It's really starting to bother me that people don't understand this concept.

How many would agree that the following is a fair portrayal of a theist vs. atheist:

Theist: God exists.
Atheist: Prove to me that God exists.
Theist: I don't need to, you need to prove to me that God doesn't exist.

Theists CANNOT do this.

You cannot ask someone to disprove something like this. Let's say the argument was about the existence of fuzzy pink elephants (FPE)...theists, do you believe that FPEs exist? Why or why not?

If someone made the claim that FPE did exist, you would ask them to prove it, would you not?

If they replied "prove that FPE DON'T exist," would you conclude, therefore, that since FPE cannot be disproved, they must exist?

No one can disprove the existence of FPE any more than they can disprove the existence of GOD. So, theists, logic says you MUST believe in FPE.

Theists are setting forth a claim; they MUST have reasons for believing in God, which is what atheists want to hear...

Atheists merely reject theists claims; therefore, all an atheist has to do is discredit the theists argument, they don't need to provide proof as to why God doesn't exist. Discrediting a theists claim is "proof" enough.

Does anyone else see this flaw in the theistic argument?
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
BTW, don't assume that I'd an atheist, I would say I'm agnostic..see below for definitions :D

Theist: There is no valid reason for believing FPE do not exist. Therefore, FPE exist.

Atheist: There is no valid reason for believing FPE exist. Therefore, FPE do not exist.

Agnostic: There is no valid reason for believing FPE exist. However this doesn't mean FPE don't exist. It means that while it is possible that FPE exist, we should doubt their existence until a valid reason to do otherwise is given.

Nebula

Atheist: Prove to me that God exists.
Theist: I don't need to, you need to prove to me that God doesn't exist.

I understand where you're going with this but I think you might want to add in as the first line:

Theist: God exists.

*after edit*

Thanks for the suggestion (Q), it helped a lot.

Nebula,

What kind of proof do you want?

Love

Jan Ardena.

Originally posted by Jan Ardena

What kind of proof do you want?

Any proof.

Indisputable, indubious proof that was realized by logical means.

I'm willing to accept any type of valid evidence :). As soon as theists provide a valid reason, I'll believe! :D

"Discrediting a theists claim is "proof" enough."
-----------------------------

I have yet to have ANY evidence supporting the existence of God or the validity of the Bible 'proved' wrong by anyone, especially an atheist. The opinions of a non-believer do not classify as 'proof', nor does the subjective commentaries used to satisfy their presuppositions negate the existence of God.

I generally do not attempt to prove or disprove negatives. However, for the sake of discussion, can you present historically accurate, archaeologically consistent, non-biblical evidence that said fuzzy pink elephant exists or existed? Are there hundreds of documented eyewitnesses to this fuzzy pink elephant, who upon testifying to said fuzzy pink elephant's existence, know or knew that their testimonies would result in their beheading? Can said fuzzy pink elephant offer eternal life? Walk on water? Heal the sick? Raise the dead? Are there witnesses to these miracles, accurately recorded in historically accurate documents? BTW, why are all of the poor analogies that atheists use (fuzzy pink elephants, invisible pink unicorns, etc.) pink in color? Does this have to do with atheist's sexual orientations? ;-)

><>

I have yet to have ANY evidence supporting the existence of God or the validity of the Bible 'proved' wrong by anyone, especially an atheist.

What evidence is there for god that atheists have yet to disprove? Name some. Show us some.

I generally do not attempt to prove or disprove negatives. However, for the sake of discussion, can you present historically accurate, archaeologically consistent, non-biblical evidence that said fuzzy pink elephant exists or existed? Are there hundreds of documented eyewitnesses to this fuzzy pink elephant, who upon testifying to said fuzzy pink elephant's existence, know or knew that their testimonies would result in their beheading? Can said fuzzy pink elephant offer eternal life? Walk on water? Heal the sick? Raise the dead? Are there witnesses to these miracles, accurately recorded in historically accurate documents?

For one thing, your argument would be a lot more convincing if you cut out the sarcasm. Secondly. what you have in here can be considered the START of proving your case. But this is were theists always fall short...

"historical proof of biblical events"

Don't TELL me there is historical proof, SHOW ME DAMMIT!!!

"What evidence is there for god that atheists have yet to disprove? Name some. Show us some."
---------------------------------

Sure. Biblical or non-biblical? The Archo Volume is a 245 page book that contains letters between Pilate and Caesar; Valleus's notes to Pilate about the arrest trial and crucifixion of Jesus; Gamaliel's interviews with Joseph and Mary, and others about Jesus; Jonathan's interviews with some Bethlehem shepherds; and more. All of these are NON-BIBLICAL documents which testify about the existence of Jesus. Let me list the table of contents.

Chapter 1) How these records were discovered.
Chapter 2) A short sketch of the Talmuds.
Chapter 3) Constantine's letter in regard to having fifty copies of the Scriptures written and bound.
Chapter 4) Jonathan's interview with Bethlehem shepherds; letter of Melker, Priest of the Synagogue at Bethlehem.
Chapter 5) Gamaliel's interview with Joseph and Mary and others concerning Jesus.
Chapter 6) Report of Caiaphas to the Sanhedrin concerning the execution of Jesus.
Chapter 7) Report of Caiaphas to the Sanhedrin concerning the resurrection of Jesus.
Chapter 8) Pilate's report to Caesar of the arrest, trial, and crucifixion of Jesus.
Chapter 9) Herod's defense before the Roman Senate in regard to the execution of John the Baptist.
Chapter 10) Herod's defense before the Roman Senate in regard to his conduct at Bethlehem [Archo pg 1-245].

How does an atheist explain away evidence that is submitted by SECULAR scientists and archaeologists? I am sure your presuppositions will show you how.

><>

Inspector

Chapter 5) Gamaliel's interview with Joseph and Mary and others concerning Jesus.

I often thought that if this were to happen in modern times, the interviewer would be Geraldo Rivera.

..........and televised live on Fox. Indeed, I agree with you.

><>

It's really starting to bother me that people don't understand this concept.

How many would agree that the following is a fair portrayal of a theist vs. atheist:

Atheist: God is a myth.
Theist: Prove to me that God is a myth.
Atheist: I don't need to, you need to prove to me that God does exist.

ATHEISTS CHILDREN, YOU MADE A CLAIM, SO PROVE YOUR CLAIM...WE MADE THE CLAIM, AND WE WILL PROVE OUR CLAIM, AND WE HAVE TONS OF EVIDENCE...

Originally posted by Nebula

You cannot ask someone to disprove something like this. Let's say the argument was about the existence of fuzzy pink elephants (FPE)...theists, do you believe that FPEs exist? Why or why not?
A CLAIM CAN BE PROVE FAKE BY LACK OF EVIDENCE. I DDIDNT MAKE A CLAIM OF TOOTHFAIRY, GIANT PURPLE SQUIDMONKEY, ETC. BUT FOR THOSE WHO MADE THE CLAIM THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THEM...



Originally posted by Nebula


If someone made the claim that FPE did exist, you would ask them to prove it, would you not?

OF COURSE, THERE ARE TONS OF EVIDENCE FOR THE CLAIM OF GOD, ZERO FOR TOOTHFAIRY, GIANT PURPLE SQUID MONKEY, AND ATHEISM...

Originally posted by Nebula

If they replied "prove that FPE DON'T exist," would you conclude, therefore, that since FPE cannot be disproved, they must exist?
AGAIN A CLAIM IS PROVEN FAKE BY LACK OF EVIDENCE...


Originally posted by Nebula

No one can disprove the existence of FPE any more than they can disprove the existence of GOD. So, theists, logic says you MUST believe in FPE.


STUPID, THERE IS NO CONVICTION IN FUZZY PINK ELEPHANTS, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON IT, THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTEARY ON IT, NO CONVICTION, NO TESTIMONIES, NOTHING! A CLAIM CAN BE PROVEN FAKE BY LACK OF EVIDENCE..
THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM AND TOOTHFAIRY AND FUZZYPINK ELEPHANTS..

TONS OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTS GOD...

All this time I have debated with atheists, I came to the conclusion that atheist are far MORE brainwashed than christians...

First...they consider to be "Skeptic" and only accept claims with evidence, yet claims God is a myth when the fact is no evidence supports their claim..."Skeptism" and "Atheism" donot mix...but they will insist they are skeptics...

Second...They claim to be very scientific, when the only thing they can say to disprove God is "Prove to me Giant purple Squid monkey dont exist'. THATS THE BEST ATTACK THEY CAN SAY AGAINST CHRISTIANITY, we didnt even make that claim but put those words in our mouth, in an attempt to make a fool of the truth. IS THAT A SCIENTIFIC METHOD? NO...But they insist that they know more about science...

Third...They said they dont have faith, but only believe in FACTS. Evolution isnt a fact, big bang theory isnt a fact, but both are THEORIES, so believing them is FAITH..But they will deny it...AND SAY THEY ARE FACTS, INDEED THIS GUY'S DO HAVE FAITH BUT ARE IN DENIAL...

In summary, they are deluded..........and thats a FACT..............

How many would agree that the following is a fair portrayal of a theist vs. atheist:

Atheist: God is a myth.
Theist: Prove to me that God is a myth.
Atheist: I don't need to, you need to prove to me that God does exist.

Your ability to recognize the obvious is ridiculously lacking. Why would an atheist make such a statement in the first place ? :rolleyes:

STUPID, THERE IS NO CONVICTION IN FUZZY PINK ELEPHANTS, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON IT, THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTEARY ON IT, NO CONVICTION, NO TESTIMONIES, NOTHING! A CLAIM CAN BE PROVEN FAKE BY LACK OF EVIDENCE.. TONS OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTS GOD...
You are a dumbass. I'm asking you to provide this evidence.

You are a dumbassGood show, Nebula. We see your true reasons shine through.

:rolleyes:

In the meantime, which God are you addressing?

--Tiassa :cool:

Originally posted by inspector
The Archo Volume... Inspector, are you going to spew this bullshit reply in every thread you post in?

Very well... here is my standard reply:

First of all the Archko volume is not archaeological evidence, it is a work written by Rev. Mahan a Missouri minister. Mahan supposedly researched thousands of volumes in Rome and Constantinople in a span of two months with only two assistants in 1883. A 'trip' for which there is no corroborating evidence for not to mention the amount of labor they supposedly completed in such a brief span. The chief librarian in St. Sophia in Constantinople had no recollection of Mahan nor his assistants nor any of the manuscripts that Mahan supposedly consulted. Mahan claimed to have conversed with a Vatican librarian, Father Freelinhusen, in Rome... however, Rome has no record of a Father Freelinhusen at all. In fact, no corroboration indicates Mahan traveled any further than Rome Illinois from where he sent his correspondence. Additionally, it has been noted that several pages copied verbatim from Ben Hur... of course after the plagiarized passages were noted they were removed from subsequent printings.

Hardly, what I would deem a reliable source.

Here's a nice little critique:
http://www.answers.org/Bible/archko.html

~Raithere

"Inspector, are you going to spew this bullshit reply in every thread you post in?"
-----------------------------

Yep. I will continue to offer archaeological evidence supporting the validity of the Bible. BTW, check your facts because they are wrong. The evidences I will offer are taken from reputable, SECULAR, archaeologically oriented sources.


THE MOABITE STONE
"Now Mesha king of Moab was a sheep breeder; and he had to deliver annually to the king of Israel a hundred thousand lambs, and the wool of a hundred thousand rams. But when Ahab died, the king of Moab rebelled against the king of Israel' (II Kings 3:4-5.)

The Moabite Stone was found in 1868. Commissioned by king Mesha himself, it reveals in detail how he rebelled against the new king of Israel, even naming him! (Omir). Once again we have exact confirmation of a biblical event and occurrence, not by an Israelite or Prophet, but an enemy!

HEZEKIAH'S TUNNEL (2 Kings 20:20)
"As for the other events of Hezekiah's reign, all his achievements and how he made the pool and the tunnel by which he brought water into the city, are they not written in the book of the annals of the kings of Judah.'

In 1880 an inscription was found in an underground water conduit beneath the old city of Jerusalem. The inscription, dated to the year 702 b.c. and written in Old Hebrew (Canaanite) confirms the construction of the tunnel was ordered by Hezekiah, and also records minute details of how the tunnel was engineered.


><>

Thank you inspector. This is what I'm looking for! You have at least provided a starting point from which one can examine evidence and then judge its validity. I'll read up on that stuff.

Tiassa; I was commenting on how he still managed to totally miss the point of my previous post. Congrats on keeping a post under 4,000 words though :D.

lol, maybe I'm the dumbass, I forgot about the latter part of your post tiassa; I'm referring to any deity. They are all equally lacking support :cool: .

These are evidences of the validity of the Old Testament. Here is another one.

CYLINDER OF CYRUS

In the book of Ezra 1:1-2 we read of the following:

In the first year of Cyrus King of Persia, in order to fulfill the word of the Lord spoken by Jeremiah, the Lord moved the heart of Cyrus king of Persia to make a proclamation throughout his realm and to put it in writing: this is what Cyrus king of Persia says: "The Lord, the God of heaven, has given me all the kingdoms of the earth and he has appointed me to build, a temple for him at Jerusalem in Judah. Anyone of his people among you may his God be with him, and let him go up to Jerusalem in Judah and build the temple of the Lord, the God of Israel; the God who is in Jerusalem.

In the nineteenth century a clay tablet was found written in cuneiform by order of Cyrus. The text is in full agreement with Ezra and 2 Kings with Cyrus declaring the return of the Jews and the rebuilding of the temple in Jerusalem in 538 b.c.

><>

What about the the validity of the New Testament you ask?

Lets take a quick look at the Capernaum in Galilee. Excavated for nearly the past one hundred years by an order of Franciscan monks, numerous discoveries with direct bearing on the New Testament have been uncovered. A third century synagogue was found to be erected directly over the remains of a first century synagogue from the time of Christ.

"They went to Capernaum, and when the Sabbath came, Jesus went into the synagogue and began to teach." Mark 1:21.

Found only recently under a Byzantine basilica from the sixth century were a cluster of small homes built in the first century which was the time of Christ's ministry in the area. The roofs were made from branches, clay and straw which immediately draws our attention to the story of the paralytic in Mark 11:4. The walls and ceilings of a larger house were filled with graffiti or inscriptions. Of the 134 pieces, 101 were in Greek, 18 in Syriac, and 15 in Hebrew. Most astounding was the repetitive phrase in the form of a prayer giving thanks to God for "our brother Peter" and his allowing fellow Christians to meet in his home in Capernaum. It seems the home of the apostle Peter has been discovered.


><>

Originally posted by inspector
Yep. I will continue to offer archaeological evidence supporting the validity of the Bible. BTW, check your facts because they are wrong.Sorry to tell you, but the Archko Volume is not a historical document of Biblical times it was a book first published in 1879 by a Missouri minister. It was titled "The Archaeological and the Historical Writings of the Sanhedrin and Talmuds of the Jews, Translated from the Ancient Parchments and Scrolls at Constantinople and the Vatican at Rome." It has been reprinted many times since then often titled as "The Archko Volume" or "Archko Library'. The book has been demonstrated to be almost entirely fabrication. No one can even find some of the original manuscripts that Mahan supposedly referenced... nor did the librarians of those librarys at the time he "researched" the book ever hear of them. The book has also been discovered to contain plagiarism. The Archko Volume is a farce.

However, I do agree that the next two do appear to be historically accurate:

THE MOABITE STONE
HEZEKIAH'S TUNNELI've already agreed and in fact never rejected the fact that the Bible does contain some historical truths.

You're either using a rather obvious ploy or are the victim of one. Specifically, the deceptive practice of mixing truth with lies... aligning claims that are purely false with claims that are true so that when your body of "evidence" is attacked you can refer back to the true claims for support.

Sorry inspector, I'm not so easily deceived.

~Raithere

Even if some of the historical events are accurate (let's say Moses leading the Israeli exodus), how can we prove the supernatural connotations that go along with it?

This proof may support happenings, but how do we know the spiritual context associated with it?

"Sorry inspector, I'm not so easily deceived."
--------------------------

I'm not trying to deceive you or anyone else. It appears to be your nature to be contrary, although this is not altogether a bad thing. I have had excellent debates in the past with contrarians. However, you need to be able to separate your contrarianess from objective examination of the evidence. I am amazed that you accept the previous examples as evidence for the validity of the Bible (not because you accepted the evidence because you didn't have a choice, but because you admitted it). I have no ploy, although you offered some excellent ideas ;-). BTW, you are correct, the Archo Volume was published in the late 1800's as a book. However, the book is a COLLECTION of original manuscripts compiled to form a book. I believe your source of information is misleading.

I hope you, and everyone else who takes the time to read this bickering, has a safe and delicious Thanksgiving and subsequent holiday weekend.

><>

I'm referring to any deity. They are all equally lacking supportI'm going to have a moment of internal conflict, from a very similar topic (http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?threadid=13454&perpage=20&pagenumber=1):When I speak of god, I mean a BEING, something aware of its own existence, something omnipotent, omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omniscient, timeless, changeless...basically a supreme being the way that Christians/Muslims personify one.There's quite a difference, although being from two similar but separate topics, there might be something I'm missing that makes these two statements reconcilable.

Help me understand the difference between the two topics, and thus the two ideas.I was commenting on how he still managed to totally miss the point of my previous post.I admit that I don't necessarily know what to do when the point is missed. But being that I've been (repeatedly) called fascist for advising someone that they missed the point, I don't see what the use is of the less-civilized form. But that's another argument for another day.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

Hmmm...just ignore the first comment, (all deities etc...).

Let's just stick with the latter definition. Sound alright?

Cheers

A CLAIM CAN BE PROVE FAKE BY LACK OF EVIDENCE. I DDIDNT MAKE A CLAIM OF TOOTHFAIRY, GIANT PURPLE SQUIDMONKEY, ETC. BUT FOR THOSE WHO MADE THE CLAIM THE BURDEN OF PROOF LIES ON THEM...

I have a lack of evidence that you don't look like <img src="http://voluntrans.abavagada.net/muscleman.jpg">

You're right, since there's a lack of evidence that you don't look like <img src="http://voluntrans.abavagada.net/muscleman.jpg">, it's obvious to all of us that you do in fact look like <img src="http://voluntrans.abavagada.net/muscleman.jpg"> :)

OF COURSE, THERE ARE TONS OF EVIDENCE FOR THE CLAIM OF GOD, ZERO FOR TOOTHFAIRY, GIANT PURPLE SQUID MONKEY, AND ATHEISM...

You have yet to show us your proof of God.

AGAIN A CLAIM IS PROVEN FAKE BY LACK OF EVIDENCE...

Yes, we know, <img src="http://voluntrans.abavagada.net/muscleman.jpg">.

STUPID, THERE IS NO CONVICTION IN FUZZY PINK ELEPHANTS, THERE IS NO EVIDENCE ON IT, THERE IS NO SCIENTIFIC DOCUMENTEARY ON IT, NO CONVICTION, NO TESTIMONIES, NOTHING! A CLAIM CAN BE PROVEN FAKE BY LACK OF EVIDENCE... THERE IS ZERO EVIDENCE FOR ATHEISM AND TOOTHFAIRY AND FUZZYPINK ELEPHANTS..

Again, you don't have to shout at us over and over that you look like <img src="http://voluntrans.abavagada.net/muscleman.jpg">. It's sort of stupid.

TONS OF EVIDENCE SUPPORTS GOD...

Like what? Hmm?

It's really starting to bother me that people don't understand this concept.

It's bugging me, too, <img src="http://voluntrans.abavagada.net/muscleman.jpg">, that you can't understand it either. :p

How many would agree that the following is a fair portrayal of a theist vs. atheist:

Atheist: God is a myth.
Theist: Prove to me that God is a myth.
Atheist: I don't need to, you need to prove to me that God does exist.

Disagree. Theists are usually the ones to start arguments about God. They ask what religion you are, you say you're an Atheist, and then they go at it about how God is real etc etc.

Also, there are two kinds of Atheists:

1. Atheists that say God doesn't exist and are SURE they're right,
and Atheists who THINK God doesn't exist, but can't be sure without evidence either way.

The former is called a strong Atheist, the latter a weak Atheist. Most people here are weak Atheists, although sometimes Xev acts like a strong Atheist (although I was pretty sure she was a weak one)

Now, strong Atheists will do this sort of thing, but weak Atheists will say, "I will not believe in God until you can give me proof", or they will say "I don't think there is a God". Unless they make a statement and try to pass it as fact, there is no burden of proof on them.

ATHEISTS CHILDREN, YOU MADE A CLAIM, SO PROVE YOUR CLAIM...WE MADE THE CLAIM, AND WE WILL PROVE OUR CLAIM, AND WE HAVE TONS OF EVIDENCE...

You made the claim first. You said, "There is a God", and we said "There might be a God, but the chance is extremely miniscule, so therefore we do not believe in a God"

Get it, <img src="http://voluntrans.abavagada.net/muscleman.jpg">?

lol, nice pic global...but don't you think it looks more like bluesoulrobot? :D

Hmmm...just ignore the first comment, (all deities etc...).

Let's just stick with the latter definition. Sound alright?Fair enough. I shall return to more serious considerations after I decide what to do about all those damn pictures of GIL's. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

I'm not trying to deceive you or anyone else.

We know, but that would seem to be the purpose of the Bible as well as many other religious text. Tell some truths that can be proven, and then make up a bunch of fantasy so that whenever anybody says that the fantasy isn't true, the others can refer them back to the provable part and they'll say "oh, yes, since this part is true, the rest must all be true as well"

I am amazed that you accept the previous examples as evidence for the validity of the Bible (not because you accepted the evidence because you didn't have a choice, but because you admitted it).

Stupid, you gave a proof of something with very believable evidence, and because of that, we believe you. You're the first Christian I've met that doesn't refer me to "creation scientists" for proof of the bible, or refer back to the bible itself.

I hope you can give us more proofs.

Also, I'm sure we'd all appreciate links to places substantiating these archealogical finds (which I believe, but just wish to confirm)

BTW, you are correct, the Archo Volume was published in the late 1800's as a book. However, the book is a COLLECTION of original manuscripts compiled to form a book. I believe your source of information is misleading.

It has been found that most of the "original manuscripts" never existed, and there is no travel record of the Reverend going any farther than a certain Rome, Illinois.

One of the Vatican officials he claimed to have chatted with has been found not to exist, or at least not as a Vatican official, and most definitely not in the position that our friend the Reverend claimed he was.

I hope you, and everyone else who takes the time to read this bickering, has a safe and delicious Thanksgiving and subsequent holiday weekend.

Stupid holiday. Why can't we have something more MEANINGFUL? Like a day where we all mourn for unrepresented peoples and peoples fighting for solidarity?

Every year, we learn about 10 different unrepresented peoples from around the world (no more than 3 from one continent, except for a maximum of 4 for your own), and try to help these people in their efforts to achieve solidarity. Good idea, no?

Originally posted by Nebula
lol, nice pic global...but don't you think it looks more like bluesoulrobot? :D

That picture is one I made myself in Photoshop a couple months ago and posted quite a while ago with almost the exact same rhetoric against Muscleman.

Originally posted by tiassa
Fair enough. I shall return to more serious considerations after I decide what to do about all those damn pictures of GIL's. ;)

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

LOL. I was just trying to give him a more (blue-)hands-on example than the things about flying fuzzy purple elephants.

All this time I have debated with atheists, I came to the conclusion that atheist are far MORE brainwashed than christians...

Strong Atheists, maybe. But probably not.

First...they consider to be "Skeptic" and only accept claims with evidence, yet claims God is a myth when the fact is no evidence supports their claim...

You cannot prove something false unless you prove something else true that ultimately means the other has to be false. So, unless I can prove an alternative to your God, there is no way to prove him false, whether he exists or not.

I don't think God is a myth. Strong Atheists do, but weak Atheists think that there is no God, but say that they cannot be sure because there is no proof either way. So weak Atheists are skeptics.

"Skeptism" and "Atheism" donot mix...but they will insist they are skeptics...

lol, you're so funny, <img src="http://voluntrans.abavagada.net/muscleman.jpg">, yes you are! :)

Second...They claim to be very scientific, when the only thing they can say to disprove God is "Prove to me Giant purple Squid monkey dont exist'. THATS THE BEST ATTACK THEY CAN SAY AGAINST CHRISTIANITY, we didnt even make that claim but put those words in our mouth, in an attempt to make a fool of the truth. IS THAT A SCIENTIFIC METHOD? NO...But they insist that they know more about science...

Prove to me you don't look like <img src="http://voluntrans.abavagada.net/muscleman.jpg">. Now, do you still want me to prove for you God doesn't exist?

Third...They said they dont have faith, but only believe in FACTS. Evolution isnt a fact, big bang theory isnt a fact, but both are THEORIES, so believing them is FAITH..But they will deny it...AND SAY THEY ARE FACTS, INDEED THIS GUY'S DO HAVE FAITH BUT ARE IN DENIAL...

Not all Atheists believe Evolution or the Big Bang theory, but there are actually quite a few Christians who do. See, they believe that Genesis is not literal, but that since the time it took for God to create the Universe was so unfathomable to people at the time of the writing of the Old Testament, that it was just written "seven days". Each of these "seven days" is 1/7th of the time it took to create the Universe. Something like 15bil years? I think? Not sure (this would put each "day" at 2bil years). Also, they believe that the animals weren't nessecarily created in the order dictated in the Bible, but that God made original organisms knowing what they would evolve into, or that he guides evolution even today. Also, many Christians believe that God was all that existed before the Big Bang, and he is the one who caused it.

So... hmm...

In summary, they are deluded..........and thats a FACT..............

In summary, you look like <img src="http://voluntrans.abavagada.net/muscleman.jpg">, and that's a FACT...

Hehe...the pics are a nice idea, but maybe you could size them down a bit?

I'm gonna go buy me a fuzzy pink elephant!;)

Are you SURE they exist?

:P

Oh yes, fuzzy pink elephants are all the rage!!

*hugs elephant and wonders how the hell discussions about god could degenerate into this*

I'll name mine Whatmuscles. :D

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

whatsupmuscle:


Atheist: God is a myth.
Theist: Prove to me that God is a myth.
Atheist: I don't need to, you need to prove to me that God does exist.

You've got it backwards. Allow me to illustrate...

We meet on a road, travelling opposite directions. I, in all my years of life, have never EVER heard of this God concept and am completely ignorant as to the idea of religion.

You know of religion, the idea of God, and believe all that jazz.

We pass, and I say to you "God is a myth!"

What's wrong with that picture?

What's wrong? The fact that there could be a society which had never heard of "all that jazz". Something close to 98% (an A+!! :D) believes in some sort of superior being or religious principle. I doubt if there is such a society that has never heard of the notion.

Either whatmuscles hasn't gotten here yet or he has nothing to say in his defense.

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

Oh I'm sure he'll put in an appearance, he's probably just busy willfully ignoring facts and logic somewhere else at the moment. :)

I'm still waiting for Whatsupyall and Inspector to respond to me thread "My god is real". I guess they can't...

*snuggles up to fuzzy pink elephant, named whatmuscles*

Mmmgrmmmph. Sigh...

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

The Dragon In My Garage

"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"

Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!

"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle--but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floates in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick."

And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.

Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so.

The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility.

Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative-- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."

Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons--to say nothing about invisible ones--you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.

Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages--but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.

Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence"--no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it--is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.

Pgs. 171-173 The Demon-Haunted World: Science As A Candle In the Dark by Carl Sagan.

Hey this could be a cool new religion. I worship the Dragon in my Garage!! :D :D :D
Sorry I couldn't resist. First the purple potato king and now this...

Seriously, though, that kind of relates to my belief that reality only exists in the mind. If you never get any stimulus from, say, a bully boy who lives in an obscure pacific isle, if you've never even thought that he exists, as far as you're concerned the boy doesn't exist to you. If you get stimuli of fuzzy pink elephants, then as far as you're concerned that doggone well counts as reality to you. Though I usually try not to tell people about my pet fuzzy pink elephant because it would be to my advantage not to end up in a mental institute.

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

Ah, there's the rub....

Just because something exists in your mind doesn't mean it exists in reality.

Anything outside of mind or stimuli is not reality. It's not there. Anything inside of mind or stimuli is reality. It's there.

At least to my view.

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

The rub? When something that you've never thought about gives off some stimuli or you start thinking about it, it exists then. Just my personal view here, but I'm willing to defend it.

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

What about if you are on hallucinogens? Just because you perceive the walls as actually melting doesn't mean the melt in ABSOLUTE reality.

Theist: God exists.
Atheist: Prove to me that God exists.
Theist: I don't need to, you need to prove to me that God doesn't exist.

Theists CANNOT do this.

Did you right the rule books on what Theists can and cant do? I dont think so.

I think that a theist can and should ask for proof that god doesnt exist. And I think that a atheist should always ask for evidence to support god. And vice versa.

The only way your ever going to find out the truth is if you ask each other questions.

Give me proof that god DOESNT exist.

Give me proof that god DOES exist.

It's not possible to prove or disprove God's existance until he decideds to pay us a visit, so what's the point of argueing?

narrow minded atheists talking to another narrow minded atheists; you guys need education...

narrow minded atheists talking to another narrow
minded atheists; you guys need education...
Do you feel that this bible quote doesn't apply to you?

Do not judge, or you too will be judged. For in the same way
you judge others, you will be judged, and with the measure
you use, it will be measured to you. -Matthew 7:1-2

I say, what's the difference between "absolute" reality and what you get from hallucinogens? I say, what IS "absolute" reality and what you perceive/think? I'd say nothing. That's the heart of my little stand here.

You can't talk about "absolute" reality. The concept is dumb. For something to exist for you, YOU have to receive stimuli from it or think about it. IF you take hallucinogens? Then the pink elephants dancing in front of you damn well exist for you.

Good one, whatsup!! I continue to gape at your godly intelligence and saintliness, and wonder why I shouldn't fall at your feet and lick your boots. Maybe all atheists should. You amaze me, catsupmuscles.

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

He's verbally destroyed us...

What goes on in the mind might as well be reality, for you're not able to see "reality" any way else... the only standard of which is reality is your own.

Who's verbally destroyed us? :confused:

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

CC

I think that a theist can and should ask for proof that god doesnt exist.

That's not the way it works. That line of reasoning can therefore be used for any claim. In other words, one can claim anything exists and then ask others to disprove it. Hence, we see claims of pink elephants and purple dragons representative of that proof.

That is the main reason why claimants must prove their claim, not the other way round.

As well, would an atheist ever ask for proof that gods existed if theists did not make the claim gods did exist in the first place ?

Did you right the rule books on what Theists can and cant do? I dont think so.

You're right I didn't. My claim is based on simple logic. In fact, two days after I posted this thread my Philosophy prof. and I had a good chat about this very idea. If you examine the situation closely, you'll see that it's irrational for a theist to ask for an atheist to disprove God's existence; not that the theists care though :D.

So then Zero, based on your premises, you're saying that God does exist for some people and not for others? How is this possible? THAT'S the difference between accepted reality and absolute reality. How can two opposing ideas existing in two separate minds both be reality?

BTW, the whole "what is reality" question is another thread altogether.

Ever studied relativity? What's wrong with two different minds registering different observations/reality? Eh?

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

There is nothing wrong with 2 different minds interpreting reality.

I'm saying that one's interpretation of reality has no bearing on what's real.

There is a HUGE difference between saying "I think/know God exists" and "God exists."

If one person says "God exists" and another says "God doesn't exist," can they both be right? If so, why are we even debating over the existence of God?

While there may be an infinitesimal likelihood for condition A occuring and an infinitesimal likelihood for condition B occuring, only one of them can be accepted as a valid outcome (provided B=~A).

But I'm saying one's interpretation of reality and what's real are the SAME THING. Why do we bother debating about whether or not there is a god? Exactly my point. Why do we bother? All we get are flames because both parties have their minds stuck deeply into their own viewpoints.

Why can only one of them be accepted? Remember the lightning hitting the tree in relativity class? And the whole hubbub about simultaniety? If A claims that it happened at the same time and B says the opposite, they're both right.

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

Remember the lightning hitting the tree in relativity class?

No. Could you outline it for me? :D

Lemme dig up my book...we actually haven't covered it yet, we're doing it next week...*takes out book and buries head in it* mggrmmmph...

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

B Tree1 A Tree2




OK, in A's frame of reference lightning hits the trees at the same time. Doesn't appear that way to B, obviously. There's time delay in the light/sound from Tree1 being hitten and Tree2 being hitten, when they get there to B's eyes/ears. We, the discussion people, are assuming that we're ina frame of reference far enough that they seem to strike at the same time.

Who's right, A or B?

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

Originally posted by Nebula
You're right I didn't. My claim is based on simple logic. In fact, two days after I posted this thread my Philosophy prof. and I had a good chat about this very idea. If you examine the situation closely, you'll see that it's irrational for a theist to ask for an atheist to disprove God's existence; not that the theists care though :D.

So then Zero, based on your premises, you're saying that God does exist for some people and not for others? How is this possible? THAT'S the difference between accepted reality and absolute reality. How can two opposing ideas existing in two separate minds both be reality?

BTW, the whole "what is reality" question is another thread altogether.

Nobody ever asked you to prove a negative, God is not a negative but an existing being, we are asking you that if you claim there is no God and no creator..1. Prove to me nature is chaos, the effect of physics with/out intelligent designer..
2. Prove to me life forms can exist without the need of God, for the role of God is a "creator", so create any forms of life to prove that such can exist through what we "VIEW" as natural means...
3. Prove to me that moral and virtues which comes from religion are irrelevant, uneffective, and useless..

4. Prove to me that supernatural investigation, such as the paranormal of the "faith healing" which is labeled as "Placebo" can occur without the need of God, therefore demonstrate and explain thos occurences, also add haunted houses, people possesed by demons which they hear voices telling them to kill their family, etc. labeled as "schizophrenic". Explain those, and prove it to us that they occur by this or that. Scientist indeed uses "brain chemicals" as an excuse, BUT THE FACT IS THIS IS JUST A SPECULATION, THEY HAVE NO EXLANATION FOR PLACEBO, THEY HAVE NO EXPLANATION FOR SCHIZOPHRENIC, AND THEY HAVE NO EXPLANATION FOR HANUTED HOUSES...

The four questions above can disprove God without a doubt, I myself will become atheist...

And one more thing, your fuzzy pink elephant and giant purple squidmonkey claim is weak and stupid. If you make that claim then the burden of proof lies on you. Pink fuzzy elephants doesnt have any followers, maybe kids and retards. Using that as analogy to God is like using the rock as an analogy to the human brain, COMPLETELY UNIDENTICAL...


(If all atheists will talk to me instead of to each other, their atheist faith will be shaken, I guarantee that..)

Whatsupyall

Prove to me nature is chaos, the effect of physics with/out intelligent designer..

To understand that, you would need somewhat of an education, which you clearly lack.

Prove to me life forms can exist without the need of God

Evolution. Again, you would need an education to understand.

Prove to me that moral and virtues which comes from religion are irrelevant, uneffective, and useless

Sociology. Again...

Prove to me that supernatural investigation, such as the paranormal of the "faith healing" which is labeled as "Placebo" can occur without the need of God

Faith healing does not occur, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support. And it is not labeled as a placebo. Again... :rolleyes:

The four questions above can disprove God without a doubt, I myself will become atheist...

Well then, welcome to the club! :)

If all atheists will talk to me instead of to each other, their atheist faith will be shaken, I guarantee that..

You sound like a used car salesman. ;)

Forget the fuzzy elephant.

1. Science is all about making models based on physical phenomena and experimental results. If later results prove its wrong, we ditch the part that's wrong. Repeat.

Specify one case of science; science is too comprehensive to prove in one post, or even the memory limit of scifora. Specify one for me and I'll give it a shot.

Intelligent design has no experimental results, no testable physical results whatsoever. It does not adequately explain an aspect of the natural world, neither is it well-substantiated (requirements for becoming scientific theory). So quoting it is pointless.

By the way, "law" is some generalization made from a theory, something that can be condensed into a paragraph or equation. "Theory" is some wellsubstantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world.

2. Do you know any biology whatsoever? Have you ever heard of biochemistry? Ever heard of the chemical/biological (which in turn is explained by chemistry, which is in turn explained by the whole electron/proton kick which is in turn explained by physics) reactions that govern hormones?

Scientifically prove to me that god created the universe. Give me a plausible scientific theory that fits the definition above in #1.

3. Moral virtues that come from religion are NOT ineffectual, useless, or irrelevant. Anyone who claims so about religion obviously haven't heard of sociology, history, or human psychology. Religions are very useful in some ways. I personally do not care if certain virtues came from Christianity, Islam, Wicca, Hindu, Judaism, Sufism, Cabalism, Purple Potato King Worship, Whatsmuscles Worship, etc as LONG AS THEY WORK. Fair enough?

4. I don't know much about this subject, but I'll give you a glimpse of what I think. Faith healing would probably work to comfort and reassure the patient, psychological comfort, which in turn would allow the brain to direct all of its resources (otherwise wasted on pschological distress) toward the immune system and recovery.

Nontechnically said, faith healing heals by comfort and reassurance so that you can rest up to heal yourself better. No notion that comfort/reassurance HAS to come from god alone. Eh?

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

Okay...

Absolute truth vs. Accepted truth
This difference is basically the same thing as a priori knowledge vs. a posteriori knowledge...

ie: 2 + 2 = 4 is an absolute truth. To state the contrary would result in an internal contradiction: 2 + 2 ~= 4.

The example of lighting hitting the tower or whatever is not an example of absolute truth.

ie: "The lighting hit the tower under condition A." No matter what condition A is, I can still say "The lightning hit the tower under condition ~A (or B)" without contradicting myself. Right? Is my understanding of a priori and a posteriori correct?

The Christian God, by definition, exists for EVERYONE, regardless of whether or not you believe in him, which means he exists in absolute reality and therefore the statement "God exists" has to be an a priori truth. But it's not a priori knowledge, is it? I can say "god does not exist" without contradicting myself.

So trying to argue with/against science is pretty useless when trying to dis/prove God's absolute existence, as scientific knowledge is a posteriori (based on the principle of induction). What I was looking in this thread was an A PRIORI argument for God's existence. I guess what I'm saying is don't tell my why he exist, tell me why he MUST exist.

LOL. I just re-read that, and it doesn't make a whole lot of sense :). I'm still kinda tired. I suggest reading Hume when it comes to a priori/posteriori knowledge, if you read that you might be able to see what I mean.

Hume is idiotic and you know it :p

So what would you call "absolute knowledge" of the tree example? If you say one exists you'd be on crack.


Also, I see no difference between the little boy in the pacific islet not existing and your not knowing about him. How do we make generalizations on whether something is "true" or not? It all has to pass through the brain, right? It has to manifest itself to you in the form of stimuli and thought.

So what's the difference between not knowing about the boy and the boy not existing, in your opinion? And define for me what absolute truth is.

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

Just because you aren't aware of the South Pacific boy's (Rufus :D) presence doesn't mean he doesn't exist, does it? Does that mean then, when you aren't perceiving your computer after you've walked away from it that it ceases to exist?

If we are unaware of something (ie we are not perceiving it), the best we can do is conclude that it's existence is dubious. To conclude that something exists, we need proof that it exists. To conclude that something doesn't exist, we need proof that it doesn't exist. So all we can conclude about Rufus then is that he may exist.

REALITY (Absolute):
An eternal constant Reality, upon which no human theory nor belief have any power - it is that which is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The Master Principle (http://members.freemail.absa.co.za/infinite/dictionary.html#dict2) shows that, whatever humans perceive through their material senses is never an Absolute Reality. -(taken from The Metaphysical Dictionary (http://members.freemail.absa.co.za/infinite/dictionary.html))


BTW, Hume has some VERY compelling arguments, and your little comment suggests that I'm probably wasting my time talking philosophy with you. Are you saying his argument concerning a priori and a posteriori knowledge isn't valid? If so, offer some justification :P.

That's not the way it works. That line of reasoning can therefore be used for any claim. In other words, one can claim anything exists and then ask others to disprove it. Hence, we see claims of pink elephants and purple dragons representative of that proof.

(Q) and Nebula,

Go back and read my post again. I dont think that either of you understood what I said.

Originally posted by (Q)
Whatsupyall

Prove to me nature is chaos, the effect of physics with/out intelligent designer..

To understand that, you would need somewhat of an education, which you clearly lack.

Prove to me life forms can exist without the need of God

Evolution. Again, you would need an education to understand.

Prove to me that moral and virtues which comes from religion are irrelevant, uneffective, and useless

Sociology. Again...

Prove to me that supernatural investigation, such as the paranormal of the "faith healing" which is labeled as "Placebo" can occur without the need of God

Faith healing does not occur, there is no scientific evidence whatsoever to support. And it is not labeled as a placebo. Again... :rolleyes:

The four questions above can disprove God without a doubt, I myself will become atheist...

Well then, welcome to the club! :)

If all atheists will talk to me instead of to each other, their atheist faith will be shaken, I guarantee that..

You sound like a used car salesman. ;)


Kid, be quite, grow up, educate yourself, then comeback here...

Nebula, I see that your taking philosophy class, and so am I...I read your posts, pretty interesting...But I see TONS of flaws, and one of them is How do you determine what is "Physical" and what is "Non physical"?
First of all, according to science, there is no end to splitting an atom. Singularity states that if all the spaces were removed, the whole universe can be as small as a peanut..
Now, if you cannot detect atoms in its "unfathomable" capabilities, so what then is physical and non physical? You cannot detect anything beyond 3000,000,000 m/s, because our technologies limit it. Science teaches that there is no end to splitting an atom...
Think about it, what is physical? If we cannot detect atoms, or even measure it........
Give it a thought and Ill come back to annihilate the rest of your posts.......

Nebula...the computer continues to exist because we've gotten stimuli about it before. Poor Rufus here doesn't exist for us unless we run across him and meet him or see him or smell him etc etc.

Whatsup...do lay off the crack. There are ways to detect atoms...reread your high school advanced chemistry book. No end to splitting an atom? Maybe, but we've gone down to quarks now. Science does not say that there is no end to splitting an atom, it just says that the atom is NOT the END to splitting. A huge difference. And the max speed detectable is 3 times 10^8 meters/sec, not because of technology but because of relativistic FX. At least for now it remains that way.
I explained what is physical and what is not in a previous topic!!! Please, please, read it. And lay off the crack, I mean it :mad:

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

Whatsupyall;

But I see TONS of flaws, and one of them is How do you determine what is "Physical" and what is "Non physical"?
What does this issue have to do with my argument? You are correct in identifying the problem of identifying physical vs. non-physical things, but where/how does that fit in to the discussion at hand?

In fact, my claim that what humans sense is not absolute reality coincides with the non-physical problem. That's why I'm agnostic :D.

Pink fuzzy elephants doesnt have any followers, maybe kids and retards. Using that as analogy to God is like using the rock as an analogy to the human brain, COMPLETELY UNIDENTICAL...

Could you please illustrate how the claim that Fuzzy Pink Elephants exist is different than the claim that God exists? I trust you aren't basing the differences entirely on the fact that since more people believe in God than in FPE, claiming God's existence is a valid claim... Even if 100% of the people believed in God, we couldn't guarantee he existed. Was the Earth the center of the universe until Copernicus and Galileo came along?

Originally posted by Zero

There are ways to detect atoms...


No crap....

Originally posted by Zero
[
No end to splitting an atom? Maybe, but we've gone down to quarks now.

Maybe? May not be?.......a sign that you dont know what the heck you are talking about...
Originally posted by Zero
[
Science does not say that there is no end to splitting an atom, it just says that the atom is NOT the END to splitting. A huge difference.

LOL, if atom is not the end to splitting? Then what is it? what is tiner than sub atomic particles? Your brain?


Originally posted by Zero
[
And the max speed detectable is 3 times 10^8 meters/sec, not because of technology but because of relativistic FX. At least for now it remains that way.

What prevents humans 200 years ago from discovering atoms? Technology...What prevents us from discovering quarks and subatomic particles 100 years ago? Technology..From knowledge, to technology...




Originally posted by Zero
[
I explained what is physical and what is not in a previous topic!!! Please, please, read it. And lay off the crack, I mean it :mad:


No you didnt, you just explained why you call yourself "ZERO"...

Mr catsupmuscles...you haven't read my post properly. Please reread. And you haven't even removed the color ubbcode tabs properly, a sign that you haven't even proofread your post.

Really, you need to spend more than two seconds on this. You don't even grasp the rudiments of my argument here.

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

Originally posted by Nebula
Whatsupyall;

Could you please illustrate how the claim that Fuzzy Pink Elephants exist is different than the claim that God exists? I trust you aren't basing the differences entirely on the fact that since more people believe in God than in FPE, claiming God's existence is a valid claim... Even if 100% of the people believed in God, we couldn't guarantee he existed. Was the Earth the center of the universe until Copernicus and Galileo came along?

You are simply stating that because millions of people believe it, it doesnt make it true such as the belief that the world was flat..
But because millions also believe that animals evolve, it doesnt make it false either...

Once again I can assure you that if there were bullet and bullet holes in my car, i can guarantee you that the car was shot by a gun, and that the gun exist..
I can assure you that if I see a pile of crap on my backyard, I know that an animal exist who did it..

With the existence of a functioning, order, and complexity of computer, I know that intelligence caused it.

With the existence of a functioning, order, and complexity of nature, I know that an intelligent designer caused it.

With the existence of a church, founded by humans over 6,000 years ago, I know that their claim exist if they are willing to die for it..


So your argument is based on "chance", a half and half situation, half a chance they are wrong, half a chance they are right...

I am basing my argument in high probabilities, I BELIEVE that the odds of millions lying their butt is very unlikely TO ME, it is very unlikely for a human being (who in nature is selfish) to give up his riches, live a life of sacrifice, and some are even willing to die for their faith, without any pleasure, only with a consolation that God will comfort them, even rich, wealthy and succesfull happy people participate.

EARTH BEING FLAT HAS BEEN PROVED WRONG ALREADY, BUT THE EXISTENCE OF GOD HAVENT, THERES A DIFFERENCE WHEN USING AN ANALOGY THAT ALREADY IS PROVEN TO BE FALSE, AND APPLYING THAT FALSE ANALOGY TO GOD WHO IS NOT PROVEN FALSE, BUT IN FACT PROVEN NECESSARY WITH ITS VIRTUES AND MORAL GUIDELINES...

Meanwhile TO YOU, you BELIEVE that they are brainwashed and being lied to, however without presenting evidence that this people are lying, no evidence that God is a lie and fake. BUT A PURE "CHANCE" IS WHAT YOU BASED YOUR "BELIEF", WITHOUT EVEN A REASON FOR YOUR CLAIM. Are you calling them "Phsychos"? If so, prove it...This psychos are the mist succesfull type of people in the world, hmmm...chance?

NOW I AM AWARE THAT YOU ARE ABOUT TO SAY "WELL WE HAVE PROVEN EARTH IS FLAT USING SCIENCE, THEREFORE THERE IS NO REASON WHY SCIENCE CANNOT CREATE LIFE FORMS IN THE FUTURE TO DISPROVE GOD"...This is NOT science, but prophesy...Good luck with your psychic prediction...

Well because of that occurences, maybe the devil exist who GIVES YOU FALSE HOPE, A HOPE THAT HAS NOT HAPPENED YET, AND MAY NEVER HAPPEN. A HOPE OF "CHANCE"...
So why do you hope in this things? HOW DOES THIS HOPE BENEFIT YOU? HOW DOES THIS HOPE BENEFIT ANYONE? MAYBE YOU SHOULD THINK AGAIN, MAYBE YOU SHOULD GIVE IT A THOUGHT, THAT SATAN MAY INDEED EXIST, THE MASTER OF DELUSION AND FATHER OF LIES....

note: There are scientific investigations that took place concerning healing of incurable cancers. It is scientifically proven to take place, there have been studies oon this, however they cannot explain its occurences, but speculate that maybe it is "BRAIN CHEMICALS", is what they adhere to without evidence..

Now just because sonmething cannot be explained, it doesnt mean it is a myth either, because there are many things we cannot explain, blackhole, gravity, evoolution, etc. Take incurable canccers for example, medical science cannot explain how they began or how to cure them, BUT THEIR LACK OF EXPLANATION DOESNT PROVE THAT CANCERS ARE MYTH...

Whatsup...please take a deep breath...

Out of curiosity, really, how old are you and what do you do for a living? What state do you live in?

__________________________________________
There is no god, afterlife or divine love. There is only Entropy, the mother from which we were all born. She tugs our souls with the beautiful, maternal love of chaos. Why do you keep Her waiting?

Whatsupyall;

You make jesus cry. I can't understand how you read posts and still fail to grasp even a shred of what I was talking about.

But thanks for playing!