JSV said:
Hey...missed you sister...on holi away from "nut school" ?
Existence of God ~ Which is more rational ~ Atheism or Belief in God
- Thread starter Mr Average
- Start date
Hey...missed you sister...on holi away from "nut school" ?
The King said:Hey...missed you sister...on holi away from "nut school" ?
Did you meet her by PM'ing her?
JSV said:
Ohhh...looks like it did not do much for you...did it, lil girl!
The King said:Ohhh...looks like it did not do much for you...did it, lil girl!
Oh, I thought you meant you missed my sister. I was just remarking about how you must have reeled her in with your seductive PM's...
The King said:Better than an empty vessel..aint it
Erm ... the milk would probably disappear from a cracked pot making it an empty vessel.
Behold the miracle of the cracked pot.
The King said:Does that matter? Just becos a few idiots here seem to be blind, biased and a lil cowardy, does not mean i am wrong.
And whats amusing is, some on here think you are intelligent..hahhha...for someone who does not even know the fecking diff bet elementary osmosis and diffusion...now thats a joke isnt it!
What is elementary osmosis and how does it differ from normal osmosis. Maybe the semi permiable membrane in question surrounds your brain which is now a tad soggy.
And since you failed to look up the word "rational" in a dictionary why not try looking up the word "nobody".
JSV said:
This could run and run. Wibble said:Erm ... the milk would probably disappear from a cracked pot making it an empty vessel.
Behold the miracle of the cracked pot.
But an empty vessel which talks science would be a bigger miracle..wouldn't Wibbs?
Wibble said:
Again, what is rational and irrational? And who defines it? Do all unexplainable events in the world have a rational explanation? If it did, why is there a word called Mystery in the dictionary?
Osmosis? Oh please Wibbs...do ask our resident science expert NickM on this...
JSV said:
Shit..stop looking at the mirror with a panty on dude...
well i was thereThe King said:
and i did saw more than 90% of milk feed dripping and some of it getting soaked
they even showed later milk valleys were created outside temples
even scientists later showed it was a hoax with a little amt of milk being soaked
look i don have a problem that u believe in god
but surely a educated person like u cant believe in this sort of crap
why in the world would u think if god existed , he would start drinking milk from a stone idol
The King said:But an empty vessel which talks science would be a bigger miracle..wouldn't Wibbs?
A talking ceramic pot, cracked or not, full or empty, which talked (science or another subject) would be no more credible than a thirst statue.
Or were you trying to be funny? If so please stop it.
The King said:Again, what is rational and irrational? And who defines it?
To you rational is anything you choose to believe irrespective of evidence. Irrational is anyone who doesn't agree with you. As I have said before, try a dictionary definition and you will see where you are going wrong.
Do all unexplainable events in the world have a rational explanation?
Of course they do.
If it did, why is there a word called Mystery in the dictionary?
Because we don't know all of the rational and logical answers yet.
Osmosis? Oh please Wibbs...do ask our resident science expert NickM on this...
Are you suggesting that because someone might have used the word osmosis instead of capillary action that this in any way proves your mystic thirst statue theory? Strange line of reasoning yet again. Funny that.
What a thread
Those that worship god v. those that worship the god of reason and history
Its a debate thats going to go nowhere fast
Those that worship god v. those that worship the god of reason and history
Its a debate thats going to go nowhere fast
Wibble said:
The King keeps going on about how I, supposedy incorrectly used the word 'osmosis' when I was suggesting to him, on the thread about the fake moonlandings I think, about how some higher quality information might enter his mind, if he was lucky. The idiot failed to realise I used the word as a figure of speech, not as a literal scientific description, and I really couldn't be arsed to correct him.
However, since he keeps banging on about it, here you are King, *both* dictionary definitions of the word 'osmosis' (from dictionary.com). I am not expecting an apology though, just another shitstorm of insults and non sequiters designed to distract from his almost medieval levels of ignorance.
Osmosis:
1. Diffusion of fluid through a semipermeable membrane from a solution with a low solute concentration to a solution with a higher solute concentration.
2. A gradual, often unconscious process of assimilation or absorption: learned French by osmosis while residing in Paris for 15 years.
mathiaslg said:What a thread
Those that worship god v. those that worship the god of reason and history
Its a debate thats going to go nowhere fast
Nope. It is meant to be about what is more rational.
And it has gone somewhere. It has demonstrated beyond all doubt that The King doesn't understand the meaning of the word rational
nickm said:
Don't tell me believes that the moon landings were faked? Or rather do. I could do with an even better laugh.
Better watch out though Nick. He might start talking about your sister or JSV wearing pantys for no apparent reason. If you are really out of favour he will call you DUDE. Not sure I can take the withering put downs myself
And I think I have come up with a definative test of ultimate truth. All you have to do is state a theory, any theory. If The King thinks it is true then discard it and if he pours scorn upon it it can be assumed to be 100% true.
crappycraperson said:
You saw it? Where? and was it on the actual day itself or on another day. I was there and did it myself, several times and so did millions. The video posted is evidence that there was no milk being spilt. Even among believers of God, there are millions who are educated and we can spot a poof a mile off. There are thousands of fake "saints" gog ard pretending to be holy men and doing miracles. But we can spot them and not believe them. So its not really correct to assume that believers of God would accept anything and everything put infront of them. We do have a sense of discrimination and we can spot what is real and what is not.
Scientists showed it was a hoax? Show me the proof. Where in the world did a scientist gv a logical explanation to idols, made not only of stone, but metal, wood, alloy etc having the capability of surping milk due to capilary action. I am waiting with bated breath.
Have you heard of the term "God works in mysterious ways"? As i said we may not know why it happened, possibly some meaning to it. One of it i did explain earlier.
Do not assume that educated or uneducated people follow blindly. We can see genuinety as opposed to fake. Esp if there was a human involved. The world knows of Sai Baba, he has performed many miracles, infront of the camera even. But i am still sceptical abt him. I am not 100% convinced abt his enlightened stature. So you see, realising or believeing in God is a personal thing. It has to come from within.
Wibble said:
So tell me why the tin can between your shoulders perceives God as a Non Existant instead of a Mystery?
You have mentioned through your own limited intellect that there are mysteries and they are mysteries cos you may not have found a logical or rational answer yet. So tell me now, what is the Rational or logical answer to God being Bollocks.
And pls, dont gv me that whinging baby tantrums of garbage that you are so capable of. Since you are such an exponent of RATIONAL thoughts, you must surely hv a rational explanation for there being no such thing as GOD. If you do not, then maybe this entire argument would swing to God being a mystery would't it?
Awaiting....
nickm said:
...nice try dude...trying to hide your eroneous mistake as usual.... I just hope that the theory of diffusion would hv aided you through all this banter and chat... Wibble said:Nope. It is meant to be about what is more rational.
And it has gone somewhere. It has demonstrated beyond all doubt that The King doesn't understand the meaning of the word rational
And i am awaiting the great exponent of Rationalism in giving a rational explanation behind why God is fake and does not exist...with facts ofcourse, cos science is all abt facts aint it...
The King said:So tell me why the tin can between your shoulders perceives God as a Non Existant instead of a Mystery?
Ah Abuse. Now I believe you
And for the 100th time I do not believe in the existence of a God because there is no evidence of there being such an organism. This is based on the absence of evidence. If evidence became available that was reliable and testable I would rexamine my position. Happily it is 99.99% sure that I won't have to. This is a rational viewpoint. If you believe despite the absence of evidence (or imaginary evidence like you use) then this is called faith which is not rational. Please believe and have faith but don't pretend that it is a rational view. You can't have it both ways.
You have mentioned through your own limited intellect that there are mysteries and they are mysteries cos you may not have found a logical or rational answer yet. So tell me now, what is the Rational or logical answer to God being Bollocks.
More abuse
Mysteries are phenomone that occur which we do not have a full explanation for. Such phenomonen include you huffing and puffing away in this thread despite what is obvious to everyone else. Religion/God is not a mystery because it can be explained very well.
And pls, dont gv me that whinging baby tantrums of garbage that you are so capable of.
And I think that your inability or unwillingness to uderstand what I am saying is the problem.
Since you are such an exponent of RATIONAL thoughts, you must surely hv a rational explanation for there being no such thing as GOD. If you do not, then maybe this entire argument would swing to God being a mystery would't it?
Awaiting....
So you are saying that everything that cannot be proven to be non-existent actually exists due to this lack of proof. Now I know why you believe in Astrology, fake moon landings and thirsty statues.
Laugh all you ant mate but if you can't disprove something by all known intelectual and scinetific means it is proven.Wibble said:
and like Sherlock Holmes said:
"Once you have eliminated the impossible. what ever remains however imporbable must be the truth!"
kemo said:Laugh all you ant mate but if you can't disprove something by all known intelectual and scinetific means it is proven.
and like Sherlock Holmes said:
"Once you have eliminated the impossible. what ever remains however imporbable must be the truth!"
Complete and utter bollocks.
And no doubt you will log on as Chief Indian Torn Rubber in a moment to agree with yourself.
And it will still be utter bollocks
And it will still be utter bollocks
The King said:
Look it up, asshole.
Wibble said:And it has gone somewhere. It has demonstrated beyond all doubt that The King doesn't understand the meaning of the word rational
I'm amazed you expected an innately irrational person to understand the meaning of the word rational. It shows you have far greater hope for humanity than I do
mathiaslg said:I'm amazed you expected an innately irrational person to understand the meaning of the word rational. It shows you have far greater hope for humanity than I do
kemo said:Laugh all you ant mate but if you can't disprove something by all known intelectual and scinetific means it is proven.
and like Sherlock Holmes said:
"Once you have eliminated the impossible. what ever remains however imporbable must be the truth!"
Unfortunately being unable to disprove something is not the same as eliminating the possibility of disproof. Or proof for that matter.
Wibble said:
Maybe i would hv to put it to you in simpler terms. For example, Extra terresterials are considered mysteries arent they. There is no scientific evidence they exist so why are they considered mysteries instead of Non Existent? Becos there is a possibility? And where does this assesement come from?
St. Thomas Aquinas advances five proofs for the existence of God. "The first is the argument from motion, which holds that all motion presupposes the existence of something which is not itself subject to motion. Motion implies a motionless ground. The motion that characterises the world ought to be logically preceded by an unmoved Mover, an ultimate being who is not moved by anything else, who ought to be the basis of the motion of all things. The second is the causal argument that, as every effect has a cause, the causal chain would lead to an endless regress if a final uncaused Cause is not posited. Without the admission of such a Cause, the very concept of causality, which holds sway over the world, would lose its meaning. The final cause has, therefore, no other cause outside itself, it is the final Form without matter in it. The third is the cosmological argument which points out that all contingent events necessarily imply an eternal substance which itself is not contingent. The very consciousness of finitude gives rise to the consciousness of the infinite. The fourth is the henological argument, according to which the concept of more and less in the things of this world signifies the existence of a maximum value whose manifestation in various degrees creates in us and in things the idea of more or less of value. The various grades of relative perfection and imperfection in the world indicate that there ought to be an absolute state whose partial revelations here give meaning to these relative expressions. The fifth is the teleological argument or the argument from design and adaptation, which infers the existence of God as the supreme intelligence, on the basis of the purposive adaptation seen in Nature and the ordered design for which it appears to be meant. The purpose that is discovered in Nature cannot be accounted for otherwise than by admitting the presence of a supremely intelligent Creator, a wise Architect of the universe. The different parts of the universe harmoniously fit in with one another's purposes, and adjust and adapt themselves for an end beyond themselves. All this shows that there ought to be a purposive Agent who has brought about all this adaptation, system and order in creation. God, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, is, therefore, One, the unmoved Mover, the causeless Cause, the eternal Substance, the highest Perfection, supreme Intelligence, and the Maximum of being."
Its pretty easy to prove that God exists from an Ontological perspective. If i define God to be X, then i can perceive X thus God does exist doesnt he? Even science cant refute that.
Our entire worlds existence cannot be accredited to chance. Its quite dumb to claim that everything evolving, developed and developing is by pure chance and it did not need an engineer of biblical proportion. "Suppose you put ten pennies, marked from one to ten, into your pocket and give them a good shuffle. Now try to take them out in sequence from one to ten, putting back the coin each time and shaking them all again. Mathematically we know that your chance of first drawing number one is one in ten; of drawing one and two in succession, one in 100; of drawing one, two and three in succession, one in 1000, and so on; your chance of drawing them all, from number one to number ten in succession, would reach the unbelievable figure of one in ten billion.
By the same reasoning, so many exacting conditions are necessary for life on the earth that they could not possibly exist in proper relationship by chance. The earth rotates on its axis 1000 miles an hour at the equator; if it turned at 100 miles an hour, our days and nights would be ten times as long as now, and the hot sun would likely burn up our vegetation each long day while in the long night any surviving sprout might well freeze.
Again the sun, source of our life, has a surface temperature of 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is just far enough away so that this "eternal life" warms us just enough and not too much ! If the sun gave off only one half its present radiation, we would freeze, and if it gave as much more, we would roast.
The slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23 degrees, gives us our seasons; if the earth had not been so tilted, vapors from the ocean would move north and south, piling up for us continents of ice. If our moon were, say, only 50,000 miles away instead of its actual distance, our tides might be so enormous that twice a day all continents would be submerged; even the mountains could soon be eroded away. If the crust of the earth had only been ten feet thicker, there would be no oxygen, without which animal life must die. Had the ocean been a few feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absorbed and no vegetable life could exist.
It is apparent from these and a host of other examples that there is not one chance in billions that life on our planet is an accident."
There is ample proof of a creator all ard us. If you are saying that everything ard us which is functioning in such a perfect way is by chance, then there is really nothing scientific left. Why do we need science then, we can just assume that everything here is by chance, which would be a preposterous idea.
The King said:Maybe i would hv to put it to you in simpler terms. For example, Extra terresterials are considered mysteries arent they. There is no scientific evidence they exist so why are they considered mysteries instead of Non Existent? Becos there is a possibility? And where does this assesement come from?
Extra-terrestrials (in the little green men visiting us sense) are not a mystery to me because there is no credible evidence that they exist and until there is there is no "mystery" to be explained.
If you are talking about the probability of life having arisen elsewhere then there is very little tangible evidence but there is a great statistical liklehoood that it dos exist because of the millions of planets with similar characterisics to earth that probably exist. Sufficient to warrant further investigation at least.
St. Thomas Aquinas advances five proofs for the existence of God. "The first is the argument from motion, which holds that all motion presupposes the existence of something which is not itself subject to motion. Motion implies a motionless ground.
No it doesn't.
The motion that characterises the world ought to be logically preceded by an unmoved Mover, an ultimate being who is not moved by anything else, who ought to be the basis of the motion of all things.
I think this Thomas guy must have been a bit of a religious nut.
The second is the causal argument that, as every effect has a cause, the causal chain would lead to an endless regress if a final uncaused Cause is not posited. Without the admission of such a Cause, the very concept of causality, which holds sway over the world, would lose its meaning. The final cause has, therefore, no other cause outside itself, it is the final Form without matter in it.
The third is the cosmological argument which points out that all contingent events necessarily imply an eternal substance which itself is not contingent. The very consciousness of finitude gives rise to the consciousness of the infinite.
I bet you don't even understand that paragraph. And it is not much of an argument and seemingly unconnected to Cosmology.
The fourth is the henological argument, according to which the concept of more and less in the things of this world signifies the existence of a maximum value whose manifestation in various degrees creates in us and in things the idea of more or less of value.
You what?
The various grades of relative perfection and imperfection in the world indicate that there ought to be an absolute state whose partial revelations here give meaning to these relative expressions.
The fifth is the teleological argument or the argument from design and adaptation, which infers the existence of God as the supreme intelligence, on the basis of the purposive adaptation seen in Nature and the ordered design for which it appears to be meant.
Creationist bollocks
The purpose that is discovered in Nature cannot be accounted for otherwise than by admitting the presence of a supremely intelligent Creator, a wise Architect of the universe. The different parts of the universe harmoniously fit in with one another's purposes, and adjust and adapt themselves for an end beyond themselves.
More creationist bollocks. Remember the puddle?
All this shows that there ought to be a purposive Agent who has brought about all this adaptation, system and order in creation. God, according to St. Thomas Aquinas, is, therefore, One, the unmoved Mover, the causeless Cause, the eternal Substance, the highest Perfection, supreme Intelligence, and the Maximum of being."
This Thomas is an idiot. It is almost as if he has missed out on hundreds of years of scientific advances.
Its pretty easy to prove that God exists from an Ontological perspective. If i define God to be X, then i can perceive X thus God does exist doesnt he? Even science cant refute that.
Our entire worlds existence cannot be accredited to chance. Its quite dumb to claim that everything evolving, developed and developing is by pure chance and it did not need an engineer of biblical proportion. "Suppose you put ten pennies, marked from one to ten, into your pocket and give them a good shuffle. Now try to take them out in sequence from one to ten, putting back the coin each time and shaking them all again. Mathematically we know that your chance of first drawing number one is one in ten; of drawing one and two in succession, one in 100; of drawing one, two and three in succession, one in 1000, and so on; your chance of drawing them all, from number one to number ten in succession, would reach the unbelievable figure of one in ten billion.
You have no idea whatsoever how evolution and natural selection work do you? Go on, admit it.
By the same reasoning, so many exacting conditions are necessary for life on the earth that they could not possibly exist in proper relationship by chance. The earth rotates on its axis 1000 miles an hour at the equator; if it turned at 100 miles an hour, our days and nights would be ten times as long as now, and the hot sun would likely burn up our vegetation each long day while in the long night any surviving sprout might well freeze.
Again the sun, source of our life, has a surface temperature of 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit, and our earth is just far enough away so that this "eternal life" warms us just enough and not too much ! If the sun gave off only one half its present radiation, we would freeze, and if it gave as much more, we would roast.
The slant of the earth, tilted at an angle of 23 degrees, gives us our seasons; if the earth had not been so tilted, vapors from the ocean would move north and south, piling up for us continents of ice. If our moon were, say, only 50,000 miles away instead of its actual distance, our tides might be so enormous that twice a day all continents would be submerged; even the mountains could soon be eroded away. If the crust of the earth had only been ten feet thicker, there would be no oxygen, without which animal life must die. Had the ocean been a few feet deeper, carbon dioxide and oxygen would have been absorbed and no vegetable life could exist.
It is apparent from these and a host of other examples that there is not one chance in billions that life on our planet is an accident."
You must be retarded to believe this rubbish. If these conditions hadn't been present then life wouldn't have arisen would it? Puddles form where there are holes in the ground. Not by supernatural design.
There is ample proof of a creator all ard us. If you are saying that everything ard us which is functioning in such a perfect way is by chance, then there is really nothing scientific left. Why do we need science then, we can just assume that everything here is by chance, which would be a preposterous idea.
Microsoft has a great deal to answer for by including a copy and a paste function in their software. And if you think this rubbish is proof then you are even more clueless than I though.
Wibble said:
Oh gosh, what a simplton you are. You hv no end to your ignorance. It makes me laugh so much looking at your idiotic talent of discounting.
And you are quite a contradicting poof as well. One moment you say, there is no credible evidence of little green men and the next sentence you gv a statistical account that life could prob exist...muddled.
If there is a probability there, why would there be 0 probability that God exists? Since millions swear by it. You cant explain this cos its simple stats vs your illuminated dumbness.
As i have always said, God has to be experienced, not seen. If someone knocks your head, you can feel the pain but cant see it. But then again, your intellect is limited just like your reasoning. Its really ok if you do not believe in God, but do not put down others believes and say its all nonsense cos you would face the reprecussions. Cause and Effect, i am sure you know abt this...
nickm said:
Getting all upset trying to cover your silly mistake...what a jock dude!
spinoza said:
Unfortunately being unable to disprove something is not the same as eliminating the possibility of disproof. Or proof for that matter.
So do you believe in God Spin?
I just took 10 identical coins and marked the numbers one to ten on them then placed them back in my pocket. I was just in the process of giving them a good shuffle when the secretary happened by, exclaimed "God" and scuttled off looking all flustered, I'm convinced that he must exist now and don't even feel the need to count out the coins
I am still looking to debate anyone that wants to. I will argue the case for the view that belief in God is a more rational worldview, than strong Atheism.
By strong Atheism, I mean someone that "believes" there is no God. If you dont know, than you are agnostic.
In Peace, Mr Average.
By strong Atheism, I mean someone that "believes" there is no God. If you dont know, than you are agnostic.
In Peace, Mr Average.
Mr Average said:
FFS Mr. Average, why not post your thoughts. No one is going to bloody debate you in the format you so desire. So just tell us what you think. Its much easier that way. If it is serious, the serious people will deal with it as such.
The King said:
Ordinarily no, but I believe in the Pascal matrix.
The King said:Oh gosh, what a simplton you are. You hv no end to your ignorance. It makes me laugh so much looking at your idiotic talent of discounting.
I count you thinking of me as a simpleton as the highest possible complement.
And you are quite a contradicting poof as well. One moment you say, there is no credible evidence of little green men and the next sentence you gv a statistical account that life could prob exist...muddled.
Poof
And yet agin you fail to understand what I was saying about extraterrestrial life. Its almost deliberate
If there is a probability there, why would there be 0 probability that God exists? Since millions swear by it. You cant explain this cos its simple stats vs your illuminated dumbness.
Such an absolute as a nil possibility would be unusual and bordering on blinkered. However, millions believe all sorts of rubbish and of itself is a nothing argument which proves zilch.
As i have always said, God has to be experienced, not seen.
An evidence free experince I presume. In which case feel free to "believe" what you want in the absence of rational.
If someone knocks your head, you can feel the pain but cant see it.
Huh? Do you have a point?
But then again, your intellect is limited just like your reasoning.
Yet more abuse. Excellent.
Its really ok if you do not believe in God, but do not put down others believes and say its all nonsense cos you would face the reprecussions. Cause and Effect, i am sure you know abt this...
Thanks. I really needed your permission.
And I am not denying your right to believe in a god, just denying that there is a rational basis for your belief.
And I am very scared
mathiaslg said:
Well said mate.