Well to most people it does sound far fetched but statistically it would be foolish to bet against it.
POST 420
Printable View
Well to most people it does sound far fetched but statistically it would be foolish to bet against it.
POST 420
billion writes
“I think he's just looking for a religious argument. To me, there's nothing to debate about it. Either you believe, or you do not.”
I understand you, you can’t debate it’s existence. I hope I don’t come across that way. No one can know for sure, right?
But, what you can debate is if you should believe.
If you don’t think logic is necessary for a belief (not saying I do) what else justifies one.
I don’t mean what does in reality, but what would you consider enough to justify a belief.
For example brainwashing is a reason someone has a belief. Like in reality people have beliefs because of this. But I do not think these are valid beliefs. They are not justified.
Would you consider things like wants or needs justification for beliefs. If someone wants god to exist. Is it valid that someone has it.
I do not think it does. I would call that an invalid belief.
See i think believing something because you want to is 100% wrong. and it is invalid.
(validity is a measure of logical correctness)
People are making a claim about the nature of our reality based on desire.
Beliefs are statements about reality which are right and wrong. Unlike opinions which are neither right nor wrong.
to summarize,
I think it is wrong to have a belief based only on your want to have it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Billionfold
I dont' know why you think that billionfold, I directly quoted and responded to several of your posts. I never said I wanted a religious argument, the original post was simply to challenge the notion that the design of the species is from an intelligent designer. That did expand to the belief in god later, and I made very clear responses to people's reasoning. Thus far all you've said is that god is possible, and that you believe because you just do. I've been asking again and again for an actual logical argument, and now you take the easy road out and try to sell an argument that you can just throw logic out the window and still consider a belief rational, once again with no explanation. I also clearly made my case for why you can't just throw logic out the window, and why logic is not an entity limited to one view of reality while still being able to call it "reality". If you don't actually want to have a logical discussion, and simply claim that a belief is valid because you believe it, then that's cool but don't bother being so active in a thread you clearly don't plan to participate in; otherwise you're just dismantling its original intention by integrating another type of discussion altogether.
Regarding everybody else: I understand that a lot of you may not want to invest the time in this debate, and that's cool. I'm not declaring anybody the "loser" for not debating, so there's no need to explain why you can't be bothered. This is my cup of tea, a philisophical debate through intellectual reasoning, but it may not be everybody's. Some like to just chill and chat, some like to discuss politics or medicine, some just want to share their beliefs and not have debates over them. I enjoy all those things too, and if you enjoy them (and more I'm sure) more power to you. I still love and respect all of you, even those I disagree with. Compassion, friendship, and the pursuit of peace for all humanity is more important than any of these debates, they are only held for those interested in exploring them.
Peace to you all and good luck in pursuit of your hapiness, that's the biggest thing no matter what form it takes.
Mr.D,
I said that you put your faith in man. To you, the past in all unknown. Did you come to your conclusions on your own? You rely on the findings of man to tell you what might have happened right? You rely on the date that man puts behind their findings right? You rely on the machines that man built to come up with things that you find to be true right? What if I throw you the same agrument that is always coming my way? Is not man wrong? What makes you think that all the findings of man are true if everything they touch is corrupt according to your side of the debate?
But since I know that man is wrong, I trust in God. There's no way around it, if God says that his word is pure, and you guys say he's not true, you are calling him a liar. You have to live with that FACT. Don't you fear going against God since everything around us points that he exists?
Can someone explain to me how evolution plays a part in a woman giving birth to a child? How does evolution play a part in her breasts providing milk to the child? How does evolution play a part in male and female? Has man evolved since the first man? Plenty of us are well aware that the facts pointed out by the other side are simply theories. So when it comes down to it, you have to put your faith in something. Mine is in God.
Not everything is strictly a matter of faith. The closest thing I put my "faith" into is my ability to think rationally.Quote:
Mr.D,
I said that you put your faith in man.
I came to my conclusions (which are always subject to change if the right evidence comes along) through researching every argument I could find, and considering the logical attributes and flaws found in each of them using my own critical thinking skills.Quote:
To you, the past in all unknown. Did you come to your conclusions on your own?
You'll need to clarify on this one. What do you mean that I believe "everything man touches is corrupt". I would hope you're not seriously positing that every single thing human beings know is wrong. Man is subject to flaws, that doesn't mean everything he does is flawed.Quote:
You rely on the findings of man to tell you what might have happened right? You rely on the date that man puts behind their findings right? You rely on the machines that man built to come up with things that you find to be true right? What if I throw you the same agrument that is always coming my way? Is not man wrong? What makes you think that all the findings of man are true if everything they touch is corrupt according to your side of the debate?
But you've yet to give reason's for why man is wrong and god is not. And wrong about what exactly? Man is right and wrong about many a things, but it's our exploration, research, philosophical thought, and inguenity that creates progess and expansion of our knowledge.Quote:
But since I know that man is wrong, I trust in God.
We've already been through this. You can't call god a liar because you say he doesn't exist. It works under the logical falsehood of using your premise as the conclusion:Quote:
There's no way around it, if God says that his word is pure, and you guys say he's not true, you are calling him a liar.
1. The bible says that god claims to exist
2. You say he doesn't exist.
3. Therefor your'e calling him a liar because he already exists simply because of a claim that he exists.
If such logic is true then I'm calling Santa Clause a Lair, along with the toothfairy and the flying spegetti monster. What if I tell you that Evil Lord Xenu says he exists, and I already assume that he does. Does that mean you're calling him a liar? Of course not.
Capital letters don't make it a fact just because you say it is.Quote:
You have to live with that FACT.
Again, if everything points to his existence, and there's actually real evidence, then lets here it. Simply claiming that there's proof and never presenting any, isn't proof.Quote:
Don't you fear going against God since everything around us points that he exists?
What's not to understand? When a genetic sequence is constructed to self replicate, life replicates. Gradual environmental shifts inevitably lead to adaptation and speciation, and increases in the complexity of the reproduction process over billions of years.Quote:
Can someone explain to me how evolution plays a part in a woman giving birth to a child?
Species with a genetic structure with a more efficient means of nourishing their offspring will inevitably have an advantage in survival, thereby passing on their genetic code in significantly larger quantities and making their variation within the species the dominant one. Those who had a very poor means of nourishing their young would have their offspring die, and thus not pass on their genetic code.Quote:
How does evolution play a part in her breasts providing milk to the child?
Adaptation of multiple different organisms eventually leads to multiple different variations within a species. When 2 of those variations are compatible in a way that allows them to share their genetic code, it gives them a significant advantage in maintaing a stronger genetic structure and therefor the advantage in survival and retaining of the species.Quote:
How does evolution play a part in male and female?
Actually yes. We've grown much taller, and split off into different variations within the species to create different "breeds", or races. The main change, however, is that our intelligence has grown immensely from early primates. This largely due to dietary changes in the beginning.Quote:
Has man evolved since the first man?
Keep in mind that evolution is not a magical force from nothingness that always occures. Evolution only occures if adaptation to ones environment is necessary for the survival of the species. Since the creation of society, and particularily technology, we used our brains to do something for the first time in the history of any species, we bipassed evolutionary requirements by depending on technology rather than naturlal selection to survive. Right now Humanity will see little evolution so long as the weak are not allowed to die, and taken care of by welfare systems, medicines, and government protection. If anything our system of society will only weaken the human gene pool as those unfit for survival are kept alive to breed by artificial means.
Then don't mix up the terms "theory" and "hypothesis". A theory is not just an idea, it is a collection of knowlege gained from evidence and proofs used to formulate a knew idea based on current knowledge. Remember, even gravity is a theory ("The theory of gravity"). The law of gravitation is the set and proven principle that explains the consistent action of gravity. The theory of gravity is an explanation of how gravity works and by what mechanism, base on observations. Atomic structures are also theories as well, we can't actually observe the motion of electrons.Quote:
Plenty of us are well aware that the facts pointed out by the other side are simply theories.
My point being, something being a theory does not mean it is without credibility.
Quote:
So when it comes down to it, you have to put your faith in something. Mine is in God.
This is the most common creationist distortion of all logical processes of thought, that each and every piece of knowledge is a matter of faith. Faith is an emotional decision based on desire, the abdication of critical thought in exchange for the rewards wrought by blind acceptance. Science and anything measurable is not a matter of faith, it is a matter of basing an opinion on consistent observations that have a visible, measurable, repeatable, and consistant result that is directly seen to affect us or our obersved suroundings. The effect belief in god has is not proof of god, it is proof of a mental event which may or may not be caused by god.
Now even assuming that evolution is a big crock, and it very well may not explain the whole of life and it's complexity, there's still a very big logical error being made on the part of most believers: Disproving one theory, does not automatically prove another. The mere fact that we don't currently have an explanation for everything in the universe, does not mean that a hypothesis (that being god) is correct simply because it fits. We can come up with any number of explanations that fit the result, but an explanation is not a fact until it has been proven. If I claim that the universe came into being because a magic space-jellyfish sneezed, that explanation would fit perfectly, but now it's up to me to prove it.
No pass that, you donâ??t know man is wrong; you hope man is wrong.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pass That Shit
Weâ??ve gone over your arguments several times and they are still circular. They all work under the assumption that god exists. Such as this one
â??If you say god doesnâ??t exist your calling him a liarâ?
see the problem is, you are assuming god wrote the bible. What we are saying is that the bible is wrong.
God did not say â??I existâ? and then we: â??no youâ??re a liarâ?
That doesnâ??t make any sense.
What happened is a book says, â??there is a godâ? and we say, â??why should we think thatâ??
And I would love to go into depth with your evolution questions, thatâ??s why I made a thread of it. Why didnâ??t you ask them there? Iâ??m not going to spend the time answering them because to be honest any answer I give would be guesses and speculation.
Itâ??s like asking you, Pass thatâ?Ś what does this little grain of sand have to do with god.
You might answer but it would be a guess.
But I will answer them a little, Saying â??first manâ? isnâ??t really correct as evolution is constant and doesnâ??t make distinctions like that. It falls under the â??paradox of the heapâ?.
But, yes if their was a â??first manâ? we have changed since him.
Our change is very obvious, humans spread over the earth into different environments. These environments placed different pressures on us and we evolved differently.
The result: black people, white people, Asians and so on. In genetics we call these â??deemsâ? or sub groups in a species.
A deem is the first step to becoming an independent species. If these populations were left to evolve independently they would have all split into individual species. But, globalization stopped all of that
If you would like, start up the evolution thread again
i'll be there for you:stoned: probaly high then
What's particularily frustrating is that PTS has used this "you're calling god a liar" argument over and over and over, at least 5 times in 5 different threads. Every time I prove why that's rediculous, and every time he just doesn't respond then uses the same argument in the next thread a few weeks later. Though I've honestly seen MANY creationists do this same thing. I just can't understand how some people can so adamanently shut out critical thought when it doesn't agree with what they want to believe, then actually spew the same nonsense again as if nothing was ever shown to be wrong with it.
I know, I know, I'm probably coming off as hostile and I'll probably regret it, but this is a frustrating repetetive theme, and honestly I've been in an assload of pain all day, and now I'm totally high on Tramadol (legally, with prescription) and free of pain, but it makes anything that irritates me 20x worse.
QFT, but these kids wont ever understand thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Billionfold
I agree with you there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billionfold
Need I go over, once again, why that's a flawed supposition? The burden of proof does not fall on one to disprove god, but to prove him. To disprove god is utterly impossible, because you cannot disprove the existence of that which already doesn't exist. Just as if I were to say to you that there is a microscopic teacup orbiting some sun somewhere in the universe, you could never disprove it. Yet even though you cannot disprove it, you are a teacup atheist. We both know it's possible that the teacup could exist, but there's yet to be any proof or even decent evidence that there's valid reason to believe in it.Quote:
Neither of you have proved or disproved the existence of God.
Besides, nobody said they would prove their point in a single post, the goal here was to logically debate each point as it is presented to see if any for the existence of god holds up. Again, since you obviously have no intention of paricipating in this thread, and instead continue to have this smug attitude acting as though you're so immensely wise because you won't take the intellectual challenge of posing an argument, please quit sabotaging this thread. PTS has still earned more respectability here by at least posing an argument. Refusing to discuss any train of philosophical thought doesn't make you sound wise of more "open minded", you just sound consistently arrogant and without any philisophical considerations of your own.
PassThatShit, you have my sincere apologies for being rude to you in my last response. I just get incredibly irritable when I'm on Tramadol, I also bit off my little brother's head last night when I shouldn't have as well.
Of course proving a negative is pretty damn near impossible, for the same reason that we cannot, with our limited evidence and capabilities for observation, disprove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster or a race of leprechauns living beneath the surface of Pluto. It is the job of people who hold such beliefs to justify them, not the job of the skeptic to disprove every wacky claim and possibility that people can come up with. Invisible, undetectable things whose origins cannot be explained, which work in inexplicable ways, whose substance is unknown, and for which there is no evidence, do not need to be disproven, because they are indistinguishable from non-existent things.
And it is a pretty wacky claim to suggest that a really really complex intelligent being, with all the parts put intricately together so that it is capable of designing universes and lifeforms and monitoring all events that ever occur, capable of creating morality and logic and the fabric of matter itself, could just spontaneously appear out of nowhere with no explanation required of it.
We might as well just say that the universe, in its primordial simplicity, came out of nowhere with no explanation required of it. It is a much more parsimonious explanation, since it requires only the simplest of beginnings (a Hawkings singularity). Theists propose instead that there was first a really inconceivably complex being who chose to make a universe in which it was subsequently possible to be an atheist because he deliberately chose to not provide any objective proof of his creation or interaction with the world.
If you're going to persist in the delusion that the world had to be designed by someone (why people need to anthropomorphize the creation of the universe is beyond me), it would be far more logical to say that the universe is just a computer program written by a super advanced race of aliens who evolved over long periods of time from simple beginnings via Darwinian natural selection, because then at least you'd have an explanation for how the universe-designer got there. It's pretty far-fetched, but not nearly as far-fetched as the God hypothesis.
I've told you that isn't my purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billionfold
No one can know if he exists or not, everyone realizes that.
But we can argue whether or not to believe he exists
I'm not trying to prove that God exists. Why would someone who believes in him have to prove that he is true? I sometimes pop in here to share what I believe. It's not to convince you, cause I'm well aware that I can't. I'm confident that the day will come when everyone will be convinced. So you will have to stayed tuned for the final chapter.
You see, as strong of an argument you feel you're making for your side, it comes across as foolishness to me. I'm not trying to offend you, but I can see what you don't know and don't understand. Science is true, but you can't see the man behind the science.
Now you're gonna tell me that the "Adam" generation didn't live close to 1k years right? Is evolution traveling backwards? How can you prove that those men didn't live over 900 years? How can you disprove the writings of the men that seen Jesus and his miracles? Why do you think he has such fame today? Has anyone done anything close to what he did to earn them this much fame for so long? Let's be realistic, bible excluded, Jesus must have done some amazing things for us to still be arguing about him. But as the bible teaches, after what he did, the word was spread worldwide and everyone knew about him and his fame spread until this day. Would a humble carpenter with some good morals really get this much publicity? I think not. I don't have to prove anything to anyone about the bible, cause the substance and evidence is in my heart and you can never take that from me.
PTS,
No one can prove or disprove gods existence. If one could, it probably would have been done by now by men smarter than us.
And it is irrelevant whether or not god exists because we are talking about the belief that god exists. Not that he does. And, I am not asking you to prove he exists. I am asking you to support your belief. The best thing you’ve come up with is your personal experience we talked about a while ago.
I know you don’t understand our arguments and they seem foolish to you. But it probably due to your lack of understand of logic, or something of that sort. Because, they are quite valid. And I do not make arguments I ask questions: “why believe?”. And I counter your statements (not arguments)
I also do not try to disprove their statements, I don’t need to. You need to support them.
But, alas we’ve gone over this.
“the burden of proof rests on the person making the claim”
What I don’t understand is why you believe their accounts. It doesn’t matter if they are true because neither of us can ‘know”that. But why do you believe them, this will always escape me. Is it because your mom told you when you were a kid the bible’s “non-fiction”.
The plane fact is, there is NO reason to believe the accounts. It is faith.
And faith is irrational by definition
Yes, but how did life get that way?Quote:
Originally Posted by Oneironaut
Synonymous to the first question.Quote:
The real question is, who could come up with a design for a designer who can create the whole universe and millions of complex lifeforms? And who could come up with a design for an intelligent designer designer? Surely if God created the whole universe, and has the machinery for monitoring everything that goes on inside it, and the machinery for generating all the biological diversity around us, then he must be way more intricate and complex than life itself!
I dont really know what you mean. I wasn't making an argument i was trying to clarify a misunderstanding we had.Quote:
Originally Posted by Billionfold
Ok so if I understand correctly...its obvious that the existance of God can't be proven. But what you guys want to know is WHY THE BELIEF of the existance of God stands strong in the heart of PTS and a whole lot of others and even me. Unfortunatly, the support of our belief that god exist will not satisfy you.
The reason why the support of our belief wont satisfy you is because it wont be based on a theorie, fact, evidence, proof or whatever procedure that we use in science. Eck you might probably think its an irrational belief but if it was the case then there is a shitstorm of irrational believers..so il try in the best of my abilities (I'm french so its kinda hard ) to show you some support of the belief of the existence of God that are somehow rational...logic
The reasons why there is a lot of people who believes in God today are
1- The past of our human kind and the ignorance of the primitive mind. The ignorance can be seen twice through the age of man.
First, I think that science (a majority I guess...) as come up to a hypothesis (its maybe a theory..) that before society ever existed, when we where in total survival mode (Kinda like what Rousseau thought) we were probably very well and food was abondant (like the garden in the bible..that garden might represent earth...well maybe more like Africa with a hole lot a fruit trees. This might look irrelevant but its still still plausible for many people today hehe).
Anyway, to make it short man always loved sex if you just think of how it feels and thus we end up making a lot of babies..multiplying till we one day see that we are to many now and there is not enough food and etc etc...thats paleontology and history...you can find the rest of the story up to date somewhere or in the educational system.
Ok so from the start we were happy and food was abondant..but what were we thinking back then on the meening of life. We suppose that the surviving DNA of our kind might be Adam...(BTW that Adam DNA thing I saw it on a respectable tv channel but I cant remember the show so please correct me if I'm wrong). Even so, there were probably pacific tribes or mini-societies that were thankfull for there periods of prosperity. If that kind of thinking were present for many generations well when your thankfull you adresse to who?...Today it is by some to science because its helped us in countless ways but by a lot of people it was and it is still a higher power ( again check your history on mankind) like nature or whateverstay they did adress to in the past and now.
Second, I suppose strongly that when Descartes developped is theory of the cogito and therefore the importance of developping sciences and technics based of mathematics. Basicaly the new logical way of explaining the ways of the world. I meen by the word logical in our capacity of reason: science and all the *sciences that goes with that
**Philosopy, sociologie, history, geologie etc for human sciences
***Mathematics, physics, biology etc for pure sciences
2- Therefore, some of the anwser found by science disaprouved many things that were told, believed or even worshipped (in worst cases hehe) but the thing is that at that time man was without a doubt curupted by power (organised religions thats you hehe) so the problem was the wrong doings of some men that controlled the masses like a shephard with is sheeps. Eh the irony is that usualy the shephard care for is sheeps. Why? because its is food to survive. The basics. So that's why billions of people still believe that there is a god who gaved us nature, evolution, reason etc wich is good in our lives And to know that by all means we humans have a common goal wich is the survival first (this is not attained everywhere but it could and everyone knows that) and global happiness (still needs a lot of work). These goals exist and we are making our way up to it but what seems to happen here is that it slows down because of a greed for power. This greed that we didn't have before until we faced the rarety of ressources versus the unlimited needs of humans wich is worsed by the developped society since its filled with greed..devouring and polluting nature. So living in a luxurious world burning up he ressources is the product of what we worshipped before...for some yes but at a time were everything was abondant things were different, we were thankfull.
Now, I'm not saying that I despise all of what science created...for that of wich is good that comes out of a man's hands or mind I am thankfull. I put my faith in science and in man. But, this does not meen that I am not thankfull for the things that were there long ago, wich man as nothing to do with or can't modify....yet.
ok I could go on but I think its time for me to tell you my beliefs wich i think is a God.
First the definition of a god is defined by us humans so if we can define God or what is it well its everything that we can come up that is impossible for us to do or comprehend. But, the thing is that with evolution, we might yet understand if we survive for say a couple of billion years. See where I'm going here.
Then what is God? Who is he? I don't know..maybe someone that gave us purpose. A man perhaps...or maybe the will of mankind....Yep..I'd go for that idea wigh seems logic but still unprovable but luckly there is a lot of time to think about it if we survive =)
Feel free to put any comments on it ;)
peace
I can see what your saying. When I use the word god on here (it goes for most people )I am strictly speaking about the literal God described in the bible. And generally only confronting people who are fundamentally religious. So much that they don’t believe in evolution.
I am totally open to other concepts of god, and I plan to peruse my own spirituality in the future (I just don’t have time now, and it’s not time for me to do that yet)
My father is very atheist, but I didn’t’ know this until a few years ago. And more so in the last year because we’ve talked about it. I talked about my logical arguments against Christianity (the only religion I know enough about to be critical of) and he told me that they would never “work” on believers. He said that these people disallow themselves from even examining their philosophy. They are so entrenched in faith that nothing, not even Buda appearing and letting them know about the misunderstanding. I’ve read and heard about such believers, ones that don’t believe in dinosaurs and think the devil placed the bones there to fool us!
This message board is the first place I’ve been able to engage with such minded individuals (as in Canada we really don’t have many). And my current conclusion, after reading what PTS believes, I think he was right. And it scares me, I no longer wonder how bush could get elected twice.
I'm pretty much done with this thread, though I have learned something. I never undstood until recently why Richard Dawkins said he refused to engage theists in logical televised debates. Now I understand. Those completely devoted to their faith will indeed claim to have plenty of logical evidence. But once you deconstruct it, they take the easy and entirely irrational road out. They simply throw logic out the window, then claim that logic is unnecessary but their beliefs are still rational. Their justification is that they simply KNOW, deep down, that god exists. That their relationship with him is something only they can see, and therefor exists.
In reality, this is an excuse for the worse symptom brought upon by the virus of faith. What this virus does is convince you thoroughly that you are right. It makes your brain shut out logic and reasoning, and convinces you that because your brain has reached a state congruent with a logically-held conclusion, it must therefor be true. It puts your mind in a state where your beliefs no longer need rationality, no longer need a reason, they simply need to be reinfoced by a powerfull devotion so strong that it supresses everything to the contrary. It convinces you that your devotion is of the highest importance, that everything that threatens such devotion is a threat to be rejected.
And, sadly enough, people convince themselves to forget that the brain is capable of absolutely anything and everything. There is NO LIMIT to what it can convince you of, there is NO LIMIT to how real it can make something seem. The brain's ability to convince you of the authenticity of a belief or perception is so powerfull that it can seem a thousand times more convincing than anything percieved in the real world can be. It is why schizophrenics cannot be convinced that the voices aren't real, it is why terrorists cannot be convinced that god is not a tool of hatred, it is why fellow's like Bong30 in the political forum cannot be convinced their perception can be wrong, no matter what evidence exists to the contrary. Instead people cling to the false belief that if something weren't real, there would be some small SOMETHING that would feel or seem wrong; but it simply isn't so. And so the cycle continues, and people continually justify themselves in whatever belief they hold, that it MUST be true because their mind sees it as so incredibly, convincingly real. Justifiction is no longer needed because the belief is clamped down by iron spikes that will allow no train of reasoning to dislodge it.
theres a psychiatric term for what you have just described, it is called SCHIZOPHRENIAQuote:
Originally Posted by mrdevious
no not really. schizophrenia is a genetic caused psychological disorder that manifests itself in delusions and hallucinations. Irrationality isn’t part of it
They do have irrational beliefs but they are receiving pretty solid proof. Like if they believe the devil is talking to him, it’s because they actually perceive that it’s wrong but not irrational
okay........let me rephrase it a little bit.
what mr.devious posted sounds quite a bit like schizophrenia
The logic one always makes me laugh. Logic?
Where is the logic in putting your life (eternal) on the line for something that man has never proven to be untrue? If it's so unlogical to believe in God, then why hasn't any brilliant scientist disproven any of the biblical writers from any generation? Where is the logic in not believing in something that tells you to believe if you want to live? You guys will write long paragraphs explaining how you think the bible is untrue. But really, you're not disproving it either. So since no one has proven it wrong, why is it so illogical to believe in God?
Here is my logic.
God said he made the light. I look up and see the sun.
God made the evening and the morning. Our day starts at midnight.
God gave us the sun, moon and the stars. We have a calendar.
God made us of the dust of the ground. We will return to the dust of the ground.
God made man and female. I have penis and my wife has vagina.
God told us to multiply. I have a 3 month old daughter. :D
God planted trees and plants. I grow all kinds of fruits and vegetables to eat.
God put the fish in the ocean. I see fishermen at work.
God was manifest in the flesh. Men witnessed Jesus.
Jesus was seen put to death. Jesus was seen after his resurrection.
Where is the logic in believing in an unknow energy that created all this and is not perfect? In other words, the energy is perfect enough to create all of this and it has an end? What is behind the science? Luck? Is that your logic? You got here by luck?
God said let there be light = Big Bang Theory
How can you prove that the big bang was not created by God?
Foget God. How can you prove what created the big bang theory?
Where does your logic come from? You can trust in man all you like, but my faith is in God.
not to be argumentative, but........... something that doesnt exist cannot be disproven because it doesnt exist for you to disprove it and the bible was written by the church to give support to their claims.Quote:
Originally Posted by Pass That Shit
theres my simple explanation. now for an analogy
the bible says that god said "let there be light" your getting this information from a second source so it is much like somebody telling you that "jimmie" told them that he wants to fuck you in the ass. you cant disprove it and if you go looking for jimmie, but you cant find him (because he doesnt really exist) but you cant disprove that jimmie because you cant find him, does that make jimmie real? simply becuase you cant find him? your going to have to go on second party information if your going to believe it and second party information isnt always reliable, sometimes its made up.
So your sources are trustworthy?
Spin it anyway you like, but these men left writings and you're accusing them of lying. This is a fact.
What if they are not lying about the things to come? Are you ready?
Holy hell PTS, this is exactly why I quit debating. You're making the EXACT SAME ARGUMENTS that you've made 10 times before. And every time I've completely proven why they are false, you once AGAIN ignored them and didn't manage to counter it with any kind of argument, then proceeded to make it once again. This time you even did it in the same thread!
mrdevious
we would all appreciate if u stayed true to ur word and stopped posteing in this thread
^^ i would rather he stay.
PTS,
the problem is there is a very obvious explanation other than god existing.
I don’t believe that you would jump to the conclusion based on what you said that God exists when a simpler explanation is so obvious.
Someone doing the same things as you, looking at sun, growing fruit and so on. Wrote the bible. Seriously man.
Now I will proceed to convince you to believe in another god named Bob
Bob said water will fall from the sky. (we call it rain)
Bob put fish in the ocean. (wow there are fish in the ocean)
Bob planted trees and plants. I have all kinds of fruits and vegetables to eat.
Well you life just got confusing because now you have two religions. Christianity and Bobism
Is there some non-justification in what I said above? It's 100% true, and I've been dealing with it a long time. When somebody acts that rediculously and keeps pouding us with the same non-sensicle arguments that he continuously and repeatedly uses, yet never backs up after it's been completely shot down, I'm going to call him on it. Don't blame me for not rolling over at such astounding ignorance.Quote:
Originally Posted by Stemis516
Besides, I said I'm pretty much done with the thread. That's not a written-in-stone promise to never post a single thing, that's a declaration of my choice to no longer participate in an argument where my opponent just ignores the counter-points and keeps at the non-sensicle jabbering.
the big bang dosn't contradict that. Matter can be "created" from energyQuote:
Originally Posted by Billionfold
E=Mc2 right. Thats what it's all about.
there was a big ball of enery then Bang it became matter.
Some people would call that energy god.
i think it may have something to do with baptism, i mean, you hold a guy under water until he cant take it anymore, then you bring him back up and give him barely any air and then you thrust him back under, repeatedly.
obviously its gonna cause some brain damage.
none of the baptism's i've been to were like that. just putting some oil on the kid, to ya know. fix all his sin
see well this went from an arguement to a bashing, thats why its pointless to get something into your people's heads
just because some1's justicifaction isnt good enough for you doesnt mean its still justification....for example what u claim to be proof of evolution isnt good enough for me nor the rest of the world, but u dont see me calling u out and bashing you....i still accept the fact that u could be right
Stemis, the only negative force i feel in this thread is you.
As well the evidence for evolution is good enough for the rest of the world. As in every country except the usa it is taught as fact without opposition. Believers in the intelligent design hypothesis is localized to the USA.
so thats ur arguement?? they teach it as fact so it must be true
niiiice
and keep in mind im not the one bashing u for believing a certain way
i was baptized u know and id appreciate it if ud keep it down
you havent?Quote:
Originally Posted by harris7
ive seen it done wit me own three eyes.....errr...two
Well i though i was defending baptisms as not being drowning ceremoniesQuote:
Originally Posted by Stemis516
No that is not my argument it is just a fact.
The arguments/evidence for evolution is very strong and thus the majority of the civilized world (i mean to exclude 3rd world countries who dont come into contact with these things, not religious places or people) thinks of it as fact.
evolution is accepted as fact, it will be accepted as fact until something that explains things better comes along.
i dont know about you, but i got no problem thinking i evolved from monkeys. monkeys are cool, they climb trees and throw poo at people