終於有人成功用哲學摧毀基督教！
凱撒暴龍獸
438 回覆
71 Like
578 Dislike
你啱，哲學系全部都係on9，連教我logic嘅prof都係on9
我唔知有冇得罪邊個，但我睇法應該同主流堂會幾唔同
咁耶穌係有吩咐我地傳福音嘅，不過性質比較近似報導真相嘅記者，而唔係做sales真相係難聽，本身都預咗大多數人唔會信，所以講完唔信就算，唔應該為咗討好人引人信而歪曲咗真相
咁耶穌係有吩咐我地傳福音嘅，不過性質比較近似報導真相嘅記者，而唔係做sales
真相係難聽，本身都預咗大多數人唔會信，所以講完唔信就算，唔應該為咗討好人引人信而歪曲咗真相呢個網堅持每一段經文只有一個有可能既理解，並且將佢揀既理解放埋一齊。
再者，聖經係有佢既信息要表達，係比當代讀者睇得明，唔係寫今日理解既科學，亦都唔係寫今日理解既歷史。
好多時，一件事係可以有好多個角度睇，而呢類所謂矛盾，正正就比讀者睇到聖經既豐富。
講到尾，都係睇你係咪真係想認識神。
想唔想拎個例子出黎一齊睇？
再者，聖經係有佢既信息要表達，係比當代讀者睇得明，唔係寫今日理解既科學，亦都唔係寫今日理解既歷史。
好多時，一件事係可以有好多個角度睇，而呢類所謂矛盾，正正就比讀者睇到聖經既豐富。
講到尾，都係睇你係咪真係想認識神。
想唔想拎個例子出黎一齊睇？
對於某神學問題既答案，建議先係聖經搵下，因為好多時未必係自己諗咁。
路加福音18:16
//耶穌卻叫他們來，說：「讓小孩子到我這裡來，不要禁止他們，因為在神國的正是這樣的人。//
路加福音18:16
//耶穌卻叫他們來，說：「讓小孩子到我這裡來，不要禁止他們，因為在神國的正是這樣的人。//
真果個神用左當時耳熟能詳既神話故事教導佢既百姓，咁佢地先明架嘛。
So your argument for creationism is the watchmaker analogy, and the conclusion would be intelligence design. Finally , something concrete that we can talk about 
The watchmaker analogy is as follow (copied from Wiki
):
"deists suggested the watchmaker analogy: just as watches are set in motion by watchmakers, after which they operate according to their pre-established mechanisms, so also was the world begun by God as creator, after which it and all its parts have operated according to their pre-established natural laws. With these laws perfectly in place, events have unfolded according to the prescribed plan."
the argument can be summarised as follow:
P1:A watch is set to operate according to their pre-established mechanisms
P2: Similarly, the universe operates according to the perfectly in placed, pre-established natural laws.
P3: A watch won't operate without a watchmaker who design the pre-established mechanisms.
P4: Similarly, the universe would not operate as the way it does without an intelligent being which is capable of designing the pre-established natural laws.
C: There must be an intelligent being that set the world in motion, designing natural laws and so. (Depending on your religion) Such god must be the biblical god.
Such argument is quite ... limited. Simply from Wiki:
Hume offers is about the form of the argument as an analogy in itself. An analogical argument claims that because object X (a watch) is like object Y (the universe) in one respect, both are therefore probably alike in another, hidden, respect (their cause, having to be created by an intelligent designer). He points out that for an argument from analogy to be successful, the two things that are being compared have to have an adequate number of similarities that are relevant to the respect that are analogised. ......
Hume then argues that the universe and a watch also do not have enough relevant or close similarities to infer that they were both created the same way. For example, the universe is made of organic natural material, but the watch is made of artificial mechanic materials. He claims that in the same respect, the universe could be argued to be more analogous to something more organic such as a vegetable (which we can observe for ourselves does not need a 'designer' or a 'watchmaker' to be created). Although he admits the analogy of a universe to a vegetable to seem ridiculous, he says that it is just as ridiculous to analogize the universe with a watch.
Tldr: Using a watch as the analogy of the universe is an unfair analogy. The universe is too different from the watch for such analogy to be useful. The watch is made from artificial material while the world is made from naturally occurring material. Thus, such analogy is limited.
Even if we take the fairness of the analogy as granted, the argument does not necessitate any specific deity who is responsible for the design. Again, why the biblical god? Why not Allah, or some other random deities?
At this point, I am not expecting any solid reading, not a component reply. you would simply disregard my argument cus you can't read, and claim that this is chat GPT. Pathetic display, really.
The watchmaker analogy is as follow (copied from Wiki
):"deists suggested the watchmaker analogy: just as watches are set in motion by watchmakers, after which they operate according to their pre-established mechanisms, so also was the world begun by God as creator, after which it and all its parts have operated according to their pre-established natural laws. With these laws perfectly in place, events have unfolded according to the prescribed plan."
the argument can be summarised as follow:
P1:A watch is set to operate according to their pre-established mechanisms
P2: Similarly, the universe operates according to the perfectly in placed, pre-established natural laws.
P3: A watch won't operate without a watchmaker who design the pre-established mechanisms.
P4: Similarly, the universe would not operate as the way it does without an intelligent being which is capable of designing the pre-established natural laws.
C: There must be an intelligent being that set the world in motion, designing natural laws and so. (Depending on your religion) Such god must be the biblical god.
Such argument is quite ... limited. Simply from Wiki:
Hume offers is about the form of the argument as an analogy in itself. An analogical argument claims that because object X (a watch) is like object Y (the universe) in one respect, both are therefore probably alike in another, hidden, respect (their cause, having to be created by an intelligent designer). He points out that for an argument from analogy to be successful, the two things that are being compared have to have an adequate number of similarities that are relevant to the respect that are analogised. ......
Hume then argues that the universe and a watch also do not have enough relevant or close similarities to infer that they were both created the same way. For example, the universe is made of organic natural material, but the watch is made of artificial mechanic materials. He claims that in the same respect, the universe could be argued to be more analogous to something more organic such as a vegetable (which we can observe for ourselves does not need a 'designer' or a 'watchmaker' to be created). Although he admits the analogy of a universe to a vegetable to seem ridiculous, he says that it is just as ridiculous to analogize the universe with a watch.
Tldr: Using a watch as the analogy of the universe is an unfair analogy. The universe is too different from the watch for such analogy to be useful. The watch is made from artificial material while the world is made from naturally occurring material. Thus, such analogy is limited.
Even if we take the fairness of the analogy as granted, the argument does not necessitate any specific deity who is responsible for the design. Again, why the biblical god? Why not Allah, or some other random deities?
At this point, I am not expecting any solid reading, not a component reply. you would simply disregard my argument cus you can't read, and claim that this is chat GPT. Pathetic display, really.
哦，姐係細路仔就例外，咁仲係唔係所有人都有罪？咁細路仔唔信煮，未大個就死咗又會唔會落地獄？幾歲開始唔計係細路仔？
偷撚咗人地啲神話都可以咁多嗲
耶撚真係無得彈
耶撚真係無得彈You yourself already see the illogicality of the idea of omnipotence.
The argument would be as follow:
P1: God (the identity of such deity depends on your religion) is omnipotent.
P2: Omnipotence entails the possibility of creating anything
P3: An unliftable rock is a thing, that god can create
P4: God would not be able to lift the rock if he created one
C: God cannot be omnipotent in such predicament. He either 1) cannot create a rock that he cannot lift or, 2) he cannot lift that rock.
This argument is made to show that the idea of omnipotence is logically ridiculous. He is either out-lawed from the rules of logic ( the very basis by which we understand our surroundings) , or he doesn't exist.
If he is an exception of logic, then, no arguments are worthy of consideration at all; he simply does not need to make sense, why argue for his existence in a logical way?
Ways to break through as a deist would be:
1. Weaken your claim: God is omnipotent, only when logic allows
2.Change your claim: God is not omnipotent, and this need not to be one of his characteristics. As long as he is the creator of the universe, he is worthy of faith.
Hope that clears up things!
The argument would be as follow:
P1: God (the identity of such deity depends on your religion) is omnipotent.
P2: Omnipotence entails the possibility of creating anything
P3: An unliftable rock is a thing, that god can create
P4: God would not be able to lift the rock if he created one
C: God cannot be omnipotent in such predicament. He either 1) cannot create a rock that he cannot lift or, 2) he cannot lift that rock.
This argument is made to show that the idea of omnipotence is logically ridiculous. He is either out-lawed from the rules of logic ( the very basis by which we understand our surroundings) , or he doesn't exist.
If he is an exception of logic, then, no arguments are worthy of consideration at all; he simply does not need to make sense, why argue for his existence in a logical way?
Ways to break through as a deist would be:
1. Weaken your claim: God is omnipotent, only when logic allows
2.Change your claim: God is not omnipotent, and this need not to be one of his characteristics. As long as he is the creator of the universe, he is worthy of faith.
Hope that clears up things!
論斷我係「人肉錄音機」點知自己一見到呢條link就copy and paste呢段說話出嚟
咁你又係咩？
咁你又係咩？
你話論斷咪論斷囉。有冇心討論大家見到。
每個人都唔同，神知道人既心，你知唔知？
講真，其他人點真係關你事咩？神叫勸緊你離開罪惡，真正關事既係你個決定。
講真，其他人點真係關你事咩？神叫勸緊你離開罪惡，真正關事既係你個決定。
Ching用晒design argument同cosmological argument 爭ontological argument ontological argument有咩唔好
姐係無標準可以跟係咪？一句神知道就算數，你又知神想點？
故事係你地基督教作嘅，戒律係你地定嘅，然後設定上有甩漏就話神會知道咁定十誡嚟托？
然後其他人係點唔關我事我唔想我親人落地獄想知多啲又唔得你有冇將呢句嘢問吓啲牧師同傳教士？
咁多年嚟我聽過好多關於呢啲問題嘅答法，每個教會嘅人講嘅都唔一樣一個上帝各自表述呀
叫人點信你哋
故事係你地基督教作嘅，戒律係你地定嘅，然後設定上有甩漏就話神會知道
咁定十誡嚟托？然後其他人係點唔關我事
我唔想我親人落地獄想知多啲又唔得你有冇將呢句嘢問吓啲牧師同傳教士？咁多年嚟我聽過好多關於呢啲問題嘅答法，每個教會嘅人講嘅都唔一樣
一個上帝各自表述呀叫人點信你哋你無心討論咋
俾埋link你（入面有經文）你作假見證話我無引經文同你討論
俾埋link你（入面有經文）你作假見證話我無引經文同你討論
sorry原來我miss咗你留言
的確婚儀同法律令兩人分開嘅成本大咗，姦淫機會細咗，不過睇而家離婚率⋯要離嘅都係會離，要再結嘅都係會再結
reorder church睇法其實比一般堂會更嚴，不過佢地冇畀到好practical 點樣落地教。所以我都同意你第2點，始終想搞嘅人太多，慕道嘅人太少。或者實際上係要因材施敎吧
的確婚儀同法律令兩人分開嘅成本大咗，姦淫機會細咗，不過睇而家離婚率⋯要離嘅都係會離，要再結嘅都係會再結
reorder church睇法其實比一般堂會更嚴，不過佢地冇畀到好practical 點樣落地教。所以我都同意你第2點，始終想搞嘅人太多，慕道嘅人太少。或者實際上係要因材施敎吧
解經方面，聖經好似冇直接表達好重視婚儀/婚盟，不過神係好重視「盟約」，或者可以迂迴少少咁樣解
等緊話自己好講邏輯果位ching解吓
但係無人答
但係無人答
接着落真係唔多見，仲要係講明基督教傳遍世界後發生
同埋係以色列復國開始計
冇傷肝
係，而家d離婚率的確令人唏噓
冇錯，神係好重視立約的，所以我唔係好認同Holly話搞左野就等於結左婚
不過佢挑戰傳統教會既教導呢方面係好有啟發性的，即使自己唔同意都好
（利申：有份課金）
係，而家d離婚率的確令人唏噓
冇錯，神係好重視立約的，所以我唔係好認同Holly話搞左野就等於結左婚
不過佢挑戰傳統教會既教導呢方面係好有啟發性的，即使自己唔同意都好
（利申：有份課金
）神點會創造Gay佬
cus free will
that's all they'll tell you
that's all they'll tell you
睇唔到你邊個位有哲學
另外，其實你擺D問題上來做咩姐？你是但走入一間教會問個牧師唔好咩？
另外GＥ另外，如果你幾條咁ＧＥ廢問題就攪可以解決到基督教，應該一早有人解決左。所以，其實係你自己鑽牛角尖，希望有人可以答到你，或者你認為冇人答到你，你就會自我感覺良好。
其實，你只係選擇聽自己想聽GＥ，你連哲理討論都算不上。
另外，其實你擺D問題上來做咩姐？你是但走入一間教會問個牧師唔好咩？
另外GＥ另外，如果你幾條咁ＧＥ廢問題就攪可以解決到基督教，應該一早有人解決左。所以，其實係你自己鑽牛角尖，希望有人可以答到你，或者你認為冇人答到你，你就會自我感覺良好。
其實，你只係選擇聽自己想聽GＥ，你連哲理討論都算不上。
人有跟住做既標準，就係聖經。
人冇判斷人既標準，呢個係神做既。
神成為耶穌降生既歷史，唔信佢既人一樣有記載。
「律法」原文Torah ，即係教導咁解，係神對人既教導。
「十誡」原文係十句說話，係教導既核心部分，教你點樣做人先有自由。
所謂「落地獄」，係民間宗教既講法，建議先了解清楚有關既聖經經文。
其他人係咪得救呢個結果取決於佢地自己既選擇，所以「唔關你事」。
但係有一樣野係對你既親友得救有幫助，就係你自己係佢地面前做見證，比佢地睇到耶穌基督點樣係你身上勝過罪惡，比佢地睇到你同神同人復和，比佢地睇到你去愛唔可愛既人，咁佢地就可能會因為你既見證離開罪惡。（咁就關你事喇）
如果一個講法解得通成本聖經，咁就信得過。所以建議你比較聖經既講法。
人冇判斷人既標準，呢個係神做既。
神成為耶穌降生既歷史，唔信佢既人一樣有記載。
「律法」原文Torah ，即係教導咁解，係神對人既教導。
「十誡」原文係十句說話，係教導既核心部分，教你點樣做人先有自由。
所謂「落地獄」，係民間宗教既講法，建議先了解清楚有關既聖經經文。
其他人係咪得救呢個結果取決於佢地自己既選擇，所以「唔關你事」。
但係有一樣野係對你既親友得救有幫助，就係你自己係佢地面前做見證，比佢地睇到耶穌基督點樣係你身上勝過罪惡，比佢地睇到你同神同人復和，比佢地睇到你去愛唔可愛既人，咁佢地就可能會因為你既見證離開罪惡。（咁就關你事喇）
如果一個講法解得通成本聖經，咁就信得過。所以建議你比較聖經既講法。