(September 16, 2009 at 4:43 pm)Rhizomorph13 Wrote: Fr0d0,

There is evidence of the BB...

Rhizo

..in that case it's God

And yet you claim he is different to the BB. But that's an assertion, you're basically just labelling the BB as "God".

EvF

It was a joke Evie.

You know Jon Paul's explanation of Actus Primus and that is very different from the BB. It is tho' an origin of complete simplicity that is logically supportable.

I know of it. I don't see how it explains anything. And I'm not going to just believe your assertion that it's 'logically supportable'. Say it is if you want, I'm not interested in bare assertions.

EvF

Go look up Jon Paul's explanation then.

I don't even see how it matters what some guy named John Paul supposedly said. I don't see the point in flipping through pages and pages of text that's more painful to try to decipher than getting a root canal to recite something someone said thousands of years ago.

Frodo said: "The simplicity of God the creator is precisely the same as with the big bang."

The only way that God is simple is if you acknowledge the bible as true and accept its teachings by faith.There is literally no logical way in my opinion that you can prove the existence of God without suspending reason.The whole idea of god is based on the search for origins.When I am asked by Christians "where do I think that we came from?" I answer with I don't know and neither do you since you base yourself on faith on a book with no proof of its so called divine inspiration.And although evolution by natural selection is not a theory of origins I still find it more plausible to believe than that some invisible man in the sky or outside of time and space created us.As far as the origin of the universe goes I think we will never know for sure but in my view it's pretty safe to rule out God or gods altogether.

(September 17, 2009 at 4:49 pm)chatpilot Wrote: it's pretty safe to rule out God or gods altogether.

I agree.

In the eyes of science and all that is observable and study-able, god does not exist. Unless evidence is found to prove otherwise. I think that is all that needs to be said really.

(September 17, 2009 at 4:49 pm)chatpilot Wrote: There is literally no logical way in my opinion that you can prove the existence of God without suspending reason.

And here I really struggle to understand that you were once trained in this stuff coming out with such basic misunderstanding.
1. Proof isn't ever the issue.
2. Existence isn't ever the issue.

If you read Jon Paul's thread you will see laid out the logic of what you claim to have believed, and not what you say now you believed. God is thoroughly logical and exactly not evidential or provably existant. To claim otherwise is pleading to ignorance.

---

(September 17, 2009 at 4:29 pm)dry land fish Wrote: I don't even see how it matters what some guy named John Paul supposedly said. I don't see the point in flipping through pages and pages of text that's more painful to try to decipher than getting a root canal to recite something someone said thousands of years ago.

Why even comment then? I thought you claimed to be intelligent - yet this is such an insurmountable task to you? Surley then you have no grounds to criticise something you are not willing to even consider. All you can say is "I'm not interested". The rest is pure uniformed bias.

(September 17, 2009 at 6:15 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

(September 17, 2009 at 4:49 pm)chatpilot Wrote: There is literally no logical way in my opinion that you can prove the existence of God without suspending reason.

And here I really struggle to understand that you were once trained in this stuff coming out with such basic misunderstanding.
1. Proof isn't ever the issue.
2. Existence isn't ever the issue.

Quote:If you read Jon Paul's thread you will see laid out the logic of what you claim to have believed,

You mean, like a proof? (See 1. huh?)

Quote: and not what you say now you believed. God is thoroughly logical and exactly not evidential or provably existant. To claim otherwise is pleading to ignorance.

Not evidential or provably existant, but thoroughly logical? Oh obviously! hock:

Rhizo