20140607

真的是蠢之過?


有些人在批評別人的信念或言行時,喜歡用「愚蠢」或「蠢人」來嘲笑被批評的人,這在批評宗教和討論政治時最為常見。這樣的嘲笑未必有相同的動機,有些是為了滿足自己在學識或見解上的優越感,有些是藉此發洩一下對有關的「愚蠢」信念或言行的不滿,有些只是大惑不解,不明白為何有那麼多人相信一些明顯為假的說法或做出一些明顯是不應該做的事,只能想到用「那些是蠢人」來解釋。無論是甚麼動機,很多人都會從嘲笑別人愚蠢得到或多或少的滿足感;例如以下這條諷刺宗教的短片,明顯將有宗教信仰的人描繪為蠢人,相信不少反宗教人士會看得很開心:



以往我也有這個嘲笑的傾向,雖然甚少說出口,但對於某類信徒(例如基要派基督徒),我有時禁不住思想懶惰,用「愚蠢」來解釋他們那些毫無理據的信念(例如相信恐龍和人類曾經並存)。為甚麼說自己是思想懶惰呢?因為我其實知道這些人的信仰不能這麼簡單地解釋了,而且智力和思考能力不是關鍵因素;要考慮的,還有心理、政治、社會、歷史、文化等因素,真正的解釋會是相當複雜的。

大多數人的智力和思考力都差不多,智力高超或低下、思考力極強或極弱的,都是少數;即使你認為只有一般人的智力和思考力已屬「蠢人」,你也不能只用「愚蠢」來解釋他們那些不合理的信念或言行,因為很多智力和思考力相若的人都明白那些信念或言行的不合理處。也許你會說「愚蠢」的不是那些人,而是他們的信念或言行;可是,與其用「愚蠢」一詞而免不了令對方覺得受到侮辱,因而聽不下你的任何說話,何不只是針對那些信念或言行、指出其不合理處?

當然,如果你的目的不是求真,不是要以理服人,不是希望能夠理性討論、盡力說服對方,那麼,我以上所說的,你都可以不理;要藉嘲笑別人愚蠢來得到心理上的滿足,是你的心理問題,就由你自己去面對好了。


61 則留言:

  1. 未知教授有否看過宗教心理學或者人類學之類的著作?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 宗教心理學看過一些,人類學則甚少看(其實有些書我不肯定是否應歸入人類學,例如 Jared Diamonds 的著作)。

      刪除
  2. Richard Dawkins 說相信上帝就像相信天上有仙女那樣無知.

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 相信 Richard Dawkins 就是像相信 "天上有仙女" 那樣無知。

      God isn't a "Man in the Sky"。& God isn't even a "Man"。Richard Dawkins 的 "上帝" is only a "Man" in Dawkins' Sky。His "上帝" isn't really "that" 上帝。Thus 相信 Richard Dawkins' interpretation or representation of his "上帝" 就是像相信 "天上有仙女" 那樣無知。

      Some people (like the 基要派基督徒) use the most stupidest and laughable way trying to find Truth. At least they might get a small glimpse of it. Yet with arrogance, some people (like Richard Dawkins) think that they have the Truth but actually 一無所有。This is one of 上帝's most well-kept secret.

      The final question is "who is the real loser?"...

      刪除
    2. Dear 匿名, what is your basis to say :
      1 ) 基要派基督徒.... trying to find Truth. ....might get a small glimpse of it.
      2 ) Richard Dawkins.... but actually 一無所有
      3 ) // one of 上帝's most well-kept secret//. but does god really exist ?

      dr Who

      刪除
    3. 1. Religion is about finding The Truth and the reasons of our existence. Therefore if 基要派基督徒 tries very hard to find the Truth, they "might get a small glimpse of it", unless there is no such thing as "the Truth".

      2. Some of Dawkins' understanding about certain contents of the Bible is incorrect.

      3. When we see stars in the sky at night, do they really exists as planets in the outer space? (If we were like rabbits or cats or dogs, i.e. without human intelligence and our current scientific knowledge, do you think we would ever know the answer to such question?) Thus "doubting if there is a God" is mainly due to our limitation. It may never be used to prove that there is NO God.

      To include is to "Have", to exclude is to "Not have". Thus Richard Dawkins is 一無所有.

      刪除
    4. More about "one of 上帝's most well-kept secret"...

      One "Cross" to save ALL: Some people needs to be like 基要派基督徒 to believe (i.e. words by words, every rituals, distinguish every bit of right and wrong, etc.), while some other people might act like 基督徒 when they might never have heard the gospels.

      ONE "Way" to satisfy ALL and save ALL. That is "one of 上帝's most well-kept secret".

      刪除
  3. 看到過一個blog,雖然那個blog主似乎很努力去搜尋各種資料但卻就不停地說民眾和人民如何無知又如何愚蠢,其心理可能真是「要藉嘲笑別人愚蠢來得到心理上的滿足,....」


    回覆刪除
  4. Dear Wong,

    智力和思考能力不是關鍵因素;要考慮的,還有心理、政治、社會、歷史、文化等因素
    agree, i have seen people becoming christians, it is a decision made under high emotional state ( eg surrounded by loving christians )or in life crisis situation yearning for hope / safety / reassurance. to them believing in god is not an intellectual question, and after they have believed, telling them that their god is illogical ( and they are stupid) is not going to make them change their mind.

    dr Who

    回覆刪除
  5. 「十字軍」年代相信 "Christianity" 可能是迷信。但當聖經預言一個個﹑逐個應驗 (,某
    幾個聖經預言還是近幾年才應驗的),那麼是真有「外星人」?還是另有原因?

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. Dear 匿名,

      //當聖經預言一個個﹑逐個應驗 (某幾個聖經預言還是近幾年才應驗的)//
      could you please give a few irrefutable examples ? or the most striking example ?

      //「十字軍」年代相信 "Christianity" 可能是迷信//
      i think 迷信 is believing in any religion without critical mind and thinking. of course, if a religion is really dumb, ( eg believe in 仙女, or monkey king) , and supposed no one with normal intellect should believe, then anyone believes in 仙女, or monkey king is 迷信。however even if the christian god is true, anyone can still 迷信 in christianity if he does not exercise his intellect and believe.

      if according to dawkins intellectual standard, believing in god and 仙女 are both below his intellectual criteria, then logically 相信上帝就像相信仙女一樣無知. the key is to challenge the validity of his intellectual standard.

      dr Who


      dr Who

      刪除
    2. >> could you please give a few irrefutable examples ? or the most striking example ?

      Read the Modern World History, the Bible (OT & NT), and the news particularly relating to PRC. If you are lucky (or unlucky), you may see how one of the prophecies got fulfilled after the 2007 financial tsunami.

      Scientific knowledge helps one not falling into "迷信" so easily.

      刪除
    3. 王教授,

      現在才說,"某幾個聖經預言還是近幾年才應驗" 不是指 "福島海嘯" 和 其導致的 "核災",而是幾件更易在字面上比對的事情。["福島海嘯" 和"核災" 較難 pin-point 對應 (並依時序) 的經文,祇能暫時存疑。]

      刪除
  6. 王教授,請教一個問題

    相信上帝是否只能基於信仰? 就理性而言,相信上帝就像Dawkins說的相信仙女一樣無知嗎?

    回覆刪除
  7. About the video "Which Came First - The Chicken or The Egg?"

    The answer should be "The Chicken". An "Egg" is just an another form of an embryo. Things need to evolve to reproduce through embryo. Thus "The Chicken" (or the Pre-Chicken animal which evolve to reproduce by embryos) has to come first, unless one twists the term "an egg" to also mean things like "genes". Then what is "A Chicken"?

    回覆刪除
  8. 我的看法跟道金斯相反: 相信有神比相信沒有神更理性。而有神論最有力的證據就是宇宙的開始,背後必然存在一位第一因的上帝。

    無神論認為第一因有邏輯矛盾,“如果上帝是宇宙的因,那麼上帝的因又是什麼?” 我認為無神論混淆了第一因的推論。第一因論證說凡有開始的必有因,而不是凡存在必有因。上帝沒有開始,因此上帝沒有因

    無神論只有兩個選擇 1. 認為宇宙沒有開始,所以宇宙沒有因 2. 認為宇宙有開始,但不需要原因。 1 已經被天文學家的最新觀察所推翻 2 不符合邏輯

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 有關你那個論證的討論太多,我也沒有興趣和你詳論,只是想說你這個post有些邏輯問題:

      第一,有開始在邏輯上不涵含擁有原因。即使使用你那個kalam cosmological argument的哲學家,也只是主張我們的經驗中有開始的東西都擁有因,這是inductive的推論而不是deductive的推論。再有力的induction出現反例,也不會「不符合邏輯」,只是說機率較低。

      第二,無神論並非只有兩個選擇,宇宙有原因並不代表那個原因是神,可以是其他東西。你可以不認同,但你不能說別人「只有兩個選擇」。

      刪除
    2. Dear LOL,

      In fact you are arguing by definition, ie you define god as needing no cause and self-existing eternally, but what is the basis of this definition ?

      dr Who

      刪除
    3. 無神論還有其他選擇嗎? 我不認為有. 你應該明白 絕對虛無 absolute nothingness 這個概念的意思. 任何被無神論為宇宙開端提出的cause, 都不能被當作absolute nothingness, 例如霍金的 M 理論 (多元宇宙). 因為你還是要解釋這個東西的前因, 你不過把問題推上了一級而已. 我認為能夠在絕對虛無的因只能是 "意志" 或 "思想"

      //有開始在邏輯上不涵含擁有原因//

      所以有東西會無緣無故跑出來? 試比較以下兩件事
      1. 你家裡憑空出現一隻恐龍,它從侏羅紀穿梭時空來你家
      2. 你家裡憑空出現一隻恐龍, 沒有任何原因

      1 跟 2 的解釋都很難被接受。 但是 2 的解釋 比1 更糟糕. 所以,有神論比無神論合理.

      刪除
    4. 我沒有興趣和你討論甚麼論較合理,我現在是說的文中有不合邏輯之處。

      首先,很明顯,無神論者除了你提出的兩個選擇,邏輯上也可以相信宇宙有原因,但這個原因不是神。這是一個邏輯上可行的可能性,是否正確是另一回事。至於你那堆「絕對虛無」、「在絕對虛無的因只能是 "意志" 或 "思想"」之類的,那些只能說是你的宇宙觀、你的看法,如你所講是「你認為」。你認為甚麼是不能限制別人的選擇的。

      至於你說2「很難被接受」、「更糟糕」,那也沒有回應我的批評,可謂九唔搭八。事實上是否合符邏輯,跟是否「很難被接受」、「糟糕」毫無關係,「很難被接受」和「糟糕」的東西也是可以合符邏輯的。比方說我家裡憑空出現一隻恐龍,這像天方夜譚,但這是合符邏輯的。所謂合符邏輯只是說沒有矛盾,如果「我家裡出現三角圓形」或是「我家既有恐龍又沒有恐龍」便是不合邏輯了。

      刪除
    5. 補充一點.

      如果事物有一個開始, 那麼任何再荒唐對這事物的解釋, 都不比一個沒有原因的解釋糟糕. 比如你耳邊有一聲巨響, 你說 : "沒什麼事,只是一個聲音突然響起而已." 這不理性啊

      刪除
    6. 『//有開始在邏輯上不涵含擁有原因//
      所以有東西會無緣無故跑出來?』

      這個反問更騎呢,我開宗明義同你講邏輯,針對你話「2 不符合邏輯」,並沒有論及2是真是假。「以LOL為網名在邏輯上不涵含不是gengar的兒子」是否代表LOL是gengar的兒子?你真係返去讀下邏輯101先啦。

      刪除
    7. gengar,

      我們是在討論 有神論 跟 無神論 ,哪個更理性對嗎? 如果你一開始就預設有神論不合邏輯 (例如三角圓形, 更何況這不是我的論證 ) ,那根本不用辯論下去了. 但這是正確的方法嗎?

      刪除
    8. 你繼續九唔搭八,我說得很清楚,我討論的*只是*你的文字中有邏輯漏洞,你盲的?
      你說「無神論只有兩個選擇 」,事實上邏輯上有三個。
      你說「2 不符合邏輯」,這在邏輯上是錯的。

      刪除
    9. 我壓根兒沒有談及有神論,竟然和我說「 如果你一開始就預設有神論不合邏輯」 ,這是甚麼理解能力啊~~~?

      刪除
    10. 1. 即使有存在物有開始但沒有因, 但是就我們的自然觀察而言,并沒有發生這樣的事。 所以有神論比無神論合理 是成立的. 我的論證依然有效, 有神論更合理

      2. 即使無神論存在第三個選擇,宇宙有開始,但不是第一因的神造的, 那麼舉證的一方就在無神論那裡。 我們就要檢視無神論的舉證,是否能夠解釋 "無因的開始" ? 如果不能 (就我對多元宇宙跟封閉宇宙論的反駁 ,我認為不能 ), 那麼我的依然有效

      刪除
    11. 我強調 absolute nothingness ,因為我認為存在物不能來自絕對虛無. 我原以為這是大家都接受的前提 ,違反這個前提就是違反邏輯(但 gengar 說可以)

      為了不反邏輯,我認為只有一個意志的神能符合這個 uncaused. 大家評理吧

      刪除
    12. 還是九唔搭八:

      1. 我現在是說你說「2不符合邏輯」是錯的,不是說「2有機會是對的」。「就我們的自然觀察而言,并沒有發生這樣的事」不代表「不符合邏輯」。就我們的自然觀察而言,沒有會說話的老鼠,不代表會說話的老鼠不符合邏輯。假若你說會說話的老鼠不符合邏輯,就是你有邏輯問題上的錯誤。

      2. 你說「無神論只有兩個選擇」,現在你又說「即使無神論存在第三個選擇,宇宙有開始,但不是第一因的神造的, 那麼舉證的一方就在無神論那裡」。怎樣舉證是另一回事,如果「無神論存在第三個選擇」,那就不會是「無神論*只有*兩個選擇」。這又是邏輯上的錯誤。

      3. 我何時有談及「絕對虛無」?何來「gengar 說可以」?你有妄想症請看醫生。

      4. 絕對虛無的存在只是你的看法,我開宗明義沒有興趣討論你的看法。

      刪除
    13. 你還不明白的話,我再跟你說清楚點。我*不是*在討論有神論跟無神論,哪個更理性,我是在說「LOL6/09/2014 3:15 上午」中有部份文字不合邏輯,懂嗎?

      刪除
    14. 至於你的論證有沒有效,我沒有興趣理會。

      刪除
    15. 相信有神不一定是相信你的上帝, 相信飛行意粉怪的人相信是意粉怪一次嚴重的酗酒後,創造了整個宇宙。據推測,正是酒精中毒導致創造的地球充滿種種瑕疵, 除了解釋了"第一因"外, 還解釋了為什麼地球有瑕疵, 我覺得他們更理性

      刪除
    16. gengar,
      所以,你究竟想要表達什麼呢? 我問的是,物質可否憑空產自絕對虛無? 這不是機率低不低的問題,而是不可能發生的事. 我認為任何一個講道理的人都不會懷疑它的真實性. 你不需要糾結於我使用的"邏輯"一詞, 我想表達的意思很清楚,"沒有物質可以來自絕對虛無". 但是你認為存在這樣的機率!

      匿名,
      意粉怪的解釋很爛,但比"無因'好, 無因是最爛的解釋. 但重點是,
      因為宇宙大爆炸產生了時間跟空間, 所以我們可以很合理地說大爆炸的因是一個永恆自存,有強大能力,有意志, 但不是物質的東西.
      它叫什麼并不重要, 重要的是它的描述符合以上的特徵

      刪除
    17. 我表達的就是「LOL6/09/2014 3:15 上午」中有部份文字不合邏輯,我針對的由頭到尾都是你的文字有邏輯錯誤,你的宇宙觀我沒有興趣理會。

      至於你說「(我)認為存在這樣的機率」,我好像沒有表達過我的看法,至於我本人是不是認為存在這樣的機率,只要我沒拿出來討論,好像不關你的事。所以你說「 我問的是[…]」,我看不到我有甚麼理由要回答。甚麼「絕對虛無」,這種不知所云的鬼話,抱歉,我實在沒有興趣討論,我省得贊成也省得反對。

      刪除
    18. Okay, 原來你不是來討論的,而是來指出我的邏輯錯誤。就好像我說水由h2o構成,然後你說這是邏輯錯誤,因為沒有人可以肯定水一定必須有這些元素。

      我們的對話到此為止好嗎?

      刪除
    19. 我看不到你的例子和我指出的邏輯錯誤有何相似。另外,水由h2o構成是一個empirical discovery,不是邏輯問題。

      刪除
    20. 為什麼圓形不是三角形? 因為它是圓形.
      Why Nothing Can't Do Anything? because it's Nothing, stupid!

      無中生有 跟 圓形是三角形 同質. 可以看作是邏輯問題

      刪除
  9. Dear 匿名,

    all your points are valid if your presumption is true, ie god really exist, otherwise, your points can be refuted as below.

    //1. Religion is about finding The Truth and the reasons of our existence. Therefore if 基要派基督徒 tries very hard to find the Truth, they "might get a small glimpse of it", unless there is no such thing as "the Truth".//

    religion is about believing in god, but if the truth is " god does not exist", then 基要派基督徒 ( or all other religions) is just wasting time. Truth will always be there, only one may not know it, god may not always be there.

    //Thus "doubting if there is a God" is mainly due to our limitation. It may never be used to prove that there is NO God.//

    doubting god's existence set us free to think and challenge the assumption of existence of any god. although, as you say, it cannot prove the non-existence of god, it helps human to be critical of the dogma of any religion. along your line of argument, i can paraphrase your statement "believing in god is only due to our fear and imagination, it cannot be used to prove existence of god"

    //To include is to "Have", to exclude is to "Not have". Thus Richard Dawkins is 一無所有.//

    well, if dawkins is right (ie there is no god,) then he has the truth !! isn't it better to have the truth than a false belief of god. then it is all religious people who give up all their life for religion believing in false god really 一無所有 ( except a false belief and its placebo effects).

    //認為宇宙沒有開始,已經被天文學家的最新觀察所推翻 //
    i am not aware of that, could you please kindly enlighten me ?

    dr Who

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. //i am not aware of that, could you please kindly enlighten me ?//

      請看 http://hk.apple.nextmedia.com/international/art/20140319/18661080

      我的看法比較特別. 我們不能回到大爆炸的那一刻, 大爆炸只是通過觀察得到的結論. 你可以說大爆炸未必是對的. 問題是,進化論同樣通過觀察得到的結論。如果我們有理由反對大爆炸,就有理論拒絕進化論

      刪除
    2. 無神論不能兩頭都想占

      刪除
    3. Dear LOL,

      thank you for showing me the " apple news clip". however it proves nothing to your line of argument, except to support the big bang theory. even if big bang is true, it only shows the beginning of this present universe, there may well be another universe existing before our present universe, which later collapsed and explodes contributing into our big bang, ie 宇宙沒有開始,所以宇宙沒有因 is still valid.

      //如果我們有理由反對大爆炸,就有理論拒絕進化論//
      then the conclusion is agnosticism, ie "i do not know", not atheism.

      dr Who

      刪除
    4. Religion isn't about "believing in god". Otherwise, Buddhism wouldn't belong to "religion".

      On whether "god does not exist", no human beings (with our very limited knowledge) may define what "God" really is. Therefore no human beings can prove that there is NO God.

      Thus, saying { the truth is "god does not exist"} already isn't logical, as it is similar to saying { the truth is "xxxxxxx does not exist"} when "xxxxxxx" isn't clearly defined.

      Dawkins only showed that the type of God on his mind, according to his opinions, couldn't be real. But that God of his isn't really "the" God described in the Bible, because he failed to understand certain portions of the book, no matter whether it was intentional or not.

      Our scientific knowledge helps to eliminate certain "gods" to be established (by humans) as the ultimate God. (For example, the space-time dimension.)

      Our scientific knowledge has to be part of the ultimate God, or otherwise such God isn't the ultimate God. Has our scientific knowledge really been amazing?!

      One may argue that our scientific knowledge cannot be a proof on whether God really exists. Therefore there are biblical prophecies, a whole bunch of them. The fulfillment of them would show that there is a God (as said in the Bible, "...就知道我是耶和華"). Some of the prophecies are yet to happen.

      It is wiser to believe that stealing when get caught would lead to punishment, than to believe that the judge would let you go.

      In your own home, you may choose to ignore all physical laws and then try to violate every one of them. But if you burn down your own home, then that would be your own problem.

      If Dawkins was right, his interpretation of the Bible would have been correct. But the fact is that it wasn't. Therefore he cannot be right.

      The development of our scientific knowledge is already a profound and mysterious process (sometimes a progress happens only by sheer luck), on the way we have also been trying to verify if God really exists.

      If science could disprove the existence of God, then all scientists would be atheists. But that is not a fact. Therefore it is not wise to eliminate the chance that there is an ultimate God.

      //認為宇宙沒有開始,已經被天文學家的最新觀察所推翻 //
      was said by another "匿名".

      刪除
    5. Dear 匿名,

      thank you for your long and sincere answer.
      however, honestly i expect a better response and reasoning. anyway as mr Wong said, 何不只是針對那些信念或言行、指出其不合理處.

      let me para-phrase your writing for you to consider your own argument :

      On whether "wong-tai-sin, monkey king, superman, X-man, spiderman do not exist", no human beings (with our very limited knowledge) may define what "wong-tai-sin, monkey king, superman, X-man, spiderman " really is. Therefore no human beings can prove that there is NO wong-tai-sin, monkey king, superman, X-man, spiderman .

      Thus, saying { the truth is "wong-tai-sin, monkey king, superman, X-man, spiderman do not exist"} already isn't logical, as it is similar to saying { the truth is "wong-tai-sin, monkey king, superman, X-man, spiderman does not exist"} when "wong-tai-sin, monkey king, superman, X-man, spiderman " isn't clearly defined.

      1 ) your argument itself proves you are wrong. since human beings is so limited in knowledge ( or even stupid), then no way can human say or is certain there is god in the first place ( for it requires knowledge and intelligence to know something that cannot be seen, felt, heard to exist etc).

      2 ) // no human beings can prove that there is NO God. //
      atheism does not need to prove "no god", all they need to do is to prove that your argument for god ( wong-tai-sin, monkey king, superman, X-man, spiderman) is not true, and the so called evidence for god ( wong-tai-sin, monkey king, superman, X-man, spidermanetc) is not scientifically valid. since there is no god, logically one cannot find evidence to show "nothing" exist, but if one believes in god ( or wong-tai-sin, monkey king, superman, X-man, spidermanetc), one got the burden of proof, simple logic, isn't it ?

      3 ) // Our scientific knowledge helps to eliminate certain "gods" to be established (by humans) as the ultimate God. //
      any evidence to prove that your so called ultimate god is not invented by human also, except your claim to be so ?

      4 ) // there are biblical prophecies, a whole bunch of them. The fulfillment of them would show that there is a God //
      maybe by another 匿名
      // Read the Modern World History, the Bible (OT & NT), and the news particularly relating to PRC. If you are lucky (or unlucky), you may see how one of the prophecies got fulfilled after the 2007 financial tsunami.//
      sorry, no one can give me one good single example, despite the claim of a bunch of them. please stop bluffing. by prophecy, i mean give me a verse in the bible, saying at specific time and place a specific event will occur. otherwise any fung-shua fortune teller or astrologist can give you plenty of prophecies and find them fulfilment.

      5 ) // If science could disprove the existence of God, then all scientists would be atheists.//
      what senseless logic is that, if your statement make sense at all, how about the followings :
      "if science can prove god, then all scientist would be god-believing already", since not all scientist believes in god, so science cannot prove god.
      " if the so called bible prophecy is true, all historians will believe in god already", since not all historians believe in god, it shows bible prophecy is not true.
      and ultimately,
      'if god ( spiderman, X man, superman, wong-tai-sin, allah) is real, everyone would believe in it already", since not all human believes in god, conclusion is god does not exist.

      i think i have said enough here, it is a pleasure to exchange view with you, and hope we all have better understanding of the opposite perspective.

      dr Wong, any comment ?

      dr Who




      刪除
    6. Obviously you are wasting my time.

      #5. The original meaning was this: science should be used to support that there is an ultimate God. But when people don't do that, there are biblical prophecies. Logic only has two states. Negating someone's statement without considering the reasoning behind it is 為拗而拗。 If you know how to paint, you would know that the "Black" color might not be an effective color for drawing "Darkness". Sometimes using "Brown", and sometimes maybe with some "White" or even "Yellow", could bring out a contrast for "Darkness". Your logic is this: When I say "Black" is not an effective color, then you say the opposite color of "Black", i.e. "White" is not an effective color also. You simply ignore all the other colors.

      Basically all our scientific knowledge is only a "discovery" of such governing rules for our universe which no human beings "created". If you think that our scientific knowledge can disprove there is a God, then please show me how. If you don't think our scientific knowledge could be used as a supporting proof for God's existence, then I presented the biblical prophecies, which was written thousands of years ago.

      #4. If you have read the Modern World History and the whole Bible, plus reading the news. Maybe you could follow my link to uncover the prophecy I talked about. Obviously you didn't do any homework" yourself. On the internet, there were people mentioning WWI, WWII, etc. being prophecied in the Book of Revelation. You may choose to believe or not to believe. That is your own problem. If I were to list out all I know, which you could never found on the internet, you could only say "????". OF COURSE I could list out the verses in parallel with world events. It is you who COULDN'T. My conclusion is that "DON'T BE SO SURE THAT THERE IS NO GOD!". I am not forcing you to believe in THERE IS A GOD.

      #3. The term "Ultimate God" already implies that it must not be human-invented, otherwise I wouldn't 收貨. However, obviously your term of "ultimate God" 原來 could carry a very different meaning. So is it my problem or yours?

      #2. Atheism proves that there is no God, by disproving all existing "god" depicted in human world. Atheism simply doesn't believing in any God. For such a bold statement, atheists must have solid "proofs" to support it, don't they? But no, they don't. So it is only 語言偽術.

      #1. You don't know if a falling building (or a falling penny) would definitely kill you (despite of all our knowledge of physical laws), why not go & try one?! This is your type of logical reasoning. This is your problem.

      Obviously you are wasting more of my time.

      刪除
    7. dr Who,

      I'd better stay away from this long-winded discussion.

      刪除
    8. dear Wong,

      i like your words 不明白為何有那麼多人相信一些明顯為假的說法,只能想到用「那些是蠢人」來解釋 : )

      dr Who

      刪除
    9. "明顯為假" -> a logical fallacy -> 蠢人說:「那些是蠢人」-> Show who is the real 蠢人.

      刪除
  10. dr Who,

    目前宇宙學比較流行的看法是宇宙源自一個奇點, 奇點處沒有時間也沒有空間, 只有虛無. 一切從奇點開始

    但這不是我回應你的重點,重點是一個無窮膨脹收縮的宇宙,看似給出了解釋,其實什麼也沒解釋. 因為"無窮"只是一個概念, 它不是一個實數. 我們仍然要問 :第一個宇宙是怎麼來的? 你不過把解釋推上了一級, 跟多元宇宙同質.

    我比較有興趣的是,無神論不斷強調邏輯理性,但是它給的解釋卻往往最不理性,違反邏輯

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 大自然有很多東西是人們還未有完全了解的。
      當人們還未明白為什麼天氣會出現打雷閃電下雨的時候,於是有人相信天上有神仙;

      但當人們明白了打雷閃電下雨之後,天上的神仙已無藏身之處,於是神仙唯有「逃跑」到宇宙去,因為人們對宇宙還未有太多的了解,於是就成為了神仙的藏身之處。

      任何人們還未能很了解的地方都可以成為神仙之居所。

      所以相信有神的人只要找一個人們還未很了解的事物就可以「證明」是有神存在。
      這是多麼「聰明」的方法!

      而相信無神的人卻要花費很多精力去探索去研究,去解開大自然之謎,那是多麼「愚蠢」!

      只要相信有神,那不就可以「解釋一切」了嗎?相信無神的人真是「自找麻煩」!



      刪除
  11. // 第一因論證說凡有開始的必有因,而不是凡存在必有因。上帝沒有開始,因此

    上帝沒有因// 那就是説:
    1。有些 “東西”沒有(或不須)開始就已經“存在”。比如上帝。這個我懂。但
    2。有些 “東西”開始了卻又 “不存在”。 那是什麽呢?
    3。有些 “存在”是不必 (或沒有)“因”的。我敢肯定那一定就是 "上帝“,

    因爲只有“上帝”是“無緣無故”地“存在”的。但什麽“東西”是開始了(有 "

    因”)卻又不存在的呢?

    問題是:

    1。爲什麽“上帝”要“無緣無故”地“存在”?

    2。我們是如何 “知道”上帝沒有 “開始”的呢?

    有神論還有其它選擇嗎?我不認爲有。你應該明白只有上帝是可以“無緣無故”

    地存在的。也只有上帝作爲宇宙開端是“絕對虛無”的。因爲其他的理論都要解

    釋這個東西的前因,只有上帝不用。不要問,只要信。因爲我的“意志”和 “思

    想”只能是絕對虛無的。1。猶太人的經典憑空出現了一個上帝,沒有任何原因。

    2。“西遊記”出現了“孫悟空”卻起碼有個説法。1 比 2 更糟糕。

    任何一個事物沒有一個開始,也沒有一個原因,無論怎麽解釋都是荒唐的。你說“沒什麽,就是一個上帝而已”這不理性啊。泡菜

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 在宇宙大爆炸理論被提出之前,無神論同樣也認為宇宙是沒有開始,無緣無故存在. 顯然,無神論認為一個沒有原因的X是存在的,無神論同樣叫人不要問,只要信

      現在宇宙大爆炸被證實了, 無神論就轉而攻擊說 這個X 不存在.

      刪除
  12. A product launch, as the name implies, is the process of bringing a new product to a
    market. Yet, John Delavera insists that list-building is not the secret to a successful Internet business.
    Here are a a small number of tips that can support you launch your home-based affiliate business.


    Feel free to surf to my site :: frank kern ftc [http://radiofolcloreportugues.com?p=849]

    回覆刪除
  13. Despite of what atheists believe and say, I observe that biblical prophecies continue to be fulfilled. This is a fact and serves as a judgement on atheism. If the prophecies were mere coincidences, then "what a bunch of coincidences !!!"

    回覆刪除
  14. 首先“宇宙大爆炸”是一套科學理論,就像 "宇宙有開始“ 或 ”宇宙沒有開始“ 一樣。
    沒有一個真正的科學家會以爲自己已經掌握了最終的真理,這個跟 “有神論者”很不一樣。(這裡說的有神論者一般系指基督教教徒, 因爲很少其他宗教信徒會用科學 ”證據“或什麽 “靠估發現”來證明其信仰是“真”的。)

    另一方面,我相信比較理性的人(包括有神論者與無神論者)很少會相信宇宙是無緣無故存在(沒有開始)的。我們都想知道宇宙是如何誕生的。只是不願意接受一個有位格但沒有原因的因就是最終的答案。只有比較不理性的人 (當然也包括有神論者與無神論者)會相信一個無緣無故的X的存在。(不理性可不是有神論者的專利)。

    無神論者通常只會說自己 “不相信有神(一般特指那個創造世界的神)”或 “不相信 一個沒有原因的X存在”。我不相信你說的是真並不等于我要相信你說的是假;因爲你可以只是吹牛 或吹水!
    我懷疑你真的懂宇宙大爆炸理論(蘋果日報不可能提供科學報告),因爲到今天還沒有任何一個科學界宣稱 ‘已經證實’了這個理論。只有一些神棍急不及待地把一些新發現拉來做 ”創世論“ 的證據。曾幾何時,同樣的人還言之鑿鑿地說根據聖經地球只存在了幾万甚至幾千年。。。。。就算大爆炸理論真的被證實了,那可是十幾億年前發生的,所有的星體都是之後形成的,同上帝的創造有何關係?又上帝到底是那股能量?還是上帝先造了那股能量然後引爆它?上帝既然充滿了宇宙,宇宙不斷膨脹,上帝是否也隨之膨脹?如果上帝就是那股能量,能量又是怎樣變成有位格,有思想,會妒忌,又愛又恨的上帝?泡菜

    回覆刪除
  15. 推背圖,燒餅歌,梅花易數,鐵板神數,八字斷命。。。。甚至塔儸牌的命中率極高,那跟上帝有何關係?泡菜

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. In case you don't know, there were found to be different versions of 推背圖, showing that it had been "edited" (or "altered") from time to time to fool people with its "命中率".

      If you are just a small bacteria in someone's intestine, no matter how big you grow (as a bacteria), your host will not be affected, unless you become a cancer cell and start affecting your neighbors. Does this answer your "上帝既然充滿了宇宙,宇宙不斷膨脹,上帝是否也隨之膨脹?" ?

      If you really understand the Bible, you would have known why 上帝 "又愛又恨". 上帝 shouldn't have mental illness, and thus something was claimed to have been acted (but actually weren't) by 上帝, as hinted in NT.

      If you understand the Book of Revelation, you would have discovered that most of the described disasters in the book where human-made. The book serves to warn humans of our stupid acts. Thus don't ask any more stupid questions that lead to no where.

      刪除
  16. I believe that when “God” is mentioned in the discussion, it meant “Christian God” or “Jewish God” . The existence of the God is because of the Bible (OT and NT). To the best of my knowledge the OT was first written down about 3000 years ago. Therefore God was created by Men (Jews, of course) about 3000 years ago. Without the Bible there is no God at all. Now tell me whether God created men or men created God?
    May God bless all believers and let the devil take the rest.
    Samson
    Ontario, Canada

    回覆刪除
  17. 看來你的中文閲讀和理解能力有點不到位,但豈可拿上帝跟細菌和癌細胞雙提並論?何況我提出的根本就不是一條(一些)問題呢。

    容我假定你是一位基督教徒。(我理解的基督徒和基督教徒是不一樣的)。那我的問題是:亞伯蘭是凴什麽科學證據或考古發現而成爲亞伯拉罕的呢。拿僅餘的麪做餅供養先知的寡婦(舊約)和奉獻全副身家兩個小錢的寡婦(新約)她們了解創造論?只有那些狂妄自大又極度無知的人才會去證明上帝的存在或證明聖經記載的每一句話都有歷史,科學根據。

    你的信仰要是建築在預言的實現,科學證據,考古發現, 就“好比一個無知的人,把房子蓋在沙土上”,是個悲劇。是“虛空的虛空” 都是捕風;在日光之下毫無益處。“ 再送您一段經文:And further, by these, my son, be admonished: of making many books there is no end; and much study is a weariness of the flesh.

    Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

    要想知道創世記到底是說什麽的,可以到此:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ok3V257cOIA

    pc

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. "不到位" ?? 你的中文就真係極之唔"到位",簡直係去到 "丟假" 地步。誰人去"拿上帝跟細菌和癌細胞雙提並論" ? 係你呀!得閑讀多十次﹑八次原文先來"扮野" + "撒野" 啦!正一識字 「宗教」 "癌細胞"!你連「啟示錄」 "一成" 都未睇明!耶穌就係比你呢類無能嘅 「宗教」 "癌細胞" 送上十字架的。怪不得之有些 「基督徒」 給人罵做 "耶手然"。就係比你呢類無能嘅 「宗教」 "癌細胞" 害的...。正一書堆裡面的 "耶手然" 。"拿上帝跟細菌和癌細胞雙提並論" 的 「宗教」 "癌細胞"。

      刪除
  18. 你的中文和英文都非常好,人品又好,非常有修養,有家教,你父母以你為榮。你是耶穌的真門徒,基督教就需要你這種教徒。這是我再三拜讀你的鴻文得到的結論。上帝保佑您。pc

    回覆刪除
    回覆
    1. 連時候也分不清,證明你不是屬上帝的。是個假門徒。

      刪除
  19. 一篇不錯的文章分享:
    不要只看到別人的德性,看著自己的德性並改正吧!
    http://blog.udn.com/oyt0915/26735963

    回覆刪除