It's one thing to sit there sayin I'm 'attacking' a certain god, but another to realise my attacks are on those idiot's who allow their own kindred to steal faith, and hope, using charity, by praying on those who HAD faith (in themselves till you lot turned up), Hope (judging by you and your fellow followers, the rest will need it..) and charity (which you lot have clearly stolen from the heart's and mind's of men (and woman) by expecting us to pray to an external diety who's son clearly state's WE ARE. This is why the christian/catholic/protestant god will not answer any christian prayer. Their lot is provided by those they keep in power, those who claim to believe in god, but kill EVERY SINGLE DAY. They invade countries and medicate babies with drug's never tested. They invade and destroy everything they can so YOU cunt's can get a job, note the poor are expected to starve? Correct me if I'm wrong, but in your bible bashin country it is now illegal to feed the homeless? Correct me if I'm wrong, but anyone imprisoned is sterilised? This is the bible's follower's actions, no-one else's, and if you dont agree, you know your charitable status is suddenly null and void.. when your old gran decides to cross the road, it's not faith in god you need, or hope someone will help her, or a charitable mood from someone who knows nothing of what charity now truely represent's, the evil spreading across the land. This is the product of the bible, and I hope that if god exists, he wipes your kind from the anuls of history. Why? Because suddenly you blame it all on man.
When in fact, none of this would be able to take place if we got rid of those who worship the TETRAGRAMMATON, Ie, BADecker.. what are you doing about your books followers commiting murder everyday? Nothing. What are you doing about saving anyone when all you do is sit and wait for my next sentence in the HOPE I'm charitable enough to follow YOUR faith? Your faith is in a book, NOT the god you keep talking about, as proved by the FACT you are bettered by a single man, a human being who knows that when jesus said I AM, he was on his own. If he had anyone that knew what the fuck he was talking about, or cared for anyone else, he'd have used the plural, ie, WE ARE.. you go take a good read of a book that is mathematically perfect with no spelling mistakes, no numerical error's, and tell me that not one of the thousand's of scribes, actually made a mathematical error in said book.
You never thought of that.. all those spelling mistake's, al;l those remix's through the ages, but the maths is retained? I would suggest you take a page out that book, stick it to your forehead, look in the mirror, then say I AM.
For only then will you realise you are not, for I AM.
Edit: S'funny how the devil's greatest trick was convincing the world he does not exist, yet no-one asks for proof of the devil. Because we know he is god. This is the TETRAGRAMMATON of the bible, that very book that is what, 2000 years old? Well, here's a spanner in the works of truth, which as we know shall prevail:
The right's of mithras, claimed by freemasonry to BE freemasonry proves that the characters in the bible are ALL over 64.000 years old, based on one undeniable fact. All freemason passwords are from YOUR book, and have NOT been changed since, lol, god knows when. And if the masons did indeed carry out the rite's of mithras (as is in the book of enoch) then the bible itself must be older than 64.000 years at least.
Evidence? Ask a mason a password.. shall I mention the first artificer in metal's as proof? You know nowt.
Brass is only 2000 years old? HAHHAHA
Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 397. (Read 845809 times)
Look at it this way. We build machines. We build cars, computers, rockets, or simple wheels. The "levers" we use in our machines are found somewhere in nature. All - 100% - of the kinds of levers we use in our machines are being used, and have been used for thousands of years, in nature. So, why would anybody NOT think of nature as a highly complicated and complex machine... since the machines in nature are where we get all of our ideas for the machines we build?
Machines have makers. The machine of the universe has a Maker.
Machines have makers. The machine of the universe has a Maker.
You know how you said in your previous post that you will try to do better with the reasoning? Well, this post gives you a good opportunity to do so.
The machine argument isn't a good argument, and it's worth considering that by using the machine argument you are actually using a kind of inductive reasoning similar to what's employed in the scientific method. You are acting similar to a scientist here in that you are taking a set of observations (i.e. you have observed that machines are made my makers, and since you imply the Universe is also like a machine, you conclude that it, too, has a maker). But, you are acting different from a scientist in that your conclusion is unfalsifiable. There is no possible test or experiment you could conduct that would be able to test your conclusion. So, even though you criticize science due to its inability to comprehensively explain the universe due to the limitations of inductive reasoning, it is you that are committing the egregious error by concluding with an absolute statement that results from inductive reasoning.
This is one example of what I meant earlier when I said that every time you debate you end up defeating your own argument. In this case, you defeat your own argument by condemning the inadequacies of inductive reasoning and then using inductive reasoning yourself to form your conclusion.
The fact that you have a sort of fancy way of saying that you don't believe the evidence makes me feel a bit better.
You see, if someone came up to me and literally proved that the God I have been believing in for years was a complete and total lie, I would feel bad. And I sympathize with all those poor folks who are seeing how they can prove it to themselves that probably, almost for a fact, God exists, when, here for these last many years, they have trained themselves to feel comfortable in life by ignoring God. It pains me that they have pain, same kind of pain I would have if my God were proven false.
So, you are making me feel better by providing them a way so that their pain is relieved some... if they read your post, that is.
Thank you for posting.
It's not that I "don't believe the evidence," but rather it's that there cannot possibly be evidence that proves the existence of God. It is a true statement to say there is no evidence that proves God, but again, this doesn't matter because evidence was never the requirement. Neither the atheist nor the theist should argue against/for the existence of god by citing evidence because neither.
Evidence simply means "that which is apparent," and the scientific method is a sound way to make sense of that sense of that evidence. You can't deny that the scientific method is a good method, but what you need to understand is that the scientific method simply has limitations, and it's only concerned about things that are observable. This isn't bad at all, and in fact in this regard the scientific method is a perfect method. There is absolutely nothing about it that can be improved. It's scope simply isn't intended to explore something as comprehensive as God, and so it can't, nor does it try.
My advice is to appreciate science for what it is and all the amazing technologies it brings us, as well as a better understanding of specific events and processes as they unfold in the Universe. Religion contributes nothing in the way of technological development and an understanding of specific physical, chemical, and biological processes whereas science is perfectly suited for the task.
Look at it this way. We build machines. We build cars, computers, rockets, or simple wheels. The "levers" we use in our machines are found somewhere in nature. All - 100% - of the kinds of levers we use in our machines are being used, and have been used for thousands of years, in nature. So, why would anybody NOT think of nature as a highly complicated and complex machine... since the machines in nature are where we get all of our ideas for the machines we build?
Machines have makers. The machine of the universe has a Maker.
Machines have makers. The machine of the universe has a Maker.
You know how you said in your previous post that you will try to do better with the reasoning? Well, this post gives you a good opportunity to do so.
The machine argument isn't a good argument, and it's worth considering that by using the machine argument you are actually using a kind of inductive reasoning similar to what's employed in the scientific method. You are acting similar to a scientist here in that you are taking a set of observations (i.e. you have observed that machines are made my makers, and since you imply the Universe is also like a machine, you conclude that it, too, has a maker). But, you are acting different from a scientist in that your conclusion is unfalsifiable. There is no possible test or experiment you could conduct that would be able to test your conclusion. So, even though you criticize science due to its inability to comprehensively explain the universe due to the limitations of inductive reasoning, it is you that are committing the egregious error by concluding with an absolute statement that results from inductive reasoning.
This is one example of what I meant earlier when I said that every time you debate you end up defeating your own argument. In this case, you defeat your own argument by condemning the inadequacies of inductive reasoning and then using inductive reasoning yourself to form your conclusion.
The fact that you have a sort of fancy way of saying that you don't believe the evidence makes me feel a bit better.
You see, if someone came up to me and literally proved that the God I have been believing in for years was a complete and total lie, I would feel bad. And I sympathize with all those poor folks who are seeing how they can prove it to themselves that probably, almost for a fact, God exists, when, here for these last many years, they have trained themselves to feel comfortable in life by ignoring God. It pains me that they have pain, same kind of pain I would have if my God were proven false.
So, you are making me feel better by providing them a way so that their pain is relieved some... if they read your post, that is.
Thank you for posting.
This entire thread is essentially a bunch of irrelevant arguments attacking opposing-but-equally-irrelevant arguments. Everyone here is asserting a position based upon evidence, and accordingly everyone is having the wrong discussion. Evidence shouldn't even be introduced except as corollary support for conceptual proof.
The joint, although I agree with what you say, I must take exception to your generalization.Actually, I have asserted the position that God transcends evidence based on pure reason. These quotes are not exact but are close enough:
aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml
first case....... chessplaying ghosts
Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.first case....... chessplaying ghosts
Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations?
I showed that the survival hypothesis is the simplest explanation for these events; that is a separate conversation, but maybe it is important to have it in this thread because it could elucidate the nature of life and God.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9491770
Fair enough
This is a much more appropriate context for the topic of this debate. Look at it this way. We build machines. We build cars, computers, rockets, or simple wheels. The "levers" we use in our machines are found somewhere in nature. All - 100% - of the kinds of levers we use in our machines are being used, and have been used for thousands of years, in nature. So, why would anybody NOT think of nature as a highly complicated and complex machine... since the machines in nature are where we get all of our ideas for the machines we build?
Machines have makers. The machine of the universe has a Maker.
Machines have makers. The machine of the universe has a Maker.
You know how you said in your previous post that you will try to do better with the reasoning? Well, this post gives you a good opportunity to do so.
The machine argument isn't a good argument, and it's worth considering that by using the machine argument you are actually using a kind of inductive reasoning similar to what's employed in the scientific method. You are acting similar to a scientist here in that you are taking a set of observations (i.e. you have observed that machines are made my makers, and since you imply the Universe is also like a machine, you conclude that it, too, has a maker). But, you are acting different from a scientist in that your conclusion is unfalsifiable. There is no possible test or experiment you could conduct that would be able to test your conclusion. So, even though you criticize science due to its inability to comprehensively explain the universe due to the limitations of inductive reasoning, it is you that are committing the egregious error by concluding with an absolute statement that results from inductive reasoning.
This is one example of what I meant earlier when I said that every time you debate you end up defeating your own argument. In this case, you defeat your own argument by condemning the inadequacies of inductive reasoning and then using inductive reasoning yourself to form your conclusion.
This entire thread is essentially a bunch of irrelevant arguments attacking opposing-but-equally-irrelevant arguments. Everyone here is asserting a position based upon evidence, and accordingly everyone is having the wrong discussion. Evidence shouldn't even be introduced except as corollary support for conceptual proof.
The joint, although I agree with what you say, I must take exception to your generalization.Actually, I have asserted the position that God transcends evidence based on pure reason. These quotes are not exact but are close enough:
aeces.info/Top40/top40-main.shtml
first case....... chessplaying ghosts
Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.first case....... chessplaying ghosts
Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations?
I showed that the survival hypothesis is the simplest explanation for these events; that is a separate conversation, but maybe it is important to have it in this thread because it could elucidate the nature of life and God.
https://bitcointalksearch.org/topic/m.9491770
Look at it this way. We build machines. We build cars, computers, rockets, or simple wheels. The "levers" we use in our machines are found somewhere in nature. All - 100% - of the kinds of levers we use in our machines are being used, and have been used for thousands of years, in nature. So, why would anybody NOT think of nature as a highly complicated and complex machine... since the machines in nature are where we get all of our ideas for the machines we build?
Machines have makers. The machine of the universe has a Maker.
Machines have makers. The machine of the universe has a Maker.
Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..
Now, relax, Decky. The whole idea of the "Book" was to rescue those who are sick in the head. They are being rescued, even though they may not become such perfect people that they abide by your high quality standards of living.
You, on the other hand, who do such absolutely GOOD things in life, are still not quite the image of perfection necessary to survive. So, you are being rejected because you trust in your own goodness, which isn't quite good enough. The Book believers are simply trusting in the perfection of Jesus, the thing that saves them, even though they have not been able to cast off as much of their bad qualities as you have yours.
As far as proof for the existence of God, consider this. The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U - is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.
Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.
If nature had put life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.
Nothing conclusively proves or disproves God. But my above info offers a universe full of evidence more in favor of God than against Him - and in favor of Him over anything else.
But why do you hate God so much? He is trying to save you from your own self-destruction. Now if it were salvation so that He could torture you, I would fight Him, too. But it isn't. It is salvation to a far better life than you or I could ever imagine for ourselves. Your call, though. I, certainly, wouldn't attempt to take your freedom from you. God doesn't even do that.
There is no evidence for a god, repeating it a lot doesn't make it true.
It doesn't matter that there is no evidence for God because there cannot possibly be any. Evidence lends to the category of a posteriori knowledge which is by definition knowledge based upon evidence/experience.
Instead, God must be debated in terms of a priori knowledge which is knowledge that is independent of evidence/experience.
This entire thread is essentially a bunch of irrelevant arguments attacking opposing-but-equally-irrelevant arguments. Everyone here is asserting a position based upon evidence, and accordingly everyone is having the wrong discussion. Evidence shouldn't even be introduced except as corollary support for conceptual proof.
Basically, what I'm trying to get across is that it is not a good position for an atheist to take to claim that there is no evidence to prove God. Rather, it's one of the worst because the argument is totally inapplicable to the context of the debate even though the argument itself posits a correct assertion, i.e. there is no evidence to prove God exists. That's why the arguments of the FSM and teapot and otherwise continue to thrive -- it's true there is no evidence to prove God's existence, but it completely doesn't matter.
Yes, but. Through the things written in this thread, some people are going to become stronger believers in God. Hopefully some others will be saved. That makes this thread of ultimate importance.
You should probably be more concerned about the truthfulness of the information that leads a person to believe one way or another. If some people become stronger believers in God as a result of this thread, I can tell you that it wasn't because you provided them good reason to do so. Your arguments and reasoning are horrific.
I'm sorry that it is detracting from your personal faith. But then again, you sound like you didn't have much faith in the first place... if any. But there are others who have expressed that they are in the faith, even though they may not post a lot here.
However, thanks for the tip. I will try to do better. There isn't much better evidence for God than the machine-like quality of the universe. Machines have makers.
Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..
Now, relax, Decky. The whole idea of the "Book" was to rescue those who are sick in the head. They are being rescued, even though they may not become such perfect people that they abide by your high quality standards of living.
You, on the other hand, who do such absolutely GOOD things in life, are still not quite the image of perfection necessary to survive. So, you are being rejected because you trust in your own goodness, which isn't quite good enough. The Book believers are simply trusting in the perfection of Jesus, the thing that saves them, even though they have not been able to cast off as much of their bad qualities as you have yours.
As far as proof for the existence of God, consider this. The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U - is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.
Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.
If nature had put life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.
Nothing conclusively proves or disproves God. But my above info offers a universe full of evidence more in favor of God than against Him - and in favor of Him over anything else.
But why do you hate God so much? He is trying to save you from your own self-destruction. Now if it were salvation so that He could torture you, I would fight Him, too. But it isn't. It is salvation to a far better life than you or I could ever imagine for ourselves. Your call, though. I, certainly, wouldn't attempt to take your freedom from you. God doesn't even do that.
There is no evidence for a god, repeating it a lot doesn't make it true.
It doesn't matter that there is no evidence for God because there cannot possibly be any. Evidence lends to the category of a posteriori knowledge which is by definition knowledge based upon evidence/experience.
Instead, God must be debated in terms of a priori knowledge which is knowledge that is independent of evidence/experience.
This entire thread is essentially a bunch of irrelevant arguments attacking opposing-but-equally-irrelevant arguments. Everyone here is asserting a position based upon evidence, and accordingly everyone is having the wrong discussion. Evidence shouldn't even be introduced except as corollary support for conceptual proof.
Basically, what I'm trying to get across is that it is not a good position for an atheist to take to claim that there is no evidence to prove God. Rather, it's one of the worst because the argument is totally inapplicable to the context of the debate even though the argument itself posits a correct assertion, i.e. there is no evidence to prove God exists. That's why the arguments of the FSM and teapot and otherwise continue to thrive -- it's true there is no evidence to prove God's existence, but it completely doesn't matter.
Yes, but. Through the things written in this thread, some people are going to become stronger believers in God. Hopefully some others will be saved. That makes this thread of ultimate importance.
You should probably be more concerned about the truthfulness of the information that leads a person to believe one way or another. If some people become stronger believers in God as a result of this thread, I can tell you that it wasn't because you provided them good reason to do so. Your arguments and reasoning are horrific.
Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..
Now, relax, Decky. The whole idea of the "Book" was to rescue those who are sick in the head. They are being rescued, even though they may not become such perfect people that they abide by your high quality standards of living.
You, on the other hand, who do such absolutely GOOD things in life, are still not quite the image of perfection necessary to survive. So, you are being rejected because you trust in your own goodness, which isn't quite good enough. The Book believers are simply trusting in the perfection of Jesus, the thing that saves them, even though they have not been able to cast off as much of their bad qualities as you have yours.
As far as proof for the existence of God, consider this. The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U - is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.
Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.
If nature had put life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.
Nothing conclusively proves or disproves God. But my above info offers a universe full of evidence more in favor of God than against Him - and in favor of Him over anything else.
But why do you hate God so much? He is trying to save you from your own self-destruction. Now if it were salvation so that He could torture you, I would fight Him, too. But it isn't. It is salvation to a far better life than you or I could ever imagine for ourselves. Your call, though. I, certainly, wouldn't attempt to take your freedom from you. God doesn't even do that.
There is no evidence for a god, repeating it a lot doesn't make it true.
It doesn't matter that there is no evidence for God because there cannot possibly be any. Evidence lends to the category of a posteriori knowledge which is by definition knowledge based upon evidence/experience.
Instead, God must be debated in terms of a priori knowledge which is knowledge that is independent of evidence/experience.
This entire thread is essentially a bunch of irrelevant arguments attacking opposing-but-equally-irrelevant arguments. Everyone here is asserting a position based upon evidence, and accordingly everyone is having the wrong discussion. Evidence shouldn't even be introduced except as corollary support for conceptual proof.
Basically, what I'm trying to get across is that it is not a good position for an atheist to take to claim that there is no evidence to prove God. Rather, it's one of the worst because the argument is totally inapplicable to the context of the debate even though the argument itself posits a correct assertion, i.e. there is no evidence to prove God exists. That's why the arguments of the FSM and teapot and otherwise continue to thrive -- it's true there is no evidence to prove God's existence, but it completely doesn't matter.
Yes, but. Through the things written in this thread, some people are going to become stronger believers in God. Hopefully some others will be saved. That makes this thread of ultimate importance.
EDIT: This thread isn't about proving the Christian God, necessarily. The fact that some people can't get away from the idea of a FSM or teapot, simply shows how ingrained in their lives God is!
Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..
Now, relax, Decky. The whole idea of the "Book" was to rescue those who are sick in the head. They are being rescued, even though they may not become such perfect people that they abide by your high quality standards of living.
You, on the other hand, who do such absolutely GOOD things in life, are still not quite the image of perfection necessary to survive. So, you are being rejected because you trust in your own goodness, which isn't quite good enough. The Book believers are simply trusting in the perfection of Jesus, the thing that saves them, even though they have not been able to cast off as much of their bad qualities as you have yours.
As far as proof for the existence of God, consider this. The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U - is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.
Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.
If nature had put life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.
Nothing conclusively proves or disproves God. But my above info offers a universe full of evidence more in favor of God than against Him - and in favor of Him over anything else.
But why do you hate God so much? He is trying to save you from your own self-destruction. Now if it were salvation so that He could torture you, I would fight Him, too. But it isn't. It is salvation to a far better life than you or I could ever imagine for ourselves. Your call, though. I, certainly, wouldn't attempt to take your freedom from you. God doesn't even do that.
There is no evidence for a god, repeating it a lot doesn't make it true.
It doesn't matter that there is no evidence for God because there cannot possibly be any. Evidence lends to the category of a posteriori knowledge which is by definition knowledge based upon evidence/experience.
Instead, God must be debated in terms of a priori knowledge which is knowledge that is independent of evidence/experience.
This entire thread is essentially a bunch of irrelevant arguments attacking opposing-but-equally-irrelevant arguments. Everyone here is asserting a position based upon evidence, and accordingly everyone is having the wrong discussion. Evidence shouldn't even be introduced except as corollary support for conceptual proof.
Basically, what I'm trying to get across is that it is not a good position for an atheist to take to claim that there is no evidence to prove God. Rather, it's one of the worst because the argument is totally inapplicable to the context of the debate even though the argument itself posits a correct assertion, i.e. there is no evidence to prove God exists. That's why the arguments of the FSM and teapot and otherwise continue to thrive -- it's true there is no evidence to prove God's existence, but it completely doesn't matter.
Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..
Now, relax, Decky. The whole idea of the "Book" was to rescue those who are sick in the head. They are being rescued, even though they may not become such perfect people that they abide by your high quality standards of living.
You, on the other hand, who do such absolutely GOOD things in life, are still not quite the image of perfection necessary to survive. So, you are being rejected because you trust in your own goodness, which isn't quite good enough. The Book believers are simply trusting in the perfection of Jesus, the thing that saves them, even though they have not been able to cast off as much of their bad qualities as you have yours.
As far as proof for the existence of God, consider this. The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U - is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.
Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.
If nature had put life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.
Nothing conclusively proves or disproves God. But my above info offers a universe full of evidence more in favor of God than against Him - and in favor of Him over anything else.
But why do you hate God so much? He is trying to save you from your own self-destruction. Now if it were salvation so that He could torture you, I would fight Him, too. But it isn't. It is salvation to a far better life than you or I could ever imagine for ourselves. Your call, though. I, certainly, wouldn't attempt to take your freedom from you. God doesn't even do that.
There is no evidence for a god, repeating it a lot doesn't make it true.
Don't you see? The thing that you call "a high stakes game" is God giving us the essence of God.
He can't coerce God any more than you or I can. That's why He doesn't take our freedom to choose away from us, but rather, He upholds it. Yet He offers us as much evidence for Himself as He can, without at the same time removing our freedom to choose as would a god - as He, Himself, has the freedom to choose.
I mean, you can't get much fairer than that.
Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..
Now, relax, Decky. The whole idea of the "Book" was to rescue those who are sick in the head. They are being rescued, even though they may not become such perfect people that they abide by your high quality standards of living.
You, on the other hand, who do such absolutely GOOD things in life, are still not quite the image of perfection necessary to survive. So, you are being rejected because you trust in your own goodness, which isn't quite good enough. The Book believers are simply trusting in the perfection of Jesus, the thing that saves them, even though they have not been able to cast off as much of their bad qualities as you have yours.
As far as proof for the existence of God, consider this. The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U - is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.
Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.
If nature had put life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.
Nothing conclusively proves or disproves God. But my above info offers a universe full of evidence more in favor of God than against Him - and in favor of Him over anything else.
But why do you hate God so much? He is trying to save you from your own self-destruction. Now if it were salvation so that He could torture you, I would fight Him, too. But it isn't. It is salvation to a far better life than you or I could ever imagine for ourselves. Your call, though. I, certainly, wouldn't attempt to take your freedom from you. God doesn't even do that.
There is no evidence for a god, repeating it a lot doesn't make it true.
Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..
Now, relax, Decky. The whole idea of the "Book" was to rescue those who are sick in the head. They are being rescued, even though they may not become such perfect people that they abide by your high quality standards of living.
You, on the other hand, who do such absolutely GOOD things in life, are still not quite the image of perfection necessary to survive. So, you are being rejected because you trust in your own goodness, which isn't quite good enough. The Book believers are simply trusting in the perfection of Jesus, the thing that saves them, even though they have not been able to cast off as much of their bad qualities as you have yours.
As far as proof for the existence of God, consider this. The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U - is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.
Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.
If nature had put life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.
Nothing conclusively proves or disproves God. But my above info offers a universe full of evidence more in favor of God than against Him - and in favor of Him over anything else.
But why do you hate God so much? He is trying to save you from your own self-destruction. Now if it were salvation so that He could torture you, I would fight Him, too. But it isn't. It is salvation to a far better life than you or I could ever imagine for ourselves. Your call, though. I, certainly, wouldn't attempt to take your freedom from you. God doesn't even do that.
For the 100th time, a complex universe does not prove a god. Your god is fucked if he doesn't care about what you actually do and only if you believe in his son.
Hey cooldgamer, not to detract from your point, but I was wondering what you think about evidence in favor of correspondence with the dead, as in my above post. Maybe it could be an interesting discussion.
Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..
Now, relax, Decky. The whole idea of the "Book" was to rescue those who are sick in the head. They are being rescued, even though they may not become such perfect people that they abide by your high quality standards of living.
You, on the other hand, who do such absolutely GOOD things in life, are still not quite the image of perfection necessary to survive. So, you are being rejected because you trust in your own goodness, which isn't quite good enough. The Book believers are simply trusting in the perfection of Jesus, the thing that saves them, even though they have not been able to cast off as much of their bad qualities as you have yours.
As far as proof for the existence of God, consider this. The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U - is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.
Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.
If nature had put life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.
first case....... chessplaying ghosts
Yes. Correspondence with the dead proven by Prof. Eisenbeiss.Who from the non-god position will correlate the simplest explanation with the observations?
You have a point there. Even if there were a real other party (the dead person) playing, maybe it was an alien or demon using mind control.
Those explanations are needlessly complicated. The simplest explanation is that the personality of the deceased person has persisted and is able to communicate the information that was receievd.
I disagree. It is not the simplest explanation as it invokes additional, unnecessary assumptions. Specifically, in addition to the assumption that the 'psychic' is telling the truth, it introduces the assumption that we should ignore all of the hundreds of times that people have claimed to perform such "supernatural" abilities but have failed or have conclusively been found to be liars. Since we do have evidence that others who have made similar claims have either failed to prove their claims or have been proven outright liars, we only need to introduce one assumption to reach a conclusion, i.e. that the supposed "psychic" is a liar.
Hey the joint, this is my reply to you
A working explanation must be powerful enough to explain all of the observations (Salient Points) as they are collateral assumptions. It is not enough that an explanation is simple, it must also account for the facts.
I'm not sure what you're getting at here. All of that reinforces exactly what I said. The simplest explanation that explains all of the facts without introducing additional unverifiable assumptions is that he is a liar. Claiming otherwise introduces additional 'facts' that can't be accounted for, i.e. assumptions.
The assumption that he is a liar is placed in doubt when you consider the Salient Points.
For example, if you assume he is a liar then you are not only proposing a highly elaborate fraud lasting almost 8 years, but you are also proposing that the fraudster would be satisfied receiving no compensation for his work and meticulous research (Salient Point #1). Also, you would be proposing that Salient Point #2 is explained by another party assisting the fraudster, so now you are proposing a conspiracy. To explain Salient Point #4 you would be proposing that the information from the dead chess-player's children was acquired by the aforementioned fraud-ring.
So to summarize, I will quote from the AECES summary of the case:
The combination of the skill of the game plus the correct esoteric data vastly diminishes the potential for explaining the information by fraud as this is likely to have required major collaboration from numerous highly respected people.
So in fact the assumption that Rollans is a liar will produce many collateral assumptions, thus it is far from a simple explanation.
Hey the joint, I hope that you see what I am getting at here, and hopefully you agree that the assumptions that Rollans is a liar is very far from a simple explanation of the evidence.
Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..
Now, relax, Decky. The whole idea of the "Book" was to rescue those who are sick in the head. They are being rescued, even though they may not become such perfect people that they abide by your high quality standards of living.
You, on the other hand, who do such absolutely GOOD things in life, are still not quite the image of perfection necessary to survive. So, you are being rejected because you trust in your own goodness, which isn't quite good enough. The Book believers are simply trusting in the perfection of Jesus, the thing that saves them, even though they have not been able to cast off as much of their bad qualities as you have yours.
As far as proof for the existence of God, consider this. The video, "Molecular Machinery of Life" - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ4N0iSeR8U - is only one of many videos that visually depict the operations that go on inside of cells. The whole operation of life is so "machinery" oriented, and it is so extremely complex, that the only way it could have come into existence is if it had been designed and built.
Google or Youtube search "video of cellular machinery," or any other words along these lines.
If nature had put life together by accident, it would have taken untold numbers of times the projected age of the universe to accomplish it.
Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)
With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.
With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.
I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context. But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy. It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.
Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine.
It's not fine because god is not a 'creature.' Again, the problem with the analogy is that it tries to back a theist into a corner that doesn't exist by assuming that empiricism is the only means by which you can prove the existence of God when what we're really exploring is a totally abstract concept. It simply doesn't work. Imagine if I likened, for example, the abstract laws of mathematics to a "mythical creature" or the FSM or a space teapot. Would you let me get away with such an analogy?
FSM or the 'Teapot' aren't creatures either. They're gods. Analogy seems find to me.
So you're telling me the FSM is not made of spaghetti, can't fly, and is not a monster, all of which would invoke conditionality and therefore render it impossible of being a monotheistic god? And when Richard Dawkins asks us to imagine the assertion of a teapot existing in some unknown extra-planetary orbit that he's talking about an abstract teapot around some abstract orbit?
The ways in which we are asked to consider the FSM and teapot are irrelevant to the debate about the existence of God. They aren't asserted to be some conditional form, like Jesus, that an omnipotent God would be able to assume if it chose. The FSM and teapot would make better analogies for Jesus than God.
So yes, it's a bad analogy. It's a dead argument before it even gets off the ground. You're better off just arguing against the assertion of what God actually is according to whoever it is you're arguing against.
Ah, are you then referring to the existence of "god" vs. the existence of "God?" The former being a concept and the latter being a specific deity, such as the Christian or Muslim or what-have-you? I'm not sure it matters anyway, but if you're referring to the second, the analogy is a match.
Not quite. You are correct that I'm differentiating between God and god, but the distinction I'm making isn't the same as you suggest.
Specifically, I'm making the following points:
1) There is a difference between polytheistic and monotheistic gods.
2) There is a different standard of proof between polytheistic and monotheistic gods. Specifically, empirical proof is required for a polytheistic god, but not for a monotheistic one. Instead, conceptual proof based upon a priori knowledge is required for a monotheistic god; this is not required for a polytheistic god.
3) The FSM and the teapot constitute invalid counterarguments to the existence of a monotheistic god because they ask the opponent for information that is irrelevant and unnecessary to the existence of a monotheistic god, i.e. they ask for empirical evidence when empirical evidence is in no way required to prove a monotheistic god.
4) Any counterargument to the existence of a monotheistic god must instead attempt to demonstrate why a monotheistic god is a logical impossibility based upon a priori knowledge. I have never seen a sound argument of this type before.
Drivel, fuckin drivel.. I've already provided the proof COUNTLESS times, you, have quoted your book, which, by admission of many of it's reader's, is dangerous. It's not the book in itself that is dangerous, it's the games played by it's followers (you), who are killing the planet in HIS name, be that what you want. You are as guilty of bombing what-ever country as you are for shooting kids in school, for it's the only excuse you mind fucks can come out with in order to excuse yourself from the blame you place, not on everyone else, but on YOUR CHOICE OF god, in his name.. you know nowt but a sick twisted book. Keep it..
Jump to: