Let's stick to the basics, ok? Your basic belief based on the bible.
That's not basic; it is a presumption as plain as night and day. I am more familiar with my beliefs than you are. Answer my post. 
Topic: Scientific proof that God exists? - page 446. (Read 845654 times)
If I am wrong, tell me where you fund your imagination? 
I don't need an imagination when I have the knowledge that a man should know everything.
That knowledge and curiosity has led me to the word of God. I did it by avoiding presumptions.
It really matters not which texts I find authoritative; I try to read them all and judge for myself, in wisdom.
How is it any different for you? You don't think a man should know everything?
Let's stick to the basics, ok? Your basic belief based on the bible.
Your god comes from a 2,000 year old book written by stoned people. That's common knowledge.
Do you have any proof that your god has given you different instructions within the last two millennium? Post a link!
Why do you refer to it as "texts that you find authoritative"? We all know there is only one place you get all you knowledge from. Your wall has no cornerstone!
If I am wrong, tell me where you fund your imagination?
I don't need an imagination when I have the knowledge that a man should know everything.
That knowledge and curiosity has led me to the word of God. I did it by avoiding presumptions.
It really matters not which texts I find authoritative; I try to read them all and judge for myself, in wisdom.
How is it any different for you? You don't think a man should know everything?
Your god didn't say that.
Oh, but he did! You will deny God's word? You will deny that a man should know everything? On what basis?A 2,000 year old book written by stoners did. You are gullible and took it as truth.
Prove it.
I don't need to prove it anymore than I need to prove the easter bunny told me to post here.
You are the one making the outrageous statement that an imaginary being spoke to you.
You prove it, otherwise it's not true. It's common knowledge you cult members get your words from a 2,000 year old book. If I am wrong, tell me where you fund your imagination?
Your god didn't say that.
Oh, but he did! You will deny God's word? You will deny that a man should know everything? On what basis?A 2,000 year old book written by stoners did. You are gullible and took it as truth.
Prove it.
...
OK, so do you understand Spencer's point now? Are we in agreement on that immensely valid agnostic treatise?
"that the beliefs which Science has forced upon Religion, have been intrinsically more religious than those which they supplanted."
They will quote 2,000 year old books written by stoners, but no actual proof.
God says,
"Read it all so that you can judge in wisdom"!
Your god didn't say that.
A 2,000 year old book written by stoners did. You are gullible and took it as truth.
God is not merely a physical being that can be evaluated and tested upon. The scientific method fails when trying to prove the existence of God because he's clearly not a physical being
dead sea scrolls right. 
or something along those lines as proof.
or something along those lines as proof.
What 2 people say =/= peer reviewed evidence. Neither of those are evidence for a god either, you're just using the god of the gaps.
Try using an argument that doesn't rely on the notion of fallacy.
You would also do well to understand what Spencer is saying.
Quote from: Smithsonian Mag
it is possible that someone created something Stegosaurus-like during the past few years as a joke.
Not possible based on overwhelming evidence.This article has discredited itself and shown its prejudice.
Even assuming the carving wasn't added recently, the drawing could have been something else. No fossils have been found indicating that dinosaurs were around during that time period. A carving doesn't prove anything
They will quote 2,000 year old books written by stoners, but no actual proof.
God says,
"Read it all so that you can judge in wisdom"!
What 2 people say =/= peer reviewed evidence. Neither of those are evidence for a god either, you're just using the god of the gaps.
Try using an argument that doesn't rely on the notion of fallacy.
You would also do well to understand what Spencer is saying.
Quote from: Smithsonian Mag
it is possible that someone created something Stegosaurus-like during the past few years as a joke.
Not possible based on overwhelming evidence; 6 reasons were given on bible.ca.This article has discredited itself and shown its prejudice.
Fortunately, there is healthy discussion in the comments section; all the comments are great without exception; I really liked this rebuttal for example.
3 pieces of hard evidence for skeptics to chew on:
In 2004, he was called "the most famous atheist of the last half-century".
He is one of the most significant logicians in history, and his theorem is one of the most extraordinary results in mathematics, or in any intellectual field in the last century.
What 2 people say =/= peer reviewed evidence. Neither of those are evidence for a god either, you're just using the god of the gaps.In 2004, he was called "the most famous atheist of the last half-century".
Quote from: Antony Flew
My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms."
SourceHe is one of the most significant logicians in history, and his theorem is one of the most extraordinary results in mathematics, or in any intellectual field in the last century.
Quote from: Kurt Gödel
I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical.
The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].
The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].
Can skeptics explain this ancient carving of a stegosaurus? The simplest explanation is that the sculptor either saw or remembered such a creature.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm
Skeptics say that evolution is falsified with the co-occurrence of men and dinosaurs
http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/stegosaurus-rhinoceros-or-hoax-40387948/?no-ist http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm
Skeptics say that evolution is falsified with the co-occurrence of men and dinosaurs
So you are saying the Tooth Fairy exists because we can't prove he/she doesn't? The only reason you don't believe in a tooth fairy is because your parents stopped talking about him as you got older. Opposite with your gods - they kept the lie alive because they were brainwashed. 
How can you guess at what I am saying if you haven't read Spencer?
I have intelligence.
Well, you have missed my argument, and Spencer's too.
Science, however, like Religion, has but very incompletely fulfilled its office. As Religion has fallen short of its function in so far as it has been irreligious; so has Science fallen short of its function in so far as it has been unscientific.
That which has all along been an unscientific characteristic of Science, has all along been a part-cause of its conflict with Religion.
So you are saying the Tooth Fairy exists because we can't prove he/she doesn't? The only reason you don't believe in a tooth fairy is because your parents stopped talking about him as you got older. Opposite with your gods - they kept the lie alive because they were brainwashed.
How can you guess at what I am saying if you haven't read Spencer?
I have intelligence.
So you are saying the Tooth Fairy exists because we can't prove he/she doesn't? The only reason you don't believe in a tooth fairy is because your parents stopped talking about him as you got older. Opposite with your gods - they kept the lie alive because they were brainwashed.
How can you guess at what I am saying if you haven't read Spencer?
When the presiding spirits which Kepler conceived were set aside, and the force of gravitation put in their places; the change was really the abolition of an imaginable agency, and the substitution of an unimaginable one.
Basically you want us to "chew" in negative evidence.
You have absolute no evidence whatsoever God exists, what you have is statements that we don't know some elements. Not knowing doesn't mean "God did it".
You have absolute no evidence whatsoever God exists, what you have is statements that we don't know some elements. Not knowing doesn't mean "God did it".
After criticism has abolished Religion's arguments, there has still remained with it the indestructible consciousness of a truth which, however faulty the mode in which it had been expressed, is yet a truth beyond cavil.
Hence the most abstract conception, to which Science is slowly approaching, is one that merges into the inconceivable or unthinkable, by the dropping of all concrete elements of thought. And so is justified the assertion that the beliefs which Science has forced upon Religion, have been intrinsically more religious than those which they supplanted.
It is impossible to avoid making the assumption of self-existence somewhere; and whether that assumption be made nakedly or under complicated disguises, it is equally vicious, equally unthinkable. Be it a fragment of matter, or some fancied potential form of matter, or some more remote and still less imaginable mode of being, our conception of its self-existence can be framed only by joining with it the notion of unlimited duration through past time. And as unlimited duration is inconceivable, all those formal ideas into which it enters are inconceivable.
Quotes from a famous agnostic treatise
So you are saying the Tooth Fairy exists because we can't prove he/she doesn't? The only reason you don't believe in a tooth fairy is because your parents stopped talking about him as you got older. Opposite with your gods - they kept the lie alive because they were brainwashed.
Basically you want us to "chew" in negative evidence.
You have absolute no evidence whatsoever God exists, what you have is statements that we don't know some elements. Not knowing doesn't mean "God did it".
You have absolute no evidence whatsoever God exists, what you have is statements that we don't know some elements. Not knowing doesn't mean "God did it".
After criticism has abolished Religion's arguments, there has still remained with it the indestructible consciousness of a truth which, however faulty the mode in which it had been expressed, is yet a truth beyond cavil.
And causes more and more abstract, are of necessity causes less and less conceivable; since the formation of an abstract conception involves the dropping of certain concrete elements of thought.
Hence the most abstract conception, to which Science is slowly approaching, is one that merges into the inconceivable or unthinkable, by the dropping of all concrete elements of thought. And so is justified the assertion that the beliefs which Science has forced upon Religion, have been intrinsically more religious than those which they supplanted.
It is impossible to avoid making the assumption of self-existence somewhere; and whether that assumption be made nakedly or under complicated disguises, it is equally vicious, equally unthinkable. Be it a fragment of matter, or some fancied potential form of matter, or some more remote and still less imaginable mode of being, our conception of its self-existence can be framed only by joining with it the notion of unlimited duration through past time. And as unlimited duration is inconceivable, all those formal ideas into which it enters are inconceivable.
Quotes from a famous agnostic treatise
Basically you want us to "chew" in negative evidence.
You have absolute no evidence whatsoever God exists, what you have is statements that we don't know some elements. Not knowing doesn't mean "God did it".
In other more simple words: Pointing the others wrong doesn't make you right.
You have absolute no evidence whatsoever God exists, what you have is statements that we don't know some elements. Not knowing doesn't mean "God did it".
In other more simple words: Pointing the others wrong doesn't make you right.
3 pieces of hard evidence for skeptics to chew on:
In 2004, he was called "the most famous atheist of the last half-century".
He is one of the most significant logicians in history, and his theorem is one of the most extraordinary results in mathematics, or in any intellectual field in the last century.
Can skeptics explain this ancient carving of a stegosaurus? The simplest explanation is that the sculptor either saw or remembered such a creature.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm
Skeptics say that evolution is falsified with the co-occurrence of men and dinosaurs
In 2004, he was called "the most famous atheist of the last half-century".
Quote from: Antony Flew
My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species ... [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms."
SourceHe is one of the most significant logicians in history, and his theorem is one of the most extraordinary results in mathematics, or in any intellectual field in the last century.
Quote from: Kurt Gödel
I don’t think the brain came in the Darwinian manner. In fact, it is disprovable. Simple mechanism can’t yield the brain. I think the basic elements of the universe are simple. Life force is a primitive element of the universe and it obeys certain laws of action. These laws are not simple, and they are not mechanical.
The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].
Source 1, Source 2The formation in geological time of the human body by the laws of physics (or any other laws of similar nature), starting from a random distribution of elementary particles and the field is as unlikely as the separation of the atmosphere into its components. The complexity of the living things has to be present within the material [from which they are derived] or in the laws [governing their formation].
Can skeptics explain this ancient carving of a stegosaurus? The simplest explanation is that the sculptor either saw or remembered such a creature.
http://www.bible.ca/tracks/tracks-cambodia.htm
Skeptics say that evolution is falsified with the co-occurrence of men and dinosaurs
Jump to: