There is no "prosecution", life is not a court of law.

On the other hand, I concede the argument entirely. Would you consider yourself a neo-pagan or a reconstructionist? How many gods do you figure there are (and do you have a favorite pantheon)?

(April 17, 2012 at 3:54 pm)Abishalom Wrote: Where did I suggest that this article prove God is true. I only said that it proves that babies are predisposed to a belief in a higher being and that things exist to serve a purpose.

Then what was your point?

Also it's absurd to claim to know what babies believe. I hope this is self evident. Without language one cannot believe in these concepts.

(April 17, 2012 at 4:27 pm)mediamogul Wrote: Then what was your point?

Also it's absurd to claim to know what babies believe. I hope this is self evident. Without language one cannot believe in these concepts.

Do you know what a predisposition is? There a difference between believing a concept and having a predisposition. A belief in a concept requires conditioning. A predisposition is involuntary and does not have to be taught.

My point answering somebody's claim of that a baby is naturally an atheist. This is wrong. Humans have a natural predisposition to belief in a higher being and that everything in the natural world has a purpose.

(April 17, 2012 at 4:18 pm)Abishalom Wrote: No I never made such claim. You have EVERY single one of my post quoted. Find the quote where I said natural evidence either doesn't count or doesn't exist? (Hint:there is no such post) Now you are either a liar or you lack comprehension. Now you don't sound like you're dumb, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

"If all we can see is the natural world, then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove that God does not exists?"
Did you or did you not type that.
Feel free to cry and sob as you type yes. :-)

Oh and while you're at it take a look at another one of my favorite quotes of yours: "I said no such thing. I said the evidence does not actually speak to you, so therefore it would depend on your worldview on how you would perceive the evidence. You might be thinking too hard."
Thats right people, you're just thinking too hard. Stop it! Stop thinking too hard! You need to think just the right amount otherwise you can't agree with him!
(Oh and don't imply I'm a liar or that I lack comprehension again you filthy little charlatan or I'll open up a fresh can of whupass to embarrass the crap out of you infront of all these internet surfers. )

(April 17, 2012 at 4:18 pm)Abishalom Wrote: Right because scientist cannot understand it, therefore it does not exist.

No, it doesn't exist because its logically impossible. That's the same reason why it also doesn't make any sense.

(April 17, 2012 at 4:18 pm)Abishalom Wrote: Yes in that there is a beginning to everything that exist. If in fact there was no God and nothing in the beginning and nature popped into existence. How then do we get all this diversity and complexity? These are the kind of questions scientist rationalize with naturalism to explain away God (but they don't do very good job at it).

So, let's get this straight. If you are provided evidence that matter can pop into existence without any cause, you'd consider it as proof against god's existence and become an atheist?

(April 17, 2012 at 4:36 pm)genkaus Wrote: So, let's get this straight. If you are provided evidence that matter can pop into existence without any cause, you'd consider it as proof against god's existence and become an atheist?

I'm still studying that. Apparently they have found that some particles do pop in and out of existence and the mass of the universe was once smaller than a particle. Perhaps the universe really did just....pop into existence.
Still reading into it. Very interesting.
'Virtual particles'
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virtual_particle

(April 17, 2012 at 4:34 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote: "If all we can see is the natural world, then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove that God does not exists?"
Did you or did you not type that.
Feel free to cry and sob as you type yes. :-)

Oh and while you're at it take a look at another one of my favorite quotes of yours: "I said no such thing. I said the evidence does not actually speak to you, so therefore it would depend on your worldview on how you would perceive the evidence. You might be thinking too hard."
Thats right people, you're just thinking too hard. Stop it! Stop thinking too hard! You need to think just the right amount otherwise you can't agree with him!
(Oh and don't imply I'm a liar or that I lack comprehension again you filthy little charlatan or I'll open up a fresh can of whupass to embarrass the crap out of you infront of all these internet surfers. )

"If all we can see is the natural world, then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove that God does not exists?" Yes I typed this. Now please do tell. How does this statement equate to "the natural evidence either does not count or does not exist" (your words). Again either you have lack of comprehension or you're a liar. You seem like a bright guy, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

What sort of evidence would you like to discuss Ab? Which god claim would you like to see destroyed? It's real easy around here, you just make a thread.

(April 17, 2012 at 5:15 pm)Abishalom Wrote: "If all we can see is the natural world, then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove that God does not exists?" Yes I typed this. Now please do tell. How does this statement equate to "the natural evidence either does not count or does not exist" (your words). Again either you have lack of comprehension or you're a liar. You seem like a bright guy, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

So, you are just going to ignore my question and hope that it gets lost in multi-quoting?

(April 17, 2012 at 5:15 pm)Abishalom Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 4:34 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 4:18 pm)Abishalom Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 3:50 pm)genkaus Wrote: Well, then, I guess you should be an atheist once you study up on big-bang cosmology, according to which, time and space exist only within the context of this universe and therefore the term "beginning of the universe" makes no sense.

Right because scientist cannot understand it, therefore it does not exist.

Quote:You said this and later on you said that natural evidence points to god. This is the change in your position I'm talking about.

Yes in that there is a beginning to everything that exist. If in fact there was no God and nothing in the beginning and nature popped into existence. How then do we get all this diversity and complexity? These are the kind of questions scientist rationalize with naturalism to explain away God (but they don't do very good job at it).

Quote:I don't have to ask myself - I already know the answer. The biblical account is a lie.

I know you do.

---

(April 17, 2012 at 4:12 pm)RaphielDrake Wrote:

(April 17, 2012 at 4:01 pm)Abishalom Wrote: When did I ever say there was no natural evidence? Either you lack comprehension or you are being manipulative with my words. I don't think you're dumb, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.
Well you got the game part right because you obviously like playing games. But you're the atheist. What is the logic behind this position?

Through out this thread you've claimed that natural evidence either: a) doesn't count or b) doesn't exist. Do you have the memory of a goldfish or are you being willfully ignorant?
Oh *right*, its my lack of comprehension that just forced you to make an ridiculously unbacked claim. Good one. Way to turn the tables on me, you shouldn't be embarrassed of that response at all. Do you blame all of your mistakes on others or is this a one off? I'm guessing its the first option.

Oh and I like playing games because it gives me entertainment before I take on someone with challenging points that actually takes up more then 1% of my IQ to discuss. You are not such an individual. You're more the court jester that entertains me before I deal with serious matters.
Be proud my little clown, be proud. :-)

No I never made such claim. You have EVERY single one of my post quoted. Find the quote where I said natural evidence either doesn't count or doesn't exist? (Hint:there is no such post) Now you are either a liar or you lack comprehension. Now you don't sound like you're dumb, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

"If all we can see is the natural world, then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove that God does not exists?"
Did you or did you not type that.
Feel free to cry and sob as you type yes. :-)

Oh and while you're at it take a look at another one of my favorite quotes of yours: "I said no such thing. I said the evidence does not actually speak to you, so therefore it would depend on your worldview on how you would perceive the evidence. You might be thinking too hard."
Thats right people, you're just thinking too hard. Stop it! Stop thinking too hard! You need to think just the right amount otherwise you can't agree with him!
(Oh and don't imply I'm a liar or that I lack comprehension again you filthy little charlatan or I'll open up a fresh can of whupass to embarrass the crap out of you infront of all these internet surfers. )

"If all we can see is the natural world, then how does our knowledge of the natural world prove that God does not exists?" Yes I typed this. Now please do tell. How does this statement equate to "the natural evidence either does not count or does not exist" (your words). Again either you have lack of comprehension or you're a liar. You seem like a bright guy, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Why should the same evidence be usable for "proving God", I say that ironically, if it isn't allowed to discount him? Sounds like you're the one lacking the comprehension here pal. You see I've seen some stupid moves in my time but to not allow people to use the fact the world around them doesn't include anything supernatural or God like and then say the world around us proves God exists is kind of like giving someone a loaded gun, saying their not allowed to use it and then snatching it and pulling the trigger... only for it to misfire and kill you.
I know you have this strange little delusion that you're making good points and that people here aren't laughing at every single sentence you type as it seems to conflict with the one before but if you could take one moment to take your mind off the fact your a product of repeated incest that consequently makes your family tree look like a circle you might notice that you've so far spouted nothing but bullshit and conjecture with not a bit of evidence or logic.
Every single sentence you've typed has more or less added up to "I don't need facts, I gots faith!"
You may speak now. :-)