Death my TomTom (bad joke!!)
Well I've written this journal entry thee times now (including this one) I usually do that with everything. E-mails get written many more times than anything else, if you have an extensive e-mail from me then you probably have a fortieth draft or something. Text-messages I can also write several times. When I write a story, I write it each small part at a time and each part several times. My current story took over a month to write the first page. Then there's also-- Ok back to my original point: The first time I wrote this I was expressing how much I disapprove of lying. But then I realized that my example its self was, in fact, a lie. So I wrote it again, without lying, and even went into detail about my blunder. I finished that and then I wanted to change the subject all together.
My new subject is Logic. I've noticed that ALOT of people think that I do not use logic. I agree, a lot of what I do/say is illogical to what most people consider 'logic' - I just don't have enough time, or the linguistic ability, to explain myself. I get a lot of harassment from a lot of people because I believe that miracles are regular occurring events. (I'm pretty sure everyone who's reading this is one of those people... lol all four of you =P) -- ok. You think there is an absence of logic in a miracle? Well let me take a 'scientific look' at them. And just so you can be sure to win this argument I will even use your own logic to defend myself. Or at least what I am about to guess is your logic.
Here are the my Principals of Conclusive Evidence (The title doesn't have any relevancy, it just sounds smart XD but pretty much I'm saying, "This is logic."):
1: An order of natural law is a regular occurring event, correct? (In case you don't know what I mean, I mean that 'normal' happens all the time... and no, I could not have just said that to begin with. What I said sounds so much cooler. XD)
2: A 'miracle' would be defined as a very rare event. Agreed? (I'm judging that your silence is a yes =P)
3: The evidence to support something that always happens will ALWAYS be more plentiful than evidence to support a very rare occurrence. No?
4: A 'smart' person will always choose an event with greater evidence over the event with little or non-existent evidence to support it. Correct me if I'm wrong.
5: Therefore it would be illogical to ever believe in miracles. So far I'm pretty sure you're with me. If you're not then what the hell are you reading this for?
Now for the argument. Take your position anywhere you want on the spectrum of belief that ranges from God creating the universe is six days, to the "Big Bang" theory. It doesn't matter where you stand. To deny that miracles happen ALL THE FREAKING TIME is to deny your previously agreed logic. (That of course is an argument made expecting your agreement to 'scientific logic') Here's how: Let us say that you believe that the universe exploded out of nothingness. How many times has that happened? Once as far as any of us can tell. How many times has the universe been so perfectly aligned and so perfectly calculated to allow it to sustain existence? Again, only once. How many times has "life" exploded out of nothing/minerals and inanimate things? Well here I am and I only see one of me. So how can it be that you would believe (<< An untargeted assumption about the reader. But the fact is that a lot of people do believe that, so perhaps one, or even all, of you do) By your agreed definition those are 'miracles' ... And even if you believe all the way to the other end (as do I).. wait. If you believe that God created the universe in six days, but you don't believe in miracles... than you seriously have issues.
Well anyway, I don’t know where any of you actually stand on the matter, but I just love arguments of God vs. Science. =P 1: Because you never ever run the risk of losing a friend, 2: I've never 'lost' an argument about it (I guess it's a sense of pride. Does Josiah actually have an ego? =P), 3: It's an easy way to get experienced at arguing, which I am in dire lack of. =/
Annyywwaayyss........ Bad spoons don't come from blue peanut-butter, aka: longest journal entry ever!
My new subject is Logic. I've noticed that ALOT of people think that I do not use logic. I agree, a lot of what I do/say is illogical to what most people consider 'logic' - I just don't have enough time, or the linguistic ability, to explain myself. I get a lot of harassment from a lot of people because I believe that miracles are regular occurring events. (I'm pretty sure everyone who's reading this is one of those people... lol all four of you =P) -- ok. You think there is an absence of logic in a miracle? Well let me take a 'scientific look' at them. And just so you can be sure to win this argument I will even use your own logic to defend myself. Or at least what I am about to guess is your logic.
Here are the my Principals of Conclusive Evidence (The title doesn't have any relevancy, it just sounds smart XD but pretty much I'm saying, "This is logic."):
1: An order of natural law is a regular occurring event, correct? (In case you don't know what I mean, I mean that 'normal' happens all the time... and no, I could not have just said that to begin with. What I said sounds so much cooler. XD)
2: A 'miracle' would be defined as a very rare event. Agreed? (I'm judging that your silence is a yes =P)
3: The evidence to support something that always happens will ALWAYS be more plentiful than evidence to support a very rare occurrence. No?
4: A 'smart' person will always choose an event with greater evidence over the event with little or non-existent evidence to support it. Correct me if I'm wrong.
5: Therefore it would be illogical to ever believe in miracles. So far I'm pretty sure you're with me. If you're not then what the hell are you reading this for?
Now for the argument. Take your position anywhere you want on the spectrum of belief that ranges from God creating the universe is six days, to the "Big Bang" theory. It doesn't matter where you stand. To deny that miracles happen ALL THE FREAKING TIME is to deny your previously agreed logic. (That of course is an argument made expecting your agreement to 'scientific logic') Here's how: Let us say that you believe that the universe exploded out of nothingness. How many times has that happened? Once as far as any of us can tell. How many times has the universe been so perfectly aligned and so perfectly calculated to allow it to sustain existence? Again, only once. How many times has "life" exploded out of nothing/minerals and inanimate things? Well here I am and I only see one of me. So how can it be that you would believe (<< An untargeted assumption about the reader. But the fact is that a lot of people do believe that, so perhaps one, or even all, of you do) By your agreed definition those are 'miracles' ... And even if you believe all the way to the other end (as do I).. wait. If you believe that God created the universe in six days, but you don't believe in miracles... than you seriously have issues.
Well anyway, I don’t know where any of you actually stand on the matter, but I just love arguments of God vs. Science. =P 1: Because you never ever run the risk of losing a friend, 2: I've never 'lost' an argument about it (I guess it's a sense of pride. Does Josiah actually have an ego? =P), 3: It's an easy way to get experienced at arguing, which I am in dire lack of. =/
Annyywwaayyss........ Bad spoons don't come from blue peanut-butter, aka: longest journal entry ever!