Turn on thread page Beta

Did God really tell Joan of Arc to recover her homeland from English dominance? watch

    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by UGeNe)
    God v. Santa Claus

    A fair comparison. No?

    Let's take a survey. Who is real?
    The arguments used for God can't be used for fairies or Santa Clause (e.g. Design argument etc.). They're two completely different things.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    'Insane' is loaded language, only the craziest of all the batshi- crazy people get to be called insane.

    Technically yes, but no more insane than the average Christian on a religion channel that thinks he can raise the dead because it says so in the bible.

    (Original post by Inzamam99)
    The arguments used for God can't be used for fairies or Santa Clause (e.g. Design argument etc.). They're two completely different things.
    Yes you can, just make the fantastical creature of choice powerful. If that's too hard then simply replace words meaning 'God' with 'magical sock elves'.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)


    The exercise.



    The plausibility of jumping jacks existing doesn't really matter though, the argument here is simply about assertions without evidence. If I were to tell you I was doing jumping jacks in my room and then tell you God talked to me, you're going to believe the first part without any evidence. They may both be just as truthful and real in my mind, but you're still going to decide the second is a lie based on what you believe from your own personal ideology or reasoning. However, neither can be proven so both are equally likely to be false.
    To an extent you are right in that my own personal beliefs mean I will probably never believe you if you say that God spoke to you.

    But the analogy doesn't work. I can more easily believe in you having done jumping jacks because there is hard, solid proof that such an action is possible. There is no such proof, or at least none that has been found, for the existence of God or any god.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Can't people keep to the topic in question? Please.

    This thread can actually go to some conclusion or another. Let's just take a scientific approach to this dilemma and assume the existence of God. Saying God doesn't exist will lead to no conclusion but assuming God does exist we can draw a plausible conclusion. If we conclude that she was lying we still have to come up with proof for that. God doesn't exist isn't proof for that because you can't prove that statement but saying she was mentally ill is something you can in some way or another prove. Therefore, the existence of God is irrelevant to the thread.

    Also interesting question OP.


    READ MY POST PLEASE!!
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    To an extent you are right in that my own personal beliefs mean I will probably never believe you if you say that God spoke to you.

    But the analogy doesn't work. I can more easily believe in you having done jumping jacks because there is hard, solid proof that such an action is possible. There is no such proof, or at least none that has been found, for the existence of God or any god.
    There are some people, based on events that have taken place in their own lives, who think there is proof or at least evidence that God exists. It's not scientific evidence of course, but it all comes down to what a person wants to accept as evidence, based on their own experience.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    There are some people, based on events that have taken place in their own lives, who think there is proof or at least evidence that God exists. It's not scientific evidence of course, but it all comes down to what a person wants to accept as evidence, based on their own experience.
    But there is no strong evidence, and we have to use common sense a little bit in that some evidence is of better quality than other types. But that is why religion is so personal, some people are more willing to accept weaker evidence and of course some won't even question this evidence because of their own cultural background.

    Anyway, don't want to de-rail the thread.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    if god exists, which he probably doesnt, i doubt he could give a **** how men divide land. its all his anyway.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    But there is no strong evidence, and we have to use common sense a little bit in that some evidence is of better quality than other types. But that is why religion is so personal, some people are more willing to accept weaker evidence and of course some won't even question this evidence because of their own cultural background.

    Anyway, don't want to de-rail the thread.
    Good idea!

    Anyway, I think this thread would be best approached, even from a devil's advocate point of view, under at least a given that God could exist. In fact, the thread should have started out with "just pretend for a moment that God definitely exists." It'd make it a lot more interesting and would avoid side tangents.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Good idea!

    Anyway, I think this thread would be best approached, even from a devil's advocate point of view, under at least a given that God could exist. In fact, the thread should have started out with "just pretend for a moment that God definitely exists." It'd make it a lot more interesting and would avoid side tangents.
    It's still difficult though, I mean let's pretend that God exists.

    Why would he care about the cause of the French?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by iwilson03)
    It's still difficult though, I mean let's pretend that God exists.

    Why would he care about the cause of the French?
    That's more like it. :p:

    I dunno though. Maybe it could have had something to do with political policies, or the British government being greedy or something like that. Or you could just use that as an argument against it all of course.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    That would be a no. Joan probably took something to relieve her stress about the whole sitch and because it was her first time she tripped out and hallucinated. We've all been there.
    Offline

    14
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    That's more like it. :p:

    I dunno though. Maybe it could have had something to do with political policies, or the British government being greedy or something like that. Or you could just use that as an argument against it all of course.
    Well more specifically the English monarchy. But I can't really see God choosing to intervene in what was effectively a tug of war between royal families for the throne of France. So basically Joan of Arc was most probably delusional in some respect.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)

    The plausibility of jumping jacks existing doesn't really matter though, the argument here is simply about assertions without evidence. If I were to tell you I was doing jumping jacks in my room and then tell you God talked to me, you're going to believe the first part without any evidence. They may both be just as truthful and real in my mind, but you're still going to decide the second is a lie based on what you believe from your own personal ideology or reasoning. However, neither can be proven so both are equally likely to be false.

    No, because jumping jacks are something tangible and entirely possible in reality. They are infinetly more probable than an omnipotent, omniscient being travelling to this speck upon a speck and talking to you personally. That is more improbable than a teapot in orbit around jupiter.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No, because jumping jacks are something tangible and entirely possible in reality. They are infinetly more probable than an omnipotent, omniscient being travelling to this speck upon a speck and talking to you personally. That is more improbable than a teapot in orbit around jupiter.
    Missing the point....
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    Missing the point....

    No i am not. I am commenting on how you are misrepresenting the point with an unreasonable and inaccurate comparison.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No i am not. I am commenting on how you are misrepresenting the point with an unreasonable and inaccurate comparison.
    That's still not the point. The fact is, any assertion without evidence is an assertion without evidence.

    The other point is that part of the conversation was off-topic, and we've since moved on.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Delta Usafa)
    That's still not the point. The fact is, any assertion without evidence is an assertion without evidence.
    No, there is at least evidence for the existence of jumping jacks. Physical evidence which exists in reality. No such thing exists for a God. Soo it was an unfair and innaccurate analogy.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Aeolus)
    No, there is at least evidence for the existence of jumping jacks. Physical evidence which exists in reality. No such thing exists for a God. Soo it was an unfair and innaccurate analogy.
    The amount of evidence for an existing object in an analogy doesn't matter when that's not the point of the analogy.

    If you'd like a better analogy, I invented a hovering lamp this morning, but then disassembled it and threw away all the parts. There. I have no evidence that I did it, and such an object doesn't already exist in reality.

    But uh.

    Ahem.

    (Original post by Me)
    The other point is that part of the conversation was off-topic, and we've since moved on.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    nope she was insane back then and still is considered insane now, she's a frog what else needs to be said. there is no god and even if there was its not something that humans can comprehend and is beyond us.
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    agreed
 
 
 
Poll
Did you get less than your required grades and still get into university?
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.