//Is 宗教霸權 a problem of a religion or a p...

? 不明。 是什麼層次不同，可否說明一下?

Sorry 我曉得打錯，本不想補充，還是免不了。 是討論的問題的層次不同。

? 還是不明。 問題的層次如何不同?

是否不同？ 一則流於對詞義的解釋，一則本於宗教對人生的影響。

為何會有「層次」﹖如果真的有，那個為先﹖那個為後﹖

沒有層次 兩者皆先，也是兩者皆後。或者是「討論的角度」不同，jetlap這方面比我優勝，不懷疑。

想一想也有層次 我的問題是：「是否一定要先證明上帝存在，才相信宗教呢？」宗教的「善惡道德觀」值得相信，無神論者要從哪裡得到一套以上正確的觀念呢？憑知識、憑經驗？沒有系統持之以恆，人的隋性又會讓人回到原初的地步。願聽高見。 （現在我非基督徒，請不要嘗試考我對基督教的認識。）

Of Morality “是否一定要先證明上帝存在，才相信宗教呢？” Certainly, not. We have different reasons to believe (or not to believe) the existence of God. But that God is the foundation of morality is not a good reason for believing in any religion. “宗教的「善惡道德觀」值得相信，無神論者要從哪裡得到一套以上正確的觀念呢？” The famous question concerning the relation of God and morality can be traced back to Plato’s Dialogues. Does God choose what is good (and right) because something IS good? Or something is good because God CHOOSES it? If the former, something “is” good regardless of God’s choosing it. If the latter, something “becomes” good only because God chooses it; and this makes the definition of goodness (thus, the foundation of morality) arbitrary. If one wants to ground morality on the will of God, this dilemma has to be resolved first.

就算是信了教也會做壞事 那和宗教沒有關 要做壞事的人就會做,不會做的就不會 再說由宗教給予的善惡是盲目的,不會由反省而來,很多時反而成了做壞事的理由

To : Faustus Thanks for answering! 上帝（宗教而言）說「好」的，固然不就是「好」。有人說，宗教是回應人的心理要求，繼續相信的人的心其實已有了回應。一套道德觀經不起時間考驗，早晚被埋於地下。 宗教肩負了社會上的道德責任，問題是紜紜眾無神論者，沒有正確的善惡道德觀，是如何去生活的呢？難道每次都要良心責備後才明白不對，受害的人又如何取回公道？社會真的可以這樣接受嗎？法律是真正可以教人更加友愛、善良嗎？請賜教！

To：征服者 問題在於，做壞事的根本沒有相信，相信了便不會做，除非那宗教贊成這樣做。 另外，我相信，信與不信之間，非一秒之間的事，相信了也得繼後領悟和實踐。 你不相信宗教，不是先證明人帝存在（因為無神論者同樣不能證明上帝不存在），而是心裡問，生命中還有比不信宗教的事好嗎？！

TO 森 有的,就是相信自己的腳步 信神的也可以抵抗不了引誘,而良心不是只有在之後出現的,無神論者也自有自己的道德準則,一個以人為本的準則,而道德下降和宗教不宗教沒有關,而是來而沒有人生目標和人之間的比較,而目標要自己找到的才有意義,他人給予的並不一定是自己真正想要的

看錯了最後那句 信不信宗教不是好不好的問題,是是否要放棄用自己的方式去找尋目標和方向,改為走一條有人指示好,比較易走的路的問題

To：征服者 那你不需要宗教了！ 可是，無神論者的道德準則是如何建立的？「良心」沒有一套觀念去比照，是否意味是生而有之的？ 「無神論者」否定對宗教的存在價值，為什麼卻能肯定有更多的「無神論者」所作的壞事，作為「無神論者」的你，對於其他「無神論者」又有何說話呢？

sorry for typo 「無神論者」否定對宗教的存在價值，為什麼卻不能肯定有更多的「無神論者」所作的壞事，作為「無神論者」的你，對於其他作惡的「無神論者」又有何說話呢？

Hi, I am also an atheist. This is quite an interesting topic to me. Do you mind if I join your discussion? 可是，無神論者的道德準則是如何建立的？「良心」沒有一套觀念去比照，是否意味是生而有之的？ I think atheists, like anyone else, have their own moral standards. Conscience and religion are quite separate issues. You don’t need to be a Christian in order to be conscious. 「無神論者」否定對宗教的存在價值What atheism really means is that we don’t find the need or the way to prove that god exists, that’s all. ，為什麼卻不能肯定有更多的「無神論者」所作的壞事，作為「無神論者」的你，對於其他「無神論者」又有何說話呢？ I don’t quite understand this last part. A lot of Christians did evil things. As a Christian, what do you want to say about them?

道德準則是由良心+經驗+兒時學到的簡單道理而組成(如不可亂拋垃圾,要孝順父母等) 以此簡單道理為基礎 以經驗作指標 再以良心作判斷 我看不出與宗教有任何掛勾

世界上好像沒有證明不信神的壞人比信神的壞人在和好人的比例上較多呀

中國人沒有良心？ 古代的中國還未知道上帝為何物，言則古代所有中國人都沒有良心？都沒有道德標準？ 不要跟我說古代中國都有宗教，這裡一開始討論的「宗教」是指基督教。

Re:Benson A lot of Christians did evil things. As a Christian, what do you want to say about them? (我不是基督徒)某日在《明報》副刊(名字忘了，大概是刊登基督教文章的)看到一篇文章，內容大致為：基督徒決志信主之後依然保留人的原罪性/教會生活比個人生活更安全……使他較不易犯罪/一些傳媒往往在報導犯罪的基督徒時渲染其成為「虔誠的基督徒」 不知在這裡的基督徒朋友有沒有看過上述的文章？又是否贊成其觀點？

上帝為什麼不能在耳朵、大腸之內？ 先睇睇呢兩條問題： 一、無所不在的上帝是否在我們的耳朵、大腸之內？ 二、無所不能的上帝能否造一塊祂舉不起的石頭？ 點解第一條會答唔到？只要答「係」，就證明到上帝係無處不在啦！咁點解又唔敢答呢？其實講到尾係因為有0的人覺得「耳朵內」同「大腸內」係污穢既地方！覺得上帝唔應該0係呢0的地方內出現。我就覺得污穢既唔係耳朵同大腸，係呢0的人既心！點解上帝唔可以0係呢0的地方出現？以上帝平等、博愛既心，對所有野都應該一視同仁，就算上帝0係一個充滿糞便既廁所現身，都一樣無損佢既神聖。 況且，邊個話耳朵同大腸就係污穢？因為耳朵內有耳屎？因為大腸內有屎？咁憑咩話屎係污穢？0係自然間既角度，屎只係一種好普通既物質，冇所謂污唔污穢；講到好處，佢對農作物既貢獻，我諗小學生都知啦！唔使多講喇卦！ 即使純粹講耳朵同大腸呢兩種器官，我亦唔覺得有咩咁污穢，因為呢兩種都係人類既一個好重要既器官，亦係上帝賜俾我地既，試問上帝會唔會介意處身於自己創造出黎既野之上呢？如果覺得「上帝是否在我們的大腸、耳朵之內」呢句話唔尊重上帝，咁呢種諗法咪一樣唔尊重上帝賜俾我地既身體？ 至於第二個問題，我覺得0係邏輯上完全冇問題喎！甚至可以將佢變成「上帝能否製造一個能力超越祂的人？」呢個已經唔係層次唔同既問題，因為唔理咩層次，唔合邏輯就係唔合邏輯，唔會有0的野0係某一層次睇就合邏輯，0係另一層次睇就唔合邏輯咁神奇。「合唔合理」同「合唔合邏輯」係兩件事，千祈咪混淆！你可以話上帝既能力係「超乎常理」(例如可以飛得快過光速、可以令時光倒流等)，但絕對唔可以話上帝既能力「超越邏輯」(例如上帝唔可能令三角形既內角總和唔等如180度，亦唔可能造出一個內角總和唔等如180度既三角形，咁己經違反左數學上既邏輯)。 好多野唔係講幾句咩「唔同層次」、「超越邏輯」之類既空言(俗稱廢話)就可以自圓其說。呢0的咁既說話，小學生都呃唔到呀！(而家0的細路唔知幾醒目)

善惡道德觀不是來自宗教 我覺得善惡道德觀不是來自宗教 是來自身處社會,教育,文化的準則 隨人生經歷而因人而異 故冇神論者都可有自己的善惡道德觀

「時空隱者」 不知在這裡的基督徒朋友有沒有看過上述的文章？ 冇,我在英國 又是否贊成其觀點？ 我認為信主之後不能保證人不犯罪,不犯罪(physically and mentaly)是目標.

心沉 二、無所不能的上帝能否造一塊祂舉不起的石頭？ 我認為是不能的,像無所不能的上帝能否犯罪一樣.

To: 心沉 希望容忍我為我的廢話再補充一點廢話。 當初我起原題目，的確想到層次的問題。 （一）正方只是詞義的邏輯性上被擊倒，對於人了解上帝是否存在的問題上沒有幫助。 （二）反方只針對詞義的邏輯性上去擊倒正方，根本沒有從其他方面包括宗教方面去探討上帝是否存在。 這也許是一場辯論，一場遊戲，只是想問正方有沒有需要參予這樣一場從沒觸及實質的討論？ 還聽「心沉」的一番「真理」！

To: Benson and All Thank you all very much for responding my topic. 基督徒願意以宗教的善惡道德觀去規範自己的日常行為，甚至主動關愛其他有著共同信仰的信徒，一旦行為上出軌，宗教的一套系統都較易將信徒導回正軌。倒是，無神論者多是獨善其身。其中為什麼有些人為了利益做出種種不道德之事，如東周刊一例，有些卻不會？無神論者的道德準則又是什麼？經驗告訴暴力可以解決問題？暴力就是標準嗎？如果妓女不認為自己不道德，那就是不道德嗎？無神論者會願意主動關愛更多的無神論者嗎？ 未來人與人的關係，我們想怎麼樣？是要愈來愈疏離，還是要更相親相愛？

道德標準 那我們開始聊聊道德的標準，好嗎？

argue for the arguement sick //無所不能的上帝能否造一塊祂舉不起的石頭？// 心沉, 有d野logically correct 唔代表o岩既or係現實世界出現。 例證: 如果所有a都係b,而所有b都係c,a=c.係咪logically correct呀? 咁而家等我地代入去現實度又睇下有無問題好無? a=香港所有男仔 b=會日日出街 c=著現代褲 跟住套入去你話:all a is b, all b is c,a=c 咁唔通香港所有日日出街既男仔都著現代褲咩?logically correct,但你唔覺得無可能咩下? 正如果句//無所不能的上帝能否造一塊祂舉不起的石頭？// 就算唔講logics,呢句都唔make sense啦 如果上帝佢係咁無所不能點會一塊石都搬唔走?如果佢係搬得走舊石咁佢d能力都好受質疑啦,又話可以整舊石係搬唔郁既? 自相矛盾呀!

好似"all b is c"唔係好啱喎 "會日日出街"好似推唔倒 去"著現代褲"喎?都冇subject 外父愛個女 個女愛女婿 但係唔代表外父愛女婿 咁得唔得?

"石頭"這類問題正正就係問可否超越邏輯,矛盾. 如果係全能理應現實世界或甚麼樣的世界都能夠超越邏輯吧.

道德標準，至少做事可以推己及人。 人是否要釐清一切詞義上的理解和邏輯，才可以好好地生活？人感到寒冷便要加衣，是否要定義什麼是「寒冷」？又是否要定義什麼是「定義」？ 生活可以很簡單不是嗎？

>>>>>>>「跟住套入去你話:all a is b, all b is c,a=c 咁唔通香港所有日日出街既男仔都著現代褲咩?logically correct,但你唔覺得無可能咩下? 」 你想說什麼？ all a is b, all b is c,我會推論到all a is c 「咁唔通香港所有日日出街既男仔都著現代褲咩?」---有什麼不對？如果這句不對，好有可能是你的推論過程有問題，又或者是你打的比方有問題 你是不是在反駁心沉？ 但係人家的主旨是上帝是無所不能，但無所不能不等如做到邏輯上不能的事

To 森 “問題是紜紜眾無神論者，沒有正確的善惡道德觀，是如何去生活的呢？” I think that there are many different ways to live a moral life. Both theists and atheists have their own moral standards and are prepared to give reason to justify them. Indeed, if we look at the history of philosophy (both eastern and western), a very large portion of it is devoted to the searching of a (or THE) moral standard. Famous examples of such attempts include Utilitarianism, Kantianism, virtue ethics, etc. Personally, I don’t “completely” agree with any of them. But followers of them do, I think, live a secular yet “moral” life. Taking the risk of distorting its view, I will give a “brief” account of one of those theories—Kantianism (which I think is much closer to the kind of ethics that theists look for). According to Kant, the rightness or wrongness of an action is entirely independent of the consequences it brings about, because the results of an action are always contingent (i.e. accidental) upon the circumstances. For example, a good-intended action may, due to some accident, produce bad effects, and vice versa. And Kant would suggest that it is absurd to condemn an action just because of the unintended consequences it happens to bring about. Therefore, instead of focusing on the consequences, we should look at the “motive” of an action, i.e. the intention of the action—why someone would want to perform a particular action. This brings us to the central focus of Kant’s philosophy—namely, the ability to reason. According to Kant, everyone, so long as she is not disabled or sick, should have the ability to reason. Being a “rational” agent, one could, upon reflections, come to understand and comprehend what the “natural laws” are. What are these natural laws? For example, the law of contradiction—that it cannot be the case that both A and not A. Applying this to morality, one will see that the rightness or wrongness of her action is based on whether her motive can be seen as a universal maxim applicable to all rational agents. That is, if the maxim (the rule that she is following) contains a contradiction (e.g. both to promise and not to keep the promise), then it must not be the right motive (not the categorical imperative) which will make her action right. Certainly, there are objections to be made against Kant’s moral principles. But we can see that atheists also have their moral standards (but of course, whether it is THE correct standard is still a controversial issue).

我再講清楚d啦 個"all a=b..."係用唻講好多野 logical correct既野係現實世界係唔成立。呢樣係用唻回應 心沉話果句//無所不能的上帝能否造一塊祂舉不起的石頭？// 佢話://我覺得0係邏輯上完全冇問題喎！甚至可以將佢變成「上帝能否製造一個能力超越祂的人？」呢個已經唔係層次唔同既問題，因為唔理咩層次，唔合邏輯就係唔合邏輯，唔會有0的野0係某一層次睇就合邏輯，0係另一層次睇就唔合邏輯咁神奇。// 用係咪logical係分析果句野已然唔妥啦係咪,因為1.好多logically correct既野可以係現實世界中唔成立,第2,正如我之前所講,呢句野根本係用唻串上帝自相矛盾,句入面充滿諷刺同矛盾既。咁無理由唔理句子意思自己一味係咁分析o卦?

to 森 "主動關愛其他有著共同信仰的信徒"看來信徒的愛也只是小團體的呢,而其他很多沒有宗教的社區組織或世界組織每天都為了一些沒有共同關係和信仰的生命(不只有人)付出無條件的關懷和幫助,你沒有看到嗎? 而你所說的宗教系統並不是真的比較易導人向善嗎?還是只是他們在告解後放鬆了一會就再做錯事?有沒有什麼實質的證明? 很多道德的禁忌在小時就會有人教,根本不用宗教,而深一點的在思考自己人生時就會了解,也會找到自己真的想要的是什麼,也不用宗教給的別人的標準

To: 森 Forgive me for being slightly lengthy. You gave me a strong impression that 1. Moral standards and religion are related 2. Christians, to a certain extent, are more capable of loving others and less likely to do evil deeds. For (1), as I said before, they are not necessarily related. I don’t see why a person must have faith in order to be morally conscious. I just don’t see the need (and the relation, if any) at all. For (2), excuse me to be potentially offensive, I don’t think Christians are in any special position among people with no or other beliefs. On the contrary, I can point out quite many Bad Christians. Take a look at history: the Crusades in the past marked the first religious war where lots of people were butchered, the war in Yugoslavia (the Serbs are Christians and they took out millions of Albanians), George Bush, before his presidency, executed the most number of death inmates in Texas (his father, the old Bush once said that American atheists are not Americans at all! Shocking, isn’t it?), the Irish Republican Army, ….etc. These people are all Christians/Catholics. They prayed every day. Didn’t they remember one of the Ten Commandments which says “Thou shall not kill”? What govern their moral standards then? Are these people any morally better than atheists? 基督徒願意以宗教的善惡道德觀去規範自己的日常行為，These standards, however are not really fundamental. Most of them are mere projections from the people who wrote or interpreted the scriptures. The anti-gay sentiment, for example, is highly likely due to mis-interpretation of what the Bible says. So is the case for anti-sex behaviors. The boy’s scout in America today still rejects gay applicants in the name of God. These Christians THINK they are morally right, but I don’t quite think so. 甚至主動關愛其他有著共同信仰的信徒， The main phrase is: 共同信仰 So what about those people with different or no religious beliefs? They don’t deserve love or attention at all? This is another big problem of Christians. They are too intolerant! Didn’t Jesus say you should love your neighbors? Didn’t he say you should forgive those who offended you? 一旦行為上出軌，宗教的一套系統都較易將信徒導回正軌。 As I quoted above, I don’t think you can put a monster back on the right track solely and simply via religious ways. 倒是，無神論者多是獨善其身。 What’s that supposed to mean? What’s wrong with being good to yourself? 其中為什麼有些人為了利益做出種種不道德之事，如東周刊一例，有些卻不會？ That applies to ALL people, religious or not! There are morally good atheists and there are evil-minded Christians (e.g. those Reverends who raped children in churches). This further affirms what I said, that moral standards, i.e., whether a person does good or evil things has nothing to do with whether he has religious beliefs or not. 無神論者的道德準則又是什麼？ That depends on each individual. We all have some common standards like “murder is wrong”. But each person, due to his upbringings, education, etc will develop his/her own moral system. So the question is like “what do atheists like to eat”? The answers are of course different for different people. 經驗告訴暴力可以解決問題？暴力就是標準嗎？ You lost me here. Violence is not a solution or a standard, religious or not, period. 如果妓女不認為自己不道德，那就是不道德嗎？ First of all, I don’t think sex-workers are immoral. I know quite a lot of you will disagree with me. But that’s fine, I can live with that. That’s exactly why this world is beautiful: that we have different opinions and views. Isn’t it wonderful to live in such a place with such variety of choices? Also, don’t you remember that Jesus took care of the whores and healed those sick people who are abandoned by the society? I don’t think Jesus thought whores are immoral either. How many Christians can be as compassionate as Jesus? How many of them really remember his teachings and ACT upon his doctrines? 無神論者會願意主動關愛更多的無神論者嗎？ Why not? This is a typical loaded question. You presumed that there is a difference between atheists and theists in the act of love which is obviously wrong! I do love my friends, my mum, my soul mates. 未來人與人的關係，我們想怎麼樣？是要愈來愈疏離，還是要更相親相愛？The future is not set but what we make it. The root of Jesus’s teachings which has been long ignored, overlooked and forgotten, ironically by those Christians for so many years, is: L-O-V-E! Paradise is not a private garden. It’s a place for nice people. It's not what you "pretend to be" or what people mumble in church. It's what you do and how you treat people, as simple as that. “Let the one without sin cast the first stone”. If people can really do that, there shouldn’t be any war at all. I would like to quote a few paragraphs from Dr. Li’s lecture in HKU as my ending remarks: 如果預設了基督教的正統教義，那麼對上帝的信仰自然就要排斥對滿天仙佛的信仰。但本來就沒有必要預設這種教義，前面甚至已論證了這種教義的上帝觀有本質性的破綻。反之，如果僅僅以「存在根源」或「存在總根」去了解「上帝」（這樣一來則「上帝」約莫等於道教所稱的「道」，佛教所講的「如來法身」，婆羅門教所謂的「梵我一如」的「梵」，孟子所說「知其性，則知天矣」的「天」……），那麼，對上帝的信仰就不會排斥對仙佛的信仰。 ….一個人會接受哪個宗教，每每取決於性向和機緣。我的至交好友之中，就有思想非常開放的人由於性向和機緣而成為基督徒，從事牧師的工作，以沉實樸素不尚空談的作風領導所屬的教會。自古以來，確有許多真有愛心的基督徒獻身於「愛的事業」，令人敬重而且感動。 但另一方面，也有很多基督徒表現得極度愚蠢閉塞、偏狹狂妄，不但不肯正視所信教義中的種種漏洞，反而以真理使者自居，霸道排他，表示只有自己所信的神才是「正神」，所有別的宗教所信的神都是「邪神」。但我卻從沒聽過佛道教徒認為基督教所信的神是邪神。佛道教徒在崇奉（比如說）觀音菩薩、孚佑帝君、文昌帝君、慈惠帝君、赤松黃大真人和濟聖等神靈的時候，是不會把基督教所信的聖靈和聖母瑪利亞等當作邪神來看待的。兩種態度一經對照，高下立判。 就我所知，沒有任何站得住腳的證據顯示上帝會偏袒某個宗教而「歧視」所有其他的宗教，也沒有任何站得住腳的證據顯示有任何特定的宗教能「獨佔上帝」。有的人以為天國是私家花園，只屬於他和他的「自己人」。這種人可能離天國最遠。有的人愛心高漲，逢人便即「傳道」，原來只是為了要在天國佔得一個好位置。這種人可能離地獄最近。地獄也許正是狂妄者的樂園。吹噓自己如何如何偉大，然後就說「一切榮耀歸於上帝」，這是包裝過的狂妄。自己所信的教義千瘡百孔，卻還要堅稱別人不信就要下地獄，這是建築在愚盲上的狂妄。 耶穌教人謙虛，基督徒示範狂妄。狂妄是基督教的窮途，謙虛是基督教的活路，其正統教義是路上的包袱，耶穌的大愛是路上的明燈。我對基督教提出種種批判，不是為了埋葬，而是為了贈送指南針給予對方。我這樣做，無非因為覺得可惜，可惜其正統教義無異污泥與腐葉，掩蓋了耶穌遺留給世人的無價寶藏而已……

拳擊手和市民 當日李天命參加既係一場辯論，佢係反方，根本就冇負任/冇需要去證實上帝存唔存在，佢只需要攻擊/反駁正方既論點就已經達到佢既目的，否則根本就唔係辯論。 置於你所講既其他方法探討，請問係邊方面？如果唔係邏輯，唔通係文學？音樂？講黎講去咪又係想0係宗教方面講！即係等如叫人用聖經去證明上帝係唔係存在一樣，我諗唔使辯論喇卦！ 仲有你話正方有冇必要參與呢場冇觸及實質既討論，喂大佬而家好似係阿韓那漏人辯論架喎！冇人搵支槍指住佢架！以為自己贏梗，點知唔夠人講，就輸打贏要。點為之冇觸及實質？講黎講去都係指冇0係宗教角度去討論之嘛！佢梗係想人地0係宗教方面同佢辯論啦！佢專長黎嘛！但大家覺得好唔好笑先？佢既諗法就好似一個重量級拳擊手叫一個從來未學過打拳既普通市民上擂台同佢隻抽，但要跟足佢既規例喎！大家話結果係點喇！唔使打都知啦！唔通呢0的又叫公平咩？ 仲有，我0個0的係唔係高見就唔知，但我肯定唔係廢話。 仲有呀！我對某0的人既質疑，有人當睇唔見呀！呢0的算唔算「唔觸及實質」呀？

100%同意Benson 愛與關懷不是基督徒的專利 善惡道德之標準亦不容基督徒壟斷 如布殊的道德觀，簡單來說： 猶太人是人，巴勒基坦人不是人 美國人是人，阿富汗人不是人 順我者是高人，逆我者是賤人 又令我想起＜出埃及記＞ 上帝施渾身解數，殺盡埃及人 只為讓摩西帶領猶太人去迦南 上帝殺人手法之新穎與創意，能不讓人汗顏？ 說到底，基督教是猶太人部落信仰的變種，聖經舊約是猶太人的史書．只是機緣巧合，風雲際會，成為人類文明進化的偉大傑作......之一．僅此而已．

感同身受 ….一個人會接受哪個宗教，每每取決於性向和機緣。我的至交好友之中，就有思想非常開放的人由於性向和機緣而成為基督徒，從事牧師的工作，以沉實樸素不尚空談的作風領導所屬的教會。自古以來，確有許多真有愛心的基督徒獻身於「愛的事業」，令人敬重而且感動。 但另一方面，也有很多基督徒表現得極度愚蠢閉塞、偏狹狂妄，不但不肯正視所信教義中的種種漏洞，反而以真理使者自居，霸道排他，表示只有自己所信的神才是「正神」，所有別的宗教所信的神都是「邪神」。但我卻從沒聽過佛道教徒認為基督教所信的神是邪神。佛道教徒在崇奉（比如說）觀音菩薩、孚佑帝君、文昌帝君、慈惠帝君、赤松黃大真人和濟聖等神靈的時候，是不會把基督教所信的聖靈和聖母瑪利亞等當作邪神來看待的。兩種態度一經對照，高下立判。 就我所知，沒有任何站得住腳的證據顯示上帝會偏袒某個宗教而「歧視」所有其他的宗教，也沒有任何站得住腳的證據顯示有任何特定的宗教能「獨佔上帝」。有的人以為天國是私家花園，只屬於他和他的「自己人」。這種人可能離天國最遠。有的人愛心高漲，逢人便即「傳道」，原來只是為了要在天國佔得一個好位置。這種人可能離地獄最近。地獄也許正是狂妄者的樂園。吹噓自己如何如何偉大，然後就說「一切榮耀歸於上帝」，這是包裝過的狂妄。自己所信的教義千瘡百孔，卻還要堅稱別人不信就要下地獄，這是建築在愚盲上的狂妄。 對Benson這番說話同意無比，感同身受！Benson說的正是一木心中經常想到的事。如果更多的基督有你這種想法，可能就不會有那麼多涉及宗教的鬥爭吧！

對不起 這段好像（其實是肯定，不過要有點禮貌）是benson引述李天命的原話！

你這麼一說，又好像是啊！怪不得有點眼熟。

大家可能沒留意到…… 引文(本討論區的網友之文章)時請於引文首末加上"//"符號。 i.e. //xxxxxx(引文)//

非常多謝網友耐心的解釋及用心的回應! 部分我已受落，部分仍得消化。其實，前路只要有更好的生活，我是願意投入並放棄舊的。 To: 心沉 如果是基督教徙先惹起這場辯論，我得承認我是錯了。你說我沒有看到你的質疑，我的確沒有看到。你也沒必要再重提了，因為正如你惡意批評我，我也完全不能接受你一樣，我跟你的對話於此劃上永遠的句號！

To: 雲起, 一木, 時空隱者 My apology for the ambiguity. The last few paragraphs (written in Chinese) of my previous discussion were taken from Dr. Li’s lecture in the HKU (思考三式VS三大盲潮). I should have stated more clearly. It’s merely my mistake. Sorry and it won’t happen again.

好奇怪 有0的人真係好奇怪，唔夠人講就話人惡言批評，就好似細路仔同人打交，打輸左就喊住話人蝦佢咁奸茅。 呢個世界仲奇怪，明明係一樣既野，包裝過既就零舍多人接受。講真呢個網好多人都唔係善男信女，入得黎都預左有俾人攻擊既可能。只不過有人可能用字比較文雅、間接(但絕對無損0個種攻擊性)，而被反駁既人為左顯示自己既修養，於是忍住度氣慢慢再拗；而心沉就係0個0的直來直去，有0個句講0個句既人，可能講得係粗皮0的，無絕非無的放矢；偏偏0的人就完全唔理會我講既野岩唔岩，只係覺得我「惡意批評」。大家睇下立法會班議員討論既時候有邊時唔係惡言相向丫？有時仲近乎人身攻擊添！根本同人討論既時候就一定會遇到呢0的情況，唔通下下預左人地禮禮周周咁同你傾呀？點樣0係處於劣勢0既情況下保持冷靜，再逐一反駁先係應該要學既野。 再者，講野既語氣其實同討論內容既本質完全無關。如果法官因為一個人講野斯斯文文而相信佢既證供，但因為一個人粗口爛舌而唔相信佢既證供(但兩個人講既可能根本係同一回事)，呢個法官係咪只注重外表，忽略左事情既本質呢？ 呢個世界就係咁虛偽，講道理都要講「禮貌」，難道好唔禮貌既道理就唔係道理？就好似好多信神既人一樣(我特登唔講係咪基督徒，費事又話我玩針對)，總係覺得頭頂發晒光、放晒白鴿既先係上帝；藏於「耳朵」、「大腸」內分分鐘沾上些小糞便既就唔係上帝。咁呢0的人同0個0的拜金光閃閃既偶像既善信又有咩分別？ 阿森哥，你唔使咁勞嘈，心沉絕對冇特別針對你本人，我對事唔對人既，我針對既只係你既言論0者。如果我認為你講得有道理既，我一樣會贊同，一樣會支持。你講得我服既，我一樣乖乖地唔敢出聲既。 仲有你話同我既討論到此為止，其實係冇意思既，因為我轉過頭用第個名上黎，咪一樣可以再同你拗！你都唔會知邊個係我。如果我有心攻擊你既，我甚至可以同一時間化身幾個人去攻擊你添！(但我使唔使咁無聊呀？) 所以都係面對現實罷啦！

話時話,心沉論據充足,態度亦算幾俾面. 唔覺有問題喎

多謝支持 多謝支持！多謝支持！

我也 支持

嗯嗯嗯 人有時都真係幾虛偽下，好似我細細個d先生咁丫，明明係佢地……算啦唔講廢事離題。果d「慶慶地」既網友不如去洗下面再番黎討論丫^^"

心沉 我一直的想法都是，宗教往往要以親身去感受的，如果真正對未來的生活有進步的，那宗教便值得相信了。並不是把宗教上每一項問題抽出來，然後用邏輯實證去辯論，擊倒了反而錯誤加強了反方心理上對宗教的不可信，反而對認識宗教之於生活的意義毫無寸進，難道有人證明了「上帝不是無所不能、不是無所不在」，我就此便輕易認為宗教是不可信嗎？ 再說，本人跟你素未謀面，你的態度讓我感受頗為輕視，難道你跟你每一新認識的朋友都是如此對待嗎？，即使我說話欠缺嚴謹的邏輯，與人相處之道是這樣嗎？語氣跟討論本質可以真的沒有關係嗎？不同語氣的人真的可以陳述相同的觀點嗎？禮貌不一定令事實改變，為何偏偏要人穿得整齊，如果我有理，我穿波鞋、背心、短褲、講粗口也可以了吧？我也不認為你有針對我，可是你的留言何以總是一直只在回應我？令我對自己無言以對！

心沉 真正的辯題是『相信神的存在是更合理嗎？』你說不用邏輯實證去辯論，還可以用什麼？ 同樣辯題改為『相信神的不存在是更合理嗎？』正方不涉其他方面，只用邏輯實證也有把握嗎？ 依你的「有理哪管語氣態度禮貌」論，我懷疑它是否可以於現世行之有效？請你再多說明讓我更明白？ 如：有人用暴力，他說我打你，不代表我沒理，只是用暴力形式去反對你的說話。 我可以怎麼辦？

道理本身會說話 所謂「聽者有意」，我想就是這樣吧....

心沉 and his fans (雲起、閑人和01:45) 我再反覆看你的留言，代表我尊重你的留言。 問題一：「大家睇下立法會班議員討論既時候有邊時唔係惡言相向丫？有時仲近乎人身攻擊添！根本同人討論既時候就一定會遇到呢0的情況，唔通下下預左人地禮禮周周咁同你傾呀？點樣0係處於劣勢0既情況下保持冷靜...」 一個人就可以對其他人惡言相向嗎？如果父母子女朋友的說話持不同的見解，那你可以打父母子女朋友吧！對他們說，君不見台灣的立法院動輒便打人嗎？難道要我每次禮貌地對待你們嗎？，否則「如何可以於劣勢情況下保持冷靜？」 問題二：「講野既語氣其實同討論內容既本質完全無關。」 說話的語氣可以跟討論的內容之真確性沒有關係，但你談到「質」，那要跟你商榷了。 問題三：「講道理都要講『禮貌』，難道好唔禮貌既道理就唔係道理？」 不禮貌的道理當然也是道理，可是，「講道理都要不講『禮貌』」又是什麼道理？是不是比禮貌地講道理，更有道理？更能說服人、更能令人心平氣和？ 問題四：「所以都係面對現實罷啦！」 我要面對什麼「現實」，是因為你的「道理」而彰顯我的「廢」？為什麼各人不可持不同觀點，不是你的道理就是非道理？非黑即白的二分！ 問題五：「當日李天命參加既係一場辯論，佢係反方，根本就冇負任/冇需要去證實上帝存唔存在，佢只需要攻擊/反駁正方既論點就已經達到佢既目的，否則根本就唔係辯論。」 辯題是「相信神的存在是更合理嗎？」相方都根本沒必要證實神是存在不存在。反方反對什麼？反對「相信神的存在是更合理」，卻沒有說明「不相信神的存在是更合理」的理由！只是反方擴張兩條副辯題，錯誤引導正方去辯論。於神存在不存在的問題上，反方都提不出神不存在的實證來，單從邏輯實證而不涉其他方面，唯有靠詭辯。 神之存在不存在，各方面都有權下定義，宗教上可以，心理學上可以，哲學各流派可以...，不是邏輯實證論者專有。 問題六：「置於你所講既其他方法探討，請問係邊方面？如果唔係邏輯，唔通係文學？音樂？講黎講去咪又係想0係宗教方面講！」 辯論是否只談邏輯，其他方面的知識無權參予？ 依你的「邏輯」，辯論應該是兩組對邏輯實證有研究的辯論者才是！不然邏輯實證者其實是硬要他人依照自己的方式去辯論，跟你反駁我有異曲同工之妙！ 問題七：究竟你對我的質疑是什麼質疑？

「洗面」不只跟他一個人說的…… 不知你們有否看過胡適的《容忍與自由》？ 非常同意「道理本身會說話的」。

To: 森 Let’s calm down for a while and discuss what we want to discuss, shall we? I think we can gain much more if we can spend time sharing our thoughts rather than fighting among each other. It’s a good chat room. Let’s not spoil the mood with anger or hatred, just focus on the SUBJECT MATTER. OK? I have some comments on what you said. //森: 辯題是「相信神的存在是更合理嗎？」相方都根本沒必要證實神是存在不存在。反方反對什麼？反對「相信神的存在是更合理」，卻沒有說明「不相信神的存在是更合理」的理由！// The title of the debate is: (1)相信神的存在是更合理. The Affirmative team should prove it. The Negative team, however, should prove the opposite, i.e., (2)相信神的存在”並不是”更合理! but not (3)不相信神的存在是更合理. The Negative team therefore has no need or obligation to provide evidence proving (3). In a debate, the titles for both sides are contradictory to each other. If the Affirmative team proves A, the Negative team should prove NOT A. Look and think carefully: propositions (1) and (2) are contradictory to each other. That is to say, they can not be both right and both wrong. Propositions (1) and (3) are contrary (but not contradictory) to each other. They can not be both right but they can be both wrong! You mixed up the two concepts. In fact, Horner made the same mistake. You can check Dr Li’s book on “art of thinking” for details. //森:只是反方擴張兩條副辯題，錯誤引導正方去辯論。// This is wrong and rude. Please don’t say it again. Even if you really ARE misled by the other team, it is you who is responsible. //森:於神存在不存在的問題上，反方都提不出神不存在的實證來// As I said already, the Negative team has no obligation or need to prove whether God exists or not. They just need to prove that theism is NOT more reasonable than atheism, that’s all. //森:神之存在不存在，各方面都有權下定義，宗教上可以，心理學上可以，哲學各流派可以...// You have the right to DEFINE your God, that’s true. But the point is: can you PROVE it rationally? By ration I mean you SHOULD not violate science and common sense unless you have strong evidence to defy that particular scientific theory and you definitely MUST not violate logic. If you can’t do that, you can’t say it is more reasonable to believe in God. Have I made myself clear enough? //森: 辯論是否只談邏輯，其他方面的知識無權參予?// Of course not. You can say anything you want without even touching the word logic. However, whatever you say, you must NOT violate logic. If you do, what you said MUST be false. It’s that simple. Guys, Christians or atheists, I hope we can establish a peaceful environment to further our discussion. What do you think?

Benson 先多謝你的解釋，惜尚有未明。 你共有五個回應，我依次提問： （一）「相信神的存在是更合理嗎？」的相反論題是「相信神的存在不是更合理嗎？」 這「更」字似乎令到兩者都是合理，只是程度上不同，沒有相反的意思。 （二）不妨再多說明。 （三）先要明白你對（一）的回應。 （四）"should not violate science and common sense".　其實對於人與宇宙的由來，science and common sense也不能完善地解釋得到。 （五）「辯論只用邏輯」是「心沉」的看法。 Thanks in advance!

Benson 我擔心，李教授不只是贏了這場辯論這樣簡單，可能會打擊到徘徊於相信不相信宗教的十字街頭的人。 當然，宗教不是人的最後出路，但放棄了宗教的招手，人就要承擔起對自己前路的責任了。 有些人可以找到出路，如投身於哲學、文學、政治、藝術...等等，卻有更多人是迷失方向、甚至已錯得很遠了。對於那些人，同樣活在一個星球裡的人，得到了方向醉的人，除了醉心於自己的研究範疇，有沒有去關心過他們呢？ 一場辯論嬴到一場榮耀，卻驅走了一群正要踏足宗教的人的想念，是我貫穿此留言區的一直關注！

回應森哥(一) 其實我一路都冇唔尊重你，但為左令你覺得我尊重你，我「盡量」斯文0的回應。 問題一：理論上任何人都可以對人惡言相向架喎，因為法例冇規定唔准鬧人或對人粗聲粗氣個喎！只不過惡言相向完既後果要佢自己承受囉！可能俾人杯葛，俾人離棄之類。不過打人就一定唔得，因為係犯法既。而且我從來冇話可以「用任何手段」去表達自己意見，可能係你誤解我0者。我只係話「惡言相向」講既野未必就唔係道理，正如大家既父母有時都會惡這相向咁叫大家俾心機讀書，雖然聽落好令人唔舒服，但唔代表佢講既野係錯既，只係「表達手法」有問題0者！(可能都係我既問題卦？) 問題三：其實同上。有禮貌咁講道理冇錯係「容易令人信服」，但「有禮貌」係一種技巧、態度，同講既道理本質係咪正確完全無關。唔通我好有禮貌咁話「打人係岩既」咁呢個所謂道理既本質就會變成正確咩？ 而且我從來冇講過「講道理唔使講禮貌」，我意思只係「冇禮貌去講既道理未必唔係道理」，我既用意係希望大家好多野唔好淨係睇外表，要注重內涵。 問題四：拿呢題絕對係語言上既誤會呀拿！我叫你面對現實既意思係希望你唔好話人地「惡意批評」你，面勇於面對我向你提出既反駁，再上黎拗過。可能我表達得太隱晦，令人誤解，我認衰仔！ 問題五：係咪有人幫我答左呀？咁我唔回應喇！其實辯論既野我都係知皮毛。 唔好意思，要去食飯，問題六一陣再講。

森兄 我贊同心沉和benson的觀點，但不是他們fan屎． 有幾點補充： 1)你常明示暗示，「神是否存在」不應只用邏輯分析，但問題是，說服人信神的基督徒卻常用「......因為.....所以.......」去推論及證明神的存在，這正是邏輯． 2)你說人和宇宙的由來，不能用科學與common sense解釋，基督教同樣解釋不了．基督教義提供的解釋充滿矛盾，科學的解釋未盡完美，但較客觀及合乎理性． 3)我贊同宗教很偉大，啟迪人的心靈，是苦海明燈．但為何一定是基督教？佛教不可以？道教不可以？印度教？回教？． 4)有宗教信仰，人會較心安，少些虛無．但沒有信仰的人，也不是快快樂樂的在生活？ 5)基督徒的自大，對其他宗教的不尊重，最令我反感． 我仍是說這幾句： 愛與關懷不是基督徒的專利 善惡道德之標準亦不容基督徒壟斷 說到底，基督教是猶太人部落信仰的變種，聖經舊約是猶太人的史書．只是機緣巧合，風雲際會，成為人類文明進化的偉大傑作......之一．僅此而已．

心沉:接受！真心一句，你比前可愛得多了！早前我有冒犯也請你見諒！ 雲起：我真的不是基督徒，(1)(2)(5)我只可以不反對！我沒有把宗教narrow down to基督教，(3)(4)我都同意，正是因為(3)(4)我更不需理會(1)(2)了，沒有信仰的人仍活得快快樂樂是好事，但不是每個沒有信仰的人都是活得快快樂樂的，至少我們受過一點教育的人，不少徹底推翻宗教的意義，留一條路讓有需要的人！

錯字，sorry！ ....不要徹底推翻宗教的意義，留一條路讓有需要的人！

森：看來我們的分歧不太大啊 我相信宗教有其寶貴的價值，不然宗教不會歷久不衰，洗滌多少世代人的心靈，並促成世上最美麗的詩歌與建築． 我也相信：只要信，不要問，自然得救．一念誠懇，自然心之所安，甚至找到生存意義，何樂而不為？ 只要不做那些企圖說服別人神是萬能無所不在無所不能其他所有都是邪靈不信會落地獄......這些蠢事就好了.

回應森哥(二0 問題六： 其實我冇講過話「辯論只談邏輯」，只係因為你質疑反方(李天命)只0係邏輯上進行辯論，所以先話「如果唔係邏輯，唔通係文學？音樂？」 不過正如雲起所講，就算以宗教角度去討論，都要有「邏輯」(或者俗語所謂嘅「有紋有路」)，否則就同精神病患者亂嗡野冇分別。我有時會覺得邏輯其實比較似一種「工具」多過「學問」。以捉棋為喻，如果「心理學」、「神學」、「宗教」之類既學說係唔同既「棋路」(每個人都有自己既慣行既棋路)，咁「邏輯」就係呢幅棋既「基本規則」，就算棋路幾咁勺轉、幾咁超乎想像，令敵人難以捉摸，始終都係0係既定既規則下衍生出黎既，例如我地唔可能叫隻「卒」或「兵」打斜行，亦唔可能叫隻「將」或「帥」行出定死左既六格框框之外(飛攻除外)，因為咁樣已經係違返左呢個遊戲既規則。 致於森哥你話兩邊都要對「邏輯」有究研先公平，其實我冇講過要兩邊都一樣，我只係話唔應該規定「反方」要0係宗教既角度去同韓那辯論，冇理由用自己唔專長既一面去同人地既長處鬥。反而我覺得雙方各自有自己既「棋路」咁先公平。一個以邏輯出發，一個以宗教角度出發。公平講句，其實韓那所謂既「輸」，只不過係代表當時接受李天命講法既人多於接受韓那講法既人0者，咁唔代表韓那講既野冇道理，唔代表佢講野就係錯喎！ 阿森哥，你一開始就話唔應該咁執著於呢次辯論，唔應該咁執著於邏輯，其實你咪一樣執著於個結果？就好似你執著於我同你講野既「惡言相向」而忽略左我講既野有冇道理一樣，都係「只著重外表」，「忽略左本質」。你話你唔係基督徒，但係你因為呢件事而更相信上帝既存在，咁你認為韓那最終係「失敗」定「勝利」呢？ 我覺得好多野唔好睇表面，呢次辯論可能趕走左好多半信半疑既人，但能夠感動到好似你咁既人，就算只係得幾個、幾十個，上帝都應該感到好安慰。 我覺得你應該放開你既偏執囉！我諗上帝最想見到既唔係0個0的下下要將上帝捧到半天高、唯我獨尊既信徒，而係一0的有包容心、尊重人地，而且默默咁相信上帝既人。 大家仲記唔記得聖經入面「捐錢」0個個故事呀？我諗值得大家借鏡架！ (心沉好少可咁苦口婆心，多數都係寸寸貢，看到的人有福了)

唔使見諒咁嚴重 森哥又唔使講「見諒」咁嚴重。我知我把口都唔好得去邊(平日寸人寸慣左)。 其實「問題七」我對你既質疑(請自行睇返前幾頁)可能唔係針對你，因為你講既野我平日真係聽得太多喇！所以一見你講，心中一團火不其然爆喇！所以你其實都幾無辜──做左0個0的基督徒既炮灰，比我炸左幾日。 坦白講，真係好怕0個0的一開口就問你「第日死左驚唔驚落地獄」既所謂基督徒，真係同呃阿婆話有千年蟲「杜蟲藥」既騙徒差唔多口吻架咋！

雲起 是呀！我說的都是心裡的說話，我不相信，但也希望見到有人相信了而更快樂。 宇宙浩瀚，我們是多麼緲小；歷史漫長，我們的生命如此短暫。我們花一生的時間去得到知識的滿足，卻比不上看到身邊的人一個真心的微笑而快樂！

心沉 說得很好！心沉，很多時結果比過程更重要。譬如，要救一個快餓死的人，你就給他一碗飯，不要講道理了。 Anyway，很同意你的說話，亦即承認自己不足！

快哉 網友互動﹐教學相長﹐豈不快哉﹖

To: 森 //（一）「相信神的存在是更合理嗎？」的相反論題是「相信神的存在不是更合理嗎？」 這「更」字似乎令到兩者都是合理，只是程度上不同，沒有相反的意思。// The topic is a proposition which says 相信神的存在是更合理, If this 「更」bothers you, let’s change it to有神論比無神論合理. Is it better? Remember this is a proposition, not a question. A proposition is a statement which is either true or false. Proposition (1): (1)有神論比無神論合理 The opposite/negative of proposition (1) is : (2)有神論並不是比無神論合理 Note that (1) and (2) are contradictory to each other (互相予盾). (1) and (2) can not be both right or both wrong. So the Affirmative team, that is, Horner needs to prove that (1) is true while the Negative team, namely Dr. Li, has to prove that (1) is false, or the opposite of (1), i.e. (2), is true. OK? So far so good? Now look at what you said: //反方反對什麼？反對「相信神的存在是更合理」，卻沒有說明「不相信神的存在是更合理」的理由！// Look carefully for the last sentence. //不相信神的存在是更合理//. That is to say, 無神論比有神論合理. So you blamed Dr. Li for not providing evidence to prove atheism is more reasonable than theism which is a totally different proposition. Proposition (3): 無神論比有神論合理 Note that (1) and (3) are contrary (相反對立) but not contradictory to each other. (1) and (3) can not be both right but they can be both wrong. Dr. Li did not need to prove (3) is true. He had to prove (2) is true! So your accusation (卻沒有說明「不相信神的存在是更合理」的理由！) is groundless and inappropriate. How did Dr. Li approach this debate? Horner gave arguments like these: “Because so and so, therefore God exists”, “Because so and so, therefore God exists”…..Dr. Li tackled the root of the problem: what exactly is God? He pointed out that Horner’s definition of God is problematic stuffed with ambiguous concepts: omnipotence, exists everywhere, all mercy, etc which need to be clarified. Horner, like all priests or academics in the world could not explain these concepts clearly. Therefore, the very meaning of God is still unclear. If even the meaning of God is unclear, it does not make that much sense to say that theism is more reasonable than atheism. That’s how he did it. He did not need to do the other way round to prove atheism is more reasonable. If you understand his approach, then the second accusation: //只是反方擴張兩條副辯題，錯誤引導正方去辯論。// is definitely groundless. Also, what is //錯誤引導//? As I mentioned earlier, no matter what other team said, you should not be misled by them. It is YOU who is responsible for your own speech and you can’t put the blame on the other side. //其實對於人與宇宙的由來，science and common sense也不能完善地解釋得到。// I think雲起 already answered that. //雲起: 2)你說人和宇宙的由來，不能用科學與common sense解釋，基督教同樣解釋不了．基督教義提供的解釋充滿矛盾，科學的解釋未盡完美，但較客觀及合乎理性．// That’s exactly what I meant. Science is not perfect. But it is by far the most objective and rational way of solving problems. Science is subject to changes or modifications. But science can explain, predict and be tested. //李教授不只是贏了這場辯論這樣簡單，可能會打擊到徘徊於相信不相信宗教的十字街頭的人。// I really don’t agree with you on this. Why are you so focused on the result of the debate? The whole idea is not about winning or losing a game. The aim of Dr. Li’s speech in the debate is: to separate between faith and rationality. What he could do at most is to prove that theism is not more reasonable than atheism, that’s all. He could not disprove the existence of God! Christians need not be bothered by this result. To my understanding, religion and rationality are two separate issues. Christians often come to embarrassing situations because they mix up the two and try to explain God via rational ways with some faulty arguments. Two important things: (1) if you really can prove the existence of God via rational ways, you are not defending your religion, you are actually destroying it! Because if so, God will no longer be a myth but a proven scientific fact like the earth is round. It will become a knowledge, not a religion. (2) Something which cannot be proved rationally does not imply that thing does not exist. I love my mum and my girl friend. I am well aware of my love towards them but I can never prove it rationally via a dozen of so called scientific arguments. I simply don’t have to! I guess religion is more like that. Your faith is like your love to God which cannot be proven and need not be proven. That’s all I want to say about this topic. To: 心沉 I really like your chess analogy of logic. You definitely are a much better teacher than I am.

快哉（cf. Faustus） Benson 高,心沉勁過癮。

溯源 森兄貢獻最多

//不要徹底推翻宗教的意義，留一條路讓有需要的人！ // 可是我們不是更應該先幫助他們建立自己的目標和價值觀嗎?要是不行才給他們那即食套餐 我不知道神存不存在,不過要是存在又不用靠人的相信來生存時,應該不會那麼小氣罰那些不信的好人的,做什麼事只要盡量不傷害別人就好,很簡單的道理,做來也不太難

客氣客氣 To:Benson 多謝你喜歡，都係呃餐晏仔0者！真係講理論，我始終係門外漢，唔及得Benson哥咁專業！

Benson 如果你明白我，因為相信這個世界是充滿缺憾的，希望你能明白我多一點！ 世上數十億人，不幸的人有很多，今天諷刺的，我們熱烈討論神的存在的虛無問題，卻不曾關心被世上遺棄的人的實際困景！ Benson，宗教做的好事善事不少，你願意為宗教說一些好話嗎？

意義 致 : 森 抱歉!打擾了. 奇實,我並不太理解你低歎什麼,或者可以是說為何要低歎? 如你所說:這世上有50多億人. 老實上,若不是有這個網頁,我根本就不知有李天命這人物的存在. 亦即,假設你去訪問一眾教友,可能有100%不知道曾經有你說的這場辯論. 你們在這的討論,亦僅限於極少極少人知道,其結果對宗教界來說亦是無關痛癢的. 實際上 我亦不同意,人可以因為信教而不用面對未來. 反之這是一種逃避現實的借口與方法而矣! 要幫人,這不是辦法. 反而我覺得你是否有需要,或有避世的頃向. 凡事要放開點才好.

森兄 ／／今天諷刺的，我們熱烈討論神的存在的虛無問題，卻不曾關心被世上遺棄的人的實際困景！ ／／ 我們討論神的存在的問題，並不表示我們不曾關心被世上遺棄的人的實際困景． 我們可以討論神的問題，同時也關心別人，兩者有何抵觸？

我無禮貌，但我愛信仰自由！ //我擔心，李教授不只是贏了這場辯論這樣簡單，可能會打擊到徘徊於相信不相信宗教的十字街頭的人。// 本人認為︰ 講到尾，是否有人怕自已所信的宗教的發展(所指的是信徒數目的增長率)會因為一場辯論的輸贏而有負面的影響呀？簡單d講句，驚住自已所信的宗教不能繼續人强馬壯呀？！ 其實係唔係有人相信了一個宗教的同時，都要自己的宗教是最“威”的宗教咁呀！“威”到自己相信了，自己便有齊仁義道德，唔信個d人就冇！ 自己相信了，自己就會“識”愛人，會做善事，唔信個d就唔會！ 我再簡單d 結論︰虛偽！

why? 為何一個以思考為主的網頁會變成了禮貌大使選舉? 為何東周刊事件會和無神論者拉上關係?那麼神職人員性侵犯小孩是否完全和有神(指基督)論者冇關? 為何有神論者會比無神論者在品格上和道德上優勝?有何證據? 為何我的態度比心沉兄還差?haha

耳垢無礙﹖ 同意旁觀者兄所說﹐‘心沉勁過癮’ ﹐例﹕ ‘心沉好少可咁苦口婆心，多數都係寸寸貢，看到的人有福了’ 但心沉兄關於粗言穢語的看法﹐小弟不敢苟同。當然﹐真理能與耳垢同處﹐但不是人人都有慧眼能在耳垢中看出真理。‘講道理’ 是為了讓人明白﹐剔除了耳垢的真理不是更能讓人明白､接受嗎﹖何況穢語粗言本身就是對他人的一種侮辱﹐如果整天與耳垢同處﹐即是靜若‘如來藏’ 都難免沾污吧﹖

歪曲 點解硬係要歪曲我意思？我根本冇話過「有禮貌講道理」唔好，我只係話「冇禮貌咁去講既道理未必唔係道理」，我亦贊同好聲好氣咁去講既道理容易被人接受，不過我之前已經講過「好聲好氣」係一種「態度」、「技巧」(或者講衰0的叫「手段」)，作用只係「容易令人接受」，但對講既0個件事既「本質」係冇影響既。有0的野包左糖衣既分分係毒藥(當然係糖既亦有可能)，有0的野食落口可能好難入口，但可能對身體好有益。

sorry sorry，copy錯左一木個名，同一木兄講聲唔好意思先。

To 心沉 I have no intention to “distort” what you said. I just “disagree” what you said. “再者，講野既語氣其實同討論內容既本質完全無關。” In principle, the actual sentence (or utterance) and attitude are different from the proposition expressed. But in many cases, the choice of words and the way they are expressed do affect the proposition expressed. “我根本冇話過「有禮貌講道理」唔好” Is that true? “呢個世界就係咁*虛偽*，講道理都要講「禮貌」，難道好唔禮貌既道理就唔係道理？(emphasis mine)” --心沉2002-11-06 23:58:51 Even if we grant that the proposition expressed can be completely distinct and independent of the sentence (or utterance), it does not follow that we can be impolite and disrespectful when what we are saying is correct. Being impolite and disrespectful is itself an insult (thereby, immoral) to others. Even when one is spreading the Truth, gospels, etc. (that is, if there is any), one must also be polite and respectful. I don’t think that being polite is in any way being “hypocritical”. “而心沉就係0個0的直來直去，有0個句講0個句既人，可能講得係粗皮0的，無絕非無的放矢；偏偏0的人就完全唔理會我講既野岩唔岩，只係覺得我「惡意批評」。” “粗鄙” 本身就是一種 “惡意” 。I don’t think that I have to explain why “惡意” is not appropriate in a civilized society. “講真呢個網好多人都唔係善男信女，入得黎都預左有俾人攻擊既可能。” I agree that we all expect that what we say will be “challenged” because we are “discussing” certain issues which we are interested. But I don’t think anyone expects to be “attacked” in any way (verbally or otherwise). “大家睇下立法會班議員討論既時候有邊時唔係惡言相向丫？有時仲近乎人身攻擊添！” If you take the legislative council as the “model” of civilized discussion, I think that we really disagree with what the rules of “civilized discussion” are. If you think that “惡言相向”, “人身攻擊” are acceptable , I really don’t know how to reply to you. 心沉兄﹐小弟無意逐字逐句在你的留言裡挑骨頭。但小弟對粗言穢語十分反感﹐看到你認為粗鄙 ､惡言相向､ 人身攻擊等都沒有問題﹐實在不得不說出小弟的看法。

算係回應 //“呢個世界就係咁*虛偽*，講道理都要講「禮貌」，難道好唔禮貌既道理就唔係道理？(emphasis mine)” --心沉2002-11-06 23:58:51 // (1)我講緊既係一個人對待「道理」既態度虛偽，唔係講「有禮貌講道理」呢件事虛偽。當然，如果你老哥硬係要話我唔係咁既意思，硬係要話我係講緊「有禮貌講道理」唔係一件好事既話，我都冇符架！大家都係咁睇，其他人(包括開題目者阿森哥)都睇得明，偏偏有人睇唔明，講唔定我既句字入面真係隱藏左0的連我自己都唔知，但其他人又發現到既意思呢！(咁真係要多謝你幫我了解自己) (2)「粗鄙」本身係一種「惡意」？咁平日行過地盤0的地盤佬咪個個都好有「惡意」？定係你理解既「粗鄙」同我理解既「粗鄙」意思唔同？我都識好多朋友講野都好粗鄙(其實係咪粗皮？係咪我打錯字？)個喎！開口埋口粗口，又成日講鹹野，但我一0的都唔覺得佢地有惡意喎！(可能因為我都係粗鄙之人啦！) (3)請睇清楚，我只係話「好多人」都唔係善男信女，唔係話「所有人」或「任何人」，所以請唔好用「anyone」。至於係咪有人入黎擺明「attack」人既，請自己睇睇下面「anycool」同「我寸，但我坦白」既留言，佢兩位仁兄如無意外應該都係第一次入黎，唔知佢地又算唔算等登入黎「attack」人呢？ 呀仲有，如果咁樣引晒原文，又抽晒詞語(粗鄙)，甚至連日期時間都列埋出黎既都唔算「逐字逐句在留言裡挑骨頭」既話，我真係唔知點先算喇！(坦白講心沉讀得書少，唔似得好多人受過正統邏輯訓練) 去食飯，一陣傾過

雲起、我寸，andycool 雲起，你是我較為尊重的網友之一，我實在不想跟你糾纏。 一問，網友討論了那麼多，對神之存在問題，仍不得要領，如今你們能說服我，相信了神的不存在，我的生活可有多少改善？ 宗教，尤其基督教、天主較，我親眼親耳所見所聞，都是願意伸手助人，世上那許多不幸的人，你們又付出多少？ 有些人除了叫人多讀幾本好書，談談信神之存在之可笑，可有些具體助人的事做過？ 我只認為，有些人懶理世界之不幸，也不要企圖阻撓宗教，尤其基督教、天主教去幫助別人，一味否定它們對世界之正面意義！令人齒冷。

我寸 不要把自己的價值觀強加於別人頭上，你心裡想著別人介意那些東西，其實最介意就是你自己。說別人虛偽，其實最了解虛偽也是你自己！ 你說你愛信仰自由，那你的信仰是什麼？我信了，同樣有你一般的寸嗎？

Debate Having gone through some of the discussion under this topic, I found that it was rather biased to atheism. Being a Christian, I am obliged to share what I know and hope to be able to clarify what was misunderstood so far about Christianity, especially those quotes of Mr Lee Tin Ming. However, let’s start with some less controversial issue, how a debate should be carried out. Some has shared something like this, // Given the proposition of (1)“有神論比無神論合理 “, (2)“有神論並不是比無神論合理 “ instead of (3)“無神論比有神論合理 “should be adopted as the stance of the negative team. // Logically, it sounds good. However, practically, this type of stance (adopted by the negative team) renders the whole debate meaningless. In fact, what is the major difference between (2) and (3)? Virtually, (3) requires the team to give reasons to support the stance while the team adopting (2) may simply question the reasoning of the affirmative team without giving any meaningful counter-suggestion. If that is the way a debate ought to be, being the negative team will be much easier because, at the end of the day, criticizing is much easier and staying ignorant (being uncertain) is more comfortable. Why can’t the negative team do their preparation more diligently? If they can prove (3), they win the debate beautifully. On the other hand, even they win by stressing (2), who will gain from the debate? It merely discourages people to think and shows that nothing is certain in reality.

The Stone Dilemma There is also discussion on the stone dilemma. This logic breakdown is always used to counter-prove there is no God. But this is strange because, first, the Bible itself does not contain the word omnipotence. The term of omnipotence is used by Christians and then philosophers (and logic analysts as well) to describe God. As now we agree that there is some problem in this term, whose fault is it? It can be God, Christians, philosophers, logic analysts or the Logics itself. Thus, how can one simply jump to the conclusion that there is no God? Assuming Logics, like God, cannot be wrong, how about we do the analysis this way? Suppose God was asked this stone dilemma once again, but I think this is too easy, so I add some more restrictions on this creation exercise. The stone needs to be, 1. so heavy that God is unable to lift up; and 2. so big that God is unable to hold. It seems that God now still needs to face a similar problem. However, we continue to impose more and more restrictions, the stone needs to be 1. so heavy that He is unable to lift up; 2. so big that He is unable to hold; and 3. so smart that it will not trap God like the first 2 stones Now, since God is omnipotent, I am sure He can create the third stone, which comprises all the characteristics of the first 2 stones. Of course, we know that there are always some smarter persons than the third stone, a new question about the fourth stone may be, can God create a stone which is 1. so heavy that He is unable to lift up; 2. so big that He is unable to hold; and 3. not so smart that it will still trap God like the first 2 stones? Following the same "logic" as the third stone, God can illustrate His omnipotence by creating the fifth stone, which is 1. … 2. … 3. … 4. so stupid that God can easily handle it so as to not trap the God Himself? Now, what do you think?

我了解虛偽，所以我了解你！ //一問，網友討論了那麼多，對神之存在問題，仍不得要領，如今你們能說服我，相信了神的不存在，我的生活可有多少改善？// 原來你想在這裡找到可以(因相信了神的不存在而需要的)改善生活的方法呀？你要如何改善呀？在那方面要改善呀？你會否找錯地方，找錯對象呀？！ //宗教，尤其基督教、天主較，我親眼親耳所見所聞，都是願意伸手助人，世上那許多不幸的人，你們又付出多少？// 你這個好像是反問句，意謂我(們)這些非基督教徒對世上那許多不幸的人付出不多/或無，但我(們)幫過什麼人，做過什麼好事善事，是否要在這裏向你交代呀！你無親眼親耳所見所聞非基督教徒(如我)伸手助人，便好像非基督教徒便無伸手助人咁！ 我看到別人做善事，心裡只會十分欣賞他們，衷心多謝他們無私的付出，而唔會走去分去計算善心人是什麼宗教或是否有宗教信仰的！ //有些人除了叫人多讀幾本好書，談談信神之存在之可笑，可有些具體助人的事做過？// 你的//有些人//我不肯定你所指那些人，所以我不知道那些人可有做過那些具體助人的事！ 不過如果你是指李天命先生，那我可以肯定具體地話你知我拜讀李先生的作品有助我在思考上有所進步！ //我只認為，有些人懶理世界之不幸，也不要企圖阻撓宗教，尤其基督教、天主教去幫助別人，一味否定它們對世界之正面意義！令人齒冷。// 真係令人齒冷！如果真的有人阻撓天主教去幫助別人的話！ //不要把自己的價值觀強加於別人頭上// 這句說話請你對住你自己講上百次吧！ //...你心裡想著別人介意那些東西，其實最介意就是你自己。說別人虛偽，其實最了解虛偽也是你自己！ 你說你愛信仰自由，那你的信仰是什麼？我信了，同樣有你一般的寸嗎？// 我都信有神，有上帝！你跟我信了會否像我一樣咁寸我唔知，不過你話我//最了解虛偽//就真係無錯！如果唔係我點了解你呀！

論辯論 李天命博士早已把後路封著﹐但一些版友照樣視而不見﹐進而｀視死如歸＇。 例如某甲說: 2 > 1 + 1, 我們要和甲辯論﹐我們只要證明2並非大過1 + 1就足夠。說什麼“Why can’t the negative team do their preparation more diligently?＂“If they can prove 1 + 1 > 2 they win the debate beautifully﹐＂等等﹐是奇特的。 而我們若和甲辯論時﹐只證明2並非大過1 + 1﹐會不會"discourage people to think and show that nothing is certain in reality," 我想不奇特的腦子應該想得通。 其實李博士從來沒有說過﹐一般而言無神論比有神論合理。這根本不是李博士辯論中的立場。評論別人前﹐請先了解對方的論點。

There are also some quotes of Mr Lee Tin Ming. Most of them need further information and/or reasoning before a sensible discussion can be done. However, there is one point seems to be very scary. The God of Christianity is very mean. He doesn’t tolerate any gods from other religions. So, God of Christianity does not deserve our faith. I can assure that the intolerance of other gods by our Almighty God is exactly what the Bible says. But, I don’t find any problem in accepting this. Will one’s father tolerate another man claiming to be his son’s father in any respect? Will his intolerance make him a bad father? So you can see how groundless this accusation is. In my experience, you may say you don’t believe our God but you cannot say our faith is unreasonable. If you can really spot any unreasonableness in Christian faith, please speak out. You may find yourself a place in history. Do you know how difficult Christianity was during the Renaissance? How was it attacked by many so-called scientists, philosophers or even economists like Karl Marx? Now, these philosophers and their thoughts passed away, our faith keeps going on.

to JPY 可是那個父親是從來沒有真的出現過在兒子面前,又拿不出科學証明,怎樣才可以相信他真的是兒子的父親?

To S.C. So nice to hear your reply. As I said, Mr Lee is not wrong logically. He is just doing nothing but criticizing. But, do you know I think we are the same kind of person? I will take what my God said as turth without demanding any elaboration. So do you to your Mr Lee. What is the reasoning of your reply? First, it is predicted by Mr Lee. Second, what I said is strange. Indeed, your ground is as strange as mine.

JPY： //--these philosophers and their thoughts passed away, our faith keeps going on. --// 你這麼說是什麼意思？這能證明你信的就是絕對正確嗎？

To 征服者 Nice to hear your reply too. So, if this father resides in HK while his wife gives birth to a child in Shenzhen whom he has no chance to have a look yet, then this father loses the right to be intolerate?

to jpy 有點不同,因為你說的那個父親根本沒有出現過,不是他沒有能力,只是他不去做,而是有一些沒有見過那父親的律師來攻擊其他可能才是真正父親的人,而事實上那父親是不是真的是父親也沒有人知道,更甚是否存在也成問題

To jetlap Wow, there are many late sleepers in HK. Anyway, nice to hear from you too. However, who do you think I am? How can I assure absolute certainty up to your standard? But, is this an universal requirement in every respect, science, arts, medicine, philosophy and/or our daily lives? Is it a normal practice to check for absolute certainty to see whether one's father is his genuine father? Let's do a simple sampling. Those who have undergone a DNA test with his father please hand up.

JPY 我只是問，你用 "their thoughts has passed away" 和 "our faiths still keeps going on" 作比較，是想說明什麼？可否直接回應？

To 征服者 It seems that you want a sensible discussion. However, if we do, I will start to preach. In simple words, it is not fair to say our father never shows up. Where do you think our Bible come from? Why did Jesus become a man and died on the cross for us? Why do those christians preach so diligently? What really matters is you don't believe what the Bible says. In fact, if you really want to make sure whether He is your genuine father, I think at least you need to have a look on, talk to or even touch Him. Have you ever prayed before?

To jetlap It seems that you may also want a sensible discussion. Okay, my original message is trying to defend some ridiculous attack. Finally, I add an example trying to illustrate that even though today we don't have the answers to all queries (sincere or not), it would not hurt the christian faith any. When I wrote "some philosophers and their thoughts", I have Karl Marx and communism in my mind (but not Mr Lee, don't worry).

suffering? //Do you know how difficult Christianity was during the Renaissance? How was it attacked by many so-called scientists, philosophers or even economists like Karl Marx? Now, these philosophers and their thoughts passed away, our faith keeps going on.// 以我所知，在殖民地時代，不知有幾多美洲的原居民的文化遺產受到侵略者所消滅，這些文化遺產包括重要的文獻！這些文化遺產之所以被人用火燒毀，是因為這些文化遺產被某宗教界傳教者視為邪！唉！就這樣，重要及寶貴的文化遺產便…… 我十分喜歡中南美洲的土著文化，印地安人、馬雅人文化及其藝術使人嘆為觀止！對這些文化之被人蓄意破壞感到可借及難過！當有人慶幸自己所信的宗教得以維持發展的同時，可有想過有別的人和事因為宗教發展時的獨尊而永遠消失呢！

改正 錯字︰ 應該是"可惜及難過"！

To S.C. After reading your responce once more, I think you did give some analysis, the proposition of "2 > 1 + 1" In my opinion, the negative team which simply argue "2 > 1 + 1" is wrong is a lazy team. Instead, a diligent team will try to prove "2 = 1 + 1". If so, the debate is much more fruitful.

第一,聖經只是代筆的信,是不是真的是父親的內容也不知道,而且只因為有一個人找其他人給兒子寫一封信就說那信說明了那真的是兒子的父親可是有點怪 第二,有關耶穌的事有多少是真多少是假也沒有人知道,而且那只說明了現在多了一個人說他是兒子的兄弟吧,沒有真的說明什麼 第三,祈禱本來就說明不了什麼,就好像兒子把給真正父親的信放入玻璃瓶之後扔入海中一樣,可是那不會說明那個自稱父親而沒有真的出現的人真的是父親 第四,二十年也沒有人說服我去信,所以你要傳就傳,影響不了我

to JPY 是真的比較易 可是1+1=2就是信神存在沒有比不信神存在合理而不信神存在也不比信神存在合理 你是在矛盾嗎?

To 馬雅人 It is so surprising to hear so many responses so shortly. By the way, welcome for sensible discussion. I think there are 2 points we cannot confuse from what you mentioned. (1) whether God of Christianity is the only God; and (2) whether Christians mentioned by you has done wrongly. To me, (1) is a plain fact. You cannot argue simply because you think God is not a good god (in your standard) and done something you don't like. For (2), assuming what you said is true and their acts were wrong, you need to differentiate who did it, under God's order or the christians themselves. Even though it may be under God's order, you still need to consider further whether the destory is good or not. From your perspective as a scholar, it may be bad. But, for prmitive people, it may be beneficial. Who knows whether they use living person as sacrifice in their religion?

//-- When I wrote "some philosophers and their thoughts", I have Karl Marx and communism in my mind (but not Mr Lee, don't worry). --// 你講的是否包括李博士無關重要。 我是在觀察「封閉系統」的思路運作。

To 征服者 It seems that we have reached a deadlock. Right now, I cannot show you the 100% certainty. This will be a prolonged process. However, let's take an indirect approach. What do you think you will suggest to God if He wants to show everyone in this world He is the only God and wants to save us from sin?

SORRY!! 我把 JPY 打成 user name 對不起！

凡需要人侍奉的，都是假神 神是全能的，不需要侍奉

To 征服者 I don't understand your query about "1 + 1 = 2". Maybe, let's start it over. First, we have a proposition of (A) "2 > 1 + 1" or "有神論比無神論合理". A lazy negative team would simply argue (B) "2 並不是 > 1 + 1" or "有神論並不是比無神論合理". However, in my opinion, in order to have a fruitful debate, a diligent negative team will adopt (C) "2 = 1 + 1" or "無神論比有神論合理"

反對"田雞教徒" 不能因為這樣就否定宗教所描述的廊的存在。

To jetlap Is 封閉系統 mean a closed system, which is self-fulfilling? If so, I think Logics is one of them.

//However, in my opinion, in order to have a fruitful debate, a diligent negative team will adopt (C) "2 = 1 + 1" or "無神論比有神論合理" // 你錯了,無神論比有神論合理是2<1+1,不是2=1+1,2=1+1就是李先生說的東西-不知道 要是那神真的是神,而不信又會有那麼大的處罰,而他又真的想人信,而不是只想找理由去殘殺人,那他就應該出來給大家看看,也許同時給我們解決解釋一些問題

難道聖經就可以？

re田雞教徒 我沒說《聖經》可以。 (也沒說它不可以) 只是，你憑甚麼去確定「需要事奉的神」就不是真神呢？

補充 //凡需要人侍奉的，都是假神 神是全能的，不需要侍奉 // (據說？)全稱論斷較容易被驗證為錯喔^^"

給田雞教徒： 給田雞教徒： 當然唔可以，聖經只不過係一本殺戮神話……

To 征服者 I don't understand your point. Why "無神論比有神論合理是2<1+1,不是2=1+1"? Okay, let's rearrange (c) to be "2<1+1" or "無神論比有神論合理" But, what difference does it make?

丞相肚裡能撐船 何況係神？ 如果神係至高無上，點會o甘小器？

To 征服者 Do you mean that Mr Lee has said theism and atheism is equally reasonable? I don't think so. If so, what is his point? I think what he said is as there is not 100% certainty but flaws in Christian faith, so he didn't know.

To 征服者 Back to your another point. //那他就應該出來給大家看看,// Actually, He did. It is you who refuse to believe. The Bible says Jesus is the image of the invisible God. Besides, you may pray to Him directly. Why do you say praying is not trustworthy but accepting communication via internet with a total stranger like me? Can I be a ghost? //也許同時給我們解決解釋一些問題// If you have any queries, you may check the Bible or talk to your Christian friends. Of course, prayer is always a good method. (Or, you may ask me first to see if I can help)

To 時空隱者02:43 //全稱論斷較容易被驗證為錯喔// What is "全稱論斷"? Is this referring to my discusson? If I do not interpret you phase wrongly, what I said is simply arguing a "全稱論斷" is wrong is easier than replacing it with a new "全稱論斷"

To 好聲萬色男 //聖經只不過係一本殺戮神話// I am sure you havn't read the whole Bible once.

To 田雞教徒 //如果神係至高無上，點會o甘小器？// According to the Bible (Exodus20:5), God said, "...I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God..."

"...I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God..." 哈，至高無上o既神，點會妒忌？

如此"聖書" 令人低嘆

我認同田雞教 我認同田雞教網頁要禁聖經，你睇，自從聖經面世，死左幾多人，你寫啦？！ 直到而家仍然不斷有人被信聖經o既人逼害，呢D野係抹唔走o既

殺戮神話? It seems that there is a lot of people concerning about the killing records in the Bible. I hope I can help to explain a bit. First, why is there killing instructed by God? Those who have read the Bible may understand that it is due to our sins. However, you may have 2 further questions. (1) who can determine what is sinful or not? (2) if sinful, who can determine what the punishment is? I think you can guess what my answers will be, our God, who is the Creator of the Universe and the Setters of all Laws. So, is He too cruel? Yes, if and only if He does not give us any chance or requires a redemption price we cannot afford. However, He sent His only Son, Jesus, to die for us on the cross to be the our redemption price. Now, what we need to do the final step is to accept it. However, if we insist to refuse and then God exercise His punishment, who can you blame? On the other hand, you may continue to ask if He can also waive the requirement of believing in Him but leave us by ourselves. Then, how can we settle the sin? Do you also want God to abandon the definition of sin? So, there are no laws, no order in the world. Is that what you want?

Bye Bye As it seems that there is no more sensible discussion, I think it is time to quit. Thanks for your time and patience. Hope to see you soon.

別再執迷不悟 其實聖經裡面所講o既所謂愛，只係一種包裝，真正想講的只係：你要儘快成為我們的一份子……如果唔係，你將會受到逼害 其實如果唔係政教分家，法律有進步去保護不同思想，否則…… 不瞞你說，我以前都是教徒……

早抖 （普通話）晚安趁早

補充 早抖（to JPY）

無奈 在這個辯題下,有一派(包括我)的觀點是認為'無所不能'的東西(不論是不是神)是不存在的.但很不幸,我們經常被一些持相反意見的人將他們主觀的觀點強加在我們身上,然後對他們自己的觀點去批評,就好像已批評了別人.例如: //不要徹底推翻宗教的意義，留一條路讓有需要的人！ // 在這個論題下有一句留言說了'宗教是沒有意義的.'或有類似的意思嗎?那//不要徹底推翻....//這句話到底想批評誰? //我只認為，有些人懶理世界之不幸，也不要企圖阻撓宗教，尤其基督教、天主教去幫助別人，一味否定它們對世界之正面意義！令人齒冷。 // 你有權叫別人相信基督,為何我不能叫人不信?這種態度正是李天命所要批評的那種人.最諷刺的是,自己認為企圖阻撓宗教會令人齒冷,但其實最企圖阻撓宗教的就是基督教.它認為其它宗教的神全都是假的,全都不可信.這不是阻撓宗教是什麼? 不要有口話人冇口話自己.更不要把話塞到別人嘴裏.尤其是蠢話.

To 心沉 1) //呢個世界就係咁*虛偽*，講道理都要講「禮貌」，難道好唔禮貌既道理就唔係道理？(emphasis mine) --心沉2002-11-06 23:58:51 // I just strictly interpret what these sentences mean. As I have said, I have no intention to distort your words. But if I really misunderstood what you have said, I apologize for my mistake. 2) //「粗鄙」本身係一種「惡意」？咁平日行過地盤0的地盤佬咪個個都好有「惡意」？定係你理解既「粗鄙」同我理解既「粗鄙」意思唔同？我都識好多朋友講野都好粗鄙(其實係咪粗皮？係咪我打錯字？)個喎！開口埋口粗口，又成日講鹹野，但我一0的都唔覺得佢地有惡意喎！// I really disagree with your view on the use of foul language. Some people say that when they use foul language, they are not using it with bad intentions; the foul language is just a kind of “place-holder” in a sentence. But if they really don’t have any bad intentions, why do they use “foul” language in the first place? Foul language is “foul” language because the words, in themselves, are “wicked” and “evil”. Just consider the common example of the use of foul language, “f… your mother”; isn’t it intrinsically hurtful and disrespectful to others (and certainly, to their mothers too)? //但我一0的都唔覺得佢地有惡意喎！// Perhaps, you don’t really see any bad intentions behind the use of foul language. But I think that most people in the society still feel insulted by the use of foul language (this is evident when we still consider those words as “foul” language). Communication is a two-way process. It won’t take away the insulting element of foul language just because one party claims that he/she doesn’t have that intention. 3) //請睇清楚，我只係話「好多人」都唔係善男信女，唔係話「所有人」或「任何人」，所以請唔好用「anyone」。 // I think that you misunderstood what I said. I didn’t say that “everyone” is not 善男信女. I just said that I don’t think that “anyone” expects oneself to be “attacked” in any way. //至於係咪有人入黎擺明「attack」人既，請自己睇睇下面「andycool」同「我寸，但我坦白」既留言，佢兩位仁兄如無意外應該都係第一次入黎，唔知佢地又算唔算等登入黎「attack」人呢?// It is true that there are people with bad intentions who attack others. But that’s a “description” of what happens here. I’m making a “normative” or “prescriptive” claim that we “should not” attack others here. 4) //呀仲有，如果咁樣引晒原文，又抽晒詞語(粗鄙)，甚至連日期時間都列埋出黎既都唔算「逐字逐句在留言裡挑骨頭」既話，我真係唔知點先算喇!// 坦白說﹐骨頭是挑了﹐但我說的是我‘無意’ 這樣做﹐我針對的是對粗言穢語的不正確(我認為) 態度。

JPY回覆馬雅人的論據，令人心寒 每次聽基督徒傳教，我便心寒一次． JPY的論調：西班牙人滅絕美洲部落，因為他們是食人族，怎知對他們不是好事？－－１：食人族只是少數；２：就算食人也不該殺，中世紀的宗教裁判所也殺人如麻；３：因為人家殺人，基督徒就可以殺人！！？？ JPY的論論：做盡壞事的是基督徒不是神本身．（教徒殺人如麻，教主不需負責？） 每次聽到人傳道，我又遠離神多一點．

很明顯是你看錯 因為你說//First, we have a proposition of (A) "2 > 1 + 1" or "有神論比無神論合理". // 所以我回//無神論比有神論合理是2<1+1// 那中間的是什麼? 另外,//Do you mean that Mr Lee has said theism and atheism is equally reasonable?//你知不知自己在問什麼,你小了一個are both no嗎? 我沒有看到過耶穌,我不是活了二千年,而且怎知道耶穌是不是真的?我要的是老頭子真的給我們出現在天上,之後給我們解釋一下他的目的,而我的確不知道你是什麼,我不排除你是一個傳教用的程式 小氣既神,那麼去地獄好了,有聽過伴君如伴虎嗎?再說,那麼在他的地方根本不可能有自由,那麼小氣又殘酷 (1) who can determine what is sinful or not? 歷史 (2) if sinful, who can determine what the punishment is? noone can 剛出世的也有罪?只因沒有參加殺人的會議就要給殺光男人,女人給擄為妻? 再說,要是信其他神有罪,活人祭是惡,那麼猶太人一早就應該給完全消滅,上帝也不過是最大的一個邪神

滅絕文化遺產之行徑 如果我無記錯，馬雅人的象形文字之所以這麼難解讀，就是因為所有馬雅人的文獻都被相信慈愛的上帝的基督/天主教徒所消毁！現在之所以可以免強解讀少許，就是因為有一份文獻意外地留在英國(地點不太肯定)的圖書館裏，因一次火災後收拾時意外被發現，才有助以後的解讀！馬雅人的文化遺產之偉大，在看過他們的金字塔式的建築及發掘出土的工藝品便可知一二，他們對天文、時間的計算的知識，更使人驚訝。但對於擁有這偉大文化的民族歷史及文化發展之硏究，則因缺乏文獻的考據而變得非常困難！ 馬雅人及印第安人是有以人為祭品的紀錄，這當然十分不文明，要教化他們也有很多方法！把別人的文族文化消滅又是一個文明的做法嗎？ 這些滅絕別人的文族文化的行為的人有冇受上帝的旨意去做永遠不會有人可以知道。但這裏有人三翻四次强調世上好像只有基督教徒才會做善事，只有相信基督教的人的生命才會有出路，本人真是無論如何也不敢認同！ 當我們對塔里班政府炸毀巴米揚佛像感到憤怒的同時，其實有部份基督教徒也一樣做過相似的事的！ 只有基督教徒才會講愛嗎？佛教也強調慈悲、普渡衆生；中國儒家思想亦強調仁義禮智！我真係不認為只有成為基督教，生命才有義意、才可以得到安頓；要遵守基督教的道德規範，人才會做好人！

呷醋上帝 哦！原來上帝都呷醋嘅，咁我以後呷醋都可以名正言順喇。本來我好怕上天堂，而加可以考慮考慮。

some responses Hi, everyone, it is me again. Since there is quite a number of responses, I don’t know whether I can deal with them all at once. Please remind me if I miss anything. First, 征服者, maybe I quit the discussion on “2>1+1”. I don’t think we will have any meaningful conclusion on this. BTW, this example was not proposed by me. But, if you still want to discuss on the issue how a debate should be carried on or what Mr Lee has proposed during the debate, please do so. On the other hand, 征服者, it seems that you are still struggling on the certainty issue. Yes, I cannot be 100% sure to everything, like whether there are really Messers Tung Kin Wah, George Bush, Kong Chak Man and or other things. I haven’t met them face to face. I can only see them on TV in between those TV soap series, which are obviously fake. In fact, even though I can meet them personally, who can tell it is reality? Have you watched the movie Matrix or read the story of butterfly dream of Chong Tze? Also, it sounds like the “Yuen” of Buddhism. //小氣既神,那麼去地獄好了?// I am waiting for the elaboration. Also, you mentioned about freedom. What is the definition of freedom? You are always free to do anything, but you need to bear the consequences. You also said history will determine what is sinful or not. I think you must have learnt a lot from the June 4 event. Let’s take Tai Ping Tin Kwok as an example, the Chinese official version says it is a revolution, but the HK secondary textbook says it is a betrayal. Which one should prevail? In fact, I think your basic queries are (1) whether there is an universal moral standard; (2) if no, how you can judge what the Bible says is morally wrong; and (3) if yes, why there is and why we should observe it. //那麼猶太人一早就應該給完全消滅 !// That is true and confirmed by the Bible. But, God has given them chances to repent, just like what He also gives to us sinners. //西班牙人滅絕美洲部落// I don’t have much information on hand. However, can it be the case of someone (like me) who think they can represent God to do the judgment and/or punishment? If this is the case, then it is a matter of quality control rather than theological beliefs. //教徒殺人如麻，教主不需負責？// If this is instructed by God, God should be held responsible. If not, then why should He? Even so, if a HK person commit crime, should HK government be blamed? How about his parents, teachers, friends? //因為人家殺人，… 就可以殺人！！？？// Personally, I am not sure whether this is true. But those who support death penalty will definitely support this. 雲起, do you support death penalty? //每次聽到人傳道，我又遠離神多一點．// I am really sorry for that. //但這裏有人三翻四次强調世上好像只有基督教徒才會做善事// That is my wish but may never be fulfilled. //只有相信基督教的人的生命才會有出路，本人真是無論如何也不敢認同！// However, in general this is what the Bible says. The fact that you don’t agree cannot help a bit. In fact, I think God also 不敢認同 your view. Will you mind this? //咁我以後呷醋都可以名正言順喇。// If you are not angry when your husband or boyfriend has an affair with another woman, I think all women will look down upon you.

JPY 十分多謝你的見解！ 可以為我解答我的疑問嗎？ 「無神論者心裡真的沒有『神』？『權威』之於『無神論者』有敬畏神的心理嗎？」 過去的事實可以叫人反省，但未來的生活態度才更需要正視？ 即使基督教曾經有一些不光彩的歷史，但今天似乎都活得很好了，然而基督教也不願過去的事在以後的日子裡再發生的呢，同意嗎？ Thank you so much！

JPY 過去的事實可以叫人反省，但未來的生活態度才更需要正視？ Sorry! It's not a question.

回應JPY 2和1+1的比較有三中可能﹕ 2>1+1﹐2=1+1和2<1+1. 無論2=1+1或2<1+1都足以2>1+1為錯。 有神論和無神論的合理程度比較同樣有三個可能﹕ 有神論比無神論合理 無神論比有神論合理 有神論和無神論兩者沒有一個更合理 無論無神論比有神論合理﹐或有神論和無神論兩者沒有一個更合理﹐都足以證明有神論並非比無神論合理。 李博士在和Horner的辯論中﹐立場根本不是(一般而言﹐不贅)無神論比有神論合理﹐他清楚說明這是信仰﹐是沒有所謂更合理的。既然是這樣﹐李博士根本沒有必要證明無神論比有神論合理。他沒有必要這樣做﹐理由之一﹐這在辯論中非反方的責任。正如Horner沒有必要證明基督教的一神論比伊斯蘭教的一神論合理。Horner沒有討論這個他沒有必要討論的問題﹐是十分正常的。不會是discourage人比較基督教和伊斯蘭教。是嗎﹖ 理由之二﹐無神論比有神論合理根本不是李博士的立場。正如我們反對2>1+1時﹐我們不用證明2<1+1.這根本不是我們的立場。如你所說﹐我們可以同意2=1+1﹐而反對2>1+1。要證明一個反方根本不同意的說法﹐是對反方無理的要求。 我想這已很清楚。希望你明白。其實李博士反對基督教的某些說法﹐不代表他反對基督教per se。從他的書我們看到他對基督教基本上是尊敬的。正如John Hick, Paul Tillich甚至香港的梁家鱗﹐他們同樣反對基督教的某些說法﹐卻不反對基督教本身﹐Hick, Tillich､梁家鱗都是基督教神學家呢。 李博士不是要推翻基督教﹐否則戎子由牧師也許也不會和他交往和編輯其書﹐是嗎﹖李博士是要保存基督徒的信仰﹐請留意。我想不清除這誤解﹐基督徒是很難從李博士的說法中學習的。

What are the topic/ issue talking about here? What are the topic/ issue talking about here?

JPY: 只求基督徒能寬容一點 JPY 說的話: ／／I can assure that the intolerance of other gods by our Almighty God is exactly what the Bible says. But, I don’t find any problem in accepting this. Will one’s father tolerate another man claiming to be his son’s father in any respect? Will his intolerance make him a bad father?／／ 我要是信其他神，就是認賊作父，就該殺，該死（或可殺，應死，按照JPY其他留言的思路）... 這正是基督教義令人寒心之處． 部分基督教徒的愛心，我深受感動，亦能令我了解基督的愛的真義． 只要基督徒能對世間其他同樣有幾千年歷史的宗教，能互相尊重，寬容以對．那些千百年前，以神之名發動之戰爭屠殺，又何足怪？畢竟已是歷史． 我不斷重提這些慘痛歷史，只因這些都是偏執與不寬容的教訓，傳道者請鑑古知今．

對不起,由你的說法中我看不出自由,自由就是在不影響他人自由下做任何事,而不信神對所有東西也沒有傷害,再說,對錯只由於神的喜好,那很合乎暴君的定義 而的確人是要為所做的事負責,可是那責任不是由一個什麼什麼強加給你,好像要是有天你成了人質,他們要你殺了另一個人質不然殺了你,那叫自由?那你也不要反對任何法令和任何形式的統治 道德是沒有世界性的,只有相對性,在另一方面來說也是別人的期望,有很多時當時的人因為情感的理由可能會出現精神問題,不可能冷靜去想,才會要後世定奪 在大多數人也覺得殺人不對,強佔人妻女不對,把別人用來犧牲以得到自己的名譽不對,因此聖經中的神要人那麼做所以那神不對,而其他的現在沒有標準,所以我不會同意也不否定其道德,只是可以確定神不合乎道德標準,而猶太人的罪是神要他們做的,那會有賊頭可以原諒賊偷東西的道理

無休止 宗教話題是非常惹火,且是無休止的爭論.古往今來因此而起的戰禍從未停止過. 這網站最多留言而且過百的話題,亦都同樣的是宗教問題. 個人愚見: 凡涉及宗教,信仰的爭議最好避開. 因為信仰涉及的都是個人的主觀行為, 是非理性的,根本不能以任何邏輯,道理...等去解釋或爭論. 老實講:這種玄的物事,正反相方都沒法都提供不了證明. 如果你不相信的話,誰都不可以證明有神的存在.( 你證明看看,你能證明有神嗎? ) 反之 如果你信的話,誰都證明不了沒神. ( 你能證明沒神嗎? ) 這種惹火的,沒結論的爭論,很容易就變成了意氣之爭. 但結果只會是 : 誰都接受不了對方的論據. 哪 有意義嗎?

歪曲(二) 請睇睇以下句子： 「過馬路小心0的呀！」 如果呢句說話係出自阿媽口中，絕對係善意既。請問呢句說話入面有冇包含0的咩「惡意」既詞語呢？應該就冇。但如果呢句說話係出自某追債既黑社會人士口中，情況又變成點呢？分分鐘變成恐嚇──雖然成句句子冇變，但由於講野既場合、講野0個陣既語氣等，都會令一句好普通既說話變成充滿「惡意」既恐嚇(咪以為我亂講，上到法庭分分鐘有得拗)。 又睇下以下既所謂句子： 「嘩！0個套戲好X好睇！」 呢句說話入面既「X」，應該就係你所講既含有「惡意」既字/詞，但呢句說話又有冇惡意呢？如果呢句說話係朋友之間既對話之一，我完全唔覺得呢句說話有咩問題(當然，身邊既人聽到可能好聽唔入耳，但咁係你既事，因為句說話唔係同身邊既人講既，你最多可以話講野既人冇「修養」，但絕對唔可以話佢有「惡意」)。 我覺得講野有冇惡意，唔係單單睇佢用咩字詞，而係要睇講野既人當時既「語氣」、「態度」同「場合」。否則一句好好地既「我祝你年年有今日呀！」(朋友生日宴會上)，分分鐘變成惡意既「詛咒」(岩岩今日比車撞到入醫院)。 有句說話叫「言者無心，聽者有意」，有時有0的人可能真係岩左滿口粗言穢語，但係咪咁就代表佢講親某0的字眼0個陣都係懷有「惡意」呢？時下好多年青人都經常粗言穢語(拿講明先呀，我唔係贊成呀！只係純粹講出一個現實情況咋！)我就經常係街見到0的細路笑住口咁「X你啦！」、「X街啦你！」咁話黎話去，唔通咁又代表佢地嗌緊交？有時係0的好FRIEND既朋友先會咁「溝通」架咋！唔同你咁講，未必代表有「善意」，可能只係代表同你「有距離」咋！當然，你可以一0的都唔欣賞佢地既溝通方法，但就唔可以亂咁話人「有惡意」。 仲有，我鄭重聲明，我從來冇話過「惡言相向」冇問題，請唔好無啦啦扣我帽子。我一開始都話左係阿森哥「覺得」我「惡言相向」(佢覺得咋，我唔覺得架！)。我舉立法會議員做例子亦唔係話佢地「惡言相向」、「人身攻擊」咁去討論一0的議題係「0岩」(又係人地覺得)，只係純粹講出一個現實既情況，說明呢個世界未必個個都會咁「好聲好氣」同你傾一0的野。尤其係好多時未必係純粹討論咁簡單，可能仲會涉及討論既人既「利益衝突」、「政黨背景」甚至「宗教信仰」等因素，咁拗到「火紅火綠」、「惡言相向」既可能亦會大大增加。我咁講係因為當初阿森哥話我「惡言相向」而終止同我討論落去，而我就想話比佢知有0的野唔可以郁0的就逃避，如果你理直氣壯既，根本唔使理人係咪「惡言相向」(何況我根本唔係)。 仲有，我由頭到尾所表達既意思根本唔係「惡言相向、粗言穢語可以接受/冇問題」，我要表達既意思係： (1)「粗鄙」既人未必唔係好人(俗語話「仗義每多屠狗輩」；「斯文」既人未必係好人(「人面獸心」、「衣冠禽獸」、「斯文敗類」......)。 (2)「冇禮貌」講既野未必唔係道理；「有禮貌」講既野未必係道理。 (3)用「惡意」既字/詞講既說話未必「有惡意」；用「冇惡意」既字/詞講既說話未必「冇惡意」。 一句講晒，我只係想大家睇野唔好睇「表面」而忽略左「本質」(天呀！講左九廿幾萬次喇！)，唔好因為一個人經常「惡言相向」、「粗言穢語」而斷定佢一定係衰人(人性咁難捉摸，一個人分分鐘有好多不為人知既面目，有冇聽過「知人口面不知心」呀！) 總之我既意思由頭到尾都係咁，唔清楚就自己睇返前面；都係睇唔明既唔緊要，因為係你既事，但千祈唔好再斷章取義，歪曲我既意思唔該！

我不會mind! // “但這裏有人三翻四次强調世上好像只有基督教徒才會做善事” That is my wish but may never be fulfilled.// Your wish?? 你希望世上只有基督教徒才會做善事？ 看來你心地真係麻麻！我就希望世上所有人, 係所有人，都願意及有能力及會去做善事喇！ // “只有相信基督教的人的生命才會有出路，本人真是無論如何也不敢認同！” However, in general this is what the Bible says. The fact that you don’t agree cannot help a bit. In fact, I think God also 不敢認同 your view. Will you mind this?// I don’t mind of course!

To: JPY A few short words. 1. Stone dilemma //Suppose God was asked this stone dilemma once again, but I think this is too easy, so I add some more restrictions on this creation exercise. The stone needs to be, 1. so heavy that God is unable to lift up; and 2. so big that God is unable to hold…… Now, since God is omnipotent, I am sure He can create the third stone, which comprises all the characteristics of the first 2 stones.// Note the sentence //Now, since God is omnipotent// This is a textbook example of Fallacy of Begging the Question. 2. On debate tactics: // In my opinion, the negative team which simply argue "2 > 1 + 1" is wrong is a lazy team. Instead, a diligent team will try to prove "2 = 1 + 1". If so, the debate is much more fruitful,//…//Logically, it sounds good. However, practically, this type of stance (adopted by the negative team) renders the whole debate meaningless….. Why can’t the negative team do their preparation more diligently? // Do we really need to discuss this all over again? I already told森.Your accusation is ridiculous. //Why can’t the negative team do their preparation more diligently? // Why couldn’t Horner do more and prepare some fruit salad to Dr. Li during the debate? Wouldn’t it be even more FRUITful? The answer is simple: He did NOT need to. In a debate, you do what you need to do, nothing more, nothing less. You don’t waste any of your precious time on something NOT necessary. This has nothing to do with laziness, this is strategy! This is what a debate is like! Also, nobody forced Horner to take the Affirmative side. Dr. Li’s approach is direct and up to the point. IF you cannot define God clearly, if you can’t clarify those ambiguous concepts, it makes no sense to say that theism is more reasonable than atheism. I don’t see how this approach is meaningless. 3. What the bible says? // However, in general this is what the Bible says. The fact that you don’t agree cannot help a bit. In fact, I think God also 不敢認同 your view. Will you mind this?// The bible said a man should be killed if he is not circumcised, a woman should be stoned to death if she is not a virgin on the wedding day, a man is dirty for seven days if he touches a woman when she is menstruating, that the handicapped should not worship God,….. Do you agree all of them?

to : 森 森:“即使基督教曾經有一些不光彩的歷史，但今天似乎都活得很好了……” 你為今天(基督教/基督教徒)活得很好而高興，這個我可以理解，不過請你能真切地明白到那些 “不光彩的歷史” 的影響是如何深遠呢！亦希望你能堅持你所相信的宗教的同時，可以有寛容的心，對是否應該相信基督教這等事情上不要那麼狹隘，不要重蹈以往的覆轍吧！

To 森 As a Christian, I don’t understand how an atheist thinks. Indeed, I cannot speak on behalf of them. But, I noticed so far from our discussion that there are a number of reasons why people don’t believe in God. First, they think they don’t have the so-called 100% certainty. As I shared previously, this is an unreasonable requirement. Even in science, we don’t demand such a stringent requirement. Second, they cannot accept what some (if not all) Christians did (is doing or will do). As I shared previously, unless the acts are instructed by God, there should not be direct impact on Christian faith. Third, they cannot accept what God did (like the so-called “unreasonable” killings as recorded in the Bible) and what God requires from His people (like absolute elimination of gods from other religions). As I shared previously, if one has read the Bible and understood the whole story, he can appreciate what God demands. …

To S.C. Nice to hear from you again. I do hope this time we can have a good discussion. What I said is, to have a fruitful debate, a diligent negative team needs to adopt (and then elaborate & defend) a particular stance (which is different from the affirmative team’s) instead of simply questioning the certainty. Now, you said Mr Lee did have a stance of “有神論和無神論兩者沒有一個更合理”. However, I cannot see by what margin this particular stance is better than “I don’t know”. Okay, let’s take it as a valid stance, what grounds did Mr Lee show to support his stance? Is “他清楚說明這是信仰﹐是沒有所謂更合理的” his major reasoning throughout the whole debate? In my opinion, if he wants to prove “有神論和無神論兩者沒有一個更合理”, he needs to show both “有神論 “ and “無神論” have the same level of doubt. But, if that is the case, then this particular stance will be even more difficult to prove. Will Mr Lee that diligent? As I said, Mr Lee, from the beginning till the end is not logically and tactically wrong. Logically, how can it be wrong to admit I don’t know? Tactically, nowadays it is always the most efficient way to go short cut if one can.

//if one has read the Bible and understood the whole story, he can appreciate what God demands. // i read it, and i try to kill that book because i know some much about it. why must that book be 100% ture in fact?

「你不懂看聖經？」，「你看不懂聖經？」 //--if one has read the Bible and understood the whole story, he can appreciate what God demands. --// 自己解不了別人的疑團，就制造疑團。

To 雲起 I agree with your term of “認賊作父”. In our daily lives, if one 認賊作父, his real father is entitled to expel him from home. Back to our discussion, is our Heavenly Father entitled to expel us from our home, the Earth, the Heaven or even the Hell? So, why are you 心寒? You asked me to respect other religions. I always do. But, I still think believers of other religions are in trouble. That is what the Bible says. Of course, they are free to choose what they believe, but they need to bear the consequences. As a Christian, I am obliged to at least tell them what the consequences will be.

To 馬雅人 //Your wish?? 你希望世上只有基督教徒才會做善事？ 看來你心地真係麻麻！// You misunderstand my meaning. I said I wish "這裏有人三翻四次强調世上好像只有基督教徒才會做善事". The subject is "有人". The verb is "强調" ... Maybe I am narrow-minded, but it is nothing about 心地.

Christian of Devil? JPY: After reading your message below, I begin to think whether you are really a Christian, you seem to be a devil that want to drive us away from God and Bible. The way you speak is very effective. And your rhetoic is not commonly used by Christian (that I met) nowadays. To 征服者 You cannot kill a book but you can burn it. Please stay calm and tolerate. Don't be incited by devil.

To Benson Nice to meet you. 1. I don’t have the textbook you mentioned. If you wish and are capable of, please explain it in layman terms. 2. I have gone through what you wrote under this topic and that is why I wrote mine. If you think you have answered me, that is fine. So do I. 3. Horner may be stupid enough to choose to be the affirmative side. But, will you suggest one to always choose to be the negative team in a debate contest if he could? That is indeed easier and helps him save time for preparing fruit salad to be the consolation price of the losing team. 4. As now more and more people are interested in studying the Bible, should we open a Bible study group? In fact, in order to be direct and up to the point, is it a practice in today to single out phases from the whole book?

基督徒 尼采名言：最後一個基督徒已釘死在＋字架上。

To All What am I doing right now? What do I want to achieve? Of course, I want everyone to convert to God, the God according to the Bible, both the New Testament and the Old Testament. However, I also know that I can never succeed. As someone suggests, religious belief is all about faith. It is about faith not because it is not reasonable but because, no matter how reasonable it is, there will still be too many people refuse to believe. So, I can only hope for the second best, to share what I understand from the Bible, to clarify what have long been misunderstood. Of course, I cannot and dare not say I understand the whole Bible. I just try my best. If I have induced you to think from a different perspective and stop you from thinking that Christianity is inferior, I think I have at least achieved something. If, however, I have driven you away from God, I feel so sorry to you and to my Heavenly Father, the Almighty God.

簡答JPY 一步一步來。你現在是否同意李博士在該辯論中沒有必要證明無神論比有神論更合理﹖你是否同意要求李博士在該辯論中證明無神論比有神論更合理﹐是不合理的要求﹖ 如果事實上我們無法知道(如科學定理般)﹐但有些人認為他們知道﹐well,告訴他們其實我們無法知道就足夠。:)

我還是不明白,為什麼聖經的一定會是真的? 只要放棄了一些內容,那你就可以救回神的聲譽,一本人手寫的書真的是代表了神嗎?你有沒有想過?還是只是單純的迷信別人教你的事?

點解Bush要打伊拉克? 點解Bush要打伊拉克? 你地覺得佢講出兵既理由有無道理? 係佢個人仲意打打殺殺 定係咩人上到果個位都會好似佢咁

To 心沉 //總之我既意思由頭到尾都係咁，唔清楚就自己睇返前面；都係睇唔明既唔緊要，因為係你既事，但千祈唔好再斷章取義，歪曲我既意思唔該！// It sounds like that I am being unreasonable and put words into your mouth. PLEASE understand that I never have such an intention (and I believe that I never did). If I misunderstood what you have said, it may be because I am stupid but it may also have to do with the clarity of your expressions. I won’t insist on this point anymore. Let the impartial, disinterested spectator judge. //仲有，我由頭到尾所表達既意思根本唔係「惡言相向、粗言穢語可以接受/冇問題」，我要表達既意思係： (1)「粗鄙」既人未必唔係好人(俗語話「仗義每多屠狗輩」；「斯文」既人未必係好人(「人面獸心」、「衣冠禽獸」、「斯文敗類」......)。 (2)「冇禮貌」講既野未必唔係道理；「有禮貌」講既野未必係道理。 (3)用「惡意」既字/詞講既說話未必「有惡意」；用「冇惡意」既字/詞講既說話未必「冇惡意」。// If these really are what you want to say, it makes things much clearer. I certainly agree with (1) and (2). But I am doubtful about (3). Certainly, when one uses foul language, one does not necessarily use it with bad intentions. You gave one commonly cited example. //有句說話叫「言者無心，聽者有意」，有時有0的人可能真係岩左滿口粗言穢語，但係咪咁就代表佢講親某0的字眼0個陣都係懷有「惡意」呢？時下好多年青人都經常粗言穢語(拿講明先呀，我唔係贊成呀！只係純粹講出一個現實情況咋！)我就經常係街見到0的細路笑住口咁「X你啦！」、「X街啦你！」咁話黎話去，唔通咁又代表佢地嗌緊交？有時係0的好FRIEND既朋友先會咁「溝通」架咋！// As I’ve said in my last reply, communication is a two-way process; it depends on both the delivering and the receiving parties. IF BOTH parties (as in the above example) agree that the words are not used with bad intentions, it is acceptable for them to use it WITHIN that limited community because within that community, the meanings of the words are in fact altered. But the problem is that these alterations of the meanings of certain words (notably foul language) are not commonly accepted by the larger community. So, if only one party accepts the alteration and the other does not, although the speaker does not have any bad intentions, his/her words are still insulting. Here we should notice the difference between the wicked intentions “implied” by the use of foul language and the “intrinsic” insulting element of foul language (which is tied to the definitions of the words used). //用「惡意」既字/詞講既說話未必「有惡意」// This is true. But even without wicked intentions, if the meanings of the words used are preserved (i.e., the alterations of meanings are not commonly accepted), the words are still insulting and hurtful. The limiting case that you cited (i.e., the “friendly” use of foul language among friends) does not solve the problem unless the alterations of the meanings of the words are accepted by the larger community of which the limited community is a subset.

未雨綢繆 以下並不討論對與不對,只是客觀事實: 美國一向(二戰後)以世界警察自居,全世界任何地區有問題的,他都會出手或出口,明的或暗地裡的干預. 這有兩個誘因: 1.未雨綢繆,維持世界的秩序(和平) 2.維護美國的長遠利益. 現時,要打伊拉克的理由,與上1及2都有關. 1.前車之鑒:伊有很強的侵略意識,91年便曾引起波斯灣大戰.這是地區的火藥庫. 2.問題更大的是這地區有關系著美國及全世界經濟命脈的產品<黑金>. 美,英的行動對與不對,你自已衡量吧.

To: JPY Wow, we have an active, outspoken Christian on the show! Nice to meet you too. Welcome on the net. Let’s see how good you are in our discussion. 1. On stone dilemma: Begging the question I didn’t say it is a textbook. I said it is a “textbook example” of a logic fallacy. The fallacy is called “Begging the question乞求論點”. Basically you presumed something which is unknown and treated it as a proven fact in your argument. //Now, since God is omnipotent//. So you PRESUMED God is omnipotent. But whether God is omnipotent (or whether God exists at all) is unknown and YET T O BE DETERMINED. No one can say whether it is or it is not before we have a conclusion. If you use this statement and treat is as a well proven fact, you have committed this mistake. 2. JPY and 森: On debate. In a debate, the titles of the Affirmative team and Negative team are contradictory to each other. Both teams are equal and on the same ground. What does it mean? It means if what the Affirmative team stands for is true, what the Negative team stands for MUST be false, and vice versa. That’s why one of the most important criteria for conducting a successful debate is to pick a good topic. The topic must be neutral with NO biase on either side. This applies to ALL debates. But what you (and森) asked for is that the Negative team should prove the title which is contrary to the topic of the Affirmative team. This is inappropriate and not the case. Suppose the Affirmative team has to prove (Proposition 1: A is larger than B). Then the Negative team needs to prove (Proposition 2: A is NOT larger than B) but not (Proposition 3: B is larger than A). Why not? It has nothing to do with being lazy or taking shortcuts. Because propositions 1 and 3 can be both false! What is the point of conducting a debate, when after 30 minutes of elaborations; we find that what the two sides stand for can be both false? Do you call such a debate more FRUITFUL? Does it make any sense to you? Can you quote any cited reference or record of a public debate, any at all, that the two topics of both sides can be both false? Let me give you one more example. Imagine in a debate, the Affirmative side says, “The universe is an infinite existence in the sixth dimension”. If you disagree with that, what should you do? As a member of the Negative team, you should give reasons and try to overthrow this statement and prove that “The universe is NOT an infinite existence in the sixth dimension”. But if the Affirmative says, “you have proved nothing but criticized what we believed. You are lazy and you just take the easy short cut. Why couldn’t you do your preparation more diligently and tell me what the universe is comprised of”? How would you answer that? There are dozens, if not more, of models of the universe and none of them is perfect. Do you think you should go through them one by one in order to be diligent? Is it what you ought to do? You would have used up all of your time before next the cross examination. You see the point? You see how ridiculous and groundless this accusation is? Dr. Li did not need to prove that atheism is more reasonable than theism. He simply did not need to, just like Horner did not need to prepare fruit salad to Dr. Li. Did Dr. Li prove NOTHING in the debate? WRONG! He proved SOMETHING, that “theism is not more reasonable than atheism”. He pointed out problems of the very definition of God which need to be clarified. He also elaborated that we should separate between “faith” and “rationality” and should not mix up the two. Any so-called “rational” argument which tries to prove faith is bound to fail. As I said before, if you can do that, you are not defending your religion, you are destroying it, since if so, it would become a known fact. These are all he has accomplished in the debate. How can you call it MEANINGLESS! 3. On interpretation of the Bible: //is it a practice in today to single out phases from the whole book?// What I quoted are not phases or fragments in the Bible. They were DIRECT, STRAIGHT-FORWARD INSTRUCTIONS of God. May be with your proficient English, you can tell me HOW ELSE to interpret these following rules: //from : 方舟子: 凡是不受割礼的男子，都必须除掉。（创１７：１４）星期日是安息日，敢在这一天工作者，死。（出３１：１４，３５：２）对于异教徒，要把他们全部杀死，连他们城里的牲畜都要用刀杀尽。（申 １３：１）新娘子被发现不是处女，没有贞洁的证据，用石头打死。（申２２：２１）妻子来月经的时候同房的，夫妻一起杀死。（利２０：１８）// You want more quotes? What you should do is to read Dr. Li’s book of “Art of thinking”. Both (1) &(2) are covered in the book. Had you read it once, you wouldn’t have made these mistakes. Just want to say a few points as my ending remarks: Being religious is NOT more superior than others, and Christians are NOT more superior than people with different religious beliefs. There is no relation between morality and religion. There is no sound evidence which shows that religious people are not at all more morally right or more willing to help others. It’s just not related. Being religious MAY NOT always lead a better life. It depends on different people. Osma Bin Laden killed in the name of God. As Dr. Li’s once said, the more narrow-minded and intolerant you are, the further away you are from God’s haven. Next time you preach, preach this as well.

Hi Benson Sometimes it can be frustrating if you repeat a simple point many times but a person just still cannot get it. Anyways, why don't you join our discussion in the following newsgroups: news.3home.net/3talk.christianity snakehk.com/snake.christianity

Hi Benson Sometimes it can be frustrating if you repeat a simple point many times but a person just still cannot get it. Anyways, why don't you join our discussion in the following newsgroups: news.3home.net/3talk.christianity snakehk.com/snake.christianity

To: SC I agree with you. That's exactly what I am feeling right now. I have problems entering your news groups. How should I do it? Should I just type in the address? Should I just click http://news.3home.net/3talk.christianity It didn't work. Please advise. PS: excuse me for being awkard. Are you the same SC holding the website: Why I am not a christian?

古來獅口幾羊回 ＜＜等待神跡＞＞ 當雄獅以口腹完成了小羊（鹿／牛／馬等）的葬禮 一絲失落與遺憾油然而生－－ 恐怕它日後就不能來參加我的葬禮了 此事古難全，除非有神蹟 但願羊長有，再跳蓬析析

Nietzsche Since 旁觀者 talks about Nietzsche, some quotes come to my mind. “Christianity presupposes that man does not know, cannot know what is good for him and what evil: he believes in God, who alone knows. Christian morality is a command: its origin is transcendental; it is beyond all criticism, all right to criticize; it possesses truth only if God is truth—it stands or falls with the belief in God.”—Nietzsche, _Twilight of the Idols_ “But when Zarathustra was alone he spoke thus to his heart: ‘Could it be possible? This old saint in the forest has not yet heard of anything of this, that God is dead!’…Once the sin against God was the greatest sin; but God died, and these sinners died with him.”_Thus Spoke Zarathustra_ “To make love possible, God must be a person; to permit the lowest instincts to participate, God must be young.”_The Anti-Christ, 23_ “The very word ‘Christianity’ is a misunderstanding: in truth, there was only ONE Christian, and he died on the cross… It is false to the point of nonsense to find the faith in redemption through Christ: only Christian practice, a life such as he lived who died on the cross, is Christian.”_The AntiChrist, 39_ I don’t agree with all of what Nietzsche said. But some of his words (especially the last quote) are very insightful. The road to redemption (it may not be the right word to use since all the sinners are gone with the death of God) is through the Christian practice, not any miracle of a supernatural being. If one wants to be a genuine Christian, one only has to follow what Jesus did. The concern for whether God (understood as the transcendental entity) exists is missing the message that Jesus sent out on the cross.

十分感激李教授的回應！ 但願可以把討論帶到一個和平友善的終結，世界共融，不同信仰的人，互相友愛尊重，彷若鋼琴的鍵盤上有著黑鍵與白鍵，共同一起，奏出最美妙的樂章！

Dr. Li: Thank you for your comments. Sorry for the typing mistake. The sentence which I intended to say in my ending remarks should be "There is no sound evidence which shows that religious people are more morally right or more willing to help others". My apology.

奇怪 致 : 各位大哥 究竟李博士寫了什麼? 你們好像已解決了所有問題? 我唔識英文. 拜托!

In my humble opinion, the Christian God should be omnipotent by definition. Therefore, it is not necessary to prove that the Christian God is omnipotent. Maybe we can should to prove that a square has four sides? I once read a book written by Prof.陳永明. In his book, he have given us a insightful solution to the stone paradox. That is of the following: The crucial question in the stone paradox is that: what is omnipotent? Does omnipotent include doing the things which is logically impossible? 1) If omnipotent including doing the things that are considered as logically impossible, then the Christian God (if he exists) should be able to lift up a stone that he is not able to lift up. (It seems nonsense, but I think that's quite reasonable) 2) If "omnipotent" does not include doing the things which is logically impossible. Then even God cannot lift up a stone that He is not able to lift up, provided that He can do all other logically possible things, He can still be called "omnipotent". Because omnipotent does not include doing logically impossible things. Therefore, the stone paradox cannot show that the concept of "omnipotent" is contradictory.

Re: Galahad Yet the key question is that: Is the "stone paradox" logically impossible? Could somebody's inability in doing an act implies the logically impossibility of the "act"? If not, what is the basis for claiming that: the stone paradox is logically impossible?

can i join in the discussion? I want to talk about the "stone paradox". Thro i m a christian, i still not sure the sentence itself is logically wrong or not, cos i have read some article saying that the sentence is right. Wot i think is, The mighty god is omnipotent, but when he create the lovely world, he,himself restricted some of his power, something he really cannot do in the world,e.g. Can the ominpotent god do evil thing? from Benson, There is no sound evidence which shows that religious people are more morally right or more willing to help others Maybe I m too subjective, in my church, there's alot of helpful, sincere people, say the ratio is 6/10, but in the world, i found many people are not very gd, the ratio is around 4/10. So maybe I see more gd people in church, so let me think Christian are more morally right or more willing to help others, but there is no true evidence or answer for that.

Additional notes to "Re: Galahad" As you has admitted that "the Christian God is omnipotent BY DEFINITION", by applying this axiom in inference, we certainly cannot get a conclusion violating this axiom (or assumption). However, omnipotency of the Christian God is only the assumption here which is not necessarily the truth. P.S. "logically impossibility" in the message below should be "logical impossibility".

Re: Ousia Referring to the following words from you: ......he,himself restricted some of his power, something he really cannot do in the world,e.g. Can the ominpotent god do evil thing? Two points to note: 1) "One holds the ability of certain act" does not necessarily imply that "he/she have to realise the act". For instance, you have never killed someone else, but this doesn't imply that you are not able to kill. Similarly, the God has never performed evil acts doesn't imply His inability to do so. 2) If "power" in your message refers to "ability" or "capability", then, could we still claim somebody's omnipotency while his/her power (or ability) may be "restricted" under certain conditions?

To Benson Heehee. Sometimes something is just impossible to do. Say explaining quantum field theory to an infant, convincing a flat-earther the earth is indeed round, (This is an interesting link: http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm) or the theology of Bonhoeffer(esp. the later stage), Tillich, J.A.T.Robinson, Hick and Cupitt. Some so-called Christians have almost no knowledge of logic, common sense, epistemology, or even Chritianity. All they know about their religion are from some Evangelist pamphets. Knowing how difficult the task you are having to explain what a debate is, maybe you'll feel less frustrated? :) For the links. the easiest method is to type: news://snakehk.com/snake.christianity/ at the address bar (assuming you have outlook express.) If you still can't do it, please send an email to whychrist@hotmail.com And yes, I am the editor of the Christianity site you mentioned. Thank you. :)

也來湊湊熱鬧 補充傷害-- (註: 請勿作不當預設, 例:神-不一定是基督教, 永同) 傳說一 神創造萬物時, 箭和靶是一體 為了讓箭明白, 靶的偉大, 中的快感 兩者被分開了, 一生尋找那另一半 傳說二 神創造人類時, 凡有腦的, 腦袋都是一流; 但是為了, 希望工程之頭頭有腦用, 還有更多教徒...... early xmas card: 結構嚴謹 文筆流暢, 好句好句

Moriba "One holds the ability of certain act" does not necessarily imply that "he/she have to realise the act". For instance, you have never killed someone else, but this doesn't imply that you are not able to kill. Similarly, the God has never performed evil acts doesn't imply His inability to do so. 1./ God cannot perform evil act becos of his "至善"character. If "power" in your message refers to "ability" or "capability", then, could we still claim somebody's omnipotency while his/her power (or ability) may be "restricted" under certain conditions? 2./ First of all, if someboday claimed himself omnipotent but he cannot restricted his power, he is not ominpotent cos there's somethng he can't do (He can't restrict his power) Actually his power not restricted in "certain condition", as i think, the thing is his power was restricted by "himself".

To Benson Let’s go straight to the issues. 1. Stone dilemma I think there is a fundamental mistake. Was I required to prove the omnipotence of God? Referring back to the debate, it was Mr Lee who picked it out and tried to counter-prove the existence of God by showing that God is not omnipotent. How was this dilemma presented? “If God is so-called omnipotent, can He create … ?” What I then tried to show was “if God is so-called omnipotent, He can …” Why do you think I want to prove God is omnipotent. As I wrote previously, the term omnipotence does not originate from the Bible. It is someone who attempted to use it to describe God. I am sure that someone is not as smart as Mr Lee, so he might not define the term properly (BTW, is there an official definition of omnipotence?). Now, the term does cause problem to those atheists. Whose fault is it, that stupid someone, the Bible, God Himself, Logics and/or those atheists? Please elaborate your answer, if any. I have written this before. If only you read more carefully, …

第五章 神是全能的 我們雖然不能說，聖經強調神的無所不能比強調他聖潔與愛的屬性更多，可是神是全能的，這真理我們可以充分地從他的自我啟示中看出來，也可以從歷史基督教會的信仰告白(如使徒信經)中看出。在所有神的屬性中，神無所不能這個屬性不只一次地被提到，這是很有意義的。教會承認她們相信的是“全能的父神，宇宙萬物的創造者”，也信他的兒子耶穌基督，他“坐在全能的父的右邊”。然而，神是無所不能的這教義，在邪惡的時代裡已經式微了，它不僅被人忽視，而且還被人曲解，不少人還否認它。關于此點，今世的人當特別注意。 神無限的能力 無所不能是獨屬于神的，只有神才是全能的全能。聖經屢次講到他是“全能的”(the Almighty)，這個字的希伯來文是El(以爾)和El Shaddai(以爾撒代)，明顯是有能力的意思。根據語源，也用到另一個字the Almighty，在這個字中的複數形式更引出神能力的豐滿。舊約聖經告訴我們，“耶和華豈有難成的事嗎?”(創18︰14，耶32︰17)說到耶和華，約伯說，“我知道你萬事都能作，你的旨意不能攔阻。”(伯42︰2)新約聖經也稱神為“獨有權能的”(提前6︰15)，並且斷言“出于神的話，沒有一句不帶能力的”(路1︰37)。世上的政治家、武將、科學家、世界各國、和聯合國，“在他面前，好象虛無，被他看為好象不及虛無，乃為虛空”(賽40︰17)。他使人的忿怒贊美他(詩76︰10)。他用鐵杖打破仇敵，他將他們如同窯匠的瓦器摔碎(詩2︰9)。宇宙的一切能力，包括原子彈、氫彈，都完全在他的控製之下，所以太陽和它的行星、月亮和星星、銀河，都超乎人的想象之外(賽40︰26)。在人與國家的事務上，受黑暗和冷酷的君主所支配的勢力，也受神的允許所支配及統治，以利于神的子民和其國度之來臨(羅8︰38─39)。 在創造和護理的事工上神都執行他的權力(參詩33︰6─9；來1︰3)。宇宙的創造是從無生有，“諸世界是藉神話造成的，這樣所看見的，並不是從顯然之物造出來的”(來11︰3)，一般稱此為直接創造；此外如人身體的創造，是從“塵土”而來，有時稱作間接創造。另外，象自然發生的事，如降雨(太5︰45)，和超自然的事──不須將同時發生的自然因子予以排除──如︰以色列人渡紅海的奇跡，經上記著說，“以色列人下海中走干地，水在他們的左右作了牆垣。”(出14︰22)；以及基督從死裡複活(羅1︰4)，和救贖的完全過程(弗1︰19─20；弗3︰20；彼前1︰5；彼后1︰3─4)，在一切事上，神都顯示了他的無所不能。值得特別注意的是，聖經認為拯救是由于神的能力，也是由于他的憐憫、恩惠、與慈愛。 聖經不但把一切能力歸屬于神，也把一切權威、良善、和權能歸給神，以運用那項權能。新約說到神的“權柄”(太28︰18)，也說到他的“國度”(太6︰13)和“能力”(弗1︰19)。若用拉丁文術語說，神的“能力”不僅是“能力”(Potentin)也是“全能”(Potestas)。這個事實直接關系到神主權的適當了解，神的主權這個詞在一般神學意識中，幾乎不算神的屬性，但卻是神和他受造物之間的一種關系。根據某些人的意見，以為“相關屬性”基本說來是一件無限製權利。“強權即公理”這觀念不僅非聖經所苟同，而且還為聖經所憎惡。 From http://www.chinachristianbooks.com.cn/bibsays/big5/chap9.htm 創 17:1 亞伯蘭年九十九歲的時候，耶和華向他顯現， 對他說：「我是全能的神，你當在我面前作完全人； 太 19:26 耶穌看著他們，說：「在人這是不能的，在神凡事都能！」 "Almighty"="omnipotence"?

To Benson (2) After a break to have some fruit salad, let’s continue. 2. The Debate As I found that you simply repeat what you wrote, I have to follow. Mr Lee is neither logically nor tactically wrong, … BTW, as S.C. and you seems to be of the same team, do you realize that you two have different, if not contrary, points. S.C.’s is Mr Lee’s stance is he doesn’t know while yours is he doesn’t need any stance. You did give a new example of “ a debate over the proposition that the universe is an infinite existence in the sixth dimension”(or X). Let’s see what I think a fruitful debate should be like. 1. A diligent negative team will do the research and establish what they think the universe should be like and then present it. 2. A diligent but stupid team may after their research find that no one is smart enough to know what the universe should be like. Then, they tackle their opponent by pointing out what problem they have in their arguments. 3. A lazy (but smart?) team will simply say we don’t know without giving any analysis or going through their opponent’s arguments. 4. A irresponsible (smart and/or lazy??) team will however say the proposition is invalid because there is no clear definition or it is illogical. I haven’t read your textbook example but I was seriously warned not to be the type 4 team in my very first lesson about debate. You mentioned a good topic which is neutral with no bias is critical for a good debate. I agree with that. Suppose there were a bad topic (as implied by you), can a respectful scholar help the debate by doing some more? If he cannot, it is okay, as I said many many times before. You also mentioned about the mutually exclusiveness between rationality and faith. As I cannot find any supporting analysis for this conclusion from Mr Lee, I hope you will enrich it. One last word for this point, in fact, I think you, S.C. and I are probably the same kind of persons, those heart-blinded who merely take words from others as laws without own digestion. How can we discuss on a sensible basis?

To Moriba & Galahad Hope that both of u can read chinese characterS (and so does your computer can show it to u :P) I am not not good in English so I shall show my idea with Chinese) 我曾經也是陳永明先生的學生, 對於他的見解我也思考過. 不過, "吾愛吾師, 但吾更愛真理" 從邏輯上考量, 其實"石頭"那一句子是可能的------ 只要主詞不是"全能者" 這是很淺白的, 大家試想想: " 地盤工人可不可以做一塊他搬不到的石頭"呢? 答案不是很明顯是可以嗎? 但為何" 全能的上帝可不可以做一塊他搬不到的石頭" 一句又會出現明顯的矛盾呢? 除非你是數學直覺主義者(他們反對排中律, 反對用否証法),否則你應認同" 全能的上帝可不可以做一塊他搬不到的石頭"的矛盾將得出"全能的上帝"一詞是有問題的. 另外, 到今天我都不明白, 宗教人仕(特別是天基/基基/東正/猶太/回教...etc), 死也要抱住上帝是全能全知全善, 這個明顯是有問題的定義?

To Benson (3) & ending remarks No more fruit salad. Let’s continue. 3. Interpretation of the Bible Is it an invitation to have a Bible Study? I’d love to. Which book you want to start? How about Genesis? Let’s first read Genesis1:1-2:3. Tell me after you finish your reading. We shall start from the basic questions like 4W&1H or you may also write down your queries. As I said previously, I may not know all but I will try to my best. 4. Your Ending Remarks I am not going to read Mr Lee’s book because he cannot impress me at all during the debate. I don’t really understand how your ending remark relates to our discussion. Please elaborate if you wish. However, thank you for telling me that Mr Lee has preached before. Now I start to understand why you think Christians are nothing special.

To Ousia "全能" 的概念應該來自希臘的. El Shaddai 其實只有"大能",或"至能"的意思. 古希伯萊文化來自閃族(我思疑閃族混合了不少古印度的思想),不存在一個全能至善者; 有的反而是正邪大戰, 而雙方是半斤八兩的. 真正認真的想過"無限全能"這個概念的是希臘人 (其他文化如中國等也有想過, 但可惜都不及希臘人的深入, 這可能和他們的愛智愛美有關) 而早期基督教(或所謂猶太教"異端")吸收了新柏拉圖主義後才開始出現"全能"的 觀念.

To S.C. Are we in a debate? If I admit I don't know what the great theories, great presons you mentioned, will I sound like Mr Lee? But, I did read some evangelistic phamphets.

JoeJones Thank you so much from wot u said, i think the stone paradox is not a question to "God", cos the meaning of "omnipotent is not the same as "Almighty", and God didn't clamied himself "omnipotent" at all, so we better say God is almighty instead of ominpotent.

to Ousia 哈~ 那你"相信"了全能的上帝"是有問題吧~~~ 不過你要留意, 一般教會是反對你這個"異端"的想法呢~ 下一步你應該去睇"我為何不是基督徒"一書了 :P

JoeJones 那你"相信"了全能的上帝"是有問題吧 不過你要留意, 一般教會是反對你這個"異端"的想法呢~ 1./ Actually i say i m believing in God but not the religion, it God doesn't say himself as "ominpotent" then if i dun believe in "omnipotent" it shoudn't be any problem.But of cos i want to know which guy develop the terms of "omnipotent" and wot sort of evidence he have 教會是反對你這個"異端"的想法呢 my church is built with John Calvin's view, but that's wot i dun believe, so wot? haha. And wot i found from Apostles Creed: I believe in God the Father Almighty, Maker of heaven and earth: And in Jesus Christ His only Son, our Lord, who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried; He descended into into hell; the third day He rose again from the dead; He ascended into heaven and sitteth on the right hand of God the Father Almighty; from thence He shall come to judge the quick and the dead. I believe in the Holy Ghost, the holy catholic Church, the communion of saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the body, and the life everlasting. Amen. It says God is Almighty, but not omnipotent. Maybe the chinese word used to describe Almighty and Omnipotent is the same word:全能, so we dunno their difference 下一步你應該去睇"我為何不是基督徒"一書了 is it the one available in the internet, i think i have read it already, thanks. P.S. 我是信基督,不是信基督教的

To JoeJones //下一步你應該去睇"我為何不是基督徒"一書了 :P// Are you referring to Bertrand Russell’s book? To Ousia If you give up “omnipotence” for “all mighty”, you still have to understand what all mighty exactly means. For example, how “mighty” is enough to be called “ALL mighty”? Usually, when one asks such a question, one may end up with one of the two possible alternatives: 1) it takes us back to “omnipotence” or 2) it will take away most (if not all) of the “essential attributes” of God, thereby, emptying the term and making it disqualified as the foundation of religion. //P.S. 我是信基督,不是信基督教的// According to Nietzsche (and I’m inclined to agree), you have taken the first step to become a genuine Christian (that is, through the practice of Jesus, not the Christian Church).

Faustus If you give up “omnipotence” for “all mighty”, you still have to understand what all mighty exactly means. For example, how “mighty” is enough to be called “ALL mighty”? Usually, when one asks such a question, one may end up with one of the two possible alternatives: 1) it takes us back to “omnipotence” or 2) it will take away most (if not all) of the “essential attributes” of God, thereby, emptying the term and making it disqualified as the foundation of religion. Actually "Almighty" is the word found from the bible, as God claimed himself to be, actually i dunno how "almighty" he is actually, but he did alot of miracles, alot of logic impossible act, that's wot i found from bible. Can he do everything(Ominpotent), I really dunno. Maybe he can la~~~

Can "father" make a stone he can't carry? -i dunno Father have a human body or not, but seems he doesn't, so hard to determine Can Jesus make a stone that he can't carry -he can, i think Can the spirit make a stome that he can't carry -like "father", i dunno

致JPY 你還未答﹕ 一步一步來。你現在是否同意李博士在該辯論中沒有必要證明無神論比有神論更合理﹖你是否同意要求李博士在該辯論中證明無神論比有神論更合理﹐是不合理的要求﹖ 謝謝。

To: SC You are right. There are things which simply can’t be done. I rather teach a child quantum mechanics. Now I understand why Dr. Li seldom reacted to these CHALLENGES. I am pretty exhausted. Thanks for your info. I made it to the news groups. I’ll try to join the discussion if I have time. JPY said you and I are on the same team. I don’t know for sure but I’ll take that as a compliment. Anyway, I’ll try to wrap it up quickly this time. To: galahad There is a fundamental difference between the following two propositions: (1) to lift up a stone which he cannot lift and (2) to create a stone which he cannot lift. (1) is logically impossible while (2) is practically possible. A civil engineer can use concrete to create a stone which is so heavy that he cannot lift. It is crystal clear that it is possible. You mixed up the two concepts. Try also to think about these questions: Can God drive a BMW race car which is so heavy that he cannot lift? I can. Can God use bricks to build a wall which is so tall that he can’t jump over? I can. Can God emit invisible electromagnetic radiation that he cannot see? I can. PS: just curious, what is prof. Chan’s area of interest? A professor of what? To: JPY You like to work at night, don’t you? (1) Stone dilemma revisited. What Dr. Li did is to prove that omnipotence is logically impossible, i.e., even if God does exist, he can’t be omnipotent. Since this is one of the most important attributes of Christian God (the majority of Christians in the world, including Horner, still strongly insist on this. To overthrow omnipotent god, by and large, implies to overthrow Christian God). So there are two options left for this case: either you give up this concept as an attribute of God, or you clarify what it means to my satisfaction. Otherwise, your very definition of God is still problematic and it makes no sense to say that to believe in such a God is more reasonable. Just like if there is a preacher who says, “Benson is an all-alpha, all-beta, all-gamma, great love God!” It makes no sense believing in such a god until we figure out what all-alpha, all-beta and all-gamma mean. OK? Are you with me so far? As I said before, before any conclusion comes out, both sides of the debate are on equal ground. The Affirmative side cannot say that omnipotent God exists while the Negative side cannot say that omnipotent God does not exist. This is easy to understand. Now let’s look at Dr. Li’s argument. Instead of claiming omnipotent God does not exist, he ASSUMED that “(1) Omnipotent God does exist”. Now can such a god create a stone which he cannot lift? If (1) is true, the conclusion is (2) YES and NO because omnipotent God can create any stone and can lift up any stone. (2) is a self-contradictory conclusion and must be false and since a true premise always give a true conclusion, the false conclusion (2) must have come from a false premise. Therefore (1) must be false and the initial assumption of (1) must be wrong. This is what we called “Reduction to Absurdity歸謬法”. While you and Horner are on the Affirmative side: // What I then tried to show was “if God is so-called omnipotent, He can …”// Remember you are on the Affirmative side, you can't assume God exists in the first place. When you make such a presumption, you made the mistake of “Begging the question”, like what I told you in my previous message. Question: if the existence of omnipotent God is a well known, well proven and well documented scientific fact, what are we discussing anyway? Will you hold a debate with a title “the earth is round”? (2) On debate. I think I said too much on this topic already. If you think your diligent (or peculiar) way of conducting a debate is a better choice, so be it. // Mr Lee is neither logically nor tactically wrong, …// Agree. // do you realize that you two have different, if not contrary, points.// I do and I don’t see any contradiction. I myself don’t know whether atheism is more reasonable than theism. It does not matter because either way I have no obligation to prove it. I don’t know and I don’t need to prove it. As a negative team member, I just need to prove “theism is NOT more reasonable than atheism”, that’s all. // Suppose there were a bad topic (as implied by you), can a respectful scholar help the debate by doing some more? // No, unfortunately. Suppose a diligent, smart, not-lazy Albert Einstein was assigned to the Negative team of the debate “the earth is round”. What could he do? // You also mentioned about the mutually exclusiveness between rationality and faith. As I cannot find any supporting analysis for this conclusion from Mr Lee// Why couldn’t you find it? Because // I am not going to read Mr Lee’s book //. It is all in his book. I can’t help if you don’t read it. Questions: Would you say something like “you have to have faith on 1+1=2, that pure water boils at 100deg C at 1 atmospheric pressure”? Why not? We don’t need faith on things which we are certain of. This is rationality. Story 1: a woman’s husband was missing in a plane crash. After a few days’ rescue attempt, her husband's whereabouts were still unknown. She held a press conference and thanked the police & other workers who tried to search for her husband. In the conference, she cried her eyes out and said “I - BELIEVE - that he is still alive”. This is FAITH. After a month, her husband was found alive miraculously in the bush. Though seriously wounded, he made it and returned home after a few months’ treatment. His wife welcomed him home and said, “Now you ARE alive and home”. This is a fact. See the difference? When something is certain, we don’t need faith. Story 2: A PhD student in physic was having his oral exam. He claimed he found some mysterious EM radiation which must have come from a new form of pulsar in the galaxy. Examiner: “No, this is not possible. This violates all existing theories and our understandings of pulsars. Besides the frequency and the intensity of radiation are not right. It simply can’t be the case”. Student: “what do you think it is then”? Examiner: “ I don’t know yet, but it is definitely not pulsar”. Student: “Why don’t you do your job more diligently and tell me what it is? A diligent negative team will do the research and establish what they think and then present it. I was seriously warned not to be the kind of sloppy academics like you!”. Examiner: “I was seriously warned by my mentor not to allow students with no sense at all to pass the exam. Have a nice day”. The student flunked the exam, got expelled and switched his major to theology. // One last word for this point, in fact, I think you, S.C. and I are probably the same kind of persons, those heart-blinded who merely take words from others as laws without own digestion. // Disagree. I don’t take words for granted without digestion. I take science and logic very seriously. // How can we discuss on a sensible basis?//I thought we are discussing sensibly. At least I am. (3) On Bible // Is it an invitation to have a Bible Study? I’d love to. Which book you want to start? How about Genesis? // Just explain and justify (if you can) my quotes please or should I need to re-quote? If you really want to try studying bible, try 利未記Leviticus. I’m all ears. To: Dr. Li I understand your first comment now.

To Benson: you are so lovely to engage in the sport of 對牛彈琴. To JPY: you may also think that you are being 對牛彈琴. Anyway, i love the ways you guys talk. Please go on for two more thousand years.

To: 雲起 Sorry to disappoint you, but I guess I'll quit this 對牛彈琴 soon. Afterall, I've done my part. Life is too short. I can't spend the rest of my life doing this sport. There are still a lot of things which worth my attention.

從書店裡拿起李天命教授的著作「李天命的思考藝術」，意識地從目錄上找尋，而終於找到了「神不存在?!－－哲學家李天命智鬥神學家韓那」..... 編者對韓那的介紹中一段我恍然明白了，或可以想像到，當年原來那不純是兩學院的一場「名譽之戰」，而是.....。 於是，補償心裡的驅使下，我買下了此書。我的第一本關於李天命教授著作的書。（$84 prior to 15% off） 準備打開第一頁前，翩到背頁一看，李天命教授這樣寫到，「愚人只知接受思想的灌輸，智者則重視掌握思維的方法。」我不奢求因著看了此書而成為「智者」，至少可以做到不成為李教授所說的「愚人」，如願足矣。 否則，買了也不配看此書！

希望阿森哥睇完之後可以有所得著啦！

To Benson Sorry for replying late. I work during daytime but I can only access Internet at night. So that is why. I also want to finish this discussion. Let me try my best. 1. Onmipotence I think this is not my first time to say omnipotence is a not a biblical concept. I don’t see there is any problem in giving it up unless you can define it up to the Bible’s standard. You asked for the definition of the Christian God. There is an official one, the One as described in the Bible. Don’t always expect every definition can be summarized into 1 or 2 short sentences. When a boy tries to define himself (if this is necessary) to his girlfriend, he will bring her before his parents, friends, … let her see his family photos, school reports… share with her about his thoughts, feelings, ambitions, … let her be in his life to see herself. After all, if the girl is asked to summarize her boyfriend in 1 single sentence, it may be simply “he is a good guy”. You also mentioned about the important attributes of the Christian God. I am more inclined to say they are Justice, Love, Living, … Yet, I don’t have the concise definition of these attributes. You said Horner strongly insisted on the attribute of the omnipotence. Frankly, I could not find any trace in supporting this, especially when the related definition hadn’t been agreed. 2. Stone dilemma You mentioned about the Reduction to Absurdity. You have done a very clear illustration. However, your analysis is not complete. The conclusion is not necessarily self-contradictory if you invoke the assumed omnipotence premise once again by adding another attribute to the stone (just like what I suggested before). Unless there is a limitation on the number of use of the premise for (1) creating the stone and (2) lifting up the stone but not (3) adding a new “smart” attribute, you cannot claim the premise is false. I don’t understand why you skip my question of, even if I cannot prove the stone dilemma, why it should be the problem of the omnipotent God, but not of the Logic analysis? Why can’t Logics be wrong while God can be not omnipotent? I also don’t understand why you query about the well-known fact of omnipotent God. How is it related to our discussion? 3. Debate You said you, as a negative side, just needed to prove “theism is NOT more reasonable than atheism”. They key missing here from Mr Lee (and you as well) is you did not PROVE. You simply queried the validity of the proposition. You did try to prove God (the omnipotent God) did not exist and then the proposition was invalid and then there was no ground for the debate. In my opinion, what you did were stopping the other team from continuing a football match by destroying the football. BTW, has Mr Lee ever gone through Horner’s any single point? Can he claim he did a good job in cross-examination? What Einstein will do? He will refuse to take part the silly debate. Back to our case, Mr Lee at least had 2 options, first, simply refuse to take part or insist to change the proposition to something like “God is a logical concept”. 4. Mutually Exclusiveness of Rationality and Faith You did give some good examples of some occasions the 2 terms do not overlap. But, can they be generalized to apply to all issues. How about trying some of my examples? Is it rational to expect the Sun to rise tomorrow in HK? Does this expectation need any faith? Have you ever made any yearly plans, monthly plans? Is it because you believe you still have tomorrow? But, is it a rational expectation? You have confused rationality with certainty. 5. Story of the PhD student I think a good teacher will at least go through the data and the analysis to point out what mistakes the student has made. That is what Mr Lee hasn’t done in the debate. Whether he has the authority to fail the student doesn’t automatically make him a good teacher. 6. My attitude Last few times, my attitude is bad. Sorry for that! Nevertheless, I am serious to what I wrote. 7. Bible Study Do you mean to start with Leviticus? I presume you have read the Leviticus at least once. Let’s start with some background information. a. Who is the writer of this Book? b. To whom was it intended to address? c. When was it written? d. Under what circumstances, was the Book written? e. What is the main theme of the Book? f. How was the Book structured? You asked me to read Mr Lee’s books, I will if you promise to read through the whole Bible at least once.

聖經研討會 稟神兄, 雖迷途其未晚，覺今是而昨非。 我同意李博士給你的兩個意見/回應。 有些人你說一百次他們仍是不明白，因此最好的解決方法是等，等適當的時機。 JPY兄, 如要討論聖經，可否於另一些有關宗教的網頁上進行？我和部份朋友對此也極有興趣。請告我們應上那個網頁，好嗎？

To慕道者, SC, 雲起, Dr. Li : You people are right. I give up. Seems like I’ve done a pretty lousy job. I should have known and stopped days ago. Just a few questions left to JPY. To: JPY // I think this is not my first time to say omnipotence is a not a biblical concept. I don’t see there is any problem in giving it up// Good. Think JPY, think about the following carefully: //What Einstein will do? He will refuse to take part the silly debate. // Why would Einstein refuse to take part in this debate? Because it was silly. Why was it silly? Because the topic “the earth is round” is a WELL KNOWN FACT! If it is a well known fact, what’s the point of discussing? Now take a look at what you said below: //I also don’t understand why you query about the well-known fact of omnipotent God. // If omnipotent God is a WELL KNOWN FACT, there is nothing to debate about! See what I mean? //The conclusion is not necessarily self-contradictory if you invoke the assumed omnipotence premise once again by adding another attribute to the stone (just like what I suggested before). // The point is you CANNOT // invoke the assumed omnipotence premise //! That’s exactly what I have been trying to tell you so far! I explained “Begging the question” to you twice and you just don’t listen. //Is it rational to expect the Sun to rise tomorrow in HK?// Yes. // Does this expectation need any faith? //NO. //Have you ever made any yearly plans, monthly plans? // Yes. //Is it because you believe you still have tomorrow?// Yes. // But, is it a rational expectation? //Yes. I have good health. It is reasonable to believe that I still have tomorrow. If I were the missing husband in the plane crash, it is not reasonable to believe that I still have tomorrow. At that point, you need faith. //You have confused rationality with certainty. // No I have not. When something is highly probable (not even absolutely certain), we don’t need faith. // You asked me to read Mr Lee’s books, I will if you promise to read through the whole Bible at least once. // Are you bargaining with me? Why don’t you go to read the British Encyclopedia once and then we start discussing? // Nevertheless, I am serious to what I wrote. // That’s exactly what I am sorry about. // Last few times, my attitude is bad. Sorry for that! // It’s OK. I have seen that before. Guys who are cocky and smart: charming; cocky and stubborn: annoying but fine by me. I never want to give up on you until I saw this: // even if I cannot prove the stone dilemma, why it should be the problem of the omnipotent God, but not of the Logic analysis? Why can’t Logics be wrong while God can be not omnipotent? // You have a nice day.

Not bad at all... At least, this proves that Benson has the heart to run a kindergarten, or for that matter (re: stubbornness), a home for the elders.

我覺得“無所不能的上帝可不可以造一塊祂搬不到的石頭？”是可以答“可以”的（如果有上帝而且祂是無所不能的）。 既然祂是無所不能，祂便能夠造出任何東西。亦因為祂是無所不能，所以祂更有能力去限制自己的能力而令到祂自己搬不起那塊石頭。

被射癖 這些箭靶一而再再而三重复已被李博士在書內明確駁倒（拆破）了的論點,想必有"被射癖"？JPY如此,那位陳教授如此,目前這位也如此...

箭靶心理學

弓箭出售,五十元一把,送自動追蹤箭靶一個

慕道者 www.media.org.hk

www.media.org.hk 就是i-share那個出名只接納基督徒意見，不合己意者殺無赦的版嗎？

Bye Bye to All I think now everything is clear and settled. I am glad tonight I can go to bed early. Since I have written something before I realized that, may I post it just as a mark of "ever been here"? *** You mentioned about the proposition of "Earth is round". Let's go back to the age when the general belief was "Earth is flat". The church was condemned for denying your proposition and prohibiting it from spreading. The church was indeed stupid and narrow-minded. They were just arrogant enough to neglect what Magellan, Galileo had to show. They stopped thinking and analyzing (without going through the evidence produced) by simply claiming it was just impossible for man to be always turned upside down on the other part of the world. Would they be more persuasive if they could have shown (if possible) what was wrong in Galileo analysis? On the other hand, personally, I don't believe in the Evolution Theory. But, I don't think I can convince anybody by simply claiming it is illogical and unreasonable that a monkey can give birth to a man or by challenging there are no proper definitions of evolution, monkey and/or man, without going through under what grounds Darwin had put forward in supporting his assumption. (For those who think science is all about certainty, please note that the Evolution Theory is merely an assumption (yet rational or not?) which requires your faith to adopt it. Science is all about certainty when (only?) they are taught in secondary schools.) Please at least show what Horner suggested during the debate was wrong. Otherwise, the two gentlemen were simply fighting with nobody. They were yet to cross their swords. ***

To Mr Lee Tin Ming I am honoured to witness your participation here in 3 consecutive days. Now, I know that we speak different languages and you are a poet. *** I am sorry Liverpool was knocked out. I sincerely hope Newcastle can go through although their chance is slim. Sir Boby Robson is admirable but I don't think Bellamy will start tonight. Indeed I miss Robert but Shearer is still the spirit of Newcastle. *** Life is wonderful! by accident? *** SWING!

To All I just forgot to add "All right reserved!" If anyone want to quote my writing for commercial purpose, a fee (not a nominal one) shall be levied. I am serious!

愛因斯坦...... 這是愛因斯坦說過的一句話: 我真正有興趣的，是神在創造這世界時有沒有選擇餘地． （這是雲起同自己講的說話）: 如果你讀一遍四庫全書，我也會讀一遍聖經． （這是我同JPY講的話）: 我都好鍾意NEWCASTLE，但係唔知點解，Shearer做前鋒成日唔郁，Bellamy好波走得快但係走幾步就受傷，Robert射波好勁但係好少射波，Given人地話佢守龍門好但係場場都失波，Dyer最令人失望仲話想做前鋒，但係唔知點解我仲係支持佢，今晚仲要爬起身睇佢地輸....

To 雲起 You should not seduce me to go back to this topic. Bellamy is fast but not as good as Owen. Owen is an all-round striker. Indeed I think Robert shoots too much. This year, he changes a lot in helping defence. Just miss him so much last Saturday against Arsenal. Viana is definitely outclassed. But I cannot agree more Dyer is really disappointing. Anyway, good night!

原來有人已經提出過我的看法而且更被李博士駁倒。 我幾乎沒有看過也沒有買李博士的作品，所以不知道。我想知道在哪本書能找到答案，是《李天命的思考藝術》抑或《從思考到思考之上》，還是其他（我只知這兩本）呢？ 謝！

報料 <<李天命的思考藝術>>終定本

叫人相信上帝是全能的...... 究竟是上帝還是魔鬼呢？ 魔鬼叫眾人相信全能論， 使眾人顛倒是非、不分黑白， 甚至公然挑戰上帝所創造和承認的邏輯， 來自上帝的賦能漸漸喪失了， 眾人的腦袋成為了魔鬼的奴隸......

君子無所爭。 必也射乎 哲人有所樂 必亦射乎

背上殘破的靶，不肯放 載上眼罩放箭，不願停 我又係咁，佢又係咁。 彷似格格不入， 其實同病相連

給theodore --- 男追女，隔重山；女追男，隔重紗。 我由隔離追蹤到E度，係唔係好有誠意先？至低限度我今日會亦步亦趨，你講嘢我一定㗳咀。你覺得我咁樣�H方法同態度啱唔啱呢？你受唔受呢？其他人對「男追女，隔重山；女追男，隔重紗」呢句話又有乜見解呢？

To: JPY //I think now everything is clear and settled. // uh??? How’s that? You still haven’t answered my question. Don’t divert attention by switching the topic. Let me rephrase it once again, “If, as you mentioned previously, the existence of omnipotent God is a well known fact like “the earth is round”, what’s the point of discussing?” You need to know a lot about logic in order to teach a class in a university, but you don’t need to know a lot about logic in order to NOT say “//Why can’t Logics be wrong while God can be not omnipotent//”. You need to know a lot about evolution in order to write a book, but you don’t need to know a lot about evolution in order to NOT say something like this: // But, I don't think I can convince anybody by simply claiming it is illogical and unreasonable that a monkey can give birth to a man or by challenging there are no proper definitions of evolution, monkey and/or man,…... // //please note that the Evolution Theory is merely an assumption (yet rational or not?) which requires your faith to adopt it.// Wrong! Way wrong! Even a layman like me knows that it is wrong. Let’s have a glimpse of what an expert says in this topic. //taken from 方舟子: 《進化論虛妄嗎？》 Please visit this web site for details: http://www.xys.org/~fang/science.html 1. 生物進化首先是一個被無數科學證據證明了的科學事實。 有關生物進化的科學證據來自生物學各個學科，舉不勝舉。最直觀的證據來自古生物學、、生物地理學、比較解剖學和比較胚胎學，在後面兩章我們將會對它們做些簡明的介紹。在此我只想指出，有關進化的最重要的證據來自現代生物學，特別是分子生物學和生物化學。分子生物學告訴我們，儘管地球上的生物形形色色，千變萬化，在分子水平上它們卻極爲一致：都有相同的遺傳物質——核酸，都用同一套遺傳密碼轉譯蛋白質，都用相同的２０種氨基酸組成蛋白質，而且儘管氨基酸有左手和右手兩種構型，所有的生物都只用左手構型的氨基酸；一種蛋白質對生命過程越重要，越基本，就越可能在所有的生物中都存在，並且其氨基酸序列在不同的物種中根據親緣關係的親疏而有不同程度的相似性。對此我們只能得出結論：所有的生物都有共同的祖先，因此它們才能如此一致；它們是由共同祖先經過不同的途徑進化來的，因此在相似中又有差異……而且，儘管神創論者不願承認，萬能的上帝的“設計”並非十全十美，往往有著無用的甚至有害的特徵。比如我們人，在胚胎的早期會出現鰓裂，但是鰓卻對胎兒毫無用處，請問上帝爲什麽要有這樣的設計？又比如我們的脊柱，實際上只是由四足動物的脊柱略作加工而來，並非很適宜於直立行走，如果我們是四足著地的猩猩，就可以免去了象椎間盤突出之類的由直立行走造成的苦痛。如果人真是由上帝設計製造的，他何至於如此低能，又何苦如此折磨我們？…… 2. 進化論是科學 在許多條件下，進化論能 被否證，這裏只舉一例。根據進化論，每一種生物都是由先前的生物進化來的，而所有的生物都有共同的祖先；那麽，整個生物界就相當於一個大家庭，象人類的大家庭一樣，我們也可以描繪出一株親緣關係樹，確定各個家庭成員的血緣關係。如果這種血緣關係是真正存在，用不同的標準繪出的親緣關係樹應該大致相符（由於材料不同、實驗誤差等因素，不能強求完全一致），否則的話，如果不同的標準繪出不同親緣關係樹，這種親緣關係就很值得懷疑，也就是說，若出現這種結果，進化論即被否證。事實卻是，不管用什麽樣的標準，根據化石紀錄、器官比較、抗體反應比較、同源蛋白質的氨基酸序列的比較或基因序列比較，所繪出的親緣關係樹都相符得非常好，也就是說，進化論雖然可能被否證，結果卻是被證實了。特別是同源蛋白質的氨基酸序列以及基因序列的比較使我們對親緣樹的繪製達到了定量的程度，更加準確了。而且，同源蛋白質和基因有很多很多種，它們的序列比較——只要願意——可以沒完沒了地作下去，進化論也就一直在接受檢驗。幸運地是，至今爲止用至少幾千種不同的同源蛋白質和基因繪出的親緣樹在誤差範圍內都互相吻合，也就是說進化論不斷地在被證實。……// //(For those who think science is all about certainty,// I think only you do so. //Science is all about certainty when (only?) they are taught in secondary schools.) // Wrong! I learnt fundamental quantum mechanics in secondary school. It’s all about probabilistic (indeterminisitic) interpretation of wave functions but not “certainty”. Conclusion: you don’t know nothing about logic, evolution and high school science at all.

About Evolution Shall we listen what some Christian say? http://www.millerandlevine.com/km/evol/index.html K.Miller is a Catholic and a Biology professor. He is one of the main defenders of Evolution, the counterpart of M.Behe. Sometimes, in my own humble opinion, some Christians have no idea what Christianity really is (it reminds me a book I've just read recently: _Adam, Eve and the serpent_ by E.Pagels, the epilogue). So they defend something they shouldn't. 借用李天命先生在另一場合討論另一件事有另一意義(不同但有相似作用)的詞語來形容﹐｀認賊作父＇。 Let's read some materials and do some critical thinking! Amen.

腦勁心靚 腦勁：Ğ Ｇ字似側看的頭臚，上加皇冠，故曰腦勁。 心靚：ё e字似心，上加兩點，似開懷的笑，心靚自然由心笑出來。 老師，如果將　Ğ　和　ё　放大來看就更加似啦．可以請師母把它們放在WORD文件之中放大．

如果我評分 終於把「神不存在？！－－哲學家李天命智鬥神學家韓那」一章唸完一遍了。 基督教對神的一些說法不合邏輯，李教授成功找住了，可謂技術性擊倒韓那。 如果我評分，我會投棄權票。 可是，如果那不是一場辯論，而是關乎個人切身的問題，韓那的論據是有很強的說服力的，可說贏了。 打個譬如，李教授成功在一張白紙上找到一個小黑點，成功證明了這不是一張白紙。 我再留言，不為追求「中靶的快感」，而是想把讀後感說出來。 「李天命的思考藝術」是很好的書，值得擁有。

李天命教授，對不起，沒看到你的留言！ 我會於你的著作中真誠地學習，去修補自己的語理問題的。 萬分感激！感激！

Horner的論據，進化論可提供合理解釋 現在的演化論概念，結合博奕論及混沌理論，已不限於解釋生物的演化，亦正嘗試解釋文化與道德價值的演化，甚至社群（如宗教組織）的演化。 Horner的第一個觀點：神是對客觀道德價值的存在之最佳解釋。我們可以想像，若果一個族群它有一個習俗，就是把自己生下來的子女吃掉，這個族群能繁衍下去嗎？人（甚至動物世界）的行為準則，可以透過教育與溝通一代一代遺傳下去，正如基因將人的生物特質遺傳一樣，過程由天擇（natural selection)至人擇（cultural selection)，最終會令能繁衍下去的群體有一套最有利族群的身體構造及道德觀念。（一如海獅是一夫多妻制，並非神喜歡一夫多妻制，而是此種制度最有利海獅的繁殖） 又如Horner第六點：神是對耶穌基督的生平，死亡和復活的最佳解釋。 我們可以把信奉耶穌的門徒們，看成一個生物體，在悠長的時間中不斷適應環境，最終發展成龐然大物。請記著，聖經記載，當年有不少人自稱神的兒子，到處招攬信徒，（到今天仍有），耶穌死後，基督教沉寂多時，亦有不少其他教派與之競爭，幸機緣巧合，得羅馬帝國奉為國教，方得大發展。一隻大象之所以成為一隻大象，不是因為它想變大，只不過是適應周圍環境變化時，碰巧變得很大。 Horner第三點：宇宙最初期的條件是最適合生命存在的，而神是對此事實的最佳解釋。 我們可以用人本原理來看（Anthropic Principle)如果我們的宇宙本來就不適合我們這種生命存在，就沒有我們這些人在慨嘆為何宇宙這般適合人存在了！我們能問這問題的前提，就是有一個適合我們生存的宇宙，所以沒有甚麼可慨歎的。 量子學亦推測有Multi-universe的可能，即存在著多元宇宙，大爆炸時，宇宙可以有不同的函數，最終能穩定下來繁衍生物的，就是無數宇宙又生又滅之後可以sustainable的一個，就是我們能觀測的這個。 Horner其他論據亦可作如是觀。 我終於明白逐點反駁是非常浪費時間，當年李博士的策略是較明智的。

To Benson I really don’t want to step in again. As Newcastle progressed to Phase 2, … I hope this will be the last. Relax! I will make it short. 1. I still don’t understand why you insisted on the “well known fact” question. Have I or other christians mentioned that before? What I did say is believing in God is more rational (yet need faith). Well-known? As you suggested, it may not be. 2. The so-called omnipotent God can be a subject under examination, why not Logics? This is common sense. BTW, does my way of asking violate any logical theories? 3. The Evolution Theory a. after reading the analysis, I agree with the conclusion that all creatures have the same origin. But, can the origin be God? Besides, it seems that Mr Fong has missed another analysis to draw the next conclusion of “它們是由共同祖先經過不同的途徑進化來的”. Why evolved but not predetermined? On the other hand, the analysis does show there can be only 1 origin, but is this a necessary condition of the Evolution Theory? I mean, if the Evolution Theory is true, is it more likely to have more than 1 origin (or different chains of evolution) from different parts of the Earth? b. The issue of why creatures are not perfect is like why they should die or why there is suffering. This is a separate theological topic. I can’t see how it supports the Evolution Theory or turned against the Creation Theory. If you wish, we may open a new topic on this. c. Mr Fong has suggested a way to disprove the Evolution Theory and then he fought back. Indeed, it is dramatic. But, the Creation Theory also suggests all creatures are of a big family. What Mr Fong has suggested to disprove the Evolution Theory may only prove creation at random or different chains of evolution. 4. Do you mean that fundamental quantum mechanics (which you learnt in secondary school) is not certainty but all about probabilistic (indeterminisitic) interpretation of wave functions? Then, have you applied faith on this rational subject?

Some final words The way Allan argued (except his final paragraph) is the approach I think Mr Lee should adopt in the debate or the way we should conduct a sensible discussion/debate. By the way, I think his points is not too strong but may require some efforts and time. Anyway, thank you all for your time.

看到吧...所以我才說信教是關係到科學的存亡問題 漠視一切實證,也不試試把神放在其他地方(好像是一切開始的推了一把,之後放手,或像太空漫遊的黑石碑<只是看不到>,一定要世界按聖經說的一點也沒有出入才信,就是信聖經有錯也不代表對神有什麼不敬,那最多也只算代筆,錯不奇怪)

To S.C. I shouldn't have missed you. If you think what you read is insightful, please express them in your own words for discussion. Don't just accuse others without supporting.

To JPY 以下的字都是my own words。:) S.C. 2002-11-12 11:16:47 致JPY: //你還未答﹕一步一步來。你現在是否同意李博士在該辯論中沒有必要證明無神論比有神論更合理﹖你是否同意要求李博士在該辯論中證明無神論比有神論更合理﹐是不合理的要求﹖謝謝。 // ＊　＊　＊ //If you think what you read is insightful, please express them in your own words for discussion. // Is it an invitation to have an "evolution" study? I’d love to. Which book do you want to start? How about _Finding Darwin's God_ by Miller (or maybe you want to start from Behe's book first? How about Plantinga? All of them are Christians in fact.) Let’s first read _Find Darwin's God_, chapter 3, "God the Charlatan." Tell me after you finish your reading. I definitely do not know all but I will try to do my best to answer your questions. //Don't just accuse others without supporting.// I don't know what you are talking about. In my previous post, Ｉ　wrote: //some Christians have no idea what Christianity really is.... So they defend something they shouldn't.// Do you mean these sentences?

S.C. 算吧, 大部份基基都是認為進化論是創造論的死敵的,教會的教導是這樣,沒辦法改. 因為教會裡是很少接觸神學的.

To: 森 I think you are much better than JPY. You have advantages: you read and, most important of all: you listen. After you have read the debate, how do you feel about the followings: //森:2002-11-07 12:34:09, To: 心沉 and his fans (雲起、閑人和01:45) 辯題是「相信神的存在是更合理嗎？」相方都根本沒必要證實神是存在不存在。反方反對什麼？反對「相信神的存在是更合理」，卻沒有說明「不相信神的存在是更合理」的理由！只是反方擴張兩條副辯題，錯誤引導正方去辯論。於神存在不存在的問題上，反方都提不出神不存在的實證來，單從邏輯實證而不涉其他方面，唯有靠詭辯。// Do you still think that //反方擴張兩條副辯題，錯誤引導正方去辯論//? Do you still think Dr. Li //詭辯//? You want to take back what you said? PS: Don’t you know that most of the mistakes committed by you, Prof. Chan, JPY, etc. are all covered in the book? ================================================ To: SC I think I am gradually losing my patience (but not my temper). Could you please help me out and try to explain the evolution part to JPY? Thanks in advance. PS: I once attended a first aid class. The instructor taught us this: you always save those who have a higher chance to be saved first. For those who are already dead (or BRAIN dead), you better leave them alone. ================================================ To: Allan Hi ,Allan. Just a few words. On moral standards. Horner’s argument is something like this “Because there are objective moral standards, therefore God exists”. First the truth value of the premise is highly questionable. For example “murder is wrong” is a moral standard accepted by the vast majority of people, whether in the past or today. However, I am sure there existed certain people who really thought that taking out human lives are nothing: those ancient kings of Egypt and China, Japanese war criminals, Hitler, Osma Bin Laden,…etc. So the premise is not true. Even if it IS true, the conclusion can not be drawn from that premise. As Dr. Li pointed out in his book, mathematical statement is even more objective. Can you deduce “God exists” from “1+1=2”? 2. Anthropic Principle is NOT a scientific theory at all. It’s merely a closed system. You can never test, verify or falsify it. Whatever model of universe you have, you can always use Anthropic principle to “explain” it, if you call that an explanation at all. No scientists or academics really treat this principle very seriously. //我終於明白逐點反駁是非常浪費時間，當年李博士的策略是較明智的。// Agree. Don’t be fooled by JPY. What’s the big deal for arguing point by point? We already did one. It’s just too time consuming and is NOT NECESSARY. It will put the negative team in a passive position by merely responding to the affirmative team’s arguments. Dr. Li’s tactics is to attack the root of the problem: the very definition of God. ================================================ To: JPY //JPY 2002-11-15 01:32:24 Have I or other christians mentioned that before? // What? You have amnesia? Since you are so forgetful, let me remind you of what you said two days ago: //JPY 2002-11-13 01:45:45 I also don’t understand why you query about the well-known fact of omnipotent God. How is it related to our discussion // // JPY 2002-11-15 01:32:24Well-known? As you suggested, it may not be. The so-called omnipotent God can be a subject under examination// Is it well known or is it still under examination? Now you think omnipotent God may not be a well known fact. If it is not well known or is still debatable and under examination, how can you treat it as a presumed fact and use it as the premise in the stone dilemma? The stone dilemma actually disproves the possibility of omnipotence. This is what it is all about. // JPY 2002-11-15 01:32:24 why not Logics? This is common sense. BTW, does my way of asking violate any logical theories? // I don’t think it is common sense to QUESTION logic although the way you asked does not violate any logical rules. Now all you have to do is to tell me how logic can be wrong/false. Go ahead! Show me just ONE example where logic can be false. I think all of us (even Dr. Li) will be very glad to hear. It will be one hell of a challenge for all of us. Tell us and make us proud. It won’t take much of your English soccer time. I’ll leave the evolution part to SC. Sorry SC, it’s going to be real tough work for you. // JPY 2002-11-15 01:32:24 4. Do you mean that fundamental quantum mechanics (which you learnt in secondary school) is not certainty but all about probabilistic (indeterminisitic) interpretation of wave functions? Then, have you applied faith on this rational subject? // NO. Unlike God, predictions done by quantum mechanics are testable, verifiable, objective and falsifiable. It predicts natural phenomena at the microscopic world to such a high accuracy that it is regarded as one of the most important scientific achievements in human history. It’s a rational science and it does not need faith. If you throw a dice randomly (assumed the dice is perfect), classical mechanics predicts the chance that you will have “1” is 1/6. This is repeatable, objective and testable. You don’t need to have faith on this statement.

Evolution, QM and Jumping Benson兄交託的｀重任＇﹐抵恐怕難以勝任。很多人說進化﹐其實根本連什麼是｀進化＇(evolution)都不知。如果只讀傳教小冊子﹐的確很難了解。不懂不是問題﹐不懂就問就看書﹐不懂還胡說﹐卻是問題。不如就問問各位﹐你們知道進化(evolution)的定義嗎﹖ ＊＊＊ 順便談談量子力學。量子力學和邏輯經驗論有很密切的關係﹐李博士對此所知應很詳細﹐小弟不必班門弄斧。（記得李博士有位學生就是做有關研究的。） 例如說一個自旋量子數１／２的粒子﹐其自旋有兩個本徵態（eigenstates)﹐某些情況下﹐我們不能知道粒子的自旋狀態﹐例如說﹐一束粒子流﹐粒子有上和下兩個自旋的本徵態的可能是50/50。科學家是不會說我們對粒子束中某一粒子屬向上的狀態有信心﹐科學家是不會這樣說的。 有強烈印證的理由﹐我們是不會說faith的﹐這不是faith的用法。跳樓會死﹐邏輯上可能錯﹐但我們有太強的理由﹐我是不用講faith的。但神存在則否。 例如說﹐我和基督徒朋友打賭﹐他不信｀不作任何防護從合和大廈跳下＇(稱為跳樓論）﹐我則不信上帝存在。我們用實驗去驗證。他是一定不會接受這打賭的﹐為什麼﹖因為跳樓會死的理論﹐是有很強的理由的﹐｀不信＇會受事實懲罰（又是李博士的說法。）信不信上帝﹐卻沒有任何客觀的分別。 這就是信仰和科學的分別。有時有些說法比較接近灰色地帶﹐但大致而言我們應能分辨。混淆信仰和理性不是護教﹐是｀認賊作父＇（見上次的拙文）。 匆匆留言﹐有錯莫怪得太嚴厲﹐我去睡覺了。謝謝。

所謂進化其實不是真的是"進"化,事實上只有一大堆隨機的突變在環境的壓力下發展成有不同生存策略的生命

Benson Let me see if I should take it back. Don't worry! I'll give you an answer.

Benson 如果你能看穿，便已明白，我要求一點時間去想一想，其實早已承認了一半的錯，為什麼？因為希望自己下言務必要多謹慎，不想回應時再在你面前出錯吧。如今，趁這個時候，讓我再承認其餘的一半錯好吧。錯在什麼？我想我要為「詭辯」一詞向李教授致歉，其他的，我卻沒有任何意思要收回。 如果你能看穿，亦已明白，這裡最輕易說「對不起」的人，不過我一個，這樣請不要就此推斷我輕浮而沒誠意，因為我真的希望自己避免重犯，不過，我卻不能保證以後不錯的。一個平凡得不能再平凡的人，實在承擔不起要自己一生不錯的沉重承諾啊！其實，認錯不是一件困難的事，當如果可以讓人釋疑、息怒、甚至重修舊好，放下丁點尊嚴實在算不了什麼呢！ Benson，我想跟你分享一下我的人生觀，你願意聽嗎？我的生活態度是有宗教傾向性的，我認為人的生活是應以靈性為主的，不說不要理性，很多大是大非上，理性很重要的；學問的研究，制度的建立，工作的籌劃，......理性很重要的，但這些都是對事對物的態度。不過，對人對生活的細節而言，靈性的交流便很重要了。一些事可以說是巧合，但你視之若一份恩賜，感恩，態度就不同了；一些人的行徑說法似乎不合理，但你明白人是沒有完美的，原諒接納，態度就不同了。我們除了存在於現實的世界中，也生活於自己心靈的世界裡，人生的態度影響著個人的心靈的世界，你願意為自己的世界，築建一個花園，還是一個鬥獸場！要歡迎朋友光臨，還是要退盡所有異己呢！ Benson，我明白你喜歡說理，而且希望別人認同理解你所說，甚而要推翻別人的信念。但我認生活是個人的，而且充滿辯證的。你今天看到一個人為何成了信徒，他過去的理想與現實的生活還不是都經過不妥協、接受、融合的掙扎，才走到現在？！正如，你加一匙甜糖落一杯苦酒中，酒依然是苦的，一個人不因為一個小小討論而容易徹底改變過去的。可以把自己的話說出來，已經很好了，其他的事，就慢慢來吧。 世界上，貧窮、文盲、低教育的人與兒童，當然更需要受到關注了。除了根本上的教育和社會問題要正視外，他們這一群人已經活生生地生存世上，總不能放手不理，基督教似乎做了很多，這當然不是基督教的專利，但似乎已是願意不願意承擔責任的問題了。Benson，你的人生觀是什麼？我想知道呢。 剛才窗外綿綿細雨，對山的景物朦朧，十五年前的事已經過去，低嘆無用，今天重提的問題已再不是一場辯論了，只是，有人可以全為一個小黑點而理性地生存，也有人可以為一張不完美的白紙而靈性地生活。我只能為問題下一個這樣的結語。 謝！

Final final words Although it cannot be considered a happy ending, we have to end somehow. I need to go back to my life next week and the best way is to stop visiting this discussion zone. What are we arguing about so far? 1. How a debate is to be conducted? 2. How to settle the stone dilemma? 3. Clarify some misunderstandings about Christian faith. Nevertheless, since not long ago we start to have distractions, accusations and repeats, I lost my interest. Conclusion: 1. Despite the fact that some, if not all, keep insisting Mr Lee’s approach in the debate is efficient and effective, the argument we have so far under this topic adopts a different approach, going through others’ points to question their validity. 2. There are just too much to say, without knowing how to start and conclude. 3. This is the area we spent least time. What a pity! Clarification: 1. As far as I know (faith or rational?), I don’t have amnesia. 2. My question at 2002-11-13 01:45:45 referred to you question posted on 2002-11-12 14:01:22 //Question: if the existence of omnipotent God is a well known, well proven and well documented scientific fact, what are we discussing anyway? Will you hold a debate with a title “the earth is round”?// I meant I didn’t understand why you asked this question and how it was related to our discussion. I didn’t mean I agreed it was a well-known fact. 3. I had never treated the omnipotent God was a presumed fact. It is not in the Bible. You should know my stance. 4. Your accusation that I presumed the omnipotent God was a fact is based on the fact that I asked you to invoke your premise once again to add the “smart” attribute to the heavy stone under dispute. 5. I asked you to invoke the premise once again in YOUR analysis, not mine. 6. What I did presume is that, if you did want to show the self-contradictory nature of the term “omnipotence”, you would do your analysis diligently and competently. 7. As a Christian, I don’t need this analysis. Even though I want to prove the omnipotence, I shall not use the stone dilemma. Distraction: 1. Evolution Theory. a. I am not interested in arguing about the Evolution Theory. What I did is a reminder telling you about the mistakes from what you quoted from Mr Fong. b. I am not interested in arguing about the Evolution Theory (and quantum mechanics as well) unless I know how it is important to me personally. Even so, I really need time for preparation. c. Even though one day I will take your challenge to defend against the Evolution Theory on stage, in order to be efficient & effective and avoiding the time consuming process, I’d rather attack the very definition of evolution instead of going through what the Evolution Theory is all about. 2. Mutually Exclusiveness of Rationality and Faith a. Even though I agreed with your quantum mechanics and 跳樓論 as examples of where rationality and faith didn’t overlap, can these examples be generalized to all issues on Earth? b. Otherwise, is it a definition of rationality as “condition that doesn’t require faith” while definition of faith as “something you need when it is not rational”? c. So what you implied is setting aside those highly probable conditions like quantum mechanics and/or 跳樓論 , all remains are ridiculous and irrational. IQ Test (don’t take it as serious as the stone dilemma) 1. Premises a. God is omnipotent; and b. Everything is logical. 2. Question a. Can the omnipotent God create a stone which is so heavy he cannot lift up? 3. Answers a. Yes, … b. No, … 4. Conclusion a. No matter what the answer is, it is self-contradictory. b. Either Premise a or b must be wrong.

對牛彈琴 After all this discussion, it seems that you and I have one, and only one, common point: We are fans of Newcastle. You denounced and rejected the theory of evolution without even knowing anything about it. For me, I have known God since I am a child in school. I have been preached by numerous Christians. I learnt Darwin's theory and its modern elaborations. I compare the argument of both sides and understand very clearly which side is more reasonable. //I’d rather attack the very definition of evolution instead of going through what the Evolution Theory is all about. // Good strategy, except that you know nothing about evolution.

小小總結 JPY君的說法是奇怪的。例如我問了三次的問題﹐他不答就是不答﹐頗有｀引刀成一快﹐莫負少年頭＇的英雄氣概。這明明是他自己提出的論題﹐不是distraction.而他既然未答﹐當然也沒有｀repetition＇. //please note that the Evolution Theory is merely an assumption (yet rational or not?) which requires your faith to adopt it. // 這是JPY原來說的。 //I am not interested in arguing about the Evolution Theory...// 這是被質疑後的JPY所說的。JPY在同一篇文章中把這句說話repetitiously repeated by two times or (1+1) times。大概不答的原因是很重要的。 以上只是順手拈來的例子。以下是一些總結。 1､請比較森和JPY的態度﹐看誰的比較可取。 2､請明白有時有些人明明錯了也不會認的。但就我估計﹐他們即使不認﹐內心也會有點不好意思。所以﹐別因為一些人不認錯﹐逃避而覺得我們和他們談是浪費時間。其實他們(和我們)都已有得著。為了面子問題也許他們不會承認錯誤﹐但他們下次不會再說些自己不懂的如進化等問題的。(一般而言﹐見文末。) 3﹐對基督教我的看法是比較溫和的。不如Michael Martin般｀極端＇(此處是中性用語)。但對某些有護教傾向而不學無術者﹐小弟以為他們不單不能榮神益人﹐還會讓慕道者離神越來越遠。 4､JPY君｀唔嫁又嫁＇已不是第一次。他可能會讀本文﹐甚至回應某些部份。我沒有這期望﹐但希望傳達一個信息﹕我從來沒有真理使者的包袱。我在此貼文是希望以對等的方式和大家互相學習。而互相學習､交流﹐首重誠意﹐而不關膚淺的勝負的。只要錯的人心中有數﹐我們就應不為已甚。小弟認為善良願望在某些情況下是不充份謬誤的例外。此刻﹐我就是以理性以外的善良願望﹐相信將來有天﹐你和我會在追求真理的同一路上﹐並肩而行。 謝謝。

To: SC Let’s put an end to this topic, shall we? I don’t think he worth our attention any more. You are a respectful and kind man. I agree with most of what you said except for one thing: I don’t think this JPY guy is gonna change. I have seen people like this before. Most of them are REPEAT OFFENDERS. Look what he did! He fooled around in a chat room, defamed Evolution, defied logic, preached in order to recruit his followers. When he encountered some rational queries, he turned to his usual techniques: mere denial, shifting attention, changing the topic, pretended to have amnesia, avoiding the problem, etc and in the end he simply walked away. Right now he is probably surfing on the net, preaching in another chat room; pulling his old tricks on others. See what I mean? You may not agree with me but one JPY may be able to recruit ten followers in a day while it may take ten SCs to fix one of them in weeks. Who is winning this number game? When one Reverend said in a public “RECRUITMENT TALK” that “evolution is nonsense”, it can be so damaging that it may take hundreds of evolution biologists years to rectify their misconceptions. It is always easier to lock than to unlock. This is not just a science debate; this is about media infiltration and manipulation. Call me a pessimist, sadly I must admit that his strategy is successful and is working. As I said before, there isn’t really much that we can do to a “brain dead” patient. Somehow we just have to let go. To: 森 Thanks for your reply. I am so glad to hear what you said. Although you and I still have discrepancies on certain issues, I think we can narrow them down, work it out and share how we feel. The most exciting thing above all is that I can see you improving. This is a triumph not to me but you. You earned the credits. I may talk about myself some other time on a separate topic. I am a moody person and I just come with the flow. We can talk about life, religion, poverty, love, science, etc. later. I’ll invite you to chat by then. Sincerely hope you can have a better and happier life. May your God bless you. ============================================= To: ALL but JPY Let’s try to summarize what JPY did and see what we can learn from him. First he confused propositions which are contrary to each other with propositions which are contradictory to each other. He had no knowledge of the approach adopted by the negative team of the debate, namely, “Reduction to Absurdity” and he accused the negative team of not doing something which he was in fact not supposed to do in the first place. He had no idea what a formal debate should be conducted and how both sides should respond to the topic. He claimed he could solve the stone dilemma by adding some extra smart (stupid?) attributes while in the course of his argument he committed the fallacy of “Begging the question” by presuming omnipotent god exists. He demonstrated big inconsistencies and confusions in his arguments when on one day he said “I also don’t understand why you query about the well-known fact of omnipotent God”; while two days later he said “The so-called omnipotent God can be a subject under examination”. This is self-conflicting, if not self-defeating. When being challenged, he switched his tone and said “I had never treated the omnipotent God was a presumed fact.”, yet he still insists that he could use it as a premise in the stone dilemma without committing a mistake. He questioned “why can’t logic be wrong”. When being asked to raise ONE example how logic can be wrong, he just shut up as if he has never been asked. This is the same trick he used when SC asked him a question three times and he just simply DID NOT answer. He was told that most of the mistakes were already covered in Dr. Li’s book while he refused to read it. In return he demanded us all to “read the bible once” before discussing those seemingly unreasonable parts of the bible. He mixed up rationality and faith. After my “plane crash story”, “dice-throwing analogy”, SC’s “jump off the building analogy” and “quantum mechanics spin 1/2 discussion”; he still can’t separate between the two. Finally, the worst and the most despicable of all: he defamed and bad mouthed evolution as mere assumptions without the gut to further discuss it. Remember he brought the topic up solely by himself and then he said “I am not interested in arguing about the Evolution Theory”. He knows nothing about evolution, yet he defamed it and then simply walked away and said “bye bye to all”. Now folks, how do you feel about this JPY ? Let’s revisit rationality and faith one last time. When something is certain or just highly probable, we don’t need faith. When something is uncertain, we need faith. 1. Does JPY know anything about logic? NO, certain, no faith. 2. Does JPY know what to do in a debate? NO, certain, no faith. 3. Does JPY know anything about evolution? Absolutely not, absolutely certain, no faith. 4. With JPY’s personality, mentality, his attitudes and his peculiar ways of analyzing problems, do you think he will improve himself and avoid making similar mistakes in the future? Logically possible although highly unlikely in real life. We need faith on that. 5. If a Christian acts like JPY, do you think he is qualified to enter God’s haven? NO, certain, no faith.

Benson, it's a great summary Thank you for your patience. Editor of this page should consider adding a "MUST READ" label on it.

To Benson Why being personal? Can it help to show you are more logical? Having read your analysis under the topic of time travel, I think you can be a reasonable person. Can you repeat your analysis for the stone dilemma? Please be reminded that 1. I am not the one to prove the omnipotence. 2. It is the negative team who raised this query and tried to disprove the existence of God by showing the self-contradictory nature of the term omnipotence. 3. What I did was to show there could be no self-contradiction. How did the negative team show there is self-contradiction? They said, as someone claimed that (1)God is omnipotent but since (2)God cannot achieve the two tasks (to create & to lift up) simultaneously, there is self-contradiction. Has the negative team begged the assumption (1) of omnipotence here? Why not? What did I say then? I asked, how to prove (2)God cannot achieve the 2 tasks simultaneously? If (1)God is omnipotent as claimed by someone, He can achieve 3 tasks (to create, to lift up & to add attribute) simultaneously so that there is no contradiction. Have I begged the assumption (1) now? Yes, if and only if I am to prove (1)the omnipotence of God. But, I am to show there can be no self-contradiction if the negative team “begged” the assumption (1) competently. Let’s consider another example. Suppose A says as someone claimed that (1)yesterday is Sunday but since (2)today is not Monday, there is contradiction so that yesterday cannot be Sunday. Then, I asked how A can ensure (2)today is not Monday. A simple logics is “if (1)yesterday is Sunday, then today is Monday” where there is no contradiction. If I am to prove (1)yesterday is Sunday, I have begged the question (1). But, I am effectively asking more information on how to prove today is not Monday. Alternatively, we can view the dilemmas from a different perspective. 1. First, the negative team asks, “Can JPY create a stone … ?” or “Is today Monday?” 2. The affirmative team then replies, “If he is omnipotent, then he can add …“ or “If yesterday is Sunday, then …” Is there any question for the affirmative team to beg this time? Yet, there is a third way in asking the question. Suppose there is an exam question of “assuming JPY is omnipotent, please explain whether he can create …”. In answering this question, can I beg the assumption by starting “If JPY is omnipotent, he can add …”? You may argue over the attribute I proposed to add, but you could not accuse me of begging the question without further elaboration.

To 雲起 I am impressed that you have done a comparision between Darwin's theory and Christian belief. I will be grateful if you could share this with us.

Welcome back jpy 我不會跌落陷阱的，和你討論問題要有超人般的能耐： １－要對牛彈琴而保持笑容 ２－要有很多時間 ３－你曾問過“Why can’t logic be wrong?”，能問此問題之人，若非不明邏輯，就是是非不分，都非常不好惹 我尚有半點理智，寧願今晚看Newcastle踢歐聯，今晚你會睇波嗎？

To: JPY // JPY, 2002-11-13 23:12:22 Bye Bye to All; 2002-11-15 01:32:24 I really don’t want to step in again; 2002-11-15 01:43:51 Some final words; 2002-11-16 17:00:39 Final final words Although it cannot be considered a happy ending, we have to end somehow. I need to go back to my life next week and the best way is to stop visiting this discussion zone. // Wow you are back! This is the second (or third?) time you ate your own words. What is it? You are bored? I must say that your behavior is equally self-conflicting as your arguments. // Having read your analysis under the topic of time travel, I think you can be a reasonable person.// Not “can be”, I AM a reasonable person. //Can you repeat your analysis for the stone dilemma? // Again? You are really pushing my patience. Your whole message focuses on the stone dilemma (I don’t even remember how many times we have discussed it). Anyway, I can only understand the first part of your message (sympathetically): //1. I am not the one to prove the omnipotence. // True. You never did. You used it right away as a premise in your argument as if it was already proven. //2. It is the negative team who raised this query and tried to disprove the existence of God by showing the self-contradictory nature of the term omnipotence.// True and he (Dr. Li) did successfully. So what? //3. What I did was to show there could be no self-contradiction. // Dream on. You TRIED but you failed. // How did the negative team show there is self-contradiction? They said, as someone claimed that (1)God is omnipotent but since (2)God cannot achieve the two tasks (to create & to lift up) simultaneously, there is self-contradiction. // Two tasks? What two tasks? To (1) “create a stone which he cannot lift up”, is different from (2) “to create a stone AND lift it up SIMULTANEOUSLY”. They are two different things. If God is omnipotent, he can create any stone instantaneously and he can lift up any stone. That’s exactly why he cannot create a stone which he cannot lift. Suppose I say “Benson cannot inhale air AND swallow food at the same time”. So Benson cannot do these TWO tasks at the same time. “Benson cannot touch a dog which he cannot see” (supposed he is blind-folded). There is ONE task only, i.e., to touch a dog. Can you tell the difference? Now try to answer these questions: Can God drive a BMW race car which is so heavy that he cannot lift up? Can God use bricks to build a wall which is so tall that he cannot jump over? Can God emit electromagnetic radiation (infra-red) which is beyond visual frequency that he cannot see with his naked eyes? Can God blow a whistle which is beyond audible frequency? Can God predict exactly what I am going to do in the next minute? If he can, there is no free will. If he cannot, he is not omnipotent. // Has the negative team begged the assumption (1) of omnipotence here? Why not? // No. Because he is with the negative team. He can presume omnipotent God exist and use it as a premise. If this premise leads to a self-contradictory conclusion, he can then say that the previous assumption is wrong and the premise is false. This is reduction to absurdity which I told you about long time ago. While you are on the affirmative side, you can NEVER EVER presume omnipotent God exist in the first place anywhere in your debate. If you do, you commit the fallacy of begging the question: i.e., you assume “omnipotent God exists” in order to prove “omnipotent God exists”. How many more times you want me to repeat the same story? What should I do to make you understand? I read the remaining part of your message twice and honestly I don’t know what you are trying to say. May be you should consider rephrasing it in a readable manner (or you should consider straightening out your confusions first). ============================================= To: everybody As far as I know, two local academics claimed that they can solve the stone dilemma. One of them is陳永明and the other is關啟文. We talked about Dr. Chan before in our previous messages. He confused the two phrases: “to create a stone which he cannot lift” with “to lift up a stone which he cannot lift”. While for Dr. Kwan, he claimed he invited Dr. Li for a debate while there was no reply from Li (that’s understandable).http://victorian.fortunecity.com/cubist/199/4.htm Kwan’s argument is something like this (see 《我信故我思 -- 真理路上的摰誠探索》， 香港：基督徒學生福音團契，1998年9月。): “Can God create a stone which he cannot lift”? This is equivalent of asking “Can omnipotent God create a stone which he cannot lift” or saying “Can omnipotent God do something which he cannot do” which is self-contradictory (note: this is a question, not a proposition. I wonder how a question can be self-contradictory.). Therefore the question itself is a faulty one. When someone accused him of begging the question, he said, “it was the negative team who brought it up and questioned the topic, not us. So it is their responsibility to prove it but not ours”. JPY made the same mistake as he did. ============================================= Suppose we conduct a debate of the year on the topic “Benson is a perfectly honest man”. Affirmative side: Benson (B), Negative side: Kwan (K) K: Benson cheated in an exam in 1988. So he committed at least one dishonest act in his life. Therefore he is not a PERFECTLY honest man. B: Benson did a dishonest act means that “a perfectly honest man” did a dishonest act which by itself is self-contradictory. Therefore, the question is a faulty one. K: Wait a minute, you begged the question. Whether Benson is a perfectly honest man or not is yet to be determined while you treated it as a proven fact and put it in your premise. That is fallacious. B: It was the negative team who brought it up and questioned the topic, not me. So it is your responsibility to prove it. ……. ============================================= By the way JPY, you still haven’t answered SC’s question. Will you answer that? //SC: 你現在是否同意李博士在該辯論中沒有必要證明無神論比有神論更合理﹖你是否同意要求李博士在該辯論中證明無神論比有神論更合理﹐是不合理的要求﹖ // You also asked “Why can’t logic be wrong”? I asked you to raise one example how logic can be wrong. Can you do that?

有神論比進化論合理？To JPY 我認為要了解生物演化及人類進化，演化論能提供最有說服力的解釋。我（們）常從最根本處質疑基督教傳統教義中的神，不如你也從達爾文的演化論的根本處來提出你的質疑好嗎？ 這是你說過的話：//I’d rather attack the very definition of evolution instead of going through what the Evolution Theory is all about. // 請出招！

乜「論」 話說好耐以前有一個在教會學校教生物科和宗教科的老師，年青有為 可惜佢答錯了一個問題，使佢以後與宗教科絕緣 問題由一學生在公開場合提出，是這樣的： 「作為一個同時教生物科和宗教科的老師，請問你相信創造論，還是演化論？」 老師義正詞嚴地回答： 「我乜「論」都唔信！」 佢此一回答使場內所有的目光都聚焦在佢一個人身上，自此之後，大紅大紫，家傳戶曉，恭喜發財。

God is dead !!!!!!!!!!!!! There was a god many, many years ago. However, he/she/it was murderered by human beings. That is, god is dead. It's now meaningless to argue about his/her/its attributes. let's discuss the new world order without god's regime. Any idea?

To 雲起 You are that kind of person I don't know how to deal with. What else can I say? BTW, do you think Solano will start tonight. He said he wanted to quit Newcastle.

To Benson You mentioned that you don’t understand what I wrote. I have a similar problem. I have to skip many irrelevant points before I got what you mean. So, maybe both of us have problem in writing. Having finished some irrelevant rituals, let me check whether I misunderstand your points first. You mean that the affirmative team can never use the omnipotence premises in their analysis simply because they are the affirmative team. Is that what you mean? If so, is this a rule for debate or a rule in logic analysis? If this is a rule for debate, how could it be? Please note that it is the negative team who brought out this issue, did an incomplete analysis, drew an unfair conclusion and yet disallow the other team to do another analysis. What an easy job for the negative team! If this is a rule in logic analysis (where there is neither an affirmative team nor a negative team), then who can apply the premise in his analysis? Take an exam question as an example. Suppose there is an exam question of “if JPY is omnipotent, can he create …?” Would the answer be accused of begging the question if it suggested to add a new attribute (by applying the omnipotence premise) into the stone to be created? Back to your B & K debate, the key issue is how K can prove someone has cheated in the exam. Is it simply by allegation, by a testimony of a classmate or by a complete and powerful analysis? PS. You keep chasing questions which I think should have already been covered in our previous argument. Okay, no matter what, I will try to entertain you after we settle this stone dilemma if you still wish to. At least, let’s do it one after one. BTW, I also got a number of questions you haven’t answered. PPS. It is true and fair to say I am self-conflicting to revisit this argument. This is because, after reading your analysis for time travel, I thought we might have a sensible discussion. Maybe, I was wrong.

To Allan Thank you for your interest. As I said, I can only handle argument one after one. I am too old already. How about let me settle with Benson first? Nevertheless, do you think we need to have a mutual understanding of what Evolution Theory is all about before we can have a discussion and/or argument? Do you mind stating your understanding first as a reference? Or you want me to state mine (which is basically from my secondary school education and from TVB) first? I don’t want to repeat the same mistake made in the debate between Mr Lee and Horner. PS. Your quote is really what I had written. But, after a second thought, I cannot convince myself to adopt such a tactic. PPS. Your said “我（們）常從最根本處質疑基督教傳統教義中的神”. Are you referring to the fallacy of the term omnipotence?

I remember that there are someone who used this before as a closing. "I go to sleep now!"

to JPY Welcome back. Take your time with Benson. You can answer my questions later. And if you have some questions you've asked but cannot find my answer to them, let me know. *** Just a curious question: Do you mean that if the affirmative team was rational, they still could use the premise "omnipotence is possible" in an argument to conclude that "omnipotence is possible," without committing any fallacy? I think that's what Benson was talking aout. Byebye for now.

To: JPY //So, maybe both of us have problem in writing. // Oh really? I don’t think so. //You mean that the affirmative team can never use the omnipotence premises in their analysis simply because they are the affirmative team. Is that what you mean? // Yes. //If so, is this a rule for debate or a rule in logic analysis? // It’s not a rule of debate. In a debate, nobody really cares what you say. You can talk any nonsense or garbage (except foul language and personal attack) as you wish. It’s just that you’ll jeopardize your own case, that’s all. “Begging the question” is a logic fallacy. Roughly speaking, it happens when someone treats a proposition which is yet to be examined as a well proven fact and uses it as a premise in an argument. In layman terms, you presume something to prove that something. We call it fallacious because it is a wrong method. For example if we want to prove that “Benson is an honest man”, we cannot say since “Benson is an honest man (assumption/premise)”, therefore “Benson is an honest man (conclusion)”. Note carefully that the deduction itself is valid (If A then A is of course true but trivial), only the method is wrong. Similarly, if you want to prove “omnipotent God exists”, you can never use it as a premise in your argument. This also applies to the negative team. He (Dr. Li) cannot assume that “omnipotent God does not exist” in the first place and use it as a premise to prove that “omnipotent God does not exist”. Let’s say it one more time: it doesn’t matter who raises the issue, as long as you are on the affirmative side, you cannot presume “omnipotent God exists”; while for the negative side, he cannot presume “omnipotent God does not exist”, as simple as that. It’s perfectly fair for both sides. I don’t understand why it is so hard for you to comprehend such a simple concept? This fallacy lies under the category of “inappropriate presumption不當預設的謬誤” as proposed by Dr. Li in his so called “the four-NO structure四不架構”. It is in fact a very common mistake made by people in debates on religion. After knowing all these, you really should take back what you said below: // … incomplete analysis, drew an unfair conclusion and yet disallow the other team to do another analysis. What an easy job for the negative team! // //Back to your B & K debate, the key issue is how K can prove someone has cheated in the exam. Is it simply by allegation, by a testimony of a classmate or by a complete and powerful analysis// See? You missed the whole point again. It doesn’t matter what K does or how solid the evidence is. If this way of thinking or arguing is right, I’ll always win the debate. That’s the point! Whatever K accuses me of doing (cheating or whatever), I can always say “Benson did a dishonest act” means ““A perfectly honest man” (inappropriate assumption) did a dishonest act” and this is self-contradictory. Therefore the question itself is faulty. There will be no way for K to overthrow this proposition. Can you see how silly it is? //You keep chasing questions which I think should have already been covered in our previous argument// Yeah? Where? Can you quote those parts of our previous arguments in which my (or SC’s) questions were answered? Quote them if you can. Why didn’t you answer the questions? Don’t avoid these questions. They are not irrelevant. All my questions, my analogies and stories are not created for nothing. They are specially designed, sort of, tailor-made for you to help you understand the topic. //Okay, no matter what, I will try to entertain you after we settle this stone dilemma if you still wish to. // Take caution on your tone. I treat my analysis very seriously. You don’t need to entertain me. In fact, what you have done so far is already very entertaining to every one. Don’t think that I’ll forget. I will reminder you over and over again for those questions you refused to answer. //BTW, I also got a number of questions you haven’t answered. // Speak up. List them out and I’ll try to answer them (provided that I can comprehend what you said). //I thought we might have a sensible discussion. Maybe, I was wrong. // You make your own judgment then. When you accuse someone of doing something, give reasons. Which part of our discussion was not sensible? Why do you keep complaining yet you keep coming all the time? You may not agree but I think I am even more patient than some university professors or tutors who teach logic. May God be kind enough to give you intelligence to understand what “begging the question” means, ahmen. PS: Since Allan is eager to discuss evolution with you, I’ll leave it to him (or may be SC as well). I’ll watch on the outside and I may join if I feel like it. //Do you mind stating your understanding first as a reference? Or you want me to state mine (which is basically from my secondary school education and from TVB) first? // Why do you need a “reference”? So your knowledge of evolution comes mainly from TVB and high school? I see. It’s must be really courageous of you to challenge 方舟子 then. // I don’t want to repeat the same mistake made in the debate between Mr Lee and Horner.// What’s that supposed to mean? What mistake?

To Benson, I really admire your patience. It's entertaining and enriching. I am following closely! To JPY, //You are that kind of person I don't know how to deal with. What else can I say?// Thank you!

To Benson Thank you for your willingness to answer my questions first. 1. You said you understand I am not to prove the omnipotence of God but now you accuse me of trying to prove the omnipotence of God. Why? 2. Do you know the difference between a. To prove God is omnipotent; and b. To show there could be no self-contradiction in your analysis if God is, as you said, omnipotent. 3. Suppose I was asked “Can JPY create a stone …?”, if I answered by starting “if he is omnipotent, he can add …”, do I commit the fallacy of begging the question? 4. Why being personal? Does it help to show you are more logical?

To S.C. Thank you for your warm welcome. I am not trying to conclude “omnipotence is possible”. I am trying to conclude “if omnipotence is possible, the omnipotent being can create, lift up and add …”

to JPY //Thank you for your warm welcome. // You are welcome. :) I always believe a friendly but critical atmosphere is the best for discussion. //I am not trying to conclude “omnipotence is possible”. // If somebody tries to do that, in your own words, do you think he's wrong and why do you think so? //I am trying to conclude “if omnipotence is possible, the omnipotent being can create, lift up and add …” // Not exactly... I mean that's just your lemma, you are trying to refute somebody's proof of "omnipotence is not possible." So you assume the "negative team"'s conclusion of an argument false, to prove that it is false. Even if you don't agree with me on the above, may I ask you another question: say you and I debate 1+1>2. And I am the positive team, and you the negative. You provide a sound proof of 1+1 is not greater than 2. Okay? I guess no disputes till here. Now I give a proof like this: Assume 1+1>2, then JPY's conclusion "1+1 is not greater than 2" must be false. Is this rational to do so? Again, you don't have to reply this if you are too busy with Benson's posts. Byebye. :)

To: JPY //Thank you for your willingness to answer my questions first. // Don’t mention it. //1. You said you understand I am not to prove the omnipotence of God but now you accuse me of trying to prove the omnipotence of God. Why? // I said I understand that your INTENTION was not to prove the omnipotence of God. I did not accuse you of trying to prove the omnipotence of God; I accused you of taking “the omnipotence of God” as a premise in your argument; hence committing the fallacy of “begging the question”. //2. Do you know the difference between a. To prove God is omnipotent; and b. To show there could be no self-contradiction in your analysis if God is, as you said, omnipotent. // Yes, it’s silly but I DO know the difference. (a) is to prove a proposition and (b) is to show that there could be no self-contraction (i.e. logically possible) if you ASSUME that proposition is true. Take a look at (b) carefully. It’s not “to show that a proposition is logically possible”, it is “to show that a proposition is logically possible IF it is true”. It’s SO SILLY! If God is omnipotent (inappropriate assumption), of course there can be no contradiction for “God is omnipotent”. Can you call it rational to prove that “God is omnipotent” that way? // From JPY to SC: I am not trying to conclude “omnipotence is possible”. I am trying to conclude “if omnipotence is possible, the omnipotent being can create, lift up and add …” // Come on man , open your eyes. “if (assumption) omnipotence is possible, ------------------(***) the omnipotent being can create, lift up and add …”….blablabla and therefore; (conclusion): there can be no self-contradiction in your analysis. Note that no self-contradiction means logically possible. Therefore we can rephrase the conclusion as: (conclusion): omnipotence is (logically) possible. --------------(***) Check out the assumption and conclusion that you made. You proved A by saying “If A then A”. It’s a CIRCULAR argument. Can you see it now? ================================== Take a look at SC’s story: Debate topic: 1+1>2, Affirmative side: Benson Negative Side: JPY JPY: (after a bunch of VIGOROUS mathematical derivations)…. Therefore, we can conclude that 1+1=2 but not 1+1>2. Benson: Well if “1+1>2” then “1+1=2” must be false. JPY: Wait, you begged the question. Benson: What? I merely said “if 1+1>2” then ……”. Do you know the difference between “to prove 1+1>2” and “to show that if 1+1>2, there can be no self-contradiction for 1+1>2”? JPY: Still you begged the question. Benson: It is the negative side that brought it up. It’s your responsibility to prove, not mine. If you still call this debate FRUITFUL and the positive team diligent, so be it. //3. Suppose I was asked “Can JPY create a stone …?”, if I answered by starting “if he is omnipotent, he can add …”, do I commit the fallacy of begging the question? // YES. If “//if he is omnipotent //” is not an assumption, what the hell do you think it is? //4. Why being personal? // I am not being personal. I deal with facts. All I said about you are based on things you said so far and the way you said them. I shall regard them as appropriate and neutral comments. // Does it help to show you are more logical?// The question is “Does it help to show you are more logical”? Here “it” refers to “being personal (against JPY)”. So the whole question is “Does being personal against JPY help to show you are more logical”? This is what we called a LOADED QUESTION. Congratulations JPY, you just committed another fallacy of inappropriate presumption. No matter how I answer it, i.e., yes or no; it will imply that I accept the loaded portion of the question; i.e. “being personal against JPY”. So the first thing I have to do is to deny that inappropriate presumption which I already did. Secondly, to be logical, generally speaking, means to be able to think and analyze rationally without violating common sense (or science) and logic. Whether I am logical or not is one thing, whether I am against you (which I denied clearly) is another. The former is about the way I think while the later is about my attitude. They are not related. If you try to co-relate them (which you still haven’t), you will commit another fallacy of irrelevance. I did answer all your questions. When are you going to answer mine? ================================= To: SC Thanks for helping me out. ================================= To: 雲起 You are wrong, way wrong. It’s not對牛彈琴 , it’s對石彈琴 . Now I understand why it is called the “stone” dilemma.

對石彈琴 牛尚會吃草, 頑石又豈會點頭? 對付石靶, 不能用箭, 要用鑽 電鑽更好 用電鑽, 難免粗暴, 兼血肉模糊, 拆聲震天 又失卻箭的灑脫 但對石彈琴, 難道不是自欺欺人? 舉腳贊成用電鑽, why not personal?

牛石謠

哈哈大笑!

唔好意思, 我有讀過書 不過李先兩首詩真係好好笑 所以先我會留之前個message 篇留言冇點follow, 所以只好收口

牛是一團，石是一團 高人天人皆一團 彈琴的是一團 吟詩的都是一團 一團一團又一團 玄之又玄，予欲無言

無心插柳柳成蔭 當年 - 釣勝於魚 - 姜太公 仍有 - 願者上釣 - 失魂魚 今若 - 對石彈琴 - 草原上 或遇 - 石頭後的 - 知音人

畢竟..... 應付棍, 還是要用劍. 對棍不能用刀

給小花生 那篇留言,你沒有follow,不要緊,可以隨時加入. 因為「對石彈琴」之悲壯, 正在於論點循環往復, 無始無終, 隨時坐下欣賞而明白劇情. p/s 李博士的詩實在精采,多謝!

牛搖石 石搖牛 家住石排灣 返工牛頭角 每朝搖 每晚搖 搖了一顛華髮 暗自心驚 那無聲無息

石中神劍, 牛角尖 石頭不石投 推不動時搬不走 阿某某, 留一瀏 且看一劍鬥一牛 劍來逗, 琴來奏 角牛變覺牛 尖角不用再鑽究 但係呢~~~~~ 劍插石頭 石頭很厚 只露劍首, 兩者成一舊 扣銬, 僂摟, 斗鬥 問誰可將劍抽走? 休一休, 來, 飲酒 一流~~

To S.C. Thank you for fostering a good discussion atmosphere. Let’s have a brief review. I am not obsessed with the term omnipotence. It is not from the Bible and yet its implication is unclear. Nevertheless, God doesn’t have to be omnipotent to be almighty. Going back to the term omnipotence, I know that it is problematic and have no idea how to prove its possibilities. However, my view is that, “Given the premise of A is omnipotent, A may be able to solve the stone dilemma by creating, lifting up and adding new feature … (as suggested in my previous analysis).” However, can the above statement help to draw the conclusion of “omnipotence is possible”? No, because even though A is able to solve the dilemma, create, lift up and add new feature …, there may be other task(s) he may not be able to accomplish. Then, what did I prove? Nothing but an attempt to show how to modify the negative team's analysis. On the other hand, can we simply regard the term “omnipotence” by itself as the subject matter to be examined and take it out from the context of a debate and not to associate it with any particular being? As such, if I am to explore the implication of “omnipotence”, how can I be accused of begging the question simply because I apply the premise more than once? What is the difference among the abilities of creating, lifting up and adding new feature? If we expect an omnipotent being can create all and lift up all without committing the fallacy of begging the question, why do the grapes suddenly turn sour when we expect the omnipotent one can also add all new features? //So you assume the "negative team"'s conclusion of an argument false, to prove that it is false.// When? I haven’t. Please illustrate. Back to your example of debate over the proposition of 1+1>2, I don’t think the negative team has done a sound proof of 1+1 is not greater than 2. What I did was urging them to modify their incomplete analysis by showing an alternative way. Effectively, I am challenging the quality of their allegation (or analysis). In fact, in the alternative way I showed them, I went into their original analysis and followed every step until the point where I found it inadequate. I didn’t simply allege it. Let me give another example. Suppose a Westerner claims that it is impossible to write Chinese characters with his pen. When I offer to demonstrate him how to write, he says the pen is his and I cannot touch.

To S.C. Sorry, I missed one of your questions. //Now I give a proof like this: Assume 1+1>2, then JPY's conclusion "1+1 is not greater than 2" must be false.// No, I didn’t do what you said. Instead, I said, if 1+1>2 is true as what you said, the self-contradiction as suggested in your analysis will not take place.

To Benson Question 2: //Take a look at (b) carefully. It’s not “to show that a proposition is logically possible”, it is “to show that a proposition is logically possible IF it is true”.// No, you got it wrong. (b) means the condition of being self-contradiction as derived in your analysis will not take place if the proposition (which is put forward by you) is true. //Therefore we can rephrase the conclusion as: (conclusion): omnipotence is (logically) possible.// No, you cannot rephrase like this. The conclusion of being logically possible merely refers to the ability of creating, lifting up and adding features … (”B”) It does not imply that omnipotence is also logically possible (“A”). “If A, then B” is true doesn’t mean that “A=B” nor imply that “if B, then A”. As such, I didn’t imply that omnipotence is logically possible. Why did you feel I have claimed A is logically possible? This is because, if B is true, then you cannot disprove A. So, you think I claim A is true, which I didn’t. Back to SC’s debate example, the key issue is still there is not a sound proof for 1+1=2. The remaining argument is insignificant. Question 3: Do you mean that I have committed the same fallacy of begging the question in the exam example? If so, applying the same reasoning, the following statements must have similar problem and become invalid. Will they then imply any self-contradiction? 1. “Can gold be boiled?” “If they are heated up to their boiling point, they can.” 2. “Can 2 straight lines never intersect?” “If they are parallel, they can.” 3. “Can Mr Lee join our discussion?” “If he wishes, he can.” Question 4: //what the hell do you think it is?// Your attitude is so bad. Is that what to be expected from this discussion zone? Your Questions: //I did answer all your questions. When are you going to answer mine?// Yes, it is your turn. Please list out 4 of your questions.

To 雲起 You do it again. You successfully seduced me to talk to you again. But, you really ask a good question. //Why not personal?//

不相關 重溫不相關依然 舊事不相關低嘆 高人不相關天人 老牛可相關石頭 一樣硬皮

汗顏 太多高人，不敢獻醜。 李老師的詩，只敢說「好看」，不敢說「好」，因自覺還未有資格李老師的詩是好是壞。 汗顏汗顏

唔傷肝 唔傷肝 可傷腎 可傷心 可傷身 可傷痕/相恨 為何傷愛/相愛

請讓我說三句話 《恆真句》 我愛這詩 《經驗真句》 或 李老師因有感而發 或 李老師為詩興而來 或 李老師因有感而發並為詩興而來 《重言句》 或 李老師願意置評 或 李老師不願置評

《重溫舊事，依然低嘆》，彷似時間沒有流。 給鬥牛勇士: 遇上蠻牛，鬥牠一鬥，縱是頭牛，總會低頭 碰上石頭，鬥它一鬥，吃不完，著兜走

錯字，重貼，莫做石頭 《重溫舊事，依然低嘆》，彷似時間沒有流。 給鬥牛勇士: 遇上蠻牛，鬥牠一鬥，縱是頭牛，總會低頭 碰上石頭，鬥它一鬥，吃不完，兜著走

To JPY again. It seems that short posts are more welcome. :) Let me put it this way: A negative team gives an argument N to show omnipotence is impossible. You are trying to prove the negative team's argument is inadequate. Call your argument A. Now the negative team can also show your proof A is inadequate. The negative team's counter-proof is like this: If N is adequate, then JPY's proof A must be inadequate. Do you think you should adopt an alternative approach to prove N is inadequate? :) Bye for now.

博君一笑 其一：《修行人與水牛》 水鄉江南 煙雨杏花 有一個修行人 坐在河邊的石階 抱著優雅的古琴 對正在河邊吃草的水牛 溫柔地彈著琴弦 其二：《得道者與石頭》 莽莽乾坤 洪荒宇宙 有一個得道者 對遍地有情的石頭 欣然悠然 撫著琴弦

給鬥石勇士: 頑石本是良玉 彈琴 彈琴 感化頑石作靈猴

李教授之詩　－　霧裡看花花非花 雲水之言　－　真作假時假亦真。 偉良　－　眾人皆醉惟獨醒。

Just get interested Shouldn't the negative team be called a "affirmative team" as they wanted to prove that omnipotent is impossible? If the so-called "negative team" want to use argument N to prove that omnipotent is impossible, they should have the burden of proof of showing that N is adequate.

to Galahad //Shouldn't the negative team be called a "affirmative team" as they wanted to prove that omnipotent is impossible? // Yes, if "omnipotent is impossible" is the moot. No, if "omnipotent is impossible" is just one of the point for refuting the moot which covers other issues. //If the so-called "negative team" want to use argument N to prove that omnipotent is impossible, they should have the burden of proof of showing that N is adequate. // The person who makes the claim has the burden of proof of the claim. If the negative side states "N is adequate," it's their responsibility to show so, not the affirmative side. Thank you.

九問 JPY君不願意出招，指出演化論不當之處，又問我所指基督教教義之根本問題所指何物，我大概列出以下一些我一直以來都有的疑問，望能賜教。也許你可以解決我對神的基本疑問，然後我來解決你對演化論的基本疑問。 1/ 創造論----演化論已提供很充分的論據，解釋生物演化之源與人的誕生，你會否把聖經所述：神創造世界的章節，當作神話或比喻嗎？或許，你會否接受，神是創造演化規律的主宰，而非創世紀所寫般親力親為？ 2/ 原罪論----神創阿當夏娃，附送性器官，明明是要他們交合繁殖，以省卻神造六十億人之苦，但阿當夏娃一時衝動，卻變了原罪。──＞＞若神不打算讓人類繁殖，祂不用製造性器官。──＞＞若神本來打算讓人類繁殖，為何一時衝動又變了原罪？你會否把聖經的這些章節，當作神話看待？ 3/ 原罪之二----基督徒做錯事，刑不上上主，因為人有自由意志，不能事事怪罪神（我同意），但為何阿當夏娃的原罪，卻要每一個人承繼？（看來這個難當比喻，因為這仍是很多基督徒傳道，叫人信主得救的理據。） 4/ 亂倫----神只創造了兩個人，卻有子孫億萬，阿當和夏娃及他們的子女有亂倫嗎，若沒有，可來這麼多子孫？（請不要覺得這問題胡鬧，這的確是我以前常覺得不可解的問題。） 5/ 殘暴的神----舊約聖經的神，兇殘無道，只為猶太人著想，如何解釋呢？你會否接受舊約聖經只是猶太人的歷史和智慧書？ 6/ 新舊約的神----新約中的神，變得慈愛可親，博愛世人；與舊約的神，獨愛猶太人且兇暴，性格迴異，又如何解釋？ 7/ 三位一體----亦父亦子亦靈之說，乃後世教會所建構之神學，矛盾之處不用細說（我由小學開始已搞不明白）。你會接受「子也好，靈也好，都是神的化身」（就像觀音菩薩有千千萬萬個化身），這種說法嗎？ 8/ 全能論----神「無所不能」之說有邏輯矛盾，大家已辯論得非常晰，也不用置疑，其實只有認為神能力「極極極極大」，已可迴避，你願意退這一小步嗎？至於神「無所不在」之說，只要認為「萬物皆能彰顯神的靈性」，亦不用爭辯，你同意嗎？ 9/ 邪靈----佛教的神是邪靈嗎？道教的神是邪靈嗎？錫克教的神是邪靈嗎？回教的神是邪靈嗎？印度教的神是邪靈嗎？千百年來，各種宗教都有它的貢獻，千秋萬代，不同的人沐浴在不同教義的光輝下，若一個佛教徒告訴你，你相信的是「魔」，你會如何反應？你有何理據說你信的神是神，其他人信的是魔？ 我相信每種宗教都有它的偏執，教義畢竟是人寫的，總會有矛盾，只要放棄教條，大家後退半步，世界自然大。

To: 雲起 此石非比尋常，它是火石，接觸一久會令人「發火」。而且硬度驚人，是千年頑石。電鑽也不管用，最好用炸藥。

To: JPY Any proposition which is self-contradictory must be false and is logically impossible. Any proposition which is not self-contradictory is logically possible. Now look at what you said: //a. To prove God is omnipotent; and b. To show there could be no self-contradiction in your analysis if God is, as you said, omnipotent. // //No, you got it wrong. (b) means the condition of being self-contradiction as derived in your analysis will not take place if the proposition (which is put forward by you) is true. // self-contradiction will not take place = no self-contradiction = logically possible This is equivalent of saying “If the proposition is true, it will not be self-contradictory” which actually means “If the proposition is true, it will not be false”. You see how silly it is? (b) is ALWAYS TRUE. If A is true, of course there can be no self-contradiction in A! Everybody knows it. I think I already said enough on this. If you still think that your so-called line of reasoning (if you called that “reasoning” at all) is valid, so be it. //Back to SC’s debate example, the key issue is still there is not a sound proof for 1+1=2. The remaining argument is insignificant. // You didn’t see. The remaining argument is the ROOT of the debate, which is specially designed to help you understand how ridiculous it is to prove something by assuming that something is true in the first place. You did not see. //Do you mean that I have committed the same fallacy of begging the question in the exam example? // Again you didn’t see. I already told you what it is (in capital letters!). You just did not see. The fallacy is called “Loaded Question”. All your examples have nothing to do with this fallacy. You simply don’t get it. You wanna know what it means? Try to answer this (don’t take words seriously): “Does your stubbornness (kidding) make you a popular figure in the Christian community”? How would you answer it? Yes or no? //Your attitude is so bad. Is that what to be expected from this discussion zone? // OK I take it back. Now could you please tell me if “//if he is omnipotent //” is not an assumption, what is it? //Yes, it is your turn.// 1. Can God drive a BMW race car which is so heavy that he cannot lift up or can God use bricks to build a wall which is so tall that he cannot jump over? Yes or no? Now change “God” to “JPY” and answer again. 2. Can God predict exactly what I am going to do in the next minute? If he can, do I have free will? If not, is God omnipotent? 3. You asked “Why can’t logic be wrong” before. Can you give me one example how logic can be wrong? 4. //SC: 你現在是否同意李博士在該辯論中沒有必要證明無神論比有神論更合理﹖你是否同意要求李博士在該辯論中證明無神論比有神論更合理﹐是不合理的要求﹖ // It’s not your intelligence; it’s your mentality which hinders you from learning. You did not see and you did not listen. =========================== To: SC Seems like all our efforts are in vain. Just curious, I know you have been around, have you seen anybody like him before? Please take my turn; I am tired. ============================= To: Allan Nice said Allan. I look forward to see how JPY answer your and my questions.

辛苦各位了。 請不要說你們的努力白費，看你們的對話我獲益良多。

百分百 同意jetlap,實在要謝謝Benson,S.C.,Faustus,心沉,森,云起............................和JPY.

不可漏了謝謝Allan和andycool呀！

怎能漏謝如此高手？ 我寸,但我坦白

回雲起 唔好意思呀雲起, 您叫到,我又應該睇下篇留言, 一齊討論下, 但係我睇左頭個版,唔......係幾想睇落去, 不過有少少感想可以講一講 我諗大家對生命都有太大ge期望啦, 成日都要要求生命有大價值, 大意義, 跟住又要咬牙切齒, 又要發神經,唉.... 點解大家唔可以放鬆一下, 好似李先同韓那場辯論, 點解唔可以當一件美事咁欣賞下, 知道世界上有人咁聰明, 唔係應該好開心咩, 偏偏有人又要問咁對生命有咩意義呀d咁ge問題, 唉......悶氣 得閒應該睇下<<愛麗絲夢遊仙境>>，　ｌｅｗｉｓ carroll係clergyman, 但係佢好有智慧呀, 佢個好腦袋得閒用來寫個好故事送比個小女孩親戚, 唔係用來煩死隔離 不過我冇follow成個discussion, 所以如果我講ge野唔係好公平ge我先道歉啦! 祝早脫輪迴

To S.C. //The negative team's counter-proof is like this: If N is adequate, then JPY's proof A must be inadequate.// But my A is not like the above one. First, in my A, the presumption of omnipotence I applied once again is also the premise of N, while N in the above counter-proof is not the premise of my A. In other words, both N & A was built on the same foundation but it is not the case between A and the counter-proof. Besides, I am eligible to reapply the presumption because N adopted the approach of “Reduction to Absurdity” (have I recalled this term correctly?). However, my A has not adopted this approach. This can be easily illustrated by the following difference. 1. if my A is logical, then N must be wrong. 2. if your counter-proof is logical, my A is not necessarily illogical (or inadequate) because it still depends on whether N is adequate (which is not mutually agreed yet). Moreover, in my A, I redid N again with some modification. I don’t think you have done the same by simply making a general statement as the above counter-proof. Nevertheless, I am pleased to see how you would present it in the context of my A. On the other hand, have you considered my suggestion to take away our argument out from the context of a debate, that is, no N anymore? Is A by itself (that is “if some being is omnipotent, it can create, lift up and add new feature …”) a logical statement, which cannot be accused of committing the fallacy of begging the question?

To Others (in particular, Allan & Benson) Sorry! I am rather exhausted. Can I continue later?

改正 //我諗大家對生命都有太大ge期望啦// 改 我諗有d人.......期望啦

個討論原來好好睇，我之前無比心機睇真係走寶。我唔睇清楚又亂講野，真係慚愧。 原來自己先係石頭，一舊沉在井裏面的石頭。

回theodore 係唔係我敏感, 點解我覺得您好似話我 不過我都覺得我冇睇過篇留言就咁多野講好冇禮貌 所以特此道歉啦, 希望大家唔好見怪 同我頭先走去睇左雲起d回應 我覺得佢寫得好 但係一陣又有d黑點白紙, 頭暈暈 thoedore, 您點睇得完ｇａ？

我都無睇好耐 追番先，一日睇廿篇……得唔得呢？

小花生，我唔係話你，我係話緊自己。我都未睇完，我宜家由頭開始睇，慢慢睇，因為我每次只可以睇少少，太多會消化唔到。 令你誤會，對不起。

to JPY //But my A is not like the above one. First, in my A, the presumption of omnipotence I applied once again is also the premise of N, while N in the above counter-proof is not the premise of my A. In other words, both N & A was built on the same foundation but it is not the case between A and the counter-proof. // //Besides, I am eligible to reapply the presumption because N adopted the approach of "Reduction to Absurdity" (have I recalled this term correctly?). However, my A has not adopted this approach. This can be easily illustrated by the following difference. 1. if my A is logical, then N must be wrong. 2. if your counter-proof is logical, my A is not necessarily illogical (or inadequate) because it still depends on whether N is adequate (which is not mutually agreed yet). // Not really, the assumption of "omnipotence being possible" is NOT a premise of N. N can be formulated as: If God is able to make stone he is unable to lift, he is unable to lift all stones he is able to make, so He is not omnipotent; If God is unable to make stone he is unable to lift, he is not omnipotent. So God is not omnipotent. This is the argument of N spelt out. There is no premise of "omnipotence is possible." //Moreover, in my A, I redid N again with some modification. I don’t think you have done the same by simply making a general statement as the above counter-proof. Nevertheless, I am pleased to see how you would present it in the context of my A. // At your service. "I went into your original analysis and followed every step until the point where I found it inadequate. I didn’t simply allege it. If N is adequate to show omnipotence is impossible, then omnipotence is impossible, your very first premise in A is false. So you must modify your argument A in some alternative way," so said the negative side. :) //On the other hand, have you considered my suggestion to take away our argument out from the context of a debate, that is, no N anymore? Is A by itself (that is "if some being is omnipotent, it can create, lift up and add new feature...") a logical statement, which cannot be accused of committing the fallacy of begging the question? // If omnipotence being possible or not is not the moot, no, you won't commit "the fallacy of begging the question" just by stating "if some being is omnipotent, it can create, lift up and add new feature...." The problem is: even "if some being is omnipotent, then ...", it doesn't imply anything can create.... As you have said, you don't know if omnipotence is possible or not. You cannot prove it. So the antecedent is a statement in doubt. * * * Do you think proof by contradiction (Reduction to Absurdity) a logical way of proof? Say, to prove I am not black and non-black by indirect proof: Assume S.C. is black and non-black. If S.C. is black, he has black skin. If S.C. is non-black, he doesn't have black skin. Therefore S.C. has black skin and S.C. doesn't have black skin. This is a contradiction, so "S.C. is black and non-black" is false. This was an example I used in a logic tutorial. All students understood it. Do you think this is adequate to show "S.C. is black and non-black" is false? I noticed hostility is bad for discussion. I am eager to let you know I don't really care about who "wins" the debate. What is important is we can learn from the discussion, and can find out our mistakes from it. So sincerity and a friendly attitude is invaluable. You take some rest; no hurry to reply. :)

Why keep arguing? Isn't the so-called "omnipotence that does not include doing logically impossible things" the same as 「至能」? If so, why all you ladies and gentlemen waste your time here? Why don't you just stop this worthless debate and go out to enjoy your life?

P.S. Life is short, you know.

他們在討論邏輯問題,都唔係講緊全能至能定係乜東東能的問題了

哲道十四闕 李博士可否透露一下往後著作中會寫d 乜？是否仍會寫關於思考方法? thx

sorry... 之前個問題post錯地方...

I am amazed… and amused… you guys began discussing the topic in early Nov and now it is already Dec… heheee… I really appreciate S.C., Benson, Allan, Faustus, 心沉, 森 and many others’ patience. JPY simply cannot grasp the method of proof by contradiction. This is really incredible… this method is so simple and elegant. And we (should) have come across this so many times during high school, especially in math class (like Euclid’s famous proof that the square root of 2 is not a rational number). I bet it is JPY’s prejudices that prevent him from thinking clearly. Yes, the challenge to think better is the challenge to integrality. One piece of advice for JPY (I learned this principle from my statistics class): Never assign a probability of 1 to any event. In other words, one has to keep in mind that he might be wrong. Be open-minded. To others: life is short and have fun!

a typo should read: the challenge to think better is the challenge to integrity.

Just wanna scribble down some thoughts before JPY answers my questions. If you are observant enough, you will notice that JPY has great difficulties understanding the method of “reduction to absurdity”. Also there has been great change of JPY’s attitude towards the term “omnipotence”. //JPY 2002-11-13 01:45:45 I also don’t understand why you query about the well-known fact of omnipotent God. // When he first joined the discussion, he claimed that omnipotence is a WELL-KNOWN FACT. //JPY 2002-11-30 00:23:43 Going back to the term omnipotence, I know that it is problematic and have no idea how to prove its possibilities. However, can the above statement help to draw the conclusion of “omnipotence is possible”? No, because……// After struggling for half a month, he again switched his tone and for the very first time, he admitted that the term is PROBLEMATIC and he has no idea how to prove it. This change is in fact extremely drastic. (Question: does it mean that he is improving?) At this point, any saint person should regard this term as at least “doubtful”, if not impossible. Now the negative term’s argument is: If God can create a stone which he cannot lift up, he is not omnipotent. If God cannot create a stone which he cannot lift up, he is still not omnipotent. Therefore, God is not omnipotent at all. JPY has no idea how to prove omnipotence of God. His usual strategy is to “ASSUME” that omnipotence is possible, and then ……blablabla,….and the contradiction in the negative team’s analysis can not take place. That’s what he said. He still insists that it’s OK to do so. But the question is: how can you take something which is still in doubt for granted and treat it as a premise in your argument without committing a mistake?

今天的聖經不是神的話語 今天的聖經內容，和古老的聖經是不同的！一千年前羅馬教會聖經𥚃的神，不是全能者！是一個為世人流下他的寶血，為世人和神立約！使人的原罪因為信誓他定下的義或他定下的律法！人會因此得到神的救因！ 神的話語，因為國家的利益、戰爭的利益、教會的利益、人民的利益或一些人士的個人利益！因此出現了一些改變！ 古時教會的成立、存在、牧者修女等生活開支大都是大地主、商人、地方政府做支持人！平民百勝是沒有聖經的！製作給平民或奴隸看或聆聽會的聖經，九成九點九以上都一些洗腦的內文！ 時間久了，因此聖經的板本出現多如銀河的星星一樣的多！教區因為需求及教區也需要資金去生活！因為創造了兩個板本的聖經！賣自己板權的聖經！好像現有的教科書一樣年年改板、時常放變聖經的插圖！聖經的內容一改了，就要你一定要買本新的！又好像香港六七十年代的小巴、的士要每星期買一章生肖圖像，才可以做生意！ 時代和經濟改變了，出現了一些中產家庭或叫做行為相對主意的人士！對教會的做法不滿！當時一本聖經可能是一些中產家庭全年收入的一半或以上才能買到一本聖經！又好像今天的房地產的按揭一樣！我們今天是一間大大的私人空間，但當年是一本改了一些字眼及插圖的書，你有了它！神或教會會保你的事業可以有明天。當你因為買了聖經而破產的話！不是教會的錯，這是神的旨意！ 因此或其他等原因，出現了其他的教會！這些教會為了和別的教會有所分別，因此自己也出板自已的聖經！最大的教會又好像現今的香港，因為有了一些固定的開支！但收入減少了！因此發動一些聖戰！望聖經的收入統一為自己！死傷者都是神的門徒！人們為了被開戰火！很多人因此背棄教會！ 人們信神是信牠的愛、牠的救因！因此把自己的財富做教會的養份！但教會要他們去送死！背倒了他們加入教會的原因！因此流失了很多的信徒！聖戰因此停此！聖經為了再次給納走了的信徒，因此又作出一些大改變！ 社會富裕了！教會富也裕了！巨大了！古時農業社會時常出現天災！使一些地方教區因此破產及做假賬！教會的分支多了、錢也多了！內政管理，教會也需要使用！因此加入了工商管理學，以及為了聖經和工商管理學的內容或為了教會可以生活在下去！聖經和傳道工作內容慢慢出現了改變！ 一千年前神有愛世人的心！愛是可以包容世人的一切，因此愛成了全能的愛！今天或近代的神，成了全能者！把全能的能源，變成全能的實物！只為了生存！教會這些做法改變了神的一些話語！可能因此出現了不同大小的戰災！今天的教會為了自已過去的首席代表，因此尊古卑今！把真正的聖經或真正的神之話語或古老的聖經放入香港的２３條之沉箱！ 今天的[論証神存在]事工，成了絕路！好像早期的中共政府，只有幾百個中文字可以使用！很多詞語不能使用！在這些不利論証神的條件之下，去談論神的存在、大能、救因等事情是不智的！ 一些手握權力、真理的公社，為了原罪；先人留下的過失；聖人是完美的，不可以傷害！而使神發出七次號角！叫教會改正全部！如果他們不願意的話，神將會使其消失！因為今天出土了很多早期的聖經！你不去改！你消失了！就有其他人會去做！因為這是天命！ 為甚麼早期的聖經和現在的戰災出現得一樣的多呢！因為神要他們改正回真正的聖經！因而出土！

康慈 因此聖經的板本出現多如銀河的星星一樣的多！ 你在那裡得出這個資料的?..can u tell me?I really want to know 你所指的內容不同是指解法不同?或者是篇章不同?

A supplement. I am still waiting for JPY’s reply. I hope this time he is really resting but not avoiding. The root of the problem lies in the stone dilemma. So I dug up his old message on this topic and tried to re-think what he was trying to say. I went through the message line-by-line to see if I could find out any clue. As usual, I failed. // JPY 2002-11-10 00:13:06 The Stone Dilemma Suppose God was asked this stone dilemma once again, but I think this is too easy, so I add some more restrictions on this creation exercise. The stone needs to be, 1. so heavy that God is unable to lift up; and 2. so big that God is unable to hold. // Note that both 1 and 2 are PRACTICALLY possible. A human being can create a stone which is so heavy that he is unable to lift up; while at the same time, the size of the stone is so big that he is unable to hold. A stone which is heavy and big is not so strange to any one, is it? //It seems that God now still needs to face a similar problem. However, we continue to impose more and more restrictions, the stone needs to be 1. so heavy that He is unable to lift up; 2. so big that He is unable to hold; and 3. so smart that it will not trap God like the first 2 stones // Now 3 is really incomprehensible! What does it mean that “a stone needs to be SMART”? How can a stone be smart? What does it mean that “it will not trap God like the first 2 stones”? Trap how? If 1 and 2 are practically possible, why are they traps? Did “smart” here mean that it is “less heavy that He is able to lift up and less big that He is able to hold”? If so, 3 and 1 and 2 are conflicting to each other. A stone can not be 1, 2 and 3 at the same time. Did he say ONE stone or THREE stones? It’s really confusing. He said more restrictions imposed on “THE” stone (single, not plural) and then in 3, he said “like the first TWO stones”. How many stones were there? Did 1, 2 and 3 refer to the same stone (i.e. 1, 2 & 3 imposed on the same stone) or three different stones respectively (i.e. 1 for stone 1, 2 for stone 2 and 3 for stone 3)? The former case is self-conflicting while the later case did not help much (remember either case 1 or 2 alone is enough to overthrow the omnipotence of God). //Now, since God is omnipotent, I am sure He can create the third stone, which comprises all the characteristics of the first 2 stones. Of course, we know that there are always some smarter persons than the third stone, // This is where the mistake came from. JPY assumed “God is omnipotent”. What does it mean “there are always some smarter persons than the third stone”? Did he compare people with (smart) stone? Is JPY smarter than the third stone? // a new question about the fourth stone may be, can God create a stone which is 1. so heavy that He is unable to lift up; 2. so big that He is unable to hold; and 3. not so smart that it will still trap God like the first 2 stones? // One thing common about 3: it is still incomprehensible. //Following the same "logic" as the third stone, God can illustrate His omnipotence by creating the fifth stone, which is 1. … 2. … 3. … 4. so stupid that God can easily handle it so as to not trap the God Himself? // I wonder if there are any “smart” persons who can follow his “logic”. I wonder if there is anyone on earth who can comprehend “creating the fifth stone, which is so stupid that God can easily handle it so as to not trap the God Himself”. If I wrote something like that in my English exam, I would have flunked it big time. May be I am not smart enough to understand him. Compared to the “smart stone”, my stupidity is obvious. If any one knows what JPY was trying to say in that message, please let me know. Thanks in advance.

送給各位一首唔知應該叫也的東東 冷卻充滿熱血的腦袋 閉上充滿紅根的眼睛 看看自己匆匆的留言 有無漏洞?有無漏洞? 看穿自己的詭辯 需要反省， 承認自己在詭辯 需要勇氣。 送出之前， 先想一想。

聖經是神的話 有一些定義對我們認定聖經是神的話有很大的幫助。 那些接受聖經是神的話的人，常被指責為按"字面"接受聖經。 那問題是：「你相信聖經的字面意義嗎？」這與另一個問題：「你是否停止打你的太太了？」一樣，無論回答“是”或“不是”，答的人都等於承認有罪。若碰到這問題，要先小心弄清楚“字面”一詞的定義。照字面接受聖經並不表示我們不承認聖經裡面語言運用的方式。當以賽亞說：「田野的樹木也都拍掌」（以賽亞書五十五 12），詩篇作者說：「大山踴躍如公羊」（詩篇一一四 4、6），照字面接受聖經的人，並不會完全照字面意思來解釋它們。聖經裡面有詩歌、有散文，也有其它形式的文體。我們相信，聖經的解釋應該按照作者的原意來了解，這和我們讀報紙的原則一樣。此外，要分解作者希望讀者了解的字面解釋也是相當容易的。 這個觀點和那些不按“字面”接受聖經的人之觀點不同。縱使有些地方，字面的意思已很明顯，他們卻常常按私意強解聖經。他們指出，聖經所記的某些事件（例如人的墮落、神跡）是沒有事實根據的故事，目的只傳達奧妙的屬靈真理而已。 持這種觀點的人說，伊索（Aesop）的寓言《殺鵝取金卵》所傳達的真理，並不在乎字面的事實，所以我們不必堅持聖經所記事件的歷史性，只要領會和欣賞其真理就夠了，有些近代的作家甚至把這原則應用在耶穌基督釘十架和復活的事上。所以「按字面接受聖經」是一種模糊的說法，為了避免更大的混亂，應該小心界定這句話。 〇 我們必須清楚地界定另一個非常重要的字眼––“無謬誤”。 無謬誤一詞包含什麼意思？又不包含什麼意思？若清楚地界定了這一點，即可避免許多混亂。我們要避免一種試探，那就是把我們二十世紀研究科學和歷史的准確標准強加在作者的身上，例如：聖經是根據現象描寫事物––那就是憑外表所見。聖經說太陽升起和落下，現在，我們知道太陽實際沒有升起落下，而只是地球自轉。可是我們雖然身在科學時代，仍然沿用“旭日東升”“夕陽西下”等詞句，因為這樣比較方便描寫我們所看到的現象。正因為這樣，當聖經按現象描寫事物時，我們不能怪責聖經有錯，因為它所用的這種說法，各世代、各種文化的人都可清楚明白。 古代對於歷史事物准確性的要求與今日的不同，有時只用大約的數目，而不記確實的數字。我們知道警察估計群眾的數目，是不夠精確的，但一個大概數字就已達到目的。 有些表面上的錯誤，顯然是抄寫上的錯，這就是說，要確定原文的真義，必須要有小心的工作。我們將會在討論“聖經文獻可靠嗎”那一章，較詳細討論這個問題。 我們目前還不能解釋一些問題，這是我們必須坦然承認的。不過我們要記住，正如過去常常在新的資料發現之後，一些不能解釋的問題即迎刃而解。所以合理的態度是，碰到有顯然沖突的地方，暫時按下不提，承認我們不知道怎樣解釋，並且等候新資料的出現。問題的存在，並不足以攔阻我們接受聖經為超自然的神的話語。 卡內耳（Carnell）扼要地說： 「奇怪的是很少人注意到，科學和基督教之間，有一個極類似之處，基督教假定聖經所有的內容是超自然的，而科學家也假定自然界之一切是合理的、是秩序井然的，其實兩者都是假說––都不是根據全部的證據，而是根據“大部分”的證據。科學熱切地主張，自然界的一切都是機械化的，然而，事實上，正如海森堡（Heisenberg）的“不確定原理”所說的，神秘的電子在不穩定地到處跳躍。為什麼自然界有這許多似乎不合他們假設的地方，科學界仍認為自然中一切都是機械化的？答案是，因為觀察所得的“大部分”自然現象部符合浸規律，所以最好的假設是其余的部分也都一樣。」 〇 聖經是神的話的另一個證據是，其中相當多的預言都應驗了。 這些預言並非那些江湖相士之類含糊的預言，例如「你很快便會認識一位英俊不凡的男士」這類預言很容易引起誤解。聖經中許多預言都精確地講出枝節，而先知皆以此為其權威和真實性的根據。聖經本身就清楚地說，預言的應驗足以證明先知的話是來自超自然的（耶利米書二十八 9）。預言的落空即可揭穿先知的假面具：「你心裡若說，耶和華所未曾吩咐的話我們怎能知道呢？先知托耶和華的名說話，所說的若不成就，也無效驗，這就是耶和華所未曾吩咐的，是那先知擅自說的，你不要怕他。」（申命記十八 21、22） 以賽亞把假先知的露出原形和他們的預言落空聯在一起：「你們可以聲明、指示我們將來必遇的事，說明先前的是什麼事，好叫我們思索，得知事的結局，或則把將來的事指示我們。要說明後來的事，好叫我們知道你們是神。」（以賽亞書四十一 22 至 23） 預言有不同的種類。一類是預言彌賽亞主耶穌基督之來臨，另一類是預言特殊的歷史事件，還有一類預言是關於猶太人的。非常值得注意的是，早期的門徒常引用舊約的預言，來顯示耶穌實現了許多年前的預言的細節。 這些預言我們只能提一提某些具有代表性的。我們的主曾引述有關他自己的預言，而那是歷史上聖經研究最精彩的一次。在往以馬忤斯的路上，他和兩個門徒談話時，他說：「無知的人哪！先知所說的一切話，你們的心信得太遲鈍了。……於是從摩西和眾先知起，凡經上所指著自己的話，都給他們講解明白了。」（路加福音二十四 25 至 27） 以賽亞書五十二章 13 節到五十三章 12 節是有關基督的預言中最特出的一個例子，它的偶然性絕不可能是為了應驗預言而事先安排的。其中包括了他的生平、他的傳道工作被拒絕、他的死、他的埋葬、他對不公義審判程序的反應等。 彌迦書五章 2 節是有關基督以及歷史細節預言的驚人例證。「伯利恆以法他啊，你在猶大諸城中為小。將來必有一位從你那裡出來，在以色列中為我作掌權的。他的根源從亙古、從太初就有。」強大的該撒亞古士督親自下了一道命令，才使這預言實現。 預言不只論到彌賽亞，也有提及列王、列國、諸城的。也許最值得注意的是推羅城一事（以西結書二十六章）。那裡一連串詳細的細節，說明了推羅將怎樣被毀滅、完全地破壞，以及它將怎樣永遠荒廢（第 4 節）。這預言在尼布甲尼撒的攻擊和亞歷山大大帝野蠻的猛烈攻擊下應驗了。這明顯地證明了聖經中先知預言的准確性和真實性。 最後，還有值得注意的是有關猶太人––以色列人––的預言，不過，我們還是只能引述這些令人咋舌的預言中的一小部分而已。 摩西和何西阿曾預言過以色列人的分散。「耶和華必使你敗在仇敵之前。你從一條路去攻擊他們，必從七條路逃跑。你必在天下萬國中拋來拋去。」（申命記二十八 25）「我的神必棄絕他們，因為他們不聽從他，他們也必飄流在列國中。」（何西阿書九 17）預言也提及過他們的受逼迫凌辱：「我必使他們交出來，在天下萬國中拋來拋去，遭遇災禍，在我趕逐他們到的各處，成為凌辱、笑談、譏刺、咒詛。」（耶利米書二十四 9）耶利米書三十一章中有一個叫人驚訝的預言––以色列要復國。歷世以來，這是一件不可想象的事。可是，從今天我們世界上的一些事件看來，這些預言至少已經部分應驗了。所有的觀察家都同意，1948 年以色列的復國，是我們這世代其中一件奇異的政治現象。人不能否定預言應驗的實況，特別是由於很多預言不可能是在事後才寫的。

Behave yourself！ 康慈，please behave yourself！

TO web copier 作者是神的話,自然知道太陽不是升起,地球不是平,用人看到那樣所以才出錯就說明了那不是直接由神說出而人筆錄的了,也就包含了很多寫的人希望加入的訊息,好像是猶太賤民屠城,殺親人朋友,強佔人妻女等行為是正義而受祝福的(說我反猶太吧,我會認的,只要他們一天不放棄他們的宗教) 而以色列的問題,可以用自我實現的預言來說明,不是聖經說中了,只是人們根著聖經去做,要是那也是預言,我們也可以說電視機的手冊也是預言,因為你總得會根著它說的去做

送給康慈 6o_0 ??? (此乃丈八金剛勢)

石頭琴 牛皮琴 像無聲

我例出兩個例子！ 我例出兩個例子！ 假如耶穌是創造天地的造物主，命令耶穌出生在或將來會路過一個漁港！ 耶穌在那裡大聲說：我是造物主的使者，你們有甚麼需要我幫忙呢？ 漁夫上前說道：你是造物主的使者！那麼我是你老祖宗等說話！講完這種說話之後，向我說這𥚃的海出現兩條鯨魚，這裡成了牠們的家！我們的漁船不能出海。這𥚃的人幾天才吃一餐！你有否能力把這兩個問題解決呢？你成功的話，我就相信你！ 昨天的時間過去了！眾人早上起來發現山上面，轉來食物的香氣？山上出現兩條被雷煮燃過的鯨魚及五個很大的俄梅珥嗎哪！ 耶穌在山上等他們上來，為他們分食物！ 時間又流逝！教皇被人問道今是所有教會、神職人員也是你去管理！教皇你自己又公告天下，你自己是除了耶穌基督之外，在地上是教皇我來管理教會的！ 那麼我們的人民無錢開飯！教皇大人你可否好像，聖經裡的耶穌一樣變出五餅二魚呢！[康慈小時候約五歲，知道有教皇的存在時想到的問題！] 教皇及教會為了不會給別人攻擊他們的領導能力，因此變成只有五餅二魚的神跡！ 成為教皇的基本條利是能夠使用多個國家的語言！因此把巴別塔的工人說成是使用同一樣的語言，之後神怒了！把他們的語言分成不同的語言！ 等我把他破妄返真吧！破綻是建造一個巨大的建築物時！有幾點是必要的：運送建材、施工、送出命令和一定要完整地收到命令！運送建材及各部門的施工指令，如果在近距離用語言發出命令的話都不會有甚麼問題！但在十樓、五十樓、一百樓等地方用語言轉至地上或貨運站時！是會出錯的！但使用手語或一些身體動作去轉至遠處是很少會錯的！ 中世紀歐洲的獵魔女時代，其中的生存者是！包括芭蕾舞和默劇！今天的歐洲或中世紀的歐洲，默劇的地位是很高的，有些人會說默劇的地位是比神的地位低一級的！過去去歐洲玩，踏入第一個到達的廣場，一定要表演一兩手默劇的表演！你才可以在歐洲玩得開心！及會有好運的出現！

我將來抓多Ｄ錢，買多啲麵粉送給那些有需要的人，代替耶穌！ 康慈小時候去羅馬親身問過當今的教皇，你可以好像耶穌基督一樣變出食物嗎？在沙漠上把石頭變成麵包嗎？埃賽俄比亞等地的人無野食，Ｄ有錢佬又唔送他們食物！如果教皇大人能夠像耶穌一樣，石頭變麵包、打一下石頭可以有水出來！五餅二魚可以食之不盡！有多好呢！ 教皇回答小時侯的康慈！這是只有耶穌基督才可以行的神跡！...... 我好像回答說，耶穌真是小家子！如果教皇也有耶穌的這個變麵包能力的話那麼我將來抓多Ｄ錢，用一半的收入買多啲麵粉，自己做麵包送給那些有需要的人，代替耶穌！ 神官和康慈說：耶穌話過要把十份一的收入交給教會，教會也需要去幫助很多有需要的人！ 康慈回答說：那麼我用十份之六的收入買麵粉，自己親自做麵包給有需要的人[回香港之後時常親手做麵包送給有需要的人]！

Re:Re:「也」 係「乜」唔係「也」， 謝指正。 無想過寫詩， 但不願寫「詩」。 但願我的東東， 係詩， 唔係「詩」

給小花生 你祝我早脫輪迴, 我也祝你早日升天! 那篇留言越來越長, 我都開始睇到頭暈.

也祝聖誕新年情人節快樂 李博士: 找了好久, 才看到你的留言, 差點錯過了! 這是好久好久以前的留言了, 你是剛剛看的嗎?

給小花生 我終於睇完啦 如果你未睇完，我建議你可以睇 benson 的summary，可以節省很多時間。

更正 像無聲 石頭琴 牛皮琴

給雲起 雲起, 唔係呀, 我唔係咒你呀, 我話早脫輪迴個意思指祝你快快脫離場日月無光的討論, 因為你話佢論點重覆, 講完又講咪好以大輪迴咁, 所以我希望佢地快點覺悟啫 你做咩又祝我早日成仙呀? 唔係好friendly喎, 不過有神仙做我都唔好"新", 周圍fai黎fai去玩一下都好啦!

給theodore theodore 唔好意思, 係我多心啦就真! 我會去睇下benson的summary 有野講就會加下把咀

大洪水之謎 康慈的留言把李天命先生或一些人些的一些思想或一些東西折翼！我不是為了自大而自大！只是神祕或起越，成了傳統框框之內的人之利器！ 時代變了，知識或知性之旅的大門因上網的方法而大開了！神可能只有一個，但神的使者可以有很多個！普通人和使者的分別，可能沒有太大分別！一些不普通的普通人可以用一些策略性的方法，把自己偉大起來！使者也可以使用一些奇跡或策略性的方法，偉大起來！使者有善也有惡！ 大洪水的歷史或傳說，為甚麼世界各地都有呢！史前的陸地上的生物為甚麼只有一些小型的及可以在天空上飛行的翼龍生存到現代呢？ 古時太平洋上面有一個大島國！它下沉至水底！地質學家分析說，這個大島的地下是一個中空的島！如果一個大型的島陸沉的話，它的影響力可能是，或一定比現今的所有兵器強大得多！ 一但沉沒，海水會因大氣的力量及重量壓下，使其以向心的環形方法向內極速及強烈地去修保，因大陸而消失的空間！這個環形的力量最終到達中心點之後！在物理角度會因此激射出一條可能激上雲海的水柱！水柱落下的方法和核子彈爆發時一樣！因為強力的秒殺能力，因此某些空間的質量消失！外邊的壓力和這秒殺能量到達臨界點，而向內以暴走的方式強奪中心點！因為太多太過暴力傾向的力量集結在一起！因為神只有一個，所以其他的都要彈開！所以用破壞周為的東西和生命來逃避自己不是神的那股罪惡惑！ 全世界的陸地因此給包在海𥚃！ 為甚麼太平洋國的地方是中空呢！史前是沒有飛機的！但有巨大的恐龍和人類共同生存！只要把恐龍順服人類的話，牠們成為人類的大型工具，把地下的開拓出通向世界各地的地下道或水道！ 現今世界各國也發現很多的地下空洞！如果把它們劃在地圖上！再加一點點的想像力，大多數的空洞都是互相連結！ 美國西部有一個很出名的荒漠之地，那𥚃有很多山上平源，大多數的高度誤差都是一樣的！使用想像力，在上面放上一大片的草源！那些山成了柱！那片草源因為大洪水的水壓及海水把那𥚃的植物殺死！因此使大地的張力消失倒下，成了只有柱的荒漠！

問一問康慈 你的故事聽過一o的 卻未聽過大洪水同地下空洞呢兩parts 想知是不是同一個作者的 我也想看看，可惜還未有時間

再送給康慈 60_o ??? (此乃丈八金剛向右之勢) PS: 不要再睇法輪功的東西了.... :)

TO: 東壁及其他網友 康慈的創作靈感很豐富，假作真時真亦假，他絕對有資格問鼎諾貝爾文學獎．有誰知道康慈君的來歷嗎？

東壁上一個留言是第300則 無心插柳柳成蔭 霎時驚幸勝苦等 make a mark for everyone 方便自己方便人

To 雲起 就我所知，康慈君來自古時太平洋上面一個只有兩個民族居住的大島國，或是小島國（國王要是看到請勿見怪），在島國下沉之前，之時或之後經由空路，水路，或地下陸路在沒有家屬陪同之下，自力或得友人協助或他人指示而成功逃出至本地而幸存的唯一或其中一人或一民族中的一人，又或是在島國下沉之前因旅遊，或公事，或經濟，或種族，或政治因素而暫時或永久在本地停留或居留的一人或一民族中的一人 以上只是我對康慈君的一點認識，老虎上的鈴子始終只能有一人或一民族中的一人能成功除下 要是我對康慈君的所作的來歷有誤差，請康慈君加以見諒或見諒點出或見諒點正，謝謝！

to 雲起 俾料：法輪人馬

// 假作真時真亦假 // 把假料說成是真料, 就是造謠. 聲稱是真的其實卻是假的, 就是說謊.

給森 (如果佢仲係度) 如果你追求美善的生活, 我會建議你: 在生活中好好修行, 好過係網上發牙痕 我無禮貌, 但請不要對我切齒痛恨

昨天的飯可以今天吃！但十年前的飯留到今天吃！又會怎樣呢？ 轉法輪那步書康慈在十多年前看過兩次！有小量或部份的內容是有深度的！其他大多數好像是國家準許的文字或文句！它在當今的香港及台灣的語理上，整体來說可以叫做不知所為！但在中國當代的條件之下，康慈就寫不出這些東西！如果把它轉成是一間外資企業進入大多數的國家進行投資！[香港除外，因為香港是一個自由貿易區！] 大多數的國家要求外資公司投入全數的資金去投資，但那外資企業需要有一半或多過一半的股權，無條件地送給當地政府或和政府有勾結的商人！有時又會把一些快破產的公司送給你管治１年至１０年！那些外資不幫它還錢的話，那麼他們的資產也因此被當地政府食下！ 看事物的角度和氣量！是可以看出你的能力及內在的！李天命先生說轉法輪那步書有很多的錯誤訊息，但沒有說出作者的寫作背景！可能過十年、百年之後轉法輪那些年代的書會消失，但也有可能成了中國經濟起飛的神秘之謎的一個討論區！那時法輪功也可能無了！因為它只是生存在中共主意之上的生命體！當母公司要求它消失時，它的員工當言會反對！就好像給自己最相信及自豪的上司下令，你的一生錯了，你的生活方法和我們新建立的文化有出入！因此我們不需要你，對不起！之前也喑示了要你們改變！只是你和一些人下不去改進至我的要求！因此我代表公司向你說聲對不起！ 法輪功也好、股匯市場也好、公共企業或私人企業也好、我們的家族或家庭等都會發生這些事。昨天的飯可以今天吃！但十年前的飯留到今天吃！又會怎樣呢？

生命之泉 有趣的問題！ 人類發現很多的地下水道及古代地下湖！大多數都是淡水的！ 很多生物及人類的血是咸的，古時的生物因大洪水而死！它們體內的鹽份，因此流入海洋！ 古時的海水會否只是淡水？生命之泉會否是鹽呢？

發夢 la ~~~ 阿康慈 ： 你發夢好 la ，唔好發唔知 d 乜野 ah ，要乖 d 呀， 知冇 ~~ ？ 如果唔係，我實會大義滅「親」，打沉你 ga。

補 d 爛野 女媧娘娘叫我叫你地執哂的頑石俾阿女媧娘娘，等阿女媧娘娘再煉吓一舊舊 d 石喎。 不過十三點諗阿女媧娘娘都冇乜野可以做到個囉。一陣間舊石跌番落黎，你唔死我死，煩死 ah！

小花生小花生小花生 我祝你早日登天唔係咒你呀, 只係希望大家一齊同登極樂, 有緣相見O者.

讚美你 康慈： // 看事物的角度和氣量！是可以看出你的能力及內在的！// 拿，阿康慈，雖則係你講 ge ，不過今次 可以入我數架！ 你 ge 意思係唔係話阿李天命博士個心胸寬、氣度好，但嚮適當 d 時候，又會容天下難容之任、笑世間可笑之人 ah ？例如個 d 乜野人咁o羅。 我呢次好 ~ 醒 ~ 架 ~，唔會開口夾著「利」架 la！

To：過氣偵探 我講既野，係幫雲起解畫既，同你無關架，唔好誤會呀。

十三點、康慈、叮噹, 您們好 我下班啦! 拜拜!

諾斯特拉達姆士 一九九九年的第七個月 恐怖大王從天而來 他帶回蒙古的偉大國王 此前此後被火星所統治 一九九九年的七月， 恐怖大王將從天而降， 為了使安哥爾摩亞大王復活， 在那前後的期間，馬斯將在幸福之名下出兵統治。 一九九九年布殊登上美國最高權力，成了可以使用核子等生化武器的王，布殊為了使美國因金融風暴之後經濟復興，及一些高級的財經官員的威名復活！因此在光和暗的地方做一些事情！布殊可能自己破壞自己的國家或殺害自己的國民。布殊之後使用：我為了我國的人民幸福，因此出兵爆一些沒甚麼人居住的山區！ 美國因此可以把金融方針的錯誤之視線，轉為這是別國的策略性攻擊。美國之前也和穌聯進行太空科技的比賽，美國出貓放一些自欺欺人的月球登陸電影，全球同時公演！ 如果美國不是出貓，過了這麼多年之後。為甚麼今天都沒有月球殖民地或大量的月球之石！ 是誰給這樣不正直、不實在的國家可以生存到今天呢？是神？是造物主？是羅馬教區？右或者是地上的主人魔鬼？

火　星（Mars） 火星有兩個衛星，美國也有兩個國土！康慈在此不是要美國食死貓！只是太合得來了！ 平均距日（半長徑） 1.524AU／227.9百萬公里 偏心率 0.093 軌道對黃道交角 1.9度 恆星週 687.01日 會合週 779.9日 平均軌道速度 24.08km/s 昇交點黃經 49度33分54.0秒 近日點黃經 336度02分56.4秒 衛星數 2個 赤道直徑 　　　　　　　6,794km 體積（地為1） 0.151 質量（地為1） 0.1070 密度（水為1） 3.93 表面重力（地為1） 0.38 脫離速度 5.02km/s 自轉週期 1.0260日 赤道面對軌道面交角 25.19度 表面溫度 －140∼20℃ 反照率 0.15

啟示錄 聖經密碼記錄在創世記、出埃及記、利未記、民數記和申命記！律令有云，過去、現在到時間終了，一切都包羅在摩西五書。如果這是真實的話！為甚麼新約的最後，會有一個啟示錄呢？牠也有一些事情是發生在近代的！也有一些好像和古代的恐龍有關的！ 康慈假定啟示錄是一步人和恐龍等巨大生物，一同生活過的古事記之改編！以及創世記第六章好像暗示有一位領導人及他的同伴！他的同伴之子女可能有些神秘力量或超越人的力量，第六節的走獸、昆蟲、飛鳥和第七節的挪亞要帶的七公七母等畜類是不同的！ 第六節的走獸、昆蟲、飛鳥是代表恐龍等生物！ 第七節的挪亞要帶的七公七母等畜類是代表現今之生態！ 啟示錄如果牠物寫成使後世感到罪和因果的驚魂記。但也想人們知道他們的早先之過作。人們又驚神會把牠們復話，因為把部份的聖經密碼寫出來。使其成為一步驚醒後人的道德書！

更正 啟示錄如果牠物寫成使後世感到罪和因果的驚魂記。但也想人們知道他們的早先之過失。又怕人們驚神會把那些巨大生物復活，因此把部份的聖經密碼寫出來。使其成為一步驚醒後人的道德書！

Headache Believe it or not, having taking a rest of about one week (I didn’t even turn on my PC), I got headache almost immediately after I came back here. I guess I would not come back as frequently as I used to be.

To Allan, I am afraid that I cannot start a new discussion/argument with you (at least for the time being). Indeed, I have tried but I found that I just couldn’t explain your queries in a few paragraphs. Maybe, next time when we have time and/or energy, we can examine them one after one.

To Benson, For your last 2 posts, can I summarize as follows? You claimed that, 1. my suggestion to add new feature the stone in question is unreasonable because it is a task that normal beings are not able to achieve; and 2. I have “changed” since I have changed my stance from insisting omnipotence to not insisting anymore. If I didn’t interpret them wrongly, let’s go through them one after one. For your first point, I think whether the task is achievable by normal beings is irrelevant to our discussion. For example, under normal circumstances, normal human beings cannot live without oxygen. As such, will you consider unreasonable to expect an omnipotent being to survive without oxygen for a long time? For your second point, if you have read my first post about how to solve the stone dilemma (when it was used to attack against theism), I mentioned already that omnipotence was not from the Bible. In fact, I raised 3 points. In brief, they are 1. my suggestion on how to solve the stone dilemma by adding a feature; 2. the fact that the concept omnipotence is not from the Bible; and 3. my query of whether the problem of the stone dilemma is attributed to problems from other factors (instead of omnipotent being himself) such as logic, the concept and/or interpretation of omnipotence and the like. The quote you cited as an evidence of my insistence of omnipotence is wrongly interpreted. As I have clarified earlier, that statement refers to your earlier question of whether I believed in omnipotence or not. I replied that I didn’t understand why you raised this query for I thought it was totally irrelevant. Nevertheless, I am eager to change to improve but I dare not take the credit from what I didn’t do. My Question 2 ------------- You haven’t read my post carefully. What is the difference between a) God is omnipotent (“A”); and b) God can create, lift up, and add new feature, … (“B”)? What is my proposition then, A or B? Is A equal to B? Instead of claiming either A or B is true, my proposition is actually “if A is true, then B is true” (or simply “if A, then B”). Please note that “if A, then B” is not A, B or “if B, then A”. “If A, then B” is “if A, then B”. When you accused me of stating “if the proposition is true, then the proposition is true.”, which proposition are you referring to, A or B? Please also note that if I have ever tried to use “if A, then B” to prove either A or B, I committed the fallacy of begging the question. However, I didn’t. I merely said “if A, then B”. It is like saying “if lines 1 and 2 are parallel to each other, they will never intersect”. Does this statement prove “lines 1 and 2 are parallel to each other”; or “they will never intersect”? Maybe you thought that only if I can prove A or B, then your argument is finished. However, it is not true. As you are using the “Reduction to Absurdity” to refute the fundamental proposition A by showing there is a contradiction between A and B, what I really need to prove is there can be no contradiction while a proof of “if A, then B” is just sufficient to achieve this. My Question 3 ------------- You haven’t read your post carefully. Your “loaded question” accusation refers to my question 4 of “does it help to show you are more logical?”. Never mind. Can you explain further how statements like “if gold is boiled up to its boiling point, it can boil” commit the fallacies of begging the question and/or loaded question? Your Question 1 --------------- I cannot see what is the major difference of these questions from the stone dilemma. If the stone dilemma can be solved, these ones can be solved correspondingly. If an answer has to be given now, I think my reply will be “if God, JPY or any other beings is omnipotent, he/she/it can …”. Your Question 2 --------------- This is a new issue about free will. You seem to mean that, if one can know in advance or predict what is going to happen for sure, there is no free will. Am I right to say this? In this respect, do you also mean that, if my mother knows for sure that I will always skip my breakfast, I lose my free will in having breakfast? I guess what you want to ask actually is, if God has predestined or planned what is going to happen, how can there be free will? I thought this is quite a theological issue and I didn’t expect an atheist has interest on it. When I argue/discuss this issue with Christians, I like to use movies as examples. A good movie (directed by a good director) inspires her viewers very much, be it anger, sorrow, happiness or scare. When the director manipulates our feeling/emotion, do we ever worry about our free wills being weakened? What if we changed our minds after a discussion/debate with our parents, teachers or friends or after any heartbreaking incident? Would these also be considered as an interference to our free wills? Can God “manipulate” our free wills as suggested above? What do you think will be His success rate? In fact, what is free will? To me, it refers to a state of mind which enables us to make decision on our own willfully. However, it is neither related to what data we have received before making our decision nor to whether the result is the one we wanted/planned. Follow-up Questions: 1. If everything is predestined, why should we be condemned for our sins, if any? Up to now, I don’t have any strong evidence from the Bible saying that God has predestined everything (especially the bad things) although it does promise that God will look after and plan all good things (beyond one’s expectation) to those who believe in Him. 2. If God can predestine for those who believes in Him without weakening their free wills, why didn’t He predestine all people to be saved? This query is very difficult and very controversial. It involves arguments over fairness (or equality?), God’s right on selection and/or understanding of some Biblical teachings. All in all, in my personal opinion, I think eventually God will save all human beings He created (in other words, He has merely created those human beings He has planned to save). However, the bottom line is still that these people need to submit to Him first. Just like, during the times as recorded in the Old Testament, whenever the Israelites repented to God, God would change His mind and take care of them again. In fact, how hard could a father be to his children? Nevertheless, I don’t have too much detail on how this universal saving can be achieved eventually. If one is really interested, we may need some time to explore it further. On the other hand, there is another major view on this question. God has the absolute discretion in choosing who He wants to save. We cannot say it is unfair for we don’t know actually what God’s criteria are. However, we can be quite sure that these people are condemned for the sins they committed but not for the fact that they are not chosen. As atheists, would one really care about the fact that they are not chosen? Your Question 3 --------------- Can logic be wrong? Please give some examples. In fact, there are quite a number of examples even within this discussion zone, namely, 1. the stone dilemma; 2. the “can’t be wrong” compliments given by Mr Yu Kam Kei to his wife (shared by Benson); and 3. some paradox as shared by Andy. The above examples have one common characteristic. After prolonged examination, discussion and/or argument, no one can produce a clear-cut answer as to which side is more convincing. Yet, without definite solutions, there is virtually no impact on reality. What can we say more about logic analysis in these examples? If there isn’t something wrong with or any deficiency in logic, logic must be a fun game designed for “killing time”. By the way, I think I am prudent enough to merely ask, “can logic be wrong?”. In fact, without a sound proof for “logic must be correct”, it is quite safe to ask this question. Who knows whether there are other examples elsewhere in the world, even though you don’t count the above ones? Question 4 ---------- I have said right from the beginning that Mr Lee is not logically nor tactically wrong in preparing his debate with Horner his way. Taking a particular stance requires wisdom, diligence and courage. But, what really disappoints me is that Mr Lee didn’t even examine any single point of Horner’s argument and shared what was wrong with them. Nevertheless, haven’t you realized that, to certain extent, I have adopted Mr Lee’s approach? Instead of taking any particular stance to the term omnipotence, I simply say I don’t know. Without the assumption of an omnipotent God, all your effort trying to refute the existence of God with the stone dilemma is meaningless. How do you feel? However, what I did while Mr Lee didn’t is I did examine your argument and spent time long enough to point out its deficiency. On the other hand, I don’t quite understand why the negative team used the stone dilemma, which is rather indirect and inefficient. In fact, if they really think they can disprove God’s existence simply by showing the problems derived from the concept omnipotence, there are other easier and simpler ways. First, the Bible has already mentioned that God cannot … In other words, the Bible has already admitted that God is not omnipotent and there is at least something God cannot do while we fellow human beings always do. Otherwise, if the negative team wants to argue in a more “logical” manner, they can ask, instead of doing themselves, the affirmative team to prove God’s omnipotence, which is a task I doubt very much who can ever achieve. Without a sound proof, on what reasonable basis the affirmative team can claim the existence of an omnipotent God? Without a reasonable basis, how can one argue theism is more reasonable?

To S.C., 1. If God cannot create a stone which He cannot lift up,... He is not omnipotent; or 2. If God cannot lift up a stone He created, He is not omnipotent. I am quite impressed by your attempt to present the stone dilemma out of the context of “Reduction to Absurdity”. I understand that this is what you tried to deprive of my right to apply the omnipotence to add the new feature I suggested before. However, despite the fact that you did not write it down expressly, you still implied the assumption of omnipotence. Otherwise, you cannot draw the conclusion of not omnipotence of God. Alternatively, look at what I said, “If God is omnipotent (“A”), then He can create, lift up and add new feature …(“B”)” (or simply “if A, then B”). Then, what you suggested is actually, “if not B, then not A.” From my limited understanding about logic, I think the 2 statements have exactly the same meaning. In other word, your statement has not yet disproved the concept omnipotence until you can show God cannot create, lift up, … It then follows that you still need to go back to my proposal and explain why and how it doesn’t work. I guessed you would probably say because I have committed the fallacy of begging the question. However, this is the point I cannot accept at all. If I want to prove A or B, then I do commit the fallacy. However, I am not. I am showing “if A, then B”, which is neither A nor B. All in all, do you really think it is reasonable to limit the application of omnipotence when it is under examination? Suppose an omnipotent being can eventually find a way to solve the stone dilemma without applying the power of omnipotence, what does it show? It doesn’t show omnipotence is possible by then but simply show that whether omnipotent or not is totally irrelevant. I said the concept of omnipotence is problematic. However, the problems do not only affect the ones who proclaim it but also those who want to disprove it. Up to now, I think the fundamental differences between our stances are 1. you have a perception that it is so obvious that we don’t need to go further to prove (or examine others’ counter-proof) that there is a contradiction between A & B; and 2. I tried to add a new dimension (which is out of our usual perspectives) to show that there can be no contradiction. In more abstract terms, what is the big deal for not being able to create a stone which can’t be lifted up if it can be arranged in a way that there is not contradiction to the concept of omnipotence? You must think that I am speaking nonsense. Let’s put it in another way. Does omnipotence (by its very definition) include the power to alter rules in logic? If no, we don’t even need to go through the stone dilemma for omnipotence is effectively not omnipotent enough. However, if yes, what makes you find it so difficult to accept my proposal? PS I think I have no problem in accept the approach of “Reduction to Absurdity”. From what you demonstrated, I think it should have been commonly adopted in our daily lives even for those who don’t have formal training in logic. However, the key for an effective application is always the quality on how to show the presence of contradiction, if any. In fact, if one wants to challenge the conclusion of this approach, he will always try to disprove the contradiction or break the relation of the underlying premise. PPS. Thank you for being nice.

康慈的英文很久無用過！加上這幾天病到七彩！遲Ｄ茶字典給你！

我永遠等你 長話可短說，短話慢慢再詳說 也或可逐點逐點說 請好好休息。

多謝！Allan我永遠等你 那麼有請Allan慢慢再詳說。康慈萬二分謝意！ 康慈記得當年使用中大哲系那本幾百年前的幾寸厚的中文古董哲學字典，想起也有點怕！也上康慈家中又沒這類字典！也不要送給康慈！

網上表錯情 真心地說: 我對上個留言是給JPY的 沒有寫上款是我錯 更真心地說: 既然康慈多謝我，我再把另一份萬二分的祝福送給康慈，望你早日康復，慈愛暖萬家。 P/S　你是中大哲學系學生嗎？（請用五十字左右回答好了，通常超過五十字的留言我都沒心機看的。）

To: JPY 1. False accusation. Where did I say in my previous posts that // to add new feature the stone in question is unreasonable because it is a task that normal beings are not able to achieve//? Quote it. To create a stone which the creator can not lift is something that a normal human being can achieve. 2. Begging the question. I spent too much time on this already. Any saint person with an average IQ should be able to figure it out. If you really think you can solve the stone dilemma by using your peculiar, so-called “adding an attribute” method. So be it. I can't repeat the same explanation forever. 3. Loaded question. You just didn’t see what I wrote. If I have to be personal to make you understand, I’ll be personal (don’t be serious, it is just an exaggerated example, I am not intended to insult anyone): “All Christians are stupid and stubborn; so JPY, how long have you been a Christian”? How would you answer that? Can you tell the difference between “All Christians are stupid and stubborn” and “// if gold is boiled up to its boiling point, it can boil //”? If you can, you should know when you will commit this fallacy. If you can’t, I have nothing else to say. ================== My qeustion 1. // I cannot see what is the major difference of these questions from the stone dilemma. // Because there isn’t any. Again you didn’t see. You didn’t appreciate my intention. I can drive a BMW car which I cannot lift up and I can use bricks to build a wall which is so high that I can’t jump over. I have no problems doing these things. They are PRACTICALLY possible to me. How come when it comes to God, it will be so troublesome (you need to write one full page to explain why it is possible (you think it is possible) for God to do it). Why is it so? Because I am not omnipotent! See? My question 2. You didn’t get my point. My point is: can God predict EXACTLY with ABSOLUTE certainty what is going to happen in the future. Your mother does not know EXACTLY that you are going to skip breakfast. She just made a guess, that’s all. Also, being emotionally touched or affected by movies has nothing to do with free will. My question is really simple; let me rephrase it one more time. There is a banana and an apple on my table. I am going to eat one of them at 12:00 pm. sharp tomorrow at my own discretion. Can GOD predict EXACTLY WITH ABSOLUTE CERTAINTY in advance which fruit I am going to eat? CAN HE OR CAN HE NOT? YES OR NO? If he can, do I have free will? My question 3: Misunderstood logic. None of the examples quoted by you shows that “logic can be wrong”. On the contrary, they show how logic works. The stone dilemma shows that omnipotence is logically impossible. What Mr. Yu said is a joke. It shows how silly and self-conflicting these sayings are. By using logic, we can tell which statements are conflicting or contradictory to each other. Those paradoxes show obvious (e.g. “This is a false proposition”) or hidden (e.g. Russell’s paradox) contradictions in propositions. They did NOT show that “logic is wrong”! // If there isn’t something wrong with or any deficiency in logic, logic must be a fun game designed for “killing time”. // In fact it’s even more fun to debunk you. Of course it is OK to ask “can logic be wrong”? It’s perfectly legal, at least for now. It only shows how much you know (or don’t know) about logic, that’s all. My question 4: You are still insisting on your stance. // Taking a particular stance requires wisdom, diligence and courage. // Taking an APPROPRIATE stance requires wisdom. // what really disappoints me is that Mr Lee didn’t even examine any single point of Horner’s argument and shared what was wrong with them. // What really disappoints me is that after more than a month, you still haven’t understood the spirit of the debate. As I said, you didn’t see. Seems like our efforts are in vain. Take care of yourself. Take a day off or something. Go see a doctor and try to cure your headache. Take you time.

回雲起 雲起你去左邊? 真係去左淨土嬉戲?

給小花生 我去了修補星芒體和自我意識體 放心喎, 我去淨土嬉戲一定搵埋你

雲起 嘩!你好得意呀! 我泡杯回春水過你飲下, 好唔好?

Welcome back JPY. :) Hi JPY, welcome back? Are you really sick? If I were sick I wouldn't be able to type that much. :) When you are sick you should take more rest, so you take your time. Discussion is of course interesting, but health is more important. *** //I am quite impressed by your attempt to present the stone dilemma out of the context of “Reduction to Absurdity”. ...// I simply quoted what Dr Lee said. A side note: many an argument can be formulated in either a direct or an indirect form. (Refer to the discussion of the skin color example below. ) //However, despite the fact that you did not write it down expressly, you still implied the assumption of omnipotence. // In which step of inference did I use the premise "omnipotence is possible?" (Hint: use the black and non-black example.) //Alternatively, look at what I said, “If God is omnipotent (“A”), then He can create, lift up and add new feature …(“B”)” (or simply “if A, then B”). Then, what you suggested is actually, “if not B, then not A.” From my limited understanding about logic, I think the 2 statements have exactly the same meaning.// A=>B and ~B=>~A are indeed equivalent. But I didn't assume ~B. (Actually, I didn't use neither A, B, ~A or ~B in the argument of proving the impossibility of omnipotence! Note: I use "I" or "my argument" here or there, but of course, those arguments are not "mine.") //In other word, your statement has not yet disproved the concept omnipotence until you can show God cannot create, lift up, … It then follows that you still need to go back to my proposal and explain why and how it doesn’t work. // Do you mean the following argument is unsound? Mind telling me which step and what reason? If God is able to make stone he is unable to lift, he is unable to lift all stones he is able to make, so He is not omnipotent; If God is unable to make stone he is unable to lift, he is not omnipotent. So God is not omnipotent. So God is not omnipotent. //All in all, do you really think it is reasonable to limit the application of omnipotence when it is under examination? // What do you mean by "limit the application of omnipotence?" //Suppose an omnipotent being can eventually find a way to solve the stone dilemma // Do you mean he can lift all stones he is able to make? Or he can make a stone he cannot lift? //without applying the power of omnipotence, what does it show? It doesn’t show omnipotence is possible by then but simply show that whether omnipotent or not is totally irrelevant. // Again, I can't say I understand this paragraph. //I said the concept of omnipotence is problematic. However, the problems do not only affect the ones who proclaim it but also those who want to disprove it. // What do you mean by that? It's not problematic for those who claim it's possible to be omnipotent? That means those people can provide a consistence proof for omnipotence? If that's the case, the people against that omnipotence is possible, are simply false. //1. you have a perception that it is so obvious that we don’t need to go further to prove (or examine others’ counter-proof) that there is a contradiction between A & B; // Eh... since we already have a proof of omnipotence being impossible (a direct proof indeed), yes, we do not need other proofs. Well, okay, I admit that, unless you can point out the flaw of the direct proof of omnipotence being impossible. //2. I tried to add a new dimension (which is out of our usual perspectives) to show that there can be no contradiction. In more abstract terms, what is the big deal for not being able to create a stone which can’t be lifted up if it can be arranged in a way that there is not contradiction to the concept of omnipotence? // The big deal is you cannot use a doubtful premise. I mean a premise you claim you don't know if it's true or false. //You must think that I am speaking nonsense. Let’s put it in another way. Does omnipotence (by its very definition) include the power to alter rules in logic? If no, we don’t even need to go through the stone dilemma for omnipotence is effectively not omnipotent enough. However, if yes, what makes you find it so difficult to accept my proposal? // What do you mean by "alter rules in logic? " Do you mean saying something contradictory but not saying something contradictory? //PS I think I have no problem in accept the approach of “Reduction to Absurdity”. From what you demonstrated, I think it should have been commonly adopted in our daily lives even for those who don’t have formal training in logic. However, the key for an effective application is always the quality on how to show the presence of contradiction, if any. In fact, if one wants to challenge the conclusion of this approach, he will always try to disprove the contradiction or break the relation of the underlying premise. // Yeah, yeah, how about this: If "S.C. is black and non-black,"(this is a premise, JPY claimed we can use to criticize an indirect proof) then the indirect proof of S.C. being not "black and non-black" will be inadequate. This is the way you argue. Now you know how frustrated Benson felt. :) To be honest, nobody has to be as well-read as Benson or Faustus. Nobody has to know as much in Logic as them neither. But I really hope you read a couple of books in logic or even take a couple of courses. Otherwise it is really hard to tell you what's going on without lengthy introduction of basic logical concepts. //PPS. Thank you for being nice. // You are welcome. :) Should you find anything wrong with my tone or me being rude, let me know. I will try to do my best. Now you go to take some rest. Hope you feel better soon.

To Allan //我永遠等你// This is too sweet. I hope we may start the discussion one day.

To S.C. The following is your argument, isn’t it? 1. If God is able to make stone he is unable to lift (“A”), he is unable to lift all stones he is able to make (“~B”), so he is not omnipotent (“~C”); and 2. If God is unable to make stone he is unable to lift (“~A”), he is not omnipotent (“~C”). Implied premises --------------------- Your implied premises are, For statement 1, “if God is omnipotent, he should be able to lift all stones.”; For statement 2, “if God is omnipotent, he should be able to create all stones.” “If C, then A” versus “if ~A, then ~C” & “if C, then B” versus “if ~B, then ~C” ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- It is quite obvious that Statement 2 has the structure of “if ~A, then ~C”, which is equivalent to “if C, then A”. For statement 1, effectively, it is 1a. If God is able to make stone he is unable to lift (“A”), he is unable to lift all stones he is able to make (“~B”); 1b. If he is unable to lift all stones he is able to make (“~B”), he is not omnipotent (“~C”); 1b is in form of “if ~B, then ~C”, which is equivalent to “if C, then B”. Now, the critical issue here is whether 1a of “if A, then ~B” is sound or not. I challenge it by asking whether a new feature (which can resolve the built-in contradiction of the “ability to be unable” of the stone dilemma) can be added to the stone by the omnipotent being. Application (or Implication) of Omnipotence ------------------------------------------------------- I treat the stone dilemma as a study of the implication of omnipotence. It is not necessarily a logic argument. For example, is there any material difference between the following 2 studies? 1. if man can travel in light of speed, is time travel possible?; and 2. if man is omnipotent, is creating a stone which is unable to be lifted up possible? In studying issue 1, can we apply the assumption of traveling in the speed of light? If no, suppose somehow somebody does prove time travel is possible without applying the assumption, what is the implication? It implies that whether traveling in the speed of light or not is totally irrelevant to time travel. On the other hand, will those studying the first issue with the assumption of traveling in the speed of light be criticized as committing the fallacy of begging the question? Fallacy of Begging the Question ---------------------------------------- You use this reason again. I thought we had agreed that I commit this fallacy only if I am to prove A or C, but not when I merely want to show “if C, then A”. Alter Rules in Logic ------------------------- I don’t have a formal definition but I think an example may help. Let’s go back to your “black and non-black example”. Why do you think it is a contradiction for a man to have both black skin and non-black skin at the same time? Does it mean that this violates any laws or rules, be it ones of the Nature or of the Logic? My question is whether an omnipotent being can grant an “exemption” to this violation? Others --------- //If "S.C. is black and non-black,"(this is a premise, JPY claimed we can use to criticize an indirect proof) then the indirect proof of S.C. being not "black and non-black" will be inadequate. This is the way you argue. // That is not the way I argued and whether it is a direct proof or an indirect proof is irrelevant. In fact, this example of “black and non-black” is of a different nature of the stone dilemma. Being black or non-black is a plain description while being omnipotent is not. There is no limitation on what an omnipotent being can achieve unless some restrictions was imposed in its definition. On the other hand, I think not all people will agree with your illustration of the stone dilemma with the black and non-black example. Someone thinks that, unlike your black and non-black example, the “ability to be unable” as required by the stone dilemma is so unique in the way that it is not contradictory on its face value unless and until it is attached to the concept of omnipotence. PS 1. I think I got headache mostly because I don’t have adequate sleep and I am quite stressful. I shall do my time management better and sleep more. Nevertheless, thank you for your advice. 2. I said I was impressed because I appreciated your effort of throwing in new ideas (not just repeating what was said in the past without further elaboration). It is a matter of attitude, but not of content.

基督徒可否信 演化論? 演化論是 理論 還是 假說? 神造論是 理論 還是 假說? 基督徒信 演化論 有問題嗎?

試分類 神創是信念 進化是假說 請指教

相對論個"論"同神造論個"論"同唔同? 係唔係"論" =Theory? Yahoo字典:Theory 【事】 假說,學說,…論 in theory 在理論上 theory and practice 理論與實踐 the theory of evolution 進化論.

To JPY 1. If A, God is able to make a stone S such that He is unable to lift. Since He is able to make S but he is unable to lift S, so ~B. 2. So what is wrong with this: If "S.C. is black and non-black," then the indirect proof of S.C. being not "black and non-black" will be inadequate. Can you tell me what is wrong with this argument? Thank you and Merry Xmas. :)

神造論 神造論是什麼意思? 神造論一些可驗證的推論?

神造論 //神造論是什麼意思?// 神造論係話呢個世界係神造出來的。 演化論就係話呢個地球D生命係幾十億年慢慢演化出來。

其實為何不可呢？ 不懂。

基督徒不可信演化論 神造的世界是退化 不 是進化。

心靈上的退化，物質上的進化 還是不懂

為什麼有衝突? 如果說: 神用演化的方式去造世界...又如何呢?

神導進化論 對於論述宇宙歷史的理論，除了創造論的理論和進化論的理論，還有著許多其他的理論，而當中有些理論對神創造世界的觀念與對進化的觀念的看法並不是互不相讓，反而是結合的．例如神導進化論，神導進化論的意思是指神用進化的方式創造萬物．其實，總括而言，對於世界的起源，科學家還在尋找之中，未有一個肯定的答案；但可見的是，神創與進化之間也不是絶對對立的． 基督徒應否接受進受進化論是一個個人的問題，信不信進化論，它與你的信仰是無礙的

信進化論的基督徒多 還是信神的哲學家多?

聯想問題01 //信進化論的基督徒多 還是信神的哲學家多?// 哲學家多，還是基督徒多？

如果唔計街口解簽佬 我估信進化論的基督徒較信神哲學家多。

信進化論算唔算一種宗教? 同信法輪大法有乜唔同?

>>信進化論算唔算一種宗教? 同信法輪大法有乜唔同?<< 信進化論唔算一種宗教，都冇單一偶象。 信法輪大法要成日練氣功又要真•善•忍。信進化論唔需要成日練氣功先喇，仲有；法輪大法係中國反革命組織，進化論仲未係。

唔信 神 即係 相信無神 都係信的一種嗎?

信“神導”進化論多， 還是信“隨機”進化論多？

請教 Jacky 沒來一會, 又多了一些意見, 似乎又多了一些未界定清楚的關鍵詞.... 在大家繼續討論之前, 煩請 Jacky 界定一下, "神導”進化論 是什麼意思? "隨機”進化論 又是什麼意思？ 謝謝! 據小弟所知, 進化論乃基於假說, 一. 物競 二. 天擇 三. 適者生存 S.C. 可否詮釋一下. 謝謝!

進化論 1. 答tony 假說為"對某一現象的解釋" 一般科學理論始於假說,然後我們作觀察或實驗, 假如我們的觀察或實驗証據足夠使我們合理地相信假說符合事實的話, 則我們便會認為這是理論. 我們通常會以兩個準則檢驗假說是否合理: (1). 解釋力: 假說能否合理地解釋某一現象並與其他科學理論沒有不一致. (假如出現不一致, 則可能是假說有錯, 也可能是其他科學理論有錯, 但大體上, 一般被廣泛接納的科學理論錯的可能性相對於新來的假說較小) (2) 預測力: 先從假說推理出預測結果, 然後我們再觀察或實驗得出結果, 假如兩者相符合,則假說含有預測力. 一般科學理論有以上兩個特性. 但以人數十年的生命, 沒有發現物種的演化.因此,生物學家以化石作推論以支持進化論, 進化不是數十年的事, 是數以千萬年的事. 因此進化論不是假說, 是理論. 2. "物競天擇,適者生存"為中文進化論的著名口號, 帶有誤導性. 這使人誤以為物種是主動地因應著環境而變化的要求的.英文原意為"evolve to survive for the best" "進化論"同樣誤導, 因為"進化"含有進步的意思, 因有中文有"進化",也有"退化". 英文"evolution"沒有進步或退步的意思, 所以"進化論"應為"演化論" 進化論最重要的概念為自然選擇(natural selection): "在某一環境下, 族群P裏有個體a. a有一種獨特的有利生存的條件c(e.g. a有特別長的毛以禦寒), 而族群裡其他的個體沒有. a因有c,所以生存下來並繁殖的機會較其他沒有c的個體大. 而a的後代都遺傳了c這優勢,其他沒有c 的個體則較易死亡. 因此,過了一段時間, a的後代比其他族群個體多. 而過了一段長時間後, 假如環境沒有重大轉變的話,c很可能會成為族群P的普遍屬性." 要注意的是, 以上個體a沒有主動的求變. (按: 只要把"族群"轉為"生物圈", "個體"轉為"族群", 便是族群的演化) 3. 進化論現在被普遍接納了, 現在科學家研究的除了有機生物的演化外, 還有無機化合物的演化. 因為, 科學家相信, 假如進化論是真的, 則所以地球上的生命都是從單細胞生物而來的, 而在這最原始的單細胞出現前, 地球上存在無機化合物的演化, 當這些化合物演化致某一狀態並組合時, 便形成最基本的單細胞生命.

錯 我們早在細菌病毒上看到進化 而大的生物進化要很久,不過單純的變種我們就做了很多,包括那些貓狗,雞馬牛

謝謝 謝謝 翔 和 征服者

摩根戰士式進化 據從《科學時報》中所得的資料顯示認為病毒是地球上生物進化過程中最為原始的生命物質袛是一項假說，沒有證據顯示，地球生命演化的過程表現為：無機物→有機物→化學大分子→病毒→原核生物→真核生物。。而另外也有一些假說，認為病毒是高级微生物的退行性生命物質。更有一種假說認為病毒來源於正常細胞的核酸，因偶然途徑從細胞内脱離出來進而演變為病毒。 1999年，在古細菌中發現了所謂“反轉子”的遺傳單位，“反轉子”是僅含一個基因並且能自我複製的一段核酸分子，具有重要的基因“捕獲”功能。反轉子從细菌基因中捕獲基因，擴大自身的遺傳信息量並增加生物學功能。

進化論2 1. 回征服者: "我們早在細菌病毒上看到進化"這是對的. 因為細菌病毒較簡單(遺傳物質較少),所以突變的出現較易使其出現變種,e.g. H5N1感冒病毒.而遺傳物質突變的累積有可能會引起新物種的出現. 但要注意的是,很多時變種不等於新的物種,e.g. H5N1依然是感冒病毒. 但我不能清楚列明介定新物種的標準,但大體上可以這樣理解: "假如個體a與個體b交合並生出有繁殖能力的下一代,則a和b是屬於同一物種. 假如不能生出有繁殖力的下一代,則a和b不是同一物種" 2. 回jacky (a)病毒的起源還沒有一個被普遍接納的理論 (b)雖然沒有證據顯示地球曾經存在著無機物到有機生物的演化,但科學家以實驗(in vitro evolution)証明了有機大分子,e.g. RNA, 蛋白質等是可以進行演化的. 所以科學家以此相信,地球在最初單細胞出現前曾經存在著有機大分子的演化. (c)遺傳物質的功能遠比一般教科書上所述的複雜.“反轉子”只是其中之一.

請教 謝謝 翔 的細論, 但可否指教一下, 演化是否只在有性繁殖的族群內發生. 在無性繁殖的族群有否演化??? 請指教! :)

插咀討論試答 演化之可能，在於基因之配撘能有不同變化。雙性繁殖的基因交換，能孕育更多不同的可能性，讓天與環境去選擇更適合生存的可能配搭。 無性繁殖主要只能靠複製自己的基因繁殖，複製過程並沒新的可能性加入，基因的改變只能來自基因突變，這種突變可能性較少，而且是較多是摧毀性而未必有利於生物適應環境。 故無性繁殖也會演化，是速度會比有性繁殖慢很多。（請翔指正） To Jacky 演化論常給人一個錯覺，以為生命總是向著越大越美越複雜的方向發展，事實上，演化論告訴人的，只是生命會**向著最能適應環境或最有利他們繁衍的模式演化**。 當一種病毒，若能保留最簡單的形態，也能不停繁衍，在其自身而言，已是最有利而演化成功的形態，這些貌似「倒退」的發現，常被神創論者用作質疑演化論的理據，其實並不合理，只是他們誤解了演化論之所指。

Issca: 進化論是二千四百年前開始的，經過達爾文、孟德爾、海克爾等，到了赫拉克里特斯的時候，就肯定性的一種宇宙觀，就是「變化是萬有的基本原因」：沒有不變的東西，唯一不變的就是變化本身。到了亞里士多德的時候，就發展到一套相當完整的「萬有特別是生命進化的程序，從非常簡單的到非常復雜的，從在海洋的到在陸地的，空中的，而物種變化最後產生的是人類。」 亞里斯多得以後，科學主義在耶穌基督與保羅，特別是在寫羅馬書的時代，己經在哲學及當時的學術研究中間沒有重要的角色了，形而上論，這個唯心學說與科學主義，到了那時候也暗淡下來了，唯一存在的是對人生目的的探討，產生了希利尼學派的三大支流：唯善論、唯樂論、懷疑論。到了十八、十九世紀，進化論的思想開始復興萌芽，從法國的拉馬克(Lamarck) ,英國的斯賓塞(Spencer)及達爾文，德國的海克爾，這些人將它發揚光大。以後在社會學方面是黑格爾把它應用，黑格爾是在逹爾文之前應用兩個不同的正論反論推展演進社會的現象，這個稱為辯正法。到了唯物論的時候，就應用這個放在所謂的唯物科學一元發展觀里面。 科學是研究物理現象，科學是研究自然所隱藏的各樣的事因、動態、結局與混合的分析的學問。哲學是從方法論中間去找到怎樣可以找出其他知識的原因的，這個是哲學系統里面第二個旁門，叫做「認識論」，那麼，到底進化論是科學還是哲學？　進化論是用哲學的假設探討科學的範圍，所以進化論本身就不是純科學。把所有的動植物分門別類列次，使各樣的動植物都有條有系的分類，這是科學。但是假設每一種都是從另外一種演變過來的，這不是科學，這是哲學。 到今天還沒有辦法證明進化的方法是事實，如果進化是事實的話，那麼他們所謂找出來的證據，實在太小了，雖然看起來很多，動植物的種，總歸起來數目有幾百萬，這幾百萬種中間要找出事實來證明這個理論，所找到的事實是太少了。 美國有一位華人的科學家，他很尊重也很佩服進化論學者，當他信主後，他繼續研討他所找出來的一個非常反對進化論的思想。那是根據科學的發現，如果進化是漸變的話，那麼在化石的範圍里面，找不到證據；如果進化的是突變的話，那麼根據醫學及科學真正的研究，突變產生的不是進化，而是退化。凡是有突變，產生的就是危機、變化及生命的滅亡，在你生命中如果有突變產生，那就是癌，所以一個人忽然有癌症，是因為他里面產生了突變，而進化論是相當根據突變的理論，而突變的理論是與事實相背的，漸變的理論是與化石的理論相背的。所以進化論的證據太少了。 美國一些基督徒的科學家創立了一個「創造科學研究室」，從那兒翻譯出來的書相當多，可以參考，如，<<人從那裡來>>、<<科學創造論>>這一類的書看了會有幫助。英文的出版有< >, < >, < >和< >,這些書都可以幫助你們探討這個問題。 “你問「基督徒可否相信演／進化論？」其實是一個矛盾的問題。為什麼呢？因為基督教是「神造論」或「創造論」系統的宗教，正好是跟演化論相違的。 <<其實達爾文自己的演化論在不斷推敲的當中，最後也不得不承認「神創造」是最終的答案。你說證據在那裡，就是在他的著明作品<<物種原始>>，文中最後的一句說話是這樣子說的：「第一個生命是由上帝呼氣產生的。」正正是跟聖經創世記第一章不謀而合。你們看, 奇妙嗎! “

引原文 引自 The Origin of Species 1872 Edition Conclusion (last sentence) There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, have been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms into one; and that, whilst this planet had gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved. 不錯, Charles Darwin （達爾文）　以為第一因是上帝，　然而你卻沒留意　,and that.... 之後的半句，　第一因之後生物的”演化”．　請不要斷章取義． 由此指出，　神造和演化并不含矛盾，　神造世之時已把演化的性質留在生物中． 另外， Theory of Evolution, 是演化論，　即為適應自然而演化　（包括為適應自然而進化　或　為適應自然而退化）因此，和化石論也沒有矛盾 ：）

//「基督徒可否相信演／進化論？」其實是一個矛盾的問題。// 揣摩，你對矛盾的理解是錯誤的。從來只有矛盾的命題，並沒有矛盾的問題。 不要緊，慢慢來，我們由基礎邏輯說起。 又：現在明白了為什麼大前題錯，結論未必錯沒有？如明白，你也不是沒有希望的。

小心眼： 大自然的規律是：弱肉強食，適者生存．．．．．．大自然充滿了血腥。如果//神造世之時已把演化的性質留在生物中//，這和「神是慈愛的」這命題有沒有衝突？ 多多指教。

有什么問題？ 創造論和進化論都是未經證實或無法證實的說法，両者相信其一或西両者均信或均不信，又有何分別？正如相信或不信外星人會拉肚子，有甚么意義？值得爭辯嗎？李博士又以爲如何？

沒有衝突 沒有衝突 問題是: "對於誰", 神是慈愛的? 對於天花病毒, 神是慈愛的? 對於蟑螂, 神是慈愛的? 對於蝗蟲, 神是慈愛的? 多多指教

修正 神愛天花病毒嗎? 神愛蟑螂嗎? 神愛蝗蟲嗎?

小心眼: 你是不是想說，若神不愛ｘ，即使神無故叫ｘ受苦，神都是慈愛的？這點很難同意。 問題是，若神是創造者且是慈愛的，神就不能想出比弱肉強食更好的辦法嗎？又是那個老問題：若神是全能且是慈愛的，為什麼還會有苦難存在？ 多多指教。

一句 可能這是給予自由意志需要付出的代價。

不能殺生？ 為何要吃素？ 植物就不是生命？ 吃植物就解決了「不能殺生」的問題？ 在下(目前)無意挑戰佛教，但實在有許多疑問。

可能是無知吧 以為植物不會感到痛苦

那現今信佛教的人怎樣理解？

征服者: 植物會感到痛苦嗎?

佛教比較可愛的地方是, 當有人質疑佛教教義時, 沒有人會第一時間撲出來護教

探討不能殺生 21:00君: 不能殺生不錯是佛教的範疇, 你之所以會說: "我不是挑戰佛教, 而是實在有很多疑問." 這就表示了你開始有"悟性"了. 為什麼我這樣說呢？因為很多人篤信自相信的宗教，但是有一個很嚴重的弊端風氣，就是<<不求甚解>>的迷上去.這是很可憐的. 你說的不錯. 你所舉的正是佛教中不殺生戒條的弊病. 關於不殺生, 其實我想最正確的,是說:不可殺人就比較對. 這是能控制的. 為什麼這樣說呢? 因為不殺生是不可能的戒條, 這是不是佛祖開的一個還笑呢? 定一條人不能守的戒條? 還是佛祖跟本沒有資格說這句話, 因為他不懂<<生物學>>,不懂什麼叫<<生>>? . 人是不是比其他的生命尊貴呢? 對. 為什麼? 如果一個人吃雞吃豬吃狗, 就會覺得沒什麼大不了, 只是動物罷了, 但相反一頭狗吃了一個人會怎樣? 就要把牠人道毁滅, 這是可解? 明白我的意思嗎? 為什麼基督徒會這樣重視人的價值? 因為人是按照 神的形象樣式所創造, 是有代表 神自己的預表, 所以人本性就知道, 人類的位置, 比一切的活物更加高.如果按照佛教的說法, 就把人類的價值, 跟一頭貓狗同等, 你看怎樣?

小心眼 也想告訴揣摩 據小心眼的引述, 達爾文所說的是Creator, 應叫作「創造者」, 創造者不一定是聖經的「神」或「上帝」, 請揣摩不要自作多情, 也不要驚嘆好奇妙, 令在這裡的讀者真的以為好奇妙。

讚同雲起 雲起說的不錯啊, 植物會感到痛苦嗎? 法輪功的核深人物兼教主, 李洪志先生, 他說: "如果你們有修維, 你會發覺一道牆也會跟你打招呼." 我不知道你們聽了這學說有什麼感覺?

唔好屈我, 揣摩 佛教比較可愛的地方是, 當有人質疑佛教教義時, 沒有人會第一時間撲出來護教 基督教比較可惡的地方是, 當有人質疑佛教教義時, 總有基督徒第一時間撲出來插幾刀

問 allan? 如果有創造之能的<<創造者>>, 不是上帝會是誰? 是你嗎? 還是外星人嗎? 那麼外星人是誰創造的? 外太空星人嗎? 那外太空星人是誰創造的?

科學發現 植物給攻擊時會有反應,只是太慢我們看不出,但植物的確是會抵抗的 而完全不殺生也可以,食花蜜,水果 而為什麼狗殺人我們覺得有問題,我們殺雞沒有問題,很簡單,因為我們不是雞,我們不是狗.要是雞看到我們殺其他雞,牠們會很快樂?

揣摩聽著！ 有某種人的價值還不如狗, 你揣摩揣摩是哪種人吧！

為什麼神可以不用被創造而其他事物必須被創造

拈花微笑, 辯則上當.

回覆: 膚淺的一句 回到你這話:　若神是全能且是慈愛的，為什麼還會有苦難存在？ 多多指教。 慈愛有跟苦難有什麼衝突? 是不是一個父親無論你作了什麼事也給你搞妥，使你安然無恙的享樂才叫愛你？你明不明我的意思？ 神就是因為愛你，才陶造你，使你在苦難中學懂堅強． 若你真的知道 <<杏林子>> 你知道蠟燭要經過燃燒才會發光嗎？ 你知道橄欖要經過壓榨才會出油嗎？ 你知道美酒要經過醞釀才會芬芳嗎？ 你知道柿子要經過風霜才會香甜嗎？ 金子要經過提煉才見精純。 鑽石要經過琢磨才見光華。 寶刀要經過鍛鍊才見鋒利。 麥子要經過死亡才見重生。 天空若沒有風雨的肆虐，就顯不出彩虹的美麗。 溪流若沒有礁石的阻擋，就激不起浪花的飛舞。 小徑若不是曲折隱密，就顯不出它的幽靜。 梅花若不經一番寒風徹骨，何處聞得芳香撲鼻？ 沒有經過流淚的雙目，永遠看不到人間的疾苦。 沒有經過流汗的耕作，永遠不懂收穫的歡樂。 沒有夏日炎陽的烤灼，永遠不知樹蔭的清涼。 沒有漫漫長夜的等待，永遠看不到曙光的重現。 你知道受苦越深，離神也越近嗎？ 你知道環境越刻苦，也越使人奮發上進嗎？ 你知道打擊越重，也越能造就人的信心嗎？ 你知道世途越坎坷，人生的閱歷也越豐富嗎？ 失敗教我們吸取經驗。錯誤教我們學習謙遜。 挫折教我們培養勇氣。損傷教我們懂得珍惜。 沒有試煉，你永遠不知生命的潛力有多深？ 沒有重擔，你永遠不知生命的耐力有多大？ 沒有痛苦，你永遠不知生命的韌力有多強？ 沒有缺憾，你永遠不舍生命的內涵有多美？ 若你真的知道 『萬事都互相效力，叫愛神的人得益處！』

汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪！ 汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪！ 汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪！

回覆: 征服者 這個我在這裡不知道已經說了多小遍... 請問一個<<創造者>>是<<被造出來>>, 那麼還可以稱為<<創造者>>嗎?

汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪！ 汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪！ 汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪！ 汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪汪！

為什麼神會是創造者 而 我創造了一個小說人物,我是創造者,那我就一定不是被創造?

問小心眼? 問題是: "對於誰", 神是慈愛的? 對於天花病毒, 神是慈愛的? 對於蟑螂, 神是慈愛的? 對於蝗蟲, 神是慈愛的? 神愛天花病毒嗎? 神愛蟑螂嗎? 神愛蝗蟲嗎? 神 何時告訴你神愛這些東西? 我實實在在的告訴你, 神 的慈愛, 注意, 是對 "人"發出的.

問 征服者 <<我創造了一個小說人物,我是創造者,那我就一定不是被創造? >> 你說小了話, 應該是這樣子說的: "你創造了一個小說人物, 那麼你就不是被創造的小說人物" 才對.

天..... 狗都識上網？(汪............................)

問: 一句 "大自然的規律是：弱肉強食，適者生存．．．．．．大自然充滿了血腥。如果//神造世之時已把演化的性質留在生物中//，這和「神是慈愛的」這命題有沒有衝突？ 答: 沒有衝突 為什麼沒有衝突? 因為你這個case的說法就沒有衝突. 我看你也不知道, 原本這個世界是沒有<<食物鏈>>的. 為什麼呢? 因為原本動物是不吃肉的. 那又何來食物鏈? 食物鏈的出現, 是亞當夏娃犯罪以後的一個<<詛咒>>. 食物鏈是近代的科學研究實況. 這跟神 是不是慈愛, 看來沒有關係. 我不知道你為什麼舉這句話出來有什麼意思.

和應genius genius: 我也有這麼一個同感, 這隻狗的名字的稔法跟我的名字同音叫"喘魔" 是一隻我在這個留言不久的時候就開始出現. 我想應該是一隻流浪狗.

如果將來有研究指出水果(甚至於花蜜)也會「反抗」呢？ 難道到時我們只能吃維他命丸？ 雲起及各位對佛教有認識的仁兄： 請不吝賜教，我不會當你們是護教的。 揣摩君：在非基眼中，基督教的理據不是理據。可以的話用非基也明白(而且正確)的方法說理吧。

給汪 朋友，你回家，對住塊鏡，望住自己，講一句：''你無嘢呀？'' 呀........唔好意思，唔記得你唔識聽，轉番個channel，如下。 (汪汪汪汪 汪鳴嗚汪 汪鳴 汪汪汪鳴汪汪汪汪 汪鳴嗚汪 汪鳴 汪汪汪鳴)

用你的說法 神只是不是被創造的人,但還是會被創造,只是那個不叫神吧

想說很久了 網編之所以保留某些留言，大概是為了讓人看到有某些人對某些言論的反應吧。(我猜得對嗎？)

狂言妄語的揣摩 //如果有創造之能的<<創造者>>, 不是上帝會是誰?// 每一個宗教都幾乎有其創造的傳說。 你知不知世界上有多少個宗教?

不會 因為花密和水果是植物做出來給其他生物食,以達到一些目的的東西 還有,只計殺生,奶也可以喝

征服者 (我相信)「比固體更固體」的問題是沒有答案的。

永恆苦劫 揣摩,你膽敢違背我的旨意,把靈魂賣給魔鬼,借用他的力量重回地上,現在你承受永恆輪迴之苦,絕不會如浮士德般得到我的救贖!

征服者 //因為花密和水果是植物做出來給其他生物食,以達到一些目的的東西 還有,只計殺生,奶也可以喝// 上文「生物」應作「動物」，我想植物不會「食」吧^^" 照閣下的推論 對於肉食性動物(如獅子)，草食性動物(如羊)不也是「造出來給牠們吃的東西」嗎？ 對於雜食性動物(如人)，肉食性動物､草食性動物和植物不就是「造出來給牠們吃的東西」嗎？ 既說眾生平等，為何人又不能像其他生物一樣進食「造出來給他們別的東西」呢？ 不解。

永恆苦劫 揣摩,你膽敢違背我的旨意,把靈魂賣給魔鬼,借用他的力量重回地上,現在你承受永恆輪迴之苦,絕不會如浮士德般得到我的救贖!

有食蟲植物的 而我說做出來給食的定義是指植物本身有目的地做一些花蜜和水果出來,吸引其他生物去食那些花蜜和水果 但羊不會說自己生出來是給其他生物吃的,羊是不想被吃,而花蜜和水果是希望被吃,因為那才會達到了植物的希望 對了,所有自然死了的東西也可以吃,病死的動植物,吃了也不是殺生 不過反過來,我覺得我們應該按自然的方式去做,就是腸子是如何就吃什麼,而給吃了也不要埋怨,當然,因為我們的數量太多,因此也要小心不要吃到其他生物絕種,而死了的人,給其他生物吃吧

對啊，竟忘了^^" 經典例子：豬籠草

問學者一句? 問一句一下: "你說從來只有矛盾的命題, 沒有矛盾的問題." 對嗎? 好了, 那麼有一個小孩子問: 請問你可以不可以畫一個圓既三角形呢? 這個問題你覺得怎樣?

查實 你答他不可以，就可以

狗都識上網？ To genius, 嘜你唔知思網中的狗都是天才,即是genius!例如JoeJoneS,最近還發現什麼貼圖法,連個人最近地大徹大悟,境界又高了一層!所以唔好侮辱D狗!

回真正狂言妄語的allan 這個世界有多小個宗教跟本沒關係吧. 最重要的是那一個說的話可信度高的分別. 我也很想知道你既然說我狂言妄語, 你何不舉個例子, 表明給我看其他宗教的確有<<創造>>學說, 和証明給我看那是對的理論吧.

給揣摩： //沒有試煉，你永遠不知生命的潛力有多深？ 沒有重擔，你永遠不知生命的耐力有多大？ 沒有痛苦，你永遠不知生命的韌力有多強？ 沒有缺憾，你永遠不舍生命的內涵有多美？// 真是動聽．．．．．． 那麼，在新的一年，願你經歷各式各樣的苦難，使你更堅強！願你身體殘障，使你知道生命的內涵有多美！願你失學失業，使你更奮發上進！願你受大打擊，造就你的信心！也願你被人拋棄，豐富你人生的閱歷！ 祝福一番後，請問有沒有其他有良知的基督徒，說一說你對苦難存在的看法。 多多指教。

自稱是GOD 什麼也不懂就不要扮 神(God)吧. 自取其辱! 你膽敢違背我的旨意,把靈魂賣給魔鬼,借用他的力量重回地上... "那豈不是說你這個自稱是神的自己, 勝不了魔鬼的能力?" 你還有資格作神嗎? "現在你承受永恆輪迴之苦...." 這句更加好笑... ...神 何時用輪迴了...這是一個"人類"想出來的東西, 現在 神竟然拿來作參考... ...你這個...不是很'遜'嗎?

謝謝一句 謝謝一句的祝福! 我的希望就是跟你對我的祝福一樣!

一句 希望你也是如此吧. 願主祝福你.

答揣摩： genius 已答了你。所以說，是沒有矛盾的問題。詳見『李天命的思考藝術』。 不要緊，慢慢來。

回征服者 "神只是不是被創造的人,但還是會被創造,只是那個不叫神吧" 我要糾正你這句話:"神只是不是被創的人." 回應:神 不是人, 人不是 神. 跟著你之後的更是離奇, 為何你可以說: "但還是會被造?" 你憑什麼這樣子說? 好像知道"內情"似的說"肯定話", 請給我指教.

問一句 為什麼不可以?

只是用你的推論方式吧

動機及人生閱歷 //那麼，在新的一年，願你經歷各式各樣的苦難，使你更堅強！願你身體殘障，使你知道生命的內涵有多美！願你失學失業，使你更奮發上進！願你受大打擊，造就你的信心！也願你被人拋棄，豐富你人生的閱歷！// 接受不接受，看上面而兩點而已。

給不是踢館的時空隱者 時空隱者, 等你睇完大家再傾好唔好?^^ from宗南嘉楚仁波切的開示 "仁波切現在談戒。 3.2五戒的正面意義 五戒，傳統上我們都是講他負面的那一個，或者說從否定的那一方面來講，就像我們講，不殺生、不偷盜，講到負面的東西；但是現在我們可以從正面的這個方面來談談他們。 3.2.1不殺生 3.2.1.1放生、拯救生命 五戒這裡面，我們不但不殺生，我們可以去放生、可以去拯救生命；如果我們做任何的這種志願、任何的這種工作去幫助別人，去拯救別人，這個實際上在佛的教授裡面可以歸類在屬於不殺生這類。 再說拯救生命，同樣我們也可以用這種提供別人解答問題的方法，或提供別人建議，譬如說有人要自殺，怎麼樣勸慰他不自殺，那這些也可以歸類在拯救的這個部分。 拯救生命的另外一個方法，就是我們可以做環保這一方面的事情。這個在直接間接能可以幫、救很多生命，這個實際上是對佛教徒滿重要的事。 古代的寺廟都是建築在森林裡面、或者綠地裡面，佛成佛的時候是坐在一棵樹底下，佛出生的時候呢、佛轉法輪的時候呢，都是在精舍，就是花園裡面，佛最後圓寂的時候，在俱士那羅，他也是在樹底下。 3.2.1.2生命的定義 森林或者綠地，有非常非常多種族的生命在裡面，如果這些生命，他們不能繼續下去的話，不但就是這些生命，還有森林本身會受影響，就是人類也會受到影響。 你覺不覺得花有生命嗎？如果花是生命的話，你把花剪下來，是不是造了業呢？ 師姊指稱如果是花，他本身是某一種生物必須寄住在這個花上面，那你把這個花砍了，砍了以後就影響其他生物的生態環境，師姊以為這也是造業的一種。 仁波切說這樣講他同意，但仁波切的問題是這樣子，那些植物，植物本身呢，他算不算一個生命呢？ 仁波切問說，剛才有不少人在點頭這樣是不是可以說是呢？那仁波切就說點頭就算是，那你如果承認植物是生命的話，譬如說這些花（指仁波切桌上的花），那我們吃這些呢，是不是算是在殺生呢？ 有一顯教出家師父提出，可不可以說這個植物是有命沒有性呢？就是他只有命，翻譯問命還是性本身怎麼分？顯教師父回答之後，翻譯簡略整理問題，就是他沒有識。 仁波切回答，你的講法很好，翻譯翻到這邊向顯教師父道個歉，對不起，也許我的翻譯不是很精確，因為這個性這個東西呢，中文當然有很多，但是英文翻起來，我不知道該怎麼翻；翻譯將整個問題重新整理一遍，這位師父是說，我們可以說花他有命但沒有性，我剛轉給仁波切的意思是，這個花有生命，但是他沒有識。 仁波切說，但是五戒的第一戒，是說不殺生，生命，不殺生，他沒有說不殺識，所以說，如果就算照我們的這種解釋來說，那麼我們人來說，算是殺生，是不是？ 顯教師父說，一個植物他算是一種生氣；翻譯問，生氣？顯教師父說，就像頭髮一樣，他會長出來，可是你剪的時候他不會痛，他不算是一種生命，算是一種生氣；翻譯說，生氣我也不知道該怎麼翻，有沒有人知道怎麼翻成英文的話，就可以；在座有人以英文跟仁波切解釋。 仁波切說他是有一點好奇，翻譯說，我是跟仁波切解釋像這位師兄講說，那我們把花當作像頭髮，他有這種生長的功能，我也覺得很麻煩這個功能的生機不知道該怎麼翻？他說他有生長的功能，但是他不算生命，所以說他剪頭髮的時候，我們從來沒有說過我們去殺生。 仁波切他這樣做，主要是讓你們知道，其實有很多方面，我們應該很仔細去考慮，因為有很多我們已經接受，認為是理所當然的一些東西、一些概念，其實平常你要把這些概念講起來滿順口的，但是如果你真正仔細去看，每個地方好像也都有一些東西在裡頭。 這個問題要再討論的就是，你要下個定義，這個定義是什麼呢？什麼叫生命？什麼叫不是生命？這個呢，並沒有人說它怎麼訂定出來的。 仁波切說，大概了解佛在世的時候，對於這個問題，並沒有很明白的解釋，或下一個定義，但是後來，到了一個佛教大師，叫做法稱，在他的那個時代，法稱他就說花這類植物是沒有生命的，這個時候，就有很多人反對他，跟他說，他是有生命的，為什麼？因為有一些花、或者一些葉子，這個葉子、這個花會收起來，所以這代表他是有生命的，但是法稱，他一直就是保持他的觀點，他認為這些植物是沒有生命的。 但是當法稱這樣講的時候，其實是他的觀點非常明確地顯示出來，他所謂故名的生命，就是必須要有蘊，就是一些東西，加上識，這個他就叫作生命，就是一定要有識。 也許這是語言上的問題，就是說，也許這些佛教上這些大師，當他們說生命的時候，他們的定義，實際上是必須要有識在裡頭，才能叫做生命，可是也許科學家，雖然用的是同樣的字，但是他們的意義裡面，就是沒有包括這個識在裡頭。 所以在任何的這種討論要開始之前，重要的就是要定義出什麼叫做生命，定義了生命出來之後才能夠接下來討論。 不過，有一件事我們沒有一點點的懷疑，只要我們打擾我們的環境，不管是動物或者人，那就一定會受到傷害，讓這些動物或者人，使生活的環境變差，甚至會死亡，這個我們是沒有懷疑的。 這就是我們如何能夠來修持第一個戒律，就是說從一個正面的意義來修持這個第一個戒律"

20:59： //可能這是給予自由意志需要付出的代價。// 問題是，全能的神就不能造出沒有苦難，但有自由意志的世界？ 揣摩： 我只是膚淺的一句，你的祝福我受不起。神對我還算慈愛。

問一句 對於上帝給人的苦難, 聖經約伯記己經好清楚向人說明. 人受苦難, 起初是因為犯罪, 又受撒旦控告, 所以要接苦難的懲罰, 然後再從苦難中學得順服,知罪,悔改. 所以已經可以代一些有良知的基督徒答你. 比一般的可以更詳細. 我這個答案不對嗎? 還是不乎合你意願, 所以你不滿意這答案? 就不接受? 對不起, 真理就真理, 不會因為你不高興就有所改變.

查實 說明不代表有充足理由支持

多謝小花生 生命，生命，生命！

//所以已經可以代一些有良知的基督徒答你. 比一般的可以更詳細. // 想問那一位是 沒有良知 的 基督徒? 基督徒答得出答案的就是有良知? 基督徒答不出答案的就是無良知? 有無良知是閣下 定的嗎?

回一句 "問題是，全能的神就不能造出沒有苦難，但有自由意志的世界？ " 其實每一個問題, 也可以寫一本書去探討. 但因為時間, 地點, 人物的關係, 我就只好略略說一些重點. 神 不錯是全, 但他不會聽你說去做一個沒有苦難的世界. 解決你的問題沒有? 自由意志,是人類最有價值的一個創造思維. 如果人沒有自由意志, 跟一條鹹魚沒有分別(小林足球的對白...) "我只是膚淺的一句，你的祝福我受不起。神對我還算慈愛... " 神對每一個人都慈愛, 只是人類不肯承認他是愛. 你的話說膚淺是什麼意思? 是不是你也知道自己的對的祝福是惡意? 我並不會介意, 相反我非常羡慕杏林子, 為什麼呢? 因為她這樣的身體, 理應是可以埋怨, 但她沒有...反而只看她所有, 不看她所沒有, 感謝上帝. 這樣的一個她, 就是合神心意的好僕人. 所以她天上的恩賜是大的. 我最敬佩的,就是她的順服神之心. 換轉是我, 可能受不了, 這是不是 對我比杏林子還好? 不是, 只是我比她更"軟弱"吧了, 神 或者怕我這個愛衪的人受不了. 但我比杏林子還好嗎? 依然不是, 因為基督徒是看永恆, 永遠, 永生, 來生. 身體怎麼樣也好, 也只是暫時的. 靈魂才是最重要的.

狗=genius,再舉兩例! 例一,此好狗為吳蘭露姐姐,為狗風趣幽默,笑話其多,拒絕功夫一流。 例二,此狗聲名顯赫,實為分析邏輯之祖,辯論未逢敵手,連S.C.也敗下陣來,更是變臉藝術高手,此哮天犬就是張海澎。

回genius 也不代表沒有充份的理由違背.

訴諸無知也

可苦 好人好姐的一個人, 為何自貶為狗呢? 如果狗也能說成是讚美的, 中國人就不會有一句諺語:"你真是連狗都不如"是什麼意義也不用我多說. 為什麼呢? 因為人是尊貴的活物. 如果你想讚美吳姐姐或張先生, 何不用一些偉大人物呢? 什麼什麼二世也可以吧...

回genius 明明是已經說了, 為什麼當衪沒有說? 既然己是可知, 為什麼當作無知？

回雲起 我屈你什麼？告訴我吧？ ”佛教比較可愛的地方是, 當有人質疑佛教教義時, 沒有人會第一時間撲出來護教” 被人打沒反抗叫可愛嗎？那我想多打你幾下了...因為那麼你就更覺我可愛了. 基督教比較可惡的地方是, 當有人質疑佛教教義時, 總有基督徒第一時間撲出來插幾刀 請問打倒歪理有什麼可惡之處? 可以說明嗎? 插幾刀是什麼意思? 是不是證明我話的能力, 像刀一樣的利? 你明不明白我的意思?

回變臉揣摩 閣下嚴重缺乏幽默感及開闊的心胸,請看十三點的<面目>,由頭睇到尾: http://rthk27.rthk.org.hk/php/leetm/messages.php?id=7046&page_no=1&subpage_no=1ℴ=desc&suborder=desc PS1:如吳蘭露姐姐或張海澎有所不滿,我願道歉。 PS2:我與上帝無緣,講耶蘇請回教堂。講佛理講得精彩,小弟願細心聆聽!

問征服者 "科學發現,植物給攻擊時會有反應,只是太慢我們看不出,但植物的確是會抵抗的 " 你說這些東西幹嗎? 是不是想說植物會害怕? 為什麼不敢接說出來? 是害怕人取笑嗎? 科學有沒有告訴你為什麼會有反應? 那反應可以証明它在害怕嗎? 那你以後不要吃菜了...它會哭的. "完全不殺生也可以,食花蜜,水果" 你為何自己反駁自己? 你剛才不是說植物會被攻擊時會有反應嗎? 水果不是植物嗎? 跟你討論真辛苦.... "為什麼狗殺人我們覺得有問題,我們殺雞沒有問題,很簡單,因為我們不是雞,我們不是狗.要是雞看到我們殺其他雞,牠們會很快樂?" 按照你的理論, 有人殺了你的家人, 你也會很快樂哦!..................

回征服者 征服者的言論真是新奇... "吃了死了的動植物不是殺生... ..." 那麼老虎喜歡吃的是死了的動物還是活生生的? 那牠又殺生了... 怎麼辦? 不用說老虎, 你也不會吃死了的動植物吧... ...至小你母親不會煮這種飯菜給你吃.... 為什麼呢？ 誰也都知道死了的東西會變壞, 野獸的消化系統跟人的不同, 所以野獸可以吃, 但人不能吃變壞死的東西, 嚴重的會死亡....請問自殺算不算殺生?

愛護動物,尊重動物 再給變臉揣摩及genius, 人類憑什麽可自高於其他動物,而任意侮辱、詆毀它們?請揣摩及genius謹言慎行! 如揣摩你耍侮辱或嘲諷我數學狂,請直說好了!不要借助其他動物。 願佛祖祝福您們早開悟!

回應 . 回Allan 及Tony 大體上, 有性生殖能加速演化過程, 因為兩性的交合可以產生不同的基因組合.而無性生殖只可以透過基因特變而改變. 但有性生殖只出現於較高等生物中. 而除了有性生殖, 多倍體(polyploid)(即帶有兩組或以上的染色體)也使有性生殖產生更多可能性. 但實際上, 進行無性繁殖的大多是單細胞生物, 這些相等地較低等的生物, 其遺傳物質較少, 形態簡單, 生命周期較短, 繁殖能力強. 由於基因特變對這類生物影響較大(詳細原因略), 雖然不是每一個特變都會增加其生命力, 但理論上, 只要其中有新個體帶有透過突變而產生有利基因, 在某一環境壓力下, 這新個體帶有強的生存優勢並繁殖. 所以, 例如, 因為以往抗生素的濫用(對病菌很強力的生存壓力), 促使現在帶有很強抗藥性的病菌出現. 微生物的生命力是很強的. 雖然在數學計算上, 有性生殖所可以產生的基因組合比無性生殖的多很多, 但實際上細菌等微生物基本上以無性生殖也足夠使其從遠古存活至今.

演化論是門科學, 只有真假, 科學家努力研究就是了, 那裡存在信與不信的問題呢? 能證實得到, 就不由你不信啦。

超搞笑！ 誰也都知道死了的東西會變壞, 野獸的消化系統跟人的不同, 所以野獸可以吃, 但人不能吃變壞死的東西, 嚴重的會死亡....請問自殺算不算殺生? ''阿媽，點解枱面碟煎紅衫魚死左嘅？人不能吃變壞死的東西, 嚴重的會死亡！'' 這是一個不得不當是笑話的笑話。

揣摩 閣下經常把「少」打作「小」。

論 2. 論 (a)創造論定義為: “所有生物是由神創造的” 為甚麼科學家相信進化論? 進化論是科學理論, 因為有證據支持進化論. 創造論不是科學理論, 因為沒有證據支持, (或請有心人舉出證據, 證據不等於引用聖經金句), 並且經驗上不可被否證. (b)請各位回答, 假如創造論是真的, 那麼是否等於說所以生命從古到今都是一樣的, 沒有改變? 答’是’的, 請到(i). 答’不是’, 請到(ii) (i)假如所有生命從古到今都是一樣的, 為甚麼會有新的變種生物出現? 是否這些新的變種都是被新創造的? (ii)假如不是所有生命從古到今都是一樣的, 那麼有哪些生物是被創造的而千古不變的? (c)假如有人嘗試調和進化論與創造論說, “神創造了第一個細胞並設計了進化, 使萬物繁衍” 這是否可能?? 不知道, 但卻由此可見創造論與進化論並不相互排斥, 創造論企圖提出生物出現的第一因, 而進化論則嘗試解生物界的多樣性. 解決”第一因”問題, 是哲學神學之辯, 而進化論解決的則是科學問題. (d)學天文使人從宇宙之偉大處學得謙虛, 學生物使人從人與動物之幾微處學得謙虛. 學聖經使人從耶穌之言行學得謙虛. (e)最後請問各位: “聖經有錯嗎?” 答”有”的, 我們可以進行理性的討論. 答”沒有”的, 我們的討論可以結束, 因為“聖經沒有錯!”

不知道 //(e)最後請問各位: “聖經有錯嗎?”// 答「不知道」也可以進行理性討論吧？

翔： 很高興讀到你的文章。行文流暢，邏輯井然。 有幾點想請教你。 生物怎樣從無性繁殖演化到有性繁殖？為什麼只是雙性而不是三性呢？ 還想問問演化論現今在科學界的地位。因為現在還有很多基督徒說演化論沒有證據，錯漏百出云云。 敬祝 新年進步！

揣摩, 回你的最後幾句 佛教比較可愛的地方是, 當有人質疑佛教教義時, 沒有人會第一時間撲出來護教, 撇悟隨心, 海量容人 基督教比較可惡的地方是, 當有人質疑佛教教義時, 總有基督徒第一時間撲出來插幾刀 不信者罪, 尖刻狂暴

揣摩： 請你在發表苦難是多麼必須，多麼有意義的偉論前，認真看一看世間的苦難是什麼的一回事。不禁要引一引羅素： Love and knowledge, so far as they were possible, led upward toward the heavens. But always pity brought me back to earth. Echoes of cries of pain reverberate in my heart. Children in famine, victims tortured by oppressors, helpless old people a burden to their sons, and the whole world of loneliness, poverty, and pain make a mockery of what human life should be. I long to alleviate this evil, but I cannot, and I too suffer. 看來，這位反基督教的人，比你更有愛心。 有時不禁想，你是不是某位反基督教的人仕，冒基督之名，激起人反基督教的情緒。

我是在答為什麼我知道植物也會有感覺 要是我答因為植物害怕,那不是很蠢和沒有答到什麼嗎?

// from: 祝賀所有网友聖誕新年年年平安喜樂, 李天命: 喜歡幽默嬉戲的性格, 底子必屬善良（「不信就要永下地獄永受酷刑」的想法, 才來自心底的地獄）。//

錯!人是可以吃死去的東西的 而人的消化系統和豬一樣 問題是死去的動物有可能帶有病菌,而我們因為一直吃清潔的東西,抵抗力較低,才會適應不了,只要煮熟和選些死了不久的就可以,你以為你在街上吃的魚,魚蛋是用活魚嗎?很多也是給你死去一些時間的魚

不對,是有狗吃了你我會很快樂 你吃了雞雞是不會很快樂的 可是你給吃掉全世界的動植物也會很快樂

bb吃奶母親會很痛苦的嗎? 我們剪指甲會痛? 蛋殼等於雞? 水果對植物來說是指甲蛋殼之類,想想水果是用來做什麼的,不說你腦袋給人除掉也不行

揣摩，好一位悲情護教者 揣摩，在下明白您謢教之急切苦心，但您是否可先放輕松一些？

回數學狂 最不滿係你竟然會考慮我唔會唔不滿。 又順帶一提，我估張海澎都唔敢不滿。因為如果我冇不滿但反而佢不滿嘅話，會好核突。

雲起 //基督教比較可惡的地方是, 當有人質疑佛教教義時, 總有基督徒第一時間撲出來插幾刀 不信者罪, 尖刻狂暴// 如有這樣的事，可惡的只是那些第一時間撲出來插幾刀的基督徒而己，跟「基督教」無關啊。

Wo! Wo! Wo!

回吳蘭露 小弟罪該萬死,實不應懷疑露姐姐的胸襟,受小人變臉揣摩的挑撥離間;還是姐姐你心胸廣闊,小弟答應你一定將這塊基督教的垃圾拋到外太空,讓佛祖來拯救他。 張海澎你意下如何?

小孩 贊同你的說法, 我只是覺得, 有時基督教就是給這些人敗壞名聲的 所以我寧願讀你的故事, 比那位人士的狂言有意義得多

又回數學狂 其實我都幾 buy 耶穌哥哥講嘅嘢。我唔做基督教徒只係因為我唔鐘意被制度化被偶像法被形式化被潛移默化各樣那樣…… 同一時間其實我都幾 buy 釋迦牟尼講嘅嘢。我唔做佛門子弟只係因為我唔鐘意被制度化被偶像法被形式化被潛移默化各樣那樣…… 當然我最信嘉誠、澤楷及澤鉅。我極之願意被奴隸化。 祝願每位有教無教之徒 愛人如己，化戾氣為祥和。

雲起 所謂人各有志。正如在這個網站有人愛寫詩，有人好對聯，有人擅講笑話‥‥，畢竟有各式各樣的人。

I think we should distinguish between evolution and evolution theories. Evolution is not a theory, it is a proven fact. It can be observed, tested and falsified. Scientists have widely accepted it as a science for the past century. There hasn’t been a paper with a title “XXXX, a new evidence of evolution” for decades! Scientists only work on the fine details of those evolution theories, to refine them; while evolution is definitely not questionable. It’s like you can work on the fine details of gravitation theories, while gravitation is a proven fact. //例如, 因為以往抗生素的濫用(對病菌很強力的生存壓力), 促使現在帶有很強抗藥性的病菌出現. 微生物的生命力是很強的. // This is already a solid proof; that genetic materials of animals do evolve with time. Please read the following abstract for reference: //方舟子•, 進化論虛妄嗎？ 二、進化首先是一個科學事實 反進化論者經常挂在嘴上的一句話，就是進化不過是一種假說，客氣點的說，不過是一種理論，總之不是科學事實。他們之所以這麽說，是因爲在一般人看來，理論的可信度不如事實，而假說又不如理論。對於一些科學家來說，反而會認爲理論高於事實，只有事實而沒有理論算不上科學。達爾文之所以偉大，正在於他把生物學由只是收集標本、觀察行爲的博物學變成了有理論基礎的科學。但是，不管理論和事實哪一個更高級，我們想要指出的是：生物進化首先是一個被無數科學證據證明了的科學事實，其次才是科學理論。 有關生物進化的科學證據來自生物學各個學科，舉不勝舉。最直觀的證據來自古生物學、、生物地理學、比較解剖學和比較胚胎學，在後面兩章我們將會對它們做些簡明的介紹。在此我只想指出，有關進化的最重要的證據來自現代生物學，特別是分子生物學和生物化學。分子生物學告訴我們，儘管地球上的生物形形色色，千變萬化，在分子水平上它們卻極爲一致：都有相同的遺傳物質——核酸，都用同一套遺傳密碼轉譯蛋白質，都用相同的２０種氨基酸組成蛋白質，而且儘管氨基酸有左手和右手兩種構型，所有的生物都只用左手構型的氨基酸；一種蛋白質對生命過程越重要，越基本，就越可能在所有的生物中都存在，並且其氨基酸序列在不同 的物種中根據親緣關係的親疏而有不同程度的相似性。對此我們只能得出結論：所有的生物都有共同的祖先，因此它們才能如此一致；它們是由共同的祖先經過不同的途徑進化來的，因此在相似中又有差異。神創論者辯解說，生物是上帝按同一藍圖設計出來的，所以它們有一致性；上帝在設計時考慮到了它們的不同的生活環境，所以又讓它們表現出多樣性。總之，在他們看來，一致性證明不了親緣關係，多樣性證明不了進化。進化論並不否認在同一環境下，有時候一致性證明不了親緣關 系，比如海豚與鯊魚有著相似的外形，這被稱爲進化的趨同現象，但是在器官和分子水平上，海豚與生存環境和外形都大不一樣的人的相似性，要比生存環境和外形都很相似的鯊魚強得多，請問上帝爲什麽要做出這種自相矛盾的設計？ 而且，儘管神創論者不願承認，萬能的上帝的“設計”並非十全十美，往往有著無用的甚至有害的特徵。比如我們人，在胚胎的早期會出現鰓裂，但是鰓卻對胎兒毫無用處，請問上帝爲什麽要有這樣的設計？又比如我們的脊柱，實際上只是由四足動物的脊柱略作加工而來，並非很適宜於直立行走，如果我們是四足著地的猩猩，就可以免去了象椎間盤突出之類的由直立行走造成的苦痛。如果人真是由上帝設計製造的，他何至於如此低能，又何苦如此折磨我們？而我們認爲，正是這種不完美，提供了進化的資訊，因爲這些無用或有害的特徵正是我們的祖先遺留給我們這些不肖子孫的負擔。 在今天，現代生物學已能夠下這個結論： 一、所有的生物都有共同的祖先； 二、每一種生物都是由先前另一物種演變而來的。 因此生物是進化的。達爾文把這個結論稱之爲“有修改的傳代”。這是一個科學事實，懷疑或否認這個事實就跟懷疑或否認地球圍繞太陽公轉和物質由原子組成一樣。同時我們還必須指出，也正如不能因爲至今我們無法直接看到地球圍繞太陽公轉、無法在顯微鏡下看到原子就懷疑它們是科學事實一樣，我們也不能因爲無法直接觀察到生物的進化而否定它是一個科學事實，因爲科學事實並不只是依賴直接的觀察，它更多地依靠間接的觀察和合理的推論。對於生物進化這種基本上是屬於歷史範疇的課題，由間接的證據獲得直接的結論是最主要的方法，那種“你說生物是進化的，能讓我們看看猿是怎樣變成人的嗎？”的責難不過是對科學研究法的無 知。 總之，對於現代生物學來說，進化首先是一個科學事實：生物是進化的，這是現代生物科學的大前提；其次才是理論和假說：生物是怎樣進化的，它的過程和機理是什麽，這是一切進化理論－－用進廢退說、自然選擇說、綜合學說、中性學說等等－－試圖解決的問題。我們必須承認，進化論還很不完善，有關進化的各種理論都有或多或少的缺陷；但是，某種進化理論不完善甚至是錯誤的並不能作爲生物進化不成立的理由，因爲“生物是怎樣進化的”和“生物是否進化”並不是一回事。 達爾文清楚地知道這種差別。在《人類的進化與性選擇》一書中，他寫道： “我有兩個不同的目的：第一，表明物種不是被分別創造的，第二，自然選擇是變化的主宰。……因此如果我出了差錯……誇大了它（自然選擇）的威力……我希望我至少對推翻分別創造的教條作了好的服務。” 可見，在達爾文看來，即使自然選擇學說不成立，也無法改變生物是進化的而非神創的這一事實。 很遺憾，神創論者一直在做這種徒勞的努力：利用各種進化理論在進化機理上的不同意見來否認生物進化這個事實。值得一提的是，神創論者對進化論責難，只要是有點道理的，無一不是從進化論者之間從前或現在的爭辯中剽竊來的。對於進化論的發展，神創論者的攻擊沒有任何的作用，連反作用都沒有。//

//　方舟子- 進化論虛妄嗎？ 三、進化論是科學 判斷一個事實或理論是否科學，有一些標準，其中最著名而且已被普遍接受的一條，就是是否能被否證。也就是說，一個科學的事實或理論，必須有能夠被否證（當然也能被證實）的預測，如果它的預測在一切條件下都不可能被推翻，那是玄學或同義反復的文字遊戲，不是科學。非常遺憾地是，這條標準的提出人波普爾曾經認爲進化論不符他的標準，不是科學而對科學研究有指導作用的玄學，在他看來，進化這個事實不具有能被否證的預測，“適者生存”的自然選擇學說不過是同義反復，因而也不可能被否證。即使是波普爾這樣的大哲學家，也曾經誤解了進化論 。 進化論是否能夠有可被驗證的預測呢？完全有可能。在許多條件下，進化論能被否證，這裏只舉一例。根據進化論，每一種生物都是由先前的生物進化來的，而所有的生物都有共同的祖先；那麽，整個生物界就相當於一個大家庭，象人類的大家庭一樣，我們也可以描繪出一株親緣關係樹，確定各個家庭成員的血緣關係。如果這種血緣關係是真正存在，用不同的標準繪出的親緣關係樹應該大致相符（由於材料不同、實驗誤差等因素，不能強求完全一致），否則的話，如果不同的標準繪出不同親緣關係樹，這種親緣關係就很值得懷疑，也就是說，若出現這種結果，進 化論即被否證。事實卻是，不管用什麽樣的標準，根據化石紀錄、器官比較、抗體反應比較、同源蛋白質的氨基酸序列的比較或基因序列比較，所繪出的親緣關係樹都相符得非常好，也就是說，進化論雖然可能被否證，結果卻是被證實了。特別是同源蛋白質的氨基酸序列以及基因序列的比較使我們對親緣樹的繪製達到了定量的程度，更加準確了。而且，同源蛋白質和基因有很多很多種，它們的序列比較——只要願意——可以沒完沒了地作下去，進化論也就一直在接受檢驗。幸運地是，至今爲止用至少幾千種不同的同源蛋白質和基因繪出的親緣樹在誤差範圍內都互相吻合，也就是說進化論不斷地在被證實。這種現象，如第二節所述，神創論是無法做 出合理的解釋的。 “所有的生物都有共同的祖先”這個說法早在達爾文時代就被提出了，它完全可能被分子生物學所否證：如果生物存在著許多種遺傳物種，許多套遺傳密碼，則“共同祖先”的命題被否證。但是我們已知道事實上恰好相反。 波普爾的攻擊物件主要是達爾文主義。達爾文雖然沒聽說過什麽“否證論”，但以一個大科學家的直覺，知道一個科學理論不應該無條件成立。實際上，他自己清楚地告訴我們他的理論在什麽情況下可以被推翻： “如果能夠證明在任一物種的結構的任一部份，它的形成純粹只是爲另一物種提供好處，那麽我的理論即失效，因爲這種結構不可能通過自然選擇産生。” “如果能夠證明存在任一不可能經由爲數衆多的、逐漸的、微小的修改形成的複雜的器官，那麽我的理論即告破産。”（《物種起源》） 今天的進化論者，不管他們對自然選擇的重要性的看法是多麽的不同，有一點是共同的：自然選擇不是進化的唯一動力（雖然是重要的，也許是最重要的動力）。也就是說，自然選擇在局部已被否證。 從以上的分析可以看出，波普爾對進化論的責難實際上出於對進化論的淺解。令人欣慰的是，他終於認識到了這一點。在他的晚年，當神創論者利用他的責難攻擊進化論時，他勇敢地站出來公開承認自己的錯誤： “我依然相信自然選擇是一個研究程式。然而，我已經改變了我對自然選擇理論的可檢驗性和邏輯特點的看法；我很高興能有機會宣佈放棄我的主張。” 與進化論相反，神創論則不是科學理論，無法被否證，因爲“上帝創造了萬物，萬物的存在證明了上帝的存在”是邏輯上永遠正確的同義重復。進化的種種證據，神創論者即使不得不承認它們的真實性，也完全可以認爲那只是一連串的巧合，正如你可以不承認萬有引力，而把所有的蘋果都往下掉當成一種巧合。到最後他們還可以說這一切是上帝的有意按排：所有的生物都是上帝創造的，只不過他故意把它們造成這個樣子，好讓科學家們誤以爲生物是進化來的。這種狡辯，也永遠無法被推翻。不過，按波普爾的看法，在面對科學與玄學（包括狡辯等等）的選擇時，一個有理性的人應該選擇前者。 而且，把上帝設想成了一個愛惡作劇的老頑童，對上帝未免太不恭敬吧？ //

令人精神一振嘅飯後甜品。

Thank you very much for the essay. I really learn a lot from you guys. Just want to ask where I can find the whole essay. Thank you again. Have a nice day.

讀完方舟子的「進化論虛妄嗎？」，不禁要說一聲：你們看，奇妙嗎！

To: 一句 The essay was taken from Dr. Fang's homepage at http://www.xys.org/~fang/science.html There are also plenty of highly readable and interesting essays available. If you are bothered by the Simplified Chinese code, you may use Windows Word to translate it back to Traditional Chinese (that's what I did). Thanks.

波柏/波普爾 (K. Popper) //然而，我已經改變了我對自然選擇理論的可檢驗性和邏輯特點的看法；我很高興能有機會宣佈放棄我的主張。// 波柏這段話很有意思。 雖然小妹不完全同意波柏年青時所提出的科學哲學， （甚至有不少有相榷餘地的地方） 但是，他最令小妹尊敬與欣賞的地方， 就是他的哲學是永遠青春、永不衰老的。 「永遠青春」的意思， 並不是他的理論永遠正確無誤、永遠適用， 而是指他的理論是不斷蓬勃拙壯，不斷發展的。 一些讀者會發現， 波柏在不同時期的著作會有互相矛盾的地方， 但這不是因為波柏的思想混亂， 而是他不斷反省和修正自己過往曾經相信的信念， 當他發現自己已發表的理論有不足， 便勇於承認，予以修正，甚至放棄。 這種態度，才是忠於「真」的哲學態度， 很值得大家學習。

回數學狂 "人類憑什麽可自高於其他動物,而任意侮辱、詆毀它們?" 數學狂君, 我知道你是個佛教支持者, 對生命也很珍惜, 我想你有一點搞錯了. 本人或是基督徒, 也很愛護和喜歡小動物, 覺得牠們甚是可愛, 但我要告訴你的, 不是侮辱與否, 喜好與否的東西, 不是這個範疇, 而是<<級別>>的問題. 我很難令你對動物跟人類混淆不清的思想轉變, 我只好用一點點簡單的比喻問你, 你自己再問自己, 看看你能不能分別吧. 你有沒有看過<<鐵達尼號>>這部電影? 你覺得在極度寒冷的水溫, 阿jack 甘願以自己的性命, 去保住自己深愛的rose的生命和幸福, 直至救生艇來到. 你認為值得不值得? 相對一個問題, 如果在同一個環境底下, 你會不會為一隻養了很久, 很有感情的猫, 犧牲自己的性命去保住那猫兒不掉下水, 直至救生艇來到呢? 你覺得值得不值得? #你只要回答我的問題, 不要扯開到其他地方.

回一句, 關於苦難. 記得曾經有人向一個牧師這樣問: 上帝如果是愛，又是有大能，為什麼有非洲有那麼多嬰孩餓死呢？ 牧師回答：哦，你的意思就是「抓上帝來罵罵」你就高興了？你說「上帝就 是愛，為什麼有很多嬰孩餓死？」請問，你為什麼不用「上帝既是公 義的，為什麼別的地方犯那麼多的罪，嬰孩不像他們死那麼多？」你 聽懂我的話嗎？你今天把上帝的愛當作把柄來追討上帝，你為什麼不 以上帝的公義當作把柄來追討上帝為什麼不把台灣這些犯罪的人殺死 ？你今天只懂上帝一些名詞中間的極端的那些意義，然後把那些意義 利用來當做攻擊上帝的原因，我告訴你，你很危險。 如果上帝真的是愛，怎麼證明？就證明在你寫這個問題的時候還沒有 給你死，祂真的是愛你。上帝是烈火、上帝是靈、上帝是聖潔的、上 帝是義、上帝是審判者。你今天抓住上帝是愛，就來追討祂什麼都要 儘量照著我的意思來做，我告訴你，你很可怕。我們如果用這樣的心 情到上帝面前，我們正在冒犯，很危險。上帝這樣愛你，愛到你發這 個問題的時候還可以活下去，而且這個問題還可以唸給大家聽，這表 示上帝實在愛你。 你還記得十多年前有一個台大的哲學系教授叫作陳鼓應，陳先生打鼓 大家反應，你聽過這個名字沒有？他寫了一本書叫作什麼，《耶穌的新畫像》裡面講什麼？「上帝是坐在精神上面的獨裁者。舊約的上帝殺了多少人多少人.... 這樣殘忍的上帝，我們為什麼要信他？ 」 O.K. 一個大學生來問：「唐牧師，你看陳鼓應教授這個書.... 」我說：「我看了。」「你的感想如何？」「我感想？我不敢想」為什麼不敢想？「這樣的人怎麼活在世界上？如果上帝真正像他講的那麼壞 ，（注意聽下面的話）如果上帝真正像他講的那麼壞，一定知道他寫書寫一半是要罵上帝，等他沒寫完先把他殺死了！所以，上帝既然許可他把那本書寫得清清楚楚，還賣得一些錢可以養活他的家人，就證明上帝實在沒有像他講的那麼壞。而且如果他真正知道上帝是那麼壞的，他一定不敢寫。所以他寫上帝那麼壞，因為他知道上帝沒有那麼壞，所以故意就看上帝沒有那麼壞就隨便毀謗上帝那麼壞，這是罪上 加罪！」你要用哲學，我用哲學。你用邏輯，我用邏輯。那個學生說 ：「唉呀！是的。如果上帝像他講的那麼壞一定在他還沒有寫完前先 結束他的命，對不對？那才證明祂真是那麼壞。」所以凡是能到你耳 中的，可能就是假的。許多在罪惡世界中間能到你耳中的刺激你的一些所謂的新聞，可能都不是真真實實的事情。 比如說，有一個牧師同性戀，或者有一個傳道人偷東西，現在報紙登的大的不得了！「你看所有牧師都是這麼壞」。我告訴你，如果牧師都是這麼壞一定不能上報紙，因為天天看的還能上報紙？就是因為幾萬個牧師那麼好，一個壞才會登報紙，對不對呢？所以凡是到你耳中的消息都不一定是真實的，「所有牧師都是這樣！」沒有這個事。能夠製造新聞的都是特別的，比較特別的一定是少數。所以你不要以為看到某一種這樣的東西就證明是真的。 有時候，你看到有一些小孩子有一些前生的記憶，所以，「你看！這證明有輪迴！」我告訴你，這種理論根本不值得我們去看的。為什麼？如果有一、兩個孩子好像是前生的回憶，就可以變成定一個教義， 有「六道輪迴」這樣的話，我問你，為什麼千千萬的基督徒做見證他們得到耶穌的寶血洗淨，他們的生命改變你不接受？而一、兩個孩子講這樣的話你就接受當作真理？這表示你的心已經偏邪，你已經預備心接受你愛接受的，而不願意接受你不愛接受的。所以這麼多人見證你好像置之不理，而一、兩個人你把他大渲大染，你明白嗎？ 青年人你們要聰明，你的理性是很重要的。但是你的理性是很笨的！你許多時候你的理性 就以為某一些比較合理的事情就是真理，而許多事情如果你再用更嚴格的邏輯訓練去看的話，都是一種很可怕的一種玩耍，一種遊戲。求主憐憫，憐憫我們，使我們對真理有真正的順從。 伊索匹亞 (Ethiopia)，非洲發生那些大災難、飢餓，以後還會更厲害的！為什麼呢？因為這些人不照著自然律，對環境沒有保護。環保是很重要的一件事情，環保是我們應當做的事情，而基督徒應當對社會有責任，基督徒應當對環境有保護。這個在歸正神學 (reformed theology) 裡面叫作「文化使命」 (Culture mande)。 我們許多福音派的人只懂「福音使命」，不懂「文化使命」。神給人兩個大的使命 ，第一、要修理看守這個園。第二、你要歸向我，你要走在我的道路中間，藉著基督的死與復活人回到上帝面前，這個叫作「福音使命」 。我們傳福音叫人歸向上帝。但是一個歸向主的人要以神代表的身份在這個世界上來關懷別人，愛別人，辦教育，注意環境保護等等。這個叫作「文化使命」。以神的新生命的能力和智慧去做，我們在地上當盡的責任，當做的事，這個叫作我們的「文化使命」。 我看到很多福音派的人起先只單單懂福音、福音，到了某一個時候， 看見，原來聖經還有這麼多東西！我告訴你，我們不能每一個人都做傳道，神要你們有一些人做基督徒警察、做基督徒法官、做基督徒醫生、做基督徒的生意人、做基督徒的教授、做基督徒的工程師、做基督徒的政府人員、做基督徒的總統。這樣，就把基督的生命和做耶穌基督世界的光照耀在各層次裡面。 「你們是世上的光」（馬太福音：5 章 14 節）大家說（重覆）。今天很多人說什麼？「我是禮拜堂裡面的光。」一到世界就暗了，回到禮拜堂再「光」、出去再「暗」，進來再「光」。所以你「光」我， 我「光」你，「光」來「光」去。結果禮拜堂「光光的」，一出到禮拜堂「暗暗的」。所以在政府機關人家看不出你是基督徒；在審判官的座位裡看不出你有神的公義，完全沒有基督徒的形像。我們應當把基督的光照射出去。

當然是人各有志, 也有言論自由的空間 只是若有人志在宣教, 效果卻適得其反 又弄得大家一團忙亂, 真是枉然

查實 有笑可搞，一樂也！ 我最喜歡提供笑話的人；那種人說話時認真兮兮；聽的人哈哈大笑。 我們可當他是故意搞笑，就個個笑口常開，並唔會忙亂不堪了

請指教 雲起君 我有一些問題想不明白,希望賜教 1)不能吃肉,是因為不應"殺生",如果那動物是"自然死"的(例如老死),那麼我們又可否吃牠的肉? 2)你不是"植物",又怎知"植物"不會感到痛苦? 我不是基督徒,更不是針對佛教,反之我對佛教甚有興趣,可惜,我太蠢了,很多東西也不明白,希望大家賜教. 以我的理解是:凡一切會"生長"的皆是"生物". 植物會長大,所以算是"生物" 即是有"生命",那麼吃植物都應算是殺生吧!

強盜與少女 一天，一位弱質纖纖的少女，在街上，遇到一個魁梧健碩的強盜。強盜左手拿著刀，右手緊抱著少女，並威嚇少女：「快將身上的財物都交出來！」 少女想逃脫，不斷掙扎，手肘用力撞向強盜的上臂，又用力咬了強盜抱住她的下臂一下，但始終不能成功逃脫。 強盜：「妳知道我是多麼的愛妳嗎？」 少女：「你現在向我打劫，還說愛我？」 強盜：「我當然愛妳啦！上星期我才在遊樂場刺死了幾個盪鞦韆的小孩！妳剛才用力撞我、咬我，我還沒有把妳即時刺死，現在妳還可以在我溫暖的懷抱內活下來，這便證明了我多麼的愛妳啊！那些小孩被殺死，是因為他們閒時只顧玩樂，不利用閒暇學習武功、強身健體。所以，他們敵不過我的刀，是他們咎由自取，其實我是多麼的愛他們啊！妳知嗎？我愛世界上每一個人！」 少女：「連手無寸鐵的小孩子也不放過，你連人渣也不如，還竟敢說愛每一個人？」 強盜：「妳今天只知道我所做過的極端行為，然後以我做過這些行為來當做攻擊我的原因。我告訴你，你很危險......」

強盜與少女（續） 結果，強盜不但搶去了少女所有的財物，然後將她強姦，更將少女肢解，死狀慘不忍睹...... 過了幾天，警方找到證據，成功緝拿殺死少女的強盜。這樁案件轟動全個城市，幾乎所有報章都將此件慘劇放上頭條。 電視台記者亦有重點報道這樁案件，還訪問市民對此案件的意見。其中，有一位被訪者這樣回答記者： 記者：「你對殺人犯有什麼評價？」 被訪者：「能夠製造新聞的都是特別的，比較特別的一定是少數。要是殺人犯都是這麼壞的話，一定不能上報紙。就是因為幾萬個殺人犯都那麼好，要壞得先姦後殺還不夠，更要將死者肢解的那些殺人犯，才會登報紙，對不對？」

傲雪君: 我沒有說過殺生的問題, 為何問我呢? 我比較傾向佛教, 但自問不算是佛教徒, 因為搞不清楚輪迴是甚麼一回事. 我有限的了解, 佛教不殺生是本著慈悲心, 對俗世修行人不是嚴格的教條; 有些講法則說很多動物可能是你的親人朋友輪迴變成的, 所以不要吃錯! (一笑) 好像藏傳佛教很多喇嘛也吃肉的, 因為在西藏高原沒太多素吃, 不能不吃肉. 其他問題, 不如小花生答吧!

To Everyone I wish everybody a prosperous and happy new year! To S.C. Sorry for replying late. I am just too lazy during this Christmas. Let’s go back to our discussion. //1. If A, God is able to make a stone S such that He is unable to lift. Since He is able to make S but he is unable to lift S, so ~B. // Same as my previous challenge, the critical issue here is whether the statement of “since He is able to make S but he is unable to lift S, so ~B.” is sound or not. I challenge it by asking whether a new feature (which can resolve the built-in contradiction of the “ability to be unable” of the stone dilemma) can be added to the stone by the omnipotent being. //2. If "S.C. is black and non-black," then the indirect proof of S.C. being not "black and non-black" will be inadequate// Before examining this statement further, I think you need to show what is the relation between "S.C. is black and non-black" (or “X”) and “the indirect proof of S.C. being not ‘black and non-black’ will be inadequate” (or “Y”). Unlike the concept of omnipotence, X does not automatically have the power to add feature to enable Y. PS //李天命對此也有作出回應,說神能做了互相矛盾的事卻不互相矛盾是一矛盾的回應// I just learnt the above statement from anther thread. What does it mean? It sounds more relevant.

Happy New Year! 佛教比較可愛的地方是, 當有人質疑佛教教義時, 沒有人會第一時間撲出來護教, In order to share its loveliness, I would like to defend Buddhism. (In case there are Buddhists who don’t agree with me, please share your views with us.) First, “life” in Buddhism has a different meaning from what we learnt from school. From a broader perspective, life in Buddhism may have 6 phases (fairy, ghost, human, animal, …) and is nevertheless everlasting. When a person “dies”, it doesn’t mean his life is over but would instead transform into another life. What will his next life be (a fairy or a person again) depends on what he had done in his current life. Why is killing not allowed in Buddhism? Because Buddhism believes what you did previously will determine what you will receive subsequently. If you don’t want to be killed or eaten, don’t do the same to other lives. Why is “killing plants” “allowed” in Buddhism? Because plants are considered living creatures in science but not in Buddhism. In fact, what is the definition of life in Buddhism? Life is those beings which are subject to the 6 phases of lives and have the ability to do something and subsequently enjoy or suffer the consequences. It seems that plants do not qualify. Similarly, bacteria and virus are excluded. That may be why sterilization and/or antibiotics are also allowed in Buddhism. Some traditional Chinese legends said that some plants (or even stones) can become fairies after several thousand years (with some peculiar experience, known as “Yuen”) but I don’t think they are genuine Buddhist stories. Some may argue that the above is only the periphery of the Buddhist core beliefs. They are probably correct. Nowadays, Buddhism is more like a branch of philosophy and seldom talk about life after life. What do you think? Discussion Questions --------------------------- 1. What are the core beliefs of Buddhism? 2. I heard that before Buddha died (or “Nip Poon” which means never to be trapped by the 6 phases of lives anymore), he had left 5 Truths (or 6 Truths) to “define” Buddhist core beliefs. Am I right to say this? If so, what are they? Are they still applicable today?

Sorry for Distraction! //因為花密和水果是植物做出來給其他生物食,以達到一些目的的東西 // Is this an idea we believe or an idea we know?

是我們知道的科學事實

加把咀先~ 今晚唔想打太多字... 所以係咁易.. 所謂輪迴, 本是婆羅門的想法 不殺生, 本是耆老教的想法 這其實不是悉達多, 這位釋迦國的王子和牟尼的想法. 他不過保留或用自己方法去解釋, 對婆羅門和耆老教教義與以破立 情形如同拿撒勒人耶穌, 那些古猶太人的律法不是他的想法, 他也不過將其保留和提倡, 及利用經文以推廣他自己的想法, 同樣對前人思想是有破有立的. 大家最好不要因為某人很偉大或其他原因, 而全盤接收他的思想. 可以做到獨立思考, 不論古代或現代都是一個很重要的思想方法.

搬移 真係對佛法有興趣? 我訓身推薦所有對佛法有興趣的網友呢本書: 書名: 佛教的見地與修道 作者: 宗薩欽哲仁波車 出版: 眾生文化 唔係周圍有得賣, 價格不定, 由$120到$50不等 C.C. Lib.冇得借

方舟子, 進化論虛妄嗎？ I think we have discussed this before under another tread? What is the conclusion?

問JoeJoneS 阿哥仔, 你係唔係有跟過霍生學佛架?

//是我們知道的科學事實 // How to know (or prove)?

哈~ >因為很多人篤信自相信的宗教，但是有一個很嚴重的弊端風氣，就是<<不求甚解>>的迷上去.這是很可憐的. < 見到揣犘用這句去教訓人, 哈, 可算是今日見到的第二個笑話 你幾時答我問你關於基教的問題? 究竟人死後到審判前處身那一個地獄?? Jacky或 JPY, 願意出來護駕嗎?

小花生 對不起, 誰是霍生? 宗教從不是我的興趣 :P

Another Distraction! //大家最好不要因為某人很偉大或其他原因, 而全盤接收他的思想. 可以做到獨立思考, 不論古代或現代都是一個很重要的思想方法. // Agree! But how to remove prejudice(s) to ensure independent thinking?

//究竟人死後到審判前處身那一個地獄?? // Sorry for missing this question! But this is a very technical question. I really have no idea but I doubt whether the Bible has clearly indicated this. In fact, even the concept of hell itself is not very well-defined in the Bible. I suspect it is a Buddhist or Hindus concept. By the way, what is the big deal of not knowing which particular hell we will go into after we die?

JPY and JoeJoneS "Buddhadharma is not a religion in the everyday connotation of the word. I'm not talking about the sophisticated ways of explaining religion used by university Departments of Religion. But our regular mundane understanding of religion is somewhat simple: it is a belief, a dogma that we have about some superhuman beings outside ourself, some supernatural energy outside one's being which has power, control, over our universe and over sentient beings. This mundane understanding of religion is a theistic view." This is not what Buddhism is."

呀... 修正一下 耆老教應該係叫"耆那教"... 記錯左.

>By the way, what is the big deal of not knowing which particular hell we will go into after we die? < no big deal. 不過係想"求甚解", 以免 "不求甚解"的迷上去吧, 哈哈 下次可能會問針頭上可以有幾多天使跳舞 :P

To 小花生 I agree with you that Buddhism is not a religion. There is not a supergod and there is no one who can help except yourself. That is why I am so frustrated with question like which one of Jesus and Buddha is a greater god. By the way, have you heard about the "5 Truths" (or 6 Truths) suggested by Buddha?

小花生, 你反而是學佛的嗎? 曾經提過, belief係一個fuzzy term, 可以有好多唔同程度. 宗教的教義作為一隻形而上的解釋我還可以接受, 但千萬不要100% 相信, 更不要對我對其他說這是"真理". 謝謝

JoeJones 很喜歡你的「一隻」。

JPY Life has four phases: birth, aging, sickness and death Samsara has six realms: the god realm, the asura realm, the human realm, the animal realm, the preta realm, the hell realm. Karma: 業 Nirvana: 湼槃

JPY 係four noble truth 呀!

為什麼要結水果?水果為什麼會發出吸引特定生物的香味,花蜜為什麼甜,為什麼要花能量去製造?花為什麼香(就目標生物而言,也有死屍味的花和怪味的花蜜,吸引蒼蠅) 我們就是由植物的"動機"和結果得知那些部分的用途(生果給吃了,其中的種子就會給帶開去,在採蜜時,花粉也會給傳播開去),好像我們為什麼知道胃有什麼用,是由觀察得來的結果

Four Noble Truths Please share more! However, frankly, my intention is to challenge them (when I have time). No kidding!

我也要向 JPY sorry 見你漏答都sorry ...... 根據我的做人原則, 我也要sorry :P >But how to remove prejudice(s) to ensure independent thinking? < 我的想法係用 "數學" 和 "歷史" 我一來這裡己講過, 求真, 要用"歷史"的方法, 即不作假不片面的去知道記錄發生了什麼 知理, 要用"數學"的方法, 即得出一緻無矛盾的系統. 語言呢, 是作為一種溝通和詮釋的工具而已

JPY 唔該做吓功課先黎踢館!

小花生~ JPY 想問四聖諦, 苦, 集, 減, 道呀

JPY I cho you che kei! (我彩你至奇!)

To 征服者 Thank you for your response. In my opinion, this seems not constituting a proof to enable us to know instead of to believe. However, you may be right while I am wrong. By the way, it is just a minor distraction.

四聖諦, 苦, 集, 減, 道 This is not the version I heard before. I think each truth comprises 4 Chinese characters.

History, Mathematics & Languages I think this will be another prolonged discussion. But, it is late now and I have to go to bed. Good night!

Yeah!

哈~ 以我比認識基教還要淺的佛學修為, 4 noble truth =四聖諦, 即"苦, 集, 減, 道" 唉, 如果你連這點認識也無, 你如何去 "叉X 住" 人呢? :P (PS: X 可以解煮一手好菜, 小朋友請不要學這個PG 級的字 )

好, 黎, 簡簡單單, 兩句 植物有命無性, 食唔食隨便你!

回應 回一句: 1."生物怎樣從無性繁殖演化到有性繁殖？" 答: 不知道, 我只知道繁殖機制在越高等的生物中越完善. 2."為什麼只是雙性而不是三性呢？" 答: 在數學計算上,n+1性繁殖會比n性繁殖產生更多組合. 為甚麼生物界只存在雙性繁殖? 我不能肯定, 但我估計可能實際上要3個個體進行交合並成功生產下一代的實際可能性較低, 並且可能雙性繁殖已產生足夠的基因組合以應付生存問題. 3. 我想你另外的問題在Benson的引文中已獲得答案. 回4:21: 4. 當然可以

花生，係咪植物黎嫁？

「有理由去相信」 征服者，你好！ 「水果是植物做出來給其他生物吃的」這個判斷，我覺得是無法證明的。我認為研究人員祗可以「有理由去相信」它。 到目前為止，「意圖」仍然是一種無法觀察的意識活動。我們可以觀察事物、事物的活動和事物活動的結果，但我們無法觀察事物活動的目的。不過，我們可以「有理由去相信」它。 對此見解你有何意見呢？

To JPY //I wish everybody a prosperous and happy new year! // I wish everyone have a new year full of love. //Sorry for replying late. I am just too lazy during this Christmas. // It's okay. But to be honest, I am unable to keep track of every long thread, esp. for those replies days ago, so remind me if I haven't answered you for a long time. //Same as my previous challenge, the critical issue here is whether the statement of 'since He is able to make S but he is unable to lift S, so ~B.' is sound or not. I challenge it by asking whether a new feature (which can resolve the built-in contradiction of the 'ability to be unable' of the stone dilemma) can be added to the stone by the omnipotent being.// You claimed: "he is unable to lift all stones he is able to make ('~B')." ~B means God (He) is unable to lift all stones He is able to make. "JPY is unable to lift all stones he is able to make" and "there is at least a stone JPY is able to make but is unable to lift" are equivalent. Here I have showed that if A, there is a stone S God is able to make but unable to lift (by construction), so my argument //If A, God is able to make a stone S such that He is unable to lift. Since He is able to make S but he is unable to lift S, so ~B. // is a sound argument, that is, "A=>~B" is true. Unless you have basic knowledge of logic, you have no idea how simple it is. //Before examining this statement further, I think you need to show what is the relation between "S.C. is black and non-black" (or 'X') and 'the indirect proof of S.C. being not black and non-black’ will be inadequate' (or 'Y'). Unlike the concept of omnipotence, X does not automatically have the power to add feature to enable Y. // If S.C. is black and non-black, my indirect proof of S.C. being not "black and non-black" will be unsound (although you agree this is a sound argument). An unsound argument is inadequate to show the conclusion being true. In this case, shouldn't I adopt a new approach? :) //I just learnt the above statement from anther thread. What does it mean? It sounds more relevant.// Have you ever really read Dr Lee's book? It's all in that book. To make it short, not even Christian writers in that book think omnipotence includes the ability to do something impossible. This is too problematic. Happy new year.

To: JPY //What is the conclusion?// The conclusion is: //進化首先是一個科學事實, and 進化論是科學 一、所有的生物都有共同的祖先； 二、每一種生物都是由先前另一物種演變而來的。 //

To: JPY ////李天命對此也有作出回應,說神能做了互相矛盾的事卻不互相矛盾是一矛盾的回應// I just learnt the above statement from anther thread. What does it mean? It sounds more relevant.// Since you are so reluctant to read Dr. Li’s book, may be I can help you with this. Anyone who violates logic means he is self-contradictory. God violates logic means God is self-contradictory. God violates logic without being self-contradictory means God is self-contradictory and is not self-contradictory which by itself is self-contradictory.

To: JPY //I think we have discussed this before under another "tread"? // You mean "thread"?

又錯! JoeJoneS 哥哥 四聖諦不是苦, 集, 減, 道，是苦, 集, 「滅」, 道。 你應考慮配一副老花眼鏡。

//JPY: However, frankly, my intention is to challenge them (when I have time). No kidding! // 狂妄! How can you challenge Buddhism without knowing anything of it? Is it the same tactics you used to challenge evolution? //小花生: JPY 唔該做吓功課先黎踢館! // //JoeJoneS: 以我比認識基教還要淺的佛學修為, 4 noble truth =四聖諦, 即"苦, 集, 減, 道" 唉, 如果你連這點認識也無, 你如何去 "叉X 住" 人呢? :P // Agree. //小花生: Karma: 業 Nirvana: 湼槃 // A few more: Three Universal Characteristics. 三法印 Four Nobel truths. 四聖諦 Dependent origination:因缘法 Reincarnation/Rebirth:輪迴 Five Aggregates: 五蘊 Eightfold Path to wisdom: 八正道

回應: 1) 先謝謝翔的回應及Benson的引文。=) 2) Philomena，你的小故事令我想起伏爾泰所作小說《憨第德》(Candide)。揣摩，有時間的話，買本看看吧，對你有益。 3) 簡覆揣摩： 第二段：我並無意「抓上帝來罵罵」；我只是懷疑，神不是慈愛的。若神是慈愛的，他就是不是全能的（除不能做出違反邏輯的事外，他也不能阻止苦難的發生）。Theorizing 一大輪後，你還未答我，為什麼神容許這麼多嬰孩餓死。至於我問不問「為什麼神不把台灣這些犯罪的人殺死？」，是不相關的。 第三段：//如果上帝真的是愛，怎麼證明？就證明在你寫這個問題的時候還沒有給你死，祂真的是愛你。// 我問你一個問題，你沒有給我死，就是愛我？我真的不知怎樣回應，只能說你對愛的定義，和我們慣用的不一樣。 第四段：//如果上帝真正像他講的那麼壞，一定知道他寫書寫一半是要罵上帝，等他沒寫完先把他殺死了！所以，上帝既然許可他把那本書寫得清清楚楚，還賣得一些錢可以養活他的家人，就證明上帝實在沒有像他講的那麼壞。// 還有很多可能吧！至少可能神根本就不存在。不要思想兩極化。 第五､六段：不大明白你想說什麼，不能回應。 第七段：//青年人你們要聰明，你的理性是很重要的。但是你的理性是很笨的！//你說我笨，我能理解。但你是說我的理性笨？這句應怎樣理解？從這段中，看出你有不少反智傾向。雖不同意，但與討論無關，不作回應。 至於最後三段，一些不能理解，一些與討論無關，不作回應。 想問問閣下，真的是唐牧師？ 請恕在下直言，以閣下的思維能力及中文水平，在這裡硬sell基督教，實在太辛苦閣下了。何不如在下一樣，多聽､少說？ 另：對一知半解的哲學及邏輯，還是少說為妙。 完。

我們是相信胃是用來消化還是知道胃是用來消化? 自然界中沒有退化而一直傳在於那麼多植物中的東西,不可能完全對植物沒有用,因為長出沒有用的東西會減低生存的機會,不可能大量繁衍.而有水果的植物都不會把種子用風或用射的方式帶開.又水果本身不給吃掉會整個自行掉下,植物不會吸收其中的養份

頂......"r" 同 "f" ..... 剛剛記得唔好錯一個"道"字, 又錯另一個"滅"字.... 默書或聽寫一百分, 你好好0野~ 下次我會記得"滅""道"兩個字的了~ :P

If you have time, you can read this. Sorry that it is a bit too long. It may cost you an hour or so but I think it is worth it. Simplied chinese version at: http://www.xys.org/~fang/doc/science/evolution/chapter3.txt Traditional chinese version: (the figures are misaligned. Please refer to the above link for details). //方舟子. 進化論虛妄嗎？ 第三章 是的，我們來自同一個祖先 －－現代生物學的進化證據 一般人可能會認爲，我們僅僅是從古生物化石得出生物是進化的這個結論的。微言顯然是這麽想的，他以爲只要挑出幾個化石標本，胡亂批駁一通，就推翻了進化論，未免太天真了。即使沒有古生物標本，我們也可以根據對現存生物的比較研究，得出生物是進化的結論．這些研究，主要地來自生物地理學、生物分類學、比較解剖學、比較胚胎學、比較免疫學、生物化學、細胞生物學和分子生物學．在第二章“爲什麽要有進化論？”我們已介紹了達爾文最早是從生物地理學得出生物進化的結論的，這一章我們來看看其他學科的進化證據，重點放在分子生物學，因爲我認爲它爲進化論提供了最重要的證據和研究模型。 古生物學的證據我將在以後各章詳細介紹。 一、生物分類學的證據 現存生物有幾百萬種，不對它們分門別類根本無法研究。生物分類學的創建人是十八世紀的瑞典人林奈，他確定了種名採用雙名法：第一個是拉丁名詞，表示屬名，第二個是拉丁形容詞，表示種。形態相似的種組成屬，屬組成目，目組成綱，綱組成界。以後由於用進化論研究分類的需要，海克爾在屬與目之間增加科，在綱與界之間增加門。這就是沿用至今的分類級別，每一級別又都可以有“超”、“亞”等附庸。 爲了直觀地顯示各種生物在分類上的關係，分類學家一直在嘗試畫出關係圖表。林奈最初是用地圖一樣的圖表，發現根本無法畫好。以後的分類學家開始用直線來畫，把生物界畫成從最低等生物一直到人的一條長鏈。比如，他們認爲兩栖類比魚類高等，爬行類比兩栖類高等，哺乳類又比爬行類高等，所以可以畫成： 魚類－＞兩栖類－＞爬行類－＞哺乳類 但是鳥類怎麽辦？它們顯然要比爬行類高等，但也不見得就比哺乳類都低等，沒辦法，只好在爬行類上面分支，畫出鳥類一脈。把這樣的分類關係圖畫得越多、越細，分支也就越多，最後就成爲一株樹。我們看到一株樹，就知道它是由樹根長出，不斷生長、分支的；我們看到一株分類樹，很自然地就應該想到生物都是從同一祖先傳下來，不斷地進化、分化，種類越來越多的。 但是林奈的時代還不知道生物是進化的，爲了解釋生物既相似又不同，他發明了“原型說”，直到今天，神創論者對生物分類的唯一解釋也就是三百年前的原型說。原型說認爲，上帝是用一種原型造一大類生物，再用不同的原型造不同小類的生物，比如，上帝都用“脊椎動物”這個原型（或者說藍圖）造爬行類和哺乳類，所以兩類動物有一些共同的特徵；然後上帝再分別用“爬行動物”和“哺乳動物”這兩個原型造爬行類和哺乳類，所以兩者又有不同的特徵。可以用集合圖來表示如下： |-----------------------------------------------| | |----------------| | | 脊椎動物 | 爬行動物 | | | |----------------| | | | | |----------------| | | | 哺乳動物 | | | |----------------| | |-----------------------------------------------| 也就是說爬行類和哺乳類是脊椎動物集下兩個獨立的子集。可是按這種說法，哺乳動物中的每一種動物都應該跟爬行動物離得一樣遠或一樣近，不能有的哺乳動物比別的哺乳動物更靠近爬行動物。事實正好相反，哺乳動物中的原獸類具有一些類似爬行動物的特徵（比如卵生，有泄殖腔，體溫不恒定），爲真獸類所無。也就是說哺乳類這個集合與爬行類這個集合有某種關係，但既不交叉又不兼併，已無法用集合（原型）表示，它們只能是具有血緣關係，唯一的表示法只能是： 爬行類 真獸類 | | | |------原獸類 | | |---------------------| | 古代爬行類 一個小分支（原獸類）的生出點越靠近大分支（哺乳類）的下端，就越可能保留主幹（古代爬行類）的特徵，也就越可能與另一個大分支（爬行類）相似。對這種分類關係的唯一合理解釋只能是進化論。 正因爲生物是進化的，所以有時候物種界限顯得很模糊。比如夏威夷有兩種屬於同一屬的果蠅，它們太相似了，以至於鑒定哪種是哪種要靠對群體的統計，唯一合理解釋是這兩種果蠅從同一祖先那裏分支出來不久，所以彼此之間還差別不大。對此神創論也沒法給出合理的解釋：你能想象上帝在造這兩種果蠅時，一會用這張原型的某一部分，一會用另一張原型的某一部分，把兩張原型隨機組合起來使用？世上有這麽糊塗的設計師嗎？ 以上對原型說（有時候也被稱爲“共同設計說”）的分析也同樣適用於以下的其他證據，實際上，比較解剖學、比較胚胎學、比較免疫學、和分子生物學中對不同物種的比較，都是生物分類學的深化，都可以應用在生物分類上。 二、比較解剖學的證據 早在一五五五年，貝侖Pierre Belon就對人和鳥的骨胳系統做了比較，發現人和鳥儘管在外形上極爲不同，骨骼組成卻非常相似，這可能是歷史上的第一次比較解剖學的研究。當然，我們並不是因此說人是從鳥變來的（或相反），我們只是說，人和鳥是親戚，都是一個祖先的後代，這一點，也適用於以下的討論。 一個許多人都知道的例子是脊椎動物的前肢的比較，用於勞動的人手、用於奔跑的馬腿、用於走路的貓腿、用於游泳的鯨“鰭”、用於飛翔的蝙蝠的翅膀甚至於鳥的翅膀，它們的外形是如此的迥異，功能是如此的不同，但是剔除皮毛、肌肉之後，呈現在我們眼前的骨架卻又是如此相似！實際上，它們的骨架和蜥蜴、青蛙的前肢也是相似的，對此最好的解釋是從同一祖先變化而來的，由於適應環境的需要，改變了外形，但是骨子裏卻沒有變多少。如果它們是由上帝分別創造出來的，根本沒必要讓不同的外形卻有相同的結構，如果讓一個工程師來設計這些前肢，他完 全可以去除一些對其他物種必需對這個物種卻是個累贅、退化得只剩一點痕迹的骨頭．我們相信我們已在化石中找到了這些脊椎動物的共同祖先，它是一種鰭裏有骨頭的魚(Crossopterygian fish)，而且這些骨頭的組成與所有的陸地脊椎動物都很相似。 在上面我已提到了退化了的前肢骨．在許多生物都存在著一些退化了的器官，它們是生物進化的令人信服的證據。比如鯨，它的後肢已經消失了，但它的後肢骨並沒有消失，我們還可以在它的尾部找到已不起作用的盆骨和股骨。甚至在一些蛇類中，我們也可以找到盆骨和股骨的殘餘．這使我們相信，鯨是由陸地四足動物進化來的，蛇是由蜥蜴進化來的。 我們人類，已完全退化了的器官也不少，尾骨、轉耳肌、闌尾、瞬膜〔第三眼瞼〕等等都是完全退化、不起作用的器官，它們除了讓我們記住我們的祖先曾經象猴一樣有尾巴，象兔子一樣轉動耳朵，象草食動物一樣有發達的盲腸，象青蛙一樣眨眼睛，還能有別的什麽合理解釋嗎？（有時候，某個退化器官也會被發現有某種小功能，那或者是從前功能的殘餘，或者是全新的功能，相當於廢物利用）。 你說人和萬物都是由上帝創造的，請告訴我，他爲什麽要造出這些廢物？莫非象有的教徒所宣稱的那樣，上帝造出這些廢物是爲了愚弄科學家，考驗我們對他的忠誠？ 1994.12.7. 三、比較胚胎學的證據 如果把魚、青蛙、龜、雞、豬、兔和人的各個時期的胚胎放在一起，我們會發現它們存在著不同程度的相似性，關係越親密（比如都是哺乳類），則相似的程度越高。這些脊椎動物－－不管是用鰓呼吸的魚類和兩栖類（幼體），還是用肺呼吸的爬行類、鳥類、哺乳類－－在胚胎發育的早期都出現了鰓裂，不僅外形象魚，而且內臟也象魚：有動脈弓，心臟只有兩腔等等。對這個現象的唯一合理的解釋，就是這些脊椎動物都是由魚進化來的，它們的祖先的特徵在胚胎發育過程中重演了。海克爾在上個世紀末甚至因此提出了“生物重演律”，認爲胚胎發育過程實際上是 物種進化過程的濃縮，胚胎在短時間內忠實地重復了祖先幾億、幾十億年的進化過程。他預言：對胚胎發育過程的深入研究將使我們掌握物種的進化過程的細節。但是，以後的研究表明胚胎並非在嚴格地重演進化過程，生物重演律被放棄了；然而，胚胎在發育過程中重演祖先的某些特徵，卻是不爭的事實，也是生物進化的富有說服力的直觀的證據。神創論者以爲現代胚胎學抛棄了生物重演律就等於抛棄了進化論，那是有意混淆舊理論與不變的事實。 比較胚胎學若與古生物學結合，可以幫助我們弄清楚許多進化的細節問題。以下舉兩個例子。 爬行類的下頜骨由好幾塊骨頭組成，而哺乳類的只有一塊。我們認爲哺乳類是由爬行類進化而來的，其餘的骨頭哪里去了呢？通過比較爬行類和哺乳類的胚胎發育，我們發現：原來它們跑到了哺乳類的內耳，變成了錘骨和砧骨！對類獸爬行類和原始哺乳類的化石的研究證明了這一點：這些過渡型化石顯示了爬行類下頜骨中的方骨和關節骨是怎樣變得越來越小，最後成爲錘骨和砧骨的。 通過對小鼠的早期胚胎的研究，我們知道它的某個區域以後會長出牙齒。但是如果把這個區域的組織切下來單獨培養，並不能長出牙齒，表明它需要有其他的組織向它提供刺激牙齒發育的因數。現在我們從雞的胚胎切下一塊表皮組織，把二者放在一起，培養幾周後，把小鼠的胚胎組織拿到顯微鏡下觀察，我們發現它長出了類似爬行類的牙齒。這個結果，表明雞胚有刺激牙齒發育的能力，與我們通過古生物化石研究得出的結論一致：鳥類是由爬行類進化來的，始祖鳥和白堊紀的鳥類都還象爬行類那樣長著牙齒，而現代鳥類的胚胎還在一定程度上保留了這個特徵。一 個相似的例子是，藍鯨等須鯨是沒有牙齒的，但是它們的胚胎卻有牙齒，這使我們相信須鯨是由有牙的鯨類進化來的。 怎樣解釋這些現象呢？分子生物學的研究表明，絕大多數的基因是不被表達的所謂“垃圾基因”，它們當中可能含有許多已廢棄的祖先的基因。有些祖先的基因在胚胎中被暫時表達，然後被抑制住，這就出現了胚胎的重演現象。如果基因的調控失靈，該給抑制的祖先基因卻被表達了，即在成體中出現“返祖現象”，最著名的例子是所謂的“毛孩”。人和猿在蛋白質的結構上沒什麽差別，但是爲什麽在形態上卻差別這麽大呢？這是通過對基因表達的調控實現的，比如說，刺激體毛增長的基因的表達被抑制住了，所以人與猿相比，體毛稀少。如果這種抑制程度較低，則這個個體體毛較濃密，如果抑制機制失控，則出現了毛孩。有人可能會問，在現 代人種中，高加索人體毛最多，亞洲人體毛最少，是不是表明高加索人最原始，亞洲人最先進？（類似地也可以問是不是男性比女性原始？）可以說是，但僅僅在體毛這一特徵上是。所有的人種都混雜了原始與先進的特徵，每一個人種都可能在某一特徵上最先進，在某一特徵上最原始（比如亞洲人顴骨突出就是個原始特徵），在總體上很難說哪個人種更先進或更原始。而且，一個物種在進化上原始並不意味著它較低級（參見第一章“進化是什麽？”第一節“進化沒有目的沒有方向”）。進化論並不爲種族主義提供理論依據，微言對此的指責也是無的放矢，對進化論的 理解，微言並不比種族主義者高明。 生物發育與生物進化之間的關係的研究，是今天也是下個世紀現代生物學的重大課題。 1994.12.7. 四、比較免疫學的證據 每種動物的血清中都含有一系列獨特的蛋白質。如果把人的血清注射入兔子的血管，血清中的蛋白質變成爲兔子體內的外來蛋白質，也就是抗原。兔子的免疫系統將産生特定的抗體攻擊這些抗原，這些抗體存在於兔子的血清中。現在，讓我們把兔子的血清（含有對抗人的血清蛋白質的抗體）提取出來，與某種動物的血清混在一起，會出現什麽現象呢？如果這種動物與人類有血緣關係，它的血清蛋白質與人的就有一定的相似，兔子的抗體對它也就有一定的攻擊力。這種動物與人的親緣關係越接近，抗體抗原反應就越強，反之則越弱。實驗結果表明，猿類的血清産生 的反應最強，也就是說它們與人最親近，其次是舊世界猴類，再次是新世界猴類。如果用狗、龜、蛙、魚等的血清做實驗，則抗體抗原反應越來越弱，直至測不出來。 用分光光度測量、同位素標記等方法，可以很精確地定量測定抗體抗原反應，再對結果進行計算，可以推測各物種在進化史上分支的時間，從而繪出親緣關係樹。用這種方法繪得的高等靈長類的親緣關係樹如下： |--------------- 長臂猿 | |------------------------| |---------- 猩猩 | | | | |----| |----- 大猩猩 | | | ----------------| |----|----- 黑猩猩 | | | |----- 人 | |---------------------------------------- 舊世界猴類 |----|----|----|----|----|----|----|----| 45 40 30 25 20 15 10 5 0百萬年前 這個結果，與通過古生物化石或形態比較繪出的親緣關係樹符合得很好，只不過在具體分支的時間這種細節上有出入。比如，它推測人與黑猩猩、大猩猩的分支時間是大約五百萬年前，比從化石估計出來的結果要晚。 不僅血清蛋白質，其他的蛋白質也可以用做抗原進行類似的研究，甚至可以從化石（不早于兩百萬年前）中提取膠原蛋白作抗原，與現代物種的膠原蛋白作比較。用這種方法，我們確定了現代非洲象、亞洲象與已滅絕的猛獁象、柱牙象分支的時間，證實了象與各種海牛、儒艮（美人魚）乃至蹄兔的近親關係。 1994.12.10. 五、分子生物學的證據 現存的生物物種已知的有幾百萬種，粗略地可分爲細菌、植物、動物幾大界。在前面我們已介紹了對於同一界的生物，比如動物，雖然外形多種多樣，在器官、組織水平上卻是相似的。如果我們深入到細胞、分子水平，就會發現所有的生物的構成都相當的一致，界限變得相當的模糊。 已知所有的生物（界於生物與非生物之間的病毒除外）都是由細胞組成的，細菌的細胞較原始，沒有細胞核和細胞器，稱爲原核細胞，具有細胞核和細胞器的細胞則稱爲真核細胞。同爲真核細胞的動物細胞和植物細胞也是非常相似的，都有細胞膜、細胞核和線粒體、溶酶體、核糖體等細胞器，不過植物細胞還有細胞壁、葉綠體和液泡。組成細胞的生物大分子有核酸、蛋白質、多糖和脂類四種，這些生物大分子的成分在所有的生物中也是一致的：核酸都由嘌呤和嘧啶組成，蛋白質都有氨基酸組成，多糖都有單糖組成，脂類則由甘油和脂肪酸組成。 這是生物結構在分子水平上的一致性。生命現象在分子水平上也是一致的。所有的生物（包括病毒）都用核酸作爲遺傳物質，而且除了一些病毒用ＲＮＡ，其他的生物都用ＤＮＡ。所有的遺傳物質都按堿基配對的原則進行半保留複製。核酸用於轉譯蛋白質的遺傳密碼在所有的生物中也完全一致。所有的生物都只用２０種氨基酸合成蛋白質，而且儘管在自然界中，氨基酸有左手和右手兩種構型，我們人工合成的氨基酸也是左手和右手構型各占一半，然而所有的生物都只採用左手構型的氨基酸合成蛋白質。在用單糖合成多糖時，則只採用右手構型的單糖。生物爲什麽對生物小分子的構型如此挑剔又如此一致？除了它們來自于同一祖先，都繼承了共 同祖先的這一特性外，沒有別的合理解釋。除了遺傳，生命的另一重要特徵是新陳代謝。在分子水平上，所有生物的新陳代謝也表現了很大程度的一致性。幾乎所有的細胞，都採用相同的十個步驟把糖原酵解成丙酮酸，而且每一步驟都由相同的酶催化。所有的真核細胞都通過三羧酸迴圈釋放能量。 生命結構和生命現象在本質上的一致性，證明了所有的生物都來自同一祖先這一論斷；而生命結構和生命現象在表面上的多樣性，證明了所有的生物都經過進化而來。這就是現代生物學的結論。 對於生物在本質上的一致性現象，我們認爲“共同的祖先”是唯一合理的科學結論。但是神創論者會辯解說，不對，還可以解釋成是上帝對生命採用了共同的設計。這種共同設計說乍一聽還有點道理，仔細一追究則漏洞百出，它既無法解釋上帝爲什麽讓外形和生存環境截然不同的的海豚與人要比外形和生存環境很相似的海豚與鯊魚在結構上更相似，更無法解釋在早期的地層中只有簡單生物的化石而到晚期的地層複雜生物的化石才出現（除非說上帝一直在用同一藍圖不停地創造新物種－－神創論者顯然不這麽認爲。）。爲了讓讀者進一步理解共同祖先說與共同設計說的是非對錯，我們舉一些分子生物學的例子。 生物既同源又分化，既一致又多樣，比較各個物種的相似性和差異性，我們可以推測它們在進化上的位置，確定各物種親緣關係的親疏，從而繪出親緣關係樹（學名叫“種系發生樹”）。這方面的工作，以前主要是同過古生物化石的研究和形態比較進行的，現在，我們已完全可以在分子水平上，通過比較蛋白質的氨基酸序列和基因的核苷酸序列，來描繪種系發生樹。現代生物學對進化的研究，不僅在總體上肯定了傳統生物學的結果（這是進化論之所以正確的必要條件），而且使進化論的研究更精確，達到了定量化的程度。 如果我們要在分子水平上比較現存物種的親緣關係，最好找一種在各個物種中都同時存在的蛋白質或基因。基因測序技術是最近十來年才有了重大突破，在此之前，我們只能先比較蛋白質序列。１９６７年，細胞色素ｃ的序列比較被選擇作爲分子生物學在進化論上的最初應用。細胞色素ｃ是參予細胞呼吸的重要蛋白質，在所有的需氧細胞中都存在。至今已有許多物種的細胞色素ｃ的序列被測定，我們在此只選擇一些代表性物種，與人的細胞色素ｃ序列（共１０４個氨基酸）相比，其序列的差異百分比如下： 黑猩猩：０　　　　羅猴：１　　　　兔：９　　　　雞：１３ 響尾蛇：１３　　　牛蛙：１７　　　金槍魚：２０　果蠅：２７ 小麥：３８　　　　酵母菌：４１　　紫紅螺旋菌：６５ （注：酵母菌是真核生物，螺旋菌是原核生物即細菌。） 粗粗地一看，就已覺得跟進化論的預測符合得很好，比如，進化論認爲人與猩猩、猴子最親，它們的序列差異也確實最小；與酵母菌、細菌最疏，所以差異最大。如果我們由蛋白質序列反推基因序列，再由基因序列的不同算出各個物種的親疏差異（“最小突變距離”），我們可以很精確地繪出這些物種的種系發生樹（親緣關係樹），其結果，與原先通過古生物學、解剖比較學得到的符合得很好，只是更加精確了，定量化了。這樣，進化論就被分子生物學所驗證。 但是，有一個問題值得討論一下，因爲懂得一點分子生物學的神創論者往往對此大作文章。 根據進化論，哺乳動物的進化路線是： 原核生物－＞單細胞真核生物－＞無脊椎動物－＞魚類－＞兩栖類－＞爬行類－＞哺乳類 那麽，酵母菌、果蠅等等的序列應該比人的更靠近細菌吧？把這些物種的細胞色素ｃ序列與細菌的相比，結果似乎“出乎意料”： 酵母菌：６９　　　果蠅：６５　　　　金槍魚：６５ 牛蛙：６５　　　　響尾蛇：８４　　　人：６５ 奇怪，怎麽都跟細菌離得一樣遠甚至更遠？ 另外，既然爬行類在進化路線上介於兩栖類與哺乳類之間，那麽蛇的序列就該是介於牛蛙和人的序列之間的“過渡型”序列吧？但是比較了它們的氨基酸序列的組成後，否定了這種“預測”。 於是對分子生物學一知半解的神創論者便宣稱分子生物學的研究否定了進化論。（不知微言的“三論”會不會論到這一點。若沒論到，他的神創論水平可就太不高明了。） 事實又是如何呢？ 實際問題的解答很簡單：在哺乳類進化的同時，其他的生物並沒有保持不變，也在不斷地進化，現代的爬行類早不是幾億年前的爬行類，現在的兩栖類也早已不是幾億年前的兩栖類，在幾億年間，它們的蛋白質不知已突變了多少次，怎麽能指望現代的爬行類、兩栖類的蛋白質序列比哺乳類的更靠近細菌（其實細菌也在不停地進化），又怎麽能“預測”現代的爬行類的蛋白質序列還是兩栖類和哺乳類之間的過渡型？進化論的真正預測是：如果哺乳類是在兩億多年前由某種爬行類進化來的，那麽當時哺乳類和爬行類的蛋白質或基因序列的差異性一定會小於現代的哺乳類和爬行類。這種預測好象無法驗證，其實不然，聚合酶鏈反應（ＰＣＲ）技術的 發明使我們已能夠從古生物化石中提取ＤＮＡ大量擴增，這幾年來一直有人在作這方面的實驗，試圖建立一門“分子古生物學”，只不過得到的資料很零散，還不足以說明問題。這些人，想建立“分子古生物學”的目的並非想證實或否證進化論。時至今天，還有幾個真正從事現代生物學研究的人覺得進化論需要證實？更有誰會狂妄到想去推翻進化論？ 而所有生物一直在進化的根本原因，是因爲作爲遺傳物質的核酸在複製過程中會自己發生突變，這種突變是隨機的、自發的，與環境的變化無關（當然，核酸還會被誘變），因此每一種基因以及蛋白質都按一定的速率在發生突變，這種現象，被稱爲“分子鍾”現象。實際上，有了分子鍾這個概念，不僅可以明白爲什麽爬行類的序列不比哺乳類更靠近細菌，而且可以讓我們推算各個物種分支的時間。值得一提的是，分子鍾的概念早在１９６２年就已提出，並非是針對細胞色素ｃ序列“ 難題”的事後諸葛的解釋。 正因爲所有的生物都同時在進化，使得今天的各個物種－－打個不很確切的比方－－是兄弟、堂兄弟、族兄弟關係，而不是父子、祖孫關係。因此，從來沒有哪一個進化論者會繪出這樣的親緣關係圖： 細菌－酵母菌－果蠅－金槍魚－牛蛙－響尾蛇－人 雖然神創論者一直想讓人們對進化論形成這種印象，今天人們也還把“人是由（現代）猴子變來的”這句話挂在嘴上，而實際上，自從上個世紀末海克爾繪出第一個種系發生樹以來，我們對現存物種的親緣關係一直是這麽（或類似）描繪的：（只定性不定量，定量需要複雜的計算） |------------------------------------------------------細菌 | ------| |--------------------------------------------酵母菌 | | |---------| |-----------------------------------果蠅 | | |--------| |--------------------------金槍魚 | | |--------| |---------------------牛蛙 | | |----| |----------------響尾蛇 | | |----| | |----------------人 如果用其他的蛋白質研究，也可以得出相似的結果。比如本實驗室正在研究一種蛋白因數，它對ＤＮＡ轉錄ＲＮＡ有重要的功能。它是幾年前首次在人體細胞中被發現並克隆出它的基因的，由於轉錄是一切細胞都具有的重要的生命現象，因此我們（根據進化論）預測它在別的生物中也應該存在。果然，幾年後這種因數在大鼠、蛙、果蠅和酵母菌中被陸續發現並克隆。把這些序列與人的比較，差異程度（百分比）如下： 大鼠：３　　蛙：２７　　果蠅：５１　　酵母菌：７３ 它跟細菌的一種轉錄因數也有局部的相似性。 如果我們據此畫出種系發生樹，是： |------------------------------------------------------細菌 | -------| |---------------------------------------------酵母菌 | | |--------| |-----------------------------------果蠅 | | |---------| |---------------------------蛙 | | |-------| |------------------大鼠 | | |--------| | |------------------人 (Just for those molecular biology majors: this factor is RAP30, the small subunit of general transcription factor TFIIF, and the baterial factor is sigma70. ) 我們可以發現，其結果與用細胞色素ｃ畫出來的符合得很好。） 比較蛋白質序列，不僅僅可以確定一些大類群的親緣關係，而且可以非常細緻地比較一個類群內各物種的親緣關係。比如比較各種哺乳類的細胞色素ｃ序列，可以繪出這樣的親緣關係樹： 綿羊 猴 鼠 | 人\ | | / \ \------|------|------|------|---------/ \牛 / | |* \ * 豬 猿/ 兔 / \ \ / / \ | 狗 袋鼠 馬 如果是比較血紅蛋白貝塔鏈，則得到這樣的結果： 猴 鼠 狗 豬 牛 人\ | | * | * | / \------|------|------|---|---|--|--|----/ / | | | \ 猿/ 兔 袋鼠 馬 \ 綿羊 雖然有四處不同（用＊標出），但總體上符合得很好。這些不同可以當作實驗誤差。即使把這些不同考慮在內，如果這十一種物種沒有任何的親緣關係的話，隨機組合産生這兩幅關係樹的機率是二十萬分之一。這才僅僅比較了兩種蛋白質，實際上至今比較過的蛋白質都産生了類似的關係樹，其沒有親緣關係的機率更是低得近於零了，或者，用微言的話說，低得“超出人類的想象”。 蛋白質氨基酸序列的改變，或者說蛋白質突變，是由基因突變引起的。但是並非所有的基因突變都能引起蛋白質突變。絕大多數的氨基酸是由兩種以上的遺傳密碼轉譯的，比如精氨酸的遺傳密碼是ＡＧＡ和ＡＧＧ，如果基因僅僅是從ＡＧＡ突變爲ＡＧＧ，就不引起蛋白質的突變，稱爲無義突變。因爲無義突變沒法從蛋白質序列測出，所以直接比較基因序列比比較蛋白質序列更精確地反映了各個物種的異同。比如，人和黑猩猩的絕大多數蛋白質的序列完全一樣，靠比較蛋白質序列無法知道它們的差異。如果比較基因序列，則人和黑猩猩有大約１％的差異。基因序列的比較與蛋白質序列的比較相似，在此不再介紹。 每一種基因都有一定的突變率，也就是說，每一種基因都有自己的一個分子鍾；這樣，用不同的基因繪出的種系發生樹在細節上就略有不同。爲了解決這個問題，最好能比較全部的基因（“基因組”）序列。但是，我們已知基因組序列的物種很少，都是低等生物；高等生物方面，對人、雞、水稻等基因組的測序目前正在全面展開，遠未完全。這是花費了大量的人力、物力和財力的浩大的工程，對於大多數的物種顯然不能都來這樣一套工程，只能挑幾個重要的物種搞搞。那麽，在知道基因組序列之前，是不是就無法比較不同物種的基因組序列的異同呢？不是的，我 們可以用ＤＮＡ－ＤＮＡ雜交技術來比較。 大家知道，在自然狀態下ＤＮＡ是靠堿基互補配對結合在一起的雙鏈。加熱到一定溫度後，堿基配對被破壞，雙鏈就分開變成兩條單鏈，這個溫度叫解鏈溫度。冷卻以後，ＤＮＡ單鏈又會互相結合成爲雙鏈。兩條單鏈結合成雙鏈時，並不需要完全互補配對，允許有一定程度的錯配，只不過這樣的雙鏈較不穩定，打開它的解鏈溫度較低。錯配率越高，解鏈溫度越低，也就是說，我們可以由解鏈溫度計算錯配率。ＤＮＡ－ＤＮＡ雜交技術就是利用ＤＮＡ的這種特性，把兩個物種的總體ＤＮＡ混在一起，加高溫讓它們全部解鏈，再冷卻讓它們相互之間形成雜交雙鏈，然後測出雜交雙鏈的解鏈溫度，由此計算兩個物種的差異程度，進而推算它們分支的 地理時間。 利用ＤＮＡ－ＤＮＡ雜交技術，可以繪出高等靈長類的種系發生樹如下： |----------------------------------------------------舊世界猴類 | -----| |--------------------------------------長臂猿 | | |-------------| |--------------------------猩猩 | | |-----------| |----------------人 | | |---------| |------普通黑猩猩 | | |---------| | |------矮小黑猩猩 | |--------|--------|--------|---|----|---------|---------| 30 25 20 15 | 10 5 0百萬年前 | 參照點 請大家把這個圖跟第三節用比較免疫學得到的圖作個比較，就會發現它們相符得非常好；而且，在當時我們還無法推測人和黑猩猩分支的時間，現在可以了。在根據序列差異推算分支的地理時間時，我們必須根據化石紀錄選一個參照點。在上圖我們選了１３百萬年前猩猩的分支時間爲參照點，由此推算出人和黑猩猩的分支時間是７百萬年前；如果用２５百萬年前舊世界猴類與猿類的分支時間爲參照點，則整幅圖都要往右挪，人和黑猩猩的分支時間是５百萬年前。總之，人和黑猩猩的分支時間上限是七百萬年前，下限是五百萬年前，這是分子生物學對人類起源的結論。這個實驗被不同的人用不同的方法做過，結果都一致。 在結束本章之前，讓我們來看一個假想的案例： 張三李四是一對孤兒，自幼父母雙亡，分別被日本人和法國人領養。很多年後，在日本的張三到法國認親，但李四不想認這個哥哥，兩人告上了法庭。 李四：張三不是我的兄弟，連親戚也不是。不錯，我們兩個長得很象，那只是巧合。世界上長相相似而沒有血緣關係的人多了。我們兩個言行舉止都大不一樣，怎麽可能是兄弟？ 張三：我們言行舉止不同，是因爲我們長在不同的國家，風俗習慣不同（“趨異現象”），但是我們本質上是一樣的，我們體內都流著祖先的血。如果說我們相貌相似只是巧合的話，法醫已經證明我們在血清學、遺傳學、分子生物學（ＤＮＡ序列）上都極其相似甚至完全相同，難道全是巧合？ 李四：好，我承認這不是巧合。但是我們都不知道我們的父母是誰，說不定我們根本就沒有父母，我們是上帝單獨創造出來的，他用了同一張藍圖，所以我們才會這麽相似。 張三：請注意我們並不完全一致。 李四：是的，那是因爲上帝雖然用的是同一張藍圖，但是因爲要讓我們長在不同的國家，所以在造的時候分別做了點修改。 張三：既然這樣，上帝爲什麽不把你造得更象其他法國人，爲什麽不把我造得更象其他日本人？爲什麽偏偏讓一個在法國一個在日本的我們如此相似，比世界上任何人都相似？爲什麽上帝讓你的血清中含有一種跟我一樣的特殊因數，而法國人的血清中沒有這種因數，你要是受傷需要輸血是很困難的。爲什麽上帝還要給你一個東方人的胃，消化不了法國的奶酪…… 李四：上帝的意圖我們怎麽知道！我怎麽知道他安的什麽心！但是法官大人，我的的確確不是張三的兄弟啊，你要是判定我們是兄弟，你就是違背上帝的旨意，違背《聖經》的教導，違反常識，違反物理定律！ 親愛的讀者，如果你是法官，你怎麽判這個案子？如果把張三李四的官司換成人和黑猩猩的官司，你又怎麽判這個案子？ 是的，如果用上帝的創造來解釋生物現象，我們永遠無法知道他的創造意圖何在。但是如果我們用進化論解釋生物現象，我們就能給出合理的解釋，即使有的目前還無法解釋的，將來也有可能給出解釋。 如果用上帝的創造來解釋生物現象，對於生物科學的研究和日常生活沒有任何的用處。而進化論不僅是理論科學，也是應用科學，它可以指導生物科學的研究，也可以解決日常生活中遇到的一些難題。在下一章“進化在行動”中，就讓我們來看看進化論的具體應用。 //

不能不殺生 按人类的牙齒構造，人类是杂食者，這是大自然的安排，我們實在無法避免殺生。嚴格地說，即使呼吸本身也會令無數空气中的徾生物因無法适应我們呼吸道內的環境而死亡，這已會我們每天都殺生無數了。倒是以目前我們的生活方式來說，是否存在過度殺生的問題？人类為了一已之私而不必要地損害了太多其他的生命？

Last quote: not that lengthy this time, but the most interesting among all. Don't miss it. Simplified Chinese version at: http://www.xys.org/~fang/doc/science/evolution/chapter4.txt You want proof? Read these: Traditional Chinese version: //《進化論虛妄嗎？》•方舟子• 第四章、進化在行動 ——進化論的實際應用和實例 生物進化不僅僅是一種歷史現象，地球上的生物在今天仍然在進化，在可以預見的將來也會一直在進化；因此，我們能夠應用進化論的原理解決實際生活中的問題，我們也能夠創造條件直接觀察到生物的進化現象。在達爾文時代，生物進化是一個不可直接觀察的極其緩慢的過程，直接觀察生物的進化只是一個可望不可即的夢想；但是在今天，現代生物學對生物進化的研究已取得了令人難以置信的成果，生物進化已成爲一個看得見、摸得著的活生生的事實。進化論不僅是歷史科學，也是應用科學，更是實驗科學。 生物進化可以分成兩類：一種是生物種群內部的基因頻率的微小變化，導致某種突變型取代了原來的野生型，但是兩種類型只在某些特徵上有差異，還未導致生殖隔離，不是截然不同的兩個物種，這種進化稱爲微進化。許多微進化綜合在一起，經過一定的時間，就可能産生一個新的物種，稱爲大進化。微進化比較容易觀察到，而大進化的發生需要相當長的時間，往往要經過幾萬年、幾十萬年才能産生一個新的物種，已超出了人類的觀察極限。但是，在一定的實驗條件下，我們可以大大縮短物種産生的時間，甚至縮短到幾年、十幾年，從而能被科學家們直接觀察、紀錄。在今天，達爾文的夢想——看到一個新物種的産生——已經變成了事實。 本章將介紹一些微進化和大進化的例子。讓我們先來看一個真實的故事。 一、澳大利亞兔災 澳大利亞本來並不産兔子。１８５９年，十二隻歐洲野兔被移民從英國帶到了澳大利亞。這些野兔發現自己來到了天堂：澳大利亞沒有鷹、狐狸這些天敵，與兔子處於同一種小生態的小袋鼠對它們也沒有競爭能力，因此這些兔子開始了幾乎不受到任何限制的大量繁殖。到了１８８６年，這些兔子的後代從澳大利亞的東南部出發，以平均一年六十六英里的速度向四面八方擴散。到了１９０７年，兔子已擴散到了澳大利亞的東西兩岸，遍佈整塊大陸。由於兔子跟綿羊、牛爭奪牧草，澳大利亞的畜牧業遭受了巨大的損失。澳大利亞人想盡了辦法限制兔子的擴散和繁殖，築圍牆、打獵、捕捉、放毒等等，辦法用盡，而兔災仍然無法消除。 到了本世紀五十年代，澳大利亞政府決定採用生物控制的辦法來消滅兔災。生物學家從美洲引進了一種靠蚊子傳播的病毒，這種病毒的天然宿主是美洲兔，在美洲兔體內産生粘液瘤，並不致命；但是它們對於歐洲兔卻是致命的，而且對於人、畜、澳大利亞的野生動物完全無害，無疑是消滅澳大利亞兔子的最理想的武器。 果然，到了１９５２年，澳大利亞的兔子爆發了全國性的瘟疫，死亡率達到了百分之九十九點九，兔子在澳大利亞的滅絕似乎指日可待。但是，一個進化論學者完全能夠預測接下去將會出現什麽結果：自然選擇正在起作用。一方面，兔子對病毒進行了選擇：同一種病毒中存在著各種各樣的突變型，有的毒性較強，有的毒性較弱；由於病毒必須靠宿主才能生存、繁殖，那些毒性強的病毒隨著它們所寄生的兔子的死亡而死亡，那些毒性較弱的病毒反而得以存活。另一方面，病毒也對兔子進行了選擇：抵抗力較差的兔子首先被淘汰，而抵抗力強的兔子僥倖活了下來，經過一代又一代的選擇，它們的後代的抵抗力也變得越來越強。互相選擇的結果出現 了毒性較弱的病毒和抵抗力較強的兔子，最終將導致兔子數目的回升。事實正是如此：兔子數目以後逐年回升，死亡率越來越低，到現在已下降到了百分之四十。雖然澳大利亞的兔子每年都還會爆發粘液瘤瘟疫，但是它對兔子數目的控制作用已經不那麽有效。 這正是進化在起作用，它被人類引發，又被人類所觀察。除了進化論，沒有別的理論能夠解釋這種現象。 今天，澳大利亞的生物學家正在開發毒性更強的粘液瘤病毒以便提高兔子的死亡率，很顯然，這將導致另一輪的選擇，歷史將會重演。 二、斑點蛾悲喜劇 展示自然選擇的威力的最直觀淺顯的例子來自於生物學家對英國斑點蛾長達一百五十年的觀察。 這種蛾有兩種表現型，一種翅膀是黑色的，另一種翅膀是淺色的，上面有斑點。翅膀的顔色由一對等位元基因控制，其中黑色基因是顯性，淺色基因是隱性；也就是說，這一對基因中，如果一個是黑色基因，另一個是淺色基因，那麽它的表現型是黑色而不是淺色，只有兩個基因都是淺色基因，表現型才是淺色（當然，如果兩個基因都是黑色基因，表現型就是黑色）。這樣，如果這兩種表現型的繁殖、存活率均等，從統計上來說，黑色蛾的數目應該是淺色蛾的三倍。但是，在１８４８年，對生活在曼徹斯特的斑點蛾的調查結果表明，黑色蛾遠比白色蛾少，只有百分之一不到。這是爲什麽呢？很顯然，這兩種表現型具有不同的生存能力。斑點蛾生活 在長滿苔蘚的樹幹上，其天敵是鳥類。淺色斑點蛾落在苔蘚上不容易被鳥類發現，而黑色蛾則非常顯眼，容易被鳥類捕食。一代又一代被選擇的結果，基因庫中黑色基因越來越少，淺色基因越來越多，雖然淺色是隱性，其表現型卻占了絕對優勢。 五十年後，英國完成了工業革命，變成了工業化國家，曼徹斯特到處可見冒著濃煙的大煙囪，空氣污染越來越嚴重，樹幹上的苔蘚被黑色的煤煙覆蓋了。黑色蛾變成了適於生存的“適者”，淺色蛾反倒成了鳥類的美餐－－科學家用電影紀錄了這種現象：鳥類確實是選擇性地在捕食淺色蛾。而調查表明，黑色蛾這時候占了斑點蛾總數的百分之九十五。 然而“三十年河東，三十年河西”，又過了五十年，即本世紀五十年代，英國人對環境污染再也難以忍受，通過了反污染法，煙囪不再冒黑煙，樹幹上的煤煙消失了，其結果，便是淺色蛾數量的回升，黑色蛾數量的下降，而這，正是進化論所預測的。 三、細菌抗藥性 假如你得了肺炎，去看醫生。醫生給你開了紅黴素，然後會告訴你，七天爲一療程，在這七天之內一定要堅持服藥。他的這一番忠告，實際上是根據進化論的研究成果作出的。在你服了三四天藥後，絕大部分的病菌都被殺死了，你也感覺好多了，但是還有一些抵抗力較強的病菌在那裏苟延殘喘，如果這時候你誤以爲病已經好了而停止服藥，這些病菌就有了喘息的機會，開始大量繁殖，沒過幾天，你舊病復發；而現在這些病菌都是抵抗力比較強的，要殺死它們可就沒那麽容易了，也就是說，你實際上用紅黴素對病菌作了一次自然選擇。而如果當初你連服七天的藥，就很可能把所有的病菌都殺死。 有的人得了感冒後，也喜歡去看醫生，並且請求醫生開四環素之類的抗菌素。一個合格的醫生一般只給你開退熱消炎治頭疼讓你感覺好點的藥，而不會答應你的請求，給你抗菌素的。爲什麽呢？因爲感冒是由病毒，而不是由細菌引起的，而抗菌素只能殺死細菌，對病毒毫無作用。服抗菌素治不了你的感冒，反而會對你體內的某些病菌作出篩選，一旦這些病菌猖獗起來，就很難治了。事實上，正是因爲現代社會對抗菌素用得太多太濫，細菌的抗藥性越來越強，我們只好不斷地發明新的抗菌素去對付它們，有時候要同時使用好幾種抗菌素才可能把病菌殺死。 這裏有個問題：是因爲抗菌素的刺激使得細菌産生突變，因而具有了抗藥性呢，還是細菌本來就存在著少數具有抗藥能力的突變株，抗菌素對細菌作了篩選，使得有抗藥能力的突變株占了優勢？也就是說，抗藥性的産生，是因爲用進廢退，還是因爲自然選擇？早在四十年代，微生物學家已經用一系列巧妙的實驗證明了細菌在接觸抗菌素之前，就已存在具有抗藥能力的突變株，在這個問題上，自然選擇學說是正確的。分子生物學産生以後，對細菌抗藥性的機理有了透徹的瞭解，更證明了自然選擇學說的正確性，並變害爲利，把細菌的抗藥性應用于基因工程。 害蟲的抗藥性也是同一道理。細菌和昆蟲都繁殖速度快，數量多，因而容易産生各種各樣的突變。這些突變在平時也許不起眼，甚至有害，但當環境改變時（比如遇到了抗菌素或殺蟲劑），那些能適應這種改變的突變就開始稱王稱霸了。這也是進化論所預測的。 四、好與壞的平衡 有的黑人會得一種獨特的貧血病，稱爲鐮刀形紅細胞貧血病。得這種病的人其紅細胞不是圓形，而是鐮刀形，會聚集在一起堵塞血管，體內的免疫系統要清除它們，這就導致了貧血。而且，鐮刀形紅細胞的壽命只有三十天，比正常紅細胞的一百二十天短得多。生物化學的研究表明，病人的紅細胞之所以會變成鐮刀形，是紅細胞中的血紅蛋白有先天性缺陷引起的。血紅蛋白有四條鏈共５７４個氨基酸，其中的一個氨基酸（纈氨酸）突變成了谷氨酸，破壞了血紅蛋白的分子結構，就導致了鐮刀形紅細胞。 這個氨基酸所在的那條血紅蛋白鏈由一對基因控制，正常人的爲ＨｂＡＨｂＡ，而病人的則爲ＨｂＳＨｂＳ。假定一個正常人與一個病人結婚，他們的子女的基因型就是ＨｂＡＨｂＳ，也就是說一個基因正常，一個不正常。由於這兩種基因無顯性和隱性之分，具有這種雜合基因的人（稱爲雜合體）同時生成正常紅細胞和鐮刀形紅細胞。在正常情況下，他們不發病；但是在特殊的情況下，比如到了空氣稀薄的地區，或者是經過了長跑，則會出現貧血。 當然，黑人的祖先都來自非洲和地中海一帶，調查表明，那一帶的人很多都帶有ＨｂＳ這個不正常的基因，比例在百分之十五到百分之二十，有的地方甚至高達百分之三十。問題來了：既然這種基因是不正常的，在許多情況下可能導致它的攜帶者的死亡，爲什麽沒有被自然選擇所淘汰，反而具有如此高的比例？ 進化論預言，這是因爲這些不正常基因的攜帶者在某方面比正常人有優勢，使得這些基因得到了保存和傳播。確實如此。非洲和地中海地區流行一種惡性瘧疾，這種瘧疾由蚊子傳播。蚊子吸血時，把一種寄生蟲注入人體，這種寄生蟲攻擊紅細胞，就導致了瘧疾。但是，鐮刀形紅細胞面對寄生蟲的攻擊，卻比正常紅細胞更具抵抗能力，這樣，在瘧疾流行時，雜合體要比正常人更易獲得生存，雖然在平時，他們的生存能力不如正常人。正常基因和異常基因，就靠這麽一種機制獲得了平衡 。 黑人被賣到了美洲，生活環境完全變了。美洲的瘧疾要比非洲的溫和得多，而且現在已基本被消滅，這樣，使異常基因得以保存的條件就不存在了。那麽，我們根據進化論就可以預言：異常基因在美洲黑人中的比例會越來越少。事實正是如此，現在美洲黑人的ＨｂＳ基因的比例已降到了百分之八。 // Note: Sickle cell anemia (鐮刀形紅細胞貧血病)

Re Benson Four NOBLE Truths

To: Nobel Prize Loser Oops, sorry for typo. Thanks for pointing that out. PS: Nobel Prize Loser = Nobel Nominee?

哈哈~ 我都想!

回benson 李天命: 喜歡幽默嬉戲的性格, 底子必屬善良（「不信就要永下地獄永受酷刑」的想法, 才來自心底的地獄）。 這是什麼道理?? 法醫界有一個幽默嬉戲的例子: 某法醫把人屍體的耳朵切下, 放在牆上說: 隔牆有耳." 好笑嗎? 這就是所謂必屬善良?(那我還有很多例子...) 「不信就要永下地獄永受酷刑」的想法, 才來自心底的地獄）。 不知己說了多小遍, 你們總不明白. 人之所以下地獄永受酷刑, 不是因為人不信, 乃是因為你<<犯了罪>>! 詳細情形, 看看命題<<人為什麼要下地獄>>

回征服者 魚蛋是用活魚嗎?很多也是給你死去一些時間的魚 . 那麼活活生生就被弄成<<刺身>>的魚蝦, 又是什麼?

最重要的...... 是你享用過沒有......

不要扮嘢 ''法醫界有一個幽默嬉戲的例子: 某法醫把人屍體的耳朵切下, 放在牆上說: 隔牆有耳." 好笑嗎? 這就是所謂必屬善良?'' 唔知係唔係巧合，我響<金田一之少年事件簿>之''魔犬森林殺人事件''見到呢個例子。(一模一樣) 究竟係有人將漫畫劇情當真，定係事有巧合？(有無咁巧合呀？) 另：哈....響漫畫狂面前班門弄斧？

你真的是白痴呀揣摩 你有沒有看到我在說什麼? 還是你只吃刺身.不知道其他食物的存在?

多謝Benson好介紹 很想知道既想挑戰演化論，又想挑戰佛教的JPY如何回應。 演化論與佛學最少有一點相同：都不承認有創造萬物的神，萬物皆因緣聚合而起，緣合而起，緣散而滅。

To: 揣摩 //不知己說了多小遍, 你們總不明白. 人之所以下地獄永受酷刑, 不是因為人不信, 乃是因為你<<犯了罪>>! // Relax, can't we just discuss openly and peacefully, one step at a time? Let's put it this way: if you father owes me money and therefore you are required to work for me for your entire life. Do you think it is fair? If your grand father killed some one and you are imprisoned for him. Do you think it is just? I don't think I am a sinner just because my grand-grand-grand-...... dad ate a stupid apple; if you know what I mean.

回joejones 究竟人死後到審判前處身那一個地獄?? 出來護駕?? 你認為我答不了你的問題嗎?? 人死後無論命定上天國或下地獄, 他們也還未可以到那裡, 要先接受審判. 那審判是何時? 就是耶穌基督第二次再來世界的時候, 世界就正式末日, 審判就正式開始. 但耶穌基督還未來啊...那之前死了的人怎麼辦? 就要代在一個名叫"陰間"的地方等候. 這不是地獄, 可以說是一個<<候審室>>的地方. 怎樣? 滿意沒有?

To: Allan // 多謝Benson好介紹// You are most welcome. //很想知道既想挑戰演化論，又想挑戰佛教的JPY如何回應。// You should have said: 很想知道既不懂演化論又想挑戰演化論，不懂佛教又想挑戰佛教的JPY如何回應。 Don't forget his secret weapon: "bye bye to all".

回征服者 征: "錯!人是可以吃死去的東西的 " 誰說不可以? 只是還未<<變壞>>的才不可以吃. 你還未搞清楚? 是那一處出問題?

子矛子盾法 你認為我答不了你的問題嗎?? 人死後無論命定上天國或下地獄, 他們也還未可以到那裡, 要先接受審判. 那審判是何時? 就是齊天大聖第二次再來世界的時候, 世界就正式末日, 審判就正式開始. 但齊天大聖還未來啊...那之前死了的人怎麼辦? 就要代在一個名叫"花果山"的地方等候. 這不是地獄, 可以說是一個<<候審室>>的地方. 怎樣? 滿意沒有?

回benson "恩典"不在"公平"的範疇. 在你的例子說, 也沒有不對的. 比喻說, 我有五元, 見到有兩個一樣跛子的乞丐, 我就按照我自己的心意, 分甲乞丐二元, 乙乞丐三元. 甲乞丐看見了就說我"偏心不公平". 你同意他嗎?

回genius 這不錯是金田一的橋段. 但我的目的不是要你看出至那裡, 而是你到底怎樣看這個"幽默風趣的玩笑"?

回genius 齊天大聖?? 花果山??

回genius 你想要史實嗎? 南京大屠殺的時候, 日本軍喜歡用日本刀殺人. 在這時候就想到一個幽默嬉笑的比賽消磨時間. 就是把嬰兒拋上半空, 誰的刀"串"得最多為勝. 你看怎樣?

揣摩版西游記 如果將花果山、孙悟空、白骨精、玉皇大帝、如來佛祖等詞汇匯替代揣摩文中的相關術語，一部魔豋版西游記便面世了。

也錯,酒和臭豆腐就是 而自然死的東西也不會立即變壞 而街上的乞丐有一些也是吃變壞的東西,而有時我們吃了變壞的東西也不知道(我也吃過變壞的燒肉,我自己吃不出,吃了數件才有人說那壞了,不過我一點事也沒有),而所謂變壞只不過是細菌把東西吃到一定的程度

回征服者 酒和臭豆腐不是變壞, 宜是發酵素 你吃了變壞東西還是什麼事也沒, 表示那物還未變壞至你生病的程度, 不代表"它"沒有問題.

回ddt 如果像你這樣子說就是了. 但是不是嘛... ... <<西遊記>>可以跟<<聖經>>"等量齊觀 "嗎?

"陰間"~ 揣犘君, 哈哈, 有冇 online 的 bible? 入面邊一章邊一節提過你所形容的"陰間"?

To: JoeJoneS Bi-lingual bible on line: http://www2.ccim.org/~bible/hb5.html

啟示錄(默示錄)﹕ 20:13 於是海交出其中的死人．死亡和陰間也交出其中的死人．他們都照各人所行的受審判。 20:14 死亡和陰間也被扔在火湖裏．這火湖就是第二次的死。 (和合本) 公教有煉獄的說法﹐可參考公教百科全書﹕ http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/12575a.htm

回揣摩 您說的両本書以想象力計是不相伯仲，以文學性來說，因我的母語是中文，故西游記更耐看。

重新包裝--"善良"揣摩 >>本人或是基督徒, 也很愛護和喜歡小動物, 覺得牠們甚是可愛, 但我要告訴你的, 不是侮辱與否, 喜好與否的東西, 不是這個範疇, 而是<<級別>>的問題. << 1.仍然是人類自高心態。可憐! 2.閣下咀咒他人下地獄、火湖,受那永遠的刑罰！現在卻來告訴我你也很愛護和喜歡小動物, 覺得牠們甚是可愛。變臉速度之快,實令小弟嘆為觀止,請問師承何處?據聞這種四川藝術絕不外傳! 3.不要拖其他基督徒落水,這不會增加你的聲勢. >> 我很難令你對動物跟人類混淆不清的思想轉變, 我只好用一點點簡單的比喻問你, 你自己再問自己, 看看你能不能分別吧.<< 1.又是一種救世心態。 2.有論點無論據,即是廢話.(如何混淆?那裏混淆?怎樣才算不混淆?) >>你有沒有看過<<鐵達尼號>>這部電影? 你覺得在極度寒冷的水溫, 阿jack 甘願以自己的性命, 去保住自己深愛的rose的生命和幸福, 直至救生艇來到. 你認為值得不值得? 相對一個問題, 如果在同一個環境底下, 你會不會為一隻養了很久, 很有感情的猫, 犧牲自己的性命去保住那猫兒不掉下水, 直至救生艇來到呢? 你覺得值得不值得? #你只要回答我的問題, 不要扯開到其他地方.<< 1.離題萬丈,還在胡扯!跟尊重動物有何關連? 2.題外話,你找到你的rose末?何惜你不是小王子! ============================== ps1. 小弟喜歡與有幽默感又心胸廣闊的人討論問題. ps2. 小弟與閣下緣份已盡!

S.C. 同 benson 呀~ 做乜教佢? 以目前的心理狀態, 佢學左只會更自我肯定, 仲可以四圍同人傳"福音"......

回一句 第二段：我並無意「抓上帝來罵罵」；我只是懷疑，神不是慈愛的。若神是慈愛的，他就是不是全能的（除不能做出違反邏輯的事外，他也不能阻止苦難的發生）。Theorizing 一大輪後，你還未答我，為什麼神容許這麼多嬰孩餓死。至於我問不問「為什麼神不把台灣這些犯罪的人殺死？」，是不相關的。 回: 你還未明白嗎? 為什麼這多嬰孩餓死，你就將矛頭指向上帝, 而不是自我反醒, 那些"富裕國家"容許這樣的事持續而不加理會呢? 我告訴你,救人肉身性命的,是人自己. 神 要救的, 是靈魂. 因為神是個靈. 衪是看重"靈魂的生死" ,至於那些嬰孩的靈魂, 就會進天國, 永遠不死. 這個世界不佩擁有這樣的人, 所以 神寧願讓他們進到永生, 也不需救他們暫時的肉身生命. 這就是<<暫時的生命與永生>>的價值觀. 第三段：//如果上帝真的是愛，怎麼證明？就證明在你寫這個問題的時候還沒有給你死，祂真的是愛你。// 我問你一個問題，你沒有給我死，就是愛我？我真的不知怎樣回應，只能說你對愛的定義，和我們慣用的不一樣。 回: 如果你罪的問題還未有解決就死了, 那麼你就要進到地獄, 永沒有盼望了. 明白嗎? 神 不讓你死掉, 就是要寬容你, 給你機會接受主耶穌基督, 代替你死的<<救贖>>. 第七段：//青年人你們要聰明，你的理性是很重要的。但是你的理性是很笨的！//你說我笨，我能理解。但你是說我的理性笨？這句應怎樣理解？從這段中，看出你有不少反智傾向。雖不同意，但與討論無關，不作回應。 回:理性分好多種, 有一些人的理性, 就是要 "有今生有來世, 及時行樂" 這就是唯心論思想理智. 亦有些人的理性, 就是放在科學的"範疇", 只要有一些東西違反了他堅持開的科學知識, 就會抗拒. 明白沒有? 想問問閣下，真的是唐牧師？ 回:不是 請恕在下直言，以閣下的思維能力及中文水平，在這裡硬sell基督教，實在太辛苦閣下了。何不如在下一樣，多聽､少說？ <<多聽小說>>是那門子的學問? 為什麼科學界沒有這知識的? 知道錯的不去更正, 就是錯. 知道對的說出來就是對. 另：對一知半解的哲學及邏輯，還是少說為妙。 回: 你在說你嗎? 你懂這樣想就對了. 因為唐牧師是哲學教授. 完

回數學狂 1."仍然是人類自高心態。可憐!" 什麼叫人類自高心態? 人跟動物的分別, 科學己有很多資料說明高低, 難道你説: 我跟狗兒生命的價值一様重要" 才是<<謙卑心態>>? 你的命跟狗一樣, 你比我還可憐. 2.閣下咀咒他人下地獄、火湖,受那永遠的刑罰！現在卻來告訴我你也很愛護和喜歡小動物, 覺得牠們甚是可愛。變臉速度之快,實令小弟嘆為觀止,請問師承何處?據聞這種四川藝術絕不外傳! 回: 你不懂基督教的教訓就不要說那多自以為是的話了, 空口說白話. 什麼叫咀咒他人下獄? 我來問你, 你悔改不悔改, 歸向基督? 3.不要拖其他基督徒落水,這不會增加你的聲勢. 回: 請詳加說明, 不要自說自話. 1.又是一種救世心態。 抱救世心能有什麼不可? 難道這也是一種罪? 要坐牢? 只要自己進天國就滿足的心態才叫正常? 跟人分享這佳美信息的, 帶他們一起進天國就是不正常? 2.有論點無論據,即是廢話.(如何混淆?那裏混淆?怎樣才算不混淆?) 回:又要再說一遍, 不聽書. 1, 如何混淆: 就是你把人跟動物一視同仁. 2, 那裡混淆: 就是把人跟動物等量齊觀. 3, 怎樣才算不混淆: 就是當你分清自己身為人類的價值, 跟一隻動物的價值分清的時候, 就算你不混淆. 你只要回答我的問題, 不要扯開到其他地方. 回: 你的問題是什麼? 1.離題萬丈,還在胡扯!跟尊重動物有何關連? 回: 沒有人不尊重動物, 只是你不聽書 罷了. 現在不是尊重與否的問題. 吃動物就表示不尊重他們? 那麼動物吃植物就表示不尊牠們不 尊重植物? 風馬牛不傷及.

sel吓 sell下吳蘭露 我幾 buy 耶穌哥哥 我重 buy 釋迦牟尼 但我最 buy 吳蘭露

搞笑之王 ''法醫界有一個幽默嬉戲的例子: 某法醫把人屍體的耳朵切下, 放在牆上說: 隔牆有耳." 好笑嗎? 這就是所謂必屬善良?'' 若是出自金田一，就不是''法醫界有一個幽默嬉戲的例子''了。 搞笑者當中，你算是不誠實的那種。 另：殺人可以算是幽默嗎?

你是不是寫得太快了:) //為什麼這多嬰孩餓死，你就將矛頭指向上帝, 而不是自我反醒, 那些"富裕國家"容許這樣的事持續而不加理會呢? 我告訴你,救人肉身性命的,是人自己. 神 要救的, 是靈魂. 因為神是個靈. 衪是看重"靈魂的生死" ,至於那些嬰孩的靈魂, 就會進天國, 永遠不死. 這個世界不佩擁有這樣的人, 所以 神寧願讓他們進到永生, 也不需救他們暫時的肉身生命. 這就是<<暫時的生命與永生>>的價值觀.// 反醒>>>>>反省 不佩>>>>>不配 姑勿論「上帝為何讓這世界不配擁有的嬰孩出生」(當祂的意圖我不知道)，但是，請問閣下又怎知道那些嬰孩的靈魂「會」進入天國呢？你是不是打得太快了？

臨走都唔記得祝揣摩你新年快樂!身體健康! 有機會落來地獄揾我,我喺最底聽地藏王菩薩講佛法,我好多朋友都喺度,唔會悶呀!

聽佛法去 臨走都唔記得祝揣摩你新年快樂!身體健康! 有機會落來地獄揾我,我喺最底嗰層聽地藏王菩薩講佛法,我好多朋友都喺度,唔會悶呀!

你知不知酒和臭豆腐的發酵和變壞事實上是同一件事,你的科學根底還真的差 (只要把水果或任何多糖的東西放在水中任其腐敗就會出現酒)

回征服者 我當然知道啦, 但這不是我要你知道的重點. 我舉個例子, <<瘟疫>>是怎樣形成的? 那些水為什麼我們不可以喝? 老鼠酒我們倒可以喝, 是什麼原因和分別, 你就知道我想說什麼了.

回genius 殺人可以算是幽默嗎? 為什麼不可? 幽默會受事件類別限制嗎? 難道沒有人那死人開還笑? 你沒有聽過嗎? 那麼幽默的定義在那裡? 應該問<<你的定義在那裡?>> 在軍人的心態上, 這就算幽默. 你又怎麼說.

多謝與反映 首先謝謝S.C & Benson JoeJoneS君, 你真的以為我不知道嗎? 就算我沒有背誦, 現在online bible除意就可以找到. 你那句:做乜教佢?....算是俗語, <<跌落地下, o拿番咋沙>> 真羞家啊...你以為憑你這下三流的攻擊, 就會對我有用嗎? 不學無術的你, 跟本還未有這個本事諷刺得了我. [以目前的心理狀態, 佢學左只會更自我肯定, 仲可以四圍同人傳"福音"....] 回:你是心理醫生, 網上斷症?? 歎為觀止... 順帶一提, 我本來就正跟四圍的人傳福音當中, 明眼人跟本不用你說也知道.

回ddt <<西遊記>>是兒時的神話故事, 街知巷聞也知道是<<作出來的>> 但<<聖經>>是幻想作出來的嗎? 這個言論我也第一次聽見, 我建議你問一些有分量的學者, 問一問他們知不知道聖經的權威性在那裡.

笑得有點兒滯 第一''在軍人的心態上, 這就算幽默. 你又怎麼說.'' 子矛子盾法：那在搞笑之王的心態上, 這就不算幽默. 你又怎麼說?(你愈是說幽默，我愈是說不幽默。) 第二，你都幾識避重就輕，不過，你嘗試答下面Ｙ： 法醫界有一個幽默嬉戲的例子: 某法醫把人屍體的耳朵切下, 放在牆上說: 隔牆有耳." 好笑嗎? 這就是所謂必屬善良?'' 若是出自金田一，就不是''法醫界有一個幽默嬉戲的例子''了。 搞笑者當中，你算是不誠實的那種。 第三，人家說幽默嬉戲，你就將幽默當嬉戲：須知道，殺人可能是嬉戲，但決不是幽默。 另：我不懂定義幽默，你懂嗎？ 又：沒有明確定義不代表可以亂來。 正如即使'聰明'一詞沒有明確定義，也不可說你聰明！

回揣摩 我是指您對聖經的理解方法過於徧狭，跟坊間拜齊天大聖的村夫愚婦差不多，這跟聖經是否權威無關。休謨說過，理論化的迷信，比迷信本身更可怕，因其更具有欺骗性。晚輩覺得這話很有道理。

又有屎蟲特性的人< > 第一, 不知你想說什麼! 第二，你都幾識避重就輕，不過，你嘗試答下面Ｙ： 法醫界有一個幽默嬉戲的例子: 某法醫把人屍體的耳朵切下, 放在牆上說: 隔牆有耳." 好笑嗎? 這就是所謂必屬善良?'' 回: 你要我答甚麼, 這是我說的啊! 你的問題在那裡?? 若是出自金田一，就不是''法醫界有一個幽默嬉戲的例子''了。 金田一這個例子, 不是法醫才有辦法解剖屍體嗎? 那就是法醫界的事有什麼不對? 我不是跟你討論兇手是誰, 美雪穿什麼衣服, 金田一的推理有沒有進步之類的事, 而是故事當中這<<幽默嬉笑>>的場面, 是不是也是出於善意 ??你還未明我想說什麼嗎? 屎蟲啊屎蟲...你何時才不會只懂向著屎鑽呀鑽呢?? 第三，人家說幽默嬉戲，你就將幽默當嬉戲：須知道，殺人可能是嬉戲，但決不是幽默。 回: 我想你現在就真正的避重就輕. 李先生那一句不是說<<幽默嬉戲>>嗎? 你何時把這句<<二分化>>解釋呢? 你是不是也在反駁李先生的言論?? 另：我不懂定義幽默，你懂嗎？ 回: 我也不懂定義幽默. 又：沒有明確定義不代表可以亂來。 正如即使'聰明'一詞沒有明確定義，也不可說你聰明！ 回: 你不是說你不懂定義嗎? 那麼你憑 著什麼說, 我是亂來呢 ? 我不是聰明, 只是有智慧罷.

屎蟲的話 //屎蟲啊屎蟲...你何時才不會只懂向著屎鑽呀鑽呢??// 我不入地獄, 誰入地獄?

瘟疫有很多種 由空氣,食水,接觸,昆蟲,食物,等等都有可能傳播,定義是同時間很多人得病,一般的原因為屎尿進入水源,而不是人食了變壞的食物

要是水給煮過,就是本來水中有過多的細菌也可以安全飲用,當然有化學物質就還是會中毒

愛 揣摩實實在在的告訴我, 神 的慈愛, 注意, 是對 "人"發出的. 一個養狗的基督徒 既愛神 也愛人 也愛狗 神只愛人???

最搞笑的一句 ''金田一(一本漫畫)這個例子, 不是法醫才有辦法解剖屍體嗎? 那就是法醫界的事有什麼不對? '' ??????

揣摩君~ >JoeJoneS君, 你真的以為我不知道嗎? 就算我沒有背誦, 現在online bible除意就可以找到. 你那句:做乜教佢?....算是俗語, <<跌落地下, o拿番咋沙>> 真羞家啊...你以為憑你這下三流的攻擊, 就會對我有用嗎? 不學無術的你, 跟本還未有這個本事諷刺得了我< 不同其他人, 我不是在諷刺你, (在我未知你是真的懂還是真的不懂前, 我不會諷刺你) 就當我來考考你吧? 我在這裡難道比其他人考核得少嗎? 由上一次我問你, 到S.C. 的代答, 起碼有幾日吧, 朋友? 你真的懂還是要用 >online bible除意就可以找到< ? 你自己講吧喇 想傳福音, 連這些基本的問題也不懂答, 你進修一下先啦~ 我加深些少個間題"你所形容的"陰間"叫什麼名? 有冇人管理?

To S.C. //basic knowledge of logic// You still miss my query of what impact omnipotence may have over the basic knowledge of logic. //If S.C. is black and non-black, my indirect proof of S.C. being not "black and non-black" will be unsound (although you agree this is a sound argument). An unsound argument is inadequate to show the conclusion being true. In this case, shouldn't I adopt a new approach? :)// Sorry, I cannot catch what you mean. Have I agreed the black and non-black argument as sound? //not even Christian writers in that book think omnipotence includes the ability to do something impossible. This is too problematic. // So, let's go back to the fundamental. According to your definition, what ability does omnipotence include?

//四聖諦是苦, 集, 「滅」, 道。// The version I heard before is (I am not sure about the exact wording) 1. Chu Hang Mou Sheung; 2. Chu Fat Mou Or; 3. Yat Chai Kai Fu; and 4. Nip Poon Chik Ching I think there should be a fifth one but I can’t remember it at all. Simply recalling the terms doesn’t help much. Elaboration is more important. If explaining the Noble Truths is too time consuming, why don’t we start with some more general topics? 1. Does Buddhism recognize the difference between goodness and evil? 2. If so, is there any teaching in Buddhism about how to be good? 3. On the other hand, should a Buddhist aim at being good or at getting out of the 6 realms? Some people say that all religions are the same which lead their believers to goodness. But I doubt whether Buddhism (assuming Buddhism is a religion) is one of them.

驚世愚言 某日考古學家在死海旁發現一古卷, 有驚世預言: 創世之初, 因人都犯了罪, 人都必要死. 神把人靠出伊甸園前緊急賦予人理性, 好叫人不致於笨得至死. 但在2003年將一有義人出, 神必賜他大恩, 賜他超世智慧, 領導眾人魂歸天國. 神必賜他大權柄, 聖經以他的詮釋作準, 好叫他可以不理科學不理邏輯, 使世人作為他的羊. 人若不從他, 必然笑死, 或嚇死. 神愛世人, 甚至將揣摩賜給他們, 叫他們笑不死, 返得永生.

WONDER TO KNOW WHY NOT TO KILL?? COME AND JOINT THE FOLLOWING LIFE SAVING BOAT TRIP AND YOU WILL KNOW WHY??? 二零零三年新春 (海, 陸, 空) 放生祝福大會 主辦機構 : 亞洲農業研究發展基金 (愛護動物小組) 協辦機構 : 國際釋迦文化中心 舉辦日期 : 2003年02月16日(星期日) 活動時間 : 上午十一時正於香港灣仔新渡輪碼頭出發, 乘坐洋紫荊號遊輪出發 (至) 下午二時三十分返抵香港灣仔新渡輪碼頭, 其間於船上午膳及 進行祝福放生. 參加費用 : 每位港幣二佰圓正 (包括於船上午膳, 大小同價). 名 額 : 二佰八十人 (額滿即止). 集合時間 : 於當日上午十時三十分 (逾時不候). 集合地點 : 香港灣仔新渡輪碼頭 (灣仔會展新翼側, 往紅磡閘口對出). 備 註 : 放生之善款可在當日隨緣贊助. 另基於安全理由, 請負責看管照顧 同行小童及長者, 避免發生意外. *** 購票或查詢請電 2338 9033 孟小姐. ***

亂放生會破壞環境 要放生麻煩去該物種的出產地

給征服者 >> 我們是相信胃是用來消化還是知道胃是用來消化? << 由於我們知道胃具有消化機能，並且我們未有發現胃具有其它機能，故此我們深信胃是「用來」消化的。在此，理由與結論明顯是相關的。可是，這相關性並不相應地存在於我們判斷「水果是植物做出來給其他生物吃的」的時候。 雖然如此，水果甜美並且內含種子這些事實，仍然能夠使我們認為該結論具有相當程度的可信性。

JPY﹐哥哥你錯了。 //The version I heard before is (I am not sure about the exact wording) 1. Chu Hang Mou Sheung; 2. Chu Fat Mou Or; 3. Yat Chai Kai Fu; and 4. Nip Poon Chik Ching I think there should be a fifth one but I can’t remember it at all.// 你說的不是四聖諦﹐而是三法印﹐法印是佛教判教總原則。印順導師說﹕｀若與此三印相違的，即使是佛陀親說的，也不是了義法。＇ 三法印即﹕諸行無常印、諸法無我印、涅槃寂靜印。有時加上諸法實相印並稱｀四法印＇﹐或有少許異文。三法印又即｀一實相印＇﹐不過是詳略不同的表示。 //Simply recalling the terms doesn’t help much. Elaboration is more important.// 三法印和四聖諦都是佛學基本﹐讀印老<<佛法概論>>可知。 //1. Does Buddhism recognize the difference between goodness and evil?// 世俗善惡對初級的修行者(人天乘)來說是重要的﹐但不是究竟。 //2. If so, is there any teaching in Buddhism about how to be good?// 很多﹐如五戒十善。有聽過｀慈濟會＇嗎﹖ //3. On the other hand, should a Buddhist aim at being good or at getting out of the 6 realms?// 佛教徒的最高目標是成佛﹐成佛有很多意思﹐超越六道輪迴不過是其中一個境界。 佛教徒不應滿足於做一個好人﹐這是不夠的﹐必須要以成佛為最終目標。 //Some people say that all religions are the same which lead their believers to goodness. But I doubt whether Buddhism (assuming Buddhism is a religion) is one of them.// 現今世界潮流是尊敬､互相學習､對話溝通。請多讀天主教神學家Hans Kung､基督教神學家John Hick之書。 謝謝。

Welcome back JPY //1. Does Buddhism recognize the difference between goodness and evil?// 佛教當然有分善惡，有戒條。慈悲之心普及眾生，施予可愛之人，也施予可惡之人。 你可能想說的意思是，佛教對善惡不夠分明，是嗎？但現實是，善惡不是黑白分明的，布殊說伊拉克和北韓是邪惡軸心，說人邪惡，便自封又自以為正義，太容易將事物二分：不是正，便是邪；不是天使，就是魔鬼，容易引起萬劫不復的爭端，不健康。 p.s.佛教徒不一定要吃素，佛陀也好像是吃豬肉乾得病而死的。

Benson你是對的 我應該說： 我很想知道既不懂演化論又想挑戰演化論，不懂佛教又想挑戰佛教的JPY如何回應。 現在又多一句： 我不想知道不懂科學卻以為自己已擊倒科學的揣摩如何回應。 多口問一句，有人說聖經是很科學的，不知道科學如何解釋「處女產子」這回事？

佛法沒有形而上的善惡觀

殺生 那麼，(畜意)毀壞一幅極其生動的畫，又算不算殺生？

Amendments: Anyone who violates the law of contradiction means he is self-contradictory. God violates the law of contradiction means God is self-contradictory. God violates the law of contradiction without being self-contradictory means God is self-contradictory and is not self-contradictory which by itself is self-contradictory.

Relax! I haven’t started challenging yet. Before that, I think we need to clarify what Buddhism is all about first so that we have a foundation to discuss, debate and/or argue. Up to now, I think I haven’t shown any disrespect (although I didn’t show any respect either) to Buddhism. Nevertheless, I am frank enough to express my intention in advance. On the other hand, I did try to clarify some misunderstandings, if any, about Buddhism. However, I did not make any claims about what Buddhism should be and/or concluded it was reasonable or not yet. In fact, when I first posted my message under this thread, I defended/clarified for Buddhism about why killing animals is not allowed but it is okay to eat vegetables. In addition, most of my posts here were ended with some open-ended questions which are open for further discussion. If someone disagrees with me and/or thinks he knows something I don’t know about Buddhism, please share his views. Maybe, you are right while I am wrong. Let the truth be revealed through sensible discussion. //你說的不是四聖諦﹐而是三法印﹐法印是佛教判教總原則。印順導師說﹕｀若與此三印相違的，即使是佛陀親說的，也不是了義法。// No matter it is in form of 4 Noble Truths or 3 Fat Yan, that is what I want. Can we claim that they constitute the foundation of Buddhism? Do most Buddhists agree with them? As mentioned previously, simply recalling the terms is not good enough, why doesn’t someone elaborate a bit more about them and share some of their application? //佛教徒的最高目標是成佛﹐成佛有很多意思﹐超越六道輪迴不過是其中一個境界。// Please share some of the other objectives. //善惡觀// In my opinion, asking whether Buddhism recognizes the difference between goodness and evil is by no means an adverse remark, especially to those who believe moral standards are merely social contracts and subject to change over time. In fact, even though this is true, will it cause Buddhism less believable? Nevertheless, I admit that it may have an adverse impact to those who claim all religions are the same (which lead their believers to goodness). //佛教徒不應滿足於做一個好人﹐這是不夠的﹐必須要以成佛為最終目標。// Agreed. To 小花生 //佛法沒有形而上的善惡觀// Since you seem to be the only Buddhist here, please share more with us. To S.C. 1. Thank you for your Chinese characters. 2. Why is “Yat Chai Kai Fu” missed? Is it because you don’t agree with it or due to my poor English translation? 3. I don’t suspect your intention of advising me to read more but I found discussion is more interesting as long as it is sensible and not being personal. In fact, this could avoid the deadlock when I found I didn’t agree with the authors in the course of reading their books. 4. //現今世界潮流是尊敬､互相學習､對話溝通。// As mentioned above, I haven’t started challenging yet. I am still trying to find out what Buddhism actually is. To Allan Out of your 9 challenges posted under another thread, the one about other religions is the one I am interested in most. As such, I would like to take this opportunity to further explore other religions, starting with Buddhism. On the other hand, I think it is also a good opportunity for other religions to express what they really are about and/or clarify those misunderstandings, if any.

三法印: 諸行無常印、諸法無我印、涅槃寂靜印 Let's put a bookmark here!

To: JPY // I haven’t started challenging yet. Before that, I think we need to clarify what Buddhism is all about first so that we have a foundation to discuss, debate and/or argue. // You better rephrase this paragraph as: I (COULDN’T) start challenging. Before that, I think (I) need to clarify what Buddhism is all about first so that (I) have a foundation to discuss, debate and/or argue. // Up to now, I think I haven’t shown any disrespect (although I didn’t show any respect either) to Buddhism. Nevertheless, I am frank enough to express my intention in advance. // Your intention was to challenge a well-established religion (or school of thought) without knowing anything of it. You know Buddha, like Jesus, was regarded as one of the four saints of mankind. Don’t you think that your so-called intention, or at least the way you expressed it, has already shown certain degree of disrespect? A rational person will never say something like this: “I don’t know what it is. I am just going to find out. Once I know something about it, I may start challenging it, no kidding”! Do you think this guy is frank and earnest or do you think he is cocky and ignorant? // No matter it is in form of 4 Noble Truths or 3 Fat Yan, that is what I want. Can we claim that they constitute the foundation of Buddhism? Do most Buddhists agree with them? // The answer to the last two questions: YES. // As mentioned previously, simply recalling the terms is not good enough, why doesn’t someone elaborate a bit more about them and share some of their application? // Why can’t you read? Can you summarize what the Bible says in one paragraph and post it here? There are in fact many essays on this topic, this is one of them. Alright, try to read this: // from: Introduction to Buddhism by Mike Butler The Four Noble Truths The first sermon that the Buddha preached after his enlightenment was about the four noble truths. The first noble truth is that life is frustrating and painful. In fact, if we are honest with ourselves, there are times when it is downright miserable. Things may be fine with us, at the moment, but, if we look around, we see other people in the most appalling condition, children starving, terrorism, hatred, wars, intolerance, people being tortured and we get a sort of queasy feeling whenever we think about the world situation in even the most casual way. We, ourselves, will some day grow old, get sick and eventually die. No matter how we try to avoid it, some day we are going to die. Even though we try to avoid thinking about it, there are constant reminders that it is true. The second noble truth is that suffering has a cause. We suffer because we are constantly struggling to survive. We are constantly trying to prove our existence. We may be extremely humble and self-deprecating, but even that is an attempt to define ourselves. We are defined by our humility. The harder we struggle to establish ourselves and our relationships, the more painful our experience becomes. The third noble truth is that the cause of suffering can be ended. Our struggle to survive, our effort to prove ourselves and solidify our relationships is unnecessary. We, and the world, can get along quite comfortably without all our unnecessary posturing. We could just be a simple, direct and straight-forward person. We could form a simple relationship with our world, our coffee, spouse and friend. We do this by abandoning our expectations about how we think things should be. This is the fourth noble truth: the way, or path to end the cause of suffering. The central theme of this way is meditation. Meditation, here, means the practice of mindfulness/awareness, shamata/vipashyana in Sanskrit. We practice being mindful of all the things that we use to torture ourselves with. We become mindful by abandoning our expectations about the way we think things should be and, out of our mindfulness, we begin to develop awareness about the way things really are. We begin to develop the insight that things are really quite simple, that we can handle ourselves, and our relationships, very well as soon as we stop being so manipulative and complex. // Also read this: 佛學小知: http://www.hku.hk/buddhist/bss/knowledge.html // To 小花生 …… Since you seem to be the only Buddhist here, please share more with us. // I don’t think he/she is the only one. // Why is “Yat Chai Kai Fu” missed? Is it because you don’t agree with it or due to my poor English translation? // This is the first noble truth. It is already included. // As mentioned above, I haven’t started challenging yet. I am still trying to find out what Buddhism actually is. // Once you have acquired some basic knowledge of Buddhism, you'll probably give up your intention of challenging it. This applies to most rational people.

聖經是一個幻視幻聽自稱神的兒子的智障，與他十二個思覺失調的所謂門徒作出來的精神病回憶日誌。 從他們的所見所聞，正好明白為何今天基督徒們為何表現得與他人與眾不同，彷似受催眠一樣，以為自己高人一等，睥睨世間所有批評者。

大膽！這個可惡的 w~ 是誰？ 這麼了解我和我的一大部分徒眾！

To Mike Butler Thank you for your effort of summarizing the 4 noble truths. However, I think there is room for improvement. In particular, when you attempted to explain how suffering could be ended by mediation, you seem to deviate from the teaching of Nip Poon Chik Ching. Also, when you explained the cause of suffering, it is quite odd to use the phases of “to survive”, “to prove our existence” and “to define ourselves”. In fact, I know that there are a number of causes in Buddhism to explain suffering but survival and the likes are not ones of them. Despite the above, I think your explanation about “life is frustrating and painful” is quite Buddhist. From my observation, not many non-Buddhists realize that. To Allan Do you agree with what Mike Butler wrote? Is it the same as what you think about Buddhism?

to 一句 "可能這是給予自由意志需要付出的代價。 " 全能的神難道不能賜我們自由意志而不附帶苦難嗎﹖

Allan 相信科學嗎? 現今科學可製造「處女產子」嗎？ 若現今的科學不行，「處女產子」在科學來說，是否永遠不可行呢？

Jacky你對 現今科學當然可以「處女產子」，複製人也可以了，有甚麼不能呢？ 但二千年前呢？「處女產子」如是神蹟，就不是科學，或是你想說，神蹟是我們未知的科學呢？

講開又講 這個thread本來有很多人說要挑戰演化論，但自從Benson貼出那篇解釋演化論的文章後，那些聲稱挑戰者全部失蹤，只去挑戰那些相對而言較無關宏旨的問題，代表了甚麼呢？ 餵料給你們挑戰，也不動如山，果然是高人。

JPY請你直接一點 不要再兜兜轉轉，看來要一併準備批評的綱領給你，以下數點相信是你心中所想的，請選擇一些***具體提出理據***來挑戰吧! 1. 佛教善惡不分，所以不是好宗教 2. 佛教只是一堆人生哲理，不算是宗教 3. 佛教沒有主要經典，教義混亂矛盾 4. 佛教主張出世與個人修行，對社會無益 聲明： 本人不同意以上四點。 本人傾向佛教，但對聖經可能了解更多。 //Do you agree with what Mike Butler wrote? Is it the same as what you think about Buddhism? // 四聖諦是佛陀最基本教義之一，但只是佛教思想的一小部分，經過千百年流傳演化，衍生大量宗派，每個宗派都有不同的側重點，我本人覺得禪宗較合我的脾性。

人定勝天 Allan 對「處女產子」的懷疑必先符合兩個假設： ．神存在的真確性 ．人定勝天 此兩點我在另一條thread亦曾提及，若其中一點並非閣下所預設的，那麼你的懷疑便變得毫無意義。

對不起，不太明白你的意思 你能否寫清楚一點，或指出你之前說過的thread在哪兒，謝謝！

奇怪,我的歷史老師告訴我,佛教的人不殺生是因為那生物可能是自己的祖先輪迴生的-.-

不能殺生？ 哈！幸得我們吃葷，否則牠們沒有機會輪回再轉生！適當的殺生，不濫殺。因緣和合。生生不息。

What I really want to say is that Buddhism is for those who want to be liberated from the suffering of Samsara. And if you feel fine about yourself and your existence in this world even when you are being really honest with yourself, then Buddhism is not for you.

如果仍有人覺得處女產子, 死後復活是事實的話... 我也無話可講.... Jacky, 有冇睇過以下這個節目? http://news.bbc.co.uk/hi/chinese/news/newsid_2599000/25990692.stm 我猜你是基督徒... 若如是, 你有何睇法?

「處女產子」是可行的！記錄上也有很多次的！

更正 自然那隻

死後數小時至十數小時以是室溫的死體也會復活！康慈也見過很多次！康慈不記得是那國的某一所醫院！那𥚃每死十個人，第十個入去的人！一定都會復活的！

記錄上有? 記錄上? 給我一些實質的歷史資料, 好嗎? 可以的話, 順便也給我人死後三天復活的史料 你知啦, 我想入基督教好耐了... 可惜一直無機會 今次睇你了康慈 :P

JoeJoneS可以找李天命先生給你！ 給我一些實質的歷史資料, 好嗎? 可以的話, 順便也給我人死後三天復活的史料 你知啦, 我想入基督教好耐了... 可惜一直無機會 今次睇你了康慈 :P 康慈當年去那裡的時候，是那𥚃最後一天！當天康慈己看見數位人士復活！也有一位而是第四次復活！夷為平地之後那些有死體的車輛路過之後，也會十個有一個復活的！那是十多年前的事！ 復活的只可以是那天死的才可以那時復活！

時間是6月嗎? 人數好像是23..

信 演化論 會否做基督徒?

自由派 也許可以。

Allan //我本人覺得禪宗較合我的脾性。// 我也是.

乜0甘百厭0既? bin goh lai ga?

大丙 你到底講咩?

大丙和小丙兩兄弟！ 真是兄弟嗎？

問張海澎　及　Allan 請問兩位是不是修行人？

不明白為何處女產子不可能 若沒有記錯的話, 有一些女子就算曾經有性交, 也不一定會沒了處女膜.

試答 ／／1. 佛教善惡不分，所以不是好宗教／／ 我想要討論這個問題最好先弄清楚何謂好宗教，　如果好宗教即等同基督教，那佛教當然不是好宗教，　因佛教根本不是基督教 善惡問題比較難簡單的交代清楚，　以佛法的觀點看來一切對現象進行二元對立的分辨（如美醜，　賢愚，　善惡，　大小）的心識活動皆屬無明，　但自性卻是清淨無染，　是善惡不生，　不是善惡不分，　而佛教就是要讓人尋回自性的宗教 2. 佛教只是一堆人生哲理，不算是宗教 不正確 那那麼多的佛寺是來幹什麼的？ ／／3. 佛教沒有主要經典，教義混亂矛盾／／ 不正確 佛教有很多主要經典：　如金剛經，　心經，　地藏菩薩本願經，　金光明經等 有關教義混亂矛盾方面，　可否舉例說明之？ ／／4. 佛教主張出世與個人修行，對社會無益／／ 不正確 大乘佛法主張一切修行的目的皆以利益眾生為依歸，　而且在藏傳佛法廣弘的地方（如不丹，西藏及尼泊爾），　佛教的寺院必會提供教育，　醫療，　安老院等服務予該地居民

Tony~ 你喜歡的話我就不談有人類性行為的處女產子 改為討論bible 入面" 神 交的處女產子"這件事, 如何? 有冇睇那個BBC 節目? 你有何評論?

請問有沒有進一步的論據? JoeJones 那篇文章己讀過, 但是提出瑪利亞懷孕之成因, 或者是否定神人產子之說, 有沒有論據? 謝謝不吝指教!!!

To Allan, //佛教善惡不分，所以不是好宗教 // What is the role of 善惡 in Buddhism? Being able to recognize 善惡, can one end his suffering? In fact, to some Buddhists, 善惡 (like hatred, love and greed) is just another preoccupation, which will increase (but not reduce) suffering. //佛教只是一堆人生哲理，不算是宗教 // It depends on how to define religion. When Buddhism was just founded, I think there were teachings about the 6 realms (which comprises fairies and ghosts) and life after life. However, I am not sure whether these teachings are still valid today. Nevertheless, I think most Buddhists will agree that there is no supergod in the universe while you can only count on yourself to end the inevitable suffering. //佛教沒有主要經典，教義混亂矛盾 // This is not necessarily true as long as we can filter out those pseudo-Buddhisms, if any, by applying the basic teachings of Buddhism such as the noble truths & Fat Yans or any other reference. By the way, do you think Fat Lun Gon is a branch of Buddhism? Why or why not? //佛教主張出世與個人修行，對社會無益// I think this is an issue of how to practise Buddhism in daily lives but I don’t think we have discussed this topic before. //四聖諦是佛陀最基本教義之一，但只是佛教思想的一小部分，經過千百年流傳演化，衍生大量宗派，每個宗派都有不同的側重點，// Can you name some other core teachings of Buddhism, which is of similar importance to the noble truths and fat yans? //我本人覺得禪宗較合我的脾性。// Can you share more about “Sim”? I heard that Sim is a branch of Tai Shing Buddhism, which proclaims that 1. they not only take care of salvation of oneself but also others; 2. suffering ends whenever “sudden enlightenment” occurs but until when one dies or “nip poon”; 3. suffering is mainly due to preoccupation; 4. (any others?) Am I right? To 小花生 //What I really want to say is that Buddhism is for those who want to be liberated from the suffering of Samsara. And if you feel fine about yourself and your existence in this world even when you are being really honest with yourself, then Buddhism is not for you.// Do you mean that Buddhism is only for those people with some particular personalities and/or experience of suffering? I guess that is not what you mean. You probably mean one should be humble enough to realize life is virtually full of suffering before he can appreciate how Buddhism may help him. Personally, I agree with that life is full of suffering but I don’t agree with the destination (and the specific way lead to this destination) proposed by Buddhism (if my understanding about Buddhism is correct).

Sorry, the following should be amended. 2. suffering ends whenever “sudden enlightenment” occurs but until when one dies or “nip poon”; 2. suffering ends whenever “sudden enlightenment” occurs but not after one dies or “nip poon”;

問 JoeJones // 所謂輪迴, 本是婆羅門的想法 不殺生, 本是耆老教的想法 // 那麼, 撇開這些教義, 悉達多/釋迦牟尼的想法又是什麼? 期待指教, 謝謝!

請教小花生 (法稱)所謂故名的生命，就是必須要有蘊，就是一些東西，加上識，這個他就叫作生命，就是一定要有識。 因為"生" 在佛教的定義跟生物學的不同. 所以, 請教小花生, 何謂"蘊"? 何謂"識"?

《石頭論》真的能否定全能嗎﹖ 花了不少時間﹐終於把大部份留言全看完了。期間學到了不少邏輯與辯論的知識﹐獲益良多。可惜我對石頭論還有一點疑問﹐期望高人們不吝賜教。 首先﹐我覺得「全能者能否造 一塊全能者自己也舉不起的石頭﹖」這問題好像也是 loaded question。Loaded Question 這詞彙也是我剛剛從大家的討論中領會到。可能我對此詞彙的理解有誤﹐但問題中的“造”是否已使問題本身偏向於創造論。對那這不認為可以無中生有的人來說﹐這問題豈不是 loaded question 嗎﹖因為反創造論者一定會認為石頭是不能被造出來的﹐若說能的話﹐豈不是否定了自己的反創造論嗎﹖ 好﹐先不理這問題是否 loaded (請教﹕loaded question 的中文是甚麼﹖)﹐再看一遍問題﹕ 全能者能否造一塊全能者自己也舉不起的石頭﹖ 若全能者造不出 如此一塊石頭﹐那全能者顯然不是全能。 但若全能者能造出 如此一塊石頭﹐為甚麼也不是全能﹖因為全能者舉不起自己所造的石頭﹖若是如此的話﹐看來我們大概是忽略了時間與變化這些關鍵因素。我們之所以說全能者不是全能﹐因為我們認為 全能者不能舉起自己所造的石頭。可是﹐要使這樣的認為正確﹐那必須假定 全能者與石頭間的關係沒有在造石頭這件事情發生後有所改變。我們這樣的假定不就是“乞求論證”嗎﹖希望我沒有用詞不當吧。 請大家明白我並無意挑戰或偏袒任何人﹐只是想把自己的疑問和觀點說出來。請各位多多指教！ :)

小花生 我不是修行人，只是對宗教問題有興趣而已。

回爸爸 "xxx能造一塊xxx自己也舉不起的石頭" 涉及兩種能力, 一個是"造", 另一個是"舉起". '石頭問題'並不是針對'創造論', 所以以上"造" 這能力不一定指無中生有的創造. 可以是令如此 這般的石頭出現的任何能力. 例如一個現代石匠 可以用足夠多的混凝土來"造"一個這石匠舉不起 的石頭. 如此, 當xxx是現代石匠時, 第一句就是 邏輯可能了. 反之, 若xxx是全能者時, 不論全能 者的"造"是"創造"抑或"以混凝土製造", 第一句 都是邏輯矛盾的. "看來我們大概是忽略了時間與變化這些關鍵因素". 我告訴你們, 我出生前是一個全能者. 我現在宣稱 自己是全能者, 你會相信我現在是全能的嗎? :)

不能殺生? 嘩嘩嘩！公幹回來，居然有個叫'大丙'人兄。不過講真；請問'大丙'兄你說什麼呢？

請教 窮神降臨 問題中的“造”若說是“製造”而不是“創造”似乎可以說得通。:) //要使這樣的*認為*正確﹐那必須假定全能者與石頭間的關係沒有在造石頭這件事情發生後有所改變。 *認為全能者不能舉起自己所造的石頭// 也許是我之前表達得不清楚﹐我所指他們之間的關係的改變﹐並不限於全能者自身的改變﹐亦可能是石頭本身的改變。可能在全能者造石頭的那一刻﹐全能者的確不能舉起該石頭。但問題並非問﹕全能者能否在全能者造石頭的那一刻不能舉起在那一刻所造的石頭﹖(要是真的這樣問﹐還不仍是乞求論證嗎﹖)既然問題只是問全能者在那一刻能否造出那樣的石頭﹐那麼全能者在那一刻又的確是“能”啊﹐不是嗎﹖以後若全能者真的不能舉起他當時所造的石頭﹐那我們可以說全能者並非全能。但我們如何能保證全能者以後不能呢﹖還是我們只是“假定”了當時的石頭不能被全能者所舉起﹐現在的石頭仍然不能被全能者所舉起呢﹖這樣的假定是否也是乞求論證呢﹖ 請各位高人指點 :)

矛盾事物. 回窮神降臨 原問題 "xxx能否造<<一塊xxx自己也舉不起的石頭>>?" 一個現代石匠可以用足夠多的混凝土來"造"一個這石匠舉不起的石頭. 如此, 當xxx是現代石匠時, 就可以答能或不能. 若xxx是全能者時, <<一塊xxx自己也舉不起的石頭>> 是 <<一塊全能者也舉不起的石頭>> 即矛盾事物.

回﹕小心眼 之 矛盾事物 //若xxx是全能者時, <<一塊xxx自己也舉不起的石頭>> 是 <<一塊全能者也舉不起的石頭>> 即矛盾事物. // ...矛盾事物即不可能存在的事物﹐是嗎﹖ 此處所指矛盾事物是甚麼呢﹖是那塊石頭而不是全能者﹐是嗎﹖ 換句話說﹐要全能者造一樣不可能存在(或製造)的“事物”﹐這本身又是否乞求論證呢﹖ =.=?

食飯？ 又 話 過 年 前 食 飯 ？

To JPY 你既問，我且答，班門弄斧，請小花生等高人指正。 //What is the role of 善惡 in Buddhism?// 善有善報，惡有惡報，若然未報，時辰未到 //Being able to recognize 善惡, can one end his suffering?// 未夠，還要行善，也要修行至悟境，又要視乎前世所作之業 //In fact, to some Buddhists, 善惡 (like hatred, love and greed) is just another preoccupation, which will increase (but not reduce) suffering.// ？？我以為作惡固不能脫苦，過份執著於善也未必是好事。 // Nevertheless, I think most Buddhists will agree that there is no supergod in the universe while you can only count on yourself to end the inevitable suffering.// 我相信這是佛教同基督教的最大分野，佛教沒有至高無上全能的神，沒有權威教會，也是靠個人修為而得道 //do you think Fat Lun Gon is a branch of Buddhism? Why or why not?// 法輪功混合氣功，佛教，道教詞匯，其教義為正統佛道所不容，李天命博士有專文論其教義之自相矛盾及不可解之處，你可參考。 //Can you name some other core teachings of Buddhism, which is of similar importance to the noble truths and fat yans?// 簡而言之，佛教主要分大乘與小乘，小乘流傳至斯里蘭卡，緬甸，泰國等國，教義承傳佛陀之原始佛教，較著重個人修為，目標為悟道成佛達涅槃之境。 大乘佛教則流傳至西藏及中國，於中國結合道教學說而成禪宗，再流傳至日韓，另盛行中國的尚有淨土宗，天台宗等，於西藏則演化成密宗。各宗派重點不同，但相對小乘，較重慈悲，較多形上學，行菩薩道，即寧普渡眾生而不達涅槃。但大乘與小乘的分野並非絕對。 //Can you share more about “Sim”?// “Zen” is the more commonly used English translation. //I heard that Sim is a branch of Tai Shing Buddhism, which proclaims that 1. they not only take care of salvation of oneself but also others;// 這不單是禪宗的傳統，而是大乘佛教各宗派的一致理想 //2. suffering ends whenever “sudden enlightenment” occurs but until when one dies or “nip poon”;// 禪宗較著重頓悟，所以我較傾向禪宗學說，因為節省氣力（！），但因此對佛理所知不多。 //3. suffering is mainly due to preoccupation;// ？？？ //4. (any others?) // 禪宗傳統強調不立文字，最高經驗不能用言語描述，也較尚崇人與自然合一。

Allan 我．．．．．．我．．．．．ｄ膽固醇就真係幾高．．．．其餘都冇野高架啦！　．．．．我講真

有 寶？

妹 對

To Allan //善有善報，惡有惡報，若然未報，時辰未到 // I don’t think it is Buddhist teaching but some traditional thought. In fact, what is 善報? How about being born in a small but wealthy and peaceful kingdom as a prince with caring parents and pretty wife? But, is this what Buddhists aim at? //未夠，還要行善，也要修行至悟境，又要視乎前世所作之業 // 修行至悟境 may be right but 行善 and 又要視乎前世所作之業 is incredible. Are you sure about what you wrote? Are we talking about Buddhism? //我以為作惡固不能脫苦，過份執著於善也未必是好事。 // I think what you mean is 善惡 is irrelevant. Or, at least, they are not the determining factor. //我相信這是佛教同基督教的最大分野，佛教沒有至高無上全能的神，沒有權威教會，也是靠個人修為而得道 // Agreed. However, which one represents the truth is another issue. On the other hand, if 佛教沒有至高無上全能的神 is true, do you think worshipping or praying to Buddha contradicts to the core beliefs of Buddhism? Do you agree that Buddha is just an ordinary man, who may be just a bit more intelligent than others? In fact, what he achieved can be achieved by others if they follow what he proposed diligently. //法輪功混合氣功，佛教，道教詞匯，其教義為正統佛道所不容，李天命博士有專文論其教義之自相矛盾及不可解之處，你可參考。 // I don’t think Fat Lun Gon is a branch of Buddhism either. What I tried to illustrate is one needs some reference before he can tell whether a particular religion or school of thought is Buddhism or not. If you don’t think noble truths and fat yans are the basic reference for Buddhism, I urge you to suggest another, if there is one. In other words, I am asking for your so-called 正統佛道. Whether Fat Lun Gon’s 教義 is 自相矛盾 or has 不可解之處 is irrelevant in determining whether it is a branch of Buddhism. Is Buddhism free of contradiction and without any 不可解之處 (Please note that I am not saying Buddhism has contradiction or 不可解之處 yet. Please make the judgement yourself.)? On the other hand, at least in the area of 正統佛道, I think Buddha has more authority than Mr Lee. //Can you name some other core teachings of Buddhism, which is of similar importance to the noble truths and fat yans? 簡而言之，佛教主要分大乘與小乘，…// Basically, I don’t think you have told us what, in your opinion, are Buddhism’s core beliefs, be it 大乘’s, 小乘’s or 禪’s. However, I am particularly interested in your statements like 寧普渡眾生而不達涅槃 and 崇尚人與自然合一, which are, in my opinion, rather contradictory to 3 or 4 fat yans. Please share more. On the other hand, I don’t think 西藏密宗 is part of大乘. Besides, what is the rationale behind for 頓悟? How can 頓悟 have a lasting effect?

One more question To Allan //於中國結合道教學說而成禪宗// Do you mean that Buddhism evolved in China is not the original Buddhism?

三大佬/三少 你們的留言與我的問題有關嗎﹖內含禪意乎﹖實在參透不通﹐請明示好嗎﹖

Re: // 三大佬/三少// 不可說,不可說

JPY 你似乎找錯詢問對象了，因為我連一本佛經也沒有正正經經讀過呢！我比較有興趣的是用比較的觀點看「宗教」本身的現象。 1. 佛教也如回教與基督教，在流傳的過程中會結合各地文化特質，分分合合成為不同宗派，道家與佛家學說在中國融合成禪宗，不用奇怪，也不代表禪宗與原始佛教不同，最多是形不似而神仍是。(道家與原始佛教本來就有很多雷同之處，佛陀「拈花微笑」就與「道可道，非常道」異曲同工。） 2. 我相信每一宗教教義都有自相矛盾與不可解之處，佛經也會有（但我不清楚），聖經肯定有，因為佛經和聖經都是不同教徒所寫的，即是，都是人所寫的。 3. 四聖諦是佛教基本教義，但如何詮釋這些基本教義，由教會的組織，到信徒的修為，至如何得道，則在基本原則下各司各法，沒有權威。新教從羅馬天主教分裂出來，足證有太權威的教會不是好事。尤幸佛教的演化與擴散過程，沒有出現如歐洲新舊教徒的殺戮。這是我較傾向佛教的一個原因。 其他問題有空再答好嗎？但那些將只是我個人意見觀感，我沒有資格在此為佛教「護教」！

Tony, 咁又何苦呢~ >那麼, 撇開這些教義, 悉達多/釋迦牟尼的想法又是什麼? 期待指教, 謝謝! < 何必又問我呢.... 我在這裡似乎經常赤字... 有出無入...Y_Y 要知道, 多數的知識多不是破, 而是立--- 在原有的疊上去吧? 而像耶穌悉達多這類賢哲, 他們才能夠先破再立吧? 只係奇怪後人唔敨佢0地上神枱都唔安樂?

ｊｏｅｊｏｎｅｓ 你算答左？

算答左啦... 好嗎? 簡單講, 悉達多先生咪就係指出如何不需再受輪迴之苦囉---- 如果真係有輪迴的話 另外, 我相信佢接受者那的不殺生規條, 但十分不屑婆羅門所認為人生而有等級的種姓制度, 和吠陀是天啟的講法

又錯... V_V 上文的"者那" 應為"耆那"

一隻蒼蠅 請問我拍死了一隻蒼蠅，在佛教的教義來看。我是不是犯了有關不能殺生的戒條。

仁仁 試答 你拍死蒼蠅是做了殺業, 不是犯了殺戒 要犯戒先要受戒, 要受戒又要先皈依才行 但我懇求大家不要傷害小昆蟲啊! 牠們已經很可憐的了! 阿彌陀佛!

但假如我係農夫，我見到蝗蟲，我應該……？

吳蘭露 轉行

蒼蠅蟑螂滿天飛 咁我做了殺業 (拍死蒼蠅)，即是什麼，是第幾級罪？有什麼後果？ 你真能容許你的屋企蒼蠅蟑螂滿天飛，你會大發慈悲與牠們共處一室？若你把牠們趕走，你也只是將自己不喜歡的留給別人𠯿？ 請你教我當我下次再見到蒼蠅昆蟲蟑螂之類時應怎樣做才算合乎佛教教義？

仁仁 蒼蠅蟑螂滿天飛 //咁我做了殺業 (拍死蒼蠅)，即是什麼，是第幾級罪？有什麼後果？// 殺業的果報多為夭壽, 多病, 人緣差, 修法障礙多等(我講) 多口問:你知唔知邊個係密勒日巴大師? //你真能容許你的屋企蒼蠅蟑螂滿天飛，你會大發慈悲與牠們共處一室？// 相信我, 我有潔癖兼eq好低, 我都忍得住手唔拍佢地, 你都一定得! 同埋我自從戒殺以來, 屋企d小昆蟲係明顯少左, 冇小強螞蟻 //若你把牠們趕走，你也只是將自己不喜歡的留給別人𠯿？// 你可以將佢地放生係d草叢等地方 //請你教我當我下次再見到蒼蠅昆蟲蟑螂之類時應怎樣做才算合乎佛教教義？// 我自己會持六字大明咒7遍然後向d小昆蟲吹氣 (如果周圍冇人) 如果周圍都係人我就會係心度祝福佢地!

小花生 我道行無你咁高，有排學，欽佩欽佩！

傳聞....... 佛教不吃葷的習慣始於中國的梁武帝，亦即是說，中國以外的佛教徒或僧侶都沒有不吃葷的習慣，真到現在，不吃葷的習慣也袛剩下港、台的佛教徒仍奉行，國內的寺院餐館什麼都有得吃。

沒回應﹖ 我是否也說錯了甚麼﹖為何也得不到回應呢﹖請明示！ :D

請原諒我 其實我最怕冇壞習慣ge人 如果你持素, 唔煙唔酒, 早睡早起, 唔講粗口, 咁most probably我會向你大禮拜後走夾唔抖 不過, 我到底想講咩呢.......不過我都係好想大家忍吓手, 得饒蟲處且饒蟲, 時間金錢許可就多放生, 多持素, 你個life會好d架! 真架! 祝愉快清明

仁仁 你唔使欽佩我, 我d道行一d都唔高(都話左淨係膽固醇高law!), 我對狗對蟲有無限愛心, 但待人接物都仲係好唔惦, 所以千祈唔好學我! 阿彌陀佛!

To Allan Frankly, I think you don't know too much about Buddhism. I just wonder how you can be inclined to Buddhism and use it to compare with Christianity. Up to now, I think I haven't say anything against Buddhism. So, don't bother to defend it. To 小花生 //阿彌陀佛// What does it mean? I heard that it is not a Sim's concept.

JPY Hello!

JPY JPY 從來都冇嚮 e 個留言區講 d 粗言穢語，禮貌又比十三點好得多！ JPY 呀，你得閒就多 d 上黎傾計 la 。

To JPY Frankly, I have said I don't know too much about Buddhism. But it is more than enough for me to incline to Buddhism and use it to compare with Christianity.

JPY ，再續，欠你一些答案，如果你有興趣的話 [//善有善報，惡有惡報，若然未報，時辰未到 // I don’t think it is Buddhist teaching but some traditional thought.] 這是俗語，也是簡略的佛教善惡觀。正如「信者得救」是俗語，也是基督教的一種觀念。 [//（原始佛教）於中國結合道教學說而成禪宗// Do you mean that Buddhism evolved in China is not the original Buddhism?] no.　形式有變，但宗旨沒有變。 東正教是否original Christianity? 新教是否original Christianity? // In fact, what is 善報? How about being born in a small but wealthy and peaceful kingdom as a prince with caring parents and pretty wife?// 有人滿足於此，認為是善報，有人不滿足於此，如佛陀。 // But, is this what Buddhists aim at?// 有人求佛為求心安，有人修道為求成佛，不一而足。 //do you think worshipping or praying to Buddha contradicts to the core beliefs of Buddhism?// 只是尊敬一個老師而已 // Do you agree that Buddha is just an ordinary man, who may be just a bit more intelligent than others?// yes // In fact, what he achieved can be achieved by others if they follow what he proposed diligently.// 對，凡人皆可成佛 //I don’t think 西藏密宗 is part of大乘.// 在此說聲對不起，我是錯的，藏傳佛教並不歸為大乘佛教，謝謝你提醒。 // Besides, what is the rationale behind for 頓悟?// 也許人的存在本來是一件很簡單很易理解的事罷。有些基督徒朋友，也是頓然聽到神的光而信神的，不需太多rationale 吧 // How can 頓悟 have a lasting effect?// 知道了自是知道，自會長久

進化想像 在無限時間的條件下: --- 經過長時間，人類可不可能進化出 新物種? --- 已經有新物種由人類產生，但不能用人類的知識證明衪的存在。 --- 演化到了人類巳是尾站,跟著出現所有生物滅絕,再出現是由頭開始:- ?→ancestral cell→eubacteria→archaebacteria→protista→plant→fungi→animal --- 請賜教......

無端端又發現... 原來我真係欠Tony 哥好多文債 V_V >那篇文章己讀過, 但是提出瑪利亞懷孕之成因, 或者是否定神人產子之說, 有沒有論據? < 瑪利亞懷孕是神人產子之說, 我覺得難以理解, 也似是為耶穌的神性所作的假話/神話. 所以我覺得瑪利亞懷孕是正常的懷孕的講法就算不能提出有效的証據, 也比較 可信得多.

//JPY ，再續，欠你一些答案，如果你有興趣的話// Why don't we start a new topic? What hobbies do you have? The hobby I practise most (apart from sleeping) is watching TV. I am waiting an important EPL game.

To: 十三點 & Li Ho Fan Hello! Sorry for missing your posts.

to ： JPY 點解你唔去其他留言串度傾下計呀？

To 十三點 My processing power has been exhausted in arguing and cannot support on-line chatting any more. Anyway, thank you for asking. You are so user-friendly.

你好嗎？ 請閱　＜＜向JoeJones 求教＞＞．　神人產子之說有可能是因為錯譯之故．

To JoeJones 馬可福音　１６：９－２０，是後人因要和馬太福音和路加福音可以對觀而加上的． 証明：請閱訪間的研經書． 而且馬可福音比馬太是馬太福音和路加福音早的福音 那麼你認為復活之說能否成立？

以我所知馬可福音成書應比馬太福音早, 但路加福音就不知道了 至於馬可１６：９－２０是否後人加上去呢... 哈, 有可能吧, 但我無法"証明"喎 ^^ 問我認為復活之說能否成立嗎？ 我一向不能接受"死"後復活之說, 但未死"復活"我或者可以接受 :P

証明 連基督教一些為平信徒研經書也提及...有空可到x道書樓一看.

To: JoeJones 馬可福音 16:9-20 正是耶穌復活升天的那一段呢! JJ

如同路加福音第21 章的結尾也有人認為是後人所補入吧~ 不過都是難以"証明", 至多是幾可靠的推論吧 不過如果有人找到公元100年前後的版本, 應可以"証明" 因為學者們都認為增刪的版本出現於公元200年之後 PS: 這類問題你問S.C. 較好, 佢比我熟識得多呢

噢, 打錯 對不起, 是約翰福音21節結尾, 不是路加..

多難過！ 美國試爆了炸彈之母。 炸彈之母 炸彈之母 炸彈之母 多仁義！ 多神氣！ 多諷刺！

炸彈之母 唔知仲會生幾多個炸彈仔

假如有一日, 中國獨大, 或許也會如今日的美國般, 事事過問, 自封世界警察.

Taken from news.3home.net: State of the Union address as delivered by President George W. Bush 【攻伊之態度】 ... If this is not evil, then evil has no meaning. Andtonight I have a message for the brave and oppressed people of Iraq: Your enemy is not surrounding your country - your enemy is ruling your country.And the day he and his regime are removed from power will be the day of your liberation. ... We seek peace. We strive for peace. And sometimes peace must be defended. A future lived at the mercy of terrible threats is no peace at all. If war is forced upon us, we will fight in a just cause and by just means - sparing, in every way we can, the innocent. And if war is forced upon us, we will fight with the full force and might of the United States military - and we will prevail. And as we and our coalition partners are doing in Afghanistan, we will bring to the Iraqi people food, and medicines, and supplies … and freedom. Many challenges, abroad and at home, have arrived in a single season. In two years, America has gone from a sense of invulnerability to an awareness of peril … from bitter division in small matters to calm unity in great causes. And we go forward with confidence, because this call of history has come to the right country. Americans are a resolute people, who have risen to every test of our time. Adversity has revealed the character of our country, to the world, and to ourselves. America is a strong Nation, and honorable in the use of our strength. We exercise power without conquest, and we sacrifice for the liberty of strangers. Americans are a free people, who know that freedom is the right of every person and the future of every nation. The liberty we prize is not America’s gift to the world, it is God’s gift to humanity. We Americans have faith in ourselves - but not in ourselves alone. We do not claim to know all the ways of Providence, yet we can trust in them, placing our confidence in the loving God behind all of life, and all of history. May He guide us now, and may God continue to bless the United States of America. 下文見美白宮網頁 :http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2003/03/20030306-8.html =========================== President George Bush Discusses Iraq in National Press Conference The East Room Q Thank you, Mr. President. How would -- sir, how would you answer your critics who say that they think this is somehow personal? As Senator Kennedy put it tonight, he said your fixation with Saddam Hussein is making the world a more dangerous place. And as you prepare the American people for the possibility of military conflict, could you share with us any of the scenarios your advisors have shared with you about worse-case scenarios, in terms of the potential cost of American lives, the potential cost to the American economy, and the potential risks of retaliatory terrorist strikes here at home? THE PRESIDENT: My job is to protect America, and that is exactly what I'm going to do. People can ascribe all kinds of intentions. I swore to protect and defend the Constitution; that's what I swore to do. I put my hand on the Bible and took that oath, and that's exactly what I am going to do. ... I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat to the American people. I believe he's a threat to the neighborhood in which he lives. And I've got a good evidence to believe that. He has weapons of mass destruction, and he has used weapons of mass destruction, in his neighborhood and on his own people. He's invaded countries in his neighborhood. He tortures his own people. He's a murderer. He has trained and financed al Qaeda-type organizations before, al Qaeda and other terrorist organizations. I take the threat seriously, and I'll deal with the threat. I hope it can be done peacefully. Secondly, I make my decisions based upon the oath I took, the one I just described to you. I believe Saddam Hussein is a threat -- is a threat to the American people. He's a threat to people in his neighborhood. He's also a threat to the Iraqi people. One of the things we love in America is freedom. If I may, I'd like to remind you what I said at the State of the Union: liberty is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to each and every person. And that's what I believe. I believe that when we see totalitarianism, that we must deal with it. We don't have to do it always militarily. But this is a unique circumstance, because of 12 years of denial and defiance, because of terrorist connections, because of past history.

因為伊拉克有石油關係

最新講法 因為要為阿拉伯帶來民主

去以下網址看看 http://www.hkmtg.com/forum/detail.asp?TitleID=23178

quoted from: http://www.hkmtg.com/forum/detail.asp?TitleID=23178 問﹕美國人口在全世界佔多少比例﹖ 答﹕6% 問﹕美國擁有的財富佔全世界多少比例﹖ 答﹕50% 問﹕那一個國家的石油蘊藏量最多﹖ 答﹕沙地阿拉伯 問﹕那一個國家的石油蘊藏量佔第二高﹖ 答﹕伊拉克 問﹕全世界一年的軍事花費有多少﹖ 答﹕9000多億美元 問﹕其中美國的花費佔多少﹖ 答﹕50% 問﹕根據聯合國的估計﹐美國軍費抽出幾成﹐就可以供應全世界人民的基本生活所 需﹖ 答﹕一成﹐即大約400億﹐這是當初美國報復性攻打阿富汗的費用 問﹕二次大戰後有多少人死﹙於戰爭﹚﹖ 答﹕8600萬 問﹕伊拉克從何時開始擁有生化武器﹖ 答﹕自1980年代開始 問﹕伊拉克是自己發展這些生化武器的嗎﹖ 答﹕不是﹐材料和技術是由美國?英國政府及其私人公司提供的。 問﹕當伊拉克以毒氣攻擊伊朗﹙兩伊戰爭時﹐1980-1988﹚﹐美國政府有沒有譴 責﹖ 答﹕沒有 問﹕1988年﹐薩達姆﹙海珊﹚以毒氣攻擊哈拉比亞鎮的庫德族人﹐殺死了多少人﹖ 答﹕5,000人。 問﹕這次有多少西方國家對伊拉克提出了譴責﹖ 答﹕0 問﹕美國在越戰時使用了多少加侖的橙劑﹙含有245-T或245-三氯苯氧乙酸之除草 劑,曾在叢林戰中用作脫葉劑,英國在馬來亞和美國在越南戰爭中都使用過。名稱來 源於在越南所用容器周圍塗的橙色環。對人有毒,因為含有微量二戴奧辛英,可引起 嚴重的皮疹(氯痤瘡),以及實驗動物的嬰兒畸型和癌症﹚﹖ 答﹕1700萬 問﹕是否有任何證據顯示伊拉克和911事件的攻擊者有勾結﹖ 答﹕沒有 問﹕1991年海灣戰爭中﹐估計有多少平民死亡﹖ 答﹕35,000人 問﹕在海灣戰爭中﹐伊拉克造成了西方國家多國部隊多少人死亡﹖ 答﹕零 問﹕美國用裝有推犁的坦克車﹐活埋了多少撤退中的伊拉克士兵﹖ 答﹕6,000人 問﹕海灣戰爭後﹐多國部隊留下了多少鈾乏彈在伊拉克和科威特﹖ 答﹕40噸 問﹕根據聯合國的估計﹐1991-1994年伊拉克人的癌症罹患率增加了多少﹖ 答﹕700% 問﹕美國宣稱它在1991年摧毀了多少伊拉克戰力﹖ 答﹕80% 問﹕是否有證據顯示﹐伊拉克的武器除了自衛之外﹐還預備作其他用途﹖ 答﹕沒有 問﹕伊拉克是否比十年前對於世界和平更具威脅性﹖ 答﹕不是 問﹕五角大廈﹙美國國防部﹚指出﹐在2002-2003年對伊拉克的攻擊中﹐有多少平 民因而死亡﹖ 答﹕10,000人 問﹕這其中有多少是兒童﹖ 答﹕超過一半 問﹕美國對伊拉克實施空襲了多少年﹖ 答﹕11年 問﹕從1998年十二月到1999年九月﹐美國和英國是否和伊拉克處於戰爭狀態﹖ 答﹕沒有 問﹕在上述期間內﹐美英對伊拉克投擲了多少炸彈﹖ 答﹕2,000萬磅 問﹕聯合國﹙安理會﹚第661號決議案決議對伊拉克實施嚴格的制裁﹙禁止進出 口﹚以來已有多少年﹖ 答﹕12年 問﹕在1989年﹐伊拉克每出生一千名嬰兒中﹐死亡率是多少﹖ 答﹕38 問﹕1999年﹐估計嬰兒死亡率又是多少﹖ 答﹕131﹙增加率345%﹚ 問﹕到1999年十月為止﹐伊拉克有多少人因為聯合國的制裁而死亡﹖ 答﹕150萬 問﹕自1997年開始﹐據估計有多少兒童死於聯合國的制裁﹖ 答﹕75萬 問﹕薩達姆驅逐了聯合國的武檢團嗎﹖ 答﹕沒有﹙譯注﹕在前三百次沒有﹐後1998年因薩達姆認為過於耗費伊拉克“石油 換糧食”的經費而拒絕武檢員入境﹚ 問﹕從1998年11月到12月﹐聯合國進行了多少次武檢﹖ 答﹕300次 問﹕有幾次武檢團遭遇到問題﹖ 答﹕5次 問﹕武檢團是否被允許進入復興黨中央黨部﹖﹙譯注﹕目前伊拉克執政黨﹚ 答﹕是 問﹕是誰在1998年十二月時說﹕“伊拉克實際上已經解除武裝到現代社會前所未有 的程度”﹖ 答﹕聯合國武檢團主席Scott Ritter 問﹕1998年聯合國武檢員宣佈發現並銷毀了多少伊拉克在1991年後發展大規模毀滅 性武器的能力﹖ 答﹕90% 問﹕伊拉克是否同意武檢員再回到伊拉克﹖ 答﹕是 問﹕直到1992年以色列違反了多少聯合國決議﹖ 答﹕超過65個 問﹕從1972-1990年﹐在聯合國有關制裁以色列的決議上﹐美國動用了幾次否決 權﹖ 答﹕30次以上 問﹕目前已知有多少國家擁有核子武器﹖ 答﹕8個 問﹕伊拉克有多少核子彈頭﹖ 答﹕0 問﹕美國有多少核子彈頭﹖ 答﹕超過一萬個 問﹕至今唯一曾經使用核子武器的是那一國﹖ 答﹕美國 問﹕以色列有多少核子彈頭﹖ 答﹕超過400個 問﹕是誰說過“如果我們對於重大的事情保持沉默﹐我們的生命就完蛋了”﹖ 答﹕馬丁路德金博士 最後一問﹕你願意並且即將持續參與反對美英侵略伊拉克的各種行動嗎﹖ 答:???

美國以正義之名為非作歹

聲大人多唔化表一定o岩 同北約簽左反導彈條約又反口繼續研究導彈,有咩資格話人唔守規矩同要人守規矩?美國自己都唔守規矩 平時賴係勁賴係路見不平勁4圍炸其他個國家都仲唔夠,而家仲好意思話以暴易暴無視生靈途炭係為左維持世界和平,起少d火頭當幫忙啦world police 擺明係搶石油開殺界仲義正詞嚴 真係唔知醜 如果要有人要解除大殺傷力武器以便維持世界和平,點計都應該係美國第一個拆,邊個夠佢多大殺傷力武器?

金水 我對中國人普遍思想認識唔深 或者第日中國強大左都會好似美國人咁仲意借維持和平既藉口唻滿足一己私利,god knows, 但唔道點解我覺得想以中國人既性格,處世之道,同埋我地既傳統信仰(我地唔知似仲意好勇鬥狠,我地似乎仲意中庸之道,我地既宗教意識都唔似其他西方宗教咁有排他性,睇中國人有唔同宗教信仰就知啦,只係中國政府怕法輪功呢個民間勢力大到不可收拾先叫佢做邪教打以大壓o者),我覺得第日中國就算好強大,中國都唔會4圍強出頭,最多大家都只會好有$同家肥屋潤,因為中國人大多數都好聰明好識做生意同好慳家(你可以叫小家既)。

祝願戰爭危機可解 在這個網頁裡，看到清晰而深刻的思想，令人深喜。 希望//浪漫修陀在人世間鋤強扶弱//的思想可以廣為散播。

但願戰爭不會爆發 不論布殊攻打伊拉克的原因為何，伊拉克的人民是無辜的… 美國在高舉民主自由、人權主意的同時，可有顧及伊拉克人民的基本生存的權利？可有顧及美國國民及各國人民的聲音？如此獨裁自私的人，豈能當一個自由民主國家之首？更沒資格談什麼維護和平等言論了！美國人應以此為恥...

美國已成為危害世界和平,破壞地球環境的邪惡國家 成本低 威力強 遺害大 【 明 報 專 訊 】 衰 變 鈾 的 密 度 是 鋼 的 2.5倍 ， 用 它來 製 造 彈 頭 ， 便 能 有 效 穿 透 敵 軍 裝 甲 ， 但 其 輻射 卻 被 指 帶 來 嚴 重 遺 害 。 美 軍 在 90年 代 的 波 斯灣 戰 爭 和 科 索 沃 戰 爭 中 ， 皆 曾 大 量 使 用 衰 變 鈾彈 ， 而 兩 地 居 民 在 戰 後 癌 症 發 病 率 和 死 亡 率 大增 。 不 少 美 國 退 伍 軍 人 患 上 的 海 灣 症 候 群 ， 也被 指 與 衰 變 鈾 有 關 。 91年95萬枚蹂躪伊拉克 衰 變 鈾 是 核 子 發 電 後 的 廢 物 ， 由 美 國 能 源 部 免費 供 應 ， 這 比 另 一 種 貴 金 屬 鎢 的 成 本 低 得 多 ，故 能 大 大 減 低 生 產 穿 甲 彈 的 成 本 ， 成 為 美 軍 寵兒 。 然 而 ， 一 枚 直 徑 120毫 米 的 衰 變 鈾 彈 約 含 4公斤 衰 變 鈾 ， 擊 中 目 標 時 會 產 生 大 量 輻 射 的 氧 化鈾 分 子 塵 埃 ， 散 佈 在 戰 場 空 中 ， 輻 射 性 需 45億年 才 減 弱 一 半 ， 吸 入 後 對 人 體 健 康 造 成 嚴 重 影響 。 國 際 社 會 一 直 禁 用 衰 變 鈾 武 器 ， 但 美 國 仍 在1991年 對 伊 拉 克 的 戰 爭 和 1999年 出 兵 南 斯 拉 夫 的行 動 中 ， 分 別 使 用 了 95萬 及 3萬 枚 衰 變 鈾 彈 。 雖然 美 國 一 再 否 認 這 種 武 器 會 影 響 健 康 ， 但 各 種壞 影 響 陸 續 出 現 ， 例 如 ， 伊 拉 克 南 部 地 區 患 卵巢 癌 的 女 性 人 數 比 戰 前 增 16倍 ﹔ 17名 北 約 聯 軍 成員 在 巡 視 南 斯 拉 夫 戰 場 時 遇 上 殘 餘 的 衰 變 鈾 武器 後 ， 一 個 個 死 於 白 血 病 。 歐 盟 2001年 初 曾 派 專家 評 估 衰 變 鈾 造 成 的 危 險 。 如 今 攻 伊 戰 一 觸 即發 ， 美 國 軍 人 紛 紛 冷 藏 精 子 ， 有 論 者 估 計 他 們私 下 或 都 憂 心 衰 變 彈 會 影 響 生 育 。 明報資料室/路透社/美聯社

為什麼世界上總有那麼多人為的災難和慘劇? 李天命:「理性 + 情 ==> 義」。情乃義之基，無情則無義。 為什麼世界上總有那麼多人為的災難和慘劇? 是因為人類的理性不足,還是因為有些人缺乏同情心? 或是因為二者同時存在?

貪婪 求生是最強的生物本能，並且往往以掠奪為手段。人，即使生存有了保證，他的求生本能依然活躍，並且以貪婪的形態出現。同時，為滿足這種貪婪的慾念，人往往依然採取掠奪為手段。 在貪婪的慾念面前，人的理性顯得軟弱無力。而當滿足慾念的衝動壓倒良知的時候，人變為由獸性驅策，蓄勢捕殺成為常態，掠奪行動經常如箭在弦，一發不可收拾。由於良知泯滅，所以面對哀鴻遍野亦視作等閒，眼見生靈塗炭亦毫不動容。事實上，這剛好就是獸性的本質。 若要世界不再存在侵略，我們可能只能求於貪婪的消失。但要消除人類貪婪的劣性，等同要消除人類的求生本能，我們應該如何著手呢？

只要人變得極度自私和怕死就可以 沒有愛國,勇氣,忠心,正義感.世界就會和平

久違了,征服者 你還是那樣語出驚人,見解獨到.

Dr. Lee: //人的靈魂要強 (cf. 我所講的「浪漫修陀」) ， 接受自己的弱 (cf. 我所講的「天嬰」) 。 天嬰在宇宙間以弱勝強， 浪漫修陀在人世間鋤強扶弱。 // 請問「浪漫修陀」同「天嬰」有沒有在已出版的書或演講中出現過? 如果有是哪些? 謝謝.

唔明 極度自私有幾自私? 極度怕死有幾怕死? 用槍指住佢, 迫佢去打人, 結果𤔡自保而打起黎.. 佢是否自私怕死? 又算唔算"極度自私怕死"??

不恥下問君！ 閣下的網名真是別出心裁！ "服"！

無論咩原因都好 只希望唔好禍及平民百性 我諗係大多數平民 都唔係想有安定既生活...

"想有安定既生活"至岩 sorry~

我其實唔係咁既意思:p sorry 唔點解會用左呢個成語! 下次唔用喇! 不過我真係想知o係邊度有得睇? 因為我覺得睇完可能會影響我生活o既態度。謝謝！

弱智典範 因為要為阿拉伯帶來民主

一個人打不成仗 要有士兵聽命令才可以 但只要人夠自私,怕死,一個領導說什麼也不會有人理會 就是用槍指著,也是最多一個.而且槍口一離開還是沒有人會理他,反而會逃跑.一個領袖可以同時迫多少人服從?

//：因為要為阿拉伯帶來民主 ：// 你之蜜糖，我之砒霜 美國認為之民主，如何可強加於伊之國民身上？若有看前晚一個美國記者在伊拉克之訪問，當可見大部份國民的返美情緒。不想多說，懶寫字！只一句，布殊司馬之心、全世界皆見！

我在好久以前上堂時, 曾聽過一個說法, 西方的民主是建基於三個元素, 並經過長時間蘊釀, 才有今日的景象. 那三個元素是......我忘記了, 因為上堂時總是睡著了, 嘻嘻~~ 但我相信, 民主的發展, 並非一朝一夕的, 最必要的是, 人民要有一定的智慧, 再經時間蘊釀, 這樣發展出來的民主, 才是理想的. 如果要一個國家在短短三數年間實行民主, 從無到有, 那只會是提供機會給從政人士愚弄群眾, 從中取利. 很多西方人士, 尤其是美國人, 總愛要求別的國家立刻就民主, 我覺得太天真了.

usa點只將自己果套所謂民主強加於其他國家身上,(成日話中國唔夠人權,係又點呀,唔係又點呀?關唔關你事呀?自己都理唔掂仲管其他人)佢地仲唔理自己人民同其他國家反戰既意願,好似個世界得佢一人佢玩唒咁囉。

//假如有一日, 中國獨大, 或許也會如今日的美國般, 事事過問, 自封世界警察.// Why 假如? 中國 had been 獨大 before. How did it treat her neighboring countries then? In fact, what does 中國 “the Middle Kingdom” mean? In addition, rumors said even when the new 中國 has not been 獨大 enough, she, like the late USSR, has tried to export Communism in South East Asia. BTW, how do those Westerners say about the attitude of our beloved 中國 to Tibet, Taiwan and HK? //Cf. 佛道儒傳統 vs 基督教傳統。// //Cf. 宗教霸權心態。// 佛: Does 佛 recognize other forms than Nirvana as liberation from suffering? 儒: Can the authority of an emperor (or a father) over his people (or sons) be considered as a form of 霸權? 道: If 道 cannot be described clearly, is it merely another 「邏輯無效域」? I think only the UNunderstandable 道 and other pantheism like Hinduism can be immunized from 宗教霸權心態.

To: JPY //道: If 道 cannot be described clearly, is it merely another 「邏輯無效域」? // Another? You still think there is one? Where have you been lately? You just got back from 邏輯無效域?

布殊是宗教霸權的極致 布殊以為自己替天行道，奉行上帝旨意． 布殊以為自己代表正義，反對他的人是魔鬼． 布殊以為世界是正邪的對立，不是友就是敵，不是正就是邪． 布殊以為自己的一套是百分百對的，不惜用血腥來迫使你相信． 布殊開口埋口都是神． 這次算不算新世紀的聖戰？

2047 你講既言之有理 講你知bush就係想呢d死硬派christians支持佢, usa中部有大既呢d死硬派。

願望 日落前讓悲傷終結

Here's another point of view The truth of the matter, explained by George Soros Copyright 2003 The Financial Times Limited Financial Times (London) March 13, 2003, Thursday London Edition 3 SECTION: COMMENT & ANALYSIS; Pg. 21 LENGTH: 882 words HEADLINE: Bush's inflated sense of supremacy BYLINE: By GEORGE SOROS BODY: With US and British troops poised to invade Iraq, the rest of the world is overwhelmingly opposed. Yet Saddam Hussein is generally seen as a tyrant who must be disarmed and the United Nations Security Council has unanimously demanded that he disclose and destroy his weapons of mass destruction. What has gone wrong? Iraq is the first instance in which the Bush doctrine is being applied and it is provoking an allergic reaction. The doctrine is built on two pillars: first, the US will do everything in its power to maintain unquestioned military supremacy; second, it arrogates the right to pre-emptive action. These pillars support two classes of sovereignty: American sovereignty, which takes precedence over international treaties; and the sovereignty of all other states, which is subject to the Bush doctrine. This is reminiscent of George Orwell's Animal Farm: all animals are equal but some are more equal than others. The Bush doctrine is grounded in the belief that international relations are relations of power; legality and legitimacy are decorations. This belief is not entirely false but it exaggerates one aspect of reality - military power - at the exclusion of others. I see a parallel between the Bush administration's pursuit of American supremacy and a boom-bust process or bubble in the stock market. Bubbles do not grow out of thin air. They have a solid basis in reality but reality is distorted by misconception. In this case, the dominant position of the US is the reality, the pursuit of supremacy the misconception. Reality can reinforce the misconception but eventually the gap between reality and its false interpretation becomes unsustainable. During the self-reinforcing phase, the misconception may be tested and reinforced. This widens the gap leading to an eventual reversal. The later it comes, the more devastating the consequences. This course of events seems inexorable but a boom-bust process can be aborted at any stage and few of them reach the extremes of the recent stock market bubble. The sooner the process is aborted, the better. This is how I view the Bush administration's pursuit of American supremacy. President George W. Bush came into office with a coherent strategy based on market fundamentalism and military power. But before September 11 2001 he lacked a clear mandate or a well defined enemy. The terrorist attack changed all that. Terrorism is the ideal enemy. It is invisible and therefore never disappears. An enemy that poses a genuine and recognised threat can effectively hold a nation together. That is particularly useful when the prevailing ideology is based on the unabashed pursuit of self-interest. Mr Bush's administration deliberately fosters fear because it helps to keep the nation lined up behind the president. We have come a long way from Franklin D. Roosevelt's dictum that we have nothing to fear but fear itself. But the war on terrorism cannot be accepted as the guiding principle of US foreign policy. What will happen to the world if the most powerful country on earth is solely preoccupied with self-preservation? The Bush policies have already caused severe unintended adverse consequences. The Atlantic Alliance is in a shambles and the European Union divided. The US is a fearful giant throwing its weight around. Afghanistan has been liberated but law and order have not been established beyond Kabul. The Israeli-Palestinian conflict festers. Beyond Iraq, an even more dangerous threat looms in North Korea. The global economy is in recession, stocks are in a bear market and the dollar is in decline. In the US, there has been a dramatic shift from budget surplus to deficit. It is difficult to find a time when political and economic conditions have deteriorated as rapidly. The game is not yet over. A rapid victory in Iraq with little loss of life could cause a dramatic reversal. The price of oil could fall; the stock market could celebrate; consumers could overcome their anxieties and resume spending; and business could respond by stepping up capital expenditure. America would end its dependency on Saudi Arabian oil, the Israeli-Palestinian conflict could become more tractable and negotiations with North Korea could be started without a loss of face. This is what Mr Bush is counting on. Military victory in Iraq would be the easy part. It is what follows that should give us pause. In a boom-bust process, passing an early test tends to reinforce the misconception that has given rise to it. That could happen here. It is not too late to prevent the boom-bust process from getting out of hand. The Security Council could allow more time for weapons inspections. Military presence in the region could be reduced - and bolstered if Iraq balks. An invasion could be mounted at summer's end. The UN would score a victory. That is what the French propose and the British could still make it happen. But the chances are slim; Mr Bush has practically declared war. Let us hope that if there is war, it will be swift and claim few lives. Removing Mr Hussein is a good thing, yet the way Mr Bush is going about it must be condemned. America must play a more constructive role if humanity is to make any progress. (The writer is chairman of Soros Fund Management)

Ms Ng is joking again. Soros is that type of person HK people hate most (although I want to be one). Who is going to take his view seriously?

//布殊是宗教霸權的極致// I am confused. Is 宗教霸權 a problem of a religion or a problem of a person?

自問自答： 你會唔會 take my view seriously 呢，JPY？ 永不。 >:(

反戰 宗教大部份都係導人向善,只係有人用呢d宗教morals唻做佢地作奸犯科既藉 口o者, 最後個heartless bastard都係向iraq開戰,緊係啦,死果個又唔係佢,係d iraq人之嘛。

邪惡之戰卒之開始，為被戰火殺傷的無辜平民默哀。 ...................

710個理由 因為Bush有710個出兵的理由

//Is 宗教霸權 a problem of a religion or a problem of a person? // 是人的問題，是教會的問題，不是宗教的問題． 但當太多人有問題，太多教會有問題，大家就會誤以為是宗教的問題．

>>> 思方習作點滴 <<< >>> ( a ) //各國的元首必須倚靠神的智慧和引導來執行他們的職權，不可倚靠、信任自己的判斷和軍力。 // 李老師早在講述其「賦能進路」(…我們要不要接受某某思想, 最終還是要建基於我們自己的判斷…) 的時候, 已刺穿、擊破了諸如上段引文所含的主張：這種主張暗藏了「自我推翻」的謬誤------如果//不可倚靠、信任自己的判斷//, 那麼我們也不可以信任自己判斷什麼是//神的智慧//, 甚至不可以信任自己判斷是否要接受//不可倚靠、信任自己的判斷//這個判斷了! ( b ) //求悔改的靈臨到現在伊斯蘭國家的元首和正在周圍紮營的軍隊當中，讓他們明白除了耶穌基督，別無拯救！ // 這種思想暴露了危險的「宗教霸權心態」：「霸道排他, 表示只有自己所信的神才是 “正神”, 所有別的宗教所信的神都是 “邪神”。」(<<從思考到思考之上>>, p.204&156 ) ( c ) //藉著神的公義審判，讓列國的人民學懂了何謂真正的公義 // 所謂//神的公義審判//, 在什麼時候舉行過了? 如果根本沒有舉行, 列國人民怎可能從中//學懂了何謂真正的公義// ? ( d ) //願神在審判當中施行祂的公義和慈愛。 // 在基督教思想背景下, 上引的說法隱含了「四不架構」所批的「不一致的謬誤」：基督徒不是說神是公義和慈愛的嗎? 既然如此, 何以還要擔心他「不」公義和慈愛, 因而需要祈「願」他公義和慈愛呢? ( e ) //求屬靈的保護臨到伊拉克的鄰近國家當中，不容它們被伊拉克的仇恨承(所)影響。// 這種一面倒的「親布殊立場」, 有何確當理據? ( f ) //為自己的狂妄、驕傲和教會分裂認罪悔改。// 世上最狂妄 (更貼切的形容是「愚狂」) 的就是這種人, 最死不悔改的也正是這種人。(見前書, pp.156-7 ) <<< *引自<<禱告宣召>>條thread.

關於「 禱告宣召」 在二、三月間此「 禱告宣召」在網上流傳，不少人對它抱存疑，文中雖用上基督教的語調，並稱宣召乃來自美國和以色列的呼籲，但明眼人不難看出內中的漏洞，當中最「致命」的在所謂宣召的第三項：「求悔改的靈臨到現在伊斯蘭國家的元首和正在周圍紮營的軍隊當中，讓他們明白除了耶穌基督，別無拯救！耶穌基督就是道路，真理和生命。」，稍為對猶太教和基督教有點認識的人都知道一個事實：以色列人並不承認「除了耶穌基督，別無拯救！耶穌基督就是道路，真理和生命」，說這個宣召是來自以色列，實在是宗教史上一個最大的笑話，小孩不敢斷言這個宣召是不是來自某些基督徒或基督教組織，因為事實上基督教宗派繁多，地方教會獨立自主，任何基督徒或基督教組織或基督教會都可以就某件事件發表意見，但亦不排除是有人借基督教名義做的惡作劇。不過就小孩所知，基督教圈內持類似想法的並不多﹝當然不能說完全沒有﹞，並非主流思想。 80年代李學徒君用此宣召來做思方練習並無不妥，但批判應只限於此宣召本身所犯的謬誤，而不能引伸至用來批評基督教信仰。

哈...<< 李天命的思考藝術 >>又一次引申應用 // 80年代李學徒君用此宣召來做思方練習並無不妥，但批判應只限於此宣召本身所犯的謬誤，而不能引伸至用來批評基督教信仰。 // 廢話! 就同「拿小孩的言論來做思方練習並無不妥，但批判應只限於小孩的言論, 而不能引伸至用來批評小孩的母親」之為 廢話一樣.

( a ) //各國的元首必須倚靠神的智慧和引導來執行他們的職權，不可倚靠、信任自己的判斷和軍力。 // 李老師早在講述其「賦能進路」(…我們要不要接受某某思想, 最終還是要建基於我們自己的判斷…) 的時候, 已刺穿、擊破了諸如上段引文所含的主張：這種主張暗藏了「自我推翻」的謬誤------如果//不可倚靠、信任自己的判斷//, 那麼我們也不可以信任自己判斷什麼是//神的智慧//, 甚至不可以信任自己判斷是否要接受//不可倚靠、信任自己的判斷//這個判斷了! I think what “…必須倚靠神的智慧…不可倚靠、信任自己的判斷…” means 1) if there is any conflict, God’s will shall prevail; 2) if we don’t know (or are not sure about) what God’s will is, ask (or pray) until we know (or are sure) what it is; It is just like when your parents and/or government ask you to trust them. If you do trust your parents, government and/or great teacher Lee, does it 暗藏「自我推翻」的謬誤? Argument like this is very unreasonable. The accusation is simply based on biased interpretation. ( b ) //求悔改的靈臨到現在伊斯蘭國家的元首和正在周圍紮營的軍隊當中，讓他們明白除了耶穌基督，別無拯救！ // 這種思想暴露了危險的「宗教霸權心態」：「霸道排他, 表示只有自己所信的神才是 “正神”, 所有別的宗教所信的神都是 “邪神”。」(<<從思考到思考之上>>, p.204&156 ) 佛: Nirvana is the only way of liberation from suffering! 儒: You should always listen to your Emperor, government, father, teacher, big brother and …. Marriage: One should not have an affair with other person than his/her spouse. Patriot: One should be only loyal to his country. If one could tolerate the above, he should realize that it is nothing about 霸權. What really matters is whether he abides by those beliefs. ( c ) //藉著神的公義審判，讓列國的人民學懂了何謂真正的公義 // 所謂//神的公義審判//, 在什麼時候舉行過了? 如果根本沒有舉行, 列國人民怎可能從中//學懂了何謂真正的公義// ? 神的公義審判 may have two meanings. In long term, it should refer to the Final Judgment Day when Jesus shall come back again and give the final trial to all of us. In this sense, this should not have taken place. In short term, it may refer to circumstances when justice is restored and/or the weak is taken care of (especially if previous human effort was in vain). To some people, the toppling of Communism in East Europe and the freedom (relatively speaking) of religion in China nowadays are good examples. ( d ) //願神在審判當中施行祂的公義和慈愛。 // 在基督教思想背景下, 上引的說法隱含了「四不架構」所批的「不一致的謬誤」：基督徒不是說神是公義和慈愛的嗎? 既然如此, 何以還要擔心他「不」公義和慈愛, 因而需要祈「願」他公義和慈愛呢? Like point a, this is a biased interpretation. When we greet others “Happy New Year” or “Happy Birthday”, does it 隱含了 we 擔心 the New Year or the birthday will be unhappy? ( e ) //求屬靈的保護臨到伊拉克的鄰近國家當中，不容它們被伊拉克的仇恨承(所)影響。// 這種一面倒的「親布殊立場」, 有何確當理據? How can one interpret this as 「親布殊立場」? In my opinion, it is more like 「親伊拉克的鄰近國家立場」. 伊拉克的鄰近國家 seems to comprise those countries which are not directly related but may probably be involved in. Nonetheless, if the USA and Iraq are also included, it may be more complete. ( f ) //為自己的狂妄、驕傲和教會分裂認罪悔改。// 世上最狂妄 (更貼切的形容是「愚狂」) 的就是這種人, 最死不悔改的也正是這種人。(見前書, pp.156-7 ) If one does 為自己的狂妄…認罪悔改, how can we conclude 世上最狂妄 (更貼切的形容是「愚狂」) and/or 最死不悔改的 就是這種人? Personally, I think those do not 為自己的狂妄…認罪悔改 are more 狂妄, 「愚狂」and/or 死不悔改.

十三點 James Bond once said, "Never say never!"

宗教大部份都係導人向善 In my opinion, I think Buddhism is one of them.

宗教大部份都係導人向善 (2) What a shame! I missed the most important word "not". In my opinion, I think Buddhism is not one of them.

//是人的問題，是教會的問題，不是宗教的問題．// Up to now, I think the war is something between the 2 (or more) countries. Maybe, there is also some personal agenda (which I am not sure). But, it is nothing about religion and churches. If one really wants to escalate the issue, please condemn human being as a whole for war is something unique to mankind.

to：JPY < 宗教大部份都係導人向善 > // In my opinion, I think Buddhism is not one of them. // 咁係唔係即係話 Buddhism is not one of // 導人向善// 既宗教呀？抑或係… 我唔多睇得明白播！ 蠢蛋冇藥醫！ 不過你盡下人事解釋俾我聽，超渡下 e 隻鬼影，得唔得先？喂！

To: JPY //I think what “…必須倚靠神的智慧…不可倚靠、信任自己的判斷…” means 1) if there is any conflict, God’s will shall prevail; 2) if we don’t know (or are not sure about) what God’s will is, ask (or pray) until we know (or are sure) what it is; It is just like when your parents and/or government ask you to trust them. // When your parents ask you to trust/count on them unconditionally, you have two options: to listen to them or to ignore what they say. Either way you would have to make your own decision. There is no way that you can “count on God/parents/someone solely but not your own judgment”. This is why it is self-defeating. //If you do trust your parents, government and/or great teacher Lee, does it 暗藏「自我推翻」的謬誤? // No. When did Dr. Lee ask you to count on him solely but not your own judgment? He encourages us to seek for the answers ourselves all the times. This is exactly what critical thinking is all about: to avoid stupid mistake like this. //Argument like this is very unreasonable. The accusation is simply based on biased interpretation. // Argument like the one that you raised was very unreasonable. //To some people, the toppling of Communism in East Europe and the freedom (relatively speaking) of religion in China nowadays are good examples. // What do all these have to do with God? //If one really wants to escalate the issue, please condemn human being as a whole for war is something unique to mankind. // War is not unique in human but also in other animals even for insects! //宗教大部份都係導人向善 (2) What a shame! I missed the most important word "not". In my opinion, I think Buddhism is not one of them. // If it was written by another person, I would have been really shocked. You don’t think that Buddhism makes people to become better persons? This is a very peculiar way of thinking. You know the Buddha and Jesus were regarded as two of the FOUR GREAT SAINTS in the world. Even a lot of Christians will agree with that. We’ll be all waiting to see how you elaborate on this. But as usual, I bet you won’t give us any reason at all. Until then, your comment is unsubstantiated and unjustified. If you are trying to be provocative, you did not succeed. PS: BTW, 霸權 is hegemony.

JPY //JPY 2003-03-21 16:49:08 宗教大部份都係導人向善 (2) In my opinion, I think Buddhism is not one of them.// Please share more.

JPY //JPY 2003-03-21 16:49:08 宗教大部份都係導人向善 (2) In my opinion, I think Buddhism is not one of them.// 你可唔可以講清楚d,到底你覺得buddhism係導人向善的宗教 定係,你覺得 buddhsum不是導人向善的宗教? 同埋可唔可以講多d點解你咁講呢?

讀開, post上尼同 JPY 研究研究 //吾等大師釋迦牟尼佛的佛教可歸納為三點：不造傷害眾生之惡業、奉行身口意善業、經常善於調伏自心煩惱，這就是真正的佛法。《華嚴經》云：「諸惡莫作，眾善奉行，自淨其意，是諸佛教。」是故，皈依佛門的人，不應重視於是否擁有皈依證等這樣的假名，而應以利益有情的善心為主。在時時刻刻之中，自己力所能及地饒益那些可憐的眾生，這才是大乘菩薩的殊勝行為，已經發菩提心的人都不可缺少。因為釋尊所說八萬四千法蘊的精華是菩提心，菩提心的本體也就是直接或間接利益眾生的心，是故僅發救護眾生的心也超越世間有為法的一切功德，如寂天菩薩云：「僅唯發起饒益心，猶勝供養諸如來。」// --索達吉堪布<< 放生功德甘露妙雨 >>

//科技外物高潮時 內心煩惱亦增盛 悲心減滅增殘殺 見此世界真悲傷 吾等大師釋迦尊 利眾捨身難窮計 吾等弟子應沈思 以何行為作追隨 一切證悟深境界 皆依大悲及信心 若無此因僅精進 如同空中覓鮮花 一切有漏善法中 戒殺放生最殊勝 我此再三作祈禱 勸請行此勝妙道 此善為主三世善 回向遍空三界眾 願彼暫得人天福 究竟往生極樂剎 此文若有利眾義 上師空行諸護法 恒時守護此妙法 願將周遍瞻部洲// ---索達吉堪布<< 放生功德甘露妙雨 >>

To: Sniper 小孩手上有另一個版本的「禱告宣召」，請Sniper君不吝賜教如何應用思方學去作出批判。 ""從伊斯蘭世界來的呼籲，邀請各位慎重參與是次禱告行動。 禱告內容如下： （１）　作為真主的子民需要在真主面前謙卑，為自己的狂妄、 驕傲和伊斯蘭世界分裂認罪悔改。 （２）　各國的元首必須倚靠真神的智慧和引導來執行他們的 職權，不可倚靠、信任自己的判斷和軍力。 （３）　求真主的靈臨到現在西方國家的元首和正在伊拉克周圍 紮營的軍隊當中，讓他們明白除了真神阿拉，別無 拯救！真神阿拉就是生命的源頭。 （４）　藉著真神的公義審判，讓列國的人民學懂了何謂真正 的公義，並願真神在審判當中施行祂的公義和慈愛。 （５）　求真神的保護臨到伊斯蘭弟兄國家當中，不容它 們被美國的強權所影響。 （６）　希望藉著今次戰爭的壓力臨到列國當中，讓它們學 懂全然的謙卑、順服、禱告和悔改，並願意尋求真神 的面，轉離他們的惡行。願真神從天上垂聽，醫治我 們的地、人民和他們的心。讓列國的元首訂定每年 四月九日為全國禁食禱告日。""

小布殊頭腦間單可以由佢種種事睇得出, 不過佢對自己宗教,理想嘅責任可以話係佢政治上生存之道...佢覺得自己有一個神聖嘅責任...佢覺得只有"自由"政府人民先會有幸褔, 宜獨裁政府為咗防止自己人民得到"自由"宜攻擊自由國家(美國)... 其實好明顯911 之前已經要薩達姆落台, 因為佢想幫老布殊補"錯"...國際社會已經忙記咗海灣戰爭, 但係911 俾佢咁嘅幾會, 佢應該好想911 同薩達姆有關... 但係點解關薩達姆事就要睇佢嘅為人...薩達姆比布殊有趣同復習得多 (睇吓佢嘅得 權途徑, 之後佢嘅所作所為)...佢要伊拉克強大, 佢唔係咩善男, 但係佢係"君子報仇,十年未晚"嘅人...老布殊海灣之後應該明白到哩點 最後一句, 只係為"油"太間單喇

李先生不喜歡Bush, 所以 Bush 必是賊匪.賊匪好打弱者(如 Iraq), 乃自然不過的事. 北韓非弱者, Bush則不敢動她分毫.

First, let me restate my statement. “In my opinion, Buddhism is not a religion which 導人向善”. In fact, this topic was argued before under another thread “不能殺生？”. Allan, 小花生 and the like had taken part in it. Nevertheless, in order to facilitate any further discussion/argument, I am obliged to share more. Before that, I think I need to emphasize that, by saying Buddhism does not 導人向善, I have not shown any disrespect to Buddhism (yet). Not 導人向善 does not imply 導人向惡. Furthermore, whether Buddhism can help people to become better persons does not depend on its 善惡觀, if any. What matters is what Buddhism really preaches! Now, let me share what I understand about Buddhism. 1. Buddhism believes life is full of suffering. 2. “Reality” is nothing but illusion. 3. There is no way out except completely jumping out from the 6 realms. 4. This can only be achieved by mediation to enlightenment, which means to understand what reality really is. If you are not convinced, then try the following questions. 1. What is the root cause of suffering in Buddhism? How does it relate to 善 or 惡? Can 善 help in mitigating the suffering in the six realms and/or the four phases of life (Birth, Aging, Sickness, Death)? 2. How to determine what is 善 and what is 惡 in Buddhism? 3. What is the ultimate goal of Buddhism? Is it Nirvana (湼槃)? Which one of enlightenment (悟) and 善 is more important in achieving Nirvana? 4. What does Buddha mean, an enlightened person or a good person? Finally, I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify some misconception. 1. 宗教大部份都係導人向善 In my opinion, it is 偽語意投射. Chinese traditional religion may be 導人向善 but it does not automatically imply Buddhism (or even Christianity) is 導人向善. 2. 佛教講「善有善報、惡有惡報」 This is a very odd thought about Buddhism. I think 善有善報、惡有惡報 basically contradicts to 諸行無常印. Yes, it is true that Buddhism does believe in 因缘 but it doesn’t mean that 善因 leads to 善果 because there is not a clear 形而上的善惡觀 in Buddhism. As such, to certain extent, it is also a 偽語意投射. PS 偽語意投射 is a very useful tool. You can use it whenever you don’t agree with others and you don’t need to give any specific reason.

JPY 其實唔使講到咁遠 你話佛教唔係導人向善既宗教 而我話你咁講係大錯特錯 因為"諸惡莫作, 眾善奉行"係佛教一大教義, 咁都仲唔係導人向善? 另外, 你提出既好多問題都好有趣, 我有時間會再回應你 祝好

如果只係因為燒油井而展開戰爭, 美國比伊拉克更為不人道, 燒油井, 只不過是錢銀問題, 要用上美國士兵的性命胡來嗎? 武檢問題, 伊拉克一向非常合作, 只是由於冇錢繼續俾武檢團, 而驅逐武檢團 即使武檢問題上, 伊拉克極不合作, 我又不覺得二戰戰敗國日本好得幾多 自稱自衛隊卻派兵到波斯灣做後勤, 難道美軍又要攻入去嗎? 十二年的制裁還不足夠嗎? 日本戰後的待遇又是怎樣? 難道入侵科威特比入侵東南亞, 發動南京大屠殺, 731化學部隊試驗更為邪惡嗎? 我不是包庇伊拉克, 我只是覺得"罪不至此", 而且戰爭永遠都係最後的方案, 點解會O 係伊拉克接受武檢, 而聯合國取得進展時就強行中止? 恐怕是布殊想代父報私仇, 卻害苦了美軍年青的戰士 美國真的非要伊拉克的石油不可嗎? 不是, OPEC 基本上都受美國恐制, 伊拉克年產量 不多, 美國在聯合國公佈所謂伊拉克聯系拉登的證據, 令人不能信服 美國既然崇尚法治, 點解唔用聯合國公開決議?又唔用國際刑事法庭對伊拉克作出控訴? 我想講的, 就係依家伊拉克做的野, 唔足以令美國有理由出兵

JPY 你似乎很執著於「善惡」問題，「善惡觀」的問題。 我不太清楚基督徒的善惡觀如何，從現今世上最有權力又自稱極為虔誠的一個基督徒的行為來看，布殊的善惡觀是：非善即惡，非黑即白，非正即邪，非友即敵。 布殊的邏輯：他是邪惡，我們要殺死他，毀滅他，為苦難的人民帶來和平，豐盛，民主，自由，一切的善。 這種「善」是甚麼「善」？ 你可能會說，這可能是人的問題，非宗教的問題，更非神的問題。我同意。 但歷史到現實裡不斷出現的宗教衝突循環（太多例子，不再舉例），我認為根源之一，正是這種正邪對立，善惡二分的宗教基因。

1. Attitude problem: Folks, how do you feel about the followings? Don’t you think he has an attitude problem? // Before that, I think I need to emphasize that, by saying Buddhism does not 導人向善, I have not shown any disrespect to Buddhism (yet). // Why did he use this bracketed “yet”? Did he mean “I haven’t done it yet ….but I am going to”? Check out what he said before: // 不能殺生？JPY 2003-01-07 23:26:08 I haven’t started challenging yet. Before that, I think we need to clarify what Buddhism is all about first so that we have a foundation to discuss, debate and/or argue. // It’s like a defendant talks to the judge in court: “relax your honor, up to now, I haven’t shown any disrespect (YET)”! 2. Ignorance: // Not 導人向善 does not imply 導人向惡. // True and very trivial. Most of us know about that (except George Bush I guess). // Furthermore, whether Buddhism can help people to become better persons does not depend on its 善惡觀, if any. What matters is what Buddhism really preaches! // This is a twisted and bizarre way of thinking (if any at all). Buddhism has its own system to see what is right and wrong and this is also what it preaches. This, of course, is related to whether it will make people become better persons or not. As小花生said, “//因為"諸惡莫作, 眾善奉行"係佛教一大教義, 咁都仲唔係導人向善? //” If you truly obey this doctrine, you will become a better person, as simple as that. How could you call it unrelated? // I think 善有善報、惡有惡報 basically contradicts to 諸行無常印. // NO. All events are unpredictable and ever changing, but they are also caused and conditioned according to “dependent originality”. You may be talking loud this moment and you may die in an accident in the next second. Things are highly unpredictable; but they are all governed and conditioned by your Karma. They are not necessarily contradictory to each other. // Now, let me share what I understand about Buddhism. 1. Buddhism believes life is full of suffering. 2. “Reality” is nothing but illusion. 3. There is no way out except completely jumping out from the 6 realms. 4. This can only be achieved by mediation to enlightenment, which means to understand what reality really is. // Fairly true, but they all need further elaborations especially for 2-4. Even if they are all right, none of them supports your argument: //“In my opinion, Buddhism is not a religion which 導人向善”. // 3. Asking or challenging? Forum or lecture? // If you are not convinced, then try the following questions. 1. What is the root cause of suffering in Buddhism? How does it relate to 善 or 惡? Can 善 help in mitigating the suffering in the six realms and/or the four phases of life (Birth, Aging, Sickness, Death)? 2. How to determine what is 善 and what is 惡 in Buddhism? 3. What is the ultimate goal of Buddhism? Is it Nirvana (湼槃)? Which one of enlightenment (悟) and 善 is more important in achieving Nirvana? 4. What does Buddha mean, an enlightened person or a good person? // What’s the point of raising so many questions? Do you expect anyone to explain all these to you in one single message? What is it, Buddhism 100 course? You want to write a book on Buddhism? Why don’t you just go to the library and dig up what you want before you even try to challenge it? 4. The JPY’s rationale: // Finally, I would also like to take this opportunity to clarify some misconception. 1. 宗教大部份都係導人向善 // OK, why do you think it is a misconception? Because: //In my opinion, it is 偽語意投射. Chinese traditional religion may be 導人向善 but it does not automatically imply Buddhism (or even Christianity) is 導人向善. // What is Chinese traditional religion? Taoism is the only legitimate religion which is originated in China while Buddhism, as we know, is not. // Chinese traditional religion may be 導人向善 but it does not automatically imply Buddhism (or even Christianity) is 導人向善. // True but trivial. You cannot deduce “Buddhism 導人向善” from “Chinese traditional religion may be 導人向善”, but still this is not sufficient to overthrow: “Buddhism 導人向善” or “宗教大部份都係導人向善”. If you cannot overthrow it, your so-called misconception is unjustified. You called it偽語意投射. What is偽語意投射? //偽語意投射 is a very useful tool. You can use it whenever you don’t agree with others and you don’t need to give any specific reason. // Guys, have you seen anything as stupid as such?

jpy 你指佛教無明確善惡觀所以唔可以叫做導人向善呀? 咁christianity有無明確善惡觀?咁點解佢地既信徒往往都咁despise佢地以為係惡既人同事?有無善惡觀同係咪導人向善有無必然關係?其他教義又有無影響? 佛教好著重個人自我反省,唔鼓勵同人爭/爭名利、權力等,要包容,衰d講呢d都係好negative既人生觀,但呢d都令個人平和包容d,唔好成日都要同人鬥咁,呢d又有無關係呢? 我都唔係好清楚佛教係咪有明確善惡觀,但我覺得佢會告誡人,種咁既因,就會有咁既果,所以每做一樣野之前都要唸下先,相信呢個世界係有報應既,並唔係話如似有d christians咁,我自己信呢個god,我就一定係善,其他就一定係evil, 一定要徹底消滅佢地咁。二分法既思想真係好有問題。 佛教最少唔會導人向惡,叫人三思而行,最好做peace-maker,咁都已經好好啦係咪。你講果d咩6realms,唔係比和尚履行既咩?有幾多人好似和尚咁完全同7情6慾保持距離?

http://shanjing.mccse.com/hjt.html

睇完個webite 真係唔知講咩好....

唉,串錯宇喇 website

我明喇！ //Benson : The JPY's rationale : //In my opinion, it is 偽語意投射. Chinese traditional religion may be 導人向善 but it does not automatically imply Buddhism (or even Christianity) is 導人向善. // //偽語意投射 is a very useful tool. You can use it whenever you don’t agree with others and you don’t need to give any specific reason. // // 鬼拍後尾枕！

好聲氣 d 得唔得呀？ Benson 響 2003-03-25 下午 15:51:48 粗聲粗氣咁講： (1) Attitude problem (2) Ignorance (3) Asking or challenging? Forum or lecture? 你可唔可以溫柔 d 呀？就黎俾你趕走 d 學生 gah lah！笨蛋就係笨！學生即係顧客。冇學生就要縮班，明唔明呀？ 呢個留言區o既「非常」訓導主任職務，非 Benson 莫屬。阿學術總監李天命你話係唔係呀？

知道喇十三點校長！

小花生 //"諸惡莫作, 眾善奉行"係佛教一大教義// Let’s assume "諸惡莫作, 眾善奉行" is one of Gautama Siddartha’s teaching and have the same importance as noble truths and fat yans. Can you share how to define 善 and 惡 in Buddhism? And what would 行善 accomplish? Is a better reincarnation considered a Buddhist 善果? Which one of 悟 and 善 (or both) should a Buddhist “desire”? Allan //你似乎很執著於「善惡」問題，「善惡觀」的問題。// I don’t understand how you get this impression. First, 善惡, 宗教 問題 are not initiated by me under this thread. Second, I wrote that Buddhism does not have a clear 善惡觀. Third, I also wrote even Christianity may not be considered to be 導人向善. I guess you haven’t even read my previous post once. BTW, what is the big deal of being 執著 (I am neither a Buddhist nor a Sim believer)? Does my 執著 imply my statement (or accusation, if someone likes) about Buddhism is wrong? //非善即惡，非黑即白，非正即邪，非友即敵// From my understanding, this is not Christian teaching. As I said previously, the current warfare is something among countries/governments. Each party has their own consideration from their own perspective. Religion (at least Christianity) takes a very minor role. //我認為根源之一，正是這種正邪對立，善惡二分的宗教基因。// 正邪對立，善惡二分 is prevalent in traditional religions (of both East and West), TV soap series and children’s fairy tales. Should they be banned? According to somebody’s Evolution Theory (not mine), “bad” 基因 or species will be extinct via natural selection eventually? So don’t worry but be patient. twisted twins You seem to be angry. But, it is okay to me so far. Your attitude is not the worst. //你指佛教無明確善惡觀所以唔可以叫做導人向善呀? 有無善惡觀同係咪導人向善有無必然關係?其他教義又有無影響? // Without specifying what is 善 and 惡, how can a religion 導人向善? Even if Buddhism does 導人向善 somehow, is it merely a beautiful misunderstanding? Who should take the credit, Buddhism or those preachers who have misunderstood Buddhism? On the other hand, can’t you see that what I tried to do is to point out the fact that Buddhism has a more noble vision for its believers? Those who are obsessed to 善惡 have already lost their way in the pursuit of deliberation of sufferings. //咁christianity有無明確善惡觀?咁點解佢地既信徒往往都咁despise佢地以為係惡既人同事?// Some people like you and Allan like to drag Christianity in when we are discussing/arguing about Buddhism. Nevertheless, I don’t mind to share a bit of my understanding in Christianity. In my opinion, Christianity does have a 明確善惡觀 but it follows that no one can achieve 善 by himself/herself. That is why we need help (salvation and the Holy Spirit) from God. With a 明確善惡觀, Christians will certainly dislike what they think 惡既事 (not 惡既人). But, Jesus said we shall not judge others but love our enemies because God will be the Judge and He knows everything. //佛教好著重個人自我反省,唔鼓勵同人爭/爭名利、權力等…呢d都令個人平和包容d,唔好成日都要同人鬥咁,呢d又有無關係呢?// So you have shown how Buddhism can help in curbing competition and warfare. However, there is still a long way before proving it does 導人向善 unless you think that doing nothing is also one of 善行. //我都唔係好清楚佛教係咪有明確善惡觀,但我覺得佢會告誡人,種咁既因,就會有咁既果,所以每做一樣野之前都要唸下先,相信呢個世界係有報應既,並唔係話如似有d christians咁// I don’t understand what makes you think that Christians will not think about the consequences before doing anything. //並唔係話如似有d christians咁,我自己信呢個god,我就一定係善,其他就一定係evil, 一定要徹底消滅佢地咁。// As mentioned above, 我就一定係善 and 我一定要徹底消滅佢地 are not Christian way of thinking. I think the Christians you meet are not genuine Christians. I also know there are some Buddhists (not 100%) who eats meat and don’t believe in reincarnation. Are they genuine Buddhists? //二分法既思想真係好有問題。// You may be right. So why don’t we urge our government to ban this belief from our TV, textbooks, …? //佛教最少唔會導人向惡,叫人三思而行,最好做peace-maker,咁都已經好好啦係咪。// 三思而行 and 做peace-maker are also Buddhist? Are loyalty to one’s country and faithfulness to one’s spouse also Buddhist? //你講果d咩6realms,唔係比和尚履行既咩?有幾多人好似和尚咁完全同7情6慾保持距離?// 6 realms are not something to 履行. But, I think 小花生 is at a better position to explain it (I learn this term from her).

十三點 Why don't you also share your views?

唔好預我 JPY 你響呢度都唔少子 ga lah，有幾可見我長篇大論，將 d 留言斬瓜切菜咁逐句鋤丫？非不能為，係懶之過、冇時間之「過」！篇來篇往，我會頭痛駕，所以搵人傾長氣偈，最好係搵 Benson 訓導主任、小花生…。佢地既高超能力，我唔想學，費事掛住係 e 度傾，冇得訓！你唔記得十三點係乜黎 geh meh？

各位 本植物開左個thread叫<< 佛教唔係導人向善既宗教? >>, 有請jpy移下你既玉步過果邊呀, 唔好再係尼度離題啦! 如果阿寸心係度既話, 我好想問下你, 當時做咩要針對我, 我依家好鬼激氣. 你正一大細超.

jpy //You seem to be angry. But, it is okay to me so far. Your attitude is not the worst. // I wasn't provoked when i left you that message, I dunno why you feel that way, I didnt use strong words i guess, why????? Plus I don't really think you need to comment on my emotional state as we're just sharing different views, are you making some emotional attack on me????? Why wouldn't it be ok with anyone just sharing opinions? hahaha I'm ok with it. // Without specifying what is 善 and 惡, how can a religion 導人向善?// That's your assumption that a definite defintion btw goodness and wrong-doings is essential in leading someone to the goodness. Not mine. If a definite definition can help, why some Christians do some wrong things but claiming that they do goods to others (e.g. Bush)? As you also think that Christianity have such a definite definition. //Christianity does have a 明確善惡觀 but it follows that no one can achieve 善 by himself/herself. That is why we need help (salvation and the Holy Spirit) from God. // Can you see you're contradicting yourself? On one hand, you said such a definition (btw goodness and wrong-doings) is vital to guide its believers to do good. On the other hand, you believe Christianity have this definite definition yet it ends up guidiing someone to do bad things. It seems a definite defintion is not always successful or even relevant. So a definite definition really matters in determining whether a religion can guide one to do good/ harm??? Please exlain this a little bit, i don't quite get your point on this. //Even if Buddhism does 導人向善 somehow, is it merely a beautiful misunderstanding? Who should take the credit, Buddhism or those preachers who have misunderstood Buddhism?// I wouldn't separate those preachers and Buddhism in terms of this credit-taking. u know, they've been both contributing to the development of Buddhism, I am not sure I can separate them, can you? um....wel, I wouldn't say it's an misunderstanding, I would say it's an enlightment as so many ppl have contributed to it and so many ppl believe it, should it be a collective faith in goodness or sth else? i dunno. //On the other hand, can’t you see that what I tried to do is to point out the fact that Buddhism has a more noble vision for its believers? Those who are obsessed to 善惡 have already lost their way in the pursuit of deliberation of sufferings.// No, sorry, this noble version was suggested by Allah, not you, that's why I can't see you making this point, are you ok with it? he he //So you have shown how Buddhism can help in curbing competition and warfare. However, there is still a long way before proving it does 導人向善 unless you think that doing nothing is also one of 善行.// I don' think they're doing nothing, if you think one holding the one's priciple of goodness by not joining nor starting a war is doing nothing, then what could I say? Do you think one must do something explicit, or else the one's not doing anything? // I don’t understand what makes you think that Christians will not think about the consequences before doing anything. // I said) Buddhism "makes people think twice before action", doesn't mean I think Christians don't think twice before action. I DID NOT say Christians don't think twice before action. Don't make it up yourself, if you have misunderstanding, please read it cardfully. Don't mix up two individual incidents. // As mentioned above, 我就一定係善 and 我一定要徹底消滅佢地 are not Christian way of thinking. I think the Christians you meet are not genuine Christians. I also know there are some Buddhists (not 100%) who eats meat and don’t believe in reincarnation. Are they genuine Buddhists?// I dont mean all Christians, I mean some are. I meet a lot Christians, how can you say they're not real Christians,oh, u know them all??? Some of them are really kind. Besides, I dunno what u mean by genuine or not genuine, they all go to church and believe the same God and they think they're faithful to God, how can you tell they're genuine or not genuine? I'm not a Buddha believer, again, even there're some fake Buddha-belivers eating meats at this moment, it DOES NOT mean there're fake Christians (not genuine) co-exist, that has sth to do with reasoning,not fact, you got that? //二分法既思想真係好有問題。 You may be right. So why don’t we urge our government to ban this belief from our TV, textbooks, …? // I don;t know what you're talking about, 1) what TV, textbooks teach you this belief? 2) Why should we promote the ban? It's a very simple way of reasoning, one shouldn't think if not A, then B, if not B, then A, everyone knows there a lot some other possibilities like if not A, then it can be B, C, D, Z...What's so difficult abt it??? Maybe you can make such a ban, i dunno. //三思而行 and 做peace-maker are also Buddhist? Are loyalty to one’s country and faithfulness to one’s spouse also Buddhist?// It's my interpretation abt Buddha, take it or leave it. But please don;t try to get me wrong by mixing up my idea with other concepts. //6 realms are not something to 履行. But, I think 小花生 is at a better position to explain it (I learn this term from her).// Um, to Buddhism, of cuz' 6 realms are not sth to be practised, but "get rid of them" are, that's what I mean, next time read carefully b4 you say one use wrong words.

JPY： // twisted twins You seem to be angry. But, it is okay to me so far. Your attitude is not the worst. // 邊個既 attitude is the worst 呀？學埋 d 單單打打野！o米以為我今日心情好，你就亂講呀o下！欺負十三點既壞蛋同混蛋都被教訓過 ga ！ 為左和平咁表達我既不滿，今日我唔會再理你， JPY ！ >:(

jpy //Some people like you and Allan like to drag Christianity in when we are discussing/arguing about Buddhism. Nevertheless, I don’t mind to share a bit of my understanding in Christianity. In my opinion, Christianity does have a 明確善惡觀 but it follows that no one can achieve 善 by himself/herself. That is why we need help (salvation and the Holy Spirit) from God. With a 明確善惡觀, Christians will certainly dislike what they think 惡既事 (not 惡既人). But, Jesus said we shall not judge others but love our enemies because God will be the Judge and He knows everything.// certainly you're a Christian, wel, do you starve yourself to achieve 善? he he. I dunno whether God knows everything, maybe Yes maybe No, it's ok if you think the answer is Yes. But, it seems that Christians remember they should dislike what they think is wrong more that they should forgive anf love their enemies. That is why Bush is so crazy abt the war. He's a damn Christian, no matter real or fake, he urges other Christians to start a Holy War. Bush is instilling a lot Christianity concepts in his speeches. I think it's quite irresposible if one says Bush's not a real believer of God and that is why he's doing this things, when so many Christians join his side.

13 dots ahhaha u know, jpy is probably a Christian or at least he/she believes in God, and that's why he/she's not happy with all these disagreements towards his/her view. But instead admitting he/she's angry, he/she says I seemed angry, which is not the case, ha, i understand no one wants to admit he/she's not calm, but should one saying this (you're angry, not me)and implying that (you're not the worst among those showing their bad attitudes, some other are worse than you but I am kind enough not to name them)?

to ： twisted twins JPY 個心話我係 the worst 呀！ 佢欺善怕惡！ 下次見到 JPY 要捉佢去見訓導主任。 ================= to ：Benson 校長呢，e 個清潔崗位，我唔敢當 ah！我就黎俾人當垃圾咁掃落垃圾桶駕 lah！ 謝謝謝謝。

李天命<<牛石謠>>重溫 Re: 《重溫舊事，依然低嘆》（2002-11-29 11:48:04）Benson: // It's not對牛彈琴，it's對石彈琴.// 其一︰《高人》 江南水鄉 杏花煙雨 躺著一條 通往寂寞的小徑 站著一條 來自風霜的漢子 對著一條 拒絕製革的老牛 彈琴 其二︰《天人》 乾坤莽莽 宇宙洪荒 萬古長空下 萬里戈壁中 似有一人 遺世獨立 對石 彈琴

^o^ 哈哈大笑!

JPY //I guess you haven’t even read my previous post once.// I guess I have read too much. BTW, what is the big deal of being 執著 (I am neither a Buddhist nor a Sim believer)? No big deal, just an observation. Does my 執著 imply my statement (or accusation, if someone likes) about Buddhism is wrong? It is not wrong. I mean you (and some Christians) pay too much attention on it.

Sorry, this is the real one JPY //I guess you haven’t even read my previous post once.// I guess I have read too much. //BTW, what is the big deal of being 執著 (I am neither a Buddhist nor a Sim believer)?// No big deal, just an observation. //Does my 執著 imply my statement (or accusation, if someone likes) about Buddhism is wrong?// It is not wrong. I mean you (and some Christians) pay too much attention on it.

JPY //the current warfare is something among countries/governments. Each party has their own consideration from their own perspective. Religion (at least Christianity) takes a very minor role.// 我們不知道布殊在想甚麼，但從很多公開資料，我們看到他的心態，都是聖經與信仰啟發的： －－例如他漏了口，以十字軍東征比喻攻打伊拉克。 －－"The liberty we prize is not America's gift to the world, it is God's gift to humanity" (國情諮文2003) 典型的救世主心態。 －－"We are in a conflict between good and evil, and America will call evil by its name." （西點軍校演講 6/2002) 非正即邪，來自基督與撤旦的鬥爭。 其他名句: "If you are not for us, or with us, you are against us." "Our nation is chosen by God and commissioned by history to be a model to the world of justice." (See --Bush and God--, Newsweek, 10/3/2003) 宗教信仰的影響在這次戰爭有多重，沒有人知道，但看來影響不會少。 這當然可能是布殊個人的問題，但最少很多基督徒，如你，沒有一聲反對。

JPY //正邪對立，善惡二分 is prevalent in traditional religions (of both East and West)// I think it is more prevalent in Christianity. // TV soap series and children’s fairy tales. Should they be banned?// I am not saying that it should be banned, i am merely saying that one should not pay too much emphasis on it. It doesn't harm if it is a soap opera, it hurts and hurts badly if you start a war under such mentality, and even worse, powered by religious belief. //According to somebody’s Evolution Theory (not mine)// Of course this is not your theory. //“bad” 基因 or species will be extinct via natural selection eventually? So don’t worry but be patient.// According to my understanding of evolution theory, there are no "good" or "bad" genes, there are genes that "adapting to environment" or "not adapting to environment". Genes that adapt to environment prevail, genes that are not adapt to environment cease to exist. A religious belief exist and strive doesn't mean that it is good, it simply implies that someone finds it useful.

ha //這當然可能是布殊個人的問題，但最少很多基督徒，如你，沒有一聲反對。 // 中! 就係咁喇,好野!

《黑鏡頭中，我彷彿看見一個人》 萬籟俱寂。 夜，只讓狼嗥、哀鳴此起彼伏。 人在震慄； 心在淌血。 愛，請燃亮我們，照遍大地，喚醒黎明。 //: http://shanjing.mccse.com/hjt.html ://

To: Allan //JPY:“bad” 基因 or species will be extinct via natural selection eventually? So don’t worry but be patient.// // Allan: According to my understanding of evolution theory, there are no "good" or "bad" genes, there are genes that "adapting to environment" or "not adapting to environment". Genes that adapt to environment prevail, genes that are not adapt to environment cease to exist. // Do we have stupid genes and stubborn genes?

//Do we have stupid genes and stubborn genes?// stupid genes 如牛吃草 stubborn genes 如石頑固 世上充滿stupid and stubborn genes, 它們不幸地非常適應環境，而且都能當上行政長官與總統之類的職位。

布殊 vs 教宗 大家都係基督徒，點解一個好戰一個反戰？或者係因為大家睇既聖經唔同？ 唔明點樣可以把這場戰爭和宗教扯上關係。

我一直覺得天主教比較可愛，我所認識的天主教徒，頗有愛心，沒一人向我傳道；我所認識的很多基督徒（新教徒），愛心往往是一種包裝。 聖經是同一本聖經，教會卻不同，這就是分別。

其實是否向人傳教是一回事，有冇愛心又係另一回事，兩邊教會都有虛偽和真誠的人，睇你好唔好彩遇上啦。

twisted twins Attitude You are right and your attitude was not bad. This is my fault. I should not have used you and/or your post to target other person(s). I apologize for what I have done. Buddhism With respect to your comment/analysis about Buddhism, I have no further comment. I think what we (as non-Buddhists) have discussed so far is more than enough. Whether Buddhism is a 宗教, which 導人向善 I don’t think we can resolve it because my understanding about Buddhism is different from yours. Christianity According to my understanding about the Bible, whether one is a Christian or not depends on whether the Holy Spirit lives in him/her or not. No one except himself/herself (and God) would know this until the Final Judgment Day. War on Iraq I don’t support the war. Neither do I oppose it. If I oppose the war, this may be because there will inevitably be causalities and lives are priceless. If I support the war, this may be because there is not a better alternative. 十三點 I think I know what you are doing. But I think it doesn’t work. Nevertheless, I thank you very much. You are a nice person. Allan I can say nothing more. I think we cannot communicate effectively. 小花生 I don’t know whether I will go to your new thread. However, definitely, I shall stop talking Buddhism under this thread.

這個教宗反戰 那個教宗好戰? \\1942年的聖誕節, 羅馬教廷庇護12世給基督教國家發去<<向全世界發出的戰爭賀詞>>, 其中一段專門向侵略蘇聯, 被圍困在斯大林格勒的德軍官官兵致意 : 你們, 參加新時代神聖東征的志願戰士們, 高舉你們的戰旗, 向脫離主的那個世界的黑暗宣戰!// http://all.163.com/culture/mind/heidegger/2.htm

條氣好頂 如題 JPY, 我都要學十三點咁唔彩你呀, 衰人!

jpy wel, u dun have to apologize u don't owe me one, we're just discussing if u choose not to talk anymore, I'll respect yr choice, just hope u won't feel bad abt the whole thing. (not to u, jpy) I just can't believe in this modern era, people still consider wars to be the last resort to solve problems. It sounds very very uncivilised, brute and stupid to me. Maybe people just want to cut away the "cancer" out of the world. However, I can't help wondering if this is the the right choice when I thought of those innocent and invulnerable Iraqi people. Wars have been destorying too much we have. Haven't humans suffer enough from wars?

我才不氣頂 小花生 你真可愛！這是個最好的反面教材，可以睜大眼說瞎話的人，何必理他！

twisted twins 我一向對馬來西亞總理馬哈蒂爾沒甚麼好感，但他說的一句話有guts ： 布殊發動這場戰爭，令全世界倒退回石器時代。

Allan 係喎,你又中。 大家唔使隨意門,自動化(真先進!)去番old stone age, 仲以為呢個時代係o係教科書先有,原來呢個時代先係假象,自欺欺人以為人類鬼咁文明進步。

to：JPY 十三點響 26/3/03 話：// 為左和平咁表達我既不滿，今日我唔會再理你， JPY ！ >:( // 尋日唔理你o者，今日同以後冇問題呀！ 唔講 Buddhism 都好。不如你去其他留言串度講下野 lah！有次你講電影講得好開心喎！