Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Just because you cannot explain the SOURCE of our ability to engage in science and get predictable and usable results to understand our reality . . . does NOT ALLOW you to claim we are just ignorant and therefore it DOESN'T EXIST!!! . . . and any descriptions of it have no more basis in reality than fairy tales or pink unicorns or gnomes. THAT is an argument from ignorance personified! The degree of obtuseness about this difference between descriptions of an IMAGINARY entity and one that EXISTS but we don't know anything about it is mind boggling. ALL the scientific evidence we have accumulated are ATTRIBUTES of it and VERIFY its existence . . . the ONLY things you can dispute are the OTHER attributes that have not been or are not susceptible to scientific verification!!!! That is NOT REMOTELY similar to fairies, gnomes, unicorns or other imaginary creatures!!! SO wise up, man up, and grow up . . . there is NO SCIENTIFIC basis for your atheism, period.
I have never seen any evidence for magic, so why would I believe any claim of a magical being (a god) of any kind?
Is this scientific. Of course not. It is basic skepticism. The same kind of skepticism I use for every claim I come across. Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world, and organizing it into testable laws, models and theories.
You have your panties in a knot, because I won't accept your claims of a god. There zero empirical evidence of a god.
Your claims that phenomenon in this universe is god, or acts of god, is no more convincing then a fundamentalist christian telling me to look out my window and see gods "creation".
I DO NOT NEED TO DISPROVE YOUR CLAIMS.
I DO NOT NEED TO DISPROVE YOUR CLAIMS.
I DO NOT NEED TO DISPROVE YOUR CLAIMS.
I DO NOT NEED TO DISPROVE YOUR CLAIMS.
I DO NOT NEED TO DISPROVE YOUR CLAIMS.
I DO NOT NEED TO DISPROVE YOUR CLAIMS.
There is no reason for me to disprove claims of a god. If you want me to accept them, you must supply empirical evidence.
There is no reason to call gravity, the big bang, light etc god.
I have never seen any evidence for magic, so why would I believe any claim of a magical being (a god) of any kind?
YOU are the only one talking about MAGICAL ANYTHING. God is NOT magical (or supernatural) and the ONLY attributes that can be verified are those that science has validated as part of YOUR "Nature" God. ALL the OTHER attributes, "Omni's, etc." are NOT necessary . . . but people are allowed to add them at will if they wish to.
Quote:
Is this scientific. Of course not. It is basic skepticism. The same kind of skepticism I use for every claim I come across. Science is the systematic enterprise of gathering knowledge about the world, and organizing it into testable laws, models and theories.
You see it as accumulating knowledge about the world . . . I see it as accumulating knowledge about God. The difference is preference only . . . NOT science.
Quote:
You have your panties in a knot, because I won't accept your claims of a god. There zero empirical evidence of a god.
This claim is completely unsupportable scientifically . . . yet you make it repeatedly and expect it to be respected.
Quote:
I DO NOT NEED TO DISPROVE YOUR CLAIMS.
I DO NOT NEED TO DISPROVE YOUR CLAIMS.
I DO NOT NEED TO DISPROVE YOUR CLAIMS.
I DO NOT NEED TO DISPROVE YOUR CLAIMS.
I DO NOT NEED TO DISPROVE YOUR CLAIMS.
I DO NOT NEED TO DISPROVE YOUR CLAIMS.
There is no reason for me to disprove claims of a god. If you want me to accept them, you must supply empirical evidence.
There is no reason to call gravity, the big bang, light etc god.
Whose panties did you say were in a bunch??? I didn't ask you to disprove my claims. I asked you to tell me WHY all the evidence we have accumulated is NOT of God and HOW you KNOW that scientifically?
God might not explain much in the bible but elswhere their is a hell of alot of information on the cosmos-the spiritual realm-material nature-the soul-our existence-how to perfect our existence-and alot more -and a hell of alot of information on God Himself and his energy's and expansions and pastimes........so God has explained so much that it would take you many many years to get through the knowledge that has been given.....and thats only so our tiny little brains can get ab understanding........but its not knowledge that will free the soul but devotion
I continue to enjoy believers spending so much time telling us they could do something (in this case, show us how god explains anything) that they run out of time to actually do it. Kind of like "my dad could beat up your dad" - if you sound convincing enough you'll never have to actually follow through with it.
the only arguments against God's existence ,one- people pulling out fawlty bible verses-and using that as an excuse
the other is either-species evolution theory or the big bang theory and actually this cant have any real purpose to the question-because even if these theorys were true it still dosent rule out the possibilitys of the existence of a God...infact in IMO if these theorys were true it should support the argument,..only God could have made ALL THIS WITH A BIG BANG
so please feel free to give any proof if you can or just let us hear your thoughts
Wrong...
The argument against God's existence is that he exists only in stories, not in reality. Like Pinocchio.
As a Christian,I have to ask this question.What is up with the Christians, and evidently some Muslims, who don't seem to know how to spell or properly construct a sentence?It is almost like some atheists are pretending to be theists and exercising horrid English to make us look stupid.Here's a thought.If you are going to try and debate the atheists,turn the spell check on please.You are making those of us who graduated jr high look bad.
I know what you mean. However, would you put some spaces after all your periods and commas? That'd be great.
For gods sake, YES there is FINALLY real proof of god existence out there.
I have posted about this at several place on this forum already. I had found real proof of gods existence in a newly released book called ""the primordial language by author anita meyer.""
This book is the BOMB if your looking for real proof!
Here is a link to the author who talks about it, I am getting tired of trying to explain it properly.
For gods sake, YES there is FINALLY real proof of god existence out there.
I have posted about this at several place on this forum already. I had found real proof of gods existence in a newly released book called ""the primordial language by author anita meyer.""
This book is the BOMB if your looking for real proof!
Here is a link to the author who talks about it, I am getting tired of trying to explain it properly.
Panterra I don’t know how to take your post? Are you for it or against it?
I took a quick look at Hammonds book, not to down it because I really haven’t read it, but the book I am referring to blows hammonds book clean out of the water with a different kind of evidence!
For gods sake, YES there is FINALLY real proof of god existence out there.
I have posted about this at several place on this forum already. I had found real proof of gods existence in a newly released book called ""the primordial language by author anita meyer.""
This book is the BOMB if your looking for real proof!
Here is a link to the author who talks about it, I am getting tired of trying to explain it properly.
Numerology and numerological divination were popular among early mathematicians, such as Pythagoras, but are no longer considered part of mathematics and are regarded as pseudomathematics by modern scientists. This is similar to the historical relationships between astrology and astronomy, and between alchemy and chemistry.
Be careful....Today, numerology is often associated with the occult, alongside astrology and similar divinatory arts.
YOU are the only one talking about MAGICAL ANYTHING. God is NOT magical (or supernatural) and the ONLY attributes that can be verified are those that science has validated as part of YOUR "Nature" God. ALL the OTHER attributes, "Omni's, etc." are NOT necessary . . . but people are allowed to add them at will if they wish to.You see it as accumulating knowledge about the world . . . I see it as accumulating knowledge about God. The difference is preference only . . . NOT science. This claim is completely unsupportable scientifically . . . yet you make it repeatedly and expect it to be respected.Whose panties did you say were in a bunch??? I didn't ask you to disprove my claims. I asked you to tell me WHY all the evidence we have accumulated is NOT of God and HOW you KNOW that scientifically?
Well since you like highlighting things, I'll do that too
YOUR CLAIM IS THAT OBSERVED PHENOMENON IS GOD.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MysticPhD
Sorry . . . those are pretty Godly things . . . how do you explain them?
There is ZERO empirical evidence of a god.
How do we test gravity, natural selection, the big bang to show that it is a god, or the effects of a god. You CAN NOT, so it's not EMPIRICAL EVIDENCE.
We call these PHENOMENON by other names, natural selection, the big bang, gravity etc.
All of these things have been showing to be predictable MECHANISM.
I asked you to tell me WHY all the evidence we have accumulated is of God and HOW you KNOW that scientifically?
If you can't answer this question, I have NO reason to accept you claims of a god.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.