Shinjula

that was the thought of a bunch of victorians, scientist have now shown that a grat deal more (particularly mammals) have sex for pleasure as well how do you know they dont do it for pleasure? I've seen several dogs who are clearly enjoying it

Not sure quite what you mean here, I'm guessing you arent talking about the branch of chiristianity called "Creationism" here? If so what do you mean?

apparently so, and so may i suggest that you pop to a library and find some books on evolution from a pro evolution stance and have a bit of a look, because you sound like a fari minded chap and it sounds like your teachers have done you a great disservice. You might be surprised to find, give a chance to explore on your own how rational a theory it actually is.

yes you do, bonobo's (a type of monkey) are famous for it and have you never heard of a dog licking his own testicles?

but the big bang has nothing to do with evolution, its physics not biology, why would you mention evolution there? neither did we come from monkeys

depends whether or not people are just being sloppy with language here, its more likely that the guy meant he hates racism, which is not a prejudice but an understandable dislike of an intellectual concept. Which is subtly different to hating a group of people.

incidentally its not a proven DNA thing, but the scientific consensus is that it isnt a choice, it may be nurture it maybe mature, what is known is that it isnt trauna related, and neither is it curable, the most appalling suicide rates occur when people attempt this, sure some tiny proportion may be able to switch but as far as scientists can tell this is simply from people who are more inherently bisexual repressing their feelings for males.

So does that mean man to man oral sex is fine then, since that doesnt require anything outside the body?

Then your missing the point of evolution, its not just random, its constrained by functionality, THAT'S what makes it work. Its easiest to see it working in design, evolution works great when used as a tool, pick a design for something, make thirty copies but each with a small difference, then throw away the ones you dont like, then take each of those and make thirty small changes to them adnthrow away the ones you dont like, then pick the best one from those you have left, then repeat the process. I use this when I'm making abstract sculptures and it works superbly, once you understand the process its easy to see how it would work with an organising agency (i.e.) me simply replaced by 'ability to survive' And sure it doesn't explain where life came from initially, but then it's never supposed to. It may be that a random chance occured which kick started the whole process off, or that life came from space (which whilst doesn't answer the question of where it came from does dramatically increase the space in which the random event occured to the point of infinity making it almost a certainty of happening) or maybe some god came along and sprung it into existence. But thats not the point, evolution can be seen in the world today, it can be seen in the past theres so much scientific evidence for it that the only people who deny it are those with a clear agenda not to accept it.

No of course not, for example as a briton, i can easily be proud of my roots in terms of engineering and science, britain has a great history of that Nope, white culture is of course, not by definition prejudiced, theres no difference between white and black in those terms, all I'm saying is that the history, particularly over the last couple of hundred years of both groups is very different, and because of that its a lot easier for a black man to be proud of his cultural heritage, I personally find very little of my own heritage to celebrate, and I find it impossible to feel an overarching love for the culture that spawned me, I can merely be proud of certain elements within that culture (such as admiring its engineering/invention). Of course racism and prejudice is part of any persons life and we must all fight against that part of our nature striving to treat people equally. The thing is that Black nations weren't in power and we are judged on our actions, not things which didnt happen. We, the white man, went round the world and enslaved and dominated practically every culture we could find, this is something we as descendants of that culture must never forget and we bear a heavy burden from it, to ensure that that never happens again.

I really am not playing at semantics here, just logic, but i have realised that it doesnt matter whether or not the bible doesnt say fallible or whether it indirectly says infallible, the arguement works as long as it doesnt categorically states its totally infallible, which it doesnt. If it doesnt say infallible, then infallible is clearly not something we need to know, otherwise it would be in there. And just because something is mathematically true doesnt mean it cant be applied to the real world, in fact thats often the whole point of mathematics. Then you're not speaking of the Bible and Christianity, then. I dont know how you are defining Christianity, but i certainly know some people who would call themselves Christian to which it would apply. If you make something perfectly, it doesnt just stop being perfect, just because of some property such as free will, because those properties must inherently be perfect.

Sorry, i have to head off now, ill look at any further posts later on thanks for the debate, its been good.

>>>>First of all, anyone claiming the statements too indirect would simply be playing Devil's Advocate, for the simple fact that we could set up a syllogism to show why the Bible is claimed to be infallible (God is without error. God Divinely Inspired the Bible. Therefore, the Bible is without error). Therefore, we do not need the first set of premises. Furthermore, since the Bible does insinuate it's infallibility, the second portion also becomes unneeded because it's stooped in the assumption that the Bible makes no mention of it's infallibility when, indeed, it does. No, that would simply be a different belief system than yours, I'm thinking here of people who believe that god is without error, but the bible is an interpretive document, i simply have a wider group that i am disproving than simply your belief system Edit: it also occurs to me that your syllogism is in error, since god is quite capable, for his own reasons, of creating imperfect creations (man), just because god divinely inspired the bible does not imply its innerrancy, since it is up to god whether or not he wanted it inerrant

No youve missed the point, probably because you seem confused about how exactly the proof works, this is no bad thing, its a complex proof. Insinuating infallibility isnt enough to counter act this, because we are taking the bible as everything we ever will need to know. if the bible doesnt tell us it is "everything well ever need to know in language everyone can understand", then it cant be "everything well ever need to know in language everyone can understand", SINCE IF IT WAS, IT WOULD BE IN THE BIBLE TELLING US SO.

and to me also, but i suppose from the perspective of someone convinced of gods omnipotence theres a simple argument that logically if god is omnipotent then he created the laws of logic and does not have to obey them. That sort of a creature would then be completely alien to us and fulfill the ineffable quality hes supposed to possess. Of course it would be difficult to describe us as 'made in his image', then whosays he is required to make sense. Unfortunately my response is that whilst this is a god that could exist, in no way what so ever would i worship him. The sort of creature that would do that would be nothing that i would have anything to do with.

Hmm just thought of something, if god is omnipotent, does that mean he can create something logically impossible? [personally i believe in a non omnipotent god - the logical universe suggests it, logic transcends god to my mind]

Lol, I'm saying that because the bible doesnt categorically state that it is fallible, and with the definition of infallible taken to be, contains everything we need to know (from earlier in the thread), whether or not the bible is infallible, cant be something we need to know. Incidentally, you should feel free to see if changing the definition of infallible leads to different results EDIT : Couple of errors in the logic on the last two posts, just fixed

those arent assumptions, its a logical question with one of two possibile answers, fortunately because the bible is small and because you know it well, we can say that the bible does nowhere mention that it is fallible. Essentially the first set is there for completenes sake as it is an inherent part of the incompleteness theorem, even if we dont need it. It also is there in case of back tracking so that, we can include any interpretation of the bible, if we interpret the bible, as you suggest as having indirect statements asserting its infallibility, the second block of statements are what concern us, however if someone new were to also join in and assert that the statements were too indirect, we would have the first block of statements to show that there is still a contradiction the other way. Now remember the way it has to be positied, (the way godel did it), the question isnt whether or not the bible says its infallible, its whether or not the bible says it *IS* fallible, the direction of it is important and what makes the argument work, there isnt a statment in the bible which says "The bible IS fallible", we can be sure of this, therefore we can be sure that its categorical fallibility isnt something we need to know.

Sorry, does the Proof of the Bibles fallibility need a repost in order to get a response?

Thats not quite the same statement though, i wonder hows its interpreted, esp from the original text? i.e. that statment could only apply to statements recorded reagrding gods law. incidentally the beauty of mathematics IS the main reason i do believe in god, i just dont believe in any religeon.

Yep cool, well we'll stick with the moral relativism debate...once youve had a chance to look at my bible infalliblity application of godel sometimes, maths is a thing of beauty.

Good on yer, that one does just seem to be going round in circles, glad one of you has the brains to stop and move on :) give yourself 10k xp in foruming

Godel's incompleteness theorem is applicable to logic, and since im [attempting] to argue logically, it should be applicable here. Mathematics is not just about numbers it is about structure and language has a structure itself which can be dealt with mathemtatically. ts kinda one of the breakthroughs maths has made in the twentieth century, most people consider maths such a dry subject but i love it and it can have far reaching consequences. Set theory this century move so far beyond numbers that most twentieth century mathematics is unrecognisable to most people, but the logical statements of my previous post should show excatly how it can be applied.

Actually ive just realised my previous post, entirely coincidentally is precisely godels incompleteness theorem as applied to bible infallibility If the bible conatins everything we need to know, then either the bible contains a statment which says its fallible ...in which case it is either true and it cannot contain everything we need to know, contradiction ...or it is false in which case the bible is wrong, contradiction or it doesnt ...in which case either the bible doesnt conatin everything we need, or bible infallibility is unimportant and cannot be used to jstify anything of importance. Yey, knew it could be done. :)

There are also people who come to the conclusion that it's fallible, granted there are people who disagree with them, naturally. Now theres an interesting point, if the bible is infallible, meaning that it contains "everything which people need and need to ever know", wouldnt that imply it also contains the information to satisfy everyone that it is infallible. By the fact that it doesnt contain that information, it implies that the fact that its falliblity is not something which people need to know? I would argue that logically it is unimportant that the bible is infallible, since that information is not in the bible. (obviously the counter is true - its also not important that the bible is infallible is it isnt) [i should just check - the bible doesnt actually claim to be infallible, yes? other people make that claim, not the bible itself?]