damm..different..ways of knowing..
yet more throwaway search terms
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fons_et_origo

Fons et origo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Fons et origo is a Latin term meaning "source and origin".[1] >>

HOW about..CAUSE ACTION..[actio]

<<.Typical usage of the term describes Athens as the fons et origo of democracy, or Italy as the fons et origo of classical music. Lancelot Ware (1915–2000), the founder of Mensa, was awarded the honorary title Fons et Origo by the society in 1987.[2]
References[edit]

1. Jump up ^ OED "fons et origo":
"The source and origin (of something)>>

ERGO..[OCCUMS RAZEING]

[the source../god\..and the /original\..:.. creation

THE QUESTION/ARISES..qed..
by what way../means..the source dun The origin
[its a science tempt..do refute existent thesis
''and god said..[LET THERE BE LIGHT]..AND LET THE LIGHT SUSTAIN LIFE/LIVING.

I KNOW ITS ALL GREEK..TO MANY
but latin?..is liKE TALKING..in tongues..
[it dont create/GIVE answer..IT ONLY LEADS TO OTHER GNOSIS..BY SUPPLYING ANOTHER question]..IN law thats called..a re direction.

the alpha origino..=..ORIGINAL SOURCE...=..GOD
as god is WE beta...MUST BE..as our will is free.

ANd the fruits of the willfully free HASN'T Named names..BY GENUS Nor species/of ways nor means..[by O.C=not a real lot..the simplest cause of any act..is the original energy..that set IT IN MOTION...[IT MOVES BECAUSE HE MOVED IT...

[..as a meer cat cant reaLLY SAY..[ITS..SIMPLES..]....
(;-)=[*}..

[THE BIBLE STATES..this FIRST MOVEMENT..was a sound wave -form/..Harmonic/oscillation[cause]..that is codified..within..the original vibe..SOUNDS..that became..represenative..of the written word form/sounds..of

*'LET THERE BE Light'*

ANd thus with a wimper..came THE WEAK END

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=angels+and+demoNS+THESIS+ILLUMINATI&wU

ANYHOW..IM WATCHING A MOVIE CALLED ANGELS AND DEMONS
its talkING OF THE SCIENCE/ILLUMED ONES..THAT BRING DOWN..the church

presently 4 wanna be popes..are going to gradually 'die'
for a revenge thing when the church branded THE WISE ONES[SORRY WISE IN THEIR OWN EYEd illuminatIE

THEY MANAGED TO WORK in the sign of the eye earelier
to steal..dark matter/anti matter..ALSO CALLED THE 'GOD'-PARTICLE

DARK MATTER FROM THE ILLUMED ONES?
antimatter i could grasp..[versis creation/matter]
but god is the light [gnosis..of the light is supposed to be the illumed ones[ithink the fallen angel comes into it there somehow

anyhow they got one day..and the illumed ones deSTROY THE VATICAN..in a pUFF OF DARK MATTER/,,thus not light..anyhow..its hoped we see the light[of the illumed ones backing evolution/LOL..FOR A WEAK END

well jUST TRYING TO SGHARE THE ILLUMINATION
[I ASKED/I RECIEVED]..LOL God the light=DARK MATTER..LOL[ANTI-MATTER..AFTER Creating matter?

whats the dam mATTER WITH THE GODLESS ONES THAT SEEM INTENT..IN THE UNION/WITH THE ILLUMINATI?..nope..sorry enlightened ONES..the dark one decieves

ok the church dun wrong
but seems thE ill/lumed ones [think god particle dark matter anti life and all matter..thats SEEING THE LIGHT..NOW OPEN UA EYE

GOD=THE ACTIVE..THAT FORMS MATTER..MY FINGER FEELS SOLID/HITTING A SEEMINGLY SOLID 'KEY'..BUT WE KNOW..ITS ALL JUST ATOMS..WITH ORBITING ELECTRONS NEWTRONS protons electr-rons etc[ie mainly empty space/or ratheR FIELDS OF AFFECT

much like a PLANET's whole orbital PLANE..BEING A SOLID FEELING RING[THINK LIKE IF SATURNS RINGS WERE SOLID..in reality there is nothing orbiting nuthin..SO Fast..its here/as much as tHERE[TO COMPOUND THE FIELD OF AFFECT..THEY FALL ARROUND EACH POLE/BEFORE SHOOTING OFF TO The opposing atom[nuclious pole..thus the actual field of affect..looks like a cross[think LIKE A FIGURE 8]

ITS A WEAK END.
BUT THE REASON DETRA FOR THIS THREAD WAS A WEAK START

BAck to my movie.

its funny how movies/FICTIONS allways..have thaT TWIST[HOOK]
anyhow..the concept..of a young pope..[that lives long..in the faith]..STABILIZES..THINGS.

so we return to the snowden/ultimatum[peace terms]..to hrh[if prince phylip/ot her..isnt the head/who is..illumintas..[forget titles].there i suggested..the settlement/[edward/THE UNITER..EMBODIMENT..OF THE FAITH..AND THE CROWN..UNDER A COMMON WEALTH SEAL/USING THE SEED from the tree of life/underpinning the queens coin

its more clear..at the thread
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=6152&page=0#178808

ps note all the 8's
oh well movie is back/back to the illusion box.

cheers
johan9

Pericles,

>>you cannot arrive at Christianity from first principles<<

Depends on what you call “first principles”, but in general I might agree. People “arrive at Christianity” for many reasons given by their life experience that makes the atheist default position unsatisfactory or insufficient for them. They choose a Christian belief system only AFTER having opted, for, or been educated in, the Christian option, and in both cases the New Testament naturally plays a role.

>>They were "converted". They did not apply their own reasoning to the question "is there a God, and if so, what would one look like”.<<

I think this is where we essentially differ. I would never accuse in such a sweeping manner those who became atheists (“lost their faith”) of irrationality, lack of intellectual integrity and in general the ability to think for themselves, by claiming for instance that such a person had to have “been converted” by whomever.

This is not about who is “right”, theists or atheists, but about how adherents of the two worldview and cultural orientations can live together in our society in a civilised manner where we respect each other, even if we do not share their “first principles”. There are irrational, immoral, fanatical or simply silly Christians and other theists as well as atheists. This does not give us the right to denigrate en gros those of the opposite “first principles”, because there are scientists, philosophers and other scholars, again both among Christians and atheists.

>>without intervention no-one could reach a position that "there must have been this guy called Jesus”<<

I think most historians would not accept that they needed an external “intervention” to come to the conclusion that a person called Jesus existed.

How would they find out, George?

>>I think most historians would not accept that they needed an external “intervention” to come to the conclusion that a person called Jesus existed.<<

Someone would have to tell them, wouldn't they? That's the intervention. You can only become a Christian if someone tells you about Jesus. Legions of missionaries throughout the nineteenth century ran their entire lives on that principle.

Nobody, on the other hand, needs to have atheism explained to them.

never thought i would heAR it here
but please..this is simply insane..,,..<<..nobody, on the other hand, needs to have atheism explained to them>>..

yES TEACHER..IGNORANCE NEEDS NO TEACHER..
before wisdom/there was nothing..yep/no one needed explain it/
just as none needed to explain..they were naked/till they aTe the fermented/rotted fruits..but its presence alone/reveals much.

before I WAS A MAN..I THOUGHT AS A CHILD
I FOUND IN MY IGNORANCE..the same AS OTHERS IGNORANCE'S
BUT FOR THE WANT..OF A nail/the war was lost...BUT FOR LACK OF KNOWING HE WOULD HAVE BEEN A GENIUS.

ITS THE SAME LEVEL OF STUDY..TO BE IGNORANT
AS TO NOT even try...yet even they arnT THE SAME THINGS.

OVER SIMPLISTIC SIMPLIFICATION may/be due..to the lack/of WILL TO KNOW
LACK OF THE WILL TO LOOK..OR [lack of fact]..WhICH ONES..[specifically]..indicate much..to some..

BUT YET AGAIN..Little to others WHO KNEW NOT..THEY WERE SKINNY DRIPPING...[NA-KID]..by rote INSTALLED THEIR OWN MOTE..that others denote.OR Wrote...BUT BY LACK..OF TEACHING..HE BEGAN PREACHING OF THE TEACHERS..reaching..NOT preaching..errant TEACHING
but to THE IGNORANT..THEY KNOW NO begining means no END.