Prove there's a god.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#632045 Jun 21, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Because you imply an intent that can't be made by anyone but the user. You are now saying a guns primary use is to kill PEOPLE.
Tell that to the thousands of duck hunters and deer hunters ,I'm sure they will agree with you.
Then there are collectors who would never even fire the gun.
As well as you mentioned skeet/clay/bowling pin/ cowboy action shooter etc. No one is denying capability, but you attempt to vilify
an object that has far more uses than the one.
They make good doorstops. ;)

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#632046 Jun 21, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I never said guns were guilty.
It's late and my brain was itchin'.

“Seventh son”

Since: Dec 10

Will Prevail

#632047 Jun 21, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Sorry, let me rephrase. A gun is meant to kill. I did not mean to say people.
And I agree with you - there are people who use their gun solely for sport. That does not change what guns are primarily made for. If intent can only be divined on a case by case basis, then cars are only meant for driving until someone drives it. Until then, it might be an expensive lawn decoration or a wrecking ball or any other number of things. I don't deny that guns can be used for things other than killing - I'm just saying that their primary purpose is to kill or wound. Just like a car can be used for other things - but it's primary purpose is transportation.
Well that only holds true in a limited scope, when we talk about cars being transportation. Then we have trucks and suvs etc.
The primary function changes, the same is true of the gun.
For instance you may have a 4wd that it's primary function is mudding and it's off road capabilities.

From a military standpoint all issued firearms would carry that intent as a primary function. But I have to disagree with making the intended function of privately owned firearms a singular thing.
Because just like cars some are specifically made to do something else. But just as the 4wd truck is capable of being just transportation, that was not it's design intent.

Since: Sep 11

Location hidden

#632048 Jun 21, 2013
Aura Mytha wrote:
<quoted text>
Well that only holds true in a limited scope, when we talk about cars being transportation. Then we have trucks and suvs etc.
The primary function changes, the same is true of the gun.
For instance you may have a 4wd that it's primary function is mudding and it's off road capabilities.
From a military standpoint all issued firearms would carry that intent as a primary function. But I have to disagree with making the intended function of privately owned firearms a singular thing.
Because just like cars some are specifically made to do something else. But just as the 4wd truck is capable of being just transportation, that was not it's design intent.
Mudding still counts as transportation. And even if I grant that there are "cars" whose primary purpose is not transportation, that does not change the primary purpose of cars in general. Paintball guns are completely for fun and sport - but they don't change the main purpose of firearms.

And again, I'm not arguing with you - I do agree that guns are used for many things and I don't say that their *only* purpose is to kill, just that their primary purpose is to kill.
Forum

Carlsbad, NM

#632049 Jun 22, 2013
Paula Dean is a hillbilly.
Bald Eagle

Laconia, NH

#632050 Jun 22, 2013
GOD IS REAL. (in my opinion)
Bald Eagle

Laconia, NH

#632051 Jun 22, 2013
Forum wrote:
Paula Dean is a hillbilly.
Who's Paula Dean? My cousin said she's a fatlady!!

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#632053 Jun 22, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>How is it conjecture? Scientists *do* change their beliefs. If they didn't, we'd be stuck with enlightenment era science, at best. Religious people don't, at least on the big issues. That's why you all believed in jesus 2k years ago and you still do.
It's conjecture because you're assuming what other people are thinking.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#632054 Jun 22, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>If you can boil a gun down to "pushing a projectile through a tube," then why can't I reduce a car to "sending power to the drive train?" That is, after all, what it does, and that's why cars move and are able to transport people. Aren't we ignoring the actual intended purpose of both cars and guns and disingenuously reducing them down to their base functions? Maybe I intend to use my car as a lawn ornament. Who are you to say it's meant to transport me?
And maybe I want to use my gun to shoot at cardboard and aluminum cans. Who are you to say its meant to kill?

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#632055 Jun 22, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>That is what you implied in your post. You said that "scientists are too ignorant to perform god tests." Putting scientists on one side, and those that would perform "god tests" on the other.
And if there are, where's their science? Where's their proof?
To answer your question, there are no ID scientists, by definition. There may be scientists who support ID, but they do not perform ID science. It's not possible.
It is very much possible and is happening today. ID researchers aren't necessarily looking for God, they're looking for design in nature and attempting to provide evidence for that.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#632056 Jun 22, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I didn't say there is no way. There are many ways that the idea itself has been supported, just no definitive proof. The miller urey experiment is the most well known example. Do you have an analogous experiment for god?
You can't find God with some high tech machine.

Nothing needs to be invented to find Him, He's already invented that.

Just pray.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#632057 Jun 22, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>I agree no one is worth that. He must have been in a lot of pain to consider doing that though, unless the attempt itself was a complete farce.
And either way, the anomalous "attention attempt" does not reflect the norm. Those that try usually don't try again. If it was all for attention, wouldn't they keep trying every time they wanted some extra attention? Like I said, it's usually a rash impulse brought on by great pain - not a decision arrived at via careful thought, whether the intent is attention or death.
The attempt was a farce, a cry for help. He could've (and should've) found an alternative.

With suicide, I see it one of two ways.

Either someone wants to die or someone wants attention.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#632058 Jun 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
It is very much possible and is happening today. ID researchers aren't necessarily looking for God, they're looking for design in nature and attempting to provide evidence for that.
Creationism is not science, the "researchers" do not research anything, they just make things up, and most is not even logical.

Since: Apr 09

Location hidden

#632059 Jun 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
You can't find God with some high tech machine.
Nothing needs to be invented to find Him, He's already invented that.
Just pray.
Riiiiiiiight.

In other words, there is not now, nor has there ever been, any proof that any of the gods ever worshipped by man actually existed.

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#632060 Jun 22, 2013
timn17 wrote:
Subduction zones mark sites of convective downwelling of the Earth's lithosphere (the crust plus the top brittle portion of the upper mantle). Subduction zones exist at convergent plate boundaries where one plate of oceanic lithosphere converges with another plate. The down-going slab—the subducting plate—is overridden by the leading edge of the other plate. The slab sinks at an angle of approximately 25 to 45 degrees to the surface of the Earth. At a depth of approximately 80–120 km, the basalt of the oceanic slab is converted to a metamorphic rock called eclogite. At this point, the density of the oceanic lithosphere increases and it is carried into the mantle by the downwelling convective currents. It is at subduction zones that the Earth's lithosphere, oceanic crust, sedimentary layers, and some trapped water are recycled into the deep mantle. Earth is the only planet where subduction is known to occur. Without subduction, plate tectonics could not exist.
An ongoing process. Constant movement of the crust.

You saw the numbers. How did fossils stay in place and not get destroyed for millions of years?

Since: Sep 08

Rocky Ford, CO

#632061 Jun 22, 2013
timn17 wrote:
<quoted text>Erm... so we wouldn't feel it's gravitational effects? That's why I said "detect," not "see." Dark matter does not reflect light - but it still has mass.
And if it's "dark energy," that's not news. There is dark energy everywhere. Why would it matter?
Is dark gravity a synonym for dark energy?
Dark gravity is a joke. Another you missed.

Can't see dark matter? Can't see dark energy? How can you detect dark gravity? If you can make up those other things to explain your errors, why not that one?

Your modern physics is flawed.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#632062 Jun 22, 2013
Dave Nelson wrote:
<quoted text>
An ongoing process. Constant movement of the crust.
You saw the numbers. How did fossils stay in place and not get destroyed for millions of years?
Wow, you know less about geology than even I do.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#632063 Jun 22, 2013
KittenKoder wrote:
<quoted text>
Creationism is not science, the "researchers" do not research anything, they just make things up, and most is not even logical.
ID and Creationism are somewhat different.

Creation science is looking for God in science.

ID science is looking for design in scince.

“Ditat Deus”

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

#632064 Jun 22, 2013
Just Think wrote:
<quoted text>
Riiiiiiiight.
In other words, there is not now, nor has there ever been, any proof that any of the gods ever worshipped by man actually existed.
Um.... No. That's not what I said at all.

“I Am No One Else”

Since: Apr 12

Seattle

#632065 Jun 22, 2013
RiversideRedneck wrote:
<quoted text>
ID and Creationism are somewhat different.
Creation science is looking for God in science.
ID science is looking for design in scince.
No, there is no difference, they are identical with nothing more than a different name because creationists wanted to pass it off as science when they knew they could not. There was a whole court trial on that matter.

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
Play "end of the word" part 2 (Dec '15) 2 min andet1987 2,050
The Christian Atheist debate (Jun '15) 4 min here 48,615
Best "budget burger" I've ever had!! 7 min andet1987 2
Poll Is homosexuality a sin? (Oct '07) 9 min Toby 105,590
guys what color panties are you wearing today??... 38 min str8npanty 1
News Roman Catholic church only true church, says Va... (Jul '07) 1 hr New Age Spiritual... 646,589
Prepare To Meet Thy God 1 hr Oh No You Di-nt 3
Jehovah's Witnesses are true disciple of Jesus ... (Mar '07) 4 hr Steve III 44,682
More from around the web