by Delta20 234 Replies latest watchtower bible
well if a god could be the being creator of everything from nothing (we don't know about that = no proof)
we are half an tiny ovule and half a even more tiny spermatozoïde (at least we know about that)
so what about INTELIGENT MATERIEL from unknow materiel (maybe invisible or too tiny) to being (if you can believe in a god from nothing even him could come from that ... so why not everything)
And speaking of stupid designs, I suggest we glance between our legs. What sort of idiot enginneer puts a major recreational area in a sewage treatment plant?
LOL @ Gollum!
this notion of a god outside time and space is just an example of magical thinking... you can play any game you wish with
such a god... but it always ends up in silly illogical and irrational notions...
such as this god knows EXACTLY how everything WILL and HAS happened, yet can change anything he wishes...
and so few see how stupid that is.
and this all knowing God is not insane for demanding his creature be exactly what he knew, before he made them, what they would not be?
futher, this God is completely fair, even though the game is obviously rigged from the beginning.
and he loves you even though he always knew you would end up in hell... and he did nothing to change it, because, after all, he did not want to save everyone, but of course he did... but couldn't? because your will over rode his on some occasions, while on others he gave you faith, etc.
its the perfect excuse machine for any con artistry... there is no need for them to prove their god exists, and if you doubt anything they say, no matter how stupid, you are damned to hell for your lack of credulity.... I mean faith.
Derek:. It's certainly conceivable that there's a complex invisible creator outside our universe that is not detectable in any way nor subject to the laws of our own universe nor even laws of logic. He may be able to make something out of nothing or square a circle, but without any evidence he's no more likely than the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUH).This is just a conscious choice there is no God. You dont have evidence, there is no God and you certainly do not have faith, due to your slant towards logic, all your left with is logic, and that can only negate what I claim is proof.(theistic) Disclaiming what I hold asproof does not negate Gods existence.I see no reason to believe in such a being, when there is no evidence.
Since, as I said before all the facts are not known. Since you cannot know all the facts it is illogical to say there is no God. IMHO its more honest to say there is not sufficient evidence.(for God)
Derek: In which case, we have no way of determining anything about such a being. Therefore, there is no reason to believe that such a being exists. Therefore, your theories prove nothing and we're right back where we started.
If you stumbled across a proof that proved that God existed would you be able to accept it. Does your predispostion allow you to entertain the thought? My point, you maybe hostile to any proof.
ellderwho:
This is just a conscious choice there is no God.
No, it's the most parsimonious conclusion based on the available evidence.
You dont have evidence, there is no God and you certainly do not have faith, due to your slant towards logic, all your left with is logic, and that can only negate what I claim is proof.(theistic)
If you claim your proof based on faith, then you've got nothing. Unless your faith is the same as mine, I'm never going to be convinced.
Disclaiming what I hold asproof does not negate Gods existence.
I never said it did. Replace God with the Invisible Pink Unicorn (PBUH) and the same applies.
If you stumbled across a proof that proved that God existed would you be able to accept it. Does your predispostion allow you to entertain the thought?
Of course. I can entertain all thoughts. But I will only believe based on evidence.
My point, you maybe hostile to any proof.
I may be. I've never seen any so I don't know for sure. But logic requires me to change my beliefs when the available evidence changes. Faith requires that you never change your beliefs. Which system is more likely to be "hostile to proof"?
elderwho,
In your response to Derek, you've committed at least two logical fallacies while claiming to be logical:
Since, as I said before all the facts are not known. Since you cannot know all the facts it is illogical to say there is no God. IMHO its more honest to say there is not sufficient evidence.(for God)
That's a classic burden-of-proof fallacy.
If you stumbled across a proof that proved that God existed would you be able to accept it. Does your predispostion allow you to entertain the thought? My point, you maybe hostile to any proof.
And here we go with an ad hominem one. Also you don't have any proof so you make up a situation in which there is one and try to discredit funkyderek for not accepting non-existing proof. This is a pathetic line of reasoning. Admit it.
Actually I've learned a few things from Derek's posts largely thanks to his painfully honest predisposition.
Pole
Also you don't have any proof so you make up a situation in which there is one and try to discredit funkyderek for not accepting non-existing proof. This is a pathetic line of reasoning. Admit it.
You lost me here.
Pole, Derek how would you account for the laws of logic?
Sorry to p*ss in anyone's chips, however here's just a few rambling thoughs:
What I find difficult is the incredible bigotry that cannot even tolerate the existence of the reasonable philosophical construst of a potential "god of the gaps", that some wish to adopt.
Derek:
If you claim your proof based on faith, then you've got nothing.
I disagree. It's a framework which some wish to adopt, especially given that all the data is not yet in, as I'm sure you'd be quick to agree with.
Unless your faith is the same as mine, I'm never going to be convinced.
Agreed. Is that really what's being attempted here, though. Isn't it rather that some are attempting to present their framework to understanding biogenesis. That doesn't mean that you need to agree with it, at all, especially given that you feel the data is inadequate to reach such a conclusion. Alternatively, if they are attempting to proselytise, feel free to go for their jugular, with my total support
Each of us hold "beliefs" based on what we see as reasonable, otherwise we would have difficulty even deluding ourselves.
Personally I like the idea of there being "someone" who gave creation a nudge, now and then, to keep it on course. I suspect that some days that "someone" was having a laugh. I can't prove it, though.
There are lots of things I can't prove. I still rest easy at night.
