Are Americans really like this?

[Rich]

Where is your evidence that these "documentable statements" are true and therefore can be used to ground an argument?

It's written in the book of quotes, just about every other page I think

 

[statsman]

True, a slight exaggeration on my part, but the point was that it was God that told George to do it so that clears him of any blame.

Col

I believe I stated this on a another topic on the Iraqui war.
The US is paying for it via deficit financing.
When the taxes go up to start paying off the debt, that's when the average American will insist it be stopped.
Unfortunate but true.
Thats a major reason for the credit squeeze in the US which is spreading around the world. This is also why the US had to cut interest rates last week.
I always get very nervous when people start talking about "God told me.." Time to call in the shrinks.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

It is obvious that many of you continuouly missed my point, which OF COURSE was about the guy in sandals in the desert in the 1st century. WHO ELSE do the Bible thumpers shove in your face when talking religion? Rather than wallow in the trough with you, I'll leave you to your positions.

 

[shadow9449]

It is obvious that many of you continuouly missed my point, which OF COURSE was about the guy in sandals in the desert in the 1st century. WHO ELSE do the Bible thumpers shove in your face when talking religion? Rather than wallow in the trough with you, I'll leave you to your positions.

Ok, the question here is whether this is about Bible thumpers in particular or Theologians and apologists in general. If the former, then you are absolutely correct and I agree. If the latter (which is what I think we're discussing, i.e. whether God in general can be or needs to be proven), then you would have to be more all-encompassing and include more general models of God.

Agree?

SHADOW

 

[TessB]

But won't the Americans just sell the debt to others, just keeping the equity for themselves of course?

I'm sorry I'm late to the game... but... did America force some unwitting Brits to buy their worthless mortgages? If so... exactly HOW did they do that? See, I thought the whole "too free with mortgage money" problem was simply an American issue. I had no idea we strongarmed some feeble-minded bankers in the UK to take on bad debt.

No idea. No idea about that at all.

Why again is this America's fault?
Someone please explain the logistics to me.

 

[Rich]

I'm sorry I'm late to the game... but... did America force some unwitting Brits to buy their worthless mortgages? If so... exactly HOW did they do that? See, I thought the whole "too free with mortgage money" problem was simply an American issue. I had no idea we strongarmed some feeble-minded bankers in the UK to take on bad debt.

No idea. No idea about that at all.

Why again is this America's fault?
Someone please explain the logistics to me.

The problem was worldwide Tess, not just limited to feeble minded British bankers

 

[dan-cat]

Rather than wallow in the trough with you, I'll leave you to your positions.

That's argumentum ad hominem

 

[GaryPanic]

I'm sorry I'm late to the game... but... did America force some unwitting Brits to buy their worthless mortgages? If so... exactly HOW did they do that? See, I thought the whole "too free with mortgage money" problem was simply an American issue. I had no idea we strongarmed some feeble-minded bankers in the UK to take on bad debt.

No idea. No idea about that at all.

Why again is this America's fault?
Someone please explain the logistics to me.

Banks recently have been mad with there lending of money, (not just the US)
and the problem with this has been that banks have been lending to each other to cover shortfalls , now te bubble on interest rates has burst (stateside anyway) and this has cause for banks to reel in what they are prepared to lend to other banks , on this occasion the chain reaction started stateside , it could of happened somewhere else - but it didn't

any fool could of seen that interest rates had to go up in the states

now bank mangers were quite happy lending moneues out and getting payments in, but suddenly morgages payemtns have doubled etc and a % cannot afford morgages , so tere is suddenly a book of bad debit , banks are trying to avoid falling foul of regulations (both stateside and Europe side )
and have decided to keep any surplus cash they have

 

[voidcranium]

This thread has gone from "Lawsuits" to "Proof of GOD" to "Banking".

And you all wonder and argue over why Nations cant get along.
Just read your post!
And apply it on a Worldwide basis.

***************************************************
Can you prove GOD Exist? NO
Can you prove GOD does not Exist? NO

Without proof you only have faith.
Faith HE exist.
Faith HE doesn't.

 

[The_Doc_Man]

Thank you, Shadow, for finally seeing my point. It was the former of your two options.

 

[dan-cat]

Thank you, Shadow, for finally seeing my point. It was the former of your two options.

Your argument is still meaningless.

Your argument hinges on the premise that God exists.


Your premise: God exists
Your conclusion: God may not exist.

Your conclusion violates your premise. It's basic logic and you're not adhering to it.

 

[Pauldohert]

One more thing, you cannot use the assumption of a truth to disprove itself.

Yes you can -

http://zimmer.csufresno.edu/~larryc/proofs/proofs.contradict.html

Your argument is still meaningless.

Your argument hinges on the premise that God exists.


Your premise: God exists
Your conclusion: God may not exist.

Your conclusion violates your premise. It's basic logic and you're not adhering to it.

I agree with one point - "its basic logic and YOUR not adhering to it!"

I think the point is that the conclusion violates the premise - Docman is disprooving the there is a proof that god exists - not disprooving that God exists or disprooving god does not exist.

ie

Nutter: The God I beleive in is the God in the biblical sense and I can prove his exsitence
Docman : NO you cannot

So Docman assumes the nutter is correct and using logic (perfectly) reaches the conclusion that the nutters premise will logically reach a contradiction - therefore is wrong.

There is a clue in the original post "Invariably, "proofs" of God's existence must fail."

Thats what I reckon anyhow?! I may be wrong.

 

[dan-cat]

Nutter: The God I beleive in is the God in the biblical sense and I can prove his exsitence
Docman : NO you cannot

If the christian you're arguing with is so far removed from his religion that he thinks faith is not required then you're not actually contesting any biblical teaching at all.

The premise God exists has not been reduced to absurdity which is the logical argument you think Docman has applied successfully. All that has happened is the premise has failed to be proved or disproved. No ground has been covered and 99% of Christians will respond:

"Duh! That's why the bible teaches faith"

It's a limp argument against a soft target.

 

[Pauldohert]

I refer you to previuos posts - though you have moved some of your eggs out of the wrong basket - and spread them around a bit, some are hitting and some are missing spectacularly.

And the ones that are hitting noone is contesting!

 

[The_Doc_Man]

The whole point I am making is that IF the Christian want to play by their rules, I am able to demonstrate that the logical conclusion of their attempt to prove that God exists would cause them to commit a mortal sin - placing a (provable) god before the God who must not be tested and for whom only faith is the answer.

I AM NOT assuming that God exists. I am taking the starting point of the parties claiming that God exists (and claiming they can prove it) and demonstrating that they are in fact violating their own rules.

I do not claim to have proof of God's existence or non-existence. I am specifically targeting the Intelligent Design crowd, who are very big proponents of proving God's existence. Usually by trying to disprove evolution - which they cannot do except by totally illogical arguments. What I am doing is showing that if they are right, they are automatically wrong BECAUSE they violate their own rules.

 

[voidcranium]

Intelligent Design = evolution?
Every thought about that?

What if GOD had made an atom and smacked it in his hands(BIG BANG)?

Bottom line is YOU don't know.

 

[Rich]

Intelligent Design = evolution?
Every thought about that?

What if GOD had made an atom and smacked it in his hands(BIG BANG)?

Bottom line is YOU don't know.

One atom wouldn't have generated the Universe, try again

 

[Alc]

One atom wouldn't have generated the Universe, try again

It would if it were a special God atom, made by God, for Godly purposes.
If he can make the Earth, the universe and everything else, what makes you think He couldn't use a magical atom that, when clapped between his hands, creates a universe?

 

[Rich]

It would if it were a special God atom, made by God, for Godly purposes.
If he can make the Earth, the universe and everything else, what makes you think He couldn't use a magical atom that, when clapped between his hands, creates a universe?

But by that logic there would only be one magical atom in the Universe

 

[Alc]

But by that logic there would only be one magical atom in the Universe

There were many. He just picked which one to use.

The others are now in storage in His shed (which, logically, must exist somewhere outside this universe, along with his house, garden, pearly gates, etc.), to be used in case He wants to create another universe, somwhere else.