Do you believe in miracles?

[VitalOne]

Using your logic...

Magic, leprechauns, unicorns, dragons, fairies, and non-corrupt politicians exist.

Prove they don't.

Woah, ROFL

I never said something was true until proven false, I said if something is unverifiable then there's no way of knowing if its actually true or false

Next time you should learn to read

As for your quote from Jesus, it has the same weight as what I say. We're both mortal men. We both can prove nothing about religion.

What? Mortal men? Sounds like Greco-Roman mythology to me in whicn mankind is lower, where Jesus exclusively says that we are gods, just as with Buddhism, and Hinduism

We can do whatever we want

As soon as there is any definitive proof of religion, I will believe in it. Until there isn't, science outweighs because it has a basis behind it. In an actual structured debate science would win because it outweighs. That's the whole premise of argument. Proving your standpoint is more solid than the other persons. While religion has absolutely no proof at all other than books that are works of fiction, science has definitive observations. If you say that observations do not matter and do not reflect anything, then existence doesn't matter anyway and all arguments are pointless.

Woah, argument from ignorance, you along with other atheists REALLY belive that something is false until proven true, how sad that atheists insist upon being irrational and illogical, as opposed to just saying something is unknown until it becomes verifiable

I can show you how your religion came about, how it follows a general pattern among cultures, how it evolved to fit a social role, how it changes over time with society. There's alot of evidence about the inaccuracies of the Bible and the contradictions between religions, and within the Bible itself.

No one's talking about the Bible, tell me what does Jesus, Buddha, or Krishna say that is inaccurate?

 

[rofflewoffle]

Woah, ROFL

I never said something was true until proven false, I said if something is unverifiable then there's no way of knowing if its actually true or false

Next time you should learn to read

Okay. I still put leprechauns, unicorns, whatever I listed there as on the same possibility-of-belief-level as a Christian God. They have as much proof as God. There are books written about them, just like there is the Bible. It's just that kids aren't told that these "mythical" creatures (not any less mythical than religion, imo) exist when they are young, but they are taught religion. I'd be interested if anyone could possibly find something that showed the reaction of adults that are unexposed to religion as a child to God as opposed to adults who were taught to be religious by their parents. In my opinion, an adult who was presented with the idea that there is an unprovable, unseeable, and incomprehensible mystical force that created life after they had already formulated an opinion would laugh it off. Since I have no studies on it, I'll just say that's my opinion.

What? Mortal men? Sounds like Greco-Roman mythology to me in whicn mankind is lower, where Jesus exclusively says that we are gods, just as with Buddhism, and Hinduism

We can do whatever we want

What does the definition of a person have anything to do with Greco-Roman mythology? I simply stated that Jesus (being a normal human being) and me (being a normal human being) both have no more authority in saying whether a god exists or not.

Woah, argument from ignorance, you along with other atheists REALLY belive that something is false until proven true, how sad that atheists insist upon being irrational and illogical, as opposed to just saying something is unknown until it becomes verifiable

Again, this puts fantastic creatures and other such mythos on the same level as religious belief as they have not been proved and haven't been disproved. I simply stated that the argument for science outweighs because science is based on observation and conclusion. Religion is based on blind belief.

Take, for example, evolution as opposed to creationism. Evolution is a sound theory that has strong evidence for it. Darwin observed many things and came to conclusions: "Among these he sited domestic breeding, anatomical similarities among species (“homology”), the sequential order of fossils, the presence of “vestigial” organs, and the natural phenomenon which he dubbed “natural selection.” (I'd post a link to where I quoted this but I have not yet reached 20 posts =0)

For another example, take breeders - they make selected animals mate and emphasize certain traits that begin appearing consistently in future generations.

Creationism is based on, well, a book written 2000 years ago by some guys with no scientific evidence except for an alleged word from God.
Evolution outweighs.

Again, concrete proof for God existing will make me believe.

 

[VitalOne]

Okay. I still put leprechauns, unicorns, whatever I listed there as on the same possibility-of-belief-level as a Christian God. They have as much proof as God. There are books written about them, just like there is the Bible. It's just that kids aren't told that these "mythical" creatures (not any less mythical than religion, imo) exist when they are young, but they are taught religion. I'd be interested if anyone could possibly find something that showed the reaction of adults that are unexposed to religion as a child to God as opposed to adults who were taught to be religious by their parents. In my opinion, an adult who was presented with the idea that there is an unprovable, unseeable, and incomprehensible mystical force that created life after they had already formulated an opinion would laugh it off. Since I have no studies on it, I'll just say that's my opinion.

Man what a fool, but then again you are an atheist, I might have to explain this slowly so that even you can understand

Leprechauns, Unicorns, etc...aren't on the same level as God, why? Because Leprechauns, Unicorns, etc...all have different attributes, properties, and characteristics than God, now I know that you're an atheist so you might have a difficult time understanding this but Unicorn != God, you can't say something doesn't exist because something else completely unrelated doesn't exist, thats illogical, non-sequitur

Also in the case of Leprechauns and Unicorns I can easily tell you what would be evidence that they exist, yet this evidence is absent, so there is evidence of absence, making the existence of these things much more unlikely than God

What does the definition of a person have anything to do with Greco-Roman mythology? I simply stated that Jesus (being a normal human being) and me (being a normal human being) both have no more authority in saying whether a god exists or not.

Well you said we were "just mortals", something trademark of Greco-Roman mythology, where as Jesus says were are gods

Sure, we lots of authority

Again, this puts fantastic creatures and other such mythos on the same level as religious belief as they have not been proved and haven't been disproved. I simply stated that the argument for science outweighs because science is based on observation and conclusion. Religion is based on blind belief.

Take, for example, evolution as opposed to creationism. Evolution is a sound theory that has strong evidence for it. Darwin observed many things and came to conclusions: "Among these he sited domestic breeding, anatomical similarities among species (“homology”), the sequential order of fossils, the presence of “vestigial” organs, and the natural phenomenon which he dubbed “natural selection.” (I'd post a link to where I quoted this but I have not yet reached 20 posts =0)

For another example, take breeders - they make selected animals mate and emphasize certain traits that begin appearing consistently in future generations.

Creationism is based on, well, a book written 2000 years ago by some guys with no scientific evidence except for an alleged word from God.
Evolution outweighs.

Again, concrete proof for God existing will make me believe.

They're not on the same level, what an atheistic fool, you see since you cannot actually address the argument at hand (the existence of God, not the existence of some other creatures) you have to dodge away from it and say "yeah well I don't believe in this, even though its unrelated, I can pretend it is"

Also I don't really see any problems with religion and science, I think science is a great useful tool, but incomplete and inaccurate

 

[rofflewoffle]

Man what a fool, but then again you are an atheist, I might have to explain this slowly so that even you can understand

I'd really like to keep this respectful, but if you don't want to rationally argue that's fine. It just makes it less interesting than a good debate.

Leprechauns, Unicorns, etc...aren't on the same level as God, why? Because Leprechauns, Unicorns, etc...all have different attributes, properties, and characteristics than God, now I know that you're an atheist so you might have a difficult time understanding this but Unicorn != God, you can't say something doesn't exist because something else completely unrelated doesn't exist, thats illogical, non-sequitur

I suppose that no matter how many times I state this a weird argument with no proof will be used against me, but...

God has no proof. At all. Whatsoever. If you can cite an example of God's existence with hard facts. No. Not even that. With legitimate scientific observations where God is the cause and ______ is the effect. And proof. Then I will believe that you have a valid point.

In relation to mythical creatures, they also have NO PROOF. They are as valid as God.

Again, your generalization and personal insults don't make your argument any stronger. I apologize if our beliefs differ, but I am simply stating my opinion and why I believe it is more legitimate than yours.

Also in the case of Leprechauns and Unicorns I can easily tell you what would be evidence that they exist, yet this evidence is absent, so there is evidence of absence, making the existence of these things much more unlikely than God

Are you saying you have clear, scientific proof for God? Please do share. If you really do, then you'll probably be the greatest name in history forever. Until then, you have not given any reasons as to why mythical creatures have less proof than God.

Well you said we were "just mortals", something trademark of Greco-Roman mythology, where as Jesus says were are gods

Sure, we lots of authority

Mortal means that you can die, are not omnipotent, and are not omniscient, etc. I do believe humans fulfill this.
Gods, on the other hand, are generally believed to have more powers than mortals such as omnipotence and omniscience. I do not see how humanity is an example of this.

I did not quite understand your last statement, "we lots of authority." If it was a grammar error, then just correct it and I'll respond.

They're not on the same level, what an atheistic fool, you see since you cannot actually address the argument at hand (the existence of God, not the existence of some other creatures) you have to dodge away from it and say "yeah well I don't believe in this, even though its unrelated, I can pretend it is"

Also I don't really see any problems with religion and science, I think science is a great useful tool, but incomplete and inaccurate

Again with the personal insults. Sigh.

I simply say that God and mythical creatures have the same basis of proof. If you think unicorns are absurd (example) then you must think God is absurd or you would be hypocritical. Hypocrites tend not to have valid arguments. You are twisting my words and ideas.

Religion is simply made because people are insecure about death and why they are here as these are uncertainties. Religion does nothing to prove logically why we are here. Religion is not based on anything tangible.

Science is also made because people want to understand more about their surroundings, but it is based on tangible observations - the five senses, generally. As these are the only things we have to view the world and communicate with it, it is the only thing that can be determined by us to any extent are those that can be experienced by us. Science outweighs blind faith in any argument.

 

[VitalOne]

I'd really like to keep this respectful, but if you don't want to rationally argue that's fine. It just makes it less interesting than a good debate.

Then why do you continue to insult theism and expect me not to insult atheism? Its the same thing with atheists "oh we can say that you're a delusional fool, living in an imaginary fantasy, etc...but you can't say atheists are fools"

I suppose that no matter how many times I state this a weird argument with no proof will be used against me, but...

God has no proof. At all. Whatsoever. If you can cite an example of God's existence with hard facts. No. Not even that. With legitimate scientific observations where God is the cause and ______ is the effect. And proof. Then I will believe that you have a valid point.

hmm...can you read? Just wondering, this is about the 100th time I'm going to say this:

THE REASON THERE'S NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD IS BECAUSE NOTHING CAN BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE OF GOD THEREFORE LOGICALLY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE JUST AS THE SAME WITH THE MANY-WORLDS INTERPRETATION AND OTHER THEORIES THAT ARE UNVERIFIABLE

Ofcourse there's no evidence when nothing can be considered evidence...do you understand that or do I have to explain this further?

Are you saying you have clear, scientific proof for God? Please do share. If you really do, then you'll probably be the greatest name in history forever. Until then, you have not given any reasons as to why mythical creatures have less proof than God.

No, listen carefully again

You see since there should be evidence of a Leprechaun on a Island like the myth says but there isn't, this is evidence of absence, making the existence of Leprechauns more unlikely

Now in the case of God, there isn't any evidence, and there shouldn't any evidence present...do you get it? If there's no evidence when there should not be any evidence present it doesn't indicate anything...

I simply say that God and mythical creatures have the same basis of proof. If you think unicorns are absurd (example) then you must think God is absurd or you would be hypocritical. Hypocrites tend not to have valid arguments. You are twisting my words and ideas.

They're not the same because you can say what can be considered evidence of a unicorn (which would be a biological sample, fossils, etc...) you can't tell me what would be considered evidence of God (that can't be considered a "god of the gaps")...do you see the difference? One is verifiable, the other is unverifiable...

Religion is simply made because people are insecure about death and why they are here as these are uncertainties. Religion does nothing to prove logically why we are here. Religion is not based on anything tangible.

Yeah right, continue living in your imaginary world, come on just tell me, what can be considered evidence?

Science is also made because people want to understand more about their surroundings, but it is based on tangible observations - the five senses, generally. As these are the only things we have to view the world and communicate with it, it is the only thing that can be determined by us to any extent are those that can be experienced by us. Science outweighs blind faith in any argument.

Science is great, its a great useful tool, but its obviously not the absolute truth, only a fool (also known as an atheist) would believe that

Science has only arrived a certain degree of truth, this is obvious to all, except for atheists, they insist there is no other truths

 

[Enmos]

Woah, ROFL, another atheistic fool

Let me explain something that even your thick atheistic skull may comprehend, can you give an example of WHAT CAN BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE OF GOD and not a "god of the gaps"? Oh what's that, you can't? Well then by default there CANNOT BE EVIDENCE OF GOD

Just like how you can't say what evidence of the many-worlds interpretation is, what a retarded fool, but then again I can't blame you, you are an atheist, and most atheists are fools believing themselves to be superior to everyone else

There's lots of evidence of God existing, just by default ALL EVIDENCE is automatically a "god of the gaps", what a fool, ahahaha, I always get a great laugh from these foolish atheists, why are you all so foolish for?

Why is it unlikely in the extreme again, oh yeah thats right "because I say so" ahaaha


Yeah, but you don't, ever heard of the many-worlds interpretation?

One simple discovery would change everything


No, listen carefully

If something is unverifiable it means there's no way of knowing if its true or false

Do you understand that?

ROFL at your last statements, I always get a laugh out of this, can you give an example of what would be evidence of something that isn't natural? No, you can't? Why? Is it because science is naturalism and ALL THINGS HAVE TO BE NATURAL BY DEFAULT?

Also no one's talking about realms which have never been observed (although the many-worlds interpretation suggests it), I'm talking about something outside of the system from which everything comes from

You're doing nicely with the infractions ans all lol

you are an atheist, and most atheists are fools believing themselves to be superior to everyone else
I don't feel superior to everyone else, but it seems you do..
At the very least you feel superior to anyone that doesn't share your faith, that's obvious enough... :bugeye:

One simple discovery would change everything
No, not really.. not if the definition stays the same.

And no, I'm not even going to waste any time on the rest of the nonsense you managed to write down. Good luck !

 

[spidergoat]

Why couldn't there be any evidence of God? Do you have evidence of this? ...Or is it because theists deliberately define the concept in such a way as to avoid being caught?

They never used to say that, you know, they used to point to all kinds of things as evidence for God. Some illogical people like IceAgeCivilizations still do.

 

[rofflewoffle]

Then why do you continue to insult theism and expect me not to insult atheism? Its the same thing with atheists "oh we can say that you're a delusional fool, living in an imaginary fantasy, etc...but you can't say atheists are fools"

I have been nothing but respectful to your beliefs. I am simply arguing mine. I have not said that "Christians are stupid" or anything of the like, while you continue saying that atheists are fools.

hmm...can you read? Just wondering, this is about the 100th time I'm going to say this:

THE REASON THERE'S NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD IS BECAUSE NOTHING CAN BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE OF GOD THEREFORE LOGICALLY THERE IS NO EVIDENCE JUST AS THE SAME WITH THE MANY-WORLDS INTERPRETATION AND OTHER THEORIES THAT ARE UNVERIFIABLE

Ofcourse there's no evidence when nothing can be considered evidence...do you understand that or do I have to explain this further?

You have conceded to the point that there is no evidence in God. If there is no evidence to something, it is generally believed not to be real.

No, listen carefully again

You see since there should be evidence of a Leprechaun on a Island like the myth says but there isn't, this is evidence of absence, making the existence of Leprechauns more unlikely

Now in the case of God, there isn't any evidence, and there shouldn't any evidence present...do you get it? If there's no evidence when there should not be any evidence present it doesn't indicate anything...

I say that I believe in a different leprechaun that can never be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. I believe that this leprechaun is the cause of loss of money. There isn't any evidence that he exists because there shouldn't be any evidence present. This leprechaun is as legitimate as God.

If you want to strictly use written definitions, then God is a logical impossibility. By being omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, God should not allow suffering to take place yet He does.

They're not the same because you can say what can be considered evidence of a unicorn (which would be a biological sample, fossils, etc...) you can't tell me what would be considered evidence of God (that can't be considered a "god of the gaps")...do you see the difference? One is verifiable, the other is unverifiable...

I say that I believe in a unicorn that never dies, can't be seen, felt, touched, heard, smelled, and tasted. With an argument that something exists because there is no evidence that can possibly exist for it, I can prove anything. I can prove there is a little green man standing on your shoulder and you can't observe him in any way.

Yeah right, continue living in your imaginary world, come on just tell me, what can be considered evidence?

Maybe if God came down and said, "Sup homies. You guys shouldn't be killing each other and stuff. To prove I'm God, I'm going to end world hunger and disease. Thanks to all those dudes that believed me. To those that don't, well, now you do."

I wouldn't say my world is imaginary because I base my opinions on the only thing I have - observation.

Science is great, its a great useful tool, but its obviously not the absolute truth, only a fool (also known as an atheist) would believe that

Science has only arrived a certain degree of truth, this is obvious to all, except for atheists, they insist there is no other truths

Observations are the only truths. Whatever cannot be observed in any way by humans is non-existent. Faith is guessing. I can guess that the world is going to explode in ten minutes. Will my claim have any validity? No. I can claim that there is something that is beyond human knowledge and observation. Will my claim have any validity? Apparently, to those religious, yes. To others, I would most likely think no.


Anyway, as both of us seem not to be changing our opinions and we most likely never will as this is how we think, this is really going nowhere.

 

[VitalOne]

Why couldn't there be any evidence of God? Do you have evidence of this? ...Or is it because theists deliberately define the concept in such a way as to avoid being caught?

They never used to say that, you know, they used to point to all kinds of things as evidence for God. Some illogical people like IceAgeCivilizations still do.

Uhm...you must not have been paying attention...you see the REASON THERE'S NO EVIDENCE IS BECAUSE NOTHING CAN BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE, just like how there's no evidence for the many-worlds interpretation, but this isn't an indication that it's false, because nothing can be considered evidence right now, its unverifiable....

 

[VitalOne]

I have been nothing but respectful to your beliefs. I am simply arguing mine. I have not said that "Christians are stupid" or anything of the like, while you continue saying that atheists are fools.

Yes you have, but most other atheists haven't

You have conceded to the point that there is no evidence in God. If there is no evidence to something, it is generally believed not to be real.

WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU!!!!!!!?

THE REASON TEHRE'S NO EVIDENCE IS BECAUSE ITS UNVERIFIABLE...IF SOMETHING IS UNVERIFIABLE BY DEFAULT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE WEREN'T YOU READING ANYTHING I WROTE?

I say that I believe in a different leprechaun that can never be seen, heard, touched, tasted, or smelled. I believe that this leprechaun is the cause of loss of money. There isn't any evidence that he exists because there shouldn't be any evidence present. This leprechaun is as legitimate as God.

Man its no wonder you're an atheist, you're so irrational...

Let me explain again for you, maybe even going even slower, making up your own imaginary entities and saying "oh well its just the same as God" PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR YOUR ARGUMENT YOU'RE SIMPLY DODGING OUT OF ADDRESSING THE ACTUAL ARGUMENT AT HAND WHICH IS THE EXISTENCE OF GOD NOT THE EXISTENCE OF WHATEVER YOU JUST MADE UP...ITS LIKE ME MAKING UP A BUNCH OF NEW THEORIES ANYTIME SOMEONE DISCUSSES A THEORY IN SCIENCE AND SAYING "oh well you know this one might be just as legitimate, ahaha, see that proves my case" IT DOESN'T SHOW ANYTHING

ROFL AT YOUR TACTICS, MAN ATHEISTS ARE SO PATHETIC

If you want to strictly use written definitions, then God is a logical impossibility. By being omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent, God should not allow suffering to take place yet He does.

No, whats impossible about it? This is only based upon your own personal definitions in order to preserve the atheistic faith, all it proves is that YOUR PERSONAL VERSION OF GOD cannot exist...I thought you would've learned something about logic by now

ALL religions say this world is a place of suffering and misery, and the only good world is the heavenly worlds, I see no contradictions, except for atheists who intentionally make up their own definitions in order to preserve their faith

I say that I believe in a unicorn that never dies, can't be seen, felt, touched, heard, smelled, and tasted. With an argument that something exists because there is no evidence that can possibly exist for it, I can prove anything. I can prove there is a little green man standing on your shoulder and you can't observe him in any way.

ROFL at your pathetic tactic, read the above response to the same tactic, "Oh I don't need to address the actual substance of the argument, I can just dodge out of it and make up something else and pretend its the same, then say see I don't believe in this either, so some how that proves me right, even though it shows absolutely nothing to very very very highest possible limit"

ROFL...man atheists are amusing

Maybe if God came down and said, "Sup homies. You guys shouldn't be killing each other and stuff. To prove I'm God, I'm going to end world hunger and disease. Thanks to all those dudes that believed me. To those that don't, well, now you do."

Yet another typical atheistic tactic, this isn't actual evidence, this is an event that can spontaneously happen, you can't gather this happening, you can't measure it, etc...its just something that happens

I wouldn't say my world is imaginary because I base my opinions on the only thing I have - observation.

Well ok, but from my personal observations the world is imaginary, illusionary, unreal,. having no independant existence, etc...

Observations are the only truths. Whatever cannot be observed in any way by humans is non-existent. Faith is guessing. I can guess that the world is going to explode in ten minutes. Will my claim have any validity? No. I can claim that there is something that is beyond human knowledge and observation. Will my claim have any validity? Apparently, to those religious, yes. To others, I would most likely think no.

ROFL...

Using your logic "Pluto didn't exist UNTIL observed", "Before the 1960s quarks didn't exist, no one could ever observe them nor measure them"

Let me explain this - Something can exist and be un-observable the present time period

ROFL its always amusing when talking to atheists, they have the lamest tactics imaginable

Anyway, as both of us seem not to be changing our opinions and we most likely never will as this is how we think, this is really going nowhere.

Yeah especially you, my argument is something is "unknown until it becomes veirfiable"

The atheistic argument "Something is false until evidence proves that it exists" - argument from ignorance

 

[rofflewoffle]

Yes you have, but most other atheists haven't

No need to generalize then.

WTF IS WRONG WITH YOU!!!!!!!?

THE REASON TEHRE'S NO EVIDENCE IS BECAUSE ITS UNVERIFIABLE...IF SOMETHING IS UNVERIFIABLE BY DEFAULT THERE'S NO EVIDENCE WEREN'T YOU READING ANYTHING I WROTE?



Man its no wonder you're an atheist, you're so irrational...

Let me explain again for you, maybe even going even slower, making up your own imaginary entities and saying "oh well its just the same as God" PROVES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING FOR YOUR ARGUMENT YOU'RE SIMPLY DODGING OUT OF ADDRESSING THE ACTUAL ARGUMENT AT HAND WHICH IS THE EXISTENCE OF GOD NOT THE EXISTENCE OF WHATEVER YOU JUST MADE UP...ITS LIKE ME MAKING UP A BUNCH OF NEW THEORIES ANYTIME SOMEONE DISCUSSES A THEORY IN SCIENCE AND SAYING "oh well you know this one might be just as legitimate, ahaha, see that proves my case" IT DOESN'T SHOW ANYTHING

ROFL AT YOUR TACTICS, MAN ATHEISTS ARE SO PATHETIC

Seeing as how none of us can convey a clear message to the other, I suggest we don't discuss this. It's not going anywhere and it's just you adding more caps to your posting and me re-stating what I've already said.

No, whats impossible about it? This is only based upon your own personal definitions in order to preserve the atheistic faith, all it proves is that YOUR PERSONAL VERSION OF GOD cannot exist...I thought you would've learned something about logic by now

If you don't believe your god is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent then I concede that perhaps he may exist. He'd have to have absolutely no power, no benevolence, or no knowledge of Earth to exist, though. Pick any one. No power means he can't possibly come and do anything to help the world. No omniscience means he doesn't know suffering is occurring. No benevolence means he's indifferent. I'd think that a god that created something would want to not have it suffer. If not, then it's not something worth believing in.

ALL religions say this world is a place of suffering and misery, and the only good world is the heavenly worlds, I see no contradictions, except for atheists who intentionally make up their own definitions in order to preserve their faith

Everyone knows the world is a place of suffering and misery. The only way it wouldn't be is if everyone had everything they needed and treated eachother with equality - an impossibility any time soon and certainly impossible with religion. Various religions are always bickering and killing eachother other their imaginary gods. It's like arguing about whose imaginary friend could beat the other ones when you're five, except with violence. I believe religion has done more harm than good for the world. It's an archaic belief that should not be believed by anyone with any logic now, but I suppose that's not going to happen.

ROFL at your pathetic tactic, read the above response to the same tactic, "Oh I don't need to address the actual substance of the argument, I can just dodge out of it and make up something else and pretend its the same, then say see I don't believe in this either, so some how that proves me right, even though it shows absolutely nothing to very very very highest possible limit"

ROFL...man atheists are amusing

Just trying to show how your argument doesn't make any sense by using your very same reasoning.

Yet another typical atheistic tactic, this isn't actual evidence, this is an event that can spontaneously happen, you can't gather this happening, you can't measure it, etc...its just something that happens

You can gather evidence from touching, seeing, smelling, and hearing God and whatever he does. He can surely have a corporal form, can't he? He's all powerful, right? I'd say that observing him is quite enough evidence to prove he exists.

Well ok, but from my personal observations the world is imaginary, illusionary, unreal,. having no independant existence, etc...

Something has to have some substance for us to be talking. There can't be nothing. Although there might not be a world and existence as we know it, there's existence.

ROFL...

Using your logic "Pluto didn't exist UNTIL observed", "Before the 1960s quarks didn't exist, no one could ever observe them nor measure them"

Let me explain this - Something can exist and be un-observable the present time period

ROFL its always amusing when talking to atheists, they have the lamest tactics imaginable

No. I said that if something cannot be observed in any way (which I assumed you would also take to mean at any time by anyone - I apologize for this)
Now we know that Pluto exists and quarks exist.

Yeah especially you, my argument is something is "unknown until it becomes veirfiable"

The atheistic argument "Something is false until evidence proves that it exists" - argument from ignorance

If you really believe in things that aren't proven, that's fine by me. The concept of blindly following something just doesn't strike me as logical in any way and I cannot bring myself to follow it, no matter how much I might want to (God would make life so much simpler if he existed.)

 

[VitalOne]

No need to generalize then.

Why not atheists do it all the time say intelligent cause and they say "oh you're saying a magic man did it"

Seeing as how none of us can convey a clear message to the other, I suggest we don't discuss this. It's not going anywhere and it's just you adding more caps to your posting and me re-stating what I've already said.

In other words you can't address what I said so you're going to dodge out of it...

No, whats impossible about it? This is only based upon your own personal definitions in order to preserve the atheistic faith, all it proves is that YOUR PERSONAL VERSION OF GOD cannot exist...I thought you would've learned something about logic by now

If you don't believe your god is omnipotent, omniscient, and benevolent then I concede that perhaps he may exist. He'd have to have absolutely no power, no benevolence, or no knowledge of Earth to exist, though. Pick any one. No power means he can't possibly come and do anything to help the world. No omniscience means he doesn't know suffering is occurring. No benevolence means he's indifferent. I'd think that a god that created something would want to not have it suffer. If not, then it's not something worth believing in.

Actually I believe that God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, omniscient, etc...but God is also the non-doer, being unchangeable, he the light, goodness in itself

Everyone knows the world is a place of suffering and misery. The only way it wouldn't be is if everyone had everything they needed and treated eachother with equality - an impossibility any time soon and certainly impossible with religion. Various religions are always bickering and killing eachother other their imaginary gods. It's like arguing about whose imaginary friend could beat the other ones when you're five, except with violence. I believe religion has done more harm than good for the world. It's an archaic belief that should not be believed by anyone with any logic now, but I suppose that's not going to happen.

Yeah, so now you dodge out of this to preserve the atheistic faith "yeah well it doesn't matter if all religions say the world is a place of a suffering, I can just pretend they say only good things should happen in this world"

Just trying to show how your argument doesn't make any sense by using your very same reasoning.

No you're not, you're dodging out of it, I don't care about any of the things you make up to make yourself and other atheists feel better, why not stick to the actual argument

You can gather evidence from touching, seeing, smelling, and hearing God and whatever he does. He can surely have a corporal form, can't he? He's all powerful, right? I'd say that observing him is quite enough evidence to prove he exists.

Well he has both, his physical form doesn't exist in this world, he, the Father, doesn't really care about us, we're kind of insignificant in the scope of things

Something has to have some substance for us to be talking. There can't be nothing. Although there might not be a world and existence as we know it, there's existence.

Yeah...so you agree with my position, instead of dodging out of the argument you should address the actual substance of the argument

No. I said that if something cannot be observed in any way (which I assumed you would also take to mean at any time by anyone - I apologize for this)
Now we know that Pluto exists and quarks exist.

Right, but before we didn't...you would've said those things "DON'T EXIST ITS JUST AN IMAGINARY FANTASY" before they were discovered to exist, right?

In the past, Pluto, quarks, along with innumerble other things could not be observed in any way...

If you really believe in things that aren't proven, that's fine by me. The concept of blindly following something just doesn't strike me as logical in any way and I cannot bring myself to follow it, no matter how much I might want to (God would make life so much simpler if he existed.)

There are lots of things are true without evidence...

 

[Saquist]

It so riduiculously biased to give an infraction to one person for this behavior and not the other. Perhaps this is why there is a gulf between the believer of God and the atheist.

I know many individuals who were once atheist and now are spirtual worshipers of God and enjoy the accurate knowledge in the bible. There reason for jumping the fence? A friend told me it was a lack of satisfactory answers.

I asked me why he was atheist. He said religion had a lack of satifactory answers.

 

[rofflewoffle]

VitalOne, I swear that there is absolutely no way to clearly discuss with you. You twist my words, misinterpret me, and make yourself look foolish in your attempt to make me look foolish. We've literally been saying the same things for the past six posts. It was fun for me at first, but now it's gotten a bit tedious. If you are ready to create rebuttals that make sense instead of trying to prove that I'm an idiot, I will most certainly be ready to debate with you again.

 

[spidergoat]

Uhm...you must not have been paying attention...you see the REASON THERE'S NO EVIDENCE IS BECAUSE NOTHING CAN BE CONSIDERED EVIDENCE, just like how there's no evidence for the many-worlds interpretation, but this isn't an indication that it's false, because nothing can be considered evidence right now, its unverifiable....

Unless this many-worlds theorist suggest a way to test the idea, it isn't even a theory.

 

[VitalOne]

Unless this many-worlds theorist suggest a way to test the idea, it isn't even a theory.

Ok, its an interpretation, but still a very viable and real possibility, why are atheist agnostic when it comes to the many-worlds interpretation, but not God?

There's massive amounts of evidence that God exists, cosmological arguments, evidence for design, fine-tuning, etc...just about all the evidence you can possibly gather is there (the evidence you cannot gather isn't there) but this isn't considered evidence to atheists, nothing can be considered evidence to them, they have firmly made up their minds to never believe in God and nothing will convince them otherwise...they say "there's no evidence, and I can't ever give you an example of what would be evidence that can't be considered a "god of the gaps", but if you had real evidence I would believe you"

It has nothing to do with evidence and never has had anything to do with evidence, atheists just don't want to believe in God, they have problems with authority.

 

[spidergoat]

I can entertain the God theory, it can be fun to think about. For instance, you could have an explanation for the universe that became sculpted over time, modified slightly each time, until a verbally transmitted thought unit was fully perfected to avoid any argument. I'm suggesting that, like a virus, natural selection has preserved the most effective justifications for it's existence that work on the typical human psyche. It has met it's match with any human who has woken up from their supernatural fog.

 

[VitalOne]

I can entertain the God theory, it can be fun to think about. For instance, you could have an explanation for the universe that became sculpted over time, modified slightly each time, until a verbally transmitted thought unit was fully perfected to avoid any argument. I'm suggesting that, like a virus, natural selection has preserved the most effective justifications for it's existence that work on the typical human psyche. It has met it's match with any human who has woken up from their supernatural fog.

Was that supposed to address anything I said? Because it didn't...no one's talking about natural selection or anything

 

[spidergoat]

Alright, it could be true, but probably not. Very probably not. Very, very, very probably not true at all. Sorry.

 

[VitalOne]

Alright, it could be true, but probably not. Very probably not. Very, very, very probably not true at all. Sorry.

Why can't you explain why? Your argument is "it just seems like its improbable, thats good enough reason for me", no need to explain how its improbable

Let me awaken you for a moment...

You cannot measure the likelihood of an unverifiable claim being true, because its unverifiable