giggzy said:Where exactly is this 'Heaven'?
Can I get there via space shuttle?
The last space shuttle crew ended up there.
giggzy said:Where exactly is this 'Heaven'?
Can I get there via space shuttle?
Wibble said:It costs me my intellectual integrity.
And if there did turn out to be a God and he frowns on people who demand evidence before "believing" in the potential existence of something then I want no part of him and his pathetic mind games anyway.
Wibble said:1) You are mad or deluded. Mass hysteria or fraud are the most likely explanations.
2) Astrology is complete and utter bollocks. Any scientific examinations that have taken place have shown that it's predictive powers are random (i.e.nil).
Is than the $10 debate or the $40 one.!!Mr Average said:Would you like to debate me?
RW
ukbob said:Is than the $10 debate or the $40 one.!!
So, you want a debate.?, or just to put across your belief.??
I will ask you one question a day, you give me a POSITIVE proven answer and we will move on.
1. When was God created.? How, by whom and for what purpose.
Bonus question. Why is Wibble not God and how do you know.?
redfan said:Look at it this way, if you are an atheist and I am a christian and when we both die we find out that my belief was unfounded then we both gain nothing, but if my God exists then I gain everything and you lose the lot. So do you sit on the fence or are you going to wait for 'Proof', remember it costs nothing to believe.
Mr Average said:This arguement is used frequently, but is a fallacy. What if there is a God, but it is not the Christian one?
In Peace, Mr Average
Mr Average said:This arguement is used frequently, but is a fallacy. What if there is a God, but it is not the Christian one?
In Peace, Mr Average
Red Indian Chief Torn Rubber said:1. If you can prove in which direction the universe is moving. (i.e north south east or west)
2. If you can scientifically state the date and place of birth of the universe. (No big bang theory crap)
3. If you can scientifically prove that God if he exists could not have created the world and allowed evolution to take place at the same time.
4. If you can scientifically prve there was no grerat flodd or the Yum Sup was never didvided for the Israelites to cross in to the mid east.
then you can say God does not beleive in him.
Till then his existence can't be disproved so belief in him is mandatory.
Mr Average said:The King Said---Are you sure you are not tt lil Wizard dude sprouting his Islamic gibberish? I have a strange feeling you are and am waiting for the pattern to evolve.
Definitely not.
You are assuming and misreading. Someone claimed that believing in the Christian God was a safer bet than being an atheist. I merely said, that arguement was false, because if there was a different God that would send you to hell for not believeing in him, then the line of reasoning falls flat.
I did not say he wouldnt. You are assuming.
The King Said---I think i know where this is headed,
I dnt think you do actually.
In Peace, Mr Average
The King said:If you believe in God, then you ought to believe that God is all mercifull and all loving cos we are all childrens of God.
can you explain that one pleasenickm said:he appears to show very little interest in his creations.
nickm said:Why? One does not necessarily follow the other.
You cannot make many deductions about God's character from the fact of his existence, other than if he exists, he appears to show very little interest in his creations.
Plechazunga said:
If an omnipotent, benevolent God existed, we wouldn't have had a history of horrible violence and slaughter, women would want the same things as men, and Abramovich wouldn't have bought Chelsea. Simple as.
nickm said:Why? One does not necessarily follow the other.
You cannot make many deductions about God's character from the fact of his existence, other than if he exists, he appears to show very little interest in his creations.
The King said:Maybe you misunderstood, the comparison bet the Christian God and an atheist is an example. Does not matter if it is a Christian or Muslim God. A God is above everything. Why would you even want to prescibe to the notion of a God having a religion? Your whole reasoning has holes, if there is a God, then there is A God, no need to argue beyond that to singularise which religion he belongs to.
Ok, lead us along and lets see if i am right or wrong.
So Mr Average, who is God to you? Does he have a name or religion? And how would he treat Non followers?
giggzy said:Where exactly is this 'Heaven'?
Can I get there via space shuttle?
WrongYou are . If you can't disprove the existence of something, by any known scientific means, then accept you must the absolutism of it's existence until you can prove other wise. So my friend if you can't by any known scientific methods prove fairies exist in your attic, pink ones that is, exist they do.Mr Average said:I am a believer in a creator being. However, your above statement is not quite correct.
It is up the claimants to prove he exists, rather than the objectors. The burden of proof always rests with the claimants.
If I claim that pink fairies live in my attic, and you cannot disprove it, does this mean they actually exist?
In Peace, Mr Average
spinoza said:Sorry nick, but you can't even deduce that.
He might be having a whale of a time for all we know, getting us to question his own existence while unconsciously doing his will.
vijay_vr said:He certainly loves all his creations.
vijay_vr said:He certainly loves all his creations.
Mr Average said:The King said---Maybe you misunderstood, the comparison bet the Christian God and an atheist is an example.
I understand fully thank you
The King said---Why would you even want to prescibe to the notion of a God having a religion?
In your reply, please clearly show where I prescribed to the above?
The King said---Your whole reasoning has holes,
please clearly show them then.
The King said---if there is a God, then there is A God
Pardon?
The King said---no need to argue beyond that to singularise which religion he belongs to.
please clearly show where I argued or attempted to singularise?
The King said---Ok, lead us along and lets see if i am right or wrong.
What about?
In Peace, Mr Average
nickm said:Why? One does not necessarily follow the other.
You cannot make many deductions about God's character from the fact of his existence, other than if he exists, he appears to show very little interest in his creations.
MagPie with broken wing said:Crystal Balls.....
They're my bag.
The King said:Well, you make deductions of evolution, science etc using literature/text available to you. And likewise, we believe God is all merciful using literature/text available to us. So i guess if you are right, so are we.
Wibble said:But what do the fuzzies tell you about this alleged God person?
nickm said:How, then, do you distinguish between what is 'real' in the bible, and what is myth or metaphor?
If you accept the bible is best understood as a mix of all those things, and is not a text to be taken totally 100% literally (as all but a fundie nutter would accept), how do you know what is to be believed, and what isn't? You have no way of checking it yourself, as in principle, you do in science.
The King said:Lets not restrict ourselves to just the Bible, lets take the holy books of the various religions.
- They speak of things which have happened in History(easily verifiable by historians, artifacts, paths etc).
Just taking the bible examples that spring to mind such as the Ark of the Covenant, Noah's Ark, Jesus rising from the dead (assuming he existed at all), Moses parting the Red Sea, Water turning into wine, the fish and bread trick etc etc - all complete and utter bollocks and completely unverifiable. In fact 99.9% of the bible and other "Holy" books are simple fantasy
- Certain religious books speak of science as well. Of mind, matter, evolution etc. These ideas complement what science exponds currently.
Tell me more. Although I fear the "evidence" will be about as convincing as a prediction from nostredamus
- Actual proof of incidents, marked out by satellite pictures(Adam's bridge), scientific experiments etc.
See above comments.
Yes, the holy books must not be taken literally. There is usually a large element of our own personal deduction based on the events or teachings.
Deduction? Surely you mean invention.
IMO, science and religion are not different.
In religion, one is urged to find God, internally or externally. By prayer, by searching within etc. Its a peron experiment in a way, conducted by a devotee on himself. He uses the various experiments to move forward in his search till he finds the ultimate truth, much like science isnt it?
Similar? Exact opposites in most ways. One aims to enlighten us and Religion aims to keep us in the dark ages
Let me ask you something. With all our technology, brains, intelligence, deductions etc, you have to agree that we cant find answers to things in our universe, ET, our own inability to utilise 100% of our brains, what happened before the Big Bang, IS evolution random?, Astrology etc.
I believe that we can eventually explain everything in scientific terms. Why not, it has done very well in a very short time.
According to latest thery there was nothing before the big band because that dimension was created by the big bang. I for one do not have the intellect to fully understand this issue and I doubt that there are many/any on here who do. Doesn't meant the theory is wrong though. Evolution is not random in the way you mean. And Astrology is bollocks and demonstrably so.
And do you think that the person who created this entire WORLD(if you believe in GOD) would be easy to find. That he would appear before you and say "Hi, its me" or maybe even comphrehend his very existence? Ofcourse effort is required in our part, similar to science, you have to put in dedication, effort, sweat to make something and its likewise!
Wibble said:I think that finding a person who created the world will take a bit more effort than you think.
Wibble said:I have exactly what it takes to discuss this matter, a mind unclouded by mysticism, fear or superstision.
You have not provided one iota of evidence to investigate. A statement of what you want to be true isn't evidence. You also seem very confused about the scientific process. You can not assume everything that you can't 100% disprove is true or you would have to assume that almost everything is true. Discworld would be true for example.
There are a number of ways of setting up hypotheses to test. Amongst these probably the two most frequently used methods are 1) Observation/evidence based hypothesis. Something you have seen/found might suggest a particular cause. You then assume a null hypothesis (i.e. assume it isn't true) and try to prove that null hypothesis. If your results show that there is a significant statistical difference between what you would have expected as a result from a null hypothesis then you might assume that you were on to something, which will stimulate further investigation, and 2) The Hypothetico-deductive method where you propose all possible explanations and systematically remove the possibles, one at a time, until you are left with the most likely one.
Test for the presence of god any way you like and the null hypothesis is true. After millions of years of worshiping the sun, rocks and now mythical entities we still have zero evidence upon which to base further investigation. The most rational explanation is the there is nothing to investigate. If you can prove otherwise you will be very rich indeed.
BTW the only "fact" you mention is "Adam's Bridge" which is just a chain of Islands and not a bridge of any description. Nothing more. NASA have publically stated that it is a group of islands. Although David Icke believes that it was an ancient bridge between India and Sri Lanka so it must be true
The King said:Lets not ding dong this anymore, i have given you a challenge, why not accept it instead of all this bollocks and gibberish talk!
You said Astrology is bollocks, i can prove it is exceptionally accurate. Even in your life. Ping me the details...if you believe in your hypothesis of tests!
Idol drinking milk - prove me that i am wrong, what data do you have that supports your claims that its mass hysteria when it was happening all over the world, even in the UK at the same time.
Common
Wibble said:Accept what challenge? Where is th evidence to analyse? It is insane to pick things you believe in (seemingly) at random and then "prove" them by saying they are true (theres no place like home, theres no place like home) and nthen claiming that it must be so because you can't 100% prove it aint so. You seem to think that the big bang theory is a joke despite there being lots of proof that it may be true yet you happily accept any crackpot theory that takes your fancy. By your muddle minded thinking the Big Bang must be true because you can't disprove it. Insanity.
Astrology has been scientificlly tested again and again and under conditions where cheating is prevented and blind tests are conducted and it has been shown to be a complete and utter failure at predicting anything.
I have had someone do my "chart" and it was either full of generalities (you like beer and football - no shit sherlock - since I was wearing a United shirt that was rather tight around the middle) or utterly wrong (you will marry 3 times - not looking good, you are scared of water - I was a SCUBA instructor at the time etc etc etc).
Idol drinking milk? You are either delusional or deluded as are all who believe such tosh. I'd love to see the proof
BTW what did you think of David Copperfield making the Statue of Liberty disappear?