“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#1878 Jul 12, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
All right, I have no proofs for the existence of God; only evidences. Go you right ahead and prove to me that the universe was
uncaused or without a beginning. You can't. See now what I mean? So
what is it in your mental constitution to allow no place for the principle of probability to include the Primal Cause? I am not asking you to accept God's existence but to give that probability the benefit of the doubt. To let atheistic pride to speak louder than common sense is simply faithful arrogance.
What evidences?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1879 Jul 12, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
I have told you more than several times that the mistake for the uncaused universe was fixed in 1922 by George Lemaitre. Even Carl Sagan promoted Lemaitre's theory as the closest to the truth approach to the "Beginning of our universe." Be honest now and admit that you cannot acknowledge the truth because the priest was a theist. Most cosmologists who do not allow pride to speak louder than common sense have walked beyond that threshold.
Sorry Shib, but saying it over and over does not make you less wrong. Lemaitre did not say what you seem to think he said.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1880 Jul 12, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
All right, I have no proofs for the existence of God; only evidences. Go you right ahead and prove to me that the universe was
uncaused or without a beginning. You can't. See now what I mean? So
what is it in your mental constitution to allow no place for the principle of probability to include the Primal Cause? I am not asking you to accept God's existence but to give that probability the benefit of the doubt. To let atheistic pride to speak louder than common sense is simply faithful arrogance.
I will add my voice to the ones above...What is this evidence you speak of?

“Formerly "Richard"”

Since: Mar 12

In the beginning e=mc^2

#1881 Jul 12, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
I will add my voice to the ones above...What is this evidence you speak of?
I can just see his reply:-

"I am not going to tell you na na ne na na."

“I'm out hunting”

Since: Jan 10

For your mind and soul

#1882 Jul 12, 2013
EmpAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
If I had a cookie laying on the table.... I walked out of the room... And the cookie is gone.... Even though I can't explain who or what took the cookie... Or if something else happened.... That does not mean that the idea that magical fairies made it disappear becomes a logical possibility.
Exactly. They want us to rush to two assumptions.
1-That there is a prime mover
2-That their prime mover is the true one to the exclusion of others.
They supply no evidence for either.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1883 Jul 13, 2013
EmpAtheist wrote:
<quoted text>
If I had a cookie laying on the table.... I walked out of the room... And the cookie is gone.... Even though I can't explain who or what took the cookie... Or if something else happened.... That does not mean that the idea that magical fairies made it disappear becomes a logical possibility.
------

Okay, so you have no choice but stay with the "magical fairy" that the universe never had beginning.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1884 Jul 13, 2013
polymath257 wrote:
<quoted text>
Show where LeMaitre postulates a caused universe in his theory.
------

Google him yourself. I have nothing to profit from your acknowledgment of the truth.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1885 Jul 13, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Where is this evidence?
There has to be a clear and provable connection between the evidence and the claim in order to be valid and actually called evidence.
--------

One of the evidences is Logic. Can you demonstrated that the universe caused itself to exist? No, you can't. Therefore, the Primal Cause is implied. Implied I said, not proven.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1886 Jul 13, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry Shib, but saying it over and over does not make you less wrong. Lemaitre did not say what you seem to think he said.
-----

Are you telling me the books lies? Perhaps atheistic books as this issue is concerned.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#1887 Jul 13, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>--------

One of the evidences is Logic. Can you demonstrated that the universe caused itself to exist? No, you can't. Therefore, the Primal Cause is implied. Implied I said, not proven.
Can you demonstrate that the universe did not always exist? No, you can't.
Therefore the lack of "primal cause" is implied.

I said it too, happy?

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1888 Jul 13, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
-----
Are you telling me the books lies? Perhaps atheistic books as this issue is concerned.
No, I think your interpretation of what the books are saying is wrong. You do seem to have a difficult time getting the meaning of what people write.

“Turning coffee into theorems”

Since: Dec 06

Trapped inside a Klein Bottle

#1889 Jul 13, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
One of the evidences is Logic. Can you demonstrated that the universe caused itself to exist? No, you can't. Therefore, the Primal Cause is implied. Implied I said, not proven.
Your failures in logic have been pointed out to you many times. You still do not seem to grasp what is being said.

Take a suggestion. Don't reference "logic" when you don't understand what it is.

“Think&Care”

Since: Oct 07

Location hidden

#1890 Jul 13, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
------
Google him yourself. I have nothing to profit from your acknowledgment of the truth.
LeMaitre did not claim what you think he claimed. Even if the BB theory is the last word (it isn't), it would not prove the universe was caused and LeMaitre knew and acknowledged that.

I am very familiar with LeMaitre, his ideas, and how he chastised the Pope when he made the first cause argument as applied to the Big Bang.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#1891 Jul 13, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>Your failures in logic have been pointed out to you many times. You still do not seem to grasp what is being said.

Take a suggestion. Don't reference "logic" when you don't understand what it is.
It's sad really, that such people exist.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1892 Jul 14, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
--------
One of the evidences is Logic. Can you demonstrated that the universe caused itself to exist? No, you can't. Therefore, the Primal Cause is implied. Implied I said, not proven.
Logic is not evidence, logic is a set of rules that must be followed for a proof to be reasoned and therefore valid.

Stupid people should not even enter such discussions when they don't even understand basic ideas like logic.

Since: Jun 07

Location hidden

#1893 Jul 14, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>
All right, I have no proofs for the existence of God; only evidences. Go you right ahead and prove to me that the universe was
uncaused or without a beginning. You can't. See now what I mean? So
what is it in your mental constitution to allow no place for the principle of probability to include the Primal Cause? I am not asking you to accept God's existence but to give that probability the benefit of the doubt. To let atheistic pride to speak louder than common sense is simply faithful arrogance.
When you're brave enough to prove the god you're lying about, your opinions about the real world will matter.

“Educating the uneducated”

Since: Aug 12

Montreal

#1894 Jul 14, 2013
Shibolet wrote:
<quoted text>------

Google him yourself. I have nothing to profit from your acknowledgment of the truth.
So your claim is invalid, for the burden of proof is on the person who made the positive claim and you have refused to give proof.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1895 Jul 15, 2013
Lacez wrote:
<quoted text>
Can you demonstrate that the universe did not always exist? No, you can't.
Therefore the lack of "primal cause" is implied.
I said it too, happy?
----

I don't have time for childish games. If you don't have a answer to my questions just say you don't know. That's all.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1896 Jul 15, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
No, I think your interpretation of what the books are saying is wrong. You do seem to have a difficult time getting the meaning of what people write.
----

And you seem to have a hard time to find an answer to my questions.

Since: Feb 13

Los Angeles, CA

#1897 Jul 15, 2013
Darwins Stepchild wrote:
<quoted text>
Your failures in logic have been pointed out to you many times. You still do not seem to grasp what is being said.
Take a suggestion. Don't reference "logic" when you don't understand what it is.
-----

I find perfectly logical that something (matter) cannot cause itself to exist. IMO you are the one who does not understand Logic.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Atheism Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 7 min James 18,461
News Atheists open up: What they want you to know 21 min James 19
News Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 43 min James 237,704
The Ultimate Evidence of God (Mar '14) 54 min James 149
News Confessions of a black atheist 1 hr audy17 313
News Barney Frank Advises Politicians to Stay in the... 2 hr Lib Hater 15
News Why Atheism Will Replace Religion (Aug '12) 11 hr Joe Corrilo 14,553
More from around the web