Prove there's a god.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

#585771 Jan 10, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
OK. There are no perfect gods that make mistakes..
Any idiot can understand that.

And it doesnt take a genius to see that that is true either. what's the point?
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Any claim that such a god exists is self-refuting.
SO whats your real problem, the claims of the perfection of God's Character or the perfection of God's Potentials?

Because a God Who is perfect in power can do anything in any way to any degree; as well as He can choose to do nothing.

A God who is of perfect character is superfluous to the discussion; for character does not determine reality, POWER DOES.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#585772 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Taxing cigarettes is a ploy to get more money out of people.
Society pays more for their health care, so smokers should pay more taxes
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Poorer people, too. Statistics show that generally lower-income people smoke. People that usually can't afford it.
Is that part of an argument against such taxes?
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I think it's a way of deterring smoking by making the cost too high to afford.
The amount of the tax should be at least enough to cover the marginal health care expenses due to smoking. If tax law can be used constructively to deter smoking, then that is a good thing.

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#585773 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Besides, where's all that tax money going? Where's that $25 million a year going? I'd love to see the reports...
I'll bet it's more than 25 million dollars. But yes, government transparency and accountability is a principle I espouse as well. But good luck with that, though.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
I do want the government to stay out of smoker's way, and everybody's way. I do not want ALL smoking legislation reversed, you're being absurd.
You're contradicting yourself. Smoking-related laws all either forbid or compel something. You either support that or you don't

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#585774 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
You'd support an excise tax on cheeseburgers because they're fattening & deadly? I'm not surprised.
Not exactly. I would favor it if cheeseburger eating cost society money.

And you consider that wrong? I guess that you expect me to share the tab for cheeseburger habit, too. I'm not surprised.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Then why not a HUGE tax on vehicles? A car puts out more deadly "second hand" fumes in 1 minute than a typical smoker does in a year.
I'm really only qualified to discuss principles, not their implementation. I think that the tax appears in the price of gasoline. You seem to think that your freedom should be free for you or its not freedom.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Ever seen 5 guys in an enclosed room chain smoking & drinking? Yup, none of them dies (that night). Put a car in idle in that same enclosed room and all 5 die.
Is this part of an argument against cigarette taxes? If so, it's a ridiculous one.
God Himself

Dallas, TX

#585775 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Insurance for what reason? Theft?
I fart up your nose.

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#585776 Jan 10, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Did you like totally dodge English language class?
You obviously have never heard of "synonyms".
Faith is a belief like all other beliefs.
And the value of any belief is determined by its consistency with reality.
So as long as my faith is consistent with what I experience, then my faith is no less valid than the confidence a scientist places in a concept, theory or fact :P
If you keep posting you will with each post effectively persuaded us, little by little by whittling away what little reasoning we presumed you had thus thoroughly convincing us.
That you are a genuine blithering idiot.
Pat

East Granby, CT

#585777 Jan 10, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Well Abraham Lincoln did not know what I know so he was not thinking the way I am thinking.
When a scientists form a hypothesis or a theory, which is then proven to be factual; is he lying?
Because if scientists already knew that their theories and hypothesis were correct, then testing and experimenting would be redundant.
So does the proving of a theory, hypothesis or scientific claim make the scientists wrong?
And if the theory, hypothesis or scientific claim is proven factual; are they accidentally truthful?
What have you been proving, except that you are a facking clown? I should call you DUMBO or DUMB-OH or DUMB-HOE or DUMB-O!
"Well Abraham Lincoln did not know what I know so he was not thinking the way I am thinking."

But what he said was true and applies perfectly to your baseless claims of a god. Your claim of secret knowledge is often where you dishonest theists end up in a debate. You have big ego/small brain disease.

"When a scientists form a hypothesis or a theory, which is then proven to be factual; is he lying?"

Not at all, and if you bothered to look up the definition of a hypothesis or a scientific theory you would understand why little boy.

"So does the proving of a theory, hypothesis or scientific claim make the scientists wrong?"

We have now entered the Twilight Zone....

Look up hypothesis and learn what it means before you try to debate it little boy. A hypothesis is not a claim of any certanties it is asserted merely as a provisional conjecture to guide investigation (working hypothesis) or accepted as highly probable in the light of established facts. A hypothesis being incorrect does not make the one who offered it a liar.

"What have you been proving, except that you are a facking clown? I should call you DUMBO or DUMB-OH or DUMB-HOE or DUMB-O!"

That's called projection when you do that and you dishonest theists resort to it often as you have already proven. You are an idiot amongst idiots.

“Proud Member”

Since: Dec 10

The Basket of Deplorables

#585778 Jan 10, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Society pays more for their health care, so smokers should pay more taxes
<quoted text>
Is that part of an argument against such taxes?
<quoted text>
The amount of the tax should be at least enough to cover the marginal health care expenses due to smoking. If tax law can be used constructively to deter smoking, then that is a good thing.
non smokers live longer so they will receive more benefits , therefore should pay more taxes.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#585779 Jan 10, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
"Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are always considered true. They are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they are PROPOSED AS TRUE and EXPECTED to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation. SOMETIMES THEORIES ARE INCORRECT, meaning that an explicit set of observations contradicts some fundamental objection or application of the theory, but more often THEORIES ARE CORRECTED TO CONFORM TO NEW OBSERVATIONS, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made." [wikipedia.com]
SO not only do scientists ASSUME that the theory is true; they sometimes TWEAK it to make it better reflect reality.
So how come when I accept that the existence of God is true in order to begin learning about Him; you have a problem?
Dont you find the idea of tweaking scientific theory to match reality to constitute intellectual dishonesty?
If what they say is so accurate and scientific; what relevance is there is adding and removing, cutting and pasting?
You need a real hard, long, fat, stiff... drink... in your stomach... so you can relax... and unwind.
You accept the existence of god without any observations.

Correct?

If you have made observations, are they testable?

If so, how?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#585780 Jan 10, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
So if there are no such things nor even the faintest idea, how do you know what you are talking about?
A non-existent cannot be rationally described nor logically represented, for the simple fact that it has no prperties to describe or represent.
So how do you know that the entities with which specific attributes are associated, dont exist?
I face a dilemma in situation like this:
I can either conclude that you are a blabbering fool who just wants to troll; or I can conclude that you are a blabbering fool who just hates God.
Choices choices.
There's no choice, he's both.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#585781 Jan 10, 2013
Black Thunder 42 wrote:
<quoted text>
Ya...no concept of scientific hypothesis/theory/law.
Most 25 year olds don't.....
Pat

East Granby, CT

#585782 Jan 10, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
"Theories are abstract and conceptual, and to this end they are always considered true. They are supported or challenged by observations in the world. They are 'rigorously tentative', meaning that they are PROPOSED AS TRUE and EXPECTED to satisfy careful examination to account for the possibility of faulty inference or incorrect observation. SOMETIMES THEORIES ARE INCORRECT, meaning that an explicit set of observations contradicts some fundamental objection or application of the theory, but more often THEORIES ARE CORRECTED TO CONFORM TO NEW OBSERVATIONS, by restricting the class of phenomena the theory applies to or changing the assertions made." [wikipedia.com]
SO not only do scientists ASSUME that the theory is true; they sometimes TWEAK it to make it better reflect reality.
So how come when I accept that the existence of God is true in order to begin learning about Him; you have a problem?
Dont you find the idea of tweaking scientific theory to match reality to constitute intellectual dishonesty?
If what they say is so accurate and scientific; what relevance is there is adding and removing, cutting and pasting?
You need a real hard, long, fat, stiff... drink... in your stomach... so you can relax... and unwind.
"SO not only do scientists ASSUME that the theory is true; they sometimes TWEAK it to make it better reflect reality."

First of all scientific theories attempt to describe a set of FACTS, like the theory of evolution describes how different species, species that we know for a fact exist, came to be. Yes, science will change it's theories as new evidence presents itself - unlike stale stagnant religious dogma, and it does this because it is HONEST.

"Dont you find the idea of tweaking scientific theory to match reality to constitute intellectual dishonesty?"

Just the opposite, science approaches the truth closer and closer by doing that.

"So how come when I accept that the existence of God is true in order to begin learning about Him; you have a problem?"

Because your conclusion is based on nothing but personal desire and no evidence. I also don't have a "problem" because you fail to use your brain properly and believe in religious dogma, as far as I am concerned that is your problem.

"If what they say is so accurate and scientific; what relevance is there is adding and removing, cutting and pasting?"

It's called honesty, a concept you theists can not comprehend.

"You need a real hard, long, fat, stiff... drink... in your stomach... so you can relax... and unwind"

Booze is just like religion, a crutch, an escape from relaity for those who need one. Have fun!

“Life may be sweeter for this”

Since: Nov 08

Fennario

#585783 Jan 10, 2013
God Himself wrote:
The fact is that the evidence which is presented supports evolution theory but it does not PROVE that evolution is reality.
The evidence establishes the validity of the theory.

Proof is not the standard for scientific theory. Nor is it the standard for much of daily life. It certainly has no place in religion.
God Himself wrote:
But the failure to prove evolution theory does not prevent scientists from claiming that it is fact; the evidence supports it.
The theory is correct in its oldest and most central aspects. Newer refinements may be overturned or otherwise modified.
God Himself wrote:
I dont have to prove that God exists either.
No, you don't.
God Himself wrote:
As long as I see evidence to support the existence of God, me and my little group can form our consensus and say that it is a fact that God exists.
Yes, you can. And so can the flat earthers regarding their beliefs. That's what makes faith so worthless.
God Himself wrote:
If atheists can call what they feel, fact; then religious person must be able to call what they experience a reality.
Sorry, but that's where the two part ways. As Bill Maher said,

"No. N-n-n-n-no. It’s not fair that people who can’t defend their own nonsense get to create a fake fair and balanced argument, the way they do when asserting that evolution and creationism are equally valid....[W]hen it comes to religion, we’re not two sides of the same coin and you don’t get to put your un-reason up on the same shelf with my reason. Your stuff has to go over there, on the shelf with Zeus, Thor and The Kraken - with the stuff that is not evidence-based"

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#585784 Jan 10, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Insurance for what reason? Theft?
Theft and any subsequent harm it might do as a result of your not properly securing it.
Pat

East Granby, CT

#585785 Jan 10, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Scientists assume a theory to be true before they test it; but you dont let that bother you do you?
But as soon as I make a suggestion on the nature of God your hounding at my balls.
If I cant claim that God does exist; no-one can claim that God DOES NOT EXIST.
Do you think a negative stance is more logical than a positive one?
What are you more likely to find; evidence that something exists or evidence that something does not exist?
How many negatives has science proven?
<quoted text>
That makes no sense.
Whatever will happen has already happened (I dare you to prove otherwise).
If I know that I will win, I can claim that I will win. Thats prediction for ya.
<quoted text>
You sound so sexy when you cuss.
I'm 25 by the way. How old are you?
Science is best defined as a careful, disciplined, logical search for knowledge about any and all aspects of the universe, obtained by examination of the best available evidence and always subject to correction and improvement upon discovery of better evidence. Science does not assume, ignorant theists do.

"If I cant claim that God does exist; no-one can claim that God DOES NOT EXIST.

You can claim it, you are just exposing your faulty reasoning abilities no different from any body else who makes claims that lack support, including atheists.

"Do you think a negative stance is more logical than a positive one?"

No, I think keeping an open mind and forming no opinion either way is the only rational position to hold when there is no knowledge to base an opinion on.

"Whatever will happen has already happened (I dare you to prove otherwise)."

Just as soon as you prove there are no aliens on Pluto.

"You sound so sexy when you cuss."

Good luck to you, at least you gays can now get married.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#585786 Jan 10, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL.
That god cares more about who has been putting what into whom more than just about anything else. The residues of the fluids that dried there tell the tale.
You don't get to be called omniscient unless you know what every dirty pair of shorts and panties smell like.
Lol!

Makes sense.

I thought you just threw that in to see if we were paying attention.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#585787 Jan 10, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Society pays more for their health care, so smokers should pay more taxes
If you're gonna use health care costs as a reason, start at the top - fat.

Fat people cost the health care industry a lot more than smokers do.

How many fat diabetics are out there that cost us money their whole life?

Why are you advocating a sin tax, excuse me an excise tax, on fattening food?

Gimme a break...

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#585788 Jan 10, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
I'll bet it's more than 25 million dollars. But yes, government transparency and accountability is a principle I espouse as well. But good luck with that, though.
<quoted text>
You're contradicting yourself. Smoking-related laws all either forbid or compel something. You either support that or you don't
What I do not support is the government taking tax money from cigarettes because they say cigarettes "kill", but they won't put excise taxes on other things that we consume that also kill.

It's completely unfair and completely dishonest.
Pat

East Granby, CT

#585789 Jan 10, 2013
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
It is not the mere complexity of life that leads us to the conclusion my dear Patti Cake.
Its the fact that all this complexity works, that leads us to believe there is an intelligent influence involved.
And it cannot be an argument from ignorance because we do have evidence to support the claim.
<quoted text>
After you tell that to your scientific thinking fellow on here, you can come back to tell me.
They dont seem to share your sentiments.
<quoted text>
Uuuuuuuuuuh, yeah it kinda does.
Have you ever seen intelligence emerge by accident?
For intelligence and efficiency to emerge from blind mindless forces is like throwing some paint on a canvas and expecting a "Madonna" or to show up perfectly painted.
I will show you something:
When scientists first saw a figure on Mars that looked like a face, what did they assume: did they assume it was made by other beings or that it evolves into existence?
THE PERSON WHO THINKS THAT INTELLIGENCE EMERGED FROM NOTHING OR MINDLESS PROCESSES ALONE, CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO BE INTELLIGENT.
<quoted text>
I dint say nor suggest that one lacks the ability to experience the life that comes after death; I suggested the nature of experiences may be different from the ones we have in this present state.
The nature of the experiences in the after-life may be such that memory is redundant/unnecessary.
<quoted text>
You assume that life ends in death, which makes you an even bigger jackass; because that which is truly alive is never subject to death.
That which is truly alive will never die; thats what makes it lively.
I presume you will say there is no such that as a thing that cannot die; but I will point out to you that matter-energy cannot be created nor destroyed...
If you have evindence then why does a belief in god still require faith? Stop lying.

"Its the fact that all this complexity works, that leads us to believe there is an intelligent influence involved."

Argument from ignorance.

"THE PERSON WHO THINKS THAT INTELLIGENCE EMERGED FROM NOTHING OR MINDLESS PROCESSES ALONE, CANNOT BE TRUSTED TO BE INTELLIGENT."

THE PERSON REFUSES TO ADMIT NOT KNOWING SOMETHING WHEN THEY IN FACT DO NOT KNOW IT CAN BE CONSIDERED VERY INSECURE AND IGNORANT. We do not know exactly how life began so stop pretending we do and as far as a scientific theory goes, the invisible sky wizard using his magic wand is not a vlaid scientifc theory.

"You assume that life ends in death, which makes you an even bigger jackass; because that which is truly alive is never subject to death."

I assume nothing, my opinion is based on the evidence of a corpse. Check out a rotting corpse some time little boy. If you are going to argue that you live after you die because maggots will feed on your corpse then we agree, you will live after you die. Answer my question then, if a corpse can not be considered conclusive proof that death ends personal memory and awareness then what would be enough proof for you? If we can not accept a corpse as proof that death ends life then NOTHING we know of could ever be said to be proven, NOTHING! The assuming jackass who will deny the evidence of a corpse is you, you coward.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#585790 Jan 10, 2013
It aint necessarily so wrote:
Not exactly. I would favor it if cheeseburger eating cost society money.
What?! You think people eating cheeseburgers all the time doesn't cost society money?!

Cholesterol kills more people than cigarettes do.

My grandma never smoked a cigarette in her whole life. She was in the hospital for four months before she died. She ended up costing Medicare over $2 million. Why? Because she ate fattening foods her whole life.

My grandma loved cheeseburgers, fried chicken, pizza, candy bars, soda, and so on. She loved it so much that it eventually killed her.

So again, why are you out there advocating a sin tax of fattening foods?

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
Will Barack Obama be the Biblical anti-Christ? 2 min Nurple8665 10
Apartments 4 min anonymous 1
*** All Time Favorite Songs *** (Dec '10) 6 min Bubblez6325 3,853
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 8 min marge 658,416
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 10 min Rosa_Winkel 70,127
Whose fault was it that O.J. Simpson beat murde... (Mar '16) 10 min Glitter940 25
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 13 min ImFree2Choose 2,987
Should Black People Forgive White People for Sl... (Jun '07) 42 min Twizzler4158 4,937
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 45 min BonBon6156 282,874
Moms having sex with their sons (Aug '12) 16 hr Raspberry2129 87
More from around the web