interpret the question as: 'is frosting on a cake water?' or 'are diamonds water?'
No, it would not be. But that doesn't answer the question I asked - Can ice be made from carbon dioxide or ammonia?
How about answering it?
David
Ice cannot be made from ammonia or carbon dioxide.
if you freeze ammonia you get ammonia ice, not ice, and if you freeze carbon dioxide you get dry ice, not ice.
No. I did indeed shoot that person, and ice is indeed H2O. The answers are yes and yes, not "yes and no".
Not these. But I'll answer any clarifications you want if it'd help the debate at hand.
Yes, I am still me. I haven't switched bodies or anything, nor has my sentience/cognizance been fragmented and placed into hudreds of new bodies. So the answer is very much yes.
My sentiments exactly.
No, you still shot him. If someone asked, "Did you shoot him" and you said "no", you'd be lying.
Moving on:
"Is ice water" is about as literal as you can get. Saying it isn't is like saying, "Did that barking dog just bark?" and trying to say no. Is ice water asks... ise ice water? That's it. And the answer is yes. You're trying to weasel out of this one and it isn't working.
LOL.
-=Grim=-
No Nyarlathotep, Know Peace.
Know Nyarlathotep, No Peace.
Ammonia ice and dry ice are types of ice. That's why they call them Ammonice ice and dry ice. If they weren't ice, they'd wouldn't have the word "ice" in their name.
David
Nope, wrong again el retardo...
Their names simply come from the fact that they resemble ice.
Ammonia ice is NOT a kind of ice, it is in fact ammonia ice.
Ammonia ice is a kind of mineral, and ice is a mineral.(both consist of crystal matrices)
They are both kinds of mineral, NOT different kinds of ice.
You obviously didn't check out the fucking wiki link because you know you're wrong:
'Ice is a mineral of the Oxide class that is refered to by any one of the 14 known solid phases of water.'
Is fool's gold a type of gold?
the ammonia in front of 'ammonia ice' is there to SPECIFY that we are NOT refering to ice. If the question : 'Is ice water?' were refering to it, it would have specified it. Like Mr Shizzle said, if you want ammonia ice in your drink it will indeed be necessary to specifically ask for ammonia ice.
ammonia ice has the same chemical makeup as ammonia, it's just in a solid form, Carbon Monoxide ice has the same chemical makeup, it's just cold enough to have coalesced into a solid, thus 'ice' 'ice' is a misleading term, it literally means the SOLID FORM of an element. When ammonia becomes ice, it does not have the same properties as water Ice. Don't misrepresent the term 'ice'
I just sent an E-mail to a guy who is an expert in dry ice (he has a website at www.dryiceinfo.com ), asking him if he would say that dry ice is a type of ice. The exact wording of the letter I sent is
As soon as he writes back to me, I will post his answer here. If he agrees with you that dry ice is not a type of ice, then I will apologize and admit I was wrong for saying it is (and I'll concede ammonia ice, also, even though it is in the dictionary as an example of "ice"
. If he says I am right, I will consider the discussion closed and you can respond however you want, or not respond at all. Either way, I'll consider his response the final answer on the issue.
David
I don't give a rat's ass what your expert says(however he'll probably laugh himself to death).
I know i'm right and anybody with half brain can see that.
Dry ice is not ice. <----- True statement.
Dry ice is ice <------ False statement.
Is Ice Water?
yes <------ answer
No <------ irrational answer.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_ice#Dry_ice
'as opposed to normal ice.'
therefore, the question 'Is ice water' rationally interptreted, refers to normal ice, water ice. In order for the question to refer to dry ice the question would have to be: 'Is dry ice water?' which, again, is an irrational interpretation of the original question.
So even if dry ice were a 'type of ice' as you put it, the question still refers to water ice. Normal ice.
Ice = water ice != dry ice. (read: ice is water ice, ice is not dry ice)
you could also ask:
'Is dry ice ice?'
to which the full answer is:'No. dry ice is frozen carbon dioxide, as opposed to normal ice, which is frozen water.'
David, I am begging you: go through this thread again and think about what you have said, and about what i have said.
You are doing the exact same thing with christianity vs atheism. You do not think about the problem, you only think of arguments to support your position. This is a defensive, reactionary position. When I was a christian, I believed that the Genesis creation story was metaphorical, and that is how I reconsiled science and religion. The catch is: Evolution does not require a creator. As soon as i realised that God might not exist, I realised that I was twisting science and religion so that they could work together. Just like you are twisting the question, the facts, and even your perception, so that you can get a 'yes' and a 'no' from the question: 'Is ice water?' when there is only a yes answer.
You have no idea how good it feels to be completely honest with yourself. I sincerely hope you try it someday.
There is honour in admitting that you were wrong.
Lying to yourself is the biggest 'sin' i can think of.
Let me ask you this - do you think I would have used the question "Is ice water" as an example of a question that can be answered with a "yes" or "no" if I didn't honestly believe it could be answered with a "yes" or "no"? I'll admit that I was not thinking of the examples of dry ice and ammonia ice when I wrote the question, but I was thinking of the question being interpreted as either "Is one and example of the other?" or "Are the two equal?". You don't believe it can be interpreted the second way, and I gave up trying to show you how it could.
But I'm conceding this argument. I did hear back from DryIceInfo.com and they said:
So, as promised, I'll concede ammonia ice also. I apologize for using a bad example to attempt to prove my point.
David
I'd appreciate your views on the rest of what i said regarding reactionary/defensive thinking as opposed to critical thinking.
cheers
Jan
Yeah, did you even answer the questions?
So a hotdog is really a dog?
Nevermind. I'll scratch debating this one further. At least you admit when you're off a spot, unlike so many other people I've encounter on the WWW.
-=Grim=-
No Nyarlathotep, Know Peace.
Know Nyarlathotep, No Peace.
Sure. In fact, I'll admit that I probably have been more defensive than I should be and have been, at times, more worried about how I am perceived on this board than how I am. I am generally more concerned with my character than my reputation, but I have been, on this board, a bit too concerned with my reputation.
But I'll also say it's hard not to get a bit defensive and reputation-oriented when I see so many people trying to attack my reputation instead of my actual arguments. I've seen a lot of people twisting my words, using insults, and leveling false accusations of dishonesty against me. The "character-concerned" part of me doesn't worry about that, since I know that these things say more about the people doing them than it does about me, but we all have a "reputation-concerned" part of us, and, in my case, it hasn't responded well.
I would really love to just be able to discuss these things honestly and openly without having to worry about how people are perceiving me so much, without having to try to word things in such a way that people who are looking for reasons to dislike me can't find ways to twist them. I have a few atheist friends, and I have great conversations with them, where we learn a lot about what each other believes and why each other believes it, and those are the types of conversations I would like to have here. I will agree to try to be less defensive, but that's also going to require some of the people I've been discussing things with to try a bit harder to avoid insults, accusing me of dishonesty and twisting words.
I have always been completely honest with everyone here (meaning that I've never said anything that I know to be false or purposely attempted to misconstrue anyone's words). I admit that I've made mistakes, used some poor arguments, and been wrong about some things, but such things could be a great opportunity for learning in an environment where I don't have to worry about being called a liar or a retard when they happen.
So if we can change things a bit here, make things a bit more friendly, then I think both sides can learn a lot about each other. I have several atheist friends and family members, so I'm not someone who has a knee-jerk negative reaction to atheists.
David
Hi KD. As they say, "ya pays ya money and ya takes ya chances". Keep in mind that this is a "fundy atheist" board. Atheists get the same treatment on fundy theist boards. And like fundy theist boards, most of the regulars are more interested in attacking the other side than in a meeting of minds. Frustrating indeed, if you are interested in the debating process, as you clearly are. Think of them as a support group for like-minded individuals, rather than people who are interested in debates.
Check this link out here: http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2006/07/foolishness-from-rational-responders.html
A theist lists his experience when posting in a"$100 Jesus historicity challenge" issued by the Rational Responders. When the theist side looked like it was going to win the challenge, the moderator started to delete posts. (I checked the thread myself, and can confirm this)
If you want a good debate with knowledgeable atheists who aren't going to insult you, I strongly suggest you try the Internet Infidels at this link:
http://www.iidb.org/vbb/forumdisplay.php?f=60 The Rational Responders are considered a joke by the atheists on that forum.
Sadly, it's not going to happen. When you consider that many of the insults come from the MODERATORS THEMSELVES, it means that that's how the board is expected to be.
I'll PM you this post in case this one post gets deleted. Go over to the Internet Infidels -- it's a great debating board. You'll find you won't miss this forum at all. Just come back here occasionally to have a good laugh.
"You can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into." -- Author unknown
Is this true:
-=Grim=-
No Nyarlathotep, Know Peace.
Know Nyarlathotep, No Peace.
You mean one where we're not scared to call theism the bullshit it is, or one in which we are are god believers as the word fundamentalist implies?
Fun?da?men?tal?ism (fnd-mntl-zm)
n.
1. A usually religious movement or point of view characterized by a return to fundamental principles, by rigid adherence to those principles, and often by intolerance of other views and opposition to secularism.
2.
1. often Fundamentalism An organized, militant Evangelical movement originating in the United States in the late 19th and early 20th century in opposition to Protestant Liberalism and secularism, insisting on the inerrancy of Scripture.
2. Adherence to the theology of this movement.
Notice fundies are intolerant to secularists, which is what most of us are here. I think if we we're the type of fundamentalist you imply we are, you would not be permitted to post here as was suggested by my cohorts (based on prior knowledge) the moment you became a member on this board. You and you're disregard for the truth have been allowed to stay though.
He's interested in the debating process, clearly , :roll: and we must assume that means that so is everyone here. He's been dishonest almost every step of the way so we can't assume you mean honesty is part of the debating process.
Posts got moved not deleted, here they all are. Don't believe everything Christians tell you.
I strongly suggest that when you go there, and PLEASE do, start being honest with yourself and them. They still have a distaste for dishonesty.
Right, which is why one of our HTML programmers was found on their site: Alan, whom met us over there and liked what we we're up to. Of course there's their editor-emeritus Richard Carrier who is spending the weekend at my house to record several shows with us in a few weeks. And theres always their Publicity Director Janice Rael who is a member of this forum (everlastinggodstopper) and a close long time personal friend of mine. But yeah, making a blanket statement insinuating that everyone over there laughs at us, is such an honest thing to do. Way to go truth seeker!
Both your posts and Davids posts have been extremely insulting. Posts don't have to be laced with curses to make them insulting, the irrational drivel the two of you post and expect us to buy is often more insulting than any curse word, to me.
It'll stay, just like every other post every theist has ever made on this board has.
Please do, and don't let the door hit you on your way out. Feel free to take your own advice GDON... got hypocrisy?
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient
Yeah it's true. We don't want other biblical figures to help build a case to prove the existence of a biblical figure. "Whittle" down is being used out of context, if the word was even used at all. I've briefly skimmed the Christian Cadre posts and aside from misrepresenting our postion (several times) and concession it comes close to portraying the discussion. The original contest offer was written for brevity, disclaimers weren't added as we figured anyone actually wanting to participate would be open to working with us on a "meeting of the minds" however this crew of "fundamentalists" wasn't. It should've been obvious, that biblical figures weren't admissable. All the posts remain, feel free to read it all.
Vote for Democrats to save us all from the anti-American Republican party!
Please become a Patron of Brian Sapient