PaliRichard Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Why are you getting irate, you know what it has to do with the question or at least how it is related. You asked him why christians need protecting from halal meat, i pointed out that he/she said they are Jewish therefore they kill the meat in exactly the same way as muslims and he/she won't be able to come up with an answer. I may have missed something here but I'm not sure how that relates to Christians needing protecting from Halal meat. Does Halal meat have some kind of property that causes harm when Christians eat it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Supertramp Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I may have missed something here but I'm not sure how that relates to Christians needing protecting from Halal meat. Does Halal meat have some kind of property that causes harm when Christians eat it? Grrrrr I am not saying they do. I am saying Richie will not be able to come up with a reason either. Am I talking a different language here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Grrrrr I am not saying they do. I am saying Richie will not be able to come up with a reason either. Am I talking a different language here? Grrr? I did say I may have missed something. I thank you for your clarification Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryedo40 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Yes, if I believe that something exists but use a different name for it than you use, I still believe it exists even though you identify it with a different name. So if you asked me “do you lack a belief in tripoopstick?”, my answer would be “I don't know what’s a tripoopstick?” You would then describe it and I would say ha yes I call it God. I always had the belief in it but didn’t know it by the name you use. And while you don't know what a tripostick is, you lack belief in a tripostick; Really, all you are doing is playing on a difference in language and the meaning of words. If I didn't know what a god is and you came along and defined god as what I understand is a lump of coal, I'd now have an understanding(a belief) that in your language god=coal. So I could now say "It's cold. Stick some god on the fire". Now if someone came along and described god as a lump of coal that is invisible, transcendent, conscious, personal, outside of space and time, etc - or a mishmash of those things - I'd find no reason to believe those concepts; I'd think you are barmy and I'd lack belief when it comes to those particular coal(god) concepts. I'd even argue that such a thing would be something different from coal - or not coal. If you argued "the universe was created by the vacuum of space, which has no intelligence, intention, mind, or consciousness, would this make the vacuum of space God since it created everything that we know of.", then, and this may be irrelevant, I'd take issue with the above idea of the vacuum of space creating. The reason for that is the word create implies intelligence, consciousness, imagination, will, mind and intention. If you said the vacuum of space - being unaware, without mind, intention, intelligence, life, etc - gave rise to everything, I'd probably agree. Use any word you want in place of vacuum; call it snod, plod or god. At the end of the day it wouldn't mean anything different than the word vacuum. And again, if you claimed the vacuum(god, snod or plod) is personal or conscious with mind and intention and exists outside of the Universe, etc, then we wouldn't be talking about the same thing: we wouldn't be talking about a vacuum. And I'd find no reason to believe in whatever you are claiming. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 And while you don't know what a tripostick is, you lack belief in a tripostick; Really, all you are doing is playing on a difference in language and the meaning of words. A person that lacks the ability to communicate and is ignorant of the words used to describe everything he knows to exist does not lack a belief in the existence of everything he knows, he is just ignorant of the words that are commonly used to describe them. If you argued "the universe was created by the vacuum of space, which has no intelligence, intention, mind, or consciousness, would this make the vacuum of space God since it created everything that we know of.", then, and this may be irrelevant, I'd take issue with the above idea of the vacuum of space creating. The reason for that is the word create implies intelligence, consciousness, imagination, will, mind and intention. Create definition, to bring into existence. One theory is the big bank brought everything into existence. No one has ever suggested it is intelligent, until now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ryedo40 Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 One theory is the big bank brought everything into existence. I'm not sure if that is correct. I'm sure I read that the big bang theory states everything - all matter and space - existed in the form of a singularity smaller than a subatomic particle. I could be wrong but that would mean the big bang is the expansion of that singularity; it didn't create the singularity. Still, as I'd said I'd only take issue with the use of the word because of what it can be used to imply. It's irrelevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I'm not sure if that is correct. I'm sure I read that the big bang theory states everything - all matter and space - existed in the form of a singularity smaller than a subatomic particle. I could be wrong but that would mean the big bang is the expansion of that singularity; it didn't create the singularity. Still, as I'd said I'd only take issue with the use of the word because of what it can be used to imply. It's irrelevant. It changes all the time as they get new evidance, but the inicial theory was that everything including time was brought into eexistance by the big bang. Is this one better for you Iron is created by extremely large, extremely hot (over 2.5 billion kelvin) stars Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 It changes all the time as they get new evidance, but the inicial theory was that everything including time was brought into eexistance by the big bang[/Quote] Which existed as a quantum singularity until it, well, banged. We don't know what was 'before' that, the big bang theory hasn't changed as they have found new evidence, other theories have been looked at regarding what might have been 'before' the big bang as new evidence has emerged, but the big bang theory has remained pretty much static and remains the best theory of how the universe began given the evidence we have. Why do you seem to bring up the same old stuff time and time again despite being constantly shown to be incorrect? You just wait a couple of months then repeat the same old 'Mr Smith thinks...' ideas. I have lost count since I joined this forum of how many times your physics and ignostic ideas have been shown to be flawed and yet you persist in repeating them. ...and no I'm not getting into a debate with you before you start, I'm just pointing out the facts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 Why do you seem to bring up the same old stuff time and time again despite being constantly shown to be incorrect? I only brought it up because to demonstrate that create doesn't imply intelligence. I proved my point and this isn't a discussion about how or if the universe was created. ---------- Post added 19-02-2013 at 18:45 ---------- I have lost count since I joined this forum of how many times your physics and ignostic ideas have been shown to be flawed and yet you persist in repeating them. Disagreeing with me doesn't prove me wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PaliRichard Posted February 19, 2013 Share Posted February 19, 2013 I only brought it up because to demonstrate that create doesn't imply intelligence. I proved my point and this isn't a discussion about how or if the universe was created[/Quote] You haven't proved anything, just reaffirmed what you thought, again. Disagreeing with me doesn't prove me wrong. No but the countless links by countless different posters that take you to external sites which contain the evidence does. Just because you choose to ignore it doesn't make you right. I've had enough now, you may continue Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.