Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
Why?
Did you want me to bring the Dunce cap that you forgot?
Regards
DL
Are all discussions of God speculative nonsense?
- Thread starter Greatest I am
- Start date
Why?
Did you want me to bring the Dunce cap that you forgot?
Regards
DL
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
Force?
It is those who believe that are telling people to turn or burn.
I have yet to hear any non believer tell anyone they will suffer damnation forever if they do not believe in the scientific method.
Regards
DL
It only explains that you replaced what we don't know with the word God, which doesn't explain anything.
Greatest I am
Valued Senior Member
.
No.
I was very clear when I said God created the universe and etc...
As you if you mean, your questions about, God himself, I did say God is beyond time and space, and our physic laws and etc...
So how do you know?
No.
I was very clear when I said God created the universe and etc...
As you if you mean, your questions about, God himself, I did say God is beyond time and space, and our physic laws and etc...
So how do you know?
.
So turn or burn then heh?
So how do you know?
We had a good discussion me and spidergoat.
And that didnt start from the P1 to read it all, but it's long ennuf.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what I get here, is that you are correct, and everyone else who don't agree are not.
Oh sorry, I forgot, you know everything.
So turn or burn then heh?
[/QUOTE]
So how do you know?
We had a good discussion me and spidergoat.
And that didnt start from the P1 to read it all, but it's long ennuf.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
So what I get here, is that you are correct, and everyone else who don't agree are not.
Oh sorry, I forgot, you know everything.
I don't know, but I believe that God is unnecessary since it doesn't explain itself and the idea that things are outside time, space, or physical laws is nonsensical.
What if I punched you in the face? You would probably demand why, and what if I said, "my actions are beyond reasons or logic". You wouldn't and shouldn't accept that.
What if I punched you in the face? You would probably demand why, and what if I said, "my actions are beyond reasons or logic". You wouldn't and shouldn't accept that.
Did I?
& who?
So you are emplying that on every beleiver?
Then I assume that every atheist try to proove you that God don't exist, and if he don't, he says you're stupid and idiot (not going to say it effcorse), and even many times go to the alternative ways:
1. Offending.
2. Personnal insults that have nothing to do with the topic of discussion.
3. Irony.
4. ...
I know some atheists who do just that (effcorse I never discussed with them the existence of God topic, but they do some of those on the list just when they hear the world "God" or something).
I also know others who don't act like that, and just respect your beleifs, or don't even care.
Same thing to those who beleive in God...
Oh really?
What's wrong with irony?
Humans create all types of realities, even in science. For example, if you think about particle accelerator data, this appears to be about synthetic matter, since no where in the universe do such high energy collisions occur with gravity that low. If we assume a unified force, to help normalized potentials, the gravity in the lab is too low to add the extra natural potential needed to determine the correct particles.
The point I am making is even with this conceptual problem, we assume this reality is true because of our faith.
The point I am making is even with this conceptual problem, we assume this reality is true because of our faith.
.
Theoreticly, there was no such thing as time, or those known physical laws before the Big Bang.
Well, since science didnt proove any of that (based on facts effcorse), we can't say it's impossible.
But still it's your opinion.
But yes if you try to understand it how, we find it nonsense, since we are attached to the physic laws and our world and what we see and femeliar with our hall lifes, even more, our hall history.
Well, I will punsh you back on face (x2 and x3 ...) before asking (inless I started it with no reason)
There are always reasons and logic, since we have to search and see how the universe and life works, and how it started.. if not that, we could never have had science.
If you mean about God himself, if suppose that a god (instead of saying God) is a part of this universe (or another..) , and under those physic laws ( or others...) and time and etc... how can that god creat the universe (universes, multiverses, ... We don't know, let's say the existence if you like.) , inless there would be another god who created him, and he would only be a being and not a god.
Theoreticly, there was no such thing as time, or those known physical laws before the Big Bang.
Well, since science didnt proove any of that (based on facts effcorse), we can't say it's impossible.
But still it's your opinion.
But yes if you try to understand it how, we find it nonsense, since we are attached to the physic laws and our world and what we see and femeliar with our hall lifes, even more, our hall history.
Well, I will punsh you back on face (x2 and x3 ...) before asking (inless I started it with no reason)
There are always reasons and logic, since we have to search and see how the universe and life works, and how it started.. if not that, we could never have had science.
If you mean about God himself, if suppose that a god (instead of saying God) is a part of this universe (or another..) , and under those physic laws ( or others...) and time and etc... how can that god creat the universe (universes, multiverses, ... We don't know, let's say the existence if you like.) , inless there would be another god who created him, and he would only be a being and not a god.
Last edited:
.
It is sometimes a way to get away from a discussion (of any kind).
And in the case I said, it also means, turn or burn, like "Greates I am" said.
It is sometimes a way to get away from a discussion (of any kind).
And in the case I said, it also means, turn or burn, like "Greates I am" said.
Correct, God could not have created himself, since he is by definition complex. But simple things like quantum particles can create themselves. At one point, the universe was the size of a quantum particle. So it's reasonable to conclude that the universe created itself, but it's not reasonable to conclude that God created himself spontaneously.
The physics centered on particle accelerator data is good for explaing the data that is generated in these labs, But extrapolation beyond those labs, into nature, has the conceptual problem of the gravity being too low in the lab, to claim those particles states occur anywhere where there is extreme gravity like the big bang. But this does not stop science from creating this alternate reality; attach this data to areas it does not belong. This may be a type of religion effect or instinct.
Gravity is a relatively trivial force compared to sub-atomic forces.
If you think that africa is the seminal source of religion and it is best represented through "witch-doctor christians" it would seem that you have the head attire already.
Now go to the corner.
Now.
@Shadow1 --
I did say that I scanned it, all nineteen pages of it. I just didn't thoroughly read all of the posts. Every time I saw what looked like an argument for the existence of a creator I stopped and absorbed it, but I saw nothing new and certainly nothing convincing. I've been doing this for five or six years now and I've not seen one new argument after my first year. And the overwhelming majority of the arguments weren't new then, they were only new to me. If you want to get technical(and I love getting technical), none of the arguments have been new since Martin Luther, it's just the same old bunk rehashed again and again and again.
And yes, every single theistic(or even deistic) assertion is completely undemonstrated. Worse than that, they're all about as unparsimonious as you can get. If you can prove me wrong in that by actually demonstrating the existence of a deity(I don't care which one at this point) then by all means do so. I'm genuinely looking for evidence of such a being(that's what science buffs do, genuinely look for evidence), but I'm not going to accept some half-baked, logically fallacious argument as evidence.
I did say that I scanned it, all nineteen pages of it. I just didn't thoroughly read all of the posts. Every time I saw what looked like an argument for the existence of a creator I stopped and absorbed it, but I saw nothing new and certainly nothing convincing. I've been doing this for five or six years now and I've not seen one new argument after my first year. And the overwhelming majority of the arguments weren't new then, they were only new to me. If you want to get technical(and I love getting technical), none of the arguments have been new since Martin Luther, it's just the same old bunk rehashed again and again and again.
And yes, every single theistic(or even deistic) assertion is completely undemonstrated. Worse than that, they're all about as unparsimonious as you can get. If you can prove me wrong in that by actually demonstrating the existence of a deity(I don't care which one at this point) then by all means do so. I'm genuinely looking for evidence of such a being(that's what science buffs do, genuinely look for evidence), but I'm not going to accept some half-baked, logically fallacious argument as evidence.
.
I don't know what new "techniques" or old "techniques", and what we were discussing about was demonstrated.
Oh, and is there what you call "new" or "old" "techniques" of atheists or something?
But still it's your opinion, and everyone have he's own opinion.
I don't know what new "techniques" or old "techniques", and what we were discussing about was demonstrated.
Oh, and is there what you call "new" or "old" "techniques" of atheists or something?
But still it's your opinion, and everyone have he's own opinion.
Last edited: