Prove there's a god.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#585710 Jan 10, 2013
karl44 wrote:

hold the gun owner criminally responsible for the actions of his guns.
Mylan wrote:
Exactly. Enter gun insurance. It's the perfect solution.
Guns don't perform actions any more than cars do.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#585711 Jan 10, 2013
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
motorcyclists do not need a seat-belt, they will be killed by the helmet the law requires.
I was in a motorcycle crash once. The helmet (full faced) saved my lower jaw from being crushed in.

I do not think it should be a law to wear a helmet, but I'll always wear one.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#585712 Jan 10, 2013
Happy Lesbo wrote:
Happy Lesbo wrote:
.. mainstream science considers the conscious emergent but have not conceded a non-material cause. Heck, scientists can't even tell you, nor can they agree among themselves, what "alive" and "dead" is
Scientists have proven that when people claim to die and go to heaven and "experience" heaven is not real. I will look for the articles and post them for you. This has been done in a lab.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#585713 Jan 10, 2013
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
a package of neo-citron in a 8oz glass of 50% whiskey and hot water, drink it and go to bed, lots of blankets.
the cold will be over,(if you live)
Sounds like Chemotherapy for colds. The garlic (or white wine) accomplishes the same thing, only much safer.
Forum carlsbad nm

Lovington, NM

#585714 Jan 10, 2013
karl44 wrote:
<quoted text>
video games do not kill
guns do
Video games are fun.
Tranny Town Clown

Fort Worth, TX

#585715 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Does pot tell you that kettles speak?
24-7. Stealin' and lyin' fer Jeebus! Let's show our love fee some god by shootin' some shit. Whoop!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#585716 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Does pot tell you that kettles speak?
Pot tells you that you have the munchies.
Tranny Town Clown

Fort Worth, TX

#585717 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I was in a motorcycle crash once. The helmet (full faced) saved my lower jaw from being crushed in.
I do not think it should be a law to wear a helmet, but I'll always wear one.
Helmet on a motorcycle is practical atheism.

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#585718 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
karl44 wrote:
hold the gun owner criminally responsible for the actions of his guns.
<quoted text>
Guns don't perform actions any more than cars do.
And cars have insurance. Thank you for proving our point.
Tranny Town Clown

Fort Worth, TX

#585719 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
karl44 wrote:
hold the gun owner criminally responsible for the actions of his guns.
<quoted text>
Guns don't perform actions any more than cars do.
Still more bumper sticker nonsense. What an idiot. Abortions don't kill babies. Whoop! Bibles don't kill brain cells. Whoop!
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#585720 Jan 10, 2013
You have a nasty habit of talking gibberish when you have nothing to resist or retort with.
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
... It is not contradictory, it is stating the human limitation to detect light using the instruments we were born with.
I guess its not contradictory. I see that now.

But if the limits you were born with prevent you from detecting light; how do you know that the light existed?

Was the existence of the light not made through logic and reasoning?

Were logic and reasoning not the influences that guided to creation of any tools to test or measure that light which is undetectable by the human senses?

And since we create devices from our knowledge; will the devices not reflect our limits and the limits of our knowledge?

Whether your statement was contradictory or not does not affect the validity of my claim that all you know is the processes that are occurring inside your body.

Your claim to know of an objective reality (especially "beyond human ability") is quite... naive and absurd.
Aura Mytha wrote:
It does not imply any human limitations to detect invisible light using the tools invented to do so.
That limitation is automatically implied.

We are creatures of limited potentials and limited knowledge; who use that limited potential and knowledge to create things that are limited in their potentials.
Aura Mytha wrote:
Which btw becomes the human limitation or rather the expanded ability of detection.
There that gibberish thing goes again.

As soon as you figure out what you mean by that; let me know so I can figure it out too.
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#585721 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Does pot tell you that kettles speak?
Pot doesn't make kettles speak. Pot can no more make a person high than guns can kill. Only people can make people high. Idiot.
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#585722 Jan 10, 2013
Mylan wrote:
<quoted text>Pot tells you that you have the munchies.
Pot can't cause the munches. Only people can cause the munches.
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#585723 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I was in a motorcycle crash once. The helmet (full faced) saved my lower jaw from being crushed in.
I do not think it should be a law to wear a helmet, but I'll always wear one.
Oh, please run into a wall. We can then unequivocally answer the age-old question: Can a helmet protect a single brain cell?
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#585724 Jan 10, 2013
God Himself wrote:
You have a nasty habit of talking gibberish when you have nothing to resist or retort with.
<quoted text>
I guess its not contradictory. I see that now.
But if the limits you were born with prevent you from detecting light; how do you know that the light existed?
Was the existence of the light not made through logic and reasoning?
Were logic and reasoning not the influences that guided to creation of any tools to test or measure that light which is undetectable by the human senses?
And since we create devices from our knowledge; will the devices not reflect our limits and the limits of our knowledge?
Whether your statement was contradictory or not does not affect the validity of my claim that all you know is the processes that are occurring inside your body.
Your claim to know of an objective reality (especially "beyond human ability") is quite... naive and absurd.
<quoted text>
That limitation is automatically implied.
We are creatures of limited potentials and limited knowledge; who use that limited potential and knowledge to create things that are limited in their potentials.
<quoted text>
There that gibberish thing goes again.
As soon as you figure out what you mean by that; let me know so I can figure it out too.
Haha. You accused another of gibberish. Doh! Silly theist, you've done it again.
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#585725 Jan 10, 2013
Forum carlsbad nm wrote:
<quoted text>
Video games are fun.
Video games can't be fun. Only people can be fun.
Huh

Fort Worth, TX

#585726 Jan 10, 2013
Mylan wrote:
<quoted text>
And cars have insurance. Thank you for proving our point.
Cars can't have insurance. Only people can have insurance.

The sun can't "rise" in the morning, only people can "rise" in the morning.

Yeast can't make dough rise. Only people can make dough rise.

Germs can't cause disease. Only people can cause disease.

Flus can't make you sneeze. Only people can make you sneeze.

'Pug Tea Logic, 101. Whoop!

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#585727 Jan 10, 2013
Huh wrote:
<quoted text>Pot can't cause the munches. Only people can cause the munches.
Lol..

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#585728 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
karl44 wrote:
hold the gun owner criminally responsible for the actions of his guns.
<quoted text>
Guns don't perform actions any more than cars do.
And ownership or insurance will protect everyone. I don't see any problem here. It's called liability insurance for a reason.
Pat

East Granby, CT

#585729 Jan 10, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
No. It proves that a thing may exist even though you are not able to detect it.
As a matter of fact, reality is defined with such a concept in mind:
"In a wider definition, reality includes everything that is and has been, WHETHER OR NOT IT IS OBSERVABLE OR COMPREHENSIBLE." [wikipedia.com]
So unless you decide that whatever you cant see or feel or taste doesnt exist; you cannot say that God doesnt exist based on the fact that you have no evidence of His existence.
THE UNIVERSE MAY BE FULL OF THINGS THAT EXIST, FOR WHICH YOU HAVE NO EVIDENCE (or maybe you can prove to me that you know everything and have proof of everything).
So the stance of no acceptance of existence without evidence is quite weak; logical but weak.
You can negate and refute till you are blue in the face; but since you are not that which created this reality, you cannot tell what doesnt exist in it.
All you can do is speculate like myself here.
But I will speculate about the positive aspects of things; I will speculate that God exists as opposed to speculating that He doesnt. You know why? BECAUSE WE LIVE IN A WORLD OF POSSIBILITIES; SUCH THAT EVEN THAT WHICH IS NOT, CAN BE CAUSED TO BECOME.
So anything could have happened; even God.
<quoted text>
That is superfluous to the discussion.
The tool will reflect its own responses to the reality and will not give a measurement of the reality itself; regardless of what came first- the chicken or the egg, the tool or the claim.
Furthermore, if the tool was invented before claims were made; then the inventors of the tools had no idea what they were making.
<quoted text>
I never claimed that God cannot be detected; I said the inability to detect a thing does not mean that thing does not exist.
Otherwise there is value in what you said in this last bit here.
But if a scientists can conclude that evolution is a fact/reality when evidence ONLY SUPPORTS it; I dont see why I cant claim that God is real and existent when I have evidence to support it.
You dont agree that my evidence of God is valid; but I dont agree that common genes are proof of common ancestry either.*shrug*
Then you agree, being open to the possibility of a god is reasonable but believing there is a god at this point in time since there is no evidence is both premature and irrational.

"So unless you decide that whatever you cant see or feel or taste doesnt exist; you cannot say that God doesnt exist based on the fact that you have no evidence of His existence."

Why do you argue against a position I do not hold? Are you confused? I have never claimed there is no god. All I say is that your claim that there is is without merit and unproven.

"So the stance of no acceptance of existence without evidence is quite weak; logical but weak."

True, it is and it is equally as weak as acceptance with no evidence you foolish hypocrite. You just gave a good argument against a belief in god and you didn't even realize it. LOL

"So anything could have happened; even God."

That may be true but you do not know it to be true so again you are guilty of a flasehood.

"The tool will reflect its own responses to the reality and will not give a measurement of the reality itself; regardless of what came first- the chicken or the egg, the tool or the claim."

The tool arouse OUT OF A NEED FOR IT. Ever hear the saying "Necessity is the mother of invention"?

"But if a scientists can conclude that evolution is a fact/reality when evidence ONLY SUPPORTS it; I dont see why I cant claim that God is real and existent when I have evidence to support it."

Because evolution has evidence. It's why we need a different flue shot each year, it's why we have drug resistant strains of TB, it's why the animals in the Galapagos Islands are unique to the islands... Your god has squat for proof. You can claim all you want you have evidence but you don't, this is just your dishonest specious reasoning rearing its ugly head aghain.

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
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 3 min Trump Worshiper 679,392
News Plurality of Americans think Trump is failing 1 hr TanRestedReady 2,896
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 1 hr Chess Jurist 119,368
Why are most white people so arrogant? (Apr '10) 2 hr Alexander Chen 1,018
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 3 hr Born again past JW 46,221
__POPE's 'World Plan' matches MARK of BEAST__ 4 hr WorldNewsYTube 1
Needs sex with a girl in London (Jan '14) 6 hr Gloriah23 4
More from around the web