[phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1091: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1091: Trying to access array offset on null [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Trying to access array offset on null [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Undefined array key 0 [phpBB Debug] PHP Warning: in file [ROOT]/viewtopic.php on line 1098: Trying to access array offset on null Is Believing In God...? - Page 12 - Conquer Club
neanderpaul14 wrote:Well bright enough not to believe in a 2000 year old story book
Oh you're one of those atheists... the kind who grew up Christian and eventually decided that you were either a fundamentalist or an anti-theist. So you pick a side and start hating. Am I wrong? I'm pretty sure I've said nothing about Christianity in particular in this conversation.
neanderpaul14 wrote:So now you believe in leprechauns too??
If the first cause was somehow a leprechaun... but that is very, very, very, very unlikely.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
john9blue wrote:
If the first cause was somehow a leprechaun... but that is very, very, very, very unlikely.
The first cause thing has allways confused me. If evrything needs something to make it happen, than what started the whole damn thing?
It makes more sense to me that there has allways been something. The second you get into something had to have started existance your start a paradox of what created the creator? and it very quickly makes no sense.
Google is your friend, and unless you refute every last one (or judging by the fact that there is still a debate at all), you cannot say with any real certainty that God doesn't exist. Same for the theists.
I have heard an awefull lot of arguments for god's existence I haven't realy seen any that could'nt also apply to leperchauns or the FSM or unicorns. I will concede to probably no god on a purely academic stance, but I think it more probable there is no god.
For me, one of the things that has always sort of led me down the path to the possibility of the existence of God is...eyes. Yes, eyes. I find them fascinating enough in their concept that it's one of those things that I find to be more than just "possible" that they weren't created solely through strength of the fittest, so to speak. Note that I'm not saying that evolution didn't come through here...merely that it seems to me that the possibility of evolution being guided in the case of eyes is significantly there.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
Well that's the whole point, if our universe follows causality, then there has to be something outside the universe which started it (modern physics indicates that this is the case). Whether it is a "being" or not is debatable, I don't think we really have a term for it, but to say it's not "conscious" is kind of a baseless assumption.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Well that's the whole point, if our universe follows causality, then there has to be something outside the universe which started it
Who's to say that time in the universal scale is a linear concept?
Let us say that the concept of "time" was born at the same time universe was born. This makes sense, since in a nothingness or void where nothing exists it would be reasonable to assume that time doesn't exist either... How can there be time if there is nothing where time can manifest itself?
From this follows, that the time before the "start" of the universe is an abstract concept, a "non-time" that is actually outside of time. Thus we can't say that universe has been "started" at any "time". First, there was nothing. Then there was everything, and at that moment everything had always been, and the time when there had been nothing had never existed.
Well that's the whole point, if our universe follows causality, then there has to be something outside the universe which started it
Who's to say that time in the universal scale is a linear concept?
Let us say that the concept of "time" was born at the same time universe was born. This makes sense, since in a nothingness or void where nothing exists it would be reasonable to assume that time doesn't exist either... How can there be time if there is nothing where time can manifest itself?
From this follows, that the time before the "start" of the universe is an abstract concept, a "non-time" that is actually outside of time. Thus we can't say that universe has been "started" at any "time". First, there was nothing. Then there was everything, and at that moment everything had always been, and the time when there had been nothing had never existed.
Or if we were to lend that multiverse hypothesis some creedence, then perhaps there was another universe that triggered something to start our universe. If that's the case, then there's still time without our universe's existence. But I'm really avoiding something here, aren't I?
neanderpaul14 wrote:Well bright enough not to believe in a 2000 year old story book
Oh you're one of those atheists... the kind who grew up Christian and eventually decided that you were either a fundamentalist or an anti-theist. So you pick a side and start hating. Am I wrong?
Probably, but that hasn't seemed to stop you from making irrational jumps in logic before. Why start now.
neanderpaul14 wrote:Well bright enough not to believe in a 2000 year old story book
Oh you're one of those atheists... the kind who grew up Christian and eventually decided that you were either a fundamentalist or an anti-theist. So you pick a side and start hating. Am I wrong?
Probably, but that hasn't seemed to stop you from making irrational jumps in logic before. Why start now.
Awesome post is awesome.
Napoleon Ier wrote:You people need to grow up to be honest.
Timminz wrote:Probably, but that hasn't seemed to stop you from making irrational jumps in logic before. Why start now.
You know what's a jump in logic? You assuming that I make jumps in logic for no other reason than I believe in God. You could have given just one example, but no, you have to look like an idiot by making unsupported statements.
natty_dread wrote:Do ponies have sex?
Army of GOD wrote:the term heterosexual is offensive. I prefer to be called "normal"
Timminz wrote:Probably, but that hasn't seemed to stop you from making irrational jumps in logic before. Why start now.
You know what's a jump in logic? You assuming that I make jumps in logic for no other reason than I believe in God. You could have given just one example, but no, you have to look like an idiot by making unsupported statements.
That's 2 perfectly good examples in a row. The first was the one I commented on, originally. The second I have bolded for you.
Snorri1234 wrote:Logical arguments as to why the Cosmological argument is ridiculous:
1.) Why is the "First cause" exempt from having a cause? Give an explanation that explains why the First cause is exempt, explains away Hume's problem of induction and shows how Occam's Razor is not applicable in this situation.
2.) Why would the First Cause be God? Give a solid logical reason as to why one should attribute the common atributes of God (omniscience, omnibenevolence) to the First Cause.
3.) Given that we see complexity arising from non-complexity (heavier elements forming and all that), why should we even assume that the First Cause had any intelligence? Not simply that it was all-knowing like God, but any actual intelligence.
Since the cosmological is so utterly convincing, please give some good answers to these questions.
"Some motherfuckers are always trying to ice skate uphill."
Duane: You know what they say about love and war.
Tim: Yes, one involves a lot of physical and psychological pain, and the other one's war.
Please explain why it is logical to position an unseen, unproven ' God ' as the default response to everything that we do not at this time have proven answers for
comic boy wrote:Please explain why it is logical to position an unseen, unproven ' God ' as the default response to everything that we do not at this time have proven answers for
Please explain why you correlate "faith" with "logical".
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
comic boy wrote:Please explain why it is logical to position an unseen, unproven ' God ' as the default response to everything that we do not at this time have proven answers for
Please explain why you correlate "faith" with "logical".
I do not see the word 'faith' anywhere in comic's post.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
Woodruff, I won't propose to tell you what to do, but there are a couple of things going on here, some of which you can easily avoid. There are three groups of people in this form discussing the existence of God. The first group argues that no one can prove there is a God. The second group argues that you can prove there is a God. The third group doesn't care if you can prove there is a God because of the concept of faith. I think you belong in that third group. So, there is no point in arguing with people in the first group.
And the fourth group can't even read this anymore due to religion thread hemorrhaging of the eyeballs.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
comic boy wrote:Please explain why it is logical to position an unseen, unproven ' God ' as the default response to everything that we do not at this time have proven answers for
Please explain why you correlate "faith" with "logical".
I do not see the word 'faith' anywhere in comic's post.
Please explain how do you NOT correlate "God" with "faith"?
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
jay_a2j wrote:hey if any1 would like me to make them a signature or like an avator just let me no, my sig below i did, and i also did "panther 88" so i can do something like that for u if ud like...
thegreekdog wrote:Woodruff, I won't propose to tell you what to do, but there are a couple of things going on here, some of which you can easily avoid. There are three groups of people in this form discussing the existence of God. The first group argues that no one can prove there is a God. The second group argues that you can prove there is a God. The third group doesn't care if you can prove there is a God because of the concept of faith. I think you belong in that third group. So, there is no point in arguing with people in the first group.
I find your lack of faith...disturbing! <laughing>
The fact is I don't HAVE the faith necessary, but I recognize it's place in the discussion. As to the discussion, I'll disagree with anyone who I think is forming an argument that doesn't make sense, including those on "my side" (if there is such a thing) of the argument. Frequently, I see this happening on ALL sides of an argument, so I end up arguing with everyone...which I quite enjoy, to be honest, because I'm convinced that I'm smarter than everyone else. <smile>
(I haven't seen anyone state that you can PROVE there's a God...did I overlook it?)
Last edited by Woodruff on Thu Dec 10, 2009 3:12 pm, edited 1 time in total.
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
I was reading about this yesterday. Fascinating light show.
(Damn Russians.)
...I prefer a man who will burn the flag and then wrap himself in the Constitution to a man who will burn the Constitution and then wrap himself in the flag.
comic boy wrote:Please explain why it is logical to position an unseen, unproven ' God ' as the default response to everything that we do not at this time have proven answers for
Please explain why you correlate "faith" with "logical".
I do not see the word 'faith' anywhere in comic's post.
Please explain how do you NOT correlate "God" with "faith"?
Please explain why I should. "It's a position held by many believers" is not a good answer, btw.
saxitoxin wrote:Your position is more complex than the federal tax code. As soon as I think I understand it, I find another index of cross-references, exceptions and amendments I have to apply.
Timminz wrote:Yo mama is so classless, she could be a Marxist utopia.
