Prove there's a god.
Huh

Dallas, TX

#620368 Apr 28, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not really, but obviously you didnt read my post to you about it..
I had asked you if GTS was the foundation to evolution.
So does that order reflect the assumption of macro-evolution (the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor)?
Geology and biology are two inter-related scientific disciplines but geology is not the foundation of biology. Fail. Try again.

You godbots ask the most ridiculous questions. Your culturally-conditioned divine master can not be proven by pretending that evolution is not responsible for the diversity of life on the planet. Your classic argument from ignorance is ridiculous.
Expert in all Things

Redding, CA

#620369 Apr 28, 2013
christianity is EVIL wrote:
<quoted text>
do tell
who created all?
Did you want to back up the claim that was made? Or just move on?

Since: Sep 10

United States

#620370 Apr 28, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
I only tell someone that they don't understand something when it is clear that they do not.
I'm not speaking on behalf of everyone that says that to you. And repetition doesn't make it true, but there is probably a reason for the repetition. It's probably true a lot of the time. Instead of considering that a likely possibility, you created an explanation that works like a warm comforting blanket. You attribute it to some kind of atheist playbook response. It isn't.
<quoted text>
It's my opinion, which is based on logic. Logic is like math. If there is a problem with my logic, you should be able to demonstrate it.
What I have done is invalidated the Bible as a complete definition for a possible deity. The Bible is in error, whether there are gods or not. The Bible does not describe one. What it describes, it does so in contradictions.
<quoted text>
Actually, to me, there is little difference between heaven and hell. But that is irrelevant. There are an infinite number of scenarios that I would want to experience, or not experience, and my preference has no bearing on my belief in the reality of those scenarios.
I don't believe in any gods because I'm a rational skeptic. There is no god claim that stands out as anything close to reasonable.
<quoted text>
I'm not the one who uses faith. That would be you.
<quoted text>
Here you have an opportunity to demonstrate your understanding.
Could you summarize why you think the Bible is so popular?
BOOO!

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#620371 Apr 28, 2013
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Here's a good starting place.
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_me...
ohh, ok.. Well here is a good place to start as well..

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/2010...

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/cont...

http://ronyan.org/aaronk1994/aaronsblog/categ...

A popular contradiction skeptics love to exploit is one between 1 Kings 4:26 and 2 Chronicles 9:25.

1 Kings 4:26:

“And Solomon had forty thousand stalls of horses for his chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen.”

2 Chronicles 9:25:

“And Solomon had four thousand stalls for horses and chariots, and twelve thousand horsemen; whom he bestowed in the chariot cities, and with the king at Jerusalem.”

So, which is it? Forty thousand stalls or four thousand stalls? Finally, the skeptic has found an error in the Bible! YES!

Wawawa. Another failure by the skeptic.

This “error” is nothing more than a minor error by a scribe, not a contradiction.

Many critics of Christianity express hypocrisy to the principles of textual criticism when it comes to explaining claims of error in the Biblical text. They reject all explanations involving copyist error, even though they are of the same type used by textual critics in secular studies to resolve difficulties.

We’ve already said that there is no evidence that this problem existed in the original text, do we have any evidence that it didn’t exist in the original text? Yes.

• The reading found in 2 Chronicles.
• Archaeological data indicating that 4000 would be an appropriate number of stalls for a nation the size of ancient Israel, whereas 40,000 would be very excessive.
• 4000 comports better with the number of horsemen.
• There is sufficient explanation for a change. Eric Vestrup notes that there is a reasonable probability that a scribe copied incorrectly, for “40&#8243; is spelled aleph-resh-bet-ayin-yodh-mem with “4&#8243; being spelled aleph-resh-bet-ayin-heh , the only difference being the plural “-im” ending in “40&#8243; while “4&#8243; has the singular feminine ending.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

#620373 Apr 28, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>Not really, but obviously you didnt read my post to you about it..

I had asked you if GTS was the foundation to evolution.

So does that order reflect the assumption of macro-evolution (the widely held notion that all life is related and has descended from a common ancestor)?
I didn't read that post and I don't know what macro evolution is.

But yes. The evidence is overwhelming, from various lines of reasoning, that all life has a common ancestor.

I'm not really into evolution all that much. My interests are physics and cosmology, both of which support the ToE

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620374 Apr 28, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>That's what happens when you spend too much time in the comment box; the page expires. You have to copy it (control c) or type it in "Microsoft Word" and then transfer it to the comment box (copy and paste; Control c to copy and then control v to paste).
Yeah, I usually do copy my post every so often if I'm typing out a long one, but it just slipped my mind that night. I'll type it out again tonight.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620375 Apr 28, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>Well you didn't clarify that. All you did was say they pop into existence. That implies 'coming from nothing'. What else should I think? Especially when you clearly aren't a scientist yourself.
So then what was your point of saying that if they indeed don't come from nothing? How does that help your position that molecules ever became aware of themselves?
I used a phrase that you yourself ackowledged as a common way to put it. I think with most people here it is safe to assume that we all know simple universal laws.

And the only point I was making was that the macro world doesn't appear to follow the same rules as the quantum world.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620376 Apr 28, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>From "nothing" aye? Well you sound pretty confident. Where's your proof? Your buddy tim already admitted that he believes they can't come from nothing (only a moron would believe something could come from nothing).
How does science define "nothing"? And more importantly, what is the mechanism by which something comes from nothing? Kinda like 'awareness from non-awareness'. Oh and what is the experimental method by which we can even determine with any certainty that we have isolated "nothing"?
It takes more faith for you to believe that BS than it does for someone to believe in "God". Yet you make fun of people tat do believe in a higher power.
I didn't "admit" anything. You act like I made a mistake and then got backed into a corner - you misunderstood me, which was partially my fault, and I clarified my statement. Anyways, I was talking specifically about virtual particles.

How exactly does it take more "faith" to believe in god than to not believe in god? That's just about the stupidest thing that creationists say. I don't have "faith" in a non created universe, I just don't have any evidence to believe in a god. Even if we knew *nothing* about how the universe/life might have started, it would still make more sense to not believe in a god, simply because there is no evidence for one. Adding a god to the equation creates a lot more problems than it solves. Where did this god come from? If he is eternal, then why can't we just cut him out of the picture and say the universe is eternal? All of the hypothetical properties you add to god to attempt to solve all the problems he creates are just cop outs.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620377 Apr 28, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text>How does any of this explain how awareness can come from non-awareness?
<quoted text>Saying 'awareness came from non-awareness' is like saying magic is causing it.
No, it's like saying awareness exists, therefore in the absence of any evidence for a god, it is prudent to assume it came from non awareness.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620378 Apr 28, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
Thanks, Mrs Teacher.
May I interject?
A double is a writing form using two negatives to express a positive, like the examples you gave.
However, "That does not mean that you are not ignorant" is also a double negative. You used two "nots" when you shouldn't have. The correct sentence would be "That means you are ignorant".
You're welcome.
Double negatives are technically a no no (see what I did there?), but sometimes they do a better job of expressing a particular sentiment than the "correct" version of the sentence. In the above example, "that does not mean you are not ignorant," gives a more precise meaning than "that means you are ignorant."
Greens - tuf

Northmead, Australia

#620379 Apr 28, 2013
Catcher1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Gran Turismo sport.
0 to 60 in 3.9 seconds.
Bugger, I was going to say that.
What a car, and what a year !!!
I do want a 72 Ford Grand Torino Sport.
Yellow with black racing stripes. Wow they are hot!!!

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#620380 Apr 28, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>You are KittenKoder. We're shaking with anticipation of seeing you start agreeing with yourself, Alice. How many other socks do you wear, perv?
What, sir?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620381 Apr 28, 2013
Pokay wrote:
<quoted text> (Snipped for space) And yet again you commit the same oversight. I'm not saying you are wrong; I'm saying you cannot know you are right.
And as far as awareness from non-awareness, you can't even venture a guess.'Association' of molecules with 'life that displays awareness' is not evidence of any mechanism by which awareness could come from non-awareness.
You have completely shifted the goal posts. At the beginning of this discussion, you wanted proof that the brain is responsible for consciousness. Since then, you have refined your position to "current observations are meaningless until we can describe how awareness came from non awareness." And even further, you are now claiming that even if I could provide proof of awareness from non awareness, that you could then claim that this proof means nothing because the quantum state is more fundamental. Again, you have turned your claim in to nothing more than god of the gaps dressed up in scientific language. You are basically saying that no matter what, we can't prove awareness comes from non awareness unless all other possibilities are definitively ruled out.

Can't you see how absurd that is? You could say that about anything. Maybe my computer is secretly a quantum machine and I just don't know it because the quantum state is "more fundamental." While I technically agree that it's impossible to rule out, especially in the way that you have phrased it, so what?

Also, I don't see how the association between activity in the brain and thought is "better evidence" for your position. We may not know exactly how the activity we observe in the brain leads to consciousness, but that doesn't mean that "quantum consciousness" then becomes a more likely mechanism for thought. When we think, we can see increased blood flow to the appropriate area of the brain, increased synaptic activity in the appropriate area of the brain, etc. If a drug is ingested, say, weed, we can see cannabanoids acting on the cannabanoid receptors in the brain. There is a clear association between the substance and the resulting change in consciousness. How do you explain this in terms of "quantum consciousness?" Why is it necessary to go a step further when we have no evidence that this extra step is necessary?

Additionally, how do you explain epileptics who undergo a procedure to severe their corpus collosum, which sometimes results in "different" personalities being formed? There was an interesting case recently where one man both believed in god and didn't believe in god, depending on "which side" of his brain you asked. What happens to this man when he dies? Does one half go to quantum land while the other half dies?

Finally,about the mirror test... I never claimed it gives us any information about the "actual subjective experience." It only attempts to determine whether or not an animal has a sense of self, not what it's sense of self is "like." We can't even quantify human, let alone animal qualia.

And I'm not saying "I know I'm right." I don't know either way. I'm just saying that your position has no evidence aside from "you can't prove it wrong," and that is no position at all. I still don't even know what you mean by quantum consciousness. Yes, I know you think you have explained yourself very well, but saying "like molecular, but not" doesn't tell me much.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620382 Apr 28, 2013
psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>
LOl,, funny i can say the very same thing about you... But here is the kicker,, you have "evidence" that prove what you believe in is all based on a corrupt and dishonest method!! Its here for all to see,, BUT yet you still ignorantly defend and uphold it..
<quoted text>
Absolutly!!! And why should any ''smart'' person put trust in a false and corrupt method such as that?? Its you who is so easly to believe that a man with a degree, can term a word and method and you follow him/them to whatever conclusion they provide..
<quoted text>
No, i trust in GOD! I dont worship a book,or a church bulding..
Your pride and hatred toward God shows tremendously.
<quoted text>
You just hate it, when people show evidence, and corupt evidence at that, that dosent support your claim, i get it.. So the best you can do is mock and make fun..
Prove that science is systematically and irredeemably corrupt. You do realize the magnitude of the claim you are making, right? This "conspiracy" would require the cooperation of an unimaginable number of people, all working towards a goal that doesn't even make any sense. There are much more efficent ways to make money or deceive people than to engage in rigorous, peer reviewed research. Cults come to mind.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620383 Apr 28, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
Aura Mytha wrote:
That's what I love about you fundies, you can talk yourselves into believing anything!
<quoted text>
That's so ture.
Their beliefs are from what they call "a lack of evidence".
Makes no sense to me, but whatever floats their boat.
No, my "beliefs" are based on evidence, and my indifference towards the "god proposition" is based on a lack of evidence. It would be inaccurate to call my position on god a "belief," just as it would be innacurate to call your position on zeus a "belief."

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620384 Apr 28, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
"Left" and "right" are just distractions, labels used by both sides to paint the idea as either for or against them. It's one of the biggest flaws in US politics, making who supports something more important than whether it's a good idea, or not. The people who throw out such labels as "liberals" or "conservatives" as if they are bad names are as uninformed about politics as a member of Al-Quaida.
Ooops, did I just do what they do?
Well said. Politics in the US has devolved into a completely polemical affair, where all that matters is that you support your side and attack the other, no matter the issues themselves.

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#620385 Apr 28, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>

Could you summarize why you think the Bible is so popular?
Battle scenes, blood letting, incestuous relationships, kings killing kings, slaying giants, death by ass jaw. Death by ass jaw? OH Yeah.

Any questions?

Since: Jan 11

Location hidden

#620387 Apr 28, 2013
_-Alice-_ wrote:
Battle scenes, blood letting, incestuous relationships, kings killing kings, slaying giants, death by ass jaw. Death by ass jaw? OH Yeah.
Any questions?
Is winter coming?

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#620388 Apr 28, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
And repeating it over and over again doesn't make it true, "you don't understand" is the good old atheist come back because you think that's your best defense, that a person is ignorant of whatever topic you happen to discuss.
<quoted text>
That's your opinion and you know it.
<quoted text>
Of course you're going to say that. You don't want to think about hell, you don't want to think about eternal torture, so you've convinced yourself that God isn't real.
That only proves you've convinced yourself not that you're right.
<quoted text>
Yeah right, like the average modern-day 12-year-old can write a book that will be the most popular book in all of history and stand the test of time like the Bible has.
Sure...
No, most atheists have thought about hell, not out of fear, but out of a conceptual attempt to reconcile the notion of eternal torture with the notion of a merciful, loving god. And guess what? They don't fit. The idea that a merciful, loving, kind god could willingly damn the majority of his creations to unimaginable, eternal torment is an absurdity that would be laughable if so many people didn't believe it. It simply doesn't work. I doubt that a single person has existed who would damn his worst enemy to hell, yet you claim that your god, the epitome of love and mercy, does so constantly and without reservation. As I said, absurd.

And how has the bible "stood the test of time?" By what criteria? Popularity? If so, several other holy books are doing pretty well also. Hisorical accuracy? Please. Moral perfection? Please.

_-Alice-_

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

#620389 Apr 28, 2013
Tide with Beach wrote:
<quoted text>
Is winter coming?
She did once but dayum, it took everything I had.

I lost a lock of hair when she finally let go.

We didn't date for long.

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
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 16 min Clearwater 87,945
Yanbu Gays (May '15) 17 min octafus 19
Weed Dundee Scotland (Mar '16) 35 min Randyballs 4
Blacks need to be deported NOW! (Oct '10) 37 min Johnny 198
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 44 min God Is Dead 619,172
Forbidden sex 49 min sinaa158 8
Ladies what's your size preference 51 min sinaa158 9
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 2 hr truth 665,182
Poll Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 4 hr Pegasus 284,497
Christians cannot debate with ATHEISTS 6 hr Devil number 666 466
The Future of Politics in America Sat Insults Are Easier 176
More from around the web