ROFL...another way of saying "I have no argument, I guess I'll use ad hominems and avoid to whole thing, this way it'll appear as if I'm right, even though I have no argument"
A Chemist has more power than God, Fact!
- Thread starter alexb123
- Start date
ROFL...another way of saying "I have no argument, I guess I'll use ad hominems and avoid to whole thing, this way it'll appear as if I'm right, even though I have no argument"
Not really! I'ts more like an adult patronizing a child who keeps bringing up the same simple-minded thing, even though he's been corrected dozens of times...
Poor VO. Be a good boy and go back to your crayons.
Thanks for the reconfirmation, you have no argument and you continue with only ad hominems, great job, now just "admit that you're in error" as Gautama Buddha's disciple once told an atheist...
OK. I am in error. There is a god. VO has proof of god. He will share it momentarily. But even if he dosen't, it's still obvious that god exists because... um... I forgot. Wait. Because VO said so.
Feel better?
Good boy.
Still avoiding the argument, but I'm not saying God exists because there is no proof, I'm saying if you can't tell me what be considered proof then God's existence is unverifiable and unknown, and also it completely defeats the purpose of asking for proof if nothing can even be considered as proof, only a "god of the gaps"
"Oh look honey! VO's trying to sound reasonable! Isn't it just the cutest thing!"
"Oh look honey! VO's trying to sound reasonable! Isn't it just the cutest thing!"
[DELETED]
Last edited by a moderator:
Somebody's tired :bawl: Time for beddy-bye VitalWital. You'll feel better in the morning.
Proof = a tangerable link between anything at all that is consider to be real and a higher power.
So maybe a fitting example here would be that people who are religious can tap into another area of the brain that cannot be reached by any other method.
But VO...the whole theist argument is based on happenstance. God himself just happened into existence...and he cause life to "happen". No theist organization can provide evidence or explanation beyond this.
So why can't we postulate a circumstance that has to "happen" in order to accept the existence of any god?
Area of the brain? This has nothing to do with the existence of God and atheists like yourself will most certainly call it a "god of the gaps", atheists will say it doesn't prove or show anything
Any evidence is automatically a "god of the gaps" by default because science is naturalism or a "nature of the gaps"
God didn't happen himself into existence, nor can it be said that God "always existed", such concepts as beginning and end do not touch God, he is without origin
Also, atheists have no problem with the unvierse just spontaneously "happening" into existence, causing all life to "happen", as long as something doesn't have anything to do with God or religion who cares if its causeless, thats the atheists' logic. "Who cares if energy is causeless and always existed, energy doesn't need no f***ing cause, but God...wtf? How can God be causeless and ever-existing, it just can't be, it can't be, it just can't, it just can't be...but the universe or energy thats allowed to be causeless, as long as its not affiliated with religion, who cares"
Another great atheistic tactic
Ok
-He didn't happen into existence.
-
-God has no beginning
-God has no end
-God has no origin
That leaves non-existence.
Therefore my question stands...why do YOU have a problem with requiring a happenstance event as evidentiary sway for a belief?
Last edited:
No it leaves existing without origin, the origin of all things
The problem I have is that its only works in situations where something is measurable, its like a foolish person asking "Well what, why can you say the Earth revolved around the Sun is true before there was evidence?"Enterprise-D said:
Its one of the most foolish notions imaginable to say that something is ONLY true if there's a "happenstance event" convincing people that its true, I mean I would have to wonder if you were retarded if you believed that, but then again atheists are trapped in this delusional world of thinking "evidence causes something to become true" even without knowing it, such fools, I wonder when they'll wake up from this fantasy land they live in....
If you really believe something is ONLY true if there's a "happenstance event" convincing people that it's true, then you clearly live in a fantasy world, I mean look at all the things that are true/were true before there was any evidence and before there was any "happenstance" events convincing anyone it was true...
What kind of brain damage causes you to keep trotting out the same old stupid statement?
No one, theist or atheist, thinks such a blatantly idiotic thing. You seem incapable of making the philosophical distinction between a marked lack of evidence causing an intelligent person to question the claims of people who (stupidly) insist the unsupported idea is true (like you), and those who assert that the idea is 100% false based simply on a lack of evidence (equally stupid).
Atheists claim that there's no reason the take the claims of theists seriously without some serious evidence. Just as you don't take my claims of an invisible pink unicorn living in my garage seriously. No difference.
Only an idiot claims certainty for any viewpoint that is so poorly supported. Theist or atheist.
I hope this clears things up for you, despite your left-hemisphere lesions.
Religion is not God.
God is not known to exist or not exist...therefore further claim of the properties of God are irrelevant.
Woah, what an [DELETED]
You say you won't take me seriously unless there's evidence, but nothing can be considered as evidence, its just a "god of the gaps" BY DEFAULT, great atheistic tactic, if nothing can be considered evidence then LOGICALLY (I know atheists hate logic, reasoning, rationality, etc...) it means its unverifiable, meaning there's no way to know if its true or false, meaning its unknown...this is the rational conclusion, but atheists are irrational wanting to appear rational
Atheists however CANNOT say the existence of God is unknown, that leaves room for God actually existing, which atheists cannot handle...the reason they can't handle it is because of the great atheistic faith which they must keep alive and preserve
Also I don't understand what you can't get through your thick atheistic skull, I never said unsupported ideas are true, never ever, the things I believe are based upon personal experiences, I said the truth is the truth with or without evidence
ROFL with another great atheistic tactic, as an "invisible pink unicorn existing in your garage", the reason I don't believe you is simply because you're just another foolish atheist using this to prove your point, its not an actual attempt, its not even a real example, nor is it comparable to God...why? Because its non-sequitur, the existence or non-existence of God has nothing to do with the existence or non-existence of an invisible pink unicorn, you can't address the actual substance of the argument without using irrationality (which is what atheism is based off)
So you just reconfirmed that you really believe evidence causes something to become true, you and other atheists even say it yourself, "I won't believe in something unless there's evidence", meaning you believe that evidence causes something to become true, otherwise you wouldn't say that, for things that are immeasurable and unverifiable this thinking doesn't work, it can only work if all things are measurable, verifiable, and experimental...
Last edited by a moderator:
Irrevelant how?
here is an example:
Russia had a nuclear bomb in Tunguska region in 1905...this nuclear bomb exploded...but the world knows of it as a Tunguska meteorite...but this also means that Russia had the ability of nuclear ICBMS in 1905 as well.
(*gasp...*breath in....*breath out)
I just claimed that Tunguska accident was caused by nuclear device made by Russia! And not just that I also claimed that Russia had an ability to use nukes so early when noone else had it!
Now besides creating something without proof/backup I further made another assumption that is really illogical to be made with something that has no proof/backup.
get it?
No, the reason I don't get it is because I don't see how its comparable to God, instead of talking about how the concept of "God" is illogical you talk about some other completely different concept with no relation to "God", so your very own style of arguing is non-sequitur and illogical