God and the blind Tailors

Devils advocate You might not call on me to be banned but I would like to see you get at least a warning for stalking and slander. The reason I stopped posting here is because I felt I would be banned soon anyway. So here is a kiss for you <<<>>>

​

BTW I have received little in the way of donations and have never solicited them. I own two humanitarian christian missions and a church. I have received quite a few grants from uncle sam (thank you taxpayers) to support my lively hood and feed the poor as well as assist them in receiving federal aid.

​

So it come to this, I suppose I will get a warning or banned but I cant help that, with all the slanderous remarks and insults its obvious whats going on. IO really don't need this because there are hundreds of forums that take MY money as I donate to the good fair and ethical ones.

​

again have a nice godly day

​

; }>

​

btw anyone that gets band only need invest in some cheap IP masking software if they want to make a project of any site that is bigoted etc. (not that this site is bigoted, some of the members are unethical and unfair but I have not heard from the site administrator etc

​

Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

​

Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

​

Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

Defamation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
But a new remedy was introduced with the extension of the criminal law, ... The common law origins of defamation lie in the torts of slander (harmful ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DefamationI know because I sue. If damages are incurred its different as well. But you are correct spoken lies are slander and written lies are defamation then there is libel. I wouldn't sue for for anything said here for several reasons. I am just getting tired of the personal BS, that's all .; {>btw I did not have to study tort law or any law for that matter. Philosophy yes law no Theology yes law no...see simple..Of course you more than likley will try to make something out of it.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Did I ever reveal your real name or even your pseudname you claim to use? No.

​

All I did is call you out on your claim that you attended a college that I myself happened to have attended.

---

Your intent and such were more than that simple abstract reveals.You are determined to damage my credibility.Anyway ~Oh no! I hope you aren’t from here. No, wait if you do live in Elizabethton or Johnson City you and I might could have some fun! We could iron these problems out over a beer.Come to think of it, why should I believe you attended Milligan? Why did you attend a religion based school? Mom and dad made you attend hoping to change your ways?

quote:

---

How would I send you anything if you do not disclose your real name/address? Besides you would be nuts to think that I would disclose any information about myself to a complete stranger on the internet.

---

I have several public PO boxes for public mailings. You send it to Box holder or addressee etc. You could do the same thing as I if you are interested in the truth instead of your possible fabrications. Take your lawyer and give him 50 or 100 dollars and tell him to write you a legal document to protect your identify and other information.

quote:

---

And what are you going to tell the dean? That someone who's name you do not know challenged you online about your credentials to the college? Good luck. Have fun with that.

---

I will explain exactly what happened that’s all. If you really sourced the information (which I have questions about) his school may be responsible for other people that has had their information stolen.

quote:

---

What action? On what grounds?

---

Oh forget it its not even worth a phone call or energy that it takes to tell the sordid details of your unethical stalking behavior.; {>Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

Forum Guidelines

​

Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring

quote:

---

You're beyond funny, RCH. You're just a crackbrained troll. Please, feel free to amuse me further until the admins finally have enough of your content-free, sue-happy accusational nonsense and ban you.

---

That insult is a violation of this sites TOS and I have reported you, what good is a ban with all the IP masking software? I fear you are insane and harmful to society and this site.; {>ps you might tell the internet infidels that they cant be sued because they are the object of a class action lawsuit hee hee...what a genius you aren't...Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

Forum Guidelines 3...Please stay on topic for a thread. Open a new thread for new topics.8...Always treat other members with respect. Argue the position, not the person. Avoid abusive, harassing and invasive behavior. Avoid needling, hectoring !Now kiddies everyone get on topic unless you want to be taken to the principals office along with the genius.; {>Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

quote:

---

Have you suffered any material damage from what's been posted at this site, RCH? Have you suffered mental pain and anguish, and would you be able to have a psychologist sign a statement in court that you have suffered lasting psychological trauma? Would you be able to convince any judge or jury anywhere that this is the case? Have you suffered loss of revenue?

---

If I wanted to I could make a case for both. My ex wife is a board certified psychologist. However I wouldn't stoop so low as you apparently will. I have ethics do you? [/quote]

quote:

---

If not, you're just an ignorant blowhard. And very likely a troll.

---

Stay on topic and cease and desist your many violations of the forum guidelines. Insults only expose you for what you are. Google inferiority complex and borderline personality disorder. You are dangerous my friend get some help post haste. If you are on meds start taking them again, everyone will be safer. You scare me and I feel threatened by your remarks.; {>Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

quote:

---

I see that you have not actually done so.
  —Rahvin

---

Have another look and thanks so much for the link! I couldn't find it without your help!hee hee really now everyone please get back on topic I have allow enough of the personal remarks.; }>Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

Please stay on topic. I am not reading nor responding to anything that is off topic. Its useless tripe and only serves to flame the hate. I wont be a party to that any longer. Thanks in advance for abiding by this sites guidelines.BRB gotta give my crosses a hug, for they as this thread tells us represent the 'cause' and are the reason the hate stops here.: {>Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : add ons

quote:

---

An attempt to get back to the topic:
RCH, you have suggested that all (most? some?) religions are simply multiple attempts to describe a single truth. You've used the analogy of multiple student tailors, some of whom make suits that fit the real client better than others.
What makes you think this? Do you have an objective reason, or is this simply an attempt to grant validity to other religions while holding your own as what you consider the "best fit?"

---

Its simply a tool for visualizing a difficult concept.In my world I feel that a God which can create a universe and have it produce sentient man as a 'truth'. What I mean by 'truth' is that God would have to know every physical process in the universe to design one start to finish. So, I think its reasonable to assume that when man became sentient, he began questioning "why". Eventually this curiosity of everything developed into the different religions. However, all these religions are really trying to describe the one creator God. The creator of the universe and everything in it. So I think that the original god was a mono being who created our universe.

quote:

---

When I look at the religions of the world, I see typically mutually-exclusive ideas. For example, is God omnipotent? Christians think so, but the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and other all thought that there were multiple gods who had absolute authority and power only over their own domains.

---

Well that is what you would expect from the many source descriptions of God. This Christian thinks that God is omnipotent only in his own "realm". However, I also believe that God created this universe to run on probabilities, Chaos, and uncertainty. Additionally its my belief that God can 'enter time', but does so only in very rare events.

quote:

---

This is the equivalent of several of the student tailors making partial suits for multiple clients. Several religions (Buddhism, Scientology, various ancestor-worshiping or animist religions, lots of new-age beliefs) do not believe in a god at all.

---

Some Buddhism 'sects' have supernatural aspects to their religion some may not. Of course if they do not worship any God at all I feel that those tailors are making God parade around in a very ill fitting suit! . I personally feel that a non spiritual non deity "religion" is about as incorrect as one can get, and of course with all due respect to atheism & to any atheists here, all forms of atheism is the most wrong of all, with hard or strong atheism making no suit at all! partial levity again guys> .

quote:

---

That's rather analogous to several of the tailoring students insisting that there is no client to tailor a suit for. In the face of all of the mutually exclusive beliefs regarding god(s) and the supernatural, what makes you think they are all attempts to describe the same thing with differing degrees of success? Isn't that like asking art students to paint a dog, and several of them painting houses, stars, and flowers?

---

I touched on that above. Due to several reasons a mono-god seems most probable (not statistically probable). My art student example would be like this; I would instruct my students to paint a image of the creator of everything. If God exists some of the paintings etc would be more accurate than others (if God had a form that could be expressed in a temporal universe).

quote:

---

Isn't there a limit at which point you say "you cannot be describing the same thing I am, our descriptions are simply too different?"

---

No, but I could say 'your painting is way off God looks nothing like that'. Of course my critique would only be valid if I knew what God looked like. That is precisely why I never say my painting is correct and yours is wrong to an accuracy of 100%. I would say rather 'my beliefs lead me to believe that my painting is more accurate, do you want to know why?', which I am sure makes some people happy and a few people not so happy.

quote:

---

You further claim that your specific religion is the "very best fit" of all. What makes you think so? Is there an objective reason, some sort of evidence showing that your religion more accurately describes "the real god(s)" than any other religion? Or is your assessment based only on your own personal emotions and feelings, with no objective basis?

---

This is a personal claim for a personal God. I may be incorrect. However I use many evidences that some other religions may not have at their disposal. Also I use some of the sciences (archeology and astronomy for example). I use a cosmological argument for the existence of God as evidence. And I use the bible. I use writings from secular roman historians and other things. Another is a near death experience and some faith based events which I rarely mention in a non religious metaphysical setting.

quote:

---

Why do you consider the Christian concept of god to be superior to Allah? To Thor, or Odin? To Buddha, or Shiva? To the Flying Spaghetti Monster?

---

Because their religious books texts and beliefs seem less credible when taken as a whole. Of course as I have said many times I respect all beliefs and non beliefs. I have empathy for non believers, not disdain.

quote:

---

Is there an actual, objective reason, some sort of evidence that the Christian concept explains better than the others? In science, we often have multiple hypotheses attempting to describe a single observation.

---

Just what I have touched on above. Science and Philosophy religion and metaphysics have different criteria to meet. So its like trying to put a square science pole in a round religious hole if either discipline(s) are held to the others standards etc. That's not to say science and religion cannot agree in many instances, its simply that they are two different disciplines.

quote:

---

We then test the predictions of each hypothesis against further observation and experimentation to determine which hypothesis is the most accurate. What observations, if any, do you believe support the Christian explanation of god(s) better than any others?

---

Just what I touched on above. There is more trace reasons but I am pretty sure what I have already said will keep us busy for awhile!

quote:

---

What makes you think there is a client at all? Could the student tailors have simply convinced themselves that there is a client and each began making a suit to fit their own conceptualization of the imagined clients' measurements would be?

---

Of course that is a possibility but not a very valid one. As per the KCA nothing begins to exist without a cause, and that cause in my opinion was God. So, in my world its more reasonable to assume that there is a creator. "Why is there a universe at all, rather than just nothing?

quote:

---

Wouldn't that more accurately fit a situation where it doesn't seem like any of the students have ever actually seen the client, but instead make suits (or do not make them) for completely different clients, or even different numbers of clients?

---

Not to my way of thinking. Back to your art student example, if more than one painting were completed there should be some more accurate than the others. That may be a logical fallacy but you know what I mean. One creator/God is the most simple explanation and therefore the best choice as per Ockham's razor.

quote:

---

Do you have any objective evidence, something outside of faith, that suggests that god(s) may actually exist?

---

Just what I outlined above. The KCA is a pretty good objective evidence. However there is no empirical way to prove God exists to my knowledge.; }>Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Fixing the odd characters by redoing the ' and ". Oddly, some uses of these had worked fine. Is he entering text via Microsoft Word and also directly into the text box?Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Reset "signature" after fixing coding errors at profile.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.""I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.""God is subtle but he is not malicious.""I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."Albert Einstein

quote:

---

Or it's another rationalization forced upon you because of your inability to accept that folks make up gods a the drop of a hat without consulting each other.

---

Wrong. I said that people DO make up gods easily. In fact that was the bulk of my response. However out of these fabrications only one I suspect is true.

quote:

---

It's what I would expect if the object under consideration was fictitious. I've never heard anyone describe the moon as cubic or tetrahedral.

---

No, but you have seen the moon. As I said above the descriptions are fictitious, so we agree. Some are more accurate than others. That was what I said.

quote:

---

Firstly, there's really no reason to titter. Very few atheists have an emotional attachment to their simple non belief in a god. .

---

The first sentence was a bit off topic but not too bad, but I will attempt to answer anyway. Speak for yourself. I have experience debating atheists and many are very very touchy about their simple non belief in a god.

quote:

---

How upset would you get if someone told you you were wrong about the Tooth Fairy being made up? No one cares so long as you don't have the force of law to insist.

---

Again you are speaking about your personal experience and I from mine.

quote:

---

Secondly, you've made no progress at all in explaining why you are right and everyone else is wrong.

---

I didn’t say I was right and everything else is wrong. I said some is more accurate than others. If God exists that is probably correct.

quote:

---

Your feeling so isn't one of the more impressive theses exhibited on this board in the last 24 hours. You've SO running against you.

---

And do you think I am impressed by your personal opnion. Be aware that you are getting too close to teasing a personal response out of this debate. I will copy this part of the exchange just in case.

quote:

---

Are any of those reasons unrelated to what your mommy and daddy told you when you were growing up?

---

That is off topic and this will be reported. When you abide by the administrators advice I may respond to the rest of this post, well the non personal remarks.REPORTED FOR BEING OFF TOPIC AGAIN; {>Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

​

"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."

​

"God is subtle but he is not malicious."

​

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."Albert Einstein

After some reconsideration and reporting for being somewhat off topic, I placed a disclaimer at the bottom of the thread (OFF TOPIC AGAIN) that read if you would delete your reply then remove the personal content and the off topic off color remark maybe we could work together and I would finish replying to your reply. Lets try to be civil and lose the snide remarks, it would benefit everyone at this forum.Thanks in advance for your consideration ~; }>BTW I created a new thread concerning the KCA. You may enjoy it. Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

​

"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."

​

"God is subtle but he is not malicious."

​

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."Albert Einstein

No deal no debate. With you anyway. I have no desire to debate with someone that has to be hostile. Sorry. If you would attempt to do as the administrator asked we would not have this problem. The reason I can't let the moderators moderate is because they let it get to the point that an administrator had to intervene. Or did you miss that?Redo your replies to comply with the administrators requests and I will be happy to win er go on with this debate.;{>Edited by RevCrossHugger, : No reason given.

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind."

​

"I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice."

​

"God is subtle but he is not malicious."

​

"I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."Albert Einstein

quote:

---

. That's not what I asked. I'm not asking why you chose the metaphor, I'm asking why you believe what the metaphor represents to be accurate. Why do you believe that all religions are attempts to explain the same, "true" deity? Couldn't some (most? all?) be completely made-up and have nothing to do with reality at all?

---

Yes God may not exist. I have said that in the past. The reason I think there is one God and the religions (including Christianity) are all just attempts at describing God is that one God is the most simple explanation as per Occam's razor, and the claims of various religious texts.

quote:

---

But why? What makes you think this? Family tradition? Social pressure? "Gut feeling?" A revealed truth? In what form? Objective evidence? We all live in the same world - yours is no different from mine objectively. Only our subjective opinions and interpretations, and our specific chain of personal experiences are different. What makes you conclude that this world includes a deity?

---

Cosmological arguments were a reason I rejected my atheism or more accurately my agnosticism. Then there was archeology verifying some biblical claims. And the concept not to be confused with theological. That some other things such as personal revelation resulting from a and a NDE. As I said why is there a universe instead of nothing?

quote:

---

.Again, why? That's some very interesting speculation, and I'll admit to thinking along the same lines in the past. But it's just speculation unless you can give a reason. What ties all religions together to make you think they're all various attempts at the same truth? Why did "curiosity" branch out so differently? Why do you assume that god(s) are omnipotent? Omniscient? Why do you assume that god(s) created the Universe? Not all religions say this was the case - in fact, many suggest no such thing.

---

It gets back to the same thing I alluded to above. With different cultures and environments I would be astonished if all the religions were the same! Each culture had their version and reasons for describing God why they did. So its obvious that if God exists and he was fairly deistic and does not intervene too much in mans affairs different religions would be expected.

quote:

---

When I look at the religions of the world, I see typically mutually-exclusive ideas. For example, is God omnipotent? Christians think so, but the Greeks, Romans, Egyptians, and other all thought that there were multiple gods who had absolute authority and power only over their own domains.

---

quote:

---

Why? Why would you expect, given that there is only one objective truth that all are attempting to divine, that wildly different mutually exclusive ideas would be prevalent? If I quickly flash a picture of a dog in front of an audience and then ask them to draw what they saw, most would at least draw something with four legs. Even if I gave each person a different view, or only let some of them touch a dog briefly without looking, we'd expect to find some strong similarities. We wouldn't expect anyone to draw a house or a car; we wouldn't expect anyone to draw flowers or a star. Yet with religion we find disparities on that level.

---

If no one had actually seen a dog but I told them a dog does exist I highly doubt if any of them would draw a picture of a dog. However I bet some would look more like a dog than others.

quote:

---

again, this ignores the question. I asked why different religions do not believe god(s) are omnipotent, or that there are more than one. This directly conflicts with your own belief; you would say that it's a poorly fitting suit. But it's not just poorly fitting - it's multiple suits that don't resemble any of the suits made for a single model. Why is this the case, if there is one truth that everyone is trying to describe? What caused the difference?

---

As I said above. Different cultures have different ideas of God because they have different needs and desires. They use different criteria and different source material , so its logical that each would come up with a different explanation of God.

quote:

---

Buddhism does not include any deity. Buddha is simply a man who has achieved enlightenment. Some denominations believe in the supernatural, others less so. Some believe in reincarnation, others do not.

---

Yes I agree with that, I dabbled in eastern religions before I accepted Christianity.

quote:

---

RCH, we know that this is what you believe. You're stating your position but failing to give the requested explanation. What makes you think god(s) exist at all? What reason? "I personally believe..." is a statement, not an answer, and more it's a statement of a fact we already know. Why do you think god(s) exist?

---

I gave you several reasons. The KCA and the cosmological arguments for the existence of God, archeological evidence emerging to fit what the bible says, the argument from design. Now I have said this three times are you rejecting these reasons ?

quote:

---

But that's nonsense. Probability is statistics. You cannot separate the two.
What fact or observation makes you think that one-god or any-god is more probable than many-gods or no-gods?

---

Well its not nonsense. Anyway I have already defended that as per Occam's razor etc

quote:

---

And yet your suggestion requires the premise that any god(s) exist at all, and further implies a single "creator." What if the Universe simply exists? What if existence is inevitable? What tells you, one way or the other?

---

Nothing begins to exist without a cause not even a universe. My reasons for believing in god are stated above a few times over.

quote:

---

You further claim that your specific religion is the "very best fit" of all. What makes you think so? Is there an objective reason, some sort of evidence showing that your religion more accurately describes "the real god(s)" than any other religion? Or is your assessment based only on your own personal emotions and feelings, with no objective basis?

---

Again I feel Christianity is the best fit due to a variety of reasons that I explained above in detail and redundancy. Only a couple are “based only on your own personal emotions and feelings”.

quote:

---

This isn't even bare assertion - you're referring to evidence you haven't presented. What evidence, specifically, do you believe supports your position? Feel free to leave out the personal bits if you like, but surely you can describe some of the archeological/astronomical evidence, or why you believe historical roman writings support your views.

---

I already covered the cosmological arguments and the teleological concept. The archeological evidences support that real people, real places of the bible existed. The secular writers were we writing about Jesus followers (Christ) causing trouble for the roman authorities and some remarks about Jesus himself. It lends credence that Jesus actually existed.

quote:

---

.Personal credulity is irrelevant - in fact, it's another logical fallacy. What seems personally credulous has nothing to do with accuracy - it's an example of speculation, not of rigorous adherence to reality. Is there an objective test you apply to all religious texts to measure their accuracy?

---

Personal credulity is irrelevant to what exactly? Anyway, I don’t document and validate the red sea scrolls and such texts but I do know of the process they go through and believe me its rigorous.

quote:

---

If the goal is to accurately describe reality, I don't see how different standards and methods work. Only by testing the predictions of our hypotheses against reality can we gauge the relative accuracy of those hypotheses

---

Again that is true for scientific theories. Valid arguments of philosophy have a very different criteria than the claims of science.
.

quote:

---

Bare speculation followed by naked faith is demonstrably no more accurate than guessing.

---

Again faith and trust are only one component of a multi tiered (see above) evidence for the existence of God.

quote:

---

Why would we believe such a method has greater accuracy in describing that which we cannot test, when it has no accuracy at all when the same method is used for hypotheses we can test?

---

Because logic and reason (valid philosophical arguments) can tease answers out that science can’t.

quote:

---

Not really - you haven't said anything. You haven't given a single explanation, not answered a single "why." You haven't presented any evidence. You've given a circular argument, an appeal to personal credulity, and the rest has been "I have evidence, trust me" or "this is just what I think, I could be wrong."What is there in that to keep anyone busy? You've been busy dodging questions, nothing more.

---

The KCA the argument of teology , etc etc. It is you that have not attempted to rebut any of these. Not one. Its time for you to get busy and stop asking redundant questions.

quote:

---

Please explain this in your own words. What does KCA stand for? What makes you assert that nothing can exist without a cause? Why can the Universe not simply exist? How do you know that the Universe is not simply the default state?

---

Do you mean we have been discussing this all this time and you don’t know what the KCA is? No worries. Ok the director was correct I should of used the full name. The KCA (Kalam Cosmological Argument) is a valid cosmological argument for the existence of God. It uses thee premises to form a syllogism. The reason I think the universe is not in a default state (what exactly do you mean by that?) is that I subscribe to standard big bang cosmology.

quote:

---

That's simply an inconsistent application of Occam's Razor. Why are all gods other than yours considered extraneous entities? Do you have some bit of evidence distinguishing your deity from the others? What makes your deity a required term, and all other deities unrequired?

---

My deity is everyone’s else’s deity they just don’t know it! I have already explained why I feel my religion may be more accurate.

quote:

---

Please explain. Referring to KCA doesn't tell us much; a brief summary of what you think objectively supports the existence of god(s) would be a big help.

---

Its difficult to explain a book length subject in a sound byte. Please google The Kalam cosmological argument and you even will find some ways to attack it! Then Google teleological argument, or argument from design. That’s enough to get us started.

quote:

---

How would I differentiate your beliefs from those who believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster? It's been shown that many portrayals of deities are simply made-up nonsense; Zeus does not throw lightning bolts from Olympus, and Apollo does not drive a chariot across the sky with the Sun for a wheel. Why should I consider your deity to be any less made-up than the deities of the past?

---

Use your common sense and research the design thing. Then read the bible front to back with an open mind. Then take at least a few semesters of comparative theology. You are like I was, faith alone did not do it for me at first.Thanks for cleaning up your reply it bodes well for our continuing dialog, best of all its productive now!; }>

---

"Science without religion is lame. Religion without science is blind.""I am convinced that He (God) does not play dice.""God is subtle but he is not malicious.""I want to know God's thoughts; the rest are details."Albert Einstein