I accept that science cannot prove the non-existence of God. But . . . (page 8)

prologos

Kate, just prodding to see to what level " in your favoured thinngs " you would carry the divine.

for me, the possiblity for the need of a creator is the sheer work, energy that must have been involved in bringing the universe into EXISTENCE.

OnTheWayOut

That person wasn't speaking of proofs... although that person had referred to an atheist who had previously said he/she could prove that God does not exist.

Peace,

tammy

So I will rephrase:

IF THEY EVER CLAIM THAT THEIR SUPPOSED COMMUNICATION WITH THE LORD IS ANY KIND OF EVIDENCE, I think it would be best to treat all of the "BULLSHIT CLAIMS OF DIVINE COMMUNICATION" this person refers to as equal TO CLAIMS LIKE THOSE OF JOSEPH SMITH OR HAROLD CAMPING.

(The rest can be the same as I previously posted.)

I tried to be polite about it. Picky picky.

Caedes

Prologos,

Does that mean that the sheer amount of energy required to create something that could in turn create the universe also mean that your creator requires a creator of their own?

Is it turtles all the way down or do you arbitrarily draw the line at your creator? If it is not turtles all the way down and you do draw the line at your creator what makes you draw the line there?

adamah

Sam said- Adam, yes well done Rocks have sub-atomic particles. The rest of your post changed the subject.

No need to get snarky, Sam: I just wanted to make sure that YOU understood that EVERYTHING (including your and my last bowel movement) contains atoms with sub-atomic particles, and that includes living matter.

Sam said- Getting back to rocks and atoms. Adam, it is divine the way electron's move around the whole structure and each atom has vibrational, and rotational uniform movements too.

And I repeat the question: how do you think atoms would look any different if they were of "non-divine" origins?

KateWild

Adam, the way sub-atomic particle's move and exist is divne to me. Your question has nothing to do with electron configurations. The are the way they are. That is my answer.

Sam xx

adamah

TEC said- But it was entirely relevant to Adamah's claim.

I disagree.

I think Jeffro raised a valid point, since your typical argument is that believers just don't "know" God like you do, when the actual issue is about God's existence (a binary condition), and the topic is about the ability to prove the existence of ANY deity, sociopath or nice guy, alike.

Existence is a binary state: setting aside the topsy-turvy World of quantum physics, at least in the macroscopic World we live in, at any given instant, something either exists or it doesn't.

TEC said-So then we are back to convincing others... rather than PROVING to others. Right?

Sure, I think the word "prove" is pointless in such discussions, since lay-person's misuse raises expectations far too-high.

But even there, there's no point to continue a "debate" with you, since you've basically admitted that you're not willing to enter a discussion with a position that cannot be moved, since you've already said there's no evidence that could possibly persuade you to disbelieve in Jesus. That's the very definition of a bigoted belief that's resiliant to ALL challenge; it's a conversation stopper (at least for me).

Adam

adamah

Sam said- Adam, the way sub-atomic particle's move and exist is divne to me. Your question has nothing to do with electron configurations. The are the way they are. That is my answer.

I repeat the question: how do you think "sub-atomic particles would move and exist" any differently if they were of "non-divine" origins? More collisions, perhaps? Weaker forces?

(Of course, galaxies NEVER collide in the World of astronomy....)

Why even bother engaging in a discussion then, if you're only going to resort to your shell and saying, "that's my belief, and I cannot defend or explain it, but it's 'divine' to me"?

You DO realize you're appealing to personal intuition and your gut feelings? Sam, have you met TEC yet? You two have alot in common....

Adam

KateWild

Okay Adam, I will answer your question again. Divine origin. I did not say it was divine origin. Why do you think electron configuration is/isn't divine origin?

I stated the way they move is divine, do you know how sub-atomic particles move in a rock? If not, you cannot debate this with me. If so, do you think it is divine or do you disagree? If you disagree why do you disagree?

Sam xx

adamah

Sam said-

Okay Adam, I will answer your question again. Divine origin. I did not say it was divine origin. Why do you think electron configuration is/isn't divine origin?

Nope, that's not the way it works.

YOU made a claim, so YOU need to present supportive evidence that YOU used to form that belief, and led YOU to make that claim as if it were fact.

(And in your explanation, you can assume you're talking to a roomful of people who are at least as educated as you.)

KateWild

Nope, that's not the way it works.-Adam

That's not the way you debate you mean. I want to talk about a topic that you have no idea about, I cannot give you evidence of my opinions because you don't understand about electron configurations. I cannot teach a room full fo people phys chem, but if they want to find the evidence for themselves they can.

Bohm and cantleave, are probably more educated than me, they get my point. You will if you invest the time to research the topic, give it 2/3yrs you will be up to speed. I don't need to prove anything to anyone Adam. I know what I am talking about.

Sam xx

I accept that science cannot prove the non-existence of God. But . . .

Share this