The isreal/palestine debate

[Napoleon Ier]

Who claims that the 'only evidence for god is the bible [sic]'?

Care to prove that there are non-Biblical sources that provide evidence for the Christian God, then? I didn't recall your ontological arguments having a great connection with reality last time, either.
Exactly how is humanity capable of imagining infinity, again?

P.S. Left/right wing is not an insult. Stop generalising.

The use of historical documents concerning the existence of Jesus and his Disciples' acts serve as evidence, however little you may like it.


You then have the teleological argument, transcendental argument, cosmological proof, and of course the various ontological proofs.

But of course. There is no evidence for God. How silly of me. Of course comic boy's magic circus bald undocumented, unevidenced assertions count for more than the combined wisdom of Anselms, Descartes, Kant, Godel, Leibniz, Paley and others.

Well they are all bolder than me because I wouldnt claim something without a scrap of proof to back it up

Sancta Maria mater Dei....do you want to be any more ignorant? Have you heard of the Discourse on the Method? Of the Critique of Pure Reason? Discourse on Metaphysics? How dare an ignorant little cretin like you speak about these great men like that?

Insult away little child
There is still not a scrap of evidence for the existence of God and all your profanity will not change that one iota. Your constant abusive language is now becoming tiresome, either keep your temper in check or I will simply report you .

So you have never heard of Immanuel Kant.

[comic boy]

Anyone fancy getting this thread back on track? I believe I asked Suggs a question somewhere before the hate...

Actually I asked Suggs a question and you advised him not to answer it I wouldnt mind hearing your views on the subject though, if you think they will be inflamatory then by all means PM me.

[Guiscard]

Anyone fancy getting this thread back on track? I believe I asked Suggs a question somewhere before the hate...

Actually I asked Suggs a question and you advised him not to answer it I wouldnt mind hearing your views on the subject though, if you think they will be inflamatory then by all means PM me.

Fair point, but then I sort of reconsidered... And asked my own hypothetical. Lets ee what he has to say when he's around.

[Guiscard]

Suggs

Be so good to elaborate when and where this happened, would it be 1967 ( when Egypt kicked out the Peacekeeping force and announced it was going to drive Israel into the sea) or 1973 ( when Israel was attacked first ) or some other time ?

Not that I disagree, but just to play the Devil's advocate... If they have no right to Israel they really have no right to anywhere! I would contend that I think it was appropriate that the Jews have some form of state, and that unrestricted immigration to, say, Palestine would lead to more trouble in the long run than 'giving' them territory 'legally' (note the ''s). Everything after that? Out of order, but still...

To get this back on track.

[comic boy]

I guess the sticking point with me is the contention that the present inhabitants of Israel have no right to be there, given that for example the map of Europe was redrawn numerous times during the last century, where do we draw the line ?

[Guiscard]

I guess the sticking point with me is the contention that the present inhabitants of Israel have no right to be there, given that for example the map of Europe was redrawn numerous times during the last century, where do we draw the line ?

That's certainly a consideration. I still have mixed opinions about Israel / Palestine, or at least about the viability of creating a Jewish state in the first place. Everything after that creation, yeh completely wrong, but still... Would you argue that they should not have been settled then? Should they have legally emigrated to Palestine in huge numbers, bearing in mind that that would cause increasingly mounting tensions and the Palestinians could simply close the borders? Or should the idea of creating a Jewish 'homeland' never have been on the table? Should they have continued a minority existence which brought them the anti-semitic persecution they've had for centuries? Bear in mind the way some people treat Muslims in today's society, or the way they'd like to treat them at least. What's to say that totalitarian governments won't emerge in the future in the same manner? We cannot guarantee that the 'plight' of the Jews in Europe is over just because we can learn lessons from the Holocaust...

[Frigidus]

Who claims that the 'only evidence for god is the bible [sic]'?

Care to prove that there are non-Biblical sources that provide evidence for the Christian God, then? I didn't recall your ontological arguments having a great connection with reality last time, either.
Exactly how is humanity capable of imagining infinity, again?

P.S. Left/right wing is not an insult. Stop generalising.

The use of historical documents concerning the existence of Jesus and his Disciples' acts serve as evidence, however little you may like it.


You then have the teleological argument, transcendental argument, cosmological proof, and of course the various ontological proofs.

But of course. There is no evidence for God. How silly of me. Of course comic boy's magic circus bald undocumented, unevidenced assertions count for more than the combined wisdom of Anselms, Descartes, Kant, Godel, Leibniz, Paley and others.

Well they are all bolder than me because I wouldnt claim something without a scrap of proof to back it up

Sancta Maria mater Dei....do you want to be any more ignorant? Have you heard of the Discourse on the Method? Of the Critique of Pure Reason? Discourse on Metaphysics? How dare an ignorant little cretin like you speak about these great men like that?

Insult away little child
There is still not a scrap of evidence for the existence of God and all your profanity will not change that one iota. Your constant abusive language is now becoming tiresome, either keep your temper in check or I will simply report you .

So you have never heard of Immanuel Kant.

The thing about philosophy Nappy is that it's easy to debate all of those and possible to "disprove" some. There have equally good arguments against god(s). Plus those don't necessarily apply to the Christian God.

[Neoteny]

I guess the sticking point with me is the contention that the present inhabitants of Israel have no right to be there, given that for example the map of Europe was redrawn numerous times during the last century, where do we draw the line ?

That's certainly a consideration. I still have mixed opinions about Israel / Palestine, or at least about the viability of creating a Jewish state in the first place. Everything after that creation, yeh completely wrong, but still... Would you argue that they should not have been settled then? Should they have legally emigrated to Palestine in huge numbers, bearing in mind that that would cause increasingly mounting tensions and the Palestinians could simply close the borders? Or should the idea of creating a Jewish 'homeland' never have been on the table? Should they have continued a minority existence which brought them the anti-semitic persecution they've had for centuries? Bear in mind the way some people treat Muslims in today's society, or the way they'd like to treat them at least. What's to say that totalitarian governments won't emerge in the future in the same manner? We cannot guarantee that the 'plight' of the Jews in Europe is over just because we can learn lessons from the Holocaust...

To me, it seems there is a sense of primacy involved with the people who were born there pre-world wars... now that the situation has been the way it has for fifty-odd years, it makes the whole thing that much worse off now that both sides can lay birthright claims (or whatever). I'm sure that there was a better solution to the problem back then, I'm just not clever enough to know what the hell it might be.

[comic boy]

I guess the sticking point with me is the contention that the present inhabitants of Israel have no right to be there, given that for example the map of Europe was redrawn numerous times during the last century, where do we draw the line ?

That's certainly a consideration. I still have mixed opinions about Israel / Palestine, or at least about the viability of creating a Jewish state in the first place. Everything after that creation, yeh completely wrong, but still... Would you argue that they should not have been settled then? Should they have legally emigrated to Palestine in huge numbers, bearing in mind that that would cause increasingly mounting tensions and the Palestinians could simply close the borders? Or should the idea of creating a Jewish 'homeland' never have been on the table? Should they have continued a minority existence which brought them the anti-semitic persecution they've had for centuries? Bear in mind the way some people treat Muslims in today's society, or the way they'd like to treat them at least. What's to say that totalitarian governments won't emerge in the future in the same manner? We cannot guarantee that the 'plight' of the Jews in Europe is over just because we can learn lessons from the Holocaust...

In a way I find it difficult to actually view Israel as the Jewish homeland on the grounds that more of the faith live in New York alone and from what my father tells me many Israelis are not particularly devout. I suppose it is a spiritual homeland, a place of focus, important when for centuries your people have been wandering gypsies , persecuted endlessly.
As I understand it other places were mooted as a homeland,Ethiopia was one I think, but Palestine seems to me to have been the obvious place. For a start the Jews had religious and historical ties with the area, more practically they had been emigrating there in ever increasing numbers since the turn of the 20th century, by 1948 they were a very sizeable minority in Palestine.
You talk it terms of the Palestinians closing the borders but how could they,the British were in power and after the holocaust there would not have been the political will. Having laid the seeds of discontent on both sides as a result of the cursed Balfour declaration, the British washed their hands of a bad job and passed the buck to the League of Nations who did the best they could. Division was inevitable as was the following war between the Arabs and the Jews who had been sniping at one another for years.
It is a moot point which of the sides started the hostilities but it seems clear that they both expected to win, the British Foreign office believed the Jews would be slaughtered so the idea that it was one sided is palpably false, the Arabs were numerically stronger but defeated by a more disciplined and motivated force. The rest is history, occasional open warfare interspersed with terrorist attrocities and sometimes brutal Israeli government policy.
The real tragedy of course is the million or so displaced Palestians who
to this day live a squalid existence in refugee camps and run down towns and villages. This is the human face of the conflict and more than anything it is the supposed Israeli mistreatment of these people that has led so many to side with the Arab cause. Again though there are 2 sides to the story, both sides caused the original displacement and the Arab league has not exactly moved mountains to ease the refugees plight, they have been used by their own people as political pawns without doubt. The Israelis have done little to create a positive impression,perhaps they simply dont care what the rest of the world thinks, but losing the PR war doesnt mean they are neccesarily the only bad guys !

[Neutrino]

Sancta Maria mater Dei....do you want to be any more ignorant? Have you heard of the Discourse on the Method? Of the Critique of Pure Reason? Discourse on Metaphysics? How dare an ignorant little cretin like you speak about these great men like that?

You seem quite willing to argue with comic boy here, yet my post languishes, unanswered, a page back.
Care to respond to it?

[Napoleon Ier]

The use of historical documents concerning the existence of Jesus and his Disciples' acts serve as evidence, however little you may like it.

How does this prove God? No-one here is contending that Jesus and the Disciples didn't exist, just that there was no divine force to back them up.

You then have the teleological argument, transcendental argument, cosmological proof, and of course the various ontological proofs.

Telelogical is countered by the weak anthropic principle, transcedental utilizes circular reasoning and cosmological is based on flawed human understanding of the universe.

The most major flaw in your arguments, however, is that none of the arguments you provided can prove the existence of the Christian God. There are whole worlds of difference between God and the Greek Pantheon, for example, yet both have essentially the same chance of existing (i.e. infintely small).

1/The archaeological evidence and varios ancient texts can be used to mount a powerful case for the divinity of Jesus.
2/Are you really so arrogant as to think that in a single line, you can rebutt the huge intellectual weight carried by each of these arguments?
3/The mere fact that these arguments have sparked a philosophical battlefield to be created, on which there are good arguments proponed by each side, shows there is evidence for God, even if you choose to find it inadequate.

[Neutrino]

1/The archaeological evidence and varios ancient texts can be used to mount a powerful case for the divinity of Jesus.

Show me. If ancient writings declaring the characters mentioned within to be divine are now to be taken sans salt, why are you not bowing at the altar of Hercules?

2/Are you really so arrogant as to think that in a single line, you can rebutt the huge intellectual weight carried by each of these arguments?

Sure. I can, however, go into more detail about teleological and cosmological, if you want (my three words concerning transcendental arguments were more than enough).
Teleogical contends that the world, and universe, are too perfectly designed for humanity to be accidental. However, this flatly isn't true. Sure, the universe looks nice from our cozy little planet, but when you actually get out there you'll discover that the rest of the universe doesn't lend itself to human life (Sorry, Colossus, but I really like this argument). Supernovae, neutron star collisions, the eventual collision between us and Andromeda. All of them post a huge threat to fledgling humanity (admittedly, not the last one so much).

Hell, even our cozy little planet isn't that cozy. In a few thousand years, glaciers will be back, ready to scrape Northern Europe clean, regardless of Global Warming. Or Yellowstone will start up again and we can all enjoy the savings on heating that hundreds of thousands of cubic metres of lava per second provides. Or the next dinosaur killer could come wandering in from the belt, to teach us all who's boss.

The universe is well adapted to humanity to the extent that it doesn't terminate us immediately. That's not a great degree of adaptation.

The cosmological isn't so much disproved by the weak anthropic principle as it is invalidated. The infinite number of universes would serve essentially the same purpose as God; as an end for all causal chains. Therefore they are both equally probable and therefore, in this case, we can ignore them both equally.
My comment that "cosmological is based on flawed human understanding of the universe" was a response to the cosmological argument's declaration that no causal chain can be infinite and that no object can cause itself. The first is, as I said, based on flawed human understanding. In our megre experience we have encountered no certain casual chain of infinite length, but this is might not be true everywhere (and everywhen). The second is disproved by quantum mechanics.

Long enough for you?

[Napoleon Ier]

Long enough for you?

Broadly irrelevant. You raise some interesting points if we were debating the existence of God, but we're debating whether or not there is any evidence for him. Which on the back of the considerable amount of literature and debate within the philosophical community surrounding the issue, would seem at the very least to exist, if not seem sufficient for you to positively assert that God exists.

In other words, you failed to respond to the section of my previous point specifically directed at the question of ascertaining the veracity of the claim that "there is no evidence for God but the Bible/Ancient Texts".

[Neutrino]

Broadly irrelevant. You raise some interesting points if we were debating the existence of God, but we're debating whether or not there is any evidence for him. Which on the back of the considerable amount of literature and debate within the philosophical community surrounding the issue, would seem at the very least to exist, if not seem sufficient for you to positively assert that God exists.

Sophistry.

I was using my points to disprove your "evidence" for God. If you cannot disprove my points in turn, then your evidence for God is invalidated.

Run that last sentence by me again. "Because there is debate on the existence of an object, the object being debated must exist"
The Bigfoot people will be happy to hear this.

In other words, you failed to respond to the section of my previous point specifically directed at the question of ascertaining the veracity of the claim that "there is no evidence for God but the Bible/Ancient Texts".

The actual claim was "There is no evidence for God, period". The Bible/ ancient texts don't count. I assume you know why.
The main problem with your post is I have adressed your claim that the original claim is false. You put forward various ontological arguments as evidence for God and I disproved them. Unless you can disprove my points in turn, you are left with no evidence for God and therefore a failed argument.

[Napoleon Ier]

"Because there is debate on the existence of an object, the object being debated must exist"

Ahhh....methinks I have spotted a little selective reading here. If you had bothered to read my posts before responding to them (which would be considered a modecum of politesse, I should hope), I think you'll find I say that there is evidence (which doesn't imply necessary existence) for God on the basis that the vast intellectual debate on the subject which has attracted some of the greatest minds, mathematical, scientific, political and philosophical, since Socrates and Plato leading all the way up to Dawkins and Lennox today. Your claims are so ridiculous and outlandish, that for me to try and seriously enertain them as a philosophical contention of any merit would be entirely fruitless. Run that last sentence again with me. "You're a nutcase and it isn't worth debating such ridiculous claims with you". If however, you want to exercise your ability to google these arguments and find the rebuttals to them on the wikipedia page in a seperate debate on the existence of God, perhaps you would find more receptive ears. Perhaps.

The actual claim was "There is no evidence for God, period". The Bible/ ancient texts don't count. I assume you know why.

If you reread the original thread in which the claims were made by laughable_rentboy et co., you'll find in their confused ignorance they actually did claim that ancient texts were the only evidence for God.

The main problem with your post is I have adressed your claim that the original claim is false. You put forward various ontological arguments as evidence for God and I disproved them. Unless you can disprove my points in turn, you are left with no evidence for God and therefore a failed argument.

The problem is none of your rebuttals come close to answering the original arguments put forward. Now look, I don't want to be condescending, but to try and debate on the sunject of metaphysics with someone who uses the "a" in a priori as a definite article whilst trying to show that they "don't count" is frankly going to be an utter waste of time for me.

[comic boy]

Children always have, and always will , believe in fairy stories.

[Napoleon Ier]

Children always have, and always will , believe in fairy stories.

Woops...looks like you spelled "mature persons having carefully considered both sides of the theological debate" children and spelled "intelligent theology carefully crafted by colossal intellects belonging to the mighty philosphers accross the ages" as fairy stories. How embarassing for you.

Or do you mean that Augustine, Plato, Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, John Lennox, Réné Descartes, Godel, and the likes of these great thinkers were ignorant believers of fairy tales and that you are more intelligent than all of them combined?

[comic boy]

Hope you enjoyed the Rugby Nappy Rash

[comic boy]

Children always have, and always will , believe in fairy stories.

Woops...looks like you spelled "mature persons having carefully considered both sides of the theological debate" children and spelled "intelligent theology carefully crafted by colossal intellects belonging to the mighty philosphers accross the ages" as fairy stories. How embarassing for you.

Or do you mean that Augustine, Plato, Aquinas, Immanuel Kant, John Lennox, Réné Descartes, Godel, and the likes of these great thinkers were ignorant believers of fairy tales and that you are more intelligent than all of them combined?

In this regard it appears so

[Neutrino]

Ahhh....methinks I have spotted a little selective reading here. If you had bothered to read my posts before responding to them (which would be considered a modecum of politesse, I should hope), I think you'll find I say that there is evidence (which doesn't imply necessary existence) for God on the basis that the vast intellectual debate on the subject which has attracted some of the greatest minds, mathematical, scientific, political and philosophical, since Socrates and Plato leading all the way up to Dawkins and Lennox today. Your claims are so ridiculous and outlandish, that for me to try and seriously enertain them as a philosophical contention of any merit would be entirely fruitless. Run that last sentence again with me. "You're a nutcase and it isn't worth debating such ridiculous claims with you". If however, you want to exercise your ability to google these arguments and find the rebuttals to them on the wikipedia page in a seperate debate on the existence of God, perhaps you would find more receptive ears. Perhaps.

So basically I was right (with the substitution of "evidence for" for "must". Why didn't you just say that and save yourself 150 words and 20 minutes?).

The main problem with this argument is many of the arguments that were used as evidence for God are invalid. Unfortunately, it was impossible to determine that when the majority of the debate took place. Philosophers were only able to make claims extrapolated from their experience. "Down Here is pretty amicable to human life, so why shouldn't Up There be?" "It doesn't make sence for a causal chain of infinite length to exist, so I decree they can't." "I've never encountered an object that caused itself, therefore they can't exist."
Nowadays we have the benifit of actual data to prove these theories wrong.

Evidence isn't evidence if it's been thoroughly disproved by other, more modern and reliable evidence.

If you reread the original thread in which the claims were made by laughable_rentboy et co., you'll find in their confused ignorance they actually did claim that ancient texts were the only evidence for God.

My bad. I assumed the Bible would be dismissed out of hand.

The problem is none of your rebuttals come close to answering the original arguments put forward. Now look, I don't want to be condescending, but to try and debate on the sunject of metaphysics with someone who uses the "a" in a priori as a definite article whilst trying to show that they "don't count" is frankly going to be an utter waste of time for me.

Again, I ask you to fix your own spelling and grammar before correcting mine.
Third time lucky...

[Dekloren]

Israel doesn't exist.

[muy_thaiguy]

Israel doesn't exist.

Keep saying that, doesn't mean it's true though.

[Dekloren]

Just like how Iraq had WMD.

^^

[Aidan Kerr]

i hope iran blows it to hell. let israel and kosovo burn.
iran should send hundreds of nukes to care of the job

[Dekloren]

That's someone who should be banned.