What constitutes adequate proof?

[PieAndChips]

It's logical, but impossible. Nothing can just exist without being created in some shape or form. Yeah, the area of outer-space may be 500 trillion years old and counting, but how do we really know when it started or not. It's odd.

An excellent comeback.
Yeah, i'm a christian.
like XequR says, science is developing more and more every year, but what troubles me about their theories. what caused the supposed "Big Bang"? and if it is true, how did everything before that form? science is theory, not logic. we are humane. Look at it from a Religious view.
Do you think it is possible that we appeared from nothing? look at your wallpaper, where did that material come from? Did someone randomly shit it out? look at your computer, how did they get the material to make it? Infact, WHO made it?
In my opinion, science is all based on theory. The bible is over 2000 years old, and it's the best selling book ever made. And it has eye-witness logs of Jesus' reign on the earth.
if you really are curious about this, pick up a bible, and read the first book of the bible, which is "Genesis". if anyone has any questions about what i have said, or want to flame me about it, Just PM me or add the MSN in my signature.

Aaron.

 

[Angelmax]

I felt the need to tell you so I can be ENLIGHTENED on what it's about.

This is my thread, I'll tell you about anything I would like.

Don't like? Get off.

I answered your question, it's expected you would have the courtesy to atleast skim through what I posted for you.

 

[Angelmax]

An excellent comeback.
Yeah, i'm a christian.
like XequR says, science is developing more and more every year, but what troubles me about their theories. what caused the supposed "Big Bang"? and if it is true, how did everything before that form? science is theory, not logic. we are humane. Look at it from a Religious view.

Could you please stop posting in multiple colours? It's incredibly annoying to read and respond to.

"Science is theory, not logic." Where the hell did you pull this from? A scientific theory is an idea proposed to explain a phenomenon by relying on observation and inference. You are confusing theory with hypothesis.

For example, the 'theory' of gravity. In a nutshell, a scientist makes an observation (things fall to the ground), and attempts to reconcile this observation with previous knowledge (things have mass). He then proposes an explanation, called a hypothesis.

A hypothesis is then tested empirically. If it stands up to testing, it is accepted as the best explanation to suit the evidence. It then becomes a theory.

In my opinion, science is all based on theory. The bible is over 2000 years old, and it's the best selling book ever made. And it has eye-witness logs of Jesus' reign on the earth.

So what? If I wrote a story about my eye witness account of a talking television and it became a bestseller, it by no means becomes true.

if you really are curious about this, pick up a bible, and read the first book of the bible, which is "Genesis". if anyone has any questions about what i have said, or want to flame me about it, Just PM me or add the MSN in my signature.

Go away. If you want to post your opinion, no matter how idiotic it may be, you can.

 

It's logical, but impossible. Nothing can just exist without being created in some shape or form. Yeah, the area of outer-space may be 500 trillion years old and counting, but how do we really know when it started or not. It's odd.

Your statement is a contradiction. Something which is logical, which follows from correct premises, can't also be impossible.

That you did not understand my argument is clear. That you are injecting prejudice is also clear.

Nothing can just exist without being created in some shape or form.

This is a fallacy called begging the question, also known as circular reasoning. It is highly popular within religions. You cannot just assert what you are trying to prove as a premise, for you have proved nothing; It is a baseless assertion. The same as saying "God exists because god exists." It is not an argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Begging_the_question

 

[WhynateWhy]

I kept my silence when Sythe announced he wanted to crucify us on the cross of autism. I did nothing when he tried to perpetuate what we all know is a corrupt system. But his latest memoirs are the straw that breaks the camel's back. One of the first facts we should face is that he spews lies as easily as a cuttlefish squirts out ink. That's just a fancy way of saying that I frequently talk about how every concert that Sythe attends rapidly degenerates into a free-for-all of slam dancing and scattered fistfights. I would drop the subject except that we can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we really have to stick to the facts and offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts.

Sythe is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in his own biases, gets into all sorts of viperine speculation, and then makes no effort to test out his speculations—and that's just the short list! Without beating around the bush, I'll tell you now what I have concluded about his cold-blooded, dirty pronouncements. I've concluded that the acid test for Sythe's "kinder, gentler" new epithets should be, "Do they still elevate two-faced scroungers to the sublime?" If the answer is yes then we can conclude that it is not uncommon for Sythe to victimize the innocent, penalize the victim for making any effort to defend himself, and then paint the whole pusillanimous affair as some great benefit to humanity.

You don't need me to tell you that Sythe's wisecracks are continually evolving into more and more brutal incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how some people think it's a bit extreme of me to work together towards a shared vision—a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that Sythe's reason is not true reason. It does not seek the truth but only craven answers, mephitic resolutions to conflicts. I refuse to indulge Sythe's foibles, and deep down in our bones, we all know why. One final point: Sythe has failed to provide us with a context in which his hijinks could be discussed and understood.

 

I kept my silence when Sythe announced he wanted to crucify us on the cross of autism. I did nothing when he tried to perpetuate what we all know is a corrupt system. But his latest memoirs are the straw that breaks the camel's back. One of the first facts we should face is that he spews lies as easily as a cuttlefish squirts out ink. That's just a fancy way of saying that I frequently talk about how every concert that Sythe attends rapidly degenerates into a free-for-all of slam dancing and scattered fistfights. I would drop the subject except that we can never return to the past. And if we are ever to move forward to the future, we really have to stick to the facts and offer only those arguments that can be supported by those facts.

Sythe is careless with data, makes all sorts of causal interpretations of things without any real justification, has a way of combining disparate ideas that don't seem to hang together, seems to show a sort of pride in his own biases, gets into all sorts of viperine speculation, and then makes no effort to test out his speculations—and that's just the short list! Without beating around the bush, I'll tell you now what I have concluded about his cold-blooded, dirty pronouncements. I've concluded that the acid test for Sythe's "kinder, gentler" new epithets should be, "Do they still elevate two-faced scroungers to the sublime?" If the answer is yes then we can conclude that it is not uncommon for Sythe to victimize the innocent, penalize the victim for making any effort to defend himself, and then paint the whole pusillanimous affair as some great benefit to humanity.

You don't need me to tell you that Sythe's wisecracks are continually evolving into more and more brutal incarnations. Here, I'm not just talking about evolution in a simply Darwinist sense; I'm also talking about how some people think it's a bit extreme of me to work together towards a shared vision—a bit over the top, perhaps. Well, what I ought to remind such people is that Sythe's reason is not true reason.

Let's assume all this is true. What does it have to do with the content of the arguments that I present?

If you can't address my arguments then you have nothing to say.

You don't like the nature of reality, the application of logic to facts? Here is the spam forum. -- Go be a sophist of any stripe you like.

Also I expect an apology for this hideous ad-hominem; I am sorry you believe in God, but not because he doesn't exist.

It does not seek the truth but only craven answers, mephitic resolutions to conflicts. I refuse to indulge Sythe's foibles, and deep down in our bones, we all know why.

This is easily the funniest part of this oh-so ridiculously over the top insult. You refuse to meet my 'untrue' truth with reason because... why? Because you don't have any argument to level against it. Because you're a god damn sophist, as evidenced so eloquently in this little religious sermon of yours. You probably spent two hours writing it, and not once do you give a single reference to an actual error I have made. And I'll be the first to admit that I have made plenty of errors of logic in the past. -- This is the purpose of coming to a debate, to reason out the truth of a matter; and to educate those who misunderstand and who lack knowledge of what they don't know, such that they can learn and become adept scholars in the future.

The only person being crucified here is yourself, and by your own hands. The worst part for you, is this. When you realize what you have done, you will hate yourself for it. And no punishment can be worse than that. And if you think you've hurt me, you will quickly realize how wrong you are on this count also. It's not about me, none of it is. It is only about the ideas and the application of reason and logic to reality; To find the true nature of things.

The sophists such as yourself? They already hate me. To whom do you write your slop? To the other religious zealots hiding in the shadows? They are already your shameful allies. You call for blood, but to whom?

On the nature of evil:
It's not free. It's never free. You pay in blood... your blood... for all the evil you do. One day you will learn just how true this statement is.

 

[WhynateWhy]

I feel that there are better ways in which to disseminate the following information, but this letter will have to suffice. The first thing I want to bring up is that Sythe's secret passion is to manipulate public understanding of unilateralism. For shame! Anyone with an IQ two points higher than a wet sponge's knows that no matter how much Sythe's put-downs are rationalized, they still do everything possible to keep denominationalism-oriented politicos profligate and deranged. But, even so, Sythe's crusades are as predictable as sunrise. Whenever I speak up and speak out against Sythe, his invariant response is to quash other people's opinions


Edit: I will continue to make my point sythe you will not squash my opinions any longer.

 

[OldFinn]

Sythe: He used a random essay generator, hence the ridiculous assertions. Time-wasting idiot. Forumbanned...

 

The first thing I want to bring up is that Sythe's secret passion is to manipulate public understanding of unilateralism.

Firstly, what is 'the public understanding of unilateralism'. I would honestly like to know.

For shame! Anyone with an IQ two points higher than a wet sponge's knows that no matter how much Sythe's put-downs are rationalized, they still do everything possible to keep denominationalism-oriented politicos profligate and deranged. But, even so, Sythe's crusades are as predictable as sunrise. Whenever I speak up and speak out against Sythe, his invariant response is to quash other people's opinions

Can we drop the filler please. If you have legitimate criticisms of my ideas, then please share those criticisms. Otherwise leave.

Edit: I will continue to make my point sythe you will not squash my opinions any longer.

Please do express your opinions, just stop with the ad-hominem. If you embark on another one I'll probably have to kick you from this forum.

 

Sythe: He used a random essay generator, hence the ridiculous assertions. Time-wasting idiot. Forumbanned...

Unforumban him. I want to see what happens.

It had occurred to me it looks a little strange.

 

[OldFinn]

As you wish. Excoriate him!

 

[WhynateWhy]

First off i did use a random essay generator, but in fact it did state what needed to be said.

Sythe, you are close minded, you are not open to anyones opinion and think that you are above everyone else with your intellect, you need to realize that your oponions are OPINIONS not facts.
You swim in a cesspool of egotism and it is disgusting.

 

Sythe, you are close minded, you are not open to anyones opinion and think that you are above everyone else with your intellect, you need to realize that your oponions are OPINIONS not facts.
You swim in a cesspool of egotism and it is disgusting.

No. When you apply the rigor of reason and logic to the facts of reality, and thereby derive conclusions, this is called the truth. It is distinct from opinion, which is prejudice and speculation. This is why I say: attack the arguments, not the man.

On the subject of opinion and prejudice:
What is it that you think you are doing here in this thread exactly? It, in fact, is the case that you are the bigot imposing your unreasoned opinion that "all statements are opinion." You are committing a fallacy of self-contradiction in stating that "it is the fact that there are no such thing as facts."

Further, if you ever use an essay generator again in this forum you will be perm banned from the site. This disgusting behaviour will not be tolerated.

 

[WhynateWhy]

1.Hey, let's all go out and sow the seeds of discord!
2.Your thinking is fenced in by many constraints.
3.Your baleful initiatives are intended to rot out the minds of all freedom-loving, free-thinking people.
Get out of the kitchen and if you can't stand the heat

What I am doing in this thread is arguing a point with you that you need to get through your communist mind.


Either way, I am done here.
I have made my point.
You have made yours.

No I don't fear your superior egotistical intellect.

I'm just not going to bother

 

1.Hey, let's all go out and sow the seeds of discord!
2.Your thinking is fenced in by many constraints.
3.Your baleful initiatives are intended to rot out the minds of all freedom-loving, free-thinking people.
Get out of the kitchen and if you can't stand the heat

What I am doing in this thread is arguing a point with you that you need to get through your communist mind.

Alright you're banned now. I gave you fair and ample warning about posting garbage generated either by the cavity which should house your brain or by software you did not write and will never be capable of writing.

Either way, I am done here.
I have made my point.
You have made yours.

No, you're done here because I revoke your permission to use my server.

 

[Finally_Found_Freedom]

Stop trying to find proof for God: God is like reality, like parallel lines. All you can do is decide if you believe in some sort of higher power than humanity. If you don't, then don't believe God exists. If you do, then you must perceive God as the ultimate presupposition. Presuppositions must exist as a foundation to logical thought. As a presupposition it physically can't be proven; all you can do is describe God or understand God.

As well, while you can't prove or disprove God's existence, you can prove the coherency, need or incoherency of God.

 

[z0mg str]

Christians don't need proof, they have faith, Jesus said "believe and you will be saved".. this thread has been done to death.

 

[Gurtaton]

Christians don't need proof, they have faith, Jesus said "believe and you will be saved".. this thread has been done to death.

You mean that this topic has been done to death.

Me? I don't believe in God, but I do believe that there is a possibility that He does exist. I said it before, "There is no proof that God exists, but however there is also no proof that God doesn't exist".

The Big Bang theory is bullshit IMO.

God - The theory of a person who created everything in 7 days.

If this is true, then how was God created?

God is not a person, He is considered the Most Powerful being. The 7 days thing is just a theory. Just because you read stuff like this in the Bible (which is so fucking changed by man) doesn't mean you should believe in it. And God says that He has no End and no Beginning. I find this weird to be honest. Yes, you can have no End if you're immortal, but what about the Beginning?

 

[XequR]

You mean that this topic has been done to death.

Me? I don't believe in God, but I do believe that there is a possibility that He does exist. I said it before, "There is no proof that God exists, but however there is also no proof that God doesn't exist".

The Big Bang theory is bullshit IMO.



God is not a person, He is considered the Most Powerful being. The 7 days thing is just a theory. Just because you read stuff like this in the Bible (which is so fucking changed by man) doesn't mean you should believe in it. And God says that He has no End and no Beginning. I find this weird to be honest. Yes, you can have no End if you're immortal, but what about the Beginning?

You should read up on my OP before you say stupid shit.

Just because you read stuff like this in the Bible

1. I never said I read the bible, nor have I ever or will ever read it.

doesn't mean you should believe in it.

2. As stated, I don't believe in God, nor do I believe he created the world in seven days, and also, I stated it's a theory, not a fact.

And God says that He has no End and no Beginning. I find this weird to be honest. Yes, you can have no End if you're immortal, but what about the Beginning?

3. Exactly, If you believe in shit like this, you're a mindless, simplistic idiot.

 

[aznguy94]

Ignoring the rest of the idiocy already saturating this thread, I'll address this line of reasoning with my own thoughts.

Time is only an abstraction of rates of change. That is: that which we measure to be time is simply the rate of spin of the earth with respect to the rate of completion of other cycles and processes. As such, time is a comparison or measurement, much like a distance.

The error you have made is a fallacy called Reification or concrete-ism. You have turned an abstract concept (time) into a concrete, thence forming this erroneous concept of "before time" or "the beginning of time" and "the end of time." These are no more real concepts than "before any distance", "the beginning of all distances", "the end of all distance".

If you throw away the abstraction of time and just deal in causality, then it is plain to see that there is simply no reason to expect that the universe has not always existed: If matter exists now, and if matter cannot be created or destroyed, then, logically, matter has always existed. Thus it follows that the matter in the universe (and therefore the universe as a whole) has always existed, and there is apparently nothing illogical about this.

What is the big bang then? If all matter always existed, why did this singularity one day "explode" and cause the big bang? It seems like you're suggesting some sort of big bang/big crunch cyclical process, but I'm not even sure there's much evidence behind that.

I'm atheist and I believe in the big bang, but it's really an incomplete theory right now as scientists don't really know everything about it (nor do they claim to, unlike religion).

As for god always existing and creating the universe, there's no logic in this as the universe always existing is a much simpler and more provable likeliness...