重溫舊事，依然低嘆

? 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?

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.

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 一而再，再而三 一而再，再而三 一而再，再而三 一而再再再而三 再而三，三三三 三而再，再再再 三三三三三三三 再再再再再再再 追求靶的快感 擁抱箭的突破

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?

畢竟..... 應付棍, 還是要用劍. 對棍不能用刀

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?//

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.

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

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?

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)

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」

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?

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。

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.

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.

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. :)

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.

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 ////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 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?

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.

《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！ :)

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? :)

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 ？

有 寶？

妹 對

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

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