re-EVOL-ve

[(Q)]

I never claimed I can prove God or any of the sort....

So, even though you never claimed to prove your god, you do believe in a a god. And, you believe in the same Abrahamic god billions of other people believe, with variations on the main themes as your "cultures" would define. This same group of believers would have us change the laws of our countries in order to satisfy this not-soon-to-be-proven god, as well as make part of the human species subjugated to the other part, even though gender is the only discerning difference to please this unproven god. This group would have us leading our lives as allegedly prophesied by a single man out wandering in the desert, alone, with no one to witness the magical kingdom of angels he claimed to have found there.

No, you don't need to prove your god. Just keep on fucking up the world with your bronze age rituals and beliefs and toss us a bone now and again, telling us how the religion of peace will one day be peaceful.

As for Evolution.... I actually believe in it...

You just don't understand it, like so many of the things you evidently don't understand, but still believe.

Science is not the only way to understand the world-

Bronze age beliefs, myths and superstitions are most certainly NOT ways to understand the world.

Anyways I understand you can't disprove God- end of discussion.

And there it is, the creme de le creme of ignorance, intolerance and cult indoctrination. We can't prove your invisible god exists, so it's the end of the discussion as far as you're concerned.

But, that's exactly the point, isn't it? There never was a discussion. It was all just some puerile attempt to stroke your deluded ego and make you feel justified in your beliefs. Your proposals were laughable, at best, and were meant only to further your self-indulgent agenda.

But hey, you won the argument, congratulations! You succeeded where everyone else failed by beating up science and evolution, and placing your god firmly in place as the creator of all things. Period. No one can prove otherwise.

I kneel to thee who hath vanquished me and surrender my sword, o wise one.

Peace be upon you

Kill me now.

 

[786]

No one can prove or dis-prove god I agree.

Agreed

Your suggesting that we should not deny the possibility of a god, fine. But are you, since you can not prove god exists either, denying the possibility that it does not exist.

When did I deny the possibility that god does not exist?

So we are back to the starting point, now what is the evidence for each. Why would we throw out all of the evidence for evolution as to our reason fro being here and start throwing darts at the board for an alternative.

Who is throwing away evidence for evolution? God is only an extra assumption and it can fit with evolution... that is what I was trying to say at the other thread... The fact there is an extra assumption makes it unscientific- which I agree- but only thing I was saying was that the only difference between this 'science' and non-science approach is the added assumption that God exists... All the data will still work, Evolution will still work..

Since we don't know exactly how life started, should we make up an answer ?

I didn't say that.... Even if life starts in a hot soup it is still compatible with God.

I am not questioning you directly on this, I am questioning your premise that others should do this, not that they can or can't but should they ?

I'm not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't do.. It is spidergoat who said God doesn't exist and he can prove it... I don't care if he believes in God or not... I can tell others what I believe and just a science class can teach what they believe is currently the correct theory--- I'm not forcing anyone to say that God does exist..... If you don't agree with my interpretation its fine with me....

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

You just don't understand it, like so many of the things you evidently don't understand, but still believe.

Yes I do understand Evolution, although you did say something right, for once,, we didn't come from apes but from our common ancestor- but they probably were ape-like.

And there it is, the creme de le creme of ignorance, intolerance and cult indoctrination. We can't prove your invisible god exists, so it's the end of the discussion as far as you're concerned.

Discussion ends because we're done with the topic... He said he can prove God doesn't exist.... now since that is over... this discussion does end.... If you want to talk about something else be my guest.

But, that's exactly the point, isn't it? There never was a discussion. It was all just some puerile attempt to stroke your deluded ego and make you feel justified in your beliefs. Your proposals were laughable, at best, and were meant only to further your self-indulgent agenda.

Someone like you can't possibly understand my proposal- and neither do I have the stamina to continuously explain things to you however simple they may be... Because all you know is about how everything else except science is a cult.

But hey, you won the argument, congratulations! You succeeded where everyone else failed by beating up science and evolution, and placing your god firmly in place as the creator of all things. Period. No one can prove otherwise.

Lol..... Thanks for announcing my victory but I've not won anything.... I'm not here to get a prize.... and I'm not here to tell people that you're all wrong like you've been doing going around the forums...

I kneel to thee who hath vanquished me and surrender my sword, o wise one.

I reject thee oh one who hath no eyes to see beyond thy cultist self.

Kill me now.

Go to State of Oregon, they have assisted suicide.

Peace be unto you

 

[(Q)]

Go to State of Oregon, they have assisted suicide.

Peace be unto you

You sir, are a cad.

 

[(Q)]

God is only an extra assumption and it can fit with evolution...

If the universe were blown out the nose of a giant fire breathing dragon, that too would fit with evolution. Notice how that and your assumption are completely worthless.

The fact there is an extra assumption makes it unscientific- which I agree- but only thing I was saying was that the only difference between this 'science' and non-science approach is the added assumption that God exists... All the data will still work, Evolution will still work..

And, we gain what with that or any other worthless assumption? Absolutely nothing.

I didn't say that.... Even if life starts in a hot soup it is still compatible with God.

It is compatible with a myriad of worthless assumptions, why don't you get that?

I'm not forcing anyone to say that God does exist..... If you don't agree with my interpretation its fine with me....

Then, just shut the hell up and stop putting forth worthless assumptions. Your interpretation is pure fantasy and delusion and has no bearing on nature and the world around us.

Yet, you will uphold that interpretation to force people to change their laws, subjugate women, lie, war and a myriad of other notions that would oppress and belittle mankind.

 

[786]

Then, just shut the hell up and stop putting forth worthless assumptions. Your interpretation is pure fantasy and delusion and has no bearing on nature and the world around us.

Yes exactly, you are unwilling to even consider an extra assumption.... you're the one who is cultist here. I recognize that there can be many extra assumptions, I've never denied that- but you are simply a cultist.... By the way keep ranting but I'm done

Peace be unto you

 

[shichimenshyo]

Do you recognize the assumption that god may not exist 786/ are you open to that possibility?

 

[786]

Do you recognize the assumption that god may not exist 786/ are you open to that possibility?

Of course-

Peace be unto you

 

[shichimenshyo]

Of course-

Peace be unto you

Good on you sir

 

[jpappl]

786,

“ Your suggesting that we should not deny the possibility of a god, fine. But are you, since you can not prove god exists either, denying the possibility that it does not exist. ”

When did I deny the possibility that god does not exist?

When you said god created everything, I pretty much took that as believing god exists. So that is not the same as the possibility that god does not exist but I guess it depends on how much faith you have in the belief.

I am sure there are faithful who would cringe at a believer who agrees that it is a possibility that god does not exist.

So we are back to the starting point, now what is the evidence for each. Why would we throw out all of the evidence for evolution as to our reason fro being here and start throwing darts at the board for an alternative. ”

Who is throwing away evidence for evolution? God is only an extra assumption and it can fit with evolution... that is what I was trying to say at the other thread... The fact there is an extra assumption makes it unscientific- which I agree- but only thing I was saying was that the only difference between this 'science' and non-science approach is the added assumption that God exists... All the data will still work, Evolution will still work..

Ok, I understand more of what you are saying or trying to present.

The data will still work however I wonder if you could explain what you preceive as gods role or more to the point where does god start and end with this assumption. For example, did god simply start the process or is he constantly involved in the process ?

To what extent does god continue to play a role in everything that goes on ?

“ Since we don't know exactly how life started, should we make up an answer ? ”

I didn't say that.... Even if life starts in a hot soup it is still compatible with God.

Maybe, the problem is the extra assumption for god is just that, an assumption. There is no evidence for a god, so we can certainly believe that god was involved but that is on faith only.

It is a possibility, but lots of things are possible, but are they probable ?

It's possible that aliens will land on earth tomorrow, but is it probable.

I would suggest that for it to be probable, evidence is needed to justify such a position.

What you are suggesting is that such a position is valid because nobody can prove god does not exist.

So such a position is begging the question, is it a possibility ? Yes it is.

Is it a probability ? Not without some evidence to justify it.

“ I am not questioning you directly on this, I am questioning your premise that others should do this, not that they can or can't but should they ? ”

I'm not telling anyone what they should or shouldn't do.. It is spidergoat who said God doesn't exist and he can prove it... I don't care if he believes in God or not... I can tell others what I believe and just a science class can teach what they believe is currently the correct theory--- I'm not forcing anyone to say that God does exist..... If you don't agree with my interpretation its fine with me....

fair enough

 

[786]

786,

When you said god created everything, I pretty much took that as believing god exists. So that is not the same as the possibility that god does not exist but I guess it depends on how much faith you have in the belief.

Hmm..... I'm trying to have a discussion here with you.... And I acknowledge that the possibility that God does not exist is there.... You don't have to believe in something to start a argument against it... I believe God does exist.... but in terms of start an argument or a discussion I have to admit that the possibility that he doesn't is valid.

I am sure there are faithful who would cringe at a believer who agrees that it is a possibility that god does not exist.

I have no doubt in my mind that God exist.... but any intelligent person who wants to start a discussion must admit that the possibility exists. You don't have to believe in a possibility.

Ok, I understand more of what you are saying or trying to present.

The data will still work however I wonder if you could explain what you perceive as gods role or more to the point where does god start and end with this assumption. For example, did god simply start the process or is he constantly involved in the process ?

To what extent does god continue to play a role in everything that goes on ?

I believe that the universe has some beginning and that was caused by God... not only that but the initial 'input' that was provided by God but always is present- in other words God is at all times providing universe with the initial condition to sustain its existence.

Maybe, the problem is the extra assumption for god is just that, an assumption. There is no evidence for a god, so we can certainly believe that god was involved but that is on faith only.

yes it is an assumption.... to say that it was not Him is also an assumption because it goes both ways.. you can observe the natural process as is but you can't say it truly is natural- that would be a circular argument... so in my eyes both are assumptions.

It is a possibility, but lots of things are possible, but are they probable ?

Life is not probable yet it exists, probability is actually the effect of what can and can not happen depending on the 'natural laws'- If God is outside of natural law- then a concept of 'probability' is worthless argument against Him.

What you are suggesting is that such a position is valid because nobody can prove god does not exist.

The position is valid to the point when someone can disprove it... This is a logical justification not a scientific one. Science require logic + evidence,, logic does not necessarily require evidence, especially on things which can not have evidence but can be thought of logically, a lot of philosophy is as such.

Is it a probability ? Not without some evidence to justify it.

Probability of something is directly dependent on the laws (conditions) that guide an event..... God being outside natural laws, you would be a fool to ascribe Him a probability based upon conditions/law that actually do not govern the event you are trying to ascribe a probability to.

fair enough

Yes I am being fair. It just happens to be the other side doesn't want to be fair most of the time but that is a whole different issue and I don't want to get into it because I have exams coming next week :bawl:

Peace be unto you

 

[(Q)]

I have to admit that the possibility that he doesn't is valid.

I have no doubt in my mind that God exist....

but any intelligent person who wants to start a discussion must admit that the possibility exists.

Yes I am being fair. It just happens to be the other side doesn't want to be fair most of the time

You are correct in that both sides of the argument must admit the possibility AND the probability of gods existence and non-existence.

You admit to having no doubt in your mind that your god exists, as do countless other theists have the same belief in their plethora of gods.

But, that's all you've got, you've got nothing else to show. All you have is that one piece of testimony, that you have no doubt in your mind your god exists.

Any intelligent person who wants to continue a discussion will tell you that is worthless as far as an argument is concerned. It means nothing. Meanwhile, on the other side of the "argument" you'll see evidence to nature having come into itself on it's own, devoid of gods.

What will your response be on that?

"I have no doubt in my mind God is controlling nature."

And, once again, you offer another worthless claim, because it's all in your mind.

And, then you tell us you're being fair and we're not? :bugeye:

 

[(Q)]

Yes exactly, you are unwilling to even consider an extra assumption....

It is an utterly worthless assumption and based entirely on that which has no bearing on our universe. You're not satisfied with an explanation that the universe came into existence on it's own, you have to add some magical, mystical, invisible being that defies all logic and reasoning. It's childish fantasy.

 

[786]

You are correct in that both sides of the argument must admit the possibility AND the probability of gods existence and non-existence.

If you read completely I already addressed why probability of god can not be assigned.

But, that's all you've got, you've got nothing else to show. All you have is that one piece of testimony, that you have no doubt in your mind your god exists.

I didn't use that as evidence or a logical backing of any argument.... That was only a statement to show what I believe.... I don't understand how in the slightest way could you interpret to be my effort of a 'proof' or logical proof of my proposition...when I've already said that I can not prove God. That is your problem- interpreting things that have never been said.

Any intelligent person who wants to continue a discussion will tell you that is worthless as far as an argument is concerned. It means nothing. Meanwhile, on the other side of the "argument" you'll see evidence to nature having come into itself on it's own, devoid of gods.

It is in your mind that I used my 'mind' as an argument.... it was only a statement of my belief.... Anything other than that is your imagination because you simply wanted something to rant about..

And, then you tell us you're being fair and we're not? :bugeye:

This post of yours is an example... Read nothing, say things that the other person hasn't said, and then blabber on because you didn't want to read or understand what was written...

Peace be unto you

 

[786]

It is an utterly worthless assumption and based entirely on that which has no bearing on our universe. You're not satisfied with an explanation that the universe came into existence on it's own, you have to add some magical, mystical, invisible being that defies all logic and reasoning. It's childish fantasy.

First, God does not defy logic or reasoning- but I don't want to discuss this with you because I don't see how you can possibly discuss something like this.... Spidergoat tried but all his 'logical' criticism can be logically dismissed- I don't want to continue on this topic because I've already seen what proof you guys have to offer.

Now the second part- you are welcome to discuss this if you want since we've not really discussed it in this perspective-

Let me make myself clear about assumptions- but before that let me ask you a question...

Would you accept that God exists (a biblical concept) if the Bible said God exists? Is this proof? In other words is this an acceptable proof? Proof that comes from the very thing that the proposition is made from?

When would this be a valid proof? Would it be a valid proof, WITH THE ASSUMPTION, that the Bible is in all respect 100% correct?

Peace be unto you

 

[(Q)]

If you read completely I already addressed why probability of god can not be assigned.

No, you did not. The only thing you've alluded to through all your posts is, "God did it."

I can not prove God. That is your problem- interpreting things that have never been said.

There is nothing to interpret, you believe in god with every fiber of your being but haven't got a single argument other than that.

it was only a statement of my belief....

Of course it's only a statement of belief, hence it's worthless. You haven't got a single thing to argue then.

But, that's not the end of it, is it? You go on to slam science and evolution in favor of your so-called "statement of belief" - you refer to science as a cult and scientists as hucksters bilking the public.

 

[(Q)]

First, God does not defy logic or reasoning-

The concept of gods totally and completely defies logic and reasoning. Only the indoctrinated would believe such claptrap.

but I don't want to discuss this with you because I don't see how you can possibly discuss something like this....

Exactly, you are completely unable to move beyond your faith based statement of "God did it" - you have nothing else to offer.

Spidergoat tried but all his 'logical' criticism can be logically dismissed- I don't want to continue on this topic because I've already seen what proof you guys have to offer.

Complete and utter bs. Spidergoat has nothing to do with your faith based claims of "God did it" Spidergoat has nothing to prove.

YOU are the one who needs to demonstrate beyond your own worthless claim of "God did it" You can't.

 

[786]

Nevermind- discussing anything with you is worthlesss... you repeated your cultist bs again and again, didn't really care to read what was written... I am not compelled to reply to your willful ignorance (seems ironic to you doesn't it)

My request to the moderator- close the thread... topic has been resolved. Otherwise (Q) is going to continue with his crap.

Peace be unto you

 

[spidergoat]

Spidergoat tried but all his 'logical' criticism can be logically dismissed- )

I tried and succeeded in proving that you base your argument on an illogical premise- that something exists for which there is no evidence.

 

[786]

I tried and succeeded in proving that you base your argument on an illogical premise- that something exists for which there is no evidence.

Don't be self-delusional that you succeeded.... You tried to prove God doesn't exist, and I logically killed your arguments... The last part -no evidence- I think I had this perspective BEFORE you even started the discussion..... Your thinking of the world is based on an assumption as is mine.... You don't want to admit it but I do. That is the only difference.

BTW I'm done with this topic.

Peace be unto you