- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 07 2010,17:27) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 07 2010,12:21) So, at this stage of things, we have an hypothesis. It is a suggestion based on application of laws of physics, of how a large mass might behave under very high gravitational forces. There is no such thing as proof of black holes, however the visible member of a binary star system that is in oscillation, or the gravitational lensing effect of a suspected black hole are best explained by the concept of a black hole. By contrast there is no unambiguous evidence for your god whatever, and the main reason is that gods are conjectures, not hypotheses: you cannot reason the existence of a god from known principles without using logically fallacious arguments because there are no known principles from which predictions can be made. The “principles” are different depending on which god believer you ask, and the rare examples of predictions have generally proven to be wrong.
Therefore if it is not proven, (which I agree with) then do you say that Black Holes are not likely and throw out that idea? Of course not and neither should a man be as foolish to throw away the idea that there is a God.
The conclusion is that, because there are several observable effects for which the best explanation is a black hole, then that is provisionally the explanation that should be accepted subject to further evidence either confirming the model or denying it.The provisional conclusion that there is a god is an absurdity. The concept has no power to explain anything, and there is nothing that demands it as any kind of explanation.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 07 2010,19:54) It might also help if believers were to acknowledge that what they call “evidence” is just not credible.
That has to be a joke or you are simply not thinking straight.Do you honestly think that you can take a photograph of an eternal God. What chance would a microscopic life form in a human body have of seeing the human body that he exists in, and then recording that evidence and giving it to his microscopic buddies as proof that they all live inside a human body. Now consider that the above is a finite creature trying to see the finite world (human body) that he lives in.
Wake up Stu. It obviously requires a different type of proof. One that you seem to reject, so is it any wonder that you haven't figured it out yet?
Even saying that, it doesn't require a great intellect to see that the universe wasn't caused by something that had the IQ of zero. It is obvious that the cause is very smart. The universe has better stuff than even humans with high IQs.
Are you really that foolish, or are you just playing around? I do think that Psalm 14:1 applies to you? But you can prove me wrong on that one if you want. I don't mind.
“The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
t8
Quote Do you honestly think that you can take a photograph of an eternal God.
What doctrine have you just invented that says you could not? Is it one that resolves the disagreements in scripture about whether some characters did see god and others claimed you cannot?Quote What chance would a microscopic life form in a human body have of seeing the human body that he exists in, and then recording that evidence and giving it to his microscopic buddies as proof that they all live inside a human body. Now consider that the above is a finite creature trying to see the finite world (human body) that he lives in.
Your analogy is a logical fallacy of composition.Quote Wake up Stu. It obviously requires a different type of proof. One that you seem to reject, so is it any wonder that you haven't figured it out yet? Even saying that, it doesn't require a great intellect to see that the universe wasn't caused by something that had the IQ of zero.
I agree that this kind of thinking does not require a very great intellect.Quote Are you really that foolish, or are you just playing around? I do think that Psalm 14:1 applies to you? But you can prove me wrong on that one if you want. I don't mind. “The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God.”
As I have said before, I am proud to be the “fool” who can clearly demonstrate that yet another verse of the bible is absurd.Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Mar. 07 2010,21:34) What doctrine have you just invented that says you could not? Is it one that resolves the disagreements in scripture about whether some characters did see god and others claimed you cannot?
Try photographing anything that is eternal or infinite.Good luck. Please post the evidence in your next post, otherwise I can assume you can't do it and hence your question is answered.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 12 2010,17:57) Quote (Stu @ Mar. 07 2010,21:34) What doctrine have you just invented that says you could not? Is it one that resolves the disagreements in scripture about whether some characters did see god and others claimed you cannot?
Try photographing anything that is eternal or infinite.Good luck. Please post the evidence in your next post, otherwise I can assume you can't do it and hence your question is answered.
It would appear that you get exactly the same result if you attempt to photograph something that does not exist.Stuart
And try photographing atheism while you are at it.
Or try photographing the 5th dimension.
I guess they don't exist either.
Quote (t8 @ Mar. 15 2010,13:49) And try photographing atheism while you are at it.
Or try photographing the 5th dimension.
I guess they don't exist either.
Well exactly. But that is a far cry from what you have been calling atheism in other threads.So which is it?
Stuart
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
