Tornado_Creator
sutoroberrii!
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 05:38:29 +0000
Tornado_Creator
I'm looking for someone to convert me because I want to follow the correct religion. Saying that a religion is based on faith is a pathetic cop-out, if the religion is truth then it should be provable fact, and there will be evidence to prove that it is fact. You freely admit that there is no logical reason to follow your own religion, so why would I?
I'm asking people to tell me why they believe, because if you believe something, that's because you've been convinced that it's true. I want to know the most true things and the fewest false things. If you are right, and Christianity is true, I want to know it's true. So tell me what made you think it was true. However, I cannot rely on faith, I'm not a faithful person. I don't care if faith is the key to heaven and knowledge would send me to hell, I just can't base anything in my life on anything other than reason and logic. Now reasonably, whichever religion is right will have incontrovertible evidence that they can present to me. This will convert me. This is what I want... if I don't get it, I am sedimented in my current stance that atheism is truth, and that God does not exist.
I'm asking people to tell me why they believe, because if you believe something, that's because you've been convinced that it's true. I want to know the most true things and the fewest false things. If you are right, and Christianity is true, I want to know it's true. So tell me what made you think it was true. However, I cannot rely on faith, I'm not a faithful person. I don't care if faith is the key to heaven and knowledge would send me to hell, I just can't base anything in my life on anything other than reason and logic. Now reasonably, whichever religion is right will have incontrovertible evidence that they can present to me. This will convert me. This is what I want... if I don't get it, I am sedimented in my current stance that atheism is truth, and that God does not exist.
actually, saying that religion is based on faith isn't a pathetic cop-out. think of all the people who have desperately clung onto their religion/trusted in their religion through troubled times -- when it seemed like their religion/god had abandoned them. that's faith. so religion REALLY is faith-based. you really can't argue with me on that point. i think that's the main appeal of religion, anyway, being faith-based and all... you can believe whatever the hell you want, and no one can prove you wrong.
i never said religion was truth. don't be putting words in my mouth! truths are relative. even science admits that. you will never find an absolute truth in this world because nothing is ever certain. we aren't omniscient creatures.
i believe in god not because i think it's 'ze absolute truth or whatever (i'm having a difficult time reconciling evolution, which i believe in, and god, along with homosexuality), but because well, i believe that there's a higher being watching over all of us, who loves us, and takes care of us. god has helped me through some of my hardest times.
ANYWAY.
i wasn't here to convert you.
but have fun with anselm's proof that god exists. ;]
"To begin his argument, Anselm must first establish that God is the equivalent to "something that which nothing greater can be thought." Since the idea of God is an idea of perfection, the common explanation for God at the time of Anselm was just that. Since perfection can not be improved upon, then nothing greater can be imagined. From here, he takes a look at the passage in the bible that says, "the Fool has said in his heart, there is no God." He begins to contemplate if and why this statement is true. He decides that it is true, and he comes to the conclusion that they must be a fool because that very statement contradicts itself. He argues that in saying the word "God" you are acknowledging that you have an idea in your mind of something than which nothing greater can be thought.
From here he states that because we are able to conceive of such a perfect being, then one must exist. If one did not exist then that would mean that it wasn’t perfect, and therefore there is something out there that is greater. The idea of a being that nothing greater can be thought of had to be put there by something, and that something is the real being, which is God. He argues that we couldn’t have just come up with it since we as humans are flawed and are incapable of perceiving perfection unless it has been shown to us by something that is perfect." -- http://www.essortment.com/all/argumentsexist_rbxf.htm
(yes, i know, it can be disproven on a grammar issue, i believe.)
and you obviously have faith.
look at your belief in atheism.
just because god hasn't been found doesn't mean he doesn't exist, and vice versa. there is no proof supporting either stance.
for all we know, god could just be dormant, and laughing at us idiot humans down here.
just because no one has proven the existence of god doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. it's like quantum mechanics. i recently read an article in nature... no one has found a particle (EDIT: it's called the higgs boson!) that has been proposed to exist (apparently, they think they're getting close?) through said theory. xD; or how about the concept of absolute zero? we've never gotten to absolute zero... but we've gotten close, yes? but we've never "proved" it exists.
mm. and correct (i'm assuming you mean right?) is relative. so, again, what is correct for me may not be correct for you.
Biot-Savart Law
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 05:50:57 +0000
sutoroberrii!
just because no one has proven the existence of god doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. it's like quantum mechanics. i recently read an article in nature... no one has found a particle (EDIT: it's called the higgs boson!) that has been proposed to exist (apparently, they think they're getting close?) through said theory. xD; or how about the concept of absolute zero? we've never gotten to absolute zero... but we've gotten close, yes? but we've never "proved" it exists.
Egad. Pink.
And it's not really comparable, yeah? I mean, you can set up a test for the particles of the standard model. You can extrapolate absolute zero from physical evidence. And loads of other people will come around and check your work and try to falsify it.
What sort of analogous test is there for a deity?
sutoroberrii!
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 06:05:14 +0000
Angels_Satire
sutoroberrii!
just because no one has proven the existence of god doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. it's like quantum mechanics. i recently read an article in nature... no one has found a particle (EDIT: it's called the higgs boson!) that has been proposed to exist (apparently, they think they're getting close?) through said theory. xD; or how about the concept of absolute zero? we've never gotten to absolute zero... but we've gotten close, yes? but we've never "proved" it exists.
Egad. Pink.
And it's not really comparable, yeah? I mean, you can set up a test for the particles of the standard model. You can extrapolate absolute zero from physical evidence. And loads of other people will come around and check your work and try to falsify it.
What sort of analogous test is there for a deity?
yes, yes, i know you can extrapolate the data. hence the "we've gotten close, yes?" part. but how do we know that the data is correct? we are limited by our five senses. we may be able to replicate the data again and again, but who's to say that absolute zero really exists? maybe we haven't discovered it because it simply doesn't exist -- we just wish it does, and we choose to intepret it as it existing by extending the data points and whatnot. i mean, we had the whole "life-force from air" thang going on for a while... and that was considered "good science" back then. (for the record, i believe absolute zero exists. haha.)
there isn't (there isn't a way to say that god doesn't exist, either -- there's just a lack of evidence, which, philosophically, could mean either/or, though in science, you could argue that there is no god. no evidence, no proof, no existence. i realize that).
hence it's faith-based. so i'm not here to convert him. but more to explain that faith is a major part of any religion, and logic doesn't really fit in with religion, unfortunately. again, that's what (i think) makes religion so appealing to the masses. you can believe in whatever the hell you want; believe in unicorns and fairies, if you wish.
and yes. pink. ;]
Tornado_Creator
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 06:06:59 +0000
sutoroberrii!
Tornado_Creator
I'm looking for someone to convert me because I want to follow the correct religion. Saying that a religion is based on faith is a pathetic cop-out, if the religion is truth then it should be provable fact, and there will be evidence to prove that it is fact. You freely admit that there is no logical reason to follow your own religion, so why would I?
I'm asking people to tell me why they believe, because if you believe something, that's because you've been convinced that it's true. I want to know the most true things and the fewest false things. If you are right, and Christianity is true, I want to know it's true. So tell me what made you think it was true. However, I cannot rely on faith, I'm not a faithful person. I don't care if faith is the key to heaven and knowledge would send me to hell, I just can't base anything in my life on anything other than reason and logic. Now reasonably, whichever religion is right will have incontrovertible evidence that they can present to me. This will convert me. This is what I want... if I don't get it, I am sedimented in my current stance that atheism is truth, and that God does not exist.
I'm asking people to tell me why they believe, because if you believe something, that's because you've been convinced that it's true. I want to know the most true things and the fewest false things. If you are right, and Christianity is true, I want to know it's true. So tell me what made you think it was true. However, I cannot rely on faith, I'm not a faithful person. I don't care if faith is the key to heaven and knowledge would send me to hell, I just can't base anything in my life on anything other than reason and logic. Now reasonably, whichever religion is right will have incontrovertible evidence that they can present to me. This will convert me. This is what I want... if I don't get it, I am sedimented in my current stance that atheism is truth, and that God does not exist.
actually, saying that religion is based on faith isn't a pathetic cop-out. think of all the people who have desperately clung onto their religion/trusted in their religion through troubled times -- when it seemed like their religion/god had abandoned them. that's faith. so religion REALLY is faith-based. you really can't argue with me on that point. i think that's the main appeal of religion, anyway, being faith-based and all... you can believe whatever the hell you want, and no one can prove you wrong.
i never said religion was truth. don't be putting words in my mouth! truths are relative. even science admits that. you will never find an absolute truth in this world because nothing is ever certain. we aren't omniscient creatures.
i believe in god not because i think it's 'ze absolute truth or whatever (i'm having a difficult time reconciling evolution, which i believe in, and god, along with homosexuality), but because well, i believe that there's a higher being watching over all of us, who loves us, and takes care of us. god has helped me through some of my hardest times.
ANYWAY.
i wasn't here to convert you.
but have fun with anselm's proof that god exists. ;]
"To begin his argument, Anselm must first establish that God is the equivalent to "something that which nothing greater can be thought." Since the idea of God is an idea of perfection, the common explanation for God at the time of Anselm was just that. Since perfection can not be improved upon, then nothing greater can be imagined. From here, he takes a look at the passage in the bible that says, "the Fool has said in his heart, there is no God." He begins to contemplate if and why this statement is true. He decides that it is true, and he comes to the conclusion that they must be a fool because that very statement contradicts itself. He argues that in saying the word "God" you are acknowledging that you have an idea in your mind of something than which nothing greater can be thought.
From here he states that because we are able to conceive of such a perfect being, then one must exist. If one did not exist then that would mean that it wasn’t perfect, and therefore there is something out there that is greater. The idea of a being that nothing greater can be thought of had to be put there by something, and that something is the real being, which is God. He argues that we couldn’t have just come up with it since we as humans are flawed and are incapable of perceiving perfection unless it has been shown to us by something that is perfect." -- http://www.essortment.com/all/argumentsexist_rbxf.htm
(yes, i know, it can be disproven on a grammar issue, i believe.)
and you obviously have faith.
look at your belief in atheism.
just because god hasn't been found doesn't mean he doesn't exist, and vice versa. there is no proof supporting either stance.
for all we know, god could just be dormant, and laughing at us idiot humans down here.
just because no one has proven the existence of god doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. it's like quantum mechanics. i recently read an article in nature... no one has found a particle (EDIT: it's called the higgs boson!) that has been proposed to exist (apparently, they think they're getting close?) through said theory. xD; or how about the concept of absolute zero? we've never gotten to absolute zero... but we've gotten close, yes? but we've never "proved" it exists.
mm. and correct (i'm assuming you mean right?) is relative. so, again, what is correct for me may not be correct for you.
"I believe because I believe, next"
That's basically your argument, which is outright pathetic. If you don't have an argument don't take part in the debate.
As for what is relative and subjective. The following things are not. Truth, Correct, Fact, Theory, Science or Proof. These are definite. You can't have something that is fact from one perspective but not from another. One of the people involved is just wrong.
If you can't grasp this please go to another thread, I want empirical evidence and reason, if you can't provide these things I'm not interested in what you have to offer.
Tornado_Creator
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 06:08:57 +0000
Angels_Satire
sutoroberrii!
just because no one has proven the existence of god doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. it's like quantum mechanics. i recently read an article in nature... no one has found a particle (EDIT: it's called the higgs boson!) that has been proposed to exist (apparently, they think they're getting close?) through said theory. xD; or how about the concept of absolute zero? we've never gotten to absolute zero... but we've gotten close, yes? but we've never "proved" it exists.
Egad. Pink.
And it's not really comparable, yeah? I mean, you can set up a test for the particles of the standard model. You can extrapolate absolute zero from physical evidence. And loads of other people will come around and check your work and try to falsify it.
What sort of analogous test is there for a deity?
It's not worth it Angels_Satire, seriously... she's not going to understand why her argument is fallacious, we should just give up explaining it and hope someone else enters the conversation with a worthwhile point.
sutoroberrii!
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 06:18:20 +0000
Tornado_Creator
sutoroberrii!
Tornado_Creator
I'm looking for someone to convert me because I want to follow the correct religion. Saying that a religion is based on faith is a pathetic cop-out, if the religion is truth then it should be provable fact, and there will be evidence to prove that it is fact. You freely admit that there is no logical reason to follow your own religion, so why would I?
I'm asking people to tell me why they believe, because if you believe something, that's because you've been convinced that it's true. I want to know the most true things and the fewest false things. If you are right, and Christianity is true, I want to know it's true. So tell me what made you think it was true. However, I cannot rely on faith, I'm not a faithful person. I don't care if faith is the key to heaven and knowledge would send me to hell, I just can't base anything in my life on anything other than reason and logic. Now reasonably, whichever religion is right will have incontrovertible evidence that they can present to me. This will convert me. This is what I want... if I don't get it, I am sedimented in my current stance that atheism is truth, and that God does not exist.
I'm asking people to tell me why they believe, because if you believe something, that's because you've been convinced that it's true. I want to know the most true things and the fewest false things. If you are right, and Christianity is true, I want to know it's true. So tell me what made you think it was true. However, I cannot rely on faith, I'm not a faithful person. I don't care if faith is the key to heaven and knowledge would send me to hell, I just can't base anything in my life on anything other than reason and logic. Now reasonably, whichever religion is right will have incontrovertible evidence that they can present to me. This will convert me. This is what I want... if I don't get it, I am sedimented in my current stance that atheism is truth, and that God does not exist.
actually, saying that religion is based on faith isn't a pathetic cop-out. think of all the people who have desperately clung onto their religion/trusted in their religion through troubled times -- when it seemed like their religion/god had abandoned them. that's faith. so religion REALLY is faith-based. you really can't argue with me on that point. i think that's the main appeal of religion, anyway, being faith-based and all... you can believe whatever the hell you want, and no one can prove you wrong.
i never said religion was truth. don't be putting words in my mouth! truths are relative. even science admits that. you will never find an absolute truth in this world because nothing is ever certain. we aren't omniscient creatures.
i believe in god not because i think it's 'ze absolute truth or whatever (i'm having a difficult time reconciling evolution, which i believe in, and god, along with homosexuality), but because well, i believe that there's a higher being watching over all of us, who loves us, and takes care of us. god has helped me through some of my hardest times.
ANYWAY.
i wasn't here to convert you.
but have fun with anselm's proof that god exists. ;]
"To begin his argument, Anselm must first establish that God is the equivalent to "something that which nothing greater can be thought." Since the idea of God is an idea of perfection, the common explanation for God at the time of Anselm was just that. Since perfection can not be improved upon, then nothing greater can be imagined. From here, he takes a look at the passage in the bible that says, "the Fool has said in his heart, there is no God." He begins to contemplate if and why this statement is true. He decides that it is true, and he comes to the conclusion that they must be a fool because that very statement contradicts itself. He argues that in saying the word "God" you are acknowledging that you have an idea in your mind of something than which nothing greater can be thought.
From here he states that because we are able to conceive of such a perfect being, then one must exist. If one did not exist then that would mean that it wasn’t perfect, and therefore there is something out there that is greater. The idea of a being that nothing greater can be thought of had to be put there by something, and that something is the real being, which is God. He argues that we couldn’t have just come up with it since we as humans are flawed and are incapable of perceiving perfection unless it has been shown to us by something that is perfect." -- http://www.essortment.com/all/argumentsexist_rbxf.htm
(yes, i know, it can be disproven on a grammar issue, i believe.)
and you obviously have faith.
look at your belief in atheism.
just because god hasn't been found doesn't mean he doesn't exist, and vice versa. there is no proof supporting either stance.
for all we know, god could just be dormant, and laughing at us idiot humans down here.
just because no one has proven the existence of god doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. it's like quantum mechanics. i recently read an article in nature... no one has found a particle (EDIT: it's called the higgs boson!) that has been proposed to exist (apparently, they think they're getting close?) through said theory. xD; or how about the concept of absolute zero? we've never gotten to absolute zero... but we've gotten close, yes? but we've never "proved" it exists.
mm. and correct (i'm assuming you mean right?) is relative. so, again, what is correct for me may not be correct for you.
"I believe because I believe, next"
That's basically your argument, which is outright pathetic. If you don't have an argument don't take part in the debate.
As for what is relative and subjective. The following things are not. Truth, Correct, Fact, Theory, Science or Proof. These are definite. You can't have something that is fact from one perspective but not from another. One of the people involved is just wrong.
If you can't grasp this please go to another thread, I want empirical evidence and reason, if you can't provide these things I'm not interested in what you have to offer.
you have yet to prove my argument fallacious, because i'm trying to tell you that i can't prove anything to you (and that no one can), since religion is faith-based. not logic-based. i'd also appreciate it if you'd stop attacking me as a person, which is an actual fallacy ( "ad hominem" ). rolleyes
truth is not definite.
why does science revise its theories all the time, when new discoveries come out?
i'll end it on this, because you will not, and you won't, listen to me.
and i DID use a logic-based argument to support the fact that god exists. but did you comment on it? no, of course not. you instead, commented on everything else. lovely.
i personally am being quite reasonable. honestly, what i think you want... is someone to stroke your ego. which is not the point of ED.
sutoroberrii!
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 06:28:32 +0000
Tornado_Creator
Angels_Satire
sutoroberrii!
just because no one has proven the existence of god doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. it's like quantum mechanics. i recently read an article in nature... no one has found a particle (EDIT: it's called the higgs boson!) that has been proposed to exist (apparently, they think they're getting close?) through said theory. xD; or how about the concept of absolute zero? we've never gotten to absolute zero... but we've gotten close, yes? but we've never "proved" it exists.
Egad. Pink.
And it's not really comparable, yeah? I mean, you can set up a test for the particles of the standard model. You can extrapolate absolute zero from physical evidence. And loads of other people will come around and check your work and try to falsify it.
What sort of analogous test is there for a deity?
It's not worth it Angels_Satire, seriously... she's not going to understand why her argument is fallacious, we should just give up explaining it and hope someone else enters the conversation with a worthwhile point.
OH PSH.
if you'd read my reply back, i even admit the fallacy in my argument.
"-- there's just a lack of evidence, which, philosophically, could mean either/or, though in science, you could argue that there is no god. no evidence, no proof, no existence. i realize that"
Tornado_Creator
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 06:42:29 +0000
sutoroberrii!
Tornado_Creator
sutoroberrii!
Tornado_Creator
I'm looking for someone to convert me because I want to follow the correct religion. Saying that a religion is based on faith is a pathetic cop-out, if the religion is truth then it should be provable fact, and there will be evidence to prove that it is fact. You freely admit that there is no logical reason to follow your own religion, so why would I?
I'm asking people to tell me why they believe, because if you believe something, that's because you've been convinced that it's true. I want to know the most true things and the fewest false things. If you are right, and Christianity is true, I want to know it's true. So tell me what made you think it was true. However, I cannot rely on faith, I'm not a faithful person. I don't care if faith is the key to heaven and knowledge would send me to hell, I just can't base anything in my life on anything other than reason and logic. Now reasonably, whichever religion is right will have incontrovertible evidence that they can present to me. This will convert me. This is what I want... if I don't get it, I am sedimented in my current stance that atheism is truth, and that God does not exist.
I'm asking people to tell me why they believe, because if you believe something, that's because you've been convinced that it's true. I want to know the most true things and the fewest false things. If you are right, and Christianity is true, I want to know it's true. So tell me what made you think it was true. However, I cannot rely on faith, I'm not a faithful person. I don't care if faith is the key to heaven and knowledge would send me to hell, I just can't base anything in my life on anything other than reason and logic. Now reasonably, whichever religion is right will have incontrovertible evidence that they can present to me. This will convert me. This is what I want... if I don't get it, I am sedimented in my current stance that atheism is truth, and that God does not exist.
actually, saying that religion is based on faith isn't a pathetic cop-out. think of all the people who have desperately clung onto their religion/trusted in their religion through troubled times -- when it seemed like their religion/god had abandoned them. that's faith. so religion REALLY is faith-based. you really can't argue with me on that point. i think that's the main appeal of religion, anyway, being faith-based and all... you can believe whatever the hell you want, and no one can prove you wrong.
i never said religion was truth. don't be putting words in my mouth! truths are relative. even science admits that. you will never find an absolute truth in this world because nothing is ever certain. we aren't omniscient creatures.
i believe in god not because i think it's 'ze absolute truth or whatever (i'm having a difficult time reconciling evolution, which i believe in, and god, along with homosexuality), but because well, i believe that there's a higher being watching over all of us, who loves us, and takes care of us. god has helped me through some of my hardest times.
ANYWAY.
i wasn't here to convert you.
but have fun with anselm's proof that god exists. ;]
"To begin his argument, Anselm must first establish that God is the equivalent to "something that which nothing greater can be thought." Since the idea of God is an idea of perfection, the common explanation for God at the time of Anselm was just that. Since perfection can not be improved upon, then nothing greater can be imagined. From here, he takes a look at the passage in the bible that says, "the Fool has said in his heart, there is no God." He begins to contemplate if and why this statement is true. He decides that it is true, and he comes to the conclusion that they must be a fool because that very statement contradicts itself. He argues that in saying the word "God" you are acknowledging that you have an idea in your mind of something than which nothing greater can be thought.
From here he states that because we are able to conceive of such a perfect being, then one must exist. If one did not exist then that would mean that it wasn’t perfect, and therefore there is something out there that is greater. The idea of a being that nothing greater can be thought of had to be put there by something, and that something is the real being, which is God. He argues that we couldn’t have just come up with it since we as humans are flawed and are incapable of perceiving perfection unless it has been shown to us by something that is perfect." -- http://www.essortment.com/all/argumentsexist_rbxf.htm
(yes, i know, it can be disproven on a grammar issue, i believe.)
and you obviously have faith.
look at your belief in atheism.
just because god hasn't been found doesn't mean he doesn't exist, and vice versa. there is no proof supporting either stance.
for all we know, god could just be dormant, and laughing at us idiot humans down here.
just because no one has proven the existence of god doesn't mean that he doesn't exist. it's like quantum mechanics. i recently read an article in nature... no one has found a particle (EDIT: it's called the higgs boson!) that has been proposed to exist (apparently, they think they're getting close?) through said theory. xD; or how about the concept of absolute zero? we've never gotten to absolute zero... but we've gotten close, yes? but we've never "proved" it exists.
mm. and correct (i'm assuming you mean right?) is relative. so, again, what is correct for me may not be correct for you.
"I believe because I believe, next"
That's basically your argument, which is outright pathetic. If you don't have an argument don't take part in the debate.
As for what is relative and subjective. The following things are not. Truth, Correct, Fact, Theory, Science or Proof. These are definite. You can't have something that is fact from one perspective but not from another. One of the people involved is just wrong.
If you can't grasp this please go to another thread, I want empirical evidence and reason, if you can't provide these things I'm not interested in what you have to offer.
you have yet to prove my argument fallacious, because i'm trying to tell you that i can't prove anything to you (and that no one can), since religion is faith-based. not logic-based. i'd also appreciate it if you'd stop attacking me as a person, which is an actual fallacy ( "ad hominem" ). rolleyes
truth is not definite.
why does science revise its theories all the time, when new discoveries come out?
i'll end it on this, because you will not, and you won't, listen to me.
and i DID use a logic-based argument to support the fact that god exists. but did you comment on it? no, of course not. you instead, commented on everything else. lovely.
i personally am being quite reasonable. honestly, what i think you want... is someone to stroke your ego. which is not the point of ED.
YOUR AN IDIOT!!!!
First of all Ad Hominem is not when someone insults you. It's when they do nothing except insult you. So long as I make a point I can call you anything I like without it being a fallacious argument you complete moron. (see what I did just then).
Secondly, an argument that refuses to base itself in logic IS ******** FALLACIOUS!!! As you're specifically stating that you're basing your arguments on fantasy (ie. faith) there is no argument. You automatically loose. Well done, I can't argue against something that is based outside of reason, logic and reality if you don't accept that very fact as an argument against it. Why not live in your fairy land then.
Thirdly truth is definite and concrete, it does not change.
Why does science change when the scientist realise they where wrong, because the theory wasn't ******** true, it was wrong. I'm so sorry, scientists have this pesky habit of admitting when they're wrong and refining there theories to get as close as they can to actual truth. Maybe if we just ignored facts and tried dogma instead you'd be more comfortable.
Forth point. When did you use a logic based argument to prove god. Was it after the retarded argument that being able to imagine God means he must exist, or perhaps it was after the red herring paragraph where you show your ability to quote stuff about particle physics and thermodynamics that you don't actually understand and then completely fail to connect it in any way whatsoever to how this proves God exists... quite frankly I see no evidence at all, all I see is a silly girl regurgitating the same crap.
Fifth point. Extended discussion is not for stroking my ego, you're right, it's for having intelligent in depth discussion which you seem incapable of as you can barely grasp the concepts of truth, logic, facts, reason and fallacies. These are essential if you intend to debate so I suggest you do a little book learning on these things before you join any other debates with me.
Lastly... I am not attacking your character or personality. I am calling you idiotic, moronic and other similar things based of evidence provided by yourself in this topic. You have shown a moronic mentality that someone with a greater level of intelligence would not show, thus I am stating an opinion that you are a fool. This is not slander nor is it personal abuse, it's deserved critique.
Now... if someone would like to provide an actual argument, I would be more than happy to listen to it. Please, base all arguments in reality, I don't live in fluffy rainbow land.
Ratreoz
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:02:40 +0000
Tornado_Creator
First of all Ad Hominem is not when someone insults you. It's when they do nothing except insult you. So long as I make a point I can call you anything I like without it being a fallacious argument you complete moron. (see what I did just then).
Actually... Argumentum Ad Hominem is when someone says something to the effect of: "It is well known that you are ugly, therefore you are wrong."
Basically, it's refuting a person's argument by attacking the person.
You haven't done that either though.
EDIT: It happens all the time in politics.
Lucky~9~Lives
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 09:41:51 +0000
Tornado_Creator
If God is everything wouldn't it be easier to just say 'everything'?
It asserts that everything is unified, is of the same level of divinity.
Tornado_Creator
My advice would be to drop the pointless notion of "God is everything", and explore religions.
There are pantheistic religions.
Chaos DragoonKnight
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:19:05 +0000
Tornado_Creator
Ok. I am an atheist.
I am giving people a challenge here. I want you to convert me. No insults, no stupidity, no crap. I want people to give me a REASON to believe in your religion. If someone can give me a proper reason, based on logic and evidence then I will believe and convert right here online.
Things I definitely won't except as a reason to believe.
1. Anything written in the Bible, Qur'an, Torah or any other holy book or piece of scripture.
2. Anything obviously fallacious. If your mother survive a car crash and credits God, good for her, it isn't going to convince me.
3. Saying I need to "feel it in my heart" or "have faith", or saying that I can't have evidence of God.
4. Threatening me with Hell or any other appeal to emotions or argument from morality.
So. Please. Tell me why you believe, and convert me. If you're really right you should be able to convince me of your religion, you should have some form of evidence you can show me.
I am giving people a challenge here. I want you to convert me. No insults, no stupidity, no crap. I want people to give me a REASON to believe in your religion. If someone can give me a proper reason, based on logic and evidence then I will believe and convert right here online.
Things I definitely won't except as a reason to believe.
1. Anything written in the Bible, Qur'an, Torah or any other holy book or piece of scripture.
2. Anything obviously fallacious. If your mother survive a car crash and credits God, good for her, it isn't going to convince me.
3. Saying I need to "feel it in my heart" or "have faith", or saying that I can't have evidence of God.
4. Threatening me with Hell or any other appeal to emotions or argument from morality.
So. Please. Tell me why you believe, and convert me. If you're really right you should be able to convince me of your religion, you should have some form of evidence you can show me.
I'm looking at your OP instead of 15 pages of bullshit becuase I have a feeling that a lot of it is off topic and insults. Anyway:
1) Easy enough
2) OK
3) You're basically saying here that if someone gives you any reason they believe in a non-existential being they're wrong
4) I don't put much stock in Hell anyway
Your problem is that you're looking for "proof" from one sphere of existance (existential) to prove that another sphere (non-existential) exists in the first place. God (as I believe you're looking for, let's cut the BS and be honest, you're looking for people to prove God exists), is a non-existential being. Therefore, God does not exist with the realm of the existential, and evidence of said God cannot be found within the existential realm. You're demanding people use a liquid measuring cup to figure out if there's air in the room. You want the kind of proof about a being that has nothing to do with that kind of proof.
Building off that, your attempts at bringing science into religion is that they are, like God and the proof you're looking for, seperate spheres of thought. Now because they are seperate does not mean they are irreconcilible, someone can believe in both God and modern scientific theories. You're as silly as a religous person saying "Evolution is wrong becuase it isn't in the Bible." They're taking one sphere (religion) and using that realm of thought to decide to correctnes of an idea in another (biology).
Saying God does not exist becuase no existential evidence of God's existance is avaible is like saying you draw a stick man on paper. Said man is 2 dimensional. Man does not comprehend depth, it does not exist to him in the physical realm. Therefore, depth does not exist period.
Tornado_Creator
If you're really right you should be able to convince me of your religion
If YOU'RE right, you hould be able to convince everyone arguing against you that you're right. Since apparently you cannot, atheism is false.
To boil it down, you aren't going to get existential proof of God's existence, welcome to spiritual and philosophical thought, get over it.
P.S. I saw the entire TAA video you put up. Good stuff, props.
devilbuddha
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 11:46:53 +0000
ok, you will never find spirit with reason for one thing. trying to cognizize the essence of things only works after it has its hooks in you. I have nothing to convince you with - only that you are not convinced already. and we only see the things in which we already expect. you have to find it for yourself. alone. cold&alone. subjectively. personally. it is yours. and. you. forever.
boopsie63
(?)Community Member
Offline
- Report Post
- Posted: Tue, 12 Aug 2008 13:03:03 +0000
heart I will not ask how someone can beleive that there is no God.But I will say there is a God.I wish I knew you. My life is a true sign that there is a God. I ask ttat you start praying at least once a day. I don't care if you don't believe it works! I want you to pray any way for 30 days. Because my God,my Lord and savior will be there for you.He comes to the door and knocks.OK, let him in! I Love you and even if you don't pray I will pray for you.