Besides intelligent design and random chance, what other alternatives are there?

That is a very odd question - it doesn't take a great imagination to come up with possibilities, once we depart the realm of "seems to be likely". Time could be an illusion - the universe could be completely static, arbitrarily existing in its current form throughout all eternity. Ahead of you (none of us exist... oops!) is a soap bubble that looks like whatever you're seeing right now - behind you is an endless velvet Elvis painting. To be very clear: I don't know this isn't the case (and even if God or mescaline made me 100% convinced that this was or wasn't the case, I still would have no actual way of knowing - I'd just have a brain that's been messed with and thought it knew things it didn't).

You can make it as convoluted as you like..in the end, it is all either the product of design or chance. If you disagree, come up with an alternative.

Anyways - I'll repeat my previous question. Do you accept it's possible that you're being deceived by a demon who can mess with your thoughts? This is a fairly simple question; I've answered your questions, and I don't think it's unfair for me to expect a yes or no answer.

No, because God has given me sufficient evidence that I can be certain of it. A person receiving absolute confirmation of Gods existence has a justified true belief in God, regardless of what someone who has no such revelation perceives as reasonable. Indeed, a person on the outside of this revelation is irrational and incapable of determining what truth is.

>> ^jmzero

Do you believe God can make Himself known in such a way as you could be certain about it?


Of course. A theoretical omnipotent God could obviously convince me that He exists. That's tautological - He could do anything. He could 100% perfectly convince me that I'm a helicopter - whether or not that's true (right now I don't think I'm a helicopter, but I certainly could be).

It's also quite possible that - devoid of the presence of God - I could become very convinced of His (or Her's, or Its) presence by a stroke, a trolling demon, an advanced machine that could rewrite things in my brain, a misconception/bias that I don't see, or even just a very vivid dream.

Going further, there could be a God who believes himself omnipotent - and uses that power to convince people to worship him. But unbeknownst to Him he's actually the child of a Sun rabbit, the rabbit in turn having been born in an explosion at a fireworks warehouse (which was itself made by the rabbit, created backwards in time). The rabbit doesn't interfere and allows God to conduct business in just the way you think he does; you see, the rabbit thinks all the ginger spirits in heaven look like delicious, bobbing carrots and he thus lets God carry on with his business.

Besides intelligent design and random chance, what other alternatives are there?


That is a very odd question - it doesn't take a great imagination to come up with possibilities, once we depart the realm of "seems to be likely". Time could be an illusion - the universe could be completely static, arbitrarily existing in its current form throughout all eternity. Ahead of you (none of us exist... oops!) is a soap bubble that looks like whatever you're seeing right now - behind you is an endless velvet Elvis painting. To be very clear: I don't know this isn't the case (and even if God or mescaline made me 100% convinced that this was or wasn't the case, I still would have no actual way of knowing - I'd just have a brain that's been messed with and thought it knew things it didn't).

Anyways - I'll repeat my previous question. Do you accept it's possible that you're being deceived by a demon who can mess with your thoughts? This is a fairly simple question; I've answered your questions, and I don't think it's unfair for me to expect a yes or no answer.

>> ^PalmliX:

Hi Shinyblurry,
I suppose everyone picks on you because you're one of few Christians on the sift who actually sticks around and defends his position. Are there any others? Not many stay I imagine...
Being such a representative of the faith I want to ask you an honest question that isn't designed to be sarcastic or make you look bad in any way but is just a simple question that I have wondered about for a long time and I'm curious to what your answer is because you seem to give fairly thorough answers.
Growing up I lived with a single mom who basically held the same view I held now, she didn't know if there was a God or not but she also encouraged me to experiment with any religious views that I felt like. I remember going to various church services on many different occasions, we had Jewish friends and took part in their ceremonies/festivities, same with Christian friends, even Muslim etc.. All this time my Mom was remarkable in the fact she neither dismissed or accepted any of these views, she/we simply took part with an open mind didn't try to impose any judgments. Did we give all religions equal time? No not necessarily but I don't think it would of been possible to live a more open and genuinely inquisitive childhood. My mother didn't stand in my way of finding a fulfilling religious path in life nor a none religious one.
Anyway, don't want to sidetrack this question too much, just wanted to give you some background as to where I'm coming from.
My question is this:
From this open point of view, I found that as a child, and later in life, all I saw around me were people telling me that their religion was the right one. They were all perfectly sincere and genuine in their beliefs, and they all seemed perfectly happy enough, but I personally found it odd that no God ever made an attempt to connect with me personally. From my point of view, everyone was genuine in their beliefs, but their beliefs were all different, so how was I supposed to know which one to choose? I attempted to pray to god when I was child because I was genuinely curious and wanted to know what I was missing, but I never received any indication that something was listening to me. Of course we could argue that I went about it in the wrong way, as I most likely did, but as a child (and as a grown up now) who grew up in a household where I was free to follow any path that I liked, how I was supposed to know that your God, i.e. the Christian God with Jesus in the mix was the right one to follow.
You mentioned in a previous comment that "God gives everyone enough information and opportunities to make the right choices" but personally all the information I see are 2 books and a whole bunch of HUMANS telling me that they are true. But the problem for me personally is that there are many many books with many many human supporters backing them up and from my point of view they are essentially all equal, i.e. I have never seen any indications that one group has more truth behind it than any other. Why does God then, rely on these imperfect human agents in order to spread the truth about it's existence, why didn't God attempt to make a personal connection with me?
Again please don't take this as any kind of personal attack, I'm generally interested in the answer to this question and I'd like to think that I have an open mind. In order to potentially make this question simpler to answer, here's an analogy that I think works well... say a human child was lost to his parents in the woods and he/she somehow managed to survive in the wilderness (not very likely I realize). This child would have no concept of human language or culture, would essentially be a wild animal but would still, for all intents and purposes, be human. Would this person ever come to find God/Jesus? If so how, with no bible or other people to tell him/her about it. Would God come to this person personally and inform them of everything they need to know? If so, why didn't God come to me to help me make a decision?
Cheers,
- Adam


It's like if you have a teddy bear. You believe that it's real and helps/comforts you in life. Other people have different teddy bears and you laugh at them because they believe their teddy bears are real and you know they aren't. Or you have people with the same teddy bear you have, but they treat it in ways you feel is wrong and not what your teddy bear would like, using it as a pillow maybe.

Then someone comes along without any teddy bear at all and tells you that you don't need one.

Suddenly the people with other teddy bears or teddy bear ways don't seem so bad. At least they have a teddy bear. You would even gang up with the false teddy bear people to go against this guy.

The non-believer is the real threat, ask yourself why.

Hi Shinyblurry,

I suppose everyone picks on you because you're one of few Christians on the sift who actually sticks around and defends his position. Are there any others? Not many stay I imagine...

Being such a representative of the faith I want to ask you an honest question that isn't designed to be sarcastic or make you look bad in any way but is just a simple question that I have wondered about for a long time and I'm curious to what your answer is because you seem to give fairly thorough answers.

Growing up I lived with a single mom who basically held the same view I held now, she didn't know if there was a God or not but she also encouraged me to experiment with any religious views that I felt like. I remember going to various church services on many different occasions, we had Jewish friends and took part in their ceremonies/festivities, same with Christian friends, even Muslim etc.. All this time my Mom was remarkable in the fact she neither dismissed or accepted any of these views, she/we simply took part with an open mind didn't try to impose any judgments. Did we give all religions equal time? No not necessarily but I don't think it would of been possible to live a more open and genuinely inquisitive childhood. My mother didn't stand in my way of finding a fulfilling religious path in life nor a none religious one.

Anyway, don't want to sidetrack this question too much, just wanted to give you some background as to where I'm coming from.

My question is this:

From this open point of view, I found that as a child, and later in life, all I saw around me were people telling me that their religion was the right one. They were all perfectly sincere and genuine in their beliefs, and they all seemed perfectly happy enough, but I personally found it odd that no God ever made an attempt to connect with me personally. From my point of view, everyone was genuine in their beliefs, but their beliefs were all different, so how was I supposed to know which one to choose? I attempted to pray to god when I was child because I was genuinely curious and wanted to know what I was missing, but I never received any indication that something was listening to me. Of course we could argue that I went about it in the wrong way, as I most likely did, but as a child (and as a grown up now) who grew up in a household where I was free to follow any path that I liked, how I was supposed to know that your God, i.e. the Christian God with Jesus in the mix was the right one to follow.

You mentioned in a previous comment that "God gives everyone enough information and opportunities to make the right choices" but personally all the information I see are 2 books and a whole bunch of HUMANS telling me that they are true. But the problem for me personally is that there are many many books with many many human supporters backing them up and from my point of view they are essentially all equal, i.e. I have never seen any indications that one group has more truth behind it than any other. Why does God then, rely on these imperfect human agents in order to spread the truth about it's existence, why didn't God attempt to make a personal connection with me?

Again please don't take this as any kind of personal attack, I'm generally interested in the answer to this question and I'd like to think that I have an open mind. In order to potentially make this question simpler to answer, here's an analogy that I think works well... say a human child was lost to his parents in the woods and he/she somehow managed to survive in the wilderness (not very likely I realize). This child would have no concept of human language or culture, would essentially be a wild animal but would still, for all intents and purposes, be human. Would this person ever come to find God/Jesus? If so how, with no bible or other people to tell him/her about it. Would God come to this person personally and inform them of everything they need to know? If so, why didn't God come to me to help me make a decision?

Cheers,

- Adam

>> ^VoodooV:

I really wouldn't be putting down someone else's cognitive functions when you can't even seem to spell it correctly.
Your evasiveness/cowardice is duly noted however.
>> ^A10anis:
>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^A10anis:
>> ^VoodooV:
Look, I think the video itself is quite annoying because yes, I do feel it's a bit preachy.
but the message itself, is quite accurate.
And if it's so obvious, you won't mind stating why homosexuality is not normal.

I totally agree, the video IS "quite accurate," but I stand by my comment. Gays now -quite rightly - are protected by the law, have civil rights and will soon, hopefully, be allowed to marry. They worked hard for their rights, just as woman, and other persecuted minorities, did. My salient point, regarding the video, is that it preaches to the converted, will not change those bigots who will always hate, and that maybe it's time to enjoy their well earned rights and allow time to change the entrenched opinions of the minority. Sadly, going by the comments, ANY criticism of videos like this is tantamount to homophobia, which could NOT be further from the truth.

That's nice...but you're not answering my very simple question.

You deliberately miss my point. I'm guessing, but you seem to lack simple cognative thought. If you need to understand "normal" look it up my friend. I have neither the time, nor the patience to get into semantics.


Thanks for pointing out a typo. As for my "evasiveness/cowardice?" The context in which I used the word "normal" should be self explanatory. However, just for you, I will elucidate. Procreation - the process by which we exist- is, in the context I used it, the "norm." Homosexuality, were IT the norm, would mean extinction. Of course the narrow minded will, once again, jump on that simple fact as if I were homophobic. If my comments were read by people who were not so keen to troll, they would see that is NOT the case.

I really wouldn't be putting down someone else's cognitive functions when you can't even seem to spell it correctly.

Your evasiveness/cowardice is duly noted however.

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^VoodooV:
>> ^A10anis:
>> ^VoodooV:
Look, I think the video itself is quite annoying because yes, I do feel it's a bit preachy.
but the message itself, is quite accurate.
And if it's so obvious, you won't mind stating why homosexuality is not normal.

I totally agree, the video IS "quite accurate," but I stand by my comment. Gays now -quite rightly - are protected by the law, have civil rights and will soon, hopefully, be allowed to marry. They worked hard for their rights, just as woman, and other persecuted minorities, did. My salient point, regarding the video, is that it preaches to the converted, will not change those bigots who will always hate, and that maybe it's time to enjoy their well earned rights and allow time to change the entrenched opinions of the minority. Sadly, going by the comments, ANY criticism of videos like this is tantamount to homophobia, which could NOT be further from the truth.

That's nice...but you're not answering my very simple question.

You deliberately miss my point. I'm guessing, but you seem to lack simple cognative thought. If you need to understand "normal" look it up my friend. I have neither the time, nor the patience to get into semantics.

>> ^VoodooV:

>> ^A10anis:
>> ^VoodooV:
Look, I think the video itself is quite annoying because yes, I do feel it's a bit preachy.
but the message itself, is quite accurate.
And if it's so obvious, you won't mind stating why homosexuality is not normal.

I totally agree, the video IS "quite accurate," but I stand by my comment. Gays now -quite rightly - are protected by the law, have civil rights and will soon, hopefully, be allowed to marry. They worked hard for their rights, just as woman, and other persecuted minorities, did. My salient point, regarding the video, is that it preaches to the converted, will not change those bigots who will always hate, and that maybe it's time to enjoy their well earned rights and allow time to change the entrenched opinions of the minority. Sadly, going by the comments, ANY criticism of videos like this is tantamount to homophobia, which could NOT be further from the truth.

That's nice...but you're not answering my very simple question.

You deliberately miss my point. I'm guessing, but you seem to lack simple cognative thought. If you need to understand "normal" look it up my friend. I have neither the time, nor the patience to get into semantics.

>> ^A10anis:

>> ^VoodooV:
Look, I think the video itself is quite annoying because yes, I do feel it's a bit preachy.
but the message itself, is quite accurate.
And if it's so obvious, you won't mind stating why homosexuality is not normal.

I totally agree, the video IS "quite accurate," but I stand by my comment. Gays now -quite rightly - are protected by the law, have civil rights and will soon, hopefully, be allowed to marry. They worked hard for their rights, just as woman, and other persecuted minorities, did. My salient point, regarding the video, is that it preaches to the converted, will not change those bigots who will always hate, and that maybe it's time to enjoy their well earned rights and allow time to change the entrenched opinions of the minority. Sadly, going by the comments, ANY criticism of videos like this is tantamount to homophobia, which could NOT be further from the truth.


That's nice...but you're not answering my very simple question.

I'm very happy you liked it. I almost deleted that post because I was afraid the whole thing was too pompous. But I figured, ultimately, who could argue with the sentiment..."Garfield" really was a horrible film.


In reply to this comment by ChaosEngine:
In reply to this comment by TheFreak:
Put a thousand fruit flies in a box and you can watch the entire circle of life, played out in multiple generations, in a matter of days.
Now, stand back far enough to view the entirety of human existence in one box and the objective eye will discern no greater purpose than the fruit fly. We live, we reproduce, we die. All of human evolution and technical advancement bent to the simple purpose of continuing to exist.

We are ultimately seperated from the fruit fly by one thing; a simple question,
"Why?"

The contemplation of our own mortality is undoubtedly the single factor that has inspired us to become more than the sum of our individual lives. The yearning to outlive ourselves, to defy the inherent pointlessness of existence, to deny the emptiness of the void that precedes us and remains, undisturbed, after we're gone. The human defiance of the finity and futility of life drives the greatest achievements of our species.

Humanity, alone among the animals of the earth, has taken the gifts of evolution and harnessed them to scream its answer to the empty cosmos with soul wrenching achievements of art and philosophy. Those creations of mankind that we experience as a feeling, rising up from inside us and overwhelming our minds with a beauty and perfection far greater than ourselves.

The great accomplishments of mankind that elevate the purpose of our existence:
The philosophy of Aristotle
The architecture of Angkor Wat and St. Peter's Basilica
The art and discovery of Leonardo Da Vinci
The grandeur of the Sistine Chapel and the humble beauty of Van Gogh
The feets of engineering; the great wall of china and Apollo moon landing
All the great works of the most inspired among us, who could encapsulate beauty, wonder, humor and tragedy into discrete works of brilliance:

Shakespeare, Sophocles, Mark Twain, Hemingway, Kepler, Gödel, Newton, Hippocrates, Bach, Wagner, Coltrane, Hume, Kant, Descartes, Tesla, Gutenberg, Frank Lloyd Wright...
...and Bill Murray.

Except for his work on Garfield.
That movie was fucking horrible.


My life is better for having read that comment.

In reply to this comment by TheFreak:
Put a thousand fruit flies in a box and you can watch the entire circle of life, played out in multiple generations, in a matter of days.
Now, stand back far enough to view the entirety of human existence in one box and the objective eye will discern no greater purpose than the fruit fly. We live, we reproduce, we die. All of human evolution and technical advancement bent to the simple purpose of continuing to exist.

We are ultimately seperated from the fruit fly by one thing; a simple question,
"Why?"

The contemplation of our own mortality is undoubtedly the single factor that has inspired us to become more than the sum of our individual lives. The yearning to outlive ourselves, to defy the inherent pointlessness of existence, to deny the emptiness of the void that precedes us and remains, undisturbed, after we're gone. The human defiance of the finity and futility of life drives the greatest achievements of our species.

Humanity, alone among the animals of the earth, has taken the gifts of evolution and harnessed them to scream its answer to the empty cosmos with soul wrenching achievements of art and philosophy. Those creations of mankind that we experience as a feeling, rising up from inside us and overwhelming our minds with a beauty and perfection far greater than ourselves.

The great accomplishments of mankind that elevate the purpose of our existence:
The philosophy of Aristotle
The architecture of Angkor Wat and St. Peter's Basilica
The art and discovery of Leonardo Da Vinci
The grandeur of the Sistine Chapel and the humble beauty of Van Gogh
The feets of engineering; the great wall of china and Apollo moon landing
All the great works of the most inspired among us, who could encapsulate beauty, wonder, humor and tragedy into discrete works of brilliance:

Shakespeare, Sophocles, Mark Twain, Hemingway, Kepler, Gödel, Newton, Hippocrates, Bach, Wagner, Coltrane, Hume, Kant, Descartes, Tesla, Gutenberg, Frank Lloyd Wright...
...and Bill Murray.

Except for his work on Garfield.
That movie was fucking horrible.


My life is better for having read that comment.

Put a thousand fruit flies in a box and you can watch the entire circle of life, played out in multiple generations, in a matter of days.
Now, stand back far enough to view the entirety of human existence in one box and the objective eye will discern no greater purpose than the fruit fly. We live, we reproduce, we die. All of human evolution and technical advancement bent to the simple purpose of continuing to exist.

We are ultimately seperated from the fruit fly by one thing; a simple question,
"Why?"

The contemplation of our own mortality is undoubtedly the single factor that has inspired us to become more than the sum of our individual lives. The yearning to outlive ourselves, to defy the inherent pointlessness of existence, to deny the emptiness of the void that precedes us and remains, undisturbed, after we're gone. The human defiance of the finity and futility of life drives the greatest achievements of our species.

Humanity, alone among the animals of the earth, has taken the gifts of evolution and harnessed them to scream its answer to the empty cosmos with soul wrenching achievements of art and philosophy. Those creations of mankind that we experience as a feeling, rising up from inside us and overwhelming our minds with a beauty and perfection far greater than ourselves.

The great accomplishments of mankind that elevate the purpose of our existence:
The philosophy of Aristotle
The architecture of Angkor Wat and St. Peter's Basilica
The art and discovery of Leonardo Da Vinci
The grandeur of the Sistine Chapel and the humble beauty of Van Gogh
The feets of engineering; the great wall of china and Apollo moon landing
All the great works of the most inspired among us, who could encapsulate beauty, wonder, humor and tragedy into discrete works of brilliance:

Shakespeare, Sophocles, Mark Twain, Hemingway, Kepler, Gödel, Newton, Hippocrates, Bach, Wagner, Coltrane, Hume, Kant, Descartes, Tesla, Gutenberg, Frank Lloyd Wright...
...and Bill Murray.

Except for his work on Garfield.
That movie was fucking horrible.

Argumentum ad populum. A logical fallacy. It doesn't matter if billions of people believe a thing, it does NOT make it truth. Examples: people thought that the sun was a/the god, or people thought that rats spontaneously spawned from grain silos.

Did I ever say that because over 2 billion people are Christians, that makes it true? Though you could make a logical argument that, if God has revealed Himself to the world, and people are more inclined to follow truth than lies, that His religion would be the largest on Earth at any given time.


The definition for "evidence" that you used for your argument is only the definition as it relates to law (thus where it says "law"). Testimony is useful to us in order to piece together what happens for the purposes of trial law, but even then is highly faulty and is subject to the whims, mental health and capacity, subjective or erroneous observations, and other such mistakes or lies by those giving testimony. That is how people end up wrongfully jailed, and is also why you need much more evidence than just testimony in order to make a solid case against a defendant. Such testimonial evidence in a scientific context, or in a logical argument context, is immediately dismissible.

Are you really going to try to argue that personal testimony isn't evidence, or couldn't convince you of something? If you were in a building, and someone came running in screaming that there was a bomb in the basement and everyone needs to evacuate immediately, would you demand that he take you to the location of the bomb so you could empirically verify his claim before you would leave? No, you would consider his personal testimony to be sufficient and leave the area.

The definition you're looking for is anecdotal evidence, and believe it or not, it can qualify as scientific evidence. Read any medical journal and you will find anecdotal evidence printed very routinely. Anecdotal evidence doesn't qualify as proof, but I never said my personal testimony would prove anything to you. What I did say is that it qualifies as evidence, which it does, both in a legal and scientific sense. In the scientific sense, weakly, but that doesn't diminish its veracity, except perhaps in the eyes of those whose worldview is married to the idea that empirical verification is the only means of acquiring truth, a claim in itself which, ironically, cannot be empirically verified.

Similarly, the fact that our laws state that a person is innocent until proven guilty (ideally, in the U.S., at least) is an example of how the burden of proof MUST lie with the parties making the claim for guilt. Much in the same way that you MUST provide real, tangible evidence for the claims that you, and the Bible make. Your personal experiences, or the fact that a billion people agree with you is NOT evidence of anything. Example: The entire country was certain of the guilt of Casey Anthony, but lawyers were not able to build a case solid enough to convince a jury. Likewise for the Duke Lacrosse team rape trial. Thankfully, we require more than the incessant bellowing of Nancy Grace to convict a person.

What would you consider to be real, tangible evidence? I've never heard an atheist actually define what this would be. I assume it would be a personal encounter with Jesus Christ. Well, that is what I am telling you in the first place, that you can know Him personally. That Jesus will reveal Himself to you if you seek Him out and give your life to Him. A simple question: If Jesus is God, would you serve Him?

I, frankly, am not interested in arguing anything that the Bible says that God/Jesus supposedly said, unless you can first prove to me that it is the definite, infallible word of a god, and not a bunch of stories written and compiled by men who knew nothing of the universe beyond what they could misinterpret from their eyes and imagination, or who wanted to be able to control a populace by introducing divine rules. Which, of course, is something you cannot do without using circular arguments to refer back to how the Bible tells us that the Bible is true, or by referring to emotional pleas, personal experiences, offshoots of Pascal's Wager, or many other logical fallacies which fall apart as relevant proof of anything at their very inception. This, I believe, is what we are trying to get across to you.

The main point scripture makes about non-believers is this:

That you already know there is a God, and who He is, but you're suppressing the truth in wickedness. That God has made it plain to you, to the extent that when you are standing before Him on judgment day, you won't have any excuse. It's not my responsibility to prove anything to you, because you already know. My job is to tell you the gospel and pray that God would have mercy on you and open your eyes.

There is one thing I can prove to you, which is that without God you can't prove anything. I'll demonstrate this to you if you can answer a few questions:

1. Is it impossible that God exists?
2. Could God reveal Himself to someone so that they could know it for certain?
3. Could you be wrong about everything you know?

>> ^Sketch:

Sounds like you are believing these women, sight unseen. By me questioning their wide-eyed innocent proclamations of "gosh, all I did was ask a simple question and they totally freaked out" doesn't mean I turn a blind eye to abuse of power. I refused to be duped by a one-sided story.

Case in point
>> ^GenjiKilpatrick:

@longde @ulysses1904 @Skeeve
All three of you are asshats for trying to dismiss the border patrol's blatant abuse of power as "not deserving of sympathy".
If you got detained, frisked, had your belongings searched and stolen, for any reason, you'd be pissed too.
Harassing these women served no purpose.
Neither country is safer for it.
Not to mention, your tax dollars were wasted in the process.
For that (the first two, more than the latter) you should be highly offended.

Most telling to me is his inability to reasonably react to a simple question. He seems embarrassed after he curses, by the way he continues to badger the reporter. Just another amateur running for office. At least we won't have to worry about anti-curse laws on his agenda!

& for those who enjoy a little context, here is the quotation from Santorum's speech that the New York Times reporter and others "spun":

SANTORUM: Fifty-dollar abortions subsidized by RomneyCare. And if you’re low income, they’re free.
Why would we put someone up who is uniquely -- pick any other Republican in the country. He is the worst Republican in the country to put up against Barack Obama. Why would Wisconsin want to vote for someone like that?

from: http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2012/03/santorum-explains-bulls-remark-on-cnn-118709.html

if i was walking home from a store, and some creepy guy i didn't know was following me in his car, i would run too.
if he continued to chase me, first in his car, then on foot, and caught up to me, i would try to defend myself.
if we're tangled in struggle and somehow i got a upper hand (well, i am young and athletic, and the other guy's a couch potato), i would try to knock him out to prevent him doing further harm to me.

does this now make me the aggressor, and does the other guy have right to shoot me to defend himself?

it's a simple question.

if anyone acted in self-defense, it's martin, not zimmerman.