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.
there is something, the data suggest that. I don't do "god" as in "your father", but its certainly not nothing more complex. And if we are classifyied as life and we are in a more complex system how should we describe it?
non life?
That just doesn't add up.
Complexity does not argue for 'life'. You can have a sack of letters, but they do not add up to a book, even if you could make a book out of them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
again, i have to agree GoC. I mean, I can't believe how he just showed us what you were talking about.
some atheist are running on blind faith that ignoring everything is rational in supporting a belief.
they use the exact same blind faith you do.
Fish's position was fair and sound. The evidence put forward for a god let alone a particular religion does not make a convincing case. End of discussion.
Apart from 'faith' which (aside from digging out usages for the word 'faith') means believing something even though the case for it is not good.
Cardinals has not made a valid case, and nor have you.
Fish's position was fair and sound. The evidence put forward for a god let alone a particular religion does not make a convincing case. End of discussion.
Apart from 'faith' which (aside from digging out usages for the word 'faith' means believing something even though the case for it is not good.
Cardinals has not made a valid case, and nor have you.
you claiming that doesn't make it so ... what does matter is what they did.
fish basically said "I don't know what i am talking about and I don't have to change my faith statement."
so you can deny it all you want. he did exactly what GoC was trying to claim. i wouldn't have believed it myself until fish walked right into it.
Complexity does not argue for 'life'. You can have a sack of letters, but they do not add up to a book, even if you could make a book out of them.
Fish's position was fair and sound. The evidence put forward for a god let alone a particular religion does not make a convincing case. End of discussion.
Apart from 'faith' which (aside from digging out usages for the word 'faith') means believing something even though the case for it is not good.
Cardinals has not made a valid case, and nor have you.
You deny it all you want trans. you watch the actions of the biosphere over time and it fits every property we assign to life.
And yes, complexity versus volume is exactly what causes life to do the things life does.
Your really going to have to learn stuff or own the fact that you not understanding the material doesn't matter to your faith in no-god. you don't need evidence to support your faith.
So why don't you start with an example and say that,
"You as an Atheist, believe that God does not exist, and you assert this belief without any evidence.
And you have a firm belief that God does not exist, and for this firm belief, there is no proof."
fair enough?
The difference is the atheist is able to ponder or question their belief without penalty. Heck and atheist can spend all the time they want considering that there is a god and it doesn't matter.
The belief does not need to be firm as such. For the believer questioning the "firmness" of the belief is frowned upon because you are encouraged to have a "deep" faith.
The difference is the atheist is able to ponder or question their belief without penalty. Heck and atheist can spend all the time they want considering that there is a god and it doesn't matter.
The belief does not need to be firm as such. For the believer questioning the "firmness" of the belief is frowned upon because you are encouraged to have a "deep" faith.
this is true. the follower of a statement of belief based on blind faith, or not knowing enough, cannot question the firmness of their belief. It becomes squishy.
those of us that constantly apply the same rigor to our beliefs, as we do others beliefs, are better able to to adapt to new information and modify a belief as needed. To actually match what we see around us.
basically, the universe dreamed you mustic. lol, like that?
I can believe that because it resembles my belief about God establishing our reality in His consciousness. My question for you is who is the Dreamer???
So why don't you start with an example and say that,
"You as an Atheist, believe that God does not exist, and you assert this belief without any evidence.
And you have a firm belief that God does not exist, and for this firm belief, there is no proof."
fair enough?
No. Nobody has to organize their posts in the way that pleases you. People are free to express themselves as they wish.
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.
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.
