Reply With Quote
Because you sound like ass and you are not impressing anybody. But on the other hand if it makes you feel better...it's the internet right? Hopefully you are not like this in "real life" cause most people don't like that type of at ude.
Oh sure that's what you were doing.. whatever homie.
Because you sound like ass and you are not impressing anybody. But on the other hand if it makes you feel better...it's the internet right? Hopefully you are not like this in "real life" cause most people don't like that type of at ude.
I'm not here to impress.
You've made it clear that you don't know much. Again, why are you trying to answer if you don't?
Get over your butthurt. Turn your other cheek and move on, imo.
That's quite obvious.
Rofl
What is it that you've been doing here?
Just like Jesus would zing!
You've made it clear that you have no reading comprehension skills since you keep asking me the same question over and over. You've also made it clear you don't take kindly to friendly help when YOU are the one asking questions.
IMO, you need to work on your people skills.
Probably wasting my time, what else?
You made assertions you couldn't back up, and when pressed, told me to go elsewhere.
Honestly, you and your gross lack of Bible knowledge were of no help.
You could avoid butthurt by simply not answering questions that are over your head, tbh.IMO, you need to work on your people skills.
I can see that. You seem pretty close minded.
Really what assertions did I make? What I did tell you I told you with good confidence. Do some research.
First you ask questions, then you say you were just "fishing" cause you already knew what to expect. Now your butt is all hurt cause I was no help?!
You could avoid butthurt by not asking questions in the first place. Especially when all you want to do is shoot down any responses you receive. You do know that nobody here is a Biblical scholar right? So why even bother to ask?
Looks who's talking. I'm not close minded, but I know BS when I see it.
I've asked you repeatedly to copy and paste where this happened. You haven't. It didn't occur, and you're badly mistaken. If it occurred, copy and paste it.
Could be either, could be purposeful, could be a chain reaction from another universe. Plenty of options there.
In all honesty, I don't even agree with All_heart on most things, but you guys are ridiculous. You basically just go around saying the word "butthurt," goading people like a couple of s. Seriously, at least get your own ty catchphrases instead of sharing one.
Yeesh...
BL
Special pleading. What physics laws allow for an act to occur outside of time?
If the prime mover can be timeless, why can't matter and energy be timeless? You're, once again, pushing the problem back one place to the unknown, aka the god of the gaps.
No it doesn't. It's a cop out way of saying "no one knows, ergo a creator is necessary"The creator could be a god, Allah, another universe, something beyond comprehension, a programmer, or a flying spaghetti monster. Could be something else. But none of those necessarily have to be effected by the time we know here.
Hope that answers your question,
BL
Argument from ignorance is a logical fallacy, as is special pleading (accepting timelessness in a creator but rejecting infinity in time).
Seriously, you cannot have your cake and eat it too, and that's what you are trying to do. If you want to say "I don't know", most of us can accept that. If you want to say "I believe God created the Universe", we can accept that (as it's your belief), but when you try to use science and physics to prove a non sequitur outcome, you're losing before you even get started.
Imo time is a very human construct.
Time is based on the occurrence of events. If no events take place, there is no time. An invent is some specific physical phenomena. For example, if from now on, no physical events take place, time would end for me. I dont exactly know what this would entail as far as the fate of the universe (atoms with electrons in motion, etc...) There is no before the universe for me using the definition above because I know nothing of events.
If the definition above has huge gaps, or is more complex, then I personally cannot deal with time. Therefore some arguments are hard to follow. It seems we need to be careful with some words as we may not have the same definitions.
And you've succeeded in that endeavor.
87.643 %
Interesting discussion tbh . . .
Unlikely? More likely? Wait, are you guessing???
*** wrecked ***
The thing that strikes me about this discussion is how lacking in any moral content it is.
No one suggests that it would be a morally better place (the Universe) if the Judeo-Christian God exists.
No one on the deniers' side mentions the suffering of innocents or the other time-honored moral-philosphical points to be made in their support.
Rather, this is a cold scientific (or would-be scientific) discussion about who is right about some provable (or unprovable) point of argument.
The best ethical arguments for and against the existence of God are ignored and both sides engage in parlor games that rely upon a sterile sophistry that can lead nowhere.
It is a rather cold and unfeeling argument either way.
In this discussion, if you believe in God it is only because he is the head honcho and who wouldn't try to support such an authoritarian figure. It is simply self-interest, survival instrict if you will, to support those who have complete power over you.
Earthly dictators are shown more affection.
On the other hand, if you are a disbeliver, it is not because you reject the apparent lack of moral order in the universe. You simply argue (albeit correctly) that God's existence cannot be proved by any principled intelligent argument and that arguments in favor of such existence cannot be disproved and therefore are rhetorically worthless.
Nice summation and dead on. Science can neither prove or disprove the existence of God. I mentioned earlier that my faith is not tied to the origins of the Universe. It's an afterthought to most who believe in God.
GodTalk.
Awesome.
Russ, the majority of people here on this thread are non-Believers and can't get past the thought that MANY believe in a higher being. Words like pink unicorn, spaghetti monster became used to subs ute what most Believers call God. In addition, God was called irrational and illogical and you can see how that argument goes.
This always ends well.
You're either tryin to prove or disprove... but for what?
Tryin to make yourself feel better?
Believe what you believe, do whatever it is that you have to do to get thru the day.
If you're a dumb , you're a dumb . No god or science is gonna help ya.
Toodle pip.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions