(June 3, 2016 at 2:33 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(June 3, 2016 at 1:38 pm)IATIA Wrote: There is NO evidence. Your sig is strictly opinion biased toward a belief in a god. It does not have any substance. I cannot prove god does not exist, but my attempt at disproving god has significantly more substance than that.
So do you actually dispute any them or do you just disagree with their logical conclusions? Please enlighten me. Which of the facts about reality that have been observed since the dawn of time do you reject?
There is no logical conclusion, which is the point. It is an assumption which, again, can only come from a biased belief in a god. I do not believe in god and I can run the same scenario and come up with a different preconceived answer that is just as valid. (though, I would not agree with that one either for the same reason)
There can be no infinite regression and there can be no first cause. Both scenarios (infinite regression and first cause) are illogical.
You make people miserable and there's nothing they can do about it, just like god.
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
-- Homer Simpson
God has no place within these walls, just as facts have no place within organized religion.
-- Superintendent Chalmers
Science is like a blabbermouth who ruins a movie by telling you how it ends. There are some things we don't want to know. Important things.
-- Ned Flanders
Once something's been approved by the government, it's no longer immoral.
-- The Rev Lovejoy
