A path to faith with science

[mfqr]

Many people have raised arguments that, at the time, for whatever reason, you feel that you shouldn't have to respond, because it's "unreasonable" or "unrealistic", or that they've been smoking too much weed.

You're completely right about that. He is also calling us ignorant if we disagree, which is clearly stated in the post you're replying to.

I think the only thing that he has proof of is that there is no valid proof or evidence that God does exist, and that the God that "does" exist is the God told about in the bible. I can't believe that anyone would take this "proof" seriously.

Tell us, natureisawesome, is there a mathematical equation to support the existence of God?

[Hardcore Newbie]

Hardcore Newbie:



I think most or all of the time I stopped answering because I had already responded before and felt I had made my point, and after that it was unreasonable or unneccesary to respond. . As for Imitator's weed induced logic of unprovability, I did answer that, many times. I just didn't answer his whole post, point for point. That was way too long, and I don't expect anyone to do that for me.

If I cared about the argument happening in this thread at this point, I'd go back an rehash all the stuff that, to me, looked valid at the time and didn't get a response. So I guess you're right in the sense that if one isn't putting effort in, one shouldn't expect anybody else to.

[imitator]

You havn't corrected me at all, except this once because you appeared to be defending buddhism . And don't cuss in my thread please.

Oh, never EXCEPT this time eh? Is that way we are phrasing it this time.

And there is a stark difference between pointing out wrongly made statements in regards to something, and defending it. I am defending the truth behind something, not anything that it states. So I am not, actually, defending Buddhism.

Yes you have.

Come on now, get with the program man. You know if you make a statement like this you are going to get asked to prove it.

Prove it. Show me an example.

I understand now that you are not a Buddhist. You were defending buddhism. If someone came in another thread about buddism ,and argued that Christianity made more sense, people would rightly assume he is a Christian. You have stated things as facts numerous times, and I will not back down.

I am not defending Buddhism. If someone made a FACTUAL comment towards buddhism in a negative or positive light, I would not care at all. But when you sprout half truths and flat out lies about something, I will correct you, so that others who may not know dont assume that what you said was true, and end up misinformed.

And again, provide me some proof of something I have stated as an absolute fact?

You cannot make an assertion without evidence. You have made many assertions in this thread. You cannot debate ANYTHING without evidence to back your assertions. Whenever you state a possibility, you assert that as a fact. Otherwise, you cannot state whether is may be possible or not, and you have no way to make any assertion. I base my assertions upon evidence, the evidence I wish you would look to, for if you did it would show evidence of God. Your assertions are groundless.

How can something not be a possibility if you cant prove that its not possible? Isnt that the entire concept behind a possibility, is that its possible? And to make it not a possibility, you have to be able to prove its not possible. Show me the proof. Undeniable, unquestionable proof.

And I have looked at your evidence. I have read almost every link you have provided, and every word you have written. Just because I cant make what you think is a "logical" jump to the conclusion that god exists, doesnt mean that im illogical or wrong or ignorant or anything else. It means that I wasnt able to use "faith" to make the leap. You havent shown any concrete evidence. Evidence that you would be able to take to a scientific gathering and say, hey, this definitively and permanently shows the existance of God. If you had such evidence, you most certainly would not have to explain it to us, as we would already have heard about it.

If you don't like talking to me, or if you don't like what I'm saying, leave. Honestly, I'm tired of bickering with you. I'm tired of side objections being brought up that arn't neccesary for the purpose of this thread. I'm tired of arguing over the same thing also.

I have no problem talking with you when you arent slandering me and lying about what I have said. That has no place in a decent conversation. And if you honestly feel that you cant refrain from doing so, please, tell me so, so that I can bow out now and save us both a big waste of time.

That's so rediculous that doesn't even deserve a response.

Come on now. I have scriptures quoted for you, and a pretty solid bit of logic behind it. And apparently others who want to see your response to this.

You cant just choose to ignore the questions that are too hard for you to handle with a simple link to AiG.

[imitator]

When Imitator uses the word "understand", it really goes beyond the realm of tolerance, into the realm of sympathy for his choices and beliefs, which I have none nor should I.

Let me be the one to tell people what I mean when I say things, mkay?

I state nothing more then for you to understand what they believe in, so that you can know why they do what they do. You dont have to like it, you dont have to agree with it, and you can condemn it if you want... but the key is not to be an ignorant fool who is condemning something that you dont even begin to comprehend.

[imitator]

As for Imitator's weed induced logic of unprovability, I did answer that, many times. I just didn't answer his whole post, point for point. That was way too long, and I don't expect anyone to do that for me.

Take note of that. Your own words. You cant discredit it if you cant disprove it.

Thats the key thing. Now you might want to type up something about how its not up to you to disprove something if I am trying to prove it. But thats the lovely part. I am not trying to prove anything, I am saying what if. And you lack an answer to the what if minus choosing to ignore it, or dismissing it. If I wanted to prove Dreamer theory or anythign else, yes, I would be required to have evidence, and actually prove it. Just the same if you want to disprove something, you have to have evidence to disprove it. And you have none. YOu can play your games and dismiss it and call it whatever you want, but it still remains that you havent disproven it, so by definition, it is a possibility, no matter how far fetched and unlikely it may be.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Imitator, as far as the reality verifiable/unverifiable thing, I'm done with that. I don't think you got my point . "Anything is possible", statement of fact. prove it.

Talking donkeys and snakes.

[imitator]

And don't cuss in my thread please.

One thing about this. I will stop cussing when you stop lying in your posts about things I have not done. You have wrongly attributed countless things to me that I have had to take time to correct you on, with not so much as even an apology for wrongly doing so. If it was an accident or not, if I stated you felt a specific way, or said a specific thing, and I was wrong, I would apologize to you for doing so.

Its the Christian thing to do.

[Hardcore Newbie]

Talking donkeys and snakes.

Just to elaborate...

Anyone who believes in an all powerful being should also believe that "anything is possible". If God wanted it to rain donuts tomorrow, we'd have a tasty surprise. can it rain donuts? Most people would say "no", but if you believe in an all powerful god, and god wanted it to rain donuts, it would happen.

This is what I believe Imitator means when he says "anything is possible"

We have no reason to believe that it would ever rain donuts, but "anything is possible".

[imitator]

I sat here trying to understand what you mean and what your objection is but I don't get it.Please clarify for me.

Meant to respond to this yesterday and got high and forgot.

I mean, why the change in wording for that one spot? Everyone else is listed as a descendant, but not that one. I am just curious why?

The bible is infalible if it is the book of God. So that wasnt a mistake, it was meant, for a reason. I am curious what the reason is.

Why do you doubt everything so much? It's not reasonable, and there's more reason to believe and confirm it was consistantly well recorded than there is any error would be in it. There is thousands and thousands of witnesses to his words and acts.

Because it is foolish to accept something unless you have been given adequate proof to convince you of its truth. Considering that we are talking about an item that is highly contested in regards to its authenticity in the area of actual factual events that happened... Id say that its perfectly acceptable to question things such as that.

And even in the cases of stories passed via the storyteller figure, over time things are changed, meanings are lost or twisted in subtle ways, and more twisted as time goes on. To fully trust and believe in something as a fact that you know yourself to be true, when you have not had the ability to be there to witness it, is to act upon faith. And while I accept some things on "faith" to make day to day life easier, that is not one of them.

[imitator]

It's waiting? Life doesn't come out of nowhere but the proper conditions do, it seems like what you're saying.

It doesnt rain until conditions exist to allow it to, why is this any different for other things?

So yes, it does deny reality.

Actually, considering its hard to look at things on the truely Macro level, we can instead look to the more Micro level of things, and see what Buddhism speaks of.

Everything on this planet goes into everything else, according to Buddhism. A tree is formed because of the rain, and the earth, and the plant seed, and so on and so forth, including sunlight and wind and everythign else. When the tree dies, it goes back into the soil, and then will be used in the existance of other things. Everything goes into one another, hence there is no real start and end, merely a forever moving circle.

And to clarify, this is the position of Buddhism. Not mine. By clarifying this, I am not stating any belief, or fact in regards to this. Merely repeating what Buddhism states, and correcting some misconceptions/untruths you had/have in regards to it.