Since: Oct 10

Location hidden

#597810 Feb 5, 2013
siehjin wrote:
<quoted text>
lol
zaijian

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

#597811 Feb 5, 2013
siehjin wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
i will repeat here what i've already said to Karl44:
"my contention is that the existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of God. given how amazingly complex and breathtakingly beautiful the universe is, this proposition is intuitively probable. therefore if you nay-sayers fail to disprove it, i would say that my contention stands."
let me use a courtroom analogy to illustrate how i see this.
let us say that A is accused of the murder of B. as such, the prosecutor's job is to "prove that A murdered B".(in the same way, in this forum the theist's challenge is to "prove that there's a god".)
so then, the prosecutor shows the court a knife and claims that it is the murder weapon, evidence that A has murdered B.(in the same way, i have claimed that the existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of God.)
however, the defending attorney objects. a mere knife is proof of nothing, he says.(in the same way, various people here have objected, saying that the existence of the universe does not prove that God exists.)
the prosecutor then replies that the knife was found on the scene of the crime, with B's blood on it, and A's fingerprints.(in the same way, i have replied that the universe, in all its beauty and complexity, bears the fingerprints of God.)
unless the defending attorney has some better reason why the knife should not be considered as evidence in the trial, it will be accepted as incriminating evidence against A.(in the same way, unless those objectors have some better reason why the existence of the universe should not be considered as evidence of God's existence, it should be accepted as such.)
Some may agree, some may disagree, but I'd say you are quite a thinker. A rarity amongst humans these days.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#597812 Feb 5, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You can try remembering that I am a Christian. And as a Christian, I believe in God.
So quit asking which god.....
Maybe a post-it note on your monitor will help.
Please then...describe YOUR version of god.

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

#597813 Feb 5, 2013
siehjin wrote:
<quoted text>
you don't seem to get my point - being the result of chemical processes does not mean that they are not created.
let's take another example - me. i am the result of biological processes, but nevertheless i believe i am created by God. see, no contradiction. ditto for snowflakes.
The problem is that people associate God with magic. When they search for evidence of God, they search for magic. They search for something inexplicable, like a miracle. This causes people to unwittingly develop the notion that anything explainable is not from God.

It's like if I build a factory and that factory builds robots, and then I go around in the street telling people that I built the robots, they say "Nonsense, these robots come from the factory!", and they can show me all the trademarks and instruction manuals and even the entire engineering of those robots, and they even take me on a tour of the factory.

But despite whatever explanation people give and how knowledgable they are about how the robots were made, it doesn't remove the fact that I built the factory, I built the machines that build the robots and hence I can certainly assert that I built the robots.

What God has done is far more genius than merely building robots one by one with His hands, as creationism suggests about species. He established a system of physical laws that ultimately created a self sustaining environment for life to not only survive, but self adapt and evolve. And that is why despite discovering evolution through all his research and observation, Darwin did not say that there is no God. While he rejected Christianity, he never became an atheist and never rejected the idea of an all powerful ruler and creator of the universe. At the most extreme, Darwin expressed agnostic views, stating that "the whole subject is beyond the scope of mans intellect".

The point is, all of the explanation as to how a specie came to being, ultimately does not negate the claim that God created the system that resulted in such a species and continues to drive its evolution.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#597814 Feb 5, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
I am in no way an atheist, I believe in God.
Just like you.
Mylan is God?

Who knew!

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#597815 Feb 5, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
So. You think all the different forms of life on this planet are the effect of chance?
Chance and natural selection.

Yes.

“Listen to the sounds”

Since: Feb 09

of your own extinction......

#597816 Feb 5, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Please then...describe YOUR version of god.
And here we go....

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#597817 Feb 5, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Your opinion is not fact.....
Good point.

Neither is yours.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#597818 Feb 5, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
HA HA HA !!!
See? This is exactly what I meant when I said atheists spend so much time on a god they say doesn't exist.
"It is my intent to show that the supposed properties of the Christian God Yahweh, like those of a cubic sphere, are incompatible, and by so doing, to show Yahweh's existence to be an impossibility."
You people are the biggest damn hypocrites out there.
If only christians would spend as much time exploring the god they claim to be undeniable.

Since: May 11

UK

#597819 Feb 5, 2013
siehjin wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
i will repeat here what i've already said to Karl44:
"my contention is that the existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of God. given how amazingly complex and breathtakingly beautiful the universe is, this proposition is intuitively probable. therefore if you nay-sayers fail to disprove it, i would say that my contention stands."
let me use a courtroom analogy to illustrate how i see this.
let us say that A is accused of the murder of B. as such, the prosecutor's job is to "prove that A murdered B".(in the same way, in this forum the theist's challenge is to "prove that there's a god".)
so then, the prosecutor shows the court a knife and claims that it is the murder weapon, evidence that A has murdered B.(in the same way, i have claimed that the existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of God.)
however, the defending attorney objects. a mere knife is proof of nothing, he says.(in the same way, various people here have objected, saying that the existence of the universe does not prove that God exists.)
the prosecutor then replies that the knife was found on the scene of the crime, with B's blood on it, and A's fingerprints.(in the same way, i have replied that the universe, in all its beauty and complexity, bears the fingerprints of God.)
unless the defending attorney has some better reason why the knife should not be considered as evidence in the trial, it will be accepted as incriminating evidence against A.(in the same way, unless those objectors have some better reason why the existence of the universe should not be considered as evidence of God's existence, it should be accepted as such.)
you`ve never actually been in a courtroom have you? LMAO

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#597820 Feb 5, 2013
siehjin wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
i will repeat here what i've already said to Karl44:
"my contention is that the existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of God. given how amazingly complex and breathtakingly beautiful the universe is, this proposition is intuitively probable. therefore if you nay-sayers fail to disprove it, i would say that my contention stands."
let me use a courtroom analogy to illustrate how i see this.
let us say that A is accused of the murder of B. as such, the prosecutor's job is to "prove that A murdered B".(in the same way, in this forum the theist's challenge is to "prove that there's a god".)
so then, the prosecutor shows the court a knife and claims that it is the murder weapon, evidence that A has murdered B.(in the same way, i have claimed that the existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of God.)
however, the defending attorney objects. a mere knife is proof of nothing, he says.(in the same way, various people here have objected, saying that the existence of the universe does not prove that God exists.)
the prosecutor then replies that the knife was found on the scene of the crime, with B's blood on it, and A's fingerprints.(in the same way, i have replied that the universe, in all its beauty and complexity, bears the fingerprints of God.)
unless the defending attorney has some better reason why the knife should not be considered as evidence in the trial, it will be accepted as incriminating evidence against A.(in the same way, unless those objectors have some better reason why the existence of the universe should not be considered as evidence of God's existence, it should be accepted as such.)
You propose a tangible object is responsible for a material crime, which can be demonstrated by physical evidence as being the culprit. All within the realm of possibility.

Then you compare it to a intangible object as being responsible
for a material act , which cannot be demonstrated by physical evidence as being the culprit. Yet you do not see the flaw in your reasoning. Your belief is so strong it clouds your judgement.

w

“ The Lord of delirious minds.”

Since: Dec 10

Location hidden

#597821 Feb 5, 2013
siehjin wrote:
<quoted text>
actually, the resurrection of Jesus Christ is a verifiable historical fact that does support my contention. as do the existence of objective moral values. but let us not get distracted. at the moment all i'm focussing on is the claim that the existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of God, and i do think that the principles of logic support my contention.
<quoted text>
what do you mean by this? are you claiming that logic itself is invalid? how would you even begin to support such a claim?
<quoted text>
i do not believe in the FSM and the IPU because they are mere parodies of God. your last sentence is false; just because parodies are not real, it does not in any way prove that the original is similarly not real.

I do not claim logic is invalid, but rather "your logic" is invalid. No the idea is the same with FSM,and IPU, also
Zeus , Mythra , Thor , Jupiter and a thousand other gods.
The only difference is that "you" believe in the one god.
So of course it doesn't make sense to "you".
siehjin

Petaling Jaya, Malaysia

#597822 Feb 5, 2013
River Tam wrote:
<quoted text>
zaijian
wa, ni hui jiang hua yu ah? hao li hai!=)

Since: May 11

UK

#597823 Feb 5, 2013
siehjin wrote:
<quoted text>
<quoted text>
i will repeat here what i've already said to Karl44:
"my contention is that the existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of God. given how amazingly complex and breathtakingly beautiful the universe is, this proposition is intuitively probable. therefore if you nay-sayers fail to disprove it, i would say that my contention stands."
let me use a courtroom analogy to illustrate how i see this.
let us say that A is accused of the murder of B. as such, the prosecutor's job is to "prove that A murdered B".(in the same way, in this forum the theist's challenge is to "prove that there's a god".)
so then, the prosecutor shows the court a knife and claims that it is the murder weapon, evidence that A has murdered B.(in the same way, i have claimed that the existence of the universe is evidence for the existence of God.)
however, the defending attorney objects. a mere knife is proof of nothing, he says.(in the same way, various people here have objected, saying that the existence of the universe does not prove that God exists.)
the prosecutor then replies that the knife was found on the scene of the crime, with B's blood on it, and A's fingerprints.(in the same way, i have replied that the universe, in all its beauty and complexity, bears the fingerprints of God.)
unless the defending attorney has some better reason why the knife should not be considered as evidence in the trial, it will be accepted as incriminating evidence against A.(in the same way, unless those objectors have some better reason why the existence of the universe should not be considered as evidence of God's existence, it should be accepted as such.)
"(in the same way, i have replied that the universe, in all its beauty and complexity, bears the fingerprints of God.)".

when did god have his fingerprints taken for you to use a comparator?

It is not for the defence to find what actually did happen, the verdict is "guilty" or "innocent", there is no requirement for the defence to prove anything.

"Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat" the burden of proof is on he who asserts not he who denies.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#597824 Feb 5, 2013
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
The problem is that people associate God with magic. When they search for evidence of God, they search for magic. They search for something inexplicable, like a miracle. This causes people to unwittingly develop the notion that anything explainable is not from God.
It's like if I build a factory and that factory builds robots, and then I go around in the street telling people that I built the robots, they say "Nonsense, these robots come from the factory!", and they can show me all the trademarks and instruction manuals and even the entire engineering of those robots, and they even take me on a tour of the factory.
But despite whatever explanation people give and how knowledgable they are about how the robots were made, it doesn't remove the fact that I built the factory, I built the machines that build the robots and hence I can certainly assert that I built the robots.
What God has done is far more genius than merely building robots one by one with His hands, as creationism suggests about species. He established a system of physical laws that ultimately created a self sustaining environment for life to not only survive, but self adapt and evolve. And that is why despite discovering evolution through all his research and observation, Darwin did not say that there is no God. While he rejected Christianity, he never became an atheist and never rejected the idea of an all powerful ruler and creator of the universe. At the most extreme, Darwin expressed agnostic views, stating that "the whole subject is beyond the scope of mans intellect".
The point is, all of the explanation as to how a specie came to being, ultimately does not negate the claim that God created the system that resulted in such a species and continues to drive its evolution.
There is not now, nor has there ever been, any proof of any god's existence.

None. Nada. Zilch.
siehjin

Petaling Jaya, Malaysia

#597825 Feb 5, 2013
True Truth wrote:
<quoted text>
Some may agree, some may disagree, but I'd say you are quite a thinker. A rarity amongst humans these days.
thank you!=)

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#597826 Feb 5, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
Please then...describe YOUR version of god.
RR never gives any details about this sort of thing. I guess delusions are hard to describe.

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#597827 Feb 5, 2013
siehjin wrote:
<quoted text>
you don't seem to get my point - being the result of chemical processes does not mean that they are not created.
let's take another example - me. i am the result of biological processes, but nevertheless i believe i am created by God. see, no contradiction. ditto for snowflakes.
I don't see how you can be the result of biological processes- which you are- and also be created by a god which you are not.

You were created by your parents. Any god which might exist had nothing to do with that.

So yes, there is a contradiction- the question is who created you- your parents or the god you believe in?

It can't be both.

But let's assume for a moment you are correct. If a god is responsible for the creation of every human being and if a god is all powerful and all knowing- which would include certain knowledge of all that takes place in the future- why would a god have created people such as Adolf Hitler, Charles Manson, Osama bin Laden, etc?

Surely an all powerful god and one who has their hand in the creation of every single living being on this planet would have known what the creations of the likes of Hitler, etc. would have become.

So why would a god create babies that he surely would have known would have grown up to be such heinous human beings?

BTW, snow flakes are NOT created by any "biological process".

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

#597828 Feb 5, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
Mylan is God?
Who knew!
Every now and then RR has a Freudian slip....

OCB

“What a GLORIOUS day!!!”

Since: Apr 12

Orlando but NYC born & raised

#597829 Feb 5, 2013
Mylan wrote:
<quoted text>RR never gives any details about this sort of thing. I guess delusions are hard to describe.
As I'm sure you read, RR is on "vacation" this week.

He's sorely in need of a vacation from his vacation- that being his job which he is obviously always on vacation from considering he is on these threads a good 8 hours a day every single day of the week.

Well, the vacation he said he will be on this week should provide the rest he needs for his typing fingers- LOL!

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
skype sex id luv to try it (Aug '13) 4 min shem 81
Bush is a hero (Sep '07) 11 min Protester 175,778
Are our soldiers traitors? 37 min Protester 2
Gay snapchat names 42 min Gay15male 173
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 1 hr mike 605,330
Play "end of the word" (Jan '11) 2 hr andet1987 5,159
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr Oxbow 560,442
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 hr Rick in Kansas 265,444
Straight guys: Would you ever have intercourse ... (Jul '12) 5 hr Trannyfucker 136
Why Iím no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 5 hr Lumajuice 441,821
More from around the web