Prove there's a god.

Posted in the Top Stories Forum

Comments (Page 29,462)

Showing posts 589,221 - 589,240 of680,623
|
Go to last page| Jump to page:

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#620361
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
True.
It would have to exist first.
Well since your not gonna give ''your'' findings in the Bible as you see as flaws, i wanted to say that i respected your admittance to the Geologic time scale as being a faulty dateing method for evolution.

Have a good en.

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#620362
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>Well since your not gonna give ''your'' findings in the Bible as you see as flaws, i wanted to say that i respected your admittance to the Geologic time scale as being a faulty dateing method for evolution.

Have a good en.
Oh.

That's what GTS is.

I don't doubt them.

The earth is 4.5 billion years old and the dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago.

Is that what you're talking about?

“I see quantum effects”

Since: Jan 11

In the macro world.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#620363
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

psalms 23 wrote:
<quoted text>Well since your not gonna give ''your'' findings in the Bible as you see as flaws, i wanted to say that i respected your admittance to the Geologic time scale as being a faulty dateing method for evolution.

Have a good en.
Here's a good starting place.

http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jim_me...

“THE LORD IS MY SHEPHERD;”

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#620364
Apr 28, 2013
 
Aerobatty wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh.
That's what GTS is.
I don't doubt them.
The earth is 4.5 billion years old and the dinosaurs went extinct about 65 million years ago.
Is that what you're talking about?
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)?

Since: Sep 10

United States

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#620365
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

2

2

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)?
BOOO!
Huh

Dallas, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#620366
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
More ASSumptions, huh?
Nope. Your presence is all that is necessary, 24-7. Your kids must be happier when your head is in the monitor. Tell them I understand.

“Don't be so dichotomous.”

Since: Jan 11

Embrace the grey.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#620367
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

RiversideRedneck wrote:
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.
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.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
That's your opinion and you know it.
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.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
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.
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.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
That only proves you've convinced yourself not that you're right.
I'm not the one who uses faith. That would be you.
RiversideRedneck wrote:
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...
Here you have an opportunity to demonstrate your understanding.

Could you summarize why you think the Bible is so popular?
Huh

Dallas, TX

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#620368
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#620370
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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.

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#620373
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#620375
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#620376
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#620377
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#620378
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

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

Sydney, Australia

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#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!!!

Since: Apr 13

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#620380
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

2

1

1

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

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#620381
Apr 28, 2013
 

Judged:

1

1

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.

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

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Showing posts 589,221 - 589,240 of680,623
|
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.

664 Users are viewing the Top Stories Forum right now

Search the Top Stories Forum:
Topic Updated Last By Comments
Kokopelli's Place, too (Jan '08) 3 min Jolly 23,831
Was 9/11 a conspiracy?? (Oct '07) 3 min Dr_Zorderz 250,418
Blaming Israel for carnage (Jul '06) 4 min -USA-1 109,737
Why Should Jesus Love Me? (Feb '08) 5 min VIKING WARRIOR 596,614
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 6 min Liam 38,027
Atheism requires as much faith as religion? (Jul '09) 6 min Buck Crick 217,145
Why I’m no longer a Christian (Jul '08) 9 min Shivar 440,847
Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 13 min pusherman_ 512,285
Girls snapchat names?(dirty) 2 hr Haydos 272
•••
•••
•••