Games are not what will bring Linux to the desktop. Businesses will take it first, and then once it's common in businesses, companies will make more games for it.
To draw a perhaps exaggerated analogy, sure Hitler murdered millions, but look what he did for Germany!
Also, the important question is whether he gives greater in proportion to the average citizen. There is a parable in the Bible: 'And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, "Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had."' - Luke 21:1-4
Who's to say that if people used free software that some/many wouldn't give, overall, the same amount to charity instead of giving it to Gates?
He runs both an incredibly successful company and gives away gobs of money to charities.
Flawed reasoning. You are saying that if he had not bled that money from the population, that the population is more selfish and would not have given an equivalent portion away to charity. If citizens had free software (read: Linux), then they would have more money themselves to choose to give to charity or not.
atheistic outlook that many geeks here in the US seem to have.
I know of many theistic geeks who consider atheism absurd. And it is. The closest anyone could hope to be to atheism is "agnostic". After all, until you know everything there is to know, you can't be certain there is no God. Don't impute your atheistic beliefs to the rest of us. We like to think too.
There seems to be this big misconception that anyone who likes computers is therefore a "geek" and also therefore has a similar political/philosophical outlook.
Exactly, and I'm sure this is true even within the USA (which I don't live in).
Personally, I don't think desktop users will notice it's missing, except for a small niche. Most people working in a company or using it at home for email and web browsing won't notice, and simply won't care.
I'm really looking forward to having alpha blending, but I don't believe it to be a necessary or even wanted feature by most people.
No particular reason. I guess I felt it was less likely I'd be modded down if I was AC - which means the article will actually still be visible. Some people seem to feel there's some crusade worth waging, rather than actually talking about it.
The problem with ageing is that there's an arbitrary 'string'. iirc, every time a cell replicates, this 'string' is cut a bit shorter. Once it's gone, the cells stop replicating. ie, it's an arbitrary limit to lifespan, and there's no reason that if this string was extended, perhaps indefinitely, that we couldn't live forever. I believe it's called telomere.
Since this is possibly/probably a genetic trait, it is plausible that humans once lived longer, but unfortunate events left us with a shorter lifespan. Ah, here I found more details.
I think all open source games need is time. Take for example Quake 3 - this engine didn't just give us Quake 3, but also a whole slew of other fully featured first person shooters like American McGee's Alice and Jedi Knight iirc. And don't forget the enormous number of community made modifications for these commercial engines.
Games are built on top of an engine. What we need is some really good quality open source engines. We only need one or two, and from that we can build a number of excellent games without reinventing the wheel. All it needs is the game development tools to be built up in steps. Crystal space seems to be moving along very well, and may fill this gap for us. Once we see a 1.0 release for that, perhaps open source games will become a lot more common.
At any rate, all I think it needs is time to build up the code assets necessary to make a game. Once those are in place, creating new games on top shouldn't be much more difficult than making new games from the Quake 3 or other engines.
Are you serious? Your "righteous campaign" against the evil deceivers of slashdot. Deceiving children? You think the problem with my posts, if I understand right, is that they sound intelligent? So that, in your mind, the untrained mind might be 'deceived'.
You say you're a scientist. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is first, and engage in a discussion, in private, with myself and maybe another guy if you are interested. Then you can test first hand whether your reasoning is so strong. I'm still waiting for a single evolutionist that understands the creation model. All I ever hear in response is "there's no creation model to understand". All I ever see is complete ignorance. Be the first to prove me wrong.
You make a lot of accusations against me, and I see little chance for defending myself against them. Answer me these questions:
1. How am I trolling?
2. What constitutes posting in an "intelligent and humble manner"
3. Who set you up as judge and jury of who can post what on slashdot?
4. Do you expect anyone reading your posts to believe that you are a scientist, and not some student filled with delusions of grandeur in this great fight against the evils of creationism?
these weren't even death threats for what I've read
How about the one where he said something along the lines of "I'm sharpening my knives. After all, your family is waiting". Sounds like a death threat to me.
Why don't you stop being a coward and post as your proper user? or are you afraid of the retribution that you threaten against me? And how will it stop me? I can easily create a new user, I can easily get my karma up to excellent again. It's like trying to destroy a puddle with a hammer. Hell, I could even post as AC from now on. I could create a new user and use that for the next two months while you forget about me. I have a thousand different routes to follow. And as a result, my posts will continue to be modded by everyone else, not by some self proclaimed defenders of the truth bent on destroying us deluded creationists.
I always try not to insult people, and to talk in a composed way. I don't snub people off as enemies, but try to explain and understand. I have endured many comments like yours, telling me that everything I believe is fairy tales, nonsense, magic, etc. And I do not respond in kind by saying the same about evolution - because I know such things do nothing to persuade. You on the other hand have made death threats, something which even most atheists and evolutionists consider highly inapropriate. I don't know how you think you are fighting for a better world, if it's a world where attitudes like yours reign.
I don't care if you THINK that some people find me rude, because you and I both know too well what the real deal is
Did you read the responses people made to that first post, which I assume is yours? All of them thought you were being childish and inappropriate. If you are so certain that your crusade is worth fighting, why do you post as AC?
I've been the only one to really notice it and fight your bullshit... until now
Have you actually stood up to my "bullshit" by presenting arguments, or by just posting death threats? If only the latter, that's not really "standing up" to me. Of course, since you post as AC I have no idea whether you have made any intelligent responses or not. All I know is someone has been trolling me with death threats, and you seem to be the one.
So we ( because we're a bunch now ) will continue inviting people to see for themselves what you're up to
Have you set up a website yet, so I can show people my dedicated "followers"? Are you sure you want to make a martyr out of me? People pay far less attention to a person who is ignored. But if you succeed in getting a group of slashdotters to harass me, then it will only serve to increase my voice.
Count your Freaks Tyreth
Yes, my fans list is almost as large.
you're abusing us everyday, and that's about to change for good
How am I abusing you. Have I ever threatened to murder your family? Have I ever told you that I'm going to murder you? Have I ever told you that you must read my posts? If you disagree with what I say then:
a. write a reply explaining the reasons why, or
b. ignore my post
I have a right to speak every bit as much as you. And you have a right to ignore what I say. You do not have a right to silence me. So I'd love to know how I'm abusing you personally.
I have discussed with others on slashdot who gave far more rational arugments than this other person, and I happily continued discussing with them until the thread died. Why? Because they talked with more composure. I enjoyed the first post you made - nobody supported you, and everyone seems to think you are acting like a child. Why not try talking to someone first, rather than acting as an enemy?
I may have won some troll award, but strangely enough that post is still a score of 2. It did go up to 4 until people modded it troll for no good reason, but it's still not 1. So I'm labelled a troll for a post that wasn't trolling. Fascinating logic.
I said I was done arguing, which I finished doing a little while ago. You assumed then that I was unable to answer your arguments - all I did my last post was tell you my reasons why, not arguing about evolution or faith. This post here is not arguing about evolution or faith either. It's your prerogative to assume that it's because I can't answer your arguments. It's my prerogative to choose whom I engage in an argument with. I've given you my reasons why I chose not to argue with you. It is now your prerogative whether you believe them or not - which you haven't. I can live with that.
I *really* do not appreciate your tone. You are not interested in discussing, helping, and learning. You are interested in acting the antagonist using venomously charged words. I am simply not interested in arguing with you because I know the outcome - nothing. There will be no fruit gained for either of us. You have already decided what sort of person you think I am, so you will have lost the opportunity to learn something new - as I have lost it to learn from you. And don't be mistaken, this is based purely on your attitude. If you acted with more respect and less visciousness, then I would have been quite happy to talk.
Re:Why The "Matrix-In-A-Matrix" Idea Is Stupid:
on
The Matrix: Resolutions
·
· Score: 0, Troll
Apples and oranges. When we say that something "just is", there is the implication of being outside time. God declared to the Hebrews that His names was "I AM". The universe had a beginning, of this we are pretty certain. All things that have a beginning must have a cause.
On the other hand, God exists outside of time. He just "is". He had no beginning, has no end. So while this seems like a clever argument, if you scratch beyond the surface and look at the reason why we say they are different, it makes sense.
First let me preface this with the fact that the church I attend has a pastor that has been teaching the Bible from the original languages for more than 40 years. During most of that time the pastor has taught exegetical, isogogic, categorically organized doctrine at least 6 hours a week. All of what we study comes from texturaly criticised scriptures from the oldest, most accurate manuscripts with a constant eye for reconciliation of each scripture with the entire text of the Bible.
Although you may have a better understanding as a result of this, I would be a fool to accept your word as truth based purely on this testimony. So I hope you'll excuse me if I continue to act the skeptic and want to understand your reasoning, rather than just a statement of certain pieces of information being fact.
Ok, that out of the way, the first point is that no one really knows how long Adam and Esha (Eve's name before the fall) were living in the Garden. It could have been days or millions of years.
Why do you mention Eve's name as Esha but not call Adam Hadam - since that was his name before the fall (which means 'man').
Second, the Bible describes Satan being cast down to the earth BEFORE the Genesis 1 account of Creation. If you study the whole Bible from the original languages you will find many references to Satan and his use of the Earth before the Garden existed, even of how God placed the Earth "on ice" until it was ready for man and how He cleaned up the place before placing man on the Earth in the Garden.
I should like Scriptural support of such claims please. While I can accept that Satan was cast down to earth before Genesis 1 (I have mused that possibility myself), I have not seen much cause for believing Satan made great (ie, more than 6 days) use of earth before the garden. I also haven't see anything about God placing it on ice until it was ready. Or anything about cleaning it up. It states "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". All through the creation account God describes His work as good.
Bear in mind that the current creationist model includes a 14 billion year old universe, but only a 6000 year old earth.
Contrast this with empiricism and rationalism which rely uopn the merits of the individual to provide perception, faith relies on the intrinsic value and character of the object of faith to exist.
I didn't fully understand this sentence. It sounds to me like you are saying that faith cannot be obtained through an individual's ability to reason that we need it. However, I don't understand what you are saying faith relies on.
At the advise of a friend, I am withdrawing from this conversation. I am persuaded that most others reading will understand what I'm saying. I think I've adequately answered your questions, including about vestigial organs, despite originally saying I wouldn't.
I do have a question for you - are you a Christian and believe that you should not seek proof - or are you an enemy of Christianity who adheres to a false interpretation to try and demonstrate why Christianity is logically flawed?
Order and chaos are not clear distinctions. Order is seen in peace, chaos in war. The architect desired war and the oracle desired peace. The architect was bound to mathematical perfection, while the oracle had the divergent thinking of humans.
but overall it leaves me wanting one more movie... the one where the people are freed from the Matrix and Neo leads them to the promised land
This is precisely why, in my opinion, so many people are disollusioned. There was supposed to be something epic about the ending. All that happened was a colony of 250,000 humans were allowed to continue living, and 1% of those trapped in the matrix were allowed out rather than being killed. Yay. What we wanted was the ending of the movie. We wanted to see them try to restore the rest of humanity to reality. To see not just peace between the machines and humans, but a return to their unity before the war began (like in the animatrix). How different is the world at the end of Revolutions compared with the start of the first one? Not at all different. The anomaly is still present, everyone's still trapped in the matrix, zion is still there. The only difference is there's no fighting - the machines no longer will destroy the matrix and zion, and rebuild it again. Not for a while anyway.
Your claim: if there is proof there cannot be faith
You stated that this was elementary theology. I contend that elementary theology teaches no such thing - at least not within the reformed tradition, of which I am a member.
I did. Repeatedly. All those passages in the Bible support my position and refute yours.
Very well, I'll examine the Hebrews verse where you appear to get your definition of faith from: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen - Hebrews 11:1. The word faith here is in the greek "pistis". This means "conviction of the truth of anything, belief" Take also the second definition, "fidelity, faithfulness, i. e. the character of one who can be relied on" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon). It says nothing about conviction of the truth of anything without proof. In fact, in order to be convicted of the truth of something, it must be proven in one's mind (no matter how poor the evidence is). This word means trusting in someone who has proven themselves. We know that God's word is good and true, because He has proven His testimony many times throughout history. Therefore, we have faith in Him. So, just as vs 3 says, by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. Not because we have seen them formed personally, but because He is faithful and His word is worthy of trust - and if it's worthy of trust, then we know from His word how the world was formed.
First remotely accurate thing you've said on the matter. Faith is not about, is never about proof or empirical evidence. This is irrefutable as I have provided ample quotes form the Bible illustrating this.
You should not assume your logic to be so flawless. You are right that faith is not directly about proof or empirical evidence. It is about trusting someone who has proven themselves in the past. I reacted to your claim that faith is the antitheses of proof. Faith is founded on someone's proven faithfulness - their demonstration that they are worthy of being trusted. So when we have faith in them, we don't have proof that they will perform a certain thing in the future, but we do have faith that they will perform this thing, because they have proven themselves faithful. That is what faith means.
Only if you admit to being a pawn of the Devil. Or is the Gospel according to Matthew not in your Bible? You do own a copy, don't you?
You should not act so arrogantly self assured. It will make you look like a bigger fool if you are proven wrong.
The creation movement does not seek to test God. We already know by faith that His word is true. He has proven Himself faithful to us already. We believe that if God's testimony is true, then the earth must be young. This means two things:
1. That if the earth is proven old, then God is not worthy of faith
2. If our faith in God is proven misplaced, then we have no reason to hold on to the idea of a young earth (aside from the great deal of evidence that has been found)
Basically, I don't see how creationists are testing God. They already trust His testimony that the earth is young. They are now trying to demonstrate to you and others how flawed the old earth evolutionary model is. They do so using scientific and philosophical (logical) evidences. After all, if He is worthy of our faith, then His word must be true.
My goodness...do you want to actually provide any evidence of your definition of faith, or pretend you are a theologian?
Look up "faith" in the dictionary. It also means trust. I trust one friend because he has proven himself trustworthy. I distrust another because he has proven himself untrustworthy. It's a simple concept. Your verses do not contradict anything about my position.
But I'm not going to debate with you any more. I despise the way you pretend you have already won an argument before taking the time to discuss. Your very first post arrogantly assumed that I would not be able to stand up against you.
There are, according to Wiedersheim, no less than 180 vestigal [sic] structures in the human body, sufficient to make of a man a veritable walking museum of antiquities. Among these [is] the vermiform appendix . These and numerous other structures of the same sort can be reasonably interpreted as evidence that man has descended from ancestors in which these organs were functional. Man has never completely lost these characters; he continues to inherit them though he no longer has any use for them.
The World?s Most Famous Court Trial, Tennessee Evolution Case (A word-for-word report), Bryan College, p. 268, 1990 (reprinted from the original 1925 edition).
Let him who puts on his armour not boast as one who takes it off. You pretend you have already won the discussion before I've responded. This is indicative to me that you will not listen, even if you are proven wrong.
There's just so much wrong about what you say, but I've argued with others before - when their back has been against the wall (as you like to call it), the argument gets irrational very quickly. I don't much enjoy the sensation of banging my head against a brick wall - so I've taken the liberty of only arguing/debating with those who have the wisdom not to act arrogantly.
Your "theological" arguments are flawed on a fundamental level and are incredibly simple to dispel. I will answer that because it is the simplest - and also as a test. If I see you are willing to be corrected on the small things, then I'll know if it's worth my time replying to your other "points". But I must re-emphasise, I despise your arrogance that assumes that anything I can offer is wrong, and that all your arguments are perfect and flawless. I have no need to admit I lied if I did no such thing. I will not plead guilty when I am innocent. This makes me extremely unwilling to grace you with a response. Nevertheless, on with the easy one...
Your original claim: "Elementary theology all by itself shows that this must be wrong: if there is proof there cannot be faith." Elementary theology teaches no such thing, at least not from any institutes I know of, or in any churches I visit. Faith has two definitions:
1. Believing in something without proof. "I've never seen fairies but I have faith that they exist"
2. Having proof of something, and so putting your trust in them. "I've seen my friend shoot and never miss the target, so I have faith he'll hit the apple on my head and not me"
See the difference? The second is the correct definition of the faith that Christ calls us to have. We already have adequate proof and assurance of His existence, and His faithfullness in fulfilling His promises. Given that, when He tells us to have faith in Him, He is telling us to trust in Him to fulfill what He promised.
So your claim that proof invalidates faith is absurd and based on an incorrect definition of Biblical faith. Proof goes hand in hand with true Biblical faith, not opposed to it.
This is a common misconception, even amongst Christians, who believe that proof will destroy their faith. I always correct them and tell them that faith has nothing to do with believing without proof, and everything to do with trusting in someone who has already proven Himself.
Slashdot Mirror
Games are not what will bring Linux to the desktop. Businesses will take it first, and then once it's common in businesses, companies will make more games for it.
To draw a perhaps exaggerated analogy, sure Hitler murdered millions, but look what he did for Germany!
Also, the important question is whether he gives greater in proportion to the average citizen. There is a parable in the Bible:
'And He looked up and saw the rich putting their gifts into the treasury, and He saw also a certain poor widow putting in two mites. So He said, "Truly I say to you that this poor widow has put in more than all; for all these out of their abundance have put in offerings for God, but she out of her poverty put in all the livelihood that she had."' - Luke 21:1-4
Who's to say that if people used free software that some/many wouldn't give, overall, the same amount to charity instead of giving it to Gates?
Have you tried a demo of crossover office with her access database?
c e/ supported_apps/?id=6
http://www.codeweavers.com/site/products/cxoffi
Is this going to work over networks with thin client setups such as LTSP?
Personally, I don't think desktop users will notice it's missing, except for a small niche. Most people working in a company or using it at home for email and web browsing won't notice, and simply won't care.
I'm really looking forward to having alpha blending, but I don't believe it to be a necessary or even wanted feature by most people.
Apparently, just after the 2/03 MSIE 5.0 users upgraded to 6.0, only to downgrade again fairly soon afterwards.
No particular reason. I guess I felt it was less likely I'd be modded down if I was AC - which means the article will actually still be visible. Some people seem to feel there's some crusade worth waging, rather than actually talking about it.
Shotgun!
"re-write"?
Since this is possibly/probably a genetic trait, it is plausible that humans once lived longer, but unfortunate events left us with a shorter lifespan. Ah, here I found more details.
Games are built on top of an engine. What we need is some really good quality open source engines. We only need one or two, and from that we can build a number of excellent games without reinventing the wheel. All it needs is the game development tools to be built up in steps. Crystal space seems to be moving along very well, and may fill this gap for us. Once we see a 1.0 release for that, perhaps open source games will become a lot more common.
At any rate, all I think it needs is time to build up the code assets necessary to make a game. Once those are in place, creating new games on top shouldn't be much more difficult than making new games from the Quake 3 or other engines.
You say you're a scientist. Why don't you put your money where your mouth is first, and engage in a discussion, in private, with myself and maybe another guy if you are interested. Then you can test first hand whether your reasoning is so strong. I'm still waiting for a single evolutionist that understands the creation model. All I ever hear in response is "there's no creation model to understand". All I ever see is complete ignorance. Be the first to prove me wrong.
You make a lot of accusations against me, and I see little chance for defending myself against them. Answer me these questions:
1. How am I trolling?
2. What constitutes posting in an "intelligent and humble manner"
3. Who set you up as judge and jury of who can post what on slashdot?
4. Do you expect anyone reading your posts to believe that you are a scientist, and not some student filled with delusions of grandeur in this great fight against the evils of creationism?
these weren't even death threats for what I've read
How about the one where he said something along the lines of "I'm sharpening my knives. After all, your family is waiting". Sounds like a death threat to me.
Why don't you stop being a coward and post as your proper user? or are you afraid of the retribution that you threaten against me? And how will it stop me? I can easily create a new user, I can easily get my karma up to excellent again. It's like trying to destroy a puddle with a hammer. Hell, I could even post as AC from now on. I could create a new user and use that for the next two months while you forget about me. I have a thousand different routes to follow. And as a result, my posts will continue to be modded by everyone else, not by some self proclaimed defenders of the truth bent on destroying us deluded creationists.
I always try not to insult people, and to talk in a composed way. I don't snub people off as enemies, but try to explain and understand. I have endured many comments like yours, telling me that everything I believe is fairy tales, nonsense, magic, etc. And I do not respond in kind by saying the same about evolution - because I know such things do nothing to persuade. You on the other hand have made death threats, something which even most atheists and evolutionists consider highly inapropriate. I don't know how you think you are fighting for a better world, if it's a world where attitudes like yours reign.
I don't care if you THINK that some people find me rude, because you and I both know too well what the real deal is
Did you read the responses people made to that first post, which I assume is yours? All of them thought you were being childish and inappropriate. If you are so certain that your crusade is worth fighting, why do you post as AC?
I've been the only one to really notice it and fight your bullshit... until now
Have you actually stood up to my "bullshit" by presenting arguments, or by just posting death threats? If only the latter, that's not really "standing up" to me. Of course, since you post as AC I have no idea whether you have made any intelligent responses or not. All I know is someone has been trolling me with death threats, and you seem to be the one.
So we ( because we're a bunch now ) will continue inviting people to see for themselves what you're up to
Have you set up a website yet, so I can show people my dedicated "followers"? Are you sure you want to make a martyr out of me? People pay far less attention to a person who is ignored. But if you succeed in getting a group of slashdotters to harass me, then it will only serve to increase my voice.
Count your Freaks Tyreth
Yes, my fans list is almost as large.
you're abusing us everyday, and that's about to change for good
How am I abusing you. Have I ever threatened to murder your family? Have I ever told you that I'm going to murder you? Have I ever told you that you must read my posts? If you disagree with what I say then:
a. write a reply explaining the reasons why, or
b. ignore my post
I have a right to speak every bit as much as you. And you have a right to ignore what I say. You do not have a right to silence me. So I'd love to know how I'm abusing you personally.
now that somebody gave you sound answers
I have discussed with others on slashdot who gave far more rational arugments than this other person, and I happily continued discussing with them until the thread died. Why? Because they talked with more composure. I enjoyed the first post you made - nobody supported you, and everyone seems to think you are acting like a child. Why not try talking to someone first, rather than acting as an enemy?
I may have won some troll award, but strangely enough that post is still a score of 2. It did go up to 4 until people modded it troll for no good reason, but it's still not 1. So I'm labelled a troll for a post that wasn't trolling. Fascinating logic.
I said I was done arguing, which I finished doing a little while ago. You assumed then that I was unable to answer your arguments - all I did my last post was tell you my reasons why, not arguing about evolution or faith. This post here is not arguing about evolution or faith either. It's your prerogative to assume that it's because I can't answer your arguments. It's my prerogative to choose whom I engage in an argument with. I've given you my reasons why I chose not to argue with you. It is now your prerogative whether you believe them or not - which you haven't. I can live with that.
I *really* do not appreciate your tone. You are not interested in discussing, helping, and learning. You are interested in acting the antagonist using venomously charged words. I am simply not interested in arguing with you because I know the outcome - nothing. There will be no fruit gained for either of us. You have already decided what sort of person you think I am, so you will have lost the opportunity to learn something new - as I have lost it to learn from you. And don't be mistaken, this is based purely on your attitude. If you acted with more respect and less visciousness, then I would have been quite happy to talk.
On the other hand, God exists outside of time. He just "is". He had no beginning, has no end. So while this seems like a clever argument, if you scratch beyond the surface and look at the reason why we say they are different, it makes sense.
Although you may have a better understanding as a result of this, I would be a fool to accept your word as truth based purely on this testimony. So I hope you'll excuse me if I continue to act the skeptic and want to understand your reasoning, rather than just a statement of certain pieces of information being fact.
Ok, that out of the way, the first point is that no one really knows how long Adam and Esha (Eve's name before the fall) were living in the Garden. It could have been days or millions of years.
Why do you mention Eve's name as Esha but not call Adam Hadam - since that was his name before the fall (which means 'man').
Second, the Bible describes Satan being cast down to the earth BEFORE the Genesis 1 account of Creation. If you study the whole Bible from the original languages you will find many references to Satan and his use of the Earth before the Garden existed, even of how God placed the Earth "on ice" until it was ready for man and how He cleaned up the place before placing man on the Earth in the Garden.
I should like Scriptural support of such claims please. While I can accept that Satan was cast down to earth before Genesis 1 (I have mused that possibility myself), I have not seen much cause for believing Satan made great (ie, more than 6 days) use of earth before the garden. I also haven't see anything about God placing it on ice until it was ready. Or anything about cleaning it up. It states "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". All through the creation account God describes His work as good.
Bear in mind that the current creationist model includes a 14 billion year old universe, but only a 6000 year old earth.
Contrast this with empiricism and rationalism which rely uopn the merits of the individual to provide perception, faith relies on the intrinsic value and character of the object of faith to exist.
I didn't fully understand this sentence. It sounds to me like you are saying that faith cannot be obtained through an individual's ability to reason that we need it. However, I don't understand what you are saying faith relies on.
I do have a question for you - are you a Christian and believe that you should not seek proof - or are you an enemy of Christianity who adheres to a false interpretation to try and demonstrate why Christianity is logically flawed?
but overall it leaves me wanting one more movie... the one where the people are freed from the Matrix and Neo leads them to the promised land
This is precisely why, in my opinion, so many people are disollusioned. There was supposed to be something epic about the ending. All that happened was a colony of 250,000 humans were allowed to continue living, and 1% of those trapped in the matrix were allowed out rather than being killed. Yay. What we wanted was the ending of the movie. We wanted to see them try to restore the rest of humanity to reality. To see not just peace between the machines and humans, but a return to their unity before the war began (like in the animatrix). How different is the world at the end of Revolutions compared with the start of the first one? Not at all different. The anomaly is still present, everyone's still trapped in the matrix, zion is still there. The only difference is there's no fighting - the machines no longer will destroy the matrix and zion, and rebuild it again. Not for a while anyway.
You stated that this was elementary theology. I contend that elementary theology teaches no such thing - at least not within the reformed tradition, of which I am a member.
Very well, I'll examine the Hebrews verse where you appear to get your definition of faith from:
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen - Hebrews 11:1. The word faith here is in the greek "pistis". This means "conviction of the truth of anything, belief" Take also the second definition, "fidelity, faithfulness, i. e. the character of one who can be relied on" (Thayer's Greek English Lexicon). It says nothing about conviction of the truth of anything without proof. In fact, in order to be convicted of the truth of something, it must be proven in one's mind (no matter how poor the evidence is). This word means trusting in someone who has proven themselves. We know that God's word is good and true, because He has proven His testimony many times throughout history. Therefore, we have faith in Him. So, just as vs 3 says, by faith we understand that the worlds were framed by the word of God. Not because we have seen them formed personally, but because He is faithful and His word is worthy of trust - and if it's worthy of trust, then we know from His word how the world was formed.
You should not assume your logic to be so flawless. You are right that faith is not directly about proof or empirical evidence. It is about trusting someone who has proven themselves in the past. I reacted to your claim that faith is the antitheses of proof. Faith is founded on someone's proven faithfulness - their demonstration that they are worthy of being trusted. So when we have faith in them, we don't have proof that they will perform a certain thing in the future, but we do have faith that they will perform this thing, because they have proven themselves faithful. That is what faith means.
You should not act so arrogantly self assured. It will make you look like a bigger fool if you are proven wrong.
The creation movement does not seek to test God. We already know by faith that His word is true. He has proven Himself faithful to us already. We believe that if God's testimony is true, then the earth must be young. This means two things:
1. That if the earth is proven old, then God is not worthy of faith
2. If our faith in God is proven misplaced, then we have no reason to hold on to the idea of a young earth (aside from the great deal of evidence that has been found)
Basically, I don't see how creationists are testing God. They already trust His testimony that the earth is young. They are now trying to demonstrate to you and others how flawed the old earth evolutionary model is. They do so using scientific and philosophical (logical) evidences. After all, if He is worthy of our faith, then His word must be true.
Look up "faith" in the dictionary. It also means trust. I trust one friend because he has proven himself trustworthy. I distrust another because he has proven himself untrustworthy. It's a simple concept. Your verses do not contradict anything about my position.
But I'm not going to debate with you any more. I despise the way you pretend you have already won an argument before taking the time to discuss. Your very first post arrogantly assumed that I would not be able to stand up against you.
The World?s Most Famous Court Trial, Tennessee Evolution Case (A word-for-word report), Bryan College, p. 268, 1990 (reprinted from the original 1925 edition).
There's just so much wrong about what you say, but I've argued with others before - when their back has been against the wall (as you like to call it), the argument gets irrational very quickly. I don't much enjoy the sensation of banging my head against a brick wall - so I've taken the liberty of only arguing/debating with those who have the wisdom not to act arrogantly.
Your "theological" arguments are flawed on a fundamental level and are incredibly simple to dispel. I will answer that because it is the simplest - and also as a test. If I see you are willing to be corrected on the small things, then I'll know if it's worth my time replying to your other "points". But I must re-emphasise, I despise your arrogance that assumes that anything I can offer is wrong, and that all your arguments are perfect and flawless. I have no need to admit I lied if I did no such thing. I will not plead guilty when I am innocent. This makes me extremely unwilling to grace you with a response. Nevertheless, on with the easy one...
Your original claim: "Elementary theology all by itself shows that this must be wrong: if there is proof there cannot be faith."
Elementary theology teaches no such thing, at least not from any institutes I know of, or in any churches I visit. Faith has two definitions:
1. Believing in something without proof. "I've never seen fairies but I have faith that they exist"
2. Having proof of something, and so putting your trust in them. "I've seen my friend shoot and never miss the target, so I have faith he'll hit the apple on my head and not me"
See the difference? The second is the correct definition of the faith that Christ calls us to have. We already have adequate proof and assurance of His existence, and His faithfullness in fulfilling His promises. Given that, when He tells us to have faith in Him, He is telling us to trust in Him to fulfill what He promised.
So your claim that proof invalidates faith is absurd and based on an incorrect definition of Biblical faith. Proof goes hand in hand with true Biblical faith, not opposed to it.
This is a common misconception, even amongst Christians, who believe that proof will destroy their faith. I always correct them and tell them that faith has nothing to do with believing without proof, and everything to do with trusting in someone who has already proven Himself.