[quote]pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Which question? if you try to form a rational, mature and sound question, I’ll answer.
Prove anything exists, deductively and irrefutably.
Did you miss the “rational” i demanded…? This is a very red herring, and you know it very well. AND I have already answered the question. There is no way that we kan “prove” 100% in a laymans terms that we don’t live in some kind of computer simulation or in the fantasy of some demon.
But there is nothing that indicates either, therefore we use the things we can measure scientifically to make our laws of the universe. When quantum theory can calculate things that are comparable to calculating the width of the american continent with a 1 hair width accurancy, we know that we are barking up the right tree. Your question is neither legitime or honest, it is a obvious red herring and a troll.
So, again: do you have any MATURE, HONEST and RATIONAL questions you want to ask?
Really? You said you know there is no God and that belivers in God have a weak mind. Yet, when call on the carpet to prove it you could not. So I guess we dumb old believer aren’t so dumb after all.
I never ask question I don already know the answer to. What you refer to as a red herring was really an easy out for you. You don’t have to prove God does not exist. All you had do was to prove anything existed. To describe all the properties of any one thing in it’s entirety to include descibing it’s source. This execrise forces you to deal with the metaphysical, a realm you don’t belive exists. Which therefore put your conclusion that there is no God at risk.
You are right you cannot prove or disprove the existance of God. So unless you can prove it, refrain from feeling and acting superior to those who do not think like you. Otherwise, you could very well look like an ass.[/quote]
Dear Thor (or buddah? or… zeus), are you this thick?
This is an obvious red herring, everyone BUT you can realize this.
I can’t prove that there is not a giant teapot ruling the universe from a hidden orbit ten lightyears away. I don’t respect those who think so for that reason alone. The fact that something can’t be disproved doesen’t make it belivable OR plausible.
You are unable to make ONE SINGLE RATIONAL argument OR come with ONE SINGLE RATIONAL question. All you do is repeat your utter nonsense without any real substance.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Many archeological digs have proven various Bible stories to be true. However, I’m not aware of any that have been proven to be incorrect.
[/quote]
Hey Zeb,
Long time no argue. I seen you never made it to 200 pages with the gay marriage thread!
Just off the top of my head, I seem to recall a discovery of official documents relating to taxes etc, which listed dates of the census that forced Joseph and Mary to head towards Bethlehem actually proving to have happened, but in fact several years prior to Jesus’ supposed birth.
I know it’s not a fundemental ‘deal-breaker’ but interesting nonetheless for both sides that THAT did actually happen, although of course of it WAS the reason Joseph had to come back, then it would make Jesus older than is stated. I guess one can forgive the records department of not being as organised as they are today though.
When I’ve got some free time I’ll dig out the source. Made interesting reading, regardless of what side of the fence people are on.
No, Einstein did NOT believe in a higher force, that is my point.[/quote]
But he did. If you are going to start making stuff up I’m going to have to discontinue this conversation, sorry.
You are either confused or deliberately making things up. I hope you’re confused.
There are several wacky atheist sites that claim Einstein didn’t believe in God. But then again those are the same sites which insist that there are contradictions in the Bible of which there are none.
So, go figure huh?
They have an agenda and they’re going to print whatever they print in order to further that agenda.
This is a passage from a 1929 Saturday Evening Post interview:
[b]“To what extent are you influenced by Christianity?”
(Einstein) “As a child I received instruction both in the Bible and in the Talmud. I am a Jew, but I am enthralled by the luminous figure of the Nazarene.”
“Have you read Emil Ludwig’s book on Jesus?”
(Einstein) “Emil Ludwig’s Jesus is shallow. Jesus is too colossal for the pen of phrasemongers, however artful. No man can dispose of Christianity with a bon mot.”
“You accept the historical Jesus?”
(Einstein) “Unquestionably! No one can read the Gospels without feeling the actual presence of Jesus. His personality pulsates in every word. No myth is filled with such life.” 7[/b]
Now, I’m not stating now, nor did I ever say that Einstein was a Christian. But to deny he believed in God is ridiculous.
The fact is the modern day atheist (that would be you) tries to shape all things according to his belief (Yes atheism is a belief).
Here are a few more Einstein quotes for you:
“The Lord God is subtle, but malicious he is not. (In the original German, `Raffiniert ist der Herr Gott, aber boshaft ist Er nicht.')”
Albert Einstein, originally said to Princeton University mathematics professor Oscar Veblen, May 1921
“Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind.”
“I want to know how God created this world, I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element. I want to know His thoughts, the rest are details.”
He wasn’t talking about raspberry bushes.
Sure “God” is in nature and Einstein recognized that. But he also recognized a real living being that created the entire universe.
You can say that Einstein was a liar, mistaken, changed his mind one hundred times. But you can’t say that he didn’t believe in God.
Well you can say it, but people will laugh at you.
By the way he comes from a long line of those who made their mark in science who also believed in God:
Max Planck best known for quantum theory.
William Thomson Kelvin, who helped to lay the foundations of modern physics.
Michael Faraday, one of the greatest scientists of the 19th century.
Robert Boyle, Boyle gave his name to “Boyle’s Law” for gases. (this was before Beano:)
Gregor Mendel, the first to lay the mathematical foundations of genetics.
Rene Descarte, a French mathematician, scientist and philosopher who has been called the father of modern philosophy.
And here are a few more famous names for you to consider:
Sir Fancis Bacon, Isaac Newton,
Galileo Galilei and Nicholas Copernicus.
I’m guessing that these folks had a pretty firm handle on clear thinking, no?
Add these names to the over 2 billion Christians who currently inhabit the world.
Is everyone stupid but you and the other atheists?
[quote]When it comes to your “well, jesus lived and the bible is accurate”
Yes, there is quite a lot of evidence that jesus lived, no, there is not a lot of evidence that the bible is accurate. On the contrary, the bible is contradictory and incoherent.[/quote]
No, actually the Bible is very coherent and not at all contradictory. And statements like the one’s you’ve
just made never seem to be backed by anything but bluster and an occasional wacky atheist web site that when examined is proven to be nonsense.
I’ll give you this though, atheistic bluster is at an all time high. It could be because of the web. But, God only knows for sure.
I have given much evidence that the Bible is accurate and that Jesus Christ did in fact live. And it is NOT at all a stretch for the over 2 billion Christians to believe.
There is even evidence that the Bible as an historical document is far more reliable than some other ancient documents written by very well known writers of antiquity:
Homer, Plato, Caesar, Herodotus and many others.
That YOU don’t want to believe is your choice. As God gave you the freedom to choose.
No question there are intelligent men and women on both sides of the argument, and I never said otherwise.
It is you that seems to be beating the “only idiots believe in God” drum. And the “it cannot be proven” banter is actually getting sort of old. How many times must I (and others) say it?
The existence of God cannot be conclusively proven.
And do you know why?
(I bet you do:)
It’s because if God could be proven to
everyone’s satisfaction there would be no need for FAITH. And we currently live in the age of faith.
As the Bible tells us:
“And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him”
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
I’ll try and be quick.[/quote]
Good luck with that.
No, of course. But you claimed that the question could be “informed” in other ways. I still haven’t seen anything really informing the inquiry.
The usual default position is to assume non-existence until someone proves otherwise. Some people believe the Sasquatch exists; some claim there is a monster in the depths of the Loch Ness. Same thing for the Yeti, the Wengido, UFO sightings and so on. Most reasonable people are very skeptical about those claims and require something more than hearsay from a thrice removed witness.
With God, a lot of people are quite willing to start from the opposite idea. Assume he exists and look for support. Why do that inquiry while assuming the result and not others?
But only with God do you start with blind acceptance instead of skepticism.
The environment didn’t make “demands” on anything. It simply happened that some random mutation or series of mutations gave enough of an advantage to the organisms for that mutation to endure for generations. Evolution does not “respond” to “demands” if there is a rapid sweeping change in an environment, it is quite possible for many species to be entirely wiped out. They won’t magically “know” how to adapt.
What is less adaptive? Natural selection simply states that organisms that manage to reproduce more will outcompete those who reproduce less. If the organisms present are competing with each other, there is no problem. In the case of competition, one organism will eventually wipe out the other. There is nothing about being more or less adaptive; there is only being better adapted to the current environment. You can have organisms that are around for millions of years and then die out (ie, dinosaurs).
You’re understanding of evolution is not what the theory says. I don’t want to turn this thread into another evolution debate, but some of your claims make no sense from an evolutionary standpoint.
No stimulus will force anything in evolution. The mutations are purely random. Most random mutations are worthless or even deleterious to the species. But some, a few, will prove beneficial and allow the mutated organism to reproduce more.
That “something” is pure luck. Evolution is not guided, not goal oriented; it does not seek an end result. Species do not vie to become “more adaptable.” Those that can thrive in a given environment will do so. That’s all. You seem to be under the impression that Evolution is some vast guided process that somehow seeks to “improve” towards an ultimate goal. The theory makes no such claim.
So? If not mammals and marsupials, we’d have something else. There’s more than one way to do most anything in nature. There are about 23 variations of eyes among all the species we know. Some suck, some are better.
If it managed to thrive, then the specie was better at surviving and reproducing. If sexed reproduction (even in whatever primitive form it initially appeared) didn’t give a distinct advantage, it would still be around.
It’s not so much an ace in the hole but an entirely natural explanation of the immense diversity of life on this planet. It’s not for nothing that the various churches fought it for so long, until scientific backing became so overwhelming that denying it simply made them look like fools. Even now, most of those who accept it tend to promote a denatured Evolution closer to “Intelligent Design” than to what the actual theory is all about.
Your version of evolution doesn’t quite coincide with what I know about the theory. I don’t claim to be an expert, but many of your previous claims don’t make sense in the context of Evolution.
I have no illusion that either of us will change his mind. I was simply initially curious about the other means of “informing the inquiry.” I still feel that claim hasn’t been backed up adequately, as nothing you’ve written has informed (in the sense of being able to provided more information) the question.
Trillions of universes makes our look less “special.” If there is, has been and ever will be only on universe, then the argument that is was “tailored” for us might carry more weight. If our universe is simply one out of many, all different, then it’s not really surprising that among the multitude, one of them looks like ours.
I probably missed you point then. You mentioned the apparent design of life and the universe as support for the existence of a creator. I was simply pointing out that other explanations exist for both life and the universe that don’t require divine entities.
Again, how can you not be able to reason right and wrong? Some very simple rules can get you a long way. For example, if you do something and aren’t sure if it’s right or wrong, scaling it up to the entire population (ie, If everyone did as I’m going to do, would it be ok?) can show some apparently innocuous acts (downloading copied mp3s, for example) to be wrong. Another standard might be to try and cause the least amount of unnecessary suffering (which could be defined as “evil”). We could have an entire thread on this, but the gist is: There is no need for a transcendant source or morality. Moral rules can be established and enforced entirely by men and societies.
It’s not a squishy sense of wrong. It’s an entirely reasonable and explainable “rule of conduct” that allows men to live socially with the least friction. Although if I can’t manage to explain it to someone smart, we’re probably better off with “God says so!”
The problem I have with divine morality is that the rules are very difficult to change when the mores and habits of a society evolve.
I’m quite aware of the violent nature of man. I feel that you concentrate too much on that aspect of his nature and relegate other important aspects to a background role which they don’t deserved. We aren’t Klingons.
That argument is also working against you because our violent and bloody history has been created mostly by religious, moral and god-fearing men. Is your claim that without religion, it would’ve been even worse?
I’m fine with that. Society and it’s rules are more malleable than “God-given laws” who, by their very definition, cannot change. God can’t have been wrong back then, now, can he? I also think that it’s easier for people to think about and question rules if they are men’s rules. For a lot of people (not you, but many other believers) it’s not even worth it to think about whether a Commandment is right or wrong; it’s simply right because it’s in the Bible.
Societies will naturally evolve those control mechanisms. Our secular societies already have them in place. Even though it can be argued that the basis for many of our laws is religious in origin, we don’t refer to Leviticus or Sharia Law in our courts. Abandoning religion would not change anything in that process, except maybe for the swearing in before taking the stand.
I’m not proposing to remove the guardrails. We need laws, police, prisons, etc. I simply think that we can establish morals from Reason and don’t need Divine Origin for them. Once morals are established, the rest can follow as it does now.
I would prefer society-as-the-check, for the reasons given above. It’s a lot easier to change men’s laws than God’s ones.
I disagree on the unprovability of such a code of conduct. Although religion offers other rewards than cannot be fulfilled in a secular way. Eternal life being a major one. How many people have accepted a difficult life because they were hoping for a more meaningful one in the afterlife? The double-edge of that aspect is probably that people also accept revolting things from some individuals by telling themselves that the wrongdoer will be punished later. Those aspects cannot be provided in a secular manner. In that aspect, religion is an opium that “societal morals” could not replace.
I’m not trying to “prove” any morality. I simply claim that you can establish morality from Reason alone, without resorting to Divine Authority. I don’t claim to have a “stronger” rational argument, just to have a rational one. I disagree with your claim that it is derived from religious experience. “Reasoned” morality has a lot in common with “Divine” morality for the simply reason that a lot of Divine Morality is entirely reasonable. Not all of it, but a good part of it.
Theistic belief doesn’t seem… well, reasonable. The basic problem is that it’s the only inquiry where we assume the desired outcome and then work backwards to fit the evidence. In nearly every other aspect of our lives, disbelief and skepticism is the default position until evidence convinces us otherwise.
Faith is simply the name given to the entire odd process of thinking about the issue backwards. It’s rather poetic, as the lack of proof and evidence - while damning for any other claim in any other domain - here becomes a strength and is elevated to nearly the status of “proof.” God exists because you can’t prove Him.
That raises another question: Is belief, or lack of it, really a conscious choice? To people choose to believe or not? When I was a kid, my parents were religious, we went to church, I had catechism in school, etc. But I never really “felt” the truth of it. I always felt as if everyone was playing along. Other people must feel differently than I did. You’re not all playing along, now, are you?
Everything else seems “squishy” in comparison.
Well, thanks for taking the time. It’s a very interesting discussion.
One of the reasons I stayed away from here for so long is that I got fed up with really banal arguments that turned personal really quickly and it was just getting irritating. Ok, that and I’d stopped training and didn’t want to be reminded of my failings
What the hell has happened in the last 6 months? How many pages in and still interesting?.. Wow. People are, well not poilte, but I dunno… What’s the word… Erm… Civil. On a religion thread too. Wow!
Long may it continue, until either the Aliens and/or Jesus make their presence known. At which point we can all shut up, or just argue about something else.
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Which question? if you try to form a rational, mature and sound question, I’ll answer.
Prove anything exists, deductively and irrefutably.
Did you miss the “rational” i demanded…? This is a very red herring, and you know it very well. AND I have already answered the question. There is no way that we kan “prove” 100% in a laymans terms that we don’t live in some kind of computer simulation or in the fantasy of some demon.
But there is nothing that indicates either, therefore we use the things we can measure scientifically to make our laws of the universe. When quantum theory can calculate things that are comparable to calculating the width of the american continent with a 1 hair width accurancy, we know that we are barking up the right tree. Your question is neither legitime or honest, it is a obvious red herring and a troll.
So, again: do you have any MATURE, HONEST and RATIONAL questions you want to ask?
Really? You said you know there is no God and that belivers in God have a weak mind. Yet, when call on the carpet to prove it you could not. So I guess we dumb old believer aren’t so dumb after all.
I never ask question I don already know the answer to. What you refer to as a red herring was really an easy out for you. You don’t have to prove God does not exist. All you had do was to prove anything existed. To describe all the properties of any one thing in it’s entirety to include descibing it’s source. This execrise forces you to deal with the metaphysical, a realm you don’t belive exists. Which therefore put your conclusion that there is no God at risk.
You are right you cannot prove or disprove the existance of God. So unless you can prove it, refrain from feeling and acting superior to those who do not think like you. Otherwise, you could very well look like an ass.
Dear Thor (or buddah? or… zeus), are you this thick?
This is an obvious red herring, everyone BUT you can realize this.
I can’t prove that there is not a giant teapot ruling the universe from a hidden orbit ten lightyears away. I don’t respect those who think so for that reason alone. The fact that something can’t be disproved doesen’t make it belivable OR plausible.
You are unable to make ONE SINGLE RATIONAL argument OR come with ONE SINGLE RATIONAL question. All you do is repeat your utter nonsense without any real substance.[/quote]
That was weak. I didn’t argue I asked you to try, but all you can do is berate. You’re a legend in your own mind. You have presented nothing worth arguing about. You idea of what’s a worthy argument, or what’s worth bothering your time is irrelevent. Either argue and bother your time or don’t. You are not in a postion to judge me so you can kiss my ass.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Which question? if you try to form a rational, mature and sound question, I’ll answer.
Prove anything exists, deductively and irrefutably.
Did you miss the “rational” i demanded…? This is a very red herring, and you know it very well. AND I have already answered the question. There is no way that we kan “prove” 100% in a laymans terms that we don’t live in some kind of computer simulation or in the fantasy of some demon.
But there is nothing that indicates either, therefore we use the things we can measure scientifically to make our laws of the universe. When quantum theory can calculate things that are comparable to calculating the width of the american continent with a 1 hair width accurancy, we know that we are barking up the right tree. Your question is neither legitime or honest, it is a obvious red herring and a troll.
So, again: do you have any MATURE, HONEST and RATIONAL questions you want to ask?
Really? You said you know there is no God and that belivers in God have a weak mind. Yet, when call on the carpet to prove it you could not. So I guess we dumb old believer aren’t so dumb after all.
I never ask question I don already know the answer to. What you refer to as a red herring was really an easy out for you. You don’t have to prove God does not exist. All you had do was to prove anything existed. To describe all the properties of any one thing in it’s entirety to include descibing it’s source. This execrise forces you to deal with the metaphysical, a realm you don’t belive exists. Which therefore put your conclusion that there is no God at risk.
You are right you cannot prove or disprove the existance of God. So unless you can prove it, refrain from feeling and acting superior to those who do not think like you. Otherwise, you could very well look like an ass.
Dear Thor (or buddah? or… zeus), are you this thick?
This is an obvious red herring, everyone BUT you can realize this.
I can’t prove that there is not a giant teapot ruling the universe from a hidden orbit ten lightyears away. I don’t respect those who think so for that reason alone. The fact that something can’t be disproved doesen’t make it belivable OR plausible.
You are unable to make ONE SINGLE RATIONAL argument OR come with ONE SINGLE RATIONAL question. All you do is repeat your utter nonsense without any real substance.
That was weak. I didn’t argue I asked you to try, but all you can do is berate. You’re a legend in your own mind. You have presented nothing worth arguing about. You idea of what’s a worthy argument, or what’s worth bothering your time is irrelevent. Either argue and bother your time or don’t. You are not in a postion to judge me so you can kiss my ass.[/quote]
Again, I’m not playing your red-herring game, I’m removing your rationalization for that entire line of reasoning.
Again, can i prove that a pink fluffy monster DOES NOT exist ten lightyears away…? No… I can not. Does the fact that i cannot prove it, when there is no indications that it actually exists, make “it exists” the logically default? NO!
I have made quite a few arguments, just not the ones you try to make me do, the fact that I’m not playing along with your red herring is ofcourse irritating for a lesser being like you, basing his/her life on faith, but you have to deal with it I’m afraid.
The following is for people who are open to the possibility that Jesus Christ not only lived but also died for your sins and is who he said he is.
Who were the authors of the New Testament?
The authors were either immediate followers of Jesus Christ, or close associates.
Matthew-An Apostle, he was also an evangelist who was a Jew and a tax collector prior to his association with Jesus. Wrote the gospel of “Matthew”.
John-An Apostle, he was in the inner circle with Peter and James. John is the author of the fourth Gospel, the Book of Revelation and three Catholic Epistles.
Mark-Was a companion of the apostle Peter. Many believe him to be Peters interpreter when he was imprisoned in Rome.
Luke -The most highly educated of all the writers of the Bible, Luke was a doctor and a close associate of Paul who went on to write most of the New Testament.
James-An apostle was the half brother of Jesus Christ.
Jude-Also an apostle and half brother of Jesus.
Peter-An apostle and probably most known for being impetuous. He is also known for walking on water as Jesus beckoned him to come. And for being at the transfiguration (very cool look it up).
Paul-He was an ardent Jew and a hater of Christianity. He hunted down Christians and imprisoned them, or worse. He was relentless in his pursuit and torment of Christians. What could possibly have turned this man from Christian hater to most powerful disciple? Christ spoke to him in a very powerful vision. Read the account of this in “Acts” chapter 9. You can google it. Paul wrote most of the New Testament.
These men were historical figures. A part of history. To deny their existence is just as foolish as to deny that Aristotle and Plato existed.
Further, why would ordinary men, carpenters, tax collectors, fishermen etc. die for a lie?
Don’t most people lie in order to save themselves from some sort of pain?
Here is a short list of the apostles and early followers of Jesus Christ who died violent deaths for their beliefs. If all they had to do to save themselves were to tell the truth why didn’t they? The answer is because they were already telling the truth, about what they saw and experienced regarding Jesus Christ. Most people would lie to save themselves, but who would lie in order to die?
Andrew: Crucified
Bartholomew: Crucified
James (son of Alphaeus):Crucified
James: (half brother of Christ): Killed by the sword.
Matthew: Killed by the sword.
Peter: Crucified upside down at his own request. He did not feel worthy be crucified in the same way Jesus Christ was.
Philip: Crucified
Simon: Crucified
Thaddaeus: Death by arrows.
Thomas: Death by a spear.
Don’t take my word, or the word of other posters on this forum. Do a study of your own on the validity of the Bible and all that it has to offer.
When you’re finished you might come to the same conclusion that I have. That is, Jesus Christ walked this earth and paid the ultimate price for our sins so that we wouldn’t have to.
Again, can i prove that a pink fluffy monster DOES NOT exist ten lightyears away…? No… I can not.
How many men died because they swore beyond a shadow of a doubt that they did in fact see it?
None?
Oh okay.
[/quote]
“they believed it, therefore it has to be true” is still not a valid argument. Thousand of norse vikings did the same for Thor, thousands of muslims did and do the same for Allah, that effectively removes every impact your faulty logica could have had.
Now go preach to the choir, we prefer logic, not “faith is correct because my faith says so”
[quote]1-packlondoner wrote:
Okay seriosuly this is freaking me out…
One of the reasons I stayed away from here for so long is that I got fed up with really banal arguments that turned personal really quickly and it was just getting irritating. Ok, that and I’d stopped training and didn’t want to be reminded of my failings
What the hell has happened in the last 6 months? How many pages in and still interesting?.. Wow. People are, well not poilte, but I dunno… What’s the word… Erm… Civil. On a religion thread too. Wow!
Long may it continue, until either the Aliens and/or Jesus make their presence known. At which point we can all shut up, or just argue about something else.
[/quote]
True. Gentlemen, I’m just a spectator but I have enjoyed this thread immensely. (Both sides of the discussion)
For the record, I do believe in the existence of God.
I also believe that Reason is one of his greatest gifts to Mankind. It is the height of irony that we cannot use that gift to prove his existence.
Again, can i prove that a pink fluffy monster DOES NOT exist ten lightyears away…? No… I can not.
How many men died because they swore beyond a shadow of a doubt that they did in fact see it?
None?
Oh okay.
[/quote]
Throughout history, many people have died for many different faiths and beliefs.
The fact that historical contemporaries of Jesus died for their belief doesn’t really prove that Jesus was the Son of God. Nor do nearly 2000 year old accounts of him rising from the dead.
You will not win this argument by citing historical events.
You are trying to use logic and scientific proof to argue matters of faith. While an interesting mental exercise, it is futile.
[quote]Adamsson wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Which question? if you try to form a rational, mature and sound question, I’ll answer.
Prove anything exists, deductively and irrefutably.
Did you miss the “rational” i demanded…? This is a very red herring, and you know it very well. AND I have already answered the question. There is no way that we kan “prove” 100% in a laymans terms that we don’t live in some kind of computer simulation or in the fantasy of some demon.
But there is nothing that indicates either, therefore we use the things we can measure scientifically to make our laws of the universe. When quantum theory can calculate things that are comparable to calculating the width of the american continent with a 1 hair width accurancy, we know that we are barking up the right tree. Your question is neither legitime or honest, it is a obvious red herring and a troll.
So, again: do you have any MATURE, HONEST and RATIONAL questions you want to ask?
Really? You said you know there is no God and that belivers in God have a weak mind. Yet, when call on the carpet to prove it you could not. So I guess we dumb old believer aren’t so dumb after all.
I never ask question I don already know the answer to. What you refer to as a red herring was really an easy out for you. You don’t have to prove God does not exist. All you had do was to prove anything existed. To describe all the properties of any one thing in it’s entirety to include descibing it’s source. This execrise forces you to deal with the metaphysical, a realm you don’t belive exists. Which therefore put your conclusion that there is no God at risk.
You are right you cannot prove or disprove the existance of God. So unless you can prove it, refrain from feeling and acting superior to those who do not think like you. Otherwise, you could very well look like an ass.
Dear Thor (or buddah? or… zeus), are you this thick?
This is an obvious red herring, everyone BUT you can realize this.
I can’t prove that there is not a giant teapot ruling the universe from a hidden orbit ten lightyears away. I don’t respect those who think so for that reason alone. The fact that something can’t be disproved doesen’t make it belivable OR plausible.
You are unable to make ONE SINGLE RATIONAL argument OR come with ONE SINGLE RATIONAL question. All you do is repeat your utter nonsense without any real substance.
That was weak. I didn’t argue I asked you to try, but all you can do is berate. You’re a legend in your own mind. You have presented nothing worth arguing about. You idea of what’s a worthy argument, or what’s worth bothering your time is irrelevent. Either argue and bother your time or don’t. You are not in a postion to judge me so you can kiss my ass.
Again, I’m not playing your red-herring game, I’m removing your rationalization for that entire line of reasoning.
Again, can i prove that a pink fluffy monster DOES NOT exist ten lightyears away…? No… I can not. Does the fact that i cannot prove it, when there is no indications that it actually exists, make “it exists” the logically default? NO!
I have made quite a few arguments, just not the ones you try to make me do, the fact that I’m not playing along with your red herring is ofcourse irritating for a lesser being like you, basing his/her life on faith, but you have to deal with it I’m afraid.[/quote]
And I won’t play your ad hominum attacks. Your “argument” if that is what you call it doesn’t make a lick of sense. Trying to prove something has has no evidence what’s so ever to it existence is not analogous to the existence of God.
There is evidence God exists. There is no evidence a pink fluffy whatever delighting your colon exists. Come up with something better then that. If that is what you base your faith in no God then good luck with that. I feel sorry for you.
[quote]pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
pat36 wrote:
Adamsson wrote:
Which question? if you try to form a rational, mature and sound question, I’ll answer.
Prove anything exists, deductively and irrefutably.
Did you miss the “rational” i demanded…? This is a very red herring, and you know it very well. AND I have already answered the question. There is no way that we kan “prove” 100% in a laymans terms that we don’t live in some kind of computer simulation or in the fantasy of some demon.
But there is nothing that indicates either, therefore we use the things we can measure scientifically to make our laws of the universe. When quantum theory can calculate things that are comparable to calculating the width of the american continent with a 1 hair width accurancy, we know that we are barking up the right tree. Your question is neither legitime or honest, it is a obvious red herring and a troll.
So, again: do you have any MATURE, HONEST and RATIONAL questions you want to ask?
Really? You said you know there is no God and that belivers in God have a weak mind. Yet, when call on the carpet to prove it you could not. So I guess we dumb old believer aren’t so dumb after all.
I never ask question I don already know the answer to. What you refer to as a red herring was really an easy out for you. You don’t have to prove God does not exist. All you had do was to prove anything existed. To describe all the properties of any one thing in it’s entirety to include descibing it’s source. This execrise forces you to deal with the metaphysical, a realm you don’t belive exists. Which therefore put your conclusion that there is no God at risk.
You are right you cannot prove or disprove the existance of God. So unless you can prove it, refrain from feeling and acting superior to those who do not think like you. Otherwise, you could very well look like an ass.
Dear Thor (or buddah? or… zeus), are you this thick?
This is an obvious red herring, everyone BUT you can realize this.
I can’t prove that there is not a giant teapot ruling the universe from a hidden orbit ten lightyears away. I don’t respect those who think so for that reason alone. The fact that something can’t be disproved doesen’t make it belivable OR plausible.
You are unable to make ONE SINGLE RATIONAL argument OR come with ONE SINGLE RATIONAL question. All you do is repeat your utter nonsense without any real substance.
That was weak. I didn’t argue I asked you to try, but all you can do is berate. You’re a legend in your own mind. You have presented nothing worth arguing about. You idea of what’s a worthy argument, or what’s worth bothering your time is irrelevent. Either argue and bother your time or don’t. You are not in a postion to judge me so you can kiss my ass.
Again, I’m not playing your red-herring game, I’m removing your rationalization for that entire line of reasoning.
Again, can i prove that a pink fluffy monster DOES NOT exist ten lightyears away…? No… I can not. Does the fact that i cannot prove it, when there is no indications that it actually exists, make “it exists” the logically default? NO!
I have made quite a few arguments, just not the ones you try to make me do, the fact that I’m not playing along with your red herring is ofcourse irritating for a lesser being like you, basing his/her life on faith, but you have to deal with it I’m afraid.
And I won’t play your ad hominum attacks. Your “argument” if that is what you call it doesn’t make a lick of sense. Trying to prove something has has no evidence what’s so ever to it existence is not analogous to the existence of God.
There is evidence God exists. There is no evidence a pink fluffy whatever delighting your colon exists. Come up with something better then that. If that is what you base your faith in no God then good luck with that. I feel sorry for you.[/quote]
You have the burden of evidence when you claim that God exists and that you can prove it.
You have so far not shown any evidence of the existance of god.
simple as that.
But why don’t you do, what noone else… in history… has done: scientifically prove that god exist…?
Zeb, you neither know who the real authors of the Bible were nor what really happened to the individuals who were supposedly Jesus’ apostles. You are just taking for granted that what is stated in the Bible about these characters is correct. In the process you are just proving how unbelievable Christianity really is.
Again, can i prove that a pink fluffy monster DOES NOT exist ten lightyears away…? No… I can not.
How many men died because they swore beyond a shadow of a doubt that they did in fact see it?
None?
Oh okay.
“they believed it, therefore it has to be true” is still not a valid argument. Thousand of norse vikings did the same for Thor, thousands of muslims did and do the same for Allah, that effectively removes every impact your faulty logica could have had.
Now go preach to the choir, we prefer logic, not “faith is correct because my faith says so”[/quote]
Your logic if very illogical.
According to your rules of logic not one person would ever be proven guilty in a court of law. According to you we can’t take anyone’s word for anything. Testimony of another individual in your land of logic is not admissible.
Again, can i prove that a pink fluffy monster DOES NOT exist ten lightyears away…? No… I can not.
How many men died because they swore beyond a shadow of a doubt that they did in fact see it?
None?
Oh okay.
Throughout history, many people have died for many different faiths and beliefs.
The fact that historical contemporaries of Jesus died for their belief doesn’t really prove that Jesus was the Son of God.[/quote]
I have been the one who has consistently said that the existence of God cannot be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt to most.
Futile? I’m not so sure.
The “God debate” sometimes sparks those who are seriously seeking a higher power to in fact find him.
And of course that’s really my only hope. I know that a hard core atheist won’t be turned into a Christian by anything that I write on a message board. At least I don’t suppose that that will happen.
But others read these threads and that is my audience.
