|
I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
|
 RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
November 18, 2016 at 5:15 pm
(November 18, 2016 at 5:14 pm)Asmodee Wrote: That's an easy one. You want me to believe that magic is real, so, SHOW...ME...MAGIC! *Shows you stage magic*
"Never trust a fox. Looks like a dog, behaves like a cat."
~ Erin Hunter  RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
November 19, 2016 at 2:32 pm
Dear Pocaracas, you have not given me the link. And please no cussing (see below, ANNEX 1, his post, for dear readers your orientation).
That is the trouble with atheists here, they cuss all the time, and how can anyone have any productive exchange with them? So, dear atheists, what do you want to talk about, causation, or evidence, or the information on the concept of God from yours truly; here it is again as follows below, so read it and you have it, the information of the concept of God from yours truly, that is the God I want you to direct your comments to, and no cussing please. "In concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning." Now, as usual you will want me to give equal attention to all the God, Gods, gods, goddesses, deities, divinities, etc. Tell you what, you just concentrate on denying my God exists, see the information on my concept of God, just given above. That is the impossibility of exchange with atheists here: all they do is to evade from the issue itself of God exists or not, by bringing in all kinds of gods, to make themselves so evasive, when they could and should keep to the most ambitious one, namely, the one I have the concept on, as follows: "In concept God is first and foremost the creator and operator of the universe and man and everything with a beginning." I have not seen Astreja and Simon Moon anymore, not even to come over and cuss me. Paging Astreja and Simon Moon, please show up, even though to just cuss me, that is already a great favor because I like company, company is company even though it is unpleasant company. Dear readers, please enter internet atheists with the Bing search engine, and you will see that what we have in web forums are "internet atheists." See ANNEX 2. They are the ones who give atheists in the US a very bad press, so that people in the US would not ever want their children to marry any one of them, they taking atheists to be the most detestable minority in the US. ANNEX 1 In #888 Pocaracas Wrote:RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing? ANNEX 2 Quote:2,620,000 results Any time hits from Bing search engine on internet atheists:  RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
November 19, 2016 at 2:50 pm
(November 19, 2016 at 2:32 pm)Mariosep Wrote: Dear Pocaracas, you have not given me the link. And please no cussing (see below, ANNEX 1, his post, for dear readers your orientation). USE YOUR EYES! EITHER THIS PAGE OR LAST PAGE OR THE ONE BEFORE... IT'S NOT THAT HARD! ARE YOU RETARDED?! There, I managed not to cuss.... mostly... (November 19, 2016 at 2:32 pm)Mariosep Wrote: That is the trouble with atheists here, they cuss all the time, and how can anyone have any productive exchange with them? You see, this is the trouble with theists everywhere. They refuse to see things that are right in front of their eyes! Either that, or they suffer from some mental retardation that prevents them from seeing things...  RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
November 19, 2016 at 3:23 pm
First cause arguments "prove" that we are mere simulations in the mind of god. I've yet to see any value in simulation hypothesis, and pantheism is fluffy but harmless. Being a simulation in the mind of god I am essentially god, and I don't appreciate you talking to my fellow atheists like that.
 RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
November 19, 2016 at 3:40 pm
(November 19, 2016 at 3:23 pm)houseofcantor Wrote: First cause arguments "prove" that we are mere simulations in the mind of god. I've yet to see any value in simulation hypothesis, and pantheism is fluffy but harmless. Being a simulation in the mind of god I am essentially god, and I don't appreciate you talking to my fellow atheists like that. If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then from where do you get your morals? RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
November 19, 2016 at 4:09 pm
(November 19, 2016 at 3:40 pm)The Joker Wrote:(November 19, 2016 at 3:23 pm)houseofcantor Wrote: First cause arguments "prove" that we are mere simulations in the mind of god. I've yet to see any value in simulation hypothesis, and pantheism is fluffy but harmless. Being a simulation in the mind of god I am essentially god, and I don't appreciate you talking to my fellow atheists like that. evolution tao empathy simulation education and chemical receptors RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
November 19, 2016 at 4:19 pm
(November 19, 2016 at 4:09 pm)houseofcantor Wrote:(November 19, 2016 at 3:40 pm)The Joker Wrote: If you do not have an objective standard of morality by which you can determine what is right or wrong, then from where do you get your morals? Evolution, Really? While some molecules do combine to form larger structures such as amino acids, it has been shown that this always results in a mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids that is not used in life. Since this is true, is there some other explanation for how the molecules useful for life might have formed? RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
November 19, 2016 at 4:49 pm
(November 19, 2016 at 4:19 pm)The Joker Wrote:(November 19, 2016 at 4:09 pm)houseofcantor Wrote: evolution tao empathy simulation education and chemical receptors Isn't that like a double off-topic? Don't you have to spend extra time in the penalty box for that?  And then... then! I have to decode your intent to formulate a meaningful query, which I think is twofold: If evolution is true why do our simulations produce two handed models when only the right is useful for life? Yeah? And the other, which was answered earlier with geometry. Here's some linky-link for the first.  RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
November 19, 2016 at 7:21 pm
(November 18, 2016 at 1:56 am)Mariosep Wrote: So, let us all now focus our attention on the four causes which I from stock knowledge know about: That's your problem, right there.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould RE: I am a theist, what do you think of my proof for God existing?
November 19, 2016 at 7:23 pm
(This post was last modified: November 19, 2016 at 7:54 pm by Tonus.
Edit Reason: Misunderstood the original comment
)
(November 19, 2016 at 4:19 pm)The Joker Wrote: Evolution, Really? While some molecules do combine to form larger structures such as amino acids, it has been shown that this always results in a mixture of left- and right-handed amino acids that is not used in life. Since this is true, is there some other explanation for how the molecules useful for life might have formed? Meteorites indicate that liquid water may be the key. Quote:Researchers examined meteorites dating back more than 4.5 billion years, or older than Earth's existence as a planet, and found that meteorites with the longest exposures to water within had a much stronger left-handed bias. So it seems that water may be the answer since it can bias the results to the extent that some meteorites have only left-handed amino acids. There are still questions, such as the cause of the 100% left-handed bias in meteorites and whether or not conditions on Earth at some point would have produced isolated pockets of left-handed amino acids, or whether some other mechanism is involved. |
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
