If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

gmark77 said:
Can't imagine why you feel the need to have nested multiple negatives in a sentence except to make yourself feel like you are smart by constructing such a golem.

Here's what it means: you believe there are gods. Now compare that with claim #1 you made. (map out the negatives. You do NOT believe there are NO gods which means you believe there are gods. It's grammar.)
Click to expand...
Nope.

 
IBDaMann said:
... and you don't even know what that means. You probably think they take the stairs.


You aren't telling anyone anything. You are, however, EVADING your denial of randomness in the universe.
Click to expand...
It's not random when you can predict exactly when something's going to happen.

That's like saying it's random if you turn on your light switch and a light bulb starts to produce light.
 
ZenMode said:
Again....if you are already a believer, you find evidence (proof) of your god all around you. A beautiful sunrise is evidence of a god. A fortuitous stroke of luck is evidence (proof) of your god. Something bad happening to someone is evidence that they don't believe in your god.

If you don't ALREADY believe in god, then all of the events listed above are just events, with no deity behind them. Some events are good luck...others are bad luck, etc. But, a non-believer could be convinced by a person walking on water, the clouds parting and divine beings floating down and talking to you. A dead person coming back from the dead after being dead for three days.

THOSE events, the actual evidence for divinity and godly powers don't happen today.
Click to expand...
That is what I said that you said. It is your justification for denying opposing evidence.
 
ZenMode said:
It's not random when you can predict exactly when something's going to happen.
Click to expand...
... and you cannot predict when any electron will collide with another electron. You deny randomness in the universe. Your position is stupid.

ZenMode said:
That's like saying it's random if you turn on your light switch and a light bulb starts to produce light.
Click to expand...
Nope. It's like saying that nobody can predict when any electron will collide with another electron.
 
IBDaMann said:
... and you cannot predict when any electron will collide with another electron. You deny randomness in the universe. Your position is stupid.


Nope. It's like saying that nobody can predict when any electron will collide with another electron.
Click to expand...
I said nothing about colliding. The movement of electrons, between levels, is not random.
 
Into the Night said:
I have no problem telling others my religion is true. Such a statement is not a proof.
Click to expand...
... but it is a statement. I enter the conversation with "I am not making any statement." Cypress then informs me that my lack of any statement is "militant" and expresses disbelief that I characterize my lack of any statement as not making any statement.

Then he says that your statement is "incoherent" ... but that his identical semantics are "coherent" when a special pleading fallacy is applied.

Into the Night said:
Every religious person feels their religion is true.
Click to expand...
Every religious person is convinced that his faith is true, otherwise he wouldn't hold that faith. The kicker is that he might be right.

Atheists are like the guy who never bought a lottery ticket; he can spend the ticket money on something else, but by not playing, he can't win.
 
Into the Night said:
Not necessarily. It is quite possible that the Universe exists, but it never 'came into existence'. It simply has always existed, and always will. This is the Theory of the Continuum, which is not a theory of science.
Click to expand...
I get it, but Cypress is specifically discounting this, claiming it as "incoherent." Ergo, within that context, existence necessarily means coming into existence, ... except when I pin him down on his deity, suddenly he needs to reach for the special pleading fallacy. Your theory doesn't have that problem.

Into the Night said:
He is locked on paradox on this question. He has claimed that God does not exist and exists at the same time.
Click to expand...
His claims shift with what he copy-pastes from the internet.

Into the Night said:
He simply believes in the Theory of the Big Bang. Believers in this religion often cause paradoxes as they try to define a cause of the Big Bang.
Click to expand...
Exactly. I always get a laugh when a Christian and a Marxist (who claims to be an atheist) begin debating the origin of the universe. The Marxist insists, with certainty, that everything was kicked off by the Big Bang 13.8 billion years ago, and that science has somehow confirmed this. The Christian then demands to know what caused the Big Bang. The Marxist insists that nothing caused the Big Bang, that it just happened. The Christian insists that nothing can just pop into existence out of nonexistence. The Marxist then asks the Christian "How did your deity come into existence?" The Christian insists that nothing caused his deity, that He always was. The Marxists insists that nothing just "exists forever" and that everything comes into existence at some point. The Christian then demands to know what caused the Big Bang. The Marxist insists that nothing caused the Big Bang, that it just happened. The Christian insists that nothing can just pop into existence out of nonexistence. The Marxist then asks the Christian "How did your deity come into existence?" The Christian insists that nothing caused his deity, that He always was. The Marxists insists that nothing just "exists forever" and that everything comes into existence at some point. The Christian then demands to know what caused the Big Bang. The Marxist insists that nothing caused the Big Bang, that it just happened. The Christian insists that nothing can just pop into existence out of nonexistence. The Marxist then asks the Christian "How did your deity come into existence?" The Christian insists that nothing caused his deity, that He always was. The Marxists insists that nothing just "exists forever" and that everything comes into existence at some point. The Christian then demands to know what caused the Big Bang. The Marxist insists that nothing caused the Big Bang, that it just happened. The Christian insists that nothing can just pop into existence out of nonexistence. The Marxist then asks the Christian "How did your deity come into existence?" The Christian insists that nothing caused his deity, that He always was. The Marxists insists that nothing just "exists forever" and that everything comes into existence at some point. The Christian then demands to know what caused the Big Bang. The Marxist insists that nothing caused the Big Bang, that it just happened. The Christian insists that nothing can just pop into existence out of nonexistence. The Marxist then asks the Christian "How did your deity come into existence?" The Christian insists that nothing caused his deity, that He always was. The Marxists insists that nothing just "exists forever" and that everything comes into existence at some point. ...

... then they actually start to repeat themselves.


Into the Night said:
Believers of the Big Bang should really leave well enough alone and not try to define a cause of it.
Click to expand...
It's funny you should mention that. I have just such a theory, but then again, I don't treat it like a religion.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top