- This topic is empty.
- Posts
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 21 2009,14:34) I think I have asked you before Stu, but if these 3 options are not the only ones, then please let us know the option that is the cause of all that is not something or someone. I have yet to hear this answer.
If you do not have the answer, then you are not qualified to make a decision on whether God exists or not because you simply do not have a clue.
Any old idiot can have an opinion on whether gods exist. That is all we know about them: gods are whatever anyone would like to make up about them. There are no qualifications for inventing Imaginary Friends.I have explained before, very clearly, the cosmological model for which there is evidence, and we have discussed it at least to the limits of your understanding of it and close to the limits of mine. Your repeated claim that it has never been explained here is just another of your statements that are designed to play to the christian crowd here, and to deceive them.
We are both agnostic, unless you know everything. As there is not a shred of evidence for Zeus or Juju or Yahweh, I think it is completely reasonable to provisionally conclude that there are no such things as gods in any kind of reality.
It is you making the extraordinary claim without providing extraordinary evidence. Do you expect your assertions to be convincing? Just because a lot of people are convinced does not mean there is any such thing.
If you cannot accept the burden of proof for your claims (which is certainly yours in this case) then you have no justification for making them.
Stuart
Which one is it Stu,
A, B, or C.
Feel free to let us know what D is if there is another option outside of 'someone', 'something' or 'nothing'.
Please don't avoid the question. It is a simple one. You should be able to answer it if you know what it is.
If you have no answer, then you are not qualified to give an opinion, as to the existence or not of God, are you?
Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 21 2009,05:17) Stu, Do you love your family? Would you protect them from evil and harm?
Utilizing your scientific method oblige me and prove “love”.Quote (t8 @ Oct. 21 2009,21:01) Which one is it Stu, A, B, or C.
Feel free to let us know what D is if there is another option outside of 'someone', 'something' or 'nothing'.
Please don't avoid the question. It is a simple one. You should be able to answer it if you know what it is.
If you have no answer, then you are not qualified to give an opinion, as to the existence or not of God, are you?
Tell that to all the theists who believe in big bang cosmology.I have every qualification required to say that there are no gods, because it is an opinion, just the opposite view to your opinion.
I would like the choir of nodding christians here to acknowledge (if you care at all that is!) that indeed I have outlined what the evidence says in other threads here. If that was not good enough for you then I am afraid I can be no help to you.
However it is you dodging the question. You have made an extraordinary claim and, possessing the burden of proof, you have nevertheless not provided any extraordinary evidence for the reality your god. If you require me to respect your assertion then I require you to respect mine, that there is a Flying Spaghetti Monster with boiling pasta sauce waiting for you should you commit the blasphemy of denying its reality.
Your claim and mine are identical.
Stuart
Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 22 2009,00:17) Stu, Do you love your family? Would you protect them from evil and harm?
Yes, I have not followed the alleged advice of Jesus.Stuart
Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 22 2009,00:23) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 21 2009,05:17) Stu, Do you love your family? Would you protect them from evil and harm?
Utilizing your scientific method oblige me and prove “love”.
Two important points:1. Science cannot prove, it can only disprove. Mathematics, which is self-referencing, is the only discipline in which anything can be proved.
2. You have not asked a question. “Prove love” has no meaning.
Stuart
Quote (Stu @ Oct. 22 2009,05:48) I have every qualification required to say that there are no gods, because it is an opinion, just the opposite view to your opinion.
Not true.You are not qualified to say that there is no God or creator because you do not have a clue as to the cause of all things.
Sorry Stu, but that is the way it is.
If I didn't have a clue about Black Holes, then I wouldn't be qualified to say that they didn't exist.
Pretty basic stuff I know.
Somehow you seem to have missed this point.Quote (Stu @ Oct. 21 2009,10:52) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 22 2009,00:23) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 21 2009,05:17) Stu, Do you love your family? Would you protect them from evil and harm?
Utilizing your scientific method oblige me and prove “love”.
Two important points:1. Science cannot prove, it can only disprove. Mathematics, which is self-referencing, is the only discipline in which anything can be proved.
2. You have not asked a question. “Prove love” has no meaning.
Stuart
You say “prove God”.Quote (Stu @ Oct. 21 2009,10:52) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 22 2009,00:23) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 21 2009,05:17) Stu, Do you love your family? Would you protect them from evil and harm?
Utilizing your scientific method oblige me and prove “love”.
Two important points:1. Science cannot prove, it can only disprove. Mathematics, which is self-referencing, is the only discipline in which anything can be proved.
2. You have not asked a question. “Prove love” has no meaning.
Stuart
Does love have no meaning?Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 22 2009,12:34) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 21 2009,10:52) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 22 2009,00:23) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 21 2009,05:17) Stu, Do you love your family? Would you protect them from evil and harm?
Utilizing your scientific method oblige me and prove “love”.
Two important points:1. Science cannot prove, it can only disprove. Mathematics, which is self-referencing, is the only discipline in which anything can be proved.
2. You have not asked a question. “Prove love” has no meaning.
Stuart
Does love have no meaning?
Stu has a hard time comprehending anything that is not physical.Carnal men are like animals in that they cannot go beyond instinct sometimes. They are unable to comprehend revelation of God or anything higher than the realm that their flesh resides.
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 22 2009,12:47) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 22 2009,12:34) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 21 2009,10:52) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 22 2009,00:23) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 21 2009,05:17) Stu, Do you love your family? Would you protect them from evil and harm?
Utilizing your scientific method oblige me and prove “love”.
Two important points:1. Science cannot prove, it can only disprove. Mathematics, which is self-referencing, is the only discipline in which anything can be proved.
2. You have not asked a question. “Prove love” has no meaning.
Stuart
Does love have no meaning?
Stu has a hard time comprehending anything that is not physical.Carnal men are like animals in that they cannot go beyond instinct sometimes. They are unable to comprehend revelation of God or anything higher than the realm that their flesh resides.
I can certainly understand WHY you believe what you do.Can you?
More to the point, can you define the question about love?
I have lost track of the number of questions you have dodged t8. I think that is one of the great christian art-forms: dodging questions and moving goal posts are prominent amongst them.
Stuart
Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 22 2009,12:32) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 21 2009,10:52) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 22 2009,00:23) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 21 2009,05:17) Stu, Do you love your family? Would you protect them from evil and harm?
Utilizing your scientific method oblige me and prove “love”.
Two important points:1. Science cannot prove, it can only disprove. Mathematics, which is self-referencing, is the only discipline in which anything can be proved.
2. You have not asked a question. “Prove love” has no meaning.
Stuart
You say “prove God”.
No. I say provide unambiguous evidence for your claims. There is a fundamental difference.Stuart
Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 22 2009,12:34) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 21 2009,10:52) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 22 2009,00:23) Quote (Constitutionalist @ Oct. 21 2009,05:17) Stu, Do you love your family? Would you protect them from evil and harm?
Utilizing your scientific method oblige me and prove “love”.
Two important points:1. Science cannot prove, it can only disprove. Mathematics, which is self-referencing, is the only discipline in which anything can be proved.
2. You have not asked a question. “Prove love” has no meaning.
Stuart
Does love have no meaning?
Is that what I wrote?Stuart
Quote (t8 @ Oct. 22 2009,12:30) Quote (Stu @ Oct. 22 2009,05:48) I have every qualification required to say that there are no gods, because it is an opinion, just the opposite view to your opinion.
Not true.You are not qualified to say that there is no God or creator because you do not have a clue as to the cause of all things.
Sorry Stu, but that is the way it is.
If I didn't have a clue about Black Holes, then I wouldn't be qualified to say that they didn't exist.
Pretty basic stuff I know.
Somehow you seem to have missed this point.
By your logic you are not qualified to claim there is a god because you do not understand the nature of big bang cosmology. The particular irony is that you are hypocritical in claiming that the universe needs a first cause but your god doesn't.Stuart
to all
God created all thing ether you see it or not ,this is a fact, how he did it ,you can discuse that theme forever and forever because there is no end to the knowledge of God,if you say there is no God then you do not exist you are maybe a hollowgram or somthing like that,all what man as done so far in history is nothing to be happy abode or proude of it,all is inventions are copies of God creation like computer-Brain,transportation-horse,camelle,bull-donky the reality is that man is the only mamel who destruis is own home.ho just an remainder it is not carpenters ,plumbers,housewives ,clercs ,labors ect. who did the domage to the planet it is Dr scientist,Dr philosophy,Dr phicitian,and Dr law ,etc.this is a world who as no interest in Jesus the King of Kings God appointed ruller.
If you like or not.Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 22 2009,18:45) to all
God created all thing ether you see it or not ,this is a fact, how he did it ,you can discuse that theme forever and forever because there is no end to the knowledge of God,if you say there is no God then you do not exist you are maybe a hollowgram or somthing like that,all what man as done so far in history is nothing to be happy abode or proude of it,all is inventions are copies of God creation like computer-Brain,transportation-horse,camelle,bull-donky the reality is that man is the only mamel who destruis is own home.ho just an remainder it is not carpenters ,plumbers,housewives ,clercs ,labors ect. who did the domage to the planet it is Dr scientist,Dr philosophy,Dr phicitian,and Dr law ,etc.this is a world who as no interest in Jesus the King of Kings God appointed ruller.
If you like or not.
Do you realise what a close thing it is whether Jesus even existed?Stuart
Quote (terraricca @ Oct. 22 2009,18:45) to all
God created all thing ether you see it or not ,this is a fact, how he did it ,you can discuse that theme forever and forever because there is no end to the knowledge of God,if you say there is no God then you do not exist you are maybe a hollowgram or somthing like that,all what man as done so far in history is nothing to be happy abode or proude of it,all is inventions are copies of God creation like computer-Brain,transportation-horse,camelle,bull-donky the reality is that man is the only mamel who destruis is own home.ho just an remainder it is not carpenters ,plumbers,housewives ,clercs ,labors ect. who did the domage to the planet it is Dr scientist,Dr philosophy,Dr phicitian,and Dr law ,etc.this is a world who as no interest in Jesus the King of Kings God appointed ruller.
If you like or not.
Well, anyone can expess an opinion – without solid logically irrefutable evidence, it is an opinion and not a provable fact. Whatever most of us claim, we are stating opinions and not facts – whether about the big bang or about God. Some opinions have more supporting evidence than others, which provides more of a basis to persuade other people they are the correct opinion (ie a fact).Been watching this debate for a while, a mixture of creationism and the question of the existence of God, and wondering if I can be bothered to state my world view too (heresy I'm afraid for most of you, but not in alignment with either T8 or Stu)
And for what it's worth, everyone is responsible for the damage being done to the planet including you. You can't single out intelligent educated people and say it is their fault, unless you are happy to walk straight back to the stone age and start bashing your neighbours brains out for your next meal.
In fact my opinion on that is very simple – many of the things that have done the most damage to the world are in fact brilliant flashes of genius from intelligent and compassionate people, who end up misused and abused in the hands of uncaring idiots who don't understand either the technology or the ramifications of their use or abuse or it. It only takes one person to invent something, and then billions of people who lack the ability to have invented it themselves can use it.
Since you're clearly able to get online and post on the internet, is it unreasonable to assume you are relatively guilty of causing that damage too? (ie from an energy intensive society)
Quote And for what it's worth, everyone is responsible for the damage being done to the planet including you. You can't single out intelligent educated people and say it is their fault, unless you are happy to walk straight back to the stone age and start bashing your neighbours brains out for your next meal. In fact my opinion on that is very simple – many of the things that have done the most damage to the world are in fact brilliant flashes of genius from intelligent and compassionate people, who end up misused and abused in the hands of uncaring idiots who don't understand either the technology or the ramifications of their use or abuse or it. It only takes one person to invent something, and then billions of people who lack the ability to have invented it themselves can use it.
Since you're clearly able to get online and post on the internet, is it unreasonable to assume you are relatively guilty of causing that damage too? (ie from an energy intensive society)
GO GREEN !!!!!!!!!!!
Polonium Halos: Unrefuted Evidence for Earth's Instant Creation!
http://www.halos.com/videos/streaming-video.htm
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
