- Thread starter
- #121
You're claiming God doesn't exist, without evidence. How do you feel about making those specious unsupported claims?I'm not making claims to supernatural entities. Did you forget you are the one making those claims?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
You're claiming God doesn't exist, without evidence. How do you feel about making those specious unsupported claims?I'm not making claims to supernatural entities. Did you forget you are the one making those claims?
Oh, I see. You absolve your self of the burden of proving your illogical claim. Very convenient. And if you've studied higher math, which I have,, you know it is very possible to construct a negative proof, provided one is possible.I'm not tasked with disproving your claimed "pwoofs". You are making the positive assertion for supernatural gods. Present a supportable argument.
That's incorrect. I made no claim that your gods are the only creators in the universe. I have no reason to accept any claims to any gods.I just find it that man knows so little, the tiniest fraction of all there is to know, yet you claim he is the only creator in the universe. There is nothing rational about tha conclusion.
But the fact is Christian religion = truth = science. 100% compatible. In fact Christianity is science mankind has yet to learn or understand.
My claim is quite clear. Your claims to supernatural entities tasks you with the burden of proof for those claims.Oh, I see. You absolve your self of the burden of proving your illogical claim. Very convenient. And if you've studied higher math, which I have,, you know it is very possible to construct a negative proof, provided one is possible.
I have no evidence of any gods having ever existed.You're claiming God doesn't exist, without evidence. How do you feel about making those specious unsupported claims?
I've already proven it.My claim is quite clear. Your claims to supernatural entities tasks you with the burden of proof for those claims.
You know you cannot so you sidestep and dodge.
You're changing it. You said man were the only creators in the universe. I'm asking you how that's possible since man knows very little compared to all there is to know.That's incorrect. I made no claim that your gods are the only creators in the universe. I have no reason to accept any claims to any gods.
Sorry, but "Christian religion = truth = science." is simply not true. You cannot make claims to truth and science with any discussion of primary events in the Bible. The act of creation, talking snakes, seas parting, men rising from the dead, global floods wiping most of humanity from the planet, etc., are all core elements of the Bible and mankind's existence on the planet. None of those primary elements are supported by truth or science.
I have disproven your argument. Prove I haven’t.I've already proven it.
Now it's your turn to prove otherwise.
You have failed to identify any science in connection with the act of creation, talking snakes, seas parting, men rising from the dead, global floods wiping most of humanity from the planet.You're changing it. You said man were the only creators in the universe. I'm asking you how that's possible since man knows very little compared to all there is to know.
There is no such thing as supernatural. The Christian religion is simply science you have yet to understand.
Just as man considered lightning supernatural until 1755.
Maybe you're making a case for some sort of First Cause. Now that's all fine and dandy, but now the onus is still on you to prove it was your version of this First Cause that was responsible for everything. You have as much proof for yours as I do for mine. I believe our Universe is the work of some hyperdimensional 6th grader, and we are his/hers/its science project.I've already proven it.
Now it's your turn to prove otherwise.
The problem is you define 'wise' as skillful in a particular area. I define it as one able to discern the best overall result for himself and others. I say it is not wise to scam old people, because that causes harm to those people and to society.First. I believe God exists.
Second. You have proven diddly squat.
A wise person is not good. People use intelligence and wisdom to deceive and abuse people all the time. Their victims are what you would call good. But unaware of the trickery.
According to your argument. The scammer stealing Grandma’s money is a great guy.
Take a look at the world. The worst people are the self described believers of God. People who are certain God supports their abusive behavior. If we use the followers of God as proof that God exists then we are left with the conclusion that God would have to be an abusive Racist jackass.
God isn’t. So the piety of the followers is not proof. Plenty of people use God to justify their abuse or racism.
Every weekend there are sporting events. Even professional athletes. There is always someone on the winning side who wishes to credit God with the victory. Yet no one on the losing side blames God for the defeat. We would be outraged if a Running Back said that God tripped him and made him fumble the ball costing the team the game. But we celebrate the jackass who credits God for the victory.
I look at the lives of the staunchest practitioners of Christian principles and see how unbelievably great those lives are. Then I look at the lives of very staunch atheists as observed how troubled those lives are. Intelligent people make the connection between the results and the validity of the belief system.Maybe you're making a case for some sort of First Cause. Now that's all fine and dandy, but now the onus is still on you to prove it was your version of this First Cause that was responsible for everything. You have as much proof for yours as I do for mine. I believe our Universe is the work of some hyperdimensional 6th grader, and we are his/hers/its science project.
You mean outside of the world as you understand it.The various bibles are replete with events outside of the natural, rational world, thus, the supernatural.
You have never addressed the fact that the staunchest practitioners of Christianity, the canonized saints, have lived extraordinary lives as defined by most logical rational people, and often have accomplished unbelievable feats, while atheists lead all belief groups in alcoholism, drug dependence, broken relationships, and suicides.I have disproven your argument. Prove I haven’t.
See. This is the problem the religioner has when he fails to support his claims.
You mean outside of the world as you understand it.
And mankind doesn't understand much, do we? Imagine there are six septillion stars out there, and yet we can't even travel to the nearest planet. So what gives you the idea that we have any basis of determining what is rational or natural in terms of science?
Your idolization of "saints" does nothing to support the notion of supernatural gods.You have never addressed the fact that the staunchest practitioners of Christianity, the canonized saints, have lived extraordinary lives as defined by most logical rational people, and often have accomplished unbelievable feats, while atheists lead all belief groups in alcoholism, drug dependence, broken relationships, and suicides.
How do you explain that?
The problem is you define 'wise' as skillful in a particular area. I define it as one able to discern the best overall result for himself and others. I say it is not wise to scam old people, because that causes harm to those people and to society.
What people call themselves is irrelevant. It's what they do, what they truly believe, and how they act that counts.
You don't read the posts; you just blab. I've said repeatedly science and the Christian religion are 100% compatible, that Christianity =truth = science.I see this a lot from those with an anti-science agenda. Because not every question is answered, science, knowledge and learning is to be vilified and condemned as flawed and untrustworthy.
One could make the case that it was approximately the middle of the 19th century when tools and methods of science began to expand exponentially We began a transition away from superstitious beliefs thanks to the ever expanding success of science investigation and technology. The idea that science and reason are subordinate to fear and superstition is self-imposed blindness.
You want to denigrate science for not explaining the origin of the universe using “natural laws of physics”. Using those natural laws, science has largely (not entirely), explained the expansion of the universe to fractions of a second before Planck time, after the start of expansion. Those pesky natural laws of physics, motion, gravity seem to be consistent from Planck time going forward. Are you suggesting that natural laws are inferior and we need “un-natural laws” to gain a complete understanding?
Neat way to skirt the question. You aren't big on answering questions, are you? So I'll ask again:Your idolization of "saints" does nothing to support the notion of supernatural gods.