Prove there's a god.

Posted in the Top Stories Forum

Comments (Page 27,809)

Showing posts 556,161 - 556,180 of679,372
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“The eye has it...”

Since: May 09

Russell's Teapot

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#585599
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Jewish women in biblical time until married were considered property of their father , and upon marriage became property of her husband. So Jewish law concerning them would be similar to possession and ownership of livestock.
The women of today's world in free societies would shriek in horror of the way they were treated then, as subservient second class citizens with little recourse.
We tend to see biblical laws as barbaric and primitive.
None of that excuses the barbarity.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#585600
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Mylan wrote:
<quoted text>Yes, the past 3 responses said a lot. My point still stands.
Ok then.

I am here saying that the nature of the human body is such that, any perception or measurement of the world is essentially a measurement of the bodily processes and structures. Because what is perceived at any time as an experience is actually the effect of the reality on the body, the absolute reality is never actually experienced.

Adding another mechanism to the equation such as a telescope does not change the subjectivity of the experience of the user.

Now tell me WTF is the relevance of mentioning MRI's and radio telescopes?

“There is no such thing”

Since: May 08

as a reasonable person

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#585601
Jan 10, 2013
 
It aint necessarily so wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes, and so do you. Do you like roads? Police? A military? Food inspection?
But, but who will pick the cotton?
Pat

Granby, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#585602
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

OCB wrote:
<quoted text>BTW, I would STILL have been born into Judaism even if the people who would have then adopted me raised me as a Christian.
Even if that had been the case, my heritage associated with Judaism would forever remain intact.
In other words what you said about being born into a RELIGION was not what you meant, but instead you meant born into the racial heritage of the Jews? Then we agree, you are a genetic Jew whether or not you were adopted or had atheists for your birth parents. Why don't you just write what you mean the first time so I don't have to keep correcting you like this?
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#585603
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Whether seen or detected by senses alone makes no difference , they are detected and detected in their entire range of existence.
Do you feel comfortable making a statement like that?

If you do, then I am afraid that the only knowledge you truly possess is the knowledge of how to be arrogant.

[QUOTE who="Aura Mytha"
You seem to forget these waves were also created by men to serve purpose.
I do not deny they exist and are detectable.
http://chandra.harvard.edu/learn_cxc.html [/QUOTE]

That is superfluous to the discussion.

The fact is that these waves do not appeal to the human senses naturally. There are aspect and elements of reality which have an existence that is only logically deducible, through the observation of interaction between entities and phenomena. Logic then assists us in creating devices to test and measure what we deduce.

DO YOU KNOW WHY "NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory is a telescope specially designed to detect X-ray emission from very hot regions of the Universe such as exploded stars, clusters of galaxies, and matter around black holes. "???????[http://chandra.h arvard.edu/learn_cxc.html]

Its because we could not detect them with our natural senses, so we had to invent a mechanism to detect them for us.

But here is the interesting part:

How do men know how to make the machines to effectively test these waves and other phenomena?

The answer is that THE NATURE OF WAVES AND SUCH LIKE PHENOMENA WERE LOGICALLY DEDUCED PRIOR TO THEIR DETECTION WITH INVENTED TOOLS.

Furthermore, what we see projected on screens when we scan or measure those waves is a machine generated image and responses. What we are able to test and measure using a machine, are the machines responses to reality; we cant test or measure the reality itself.

So there is no way you can comfortably make a conclusion such as:
"Whether seen or detected by senses alone makes no difference , they are detected and detected in their entire range of existence."
Pat

Granby, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#585604
Jan 10, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> You didn't say it but implied it here.
"Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved."
That sentence implies god is provable or disprovable.
Actually what you probably meant to say was..
Atheists have no belief in gods.
All atheist do indeed lack belief in god.

The sentence "Atheists claim god is unproved, not disproved" does not imply that it is possible to prove the theist claim of a god is false, it simply states a fact, that atheists feel the theist claim of a god is unproven, which in fact is true.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#585605
Jan 10, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text> We deal quite well in limits beyond human ability, that does not stop us.
That statement is self contradictory. Limits are points that stop things or mark the point where things stop; thats why we call then limits.

To deal quite well with something beyond human limits is to be beyond human. Now I know you would like to see yourself that way, but I am sorry to disappoint you: you are just as pathetic as the rest of us :P
Aura Mytha wrote:
We will make the tools than can see better than our human eyes, so that our human eyes can see what it otherwise could not. It could be called insane us doing so, but I rather call it clever.
Exactly, YOU WOULD "RATHER" call it clever. And thats fine; even a mad man would like to think himself sane.

I tend to think its insane you "doing so" based on our expression of the goal. Because no matter how good the tool, you still have to use your human eyes; unless you plan to see with your fingers.

You may argue that there are things that are hidden from view by virtue of their sizes so machines are necessary; but logic and critical thinking skills compensates for the limits of the senses anyway... Notice that there are stars not visible to the naked eye that were discovered many years BEFORE THE INVENTION OF THE FIRST TELESCOPE.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#585606
Jan 10, 2013
 
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks , I will use this to invent.
I'm sure you will.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#585607
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

scaritual wrote:
<quoted text>
None of that excuses the barbarity.
Oh I don't excuse it in any way, nor condone the practices of the
old testament. The horrible thing is some Jews in the old city are still of this mindset. The one aspect particularly loathed is amongst the all crimes to humanity and human rights violations is the persistent belief that they are for some reason special and above other people who they refer to as the goyim.
I see most of them as ungrateful bastards who treat the world like it in it's entirety belongs to them. Certainly there are examples of cultures far far more appealing.
Pat

Granby, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#585608
Jan 10, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you feel comfortable making a statement like that?
If you do, then I am afraid that the only knowledge you truly possess is the knowledge of how to be arrogant.
<quoted text>
That is superfluous to the discussion.
The fact is that these waves do not appeal to the human senses naturally. There are aspect and elements of reality which have an existence that is only logically deducible, through the observation of interaction between entities and phenomena. Logic then assists us in creating devices to test and measure what we deduce.
DO YOU KNOW WHY "NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory is a telescope specially designed to detect X-ray emission from very hot regions of the Universe such as exploded stars, clusters of galaxies, and matter around black holes. "???????[http://chandra.h arvard.edu/learn_cxc.html]
Its because we could not detect them with our natural senses, so we had to invent a mechanism to detect them for us.
But here is the interesting part:
How do men know how to make the machines to effectively test these waves and other phenomena?
The answer is that THE NATURE OF WAVES AND SUCH LIKE PHENOMENA WERE LOGICALLY DEDUCED PRIOR TO THEIR DETECTION WITH INVENTED TOOLS.
Furthermore, what we see projected on screens when we scan or measure those waves is a machine generated image and responses. What we are able to test and measure using a machine, are the machines responses to reality; we cant test or measure the reality itself.
So there is no way you can comfortably make a conclusion such as:
"Whether seen or detected by senses alone makes no difference , they are detected and detected in their entire range of existence."
So what do you think not being able to detect something with our natural senses proves about your bogus claim of a god, that anything you can dream up that can not be detected by our natural senses is logical to believe exists? LOL

"THE NATURE OF WAVES AND SUCH LIKE PHENOMENA WERE LOGICALLY DEDUCED PRIOR TO THEIR DETECTION WITH INVENTED TOOLS."

But the claim they actually existed was not made until we had the tools to PROOVE they actually did. If you want to remain OPEN to the idea of a god, that's fine since who knows what we do not know as of yet? But to COME TO THE CONCLUSION that this god exists and to do so simply because you can't prove he doesn't, is both closed minded and irrational. If the only way you can support your belief in god is to claim he is beyond detection then you have no god, you have a delusion.
Pat

Granby, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#585609
Jan 10, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
That statement is self contradictory. Limits are points that stop things or mark the point where things stop; thats why we call then limits.
To deal quite well with something beyond human limits is to be beyond human. Now I know you would like to see yourself that way, but I am sorry to disappoint you: you are just as pathetic as the rest of us :P
<quoted text>
Exactly, YOU WOULD "RATHER" call it clever. And thats fine; even a mad man would like to think himself sane.
I tend to think its insane you "doing so" based on our expression of the goal. Because no matter how good the tool, you still have to use your human eyes; unless you plan to see with your fingers.
You may argue that there are things that are hidden from view by virtue of their sizes so machines are necessary; but logic and critical thinking skills compensates for the limits of the senses anyway... Notice that there are stars not visible to the naked eye that were discovered many years BEFORE THE INVENTION OF THE FIRST TELESCOPE.
Humans have limitations.

Machines help us to overcome those limitations and gather more knowledge than we previously had the ability to gather.

There is still no knowledge for any gods.

There is no rational basis to possess a belief in god.

Your point?
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#585610
Jan 10, 2013
 
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
"The nature of "proof of God" is not the same as the nature of proof of aliens on Pluto; so the analogy is inappropriate."
False, both god and aliens on Pluto are equal in their lack of proof. Rather you are just a dishonest hypocrite.
Where is the evidence to support your claim?:P
Pat wrote:
99.9999 percent of the time, atheists and theists will agree on what is rational to believe.
When was the survey conducted; by whom was it conducted?
Pat wrote:
Theists, like atheists will reject beliefs in things like aliens on Pluto, leprechauns and bigfoot, no different than a level headed will. This proves theists can use their brain properly if they CHOOSE to and they only time they choose not to is when facing their own mortality.
You can see that the inability to detect the presence of a thing doesnt mean it does not exist; you suggested that is a recent post. So you too can use your brain properly to think positively and appreciate the concept that God exists too. Are you a dishonest hypocrite?
Pat wrote:
The ONE thing all theists have in common, whether Muslim, Hindu, Jew or Christian is death denial. God is really not about god, it's about death denial and if the god garbage did not contain the life after death foolishness people would believe in god as often as they do aliens on Pluto.
Seriously?

How can God be about death denial when He created angels of death?

Do people believe there are aliens on Pluto? Do you?
Pat wrote:
... Claiming things to be true that you do not know are true is not reality, it's dishonesty and self deception.
Try telling that to evolution theorists.
Pat wrote:
...All theists are dishonest hypocrite cowards and you have proven that yet again.
The inner defenses are unconscious. They consist of a kind of magic aura which the mind builds around cherished belief.
Ok, you are so much against the spiritual and the hocus pocu, then you say something like "They consist of a kind of MAGIC aura"?

If you are going to use the word "Magic" why do you have a problem with God and leprechauns and aliens on Pluto?

Either you are suffering PMS issues or you just hate God too much to think rationally about Him.
Pat wrote:
Arguments which penetrate into the magic aura are not dealt with rationally but by a specific type of pseudo-reasoning. Absurdities and contradictions are made acceptable by specious rationalizations.
-- Arthur Koestler
Oh you were quoting someone?

But Koestler is not the only person who studied the phenomena; why is it that his conclusion is the only one you present?

Is it that his conclusion is the only one that suits your interest?

If that is the case, I can play that game too:

"Researchers in Spain have found that many of the individuals claiming to see the aura of people –traditionally called "healers" or "quacks"– actually present the neuropsychological phenomenon known as "synesthesia" (specifically, "emotional synesthesia"). This might be a scientific explanation of their alleged "virtue". In synesthetes, the brain regions responsible for the processing of each type of sensory stimuli are intensely interconnected. This way, synesthetes can see or taste a sound, feel a taste, or associate people with a particular colour."

[http://old.richarddawkins.net /articles/645937-scientific-ev idence-proves-why-healers-see- the-aura-of-people]

Also notice the name on the top of the web page when you visit it: "RICHARD DAWKINS".

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#585611
Jan 10, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
Do you feel comfortable making a statement like that?
If you do, then I am afraid that the only knowledge you truly possess is the knowledge of how to be arrogant.
<quoted text>
That is superfluous to the discussion.
The fact is that these waves do not appeal to the human senses naturally. There are aspect and elements of reality which have an existence that is only logically deducible, through the observation of interaction between entities and phenomena. Logic then assists us in creating devices to test and measure what we deduce.
DO YOU KNOW WHY "NASA's Chandra X-ray Observatory is a telescope specially designed to detect X-ray emission from very hot regions of the Universe such as exploded stars, clusters of galaxies, and matter around black holes. "???????[http://chandra.h arvard.edu/learn_cxc.html]
Its because we could not detect them with our natural senses, so we had to invent a mechanism to detect them for us.
But here is the interesting part:
How do men know how to make the machines to effectively test these waves and other phenomena?
The answer is that THE NATURE OF WAVES AND SUCH LIKE PHENOMENA WERE LOGICALLY DEDUCED PRIOR TO THEIR DETECTION WITH INVENTED TOOLS.
Furthermore, what we see projected on screens when we scan or measure those waves is a machine generated image and responses. What we are able to test and measure using a machine, are the machines responses to reality; we cant test or measure the reality itself.
So there is no way you can comfortably make a conclusion such as:
"Whether seen or detected by senses alone makes no difference , they are detected and detected in their entire range of existence."
Please forgive me if I see your demeanor and intellect as the inferior one. There is no arrogance in my knowledge the EM spectrum , but your apologetic theme is so close to the typical
fundy who would chastise human knowledge thinking it was achieved by the grace of god. When nothing could be further from the truth.

We are in fact testing and learning from the physical reality by filling in an unseen frequency with something that is visible.
Pat

Granby, CT

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#585612
Jan 10, 2013
 
God Himself wrote:
Aura Mytha wrote: "We deal quite well in limits beyond human ability, that does not stop us."

That statement is self contradictory. Limits are points that stop things or mark the point where things stop; thats why we call then limits.
To deal quite well with something beyond human limits is to be beyond human.
A human can only lift so much weight, we have our limits but a bulldozer is capable of lifting things beyond human ability same for a telescope or microscope can allow us to see beyond our limitations, and one is not beyond human to be able to use these things. Why are you so confused?
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#585613
Jan 10, 2013
 
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
... They both might exist but since we do not know that to be true, making the claim they do is a lie.
That line of reasoning is faulty. You cant prove that something is a lie until you can disprove the truth in it.

So as long as there is a chance that they might exist, a person can rightly speculate and form claims according to implications surrounding the existence of such things.
Pat wrote:
Just like claiming you will win the lottery in two days is a lie. You might just win in two days but to make the claim prior to the drawing is a lie since you do not know that to be true.
"Why dont/cant you?"
Because I am an honest rational person.
But if I tell you a thing happened before it happens, that constitutes a prediction, not a lie.

You might be honest and rational, but you thought capacities are still in their growing stages. I take it that all this passion I am getting from you is just the effect of growing pains.

How old are you again?

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#585614
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

God Himself wrote:
<quoted text>
That statement is self contradictory. Limits are points that stop things or mark the point where things stop; thats why we call then limits.
To deal quite well with something beyond human limits is to be beyond human. Now I know you would like to see yourself that way, but I am sorry to disappoint you: you are just as pathetic as the rest of us :P
<quoted text>
Exactly, YOU WOULD "RATHER" call it clever. And thats fine; even a mad man would like to think himself sane.
I tend to think its insane you "doing so" based on our expression of the goal. Because no matter how good the tool, you still have to use your human eyes; unless you plan to see with your fingers.
You may argue that there are things that are hidden from view by virtue of their sizes so machines are necessary; but logic and critical thinking skills compensates for the limits of the senses anyway... Notice that there are stars not visible to the naked eye that were discovered many years BEFORE THE INVENTION OF THE FIRST TELESCOPE.

You are a waste of skin. It is not contradictory, it is stating the human limitation to detect light using the instruments we were born with. It does not imply any human limitations to detect invisible light using the tools invented to do so.
Which btw becomes the human limitation or rather the expanded ability of detection.

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#585615
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

2

Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
A human can only lift so much weight, we have our limits but a bulldozer is capable of lifting things beyond human ability same for a telescope or microscope can allow us to see beyond our limitations, and one is not beyond human to be able to use these things. Why are you so confused?

Indeed the manufacture of tools and machines expand the human limitations. Such as making it humanly possible to put eyes on Mars and take men into new paradigms of ability in reality.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#585616
Jan 10, 2013
 
Lil Ticked wrote:
<quoted text>But, but who will pick the cotton?
The Little Red Hen will.

http://www.enchantedlearning.com/stories/fair...

She knows how to get things done.

“It's all about the struggle”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#585617
Jan 10, 2013
 

Judged:

1

Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh I don't excuse it in any way, nor condone the practices of the
old testament. The horrible thing is some Jews in the old city are still of this mindset. The one aspect particularly loathed is amongst the all crimes to humanity and human rights violations is the persistent belief that they are for some reason special and above other people who they refer to as the goyim.
I see most of them as ungrateful bastards who treat the world like it in it's entirety belongs to them. Certainly there are examples of cultures far far more appealing.
I have only one problem with modern Jewish law.
God Himself

Kingston, Jamaica

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#585618
Jan 10, 2013
 
Pat wrote:
<quoted text>
The bible was written by fools like yourself.
Intelligent design has been debunked and it is simply the same ol same ol, an argument from ignorance for god.
Intelligent design cannot be debunked; it is the intelligent that designs.

If there is no intelligent design then man is not an intelligent man, because man reflects the capacities of the forces that formed him.

You said you were rational right? If reason is not a natural phenomena, where did you get your rational capacities; from a supernatural? Was it not nature that taught men to think, and taught him logic?

If it is nature that taught men, how can there be no intelligent influence in nature?

Can a student tell a profession who helped him pass his exams that he (the professor) is stupid?

How can you say that nature is mindless when it has generated a mind in you?

Furthermore, we have seen that intelligent entities create intelligent objects (men create artificially intelligent devices) so my speculation that an intelligent being designed intelligent forms... is justified.

BUT WHERE HAVE YOU OBSERVED A MINDLESS, UNDIRECTED ENTITY CREATING AN INTELLIGENT ONE?

IF DEATH IS THE ORDER OF THE FACKING DAY; WHY DO WE HAVE LIFE HERE NOW?!!!!!!

HOW COULD LIFE EMERGE SINCE DEATH IS SO SUPERIOR TO LIFE (you sound as if you embrace and glorify death)?
Pat wrote:
... Yes I do know and so do you. Memory is destroyed when the brain is damaged and we know this for a fact with surviving victims of brain injury. I know for a fact that awareness is nothing more than the gathering of information from your five senses and being processed by your brain. I know for a fact your five sense and brain do not function after death. The more accurate statement here is that YOU do not have a shred of proof for ghosts and that memory and awareness are entities unto themselves.
No I do not, and neither do you.

But how are you so sure that memory is relevant in the after life, as such?

Memory may be destroyed, but it might not be necessary due to where man goes after he dies.

Maybe there is an aspect of his being that shifts to another plane where all that is necessary is to process what is experienced immediately and discard it from memory when done.

You are only ASSUMING that memory and such have relevance in the place that man goes to after he is dead. But that does not have to be the case, so memory retainment might be irrelevant to the process of "moving to the other side".
Pat wrote:
...I am open to knowledge, not lies and irrational dogma.
...
My reasoing suggests that I am a rational, honest person that simply goes where the evidence takes me, regardless of my personal desires.
I could tell you what you are open for, but you would probably report me to the forum moderator.

Do you know what you personally desire? Give me your phone number or your email address and I will tell you ;)

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 556,161 - 556,180 of679,372
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:
Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" 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.

573 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
American Soldiers - Duty, Honor, Country (Jun '11) 4 min Ricky F 37,811
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 4 min Catcher1 216,350
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 8 min June VanDerMark 511,686
Gay Snapchat Names 11 min littleredflower 1,297
Do you enjoy seeing your sister nude / naked? (Sep '13) 15 min PIMPDOG 3257 175
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 15 min USA Born 109,376
Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 21 min KiMare 89,390
Girls snapchat names?(dirty) 25 min Jturner4643 217
teen snapchat nudes 50 min tomyybb 104
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 1 hr WasteWater 250,278
•••
•••
•••