Prove there's a god.

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#372465 Oct 20, 2011
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Where did you get that?
I was assuming he was talking about the experiences that some believers attribute to spirituality. These experiences have been credited to a god, but they are a result of human physiology. When you can attribute things to a god out of ignorance, you can build a false inventory of evidence, and that's just insane. That's like saying, "I have presents under the Christmas tree, so Santa must have left them." It is far more likely, despite the lies, that the presents were not from Santa Claus. Parents lie to their children about Santa, and then about God, what are kids to think? Why must we deal with this insanity?
I was only making a small joke and that is why I put the wink emoticon ') there. So sorry I offended you. It seemed nice to see this forum with interesting discussion for a change and without all the arguing and endless talk about points and I promise you I meant no offense. I hate fighting. Bye=)

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's teapot

#372466 Oct 20, 2011
The Bald Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Being precisely defined does not make something fact.
Correct, evolution being a fact is what gave rise to the precise definition.

Since: Jun 07

Indiana

#372467 Oct 20, 2011
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Anything you can attribute to a god, science can find the real cause of.
Maybe. Maybe not. The fact that we are still trying to advance scientific knowledge shows that there are still things we do not know or understand. To suggest that we are capable of comprehending anything and everything (and that is what science is: the Humans ability to comprehend) is really more of an opinion than a statement of fact.
Tide with Beach wrote:
If it's an attainable goal, science will eventually figure it out.
If you are suggesting that science can figure out anything, how could there be a distinction between attainable and unattainable goals?
Tide with Beach wrote:
If we can't find the answers, after looking for a long time, we don't just say goddidit.
I didn't suggest science did or should.
Tide with Beach wrote:
This is illogical. It is far better to be ignorant than wrong.
So we should stop trying to advance scientific knowledge for fear that we may get it wrong? Better to remain ignorant?
Tide with Beach wrote:
What are your religious beliefs? Did you divulge that information already?
No, I haven't and don't intend to. It's far too interesting to hear everyone trying to attribute religious beliefs to me to discredit me in the conversation rather than addressing what I actually say.

Since: Jun 07

Indiana

#372468 Oct 20, 2011
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Evolution certainly fits the definition of "scientific fact".
Evolution can be precisely defined as any change in the frequency of alleles within a gene pool from one generation to the next.
That is scientific fact.
I should also point out you are referring now to micro evolution rather than macro-evolution

Since: Jun 07

Indiana

#372469 Oct 20, 2011
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, evolution being a fact is what gave rise to the precise definition.
No, evolution being defined is what gave it a precise definition. Whether or not it is considered fact is another matter.

Since: Jun 07

Indiana

#372470 Oct 20, 2011
LEICA LOOK wrote:
<quoted text>
At my school a few years back 2 professors claimed they produced cold fusion in a jar of water. That has never been reproduced. What do you think happened?
http://partners.nytimes.com/library/national/...
I'm not a physicist and really am not a chemist, though I work as a chemical analyst. I couldn't begin to guess what could have happened, assuming their claims were true.

“Faith means not wanting to ”

Since: Nov 10

know what is true.

#372471 Oct 20, 2011
The Bald Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Sorry I came across that way, it isn't what I meant.
I thought your original statement was in response to something else I had said. I work swing shift and am currently trying to swing myself to nights for work tomorrow night, so sorry that I'm having problems keeping up with the conversation.
No worries, all friends in the end.
The Bald Guy wrote:
I didn't say it was, nor did I say my opinion was that there was a supernatural. My issue, and I run into this in conversations alot, is that some one will try to refute something with a hollow statement. That was all I was addressing.
Again it is not hollow, it is from my personal experience and science agree., which theist seem to use their experience all the time. I don't seem you going after any theist putting forward their opinion.
The Bald Guy wrote:
And all I can do is keep explaining that I haven't said that your opinion is less valid. All I meant was that a hollow, unbacked opinion is meaningless.
It is backed by my experience and there is nothing prove it otherwise.
The Bald Guy wrote:
I have never once said that there is a supernatural.
What else am I meant to believe, you have given me anything else to on
The Bald Guy wrote:
I haven't submitted my beliefs at all
I know, you are ambiguous. You obviously know my stance, what is yours?
The Bald Guy wrote:
nor have I claimed that anything does or doesn't exist. All I have addressed is the demand for evidence.
I have not demanded evidence. Go back over the original conversation, he asked us to 'prove there's not a god', we asked him to 'prove there's no leprechauns' and then he compared god to tv "No. I can't see TV waves in the air but I see the result on TV so I believe in them", followed by you interjecting. So I actually was not demanding anything, from them, you or anyone else. I was making a point and it had nothing to do with you.

So whatever it is, is directed at the wrong person.

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#372472 Oct 20, 2011
scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
Correct, evolution being a fact is what gave rise to the precise definition.

Its accepted as truth but no truth in science can ever be 100%
That all he is saying, and that is a fact.
The reason leaves open the possibility of dynamic new discovery.
All science is based that way , it would be in error if it did now
allow new understanding.
So scientists can be 99.9% positive of a theory. that leaves the theory open to discovery.

Since: Oct 11

Cabadiangan, Philippines

#372473 Oct 20, 2011
before we do prove there's a GOD,prove there is NO GOD at all.can you?

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#372474 Oct 21, 2011
waaasssuuup wrote:
<quoted text>
interesting! i suppose that you have pics of you as a baby tadpole???
I am not following

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#372475 Oct 21, 2011
rayne111 wrote:
before we do prove there's a GOD,prove there is NO GOD at all.can you?
LOL Fact come's with a disclaimer clause in science.

Rocket 1#
My rocketship is the fastest ever and no one can build a ship to go faster.

Rocket 2#
Exceeds speed of rocket 1.
So rocketship 2 is more fasterest.

There he isn't >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>> God

g-night everyone =/

Since: Jun 07

Indiana

#372476 Oct 21, 2011
Atomic_G wrote:
<quoted text>
No worries, all friends in the end.
<quoted text>
Again it is not hollow, it is from my personal experience and science agree., which theist seem to use their experience all the time. I don't seem you going after any theist putting forward their opinion.
And here is where I'm getting confused. I specifically said someone blurting out "God does exist" as an argument is just as hollow at least once, and I believe more times.
That is why I don't understand your claim that I am coming up with multiple rules.

Science doesn't agree there is no God. Science is, and must be, mute on the subject.
Atomic_G wrote:
It is backed by my experience and there is nothing prove it otherwise.
Then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but realize it doesn't prove nor disprove anything.
Atomic_G wrote:
What else am I meant to believe, you have given me anything else to on
Because my personal beliefs on the matter are irrelevant, so I don't see why it is a subject of concern. I am not arguing for or against the existence of anything. I am arguing against
1. The notion that lack of evidence proves something doesn't exist.
2. That one should have to prove their beliefs to anyone.
Atomic_G wrote:
I know, you are ambiguous. You obviously know my stance, what is yours?
I don't know
Atomic_G wrote:
I have not demanded evidence. Go back over the original conversation, he asked us to 'prove there's not a god', we asked him to 'prove there's no leprechauns' and then he compared god to tv "No. I can't see TV waves in the air but I see the result on TV so I believe in them", followed by you interjecting. So I actually was not demanding anything, from them, you or anyone else. I was making a point and it had nothing to do with you.
So whatever it is, is directed at the wrong person.
The argument I thought you were making was that a lack of evidence suggests that God doesn't exist, the entire point of the thread. That is what I was arguing against. Sorry if I misunderstood your argument.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#372477 Oct 21, 2011
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
I have several pictures of Double Fine as a baby tadpole (or possibly a newt). For a price, I am willing to release them. Please make me an offer.
Okay you may sell them, excpet the one where I am in the compromising position with that frog

Since: Jun 07

Indiana

#372478 Oct 21, 2011
OK everyone, one fact I do know for sure is that the dishes aren't going to do themselves. Or at least if they do I will be surprised. Pleasantly surprised, but surprised non-the-less. Take care and have a good night.

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#372479 Oct 21, 2011
rayne111 wrote:
before we do prove there's a GOD,prove there is NO GOD at all.can you?
We can.

Christianity - Your Bible says he has cities are in the clouds. We went there and didn't find him. MYTH

Islam - States the world is flat. It's not. MYTH

What else do you want me to disprove? Must I prove that Atlas is not holding up the Earth, or that lightning is a force of nature, not of god,and that Ra is NOT the sun god?

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#372480 Oct 21, 2011
The Bald Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
Maybe. Maybe not. The fact that we are still trying to advance scientific knowledge shows that there are still things we do not know or understand. To suggest that we are capable of comprehending anything and everything (and that is what science is: the Humans ability to comprehend) is really more of an opinion than a statement of fact.
<quoted text>
If you are suggesting that science can figure out anything, how could there be a distinction between attainable and unattainable goals?
<quoted text>
I didn't suggest science did or should.
<quoted text>
So we should stop trying to advance scientific knowledge for fear that we may get it wrong? Better to remain ignorant?
<quoted text>
No, I haven't and don't intend to. It's far too interesting to hear everyone trying to attribute religious beliefs to me to discredit me in the conversation rather than addressing what I actually say.
You misrepresented my statements. Apparently you agreed with what I said but wanted to argue anyway. That's fine.

I was saying that ignorance is not an excuse to accredit a god, and much of what people accredit to a god/s have known explanations.

Proving the existence of a god would be extremely easy. Disproving one is impossible. If a god wanted to know that he/she/it exists, all he/she/it would have to do is show up and break some physical laws in a few different labs to be independently verified. How easy would that be for a god? Disproving the existence of something is impossible. Attainable goals are those that can be achieved. You don't know sometimes until you try. Some are impossible from the start. The criteria for attainability depends on the matter at hand.

We atheists and agnostics don't like to argue with "stealth Christians" or those that want to argue using their own rules. If you have religious beliefs, and feel strongly about them, that can and often does overrule rational thought processes. Well, I can't speak for all atheist and agnostics, but I would think that most of us would like for people to be honest with us about their motivations for argument. If you are here to preach, then preach. If you are here to debate science, then why did you come to this thread? We have plenty of sciency people here. I'm not one of them. I usually just make funny comments and write poetry and songs. I only responded to you because you remind me of a poster from my local forums that really pisses me off.

Don't look forward to another reply from me, I'm already bored with you.

“Faith means not wanting to ”

Since: Nov 10

know what is true.

#372481 Oct 21, 2011
The Bald Guy wrote:
<quoted text>
And here is where I'm getting confused. I specifically said someone blurting out "God does exist" as an argument is just as hollow at least once, and I believe more times.
That is why I don't understand your claim that I am coming up with multiple rules.
I am not to know this, just like you have gotten the entire conversation I am having with someone else wrong.

I was not putting forward an argument really, I said I don't consider this a debate. If I had I know I could not put forward my opinion, I know I would have to put forward fact supporting my claims and I know that could not be my argument.
The Bald Guy wrote:
Science doesn't agree there is no God. Science is, and must be, mute on the subject.
All science indicates a non-existence of the supernatural. It gives us natural origins, no divine interventions and correlating timeline. To say that science does not indicate the absence of the supernatural is outright false.
The Bald Guy wrote:
Then that is your opinion and you are entitled to it, but realize it doesn't prove nor disprove anything.
I know it is just my opinion, just like yours or anyone else's it does not prove anything. Give me some credit.
The Bald Guy wrote:
Because my personal beliefs on the matter are irrelevant, so I don't see why it is a subject of concern. I am not arguing for or against the existence of anything. I am arguing against
1. The notion that lack of evidence proves something doesn't exist.
We disagree here, the lack of evidence does suggest the lack existence.
The Bald Guy wrote:
2. That one should have to prove their beliefs to anyone.
No one should have to prove anything and the thread is not demanding anyone to. Everyone is free to post and place forward an argument if they want too. So your argument is pointless, we aren't holding a gun to anyone's head.
The Bald Guy wrote:
I don't know
That is respectable
The Bald Guy wrote:
The argument I thought you were making was that a lack of evidence suggests that God doesn't exist, the entire point of the thread. That is what I was arguing against. Sorry if I misunderstood your argument.
You did come into the conversation halfway. It's like I am not to know "I specifically said someone blurting out "God does exist" as an argument is just as hollow at least once, and I believe more times".

“First it steals your mind..”

Since: Jun 11

..and then it steals your soul

#372482 Oct 21, 2011
Question Mark 00 wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh isn't this nice? You can post sites that claim there are contradictions in the Bible, but if we post a site that refutes those claims, it's not credible? Why?
Because if your god cannot protect his written word himself, he is useless
Question Mark 00 wrote:
Because it goes against what you want to believe? Hahahaha you make me laugh.
No. I want there to be a deity. A provable one
Question Mark 00 wrote:
News Flash: YOU don't get to make up the rules. Topix is a very liberal forum. Very little moderation here. So it's all good. All is fair in love and war.
Logic still beats your bible to pulp though
Question Mark 00 wrote:
BTW- Are you folks still mad about my "role-playing" and "method acting?" LOL
Not really. I could not care less. But I am sure it is the most fascinating thing you did all year. Kudos to you.
Question Mark 00 wrote:
Since truth is "subjective," I can tell the truth as myself or as "Simpleman." If I don't feel like being simpleman today, I can be simpleman tomorrow.
Err. Whatever man. Really. Or create another sock. That would really spice things up. NOT
Question Mark 00 wrote:
You people are nuts. ROTFLMAO
Pot calling the kettle black again, are we?

“Faith means not wanting to ”

Since: Nov 10

know what is true.

#372483 Oct 21, 2011
The Bald Guy wrote:
No, I haven't and don't intend to. It's far too interesting to hear everyone trying to attribute religious beliefs to me to discredit me in the conversation rather than addressing what I actually say.
So just like you have done to me, made false assumptions based on what you thought was going on. People are making assumption of your belief, based on the information you do provide and that is a defense of theism beliefs. Based on that information we will tend to think you believe in what you defend. Otherwise why defend it?

“Faith means not wanting to ”

Since: Nov 10

know what is true.

#372484 Oct 21, 2011
Tide with Beach wrote:
Don't look forward to another reply from me, I'm already bored with you.
Ditto!

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.

Top Stories Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Franke Servis Sefakoy O2I2 299 I5 34 FRANKE Se... 14 min wsrfirma 1
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 46 min Clearwater 70,030
FRANKE Servis buyukcekmece O2I2 299 I5 34 Fran... 48 min wsrfirma 1
Why do black children behave worse in school th... (Sep '10) 1 hr Teacher 411
Websleuths & Tricia Griffith is a fraud. Especi... 1 hr MMgonzo 2
Should Black People Forgive White People for Sl... (Jun '07) 1 hr gundee123 4,930
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr MUQ2 282,862
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 5 hr Anthony MN 658,358
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 8 hr Jersey97boy 86
More from around the web