(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: The agreement of the innocent person has nothing to do with whether the only way to forgive people is to kill someone innocent.
Well, I will put it to this way Jenny: I think if there was a "better" way to do things, I think an all knowing God would have figured it out.
(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Atheism is a lack of belief in a god. Gnostic atheism is belief that there is not god. Agnostic atheism is not simply lacking a belief in god. I am a agnostic atheism, though I find the god's lack of existence by far the more probable of the two choices, It know it certain.
Semantic babble. On judgement day, God will make no distinction between atheism, agnosticm, agnostic atheism, gnostic atheism, and any other ludacris combinations you throw at him lol.
(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Exactly, if science can prove a thing, then god. It's the argument of the gaps. Science has been filling in gaps pretty steadily.
Prove that consciousness can come from unconsciousness and life can come from nonlife...then we are smokin'.
(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Citation please? Science is about evidence, inference, and demonstration. It changes with better understanding. Religion maintains the same beliefs in the face of changing evidence. Which one is more honest and more likely to reach the truth?
Citiation for what? The fact that our universe began to exist can be found in any text book on modern cosmology. It is a religiously neutral statement.
(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Not surprising since you trust blind faith over facts.
What facts?
(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: But many other things once thought to be magic have. Nothing previously thought natural has since been proven to be magic.
Well, science answers your prayers by providing you answers with tough questions...and God answers my prayers. We both get what we want from our "Gods"
(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: All debunked through out history and on this site.
Really? I'm sorry I missed it.
(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Good luck with that. BTW. Speaking of getting your feet wet, it's polite and customary to introduce yourself in the introductions forum first.
Actually...I did. Have you checked the intro forums first? (Granted, this was after my first two posts lol)
(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Not necessarily. People don't know everything, and despite the potent tool of science, probably never will. We couldn't do show many things just a year ago that we can now. That doesn't mean they were supernatural before.
My point is, it should be ABLE to be explained via science. The potential should always be there, right? After all, it is science, right?
(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Being able to imagine something has no affect on whether it's possible.
Yes it does. Can you imagine for 2+2=11? Can you imagine that? No, you can't. Because it isn't possible, thats why.
(November 2, 2014 at 4:14 pm)Jenny A Wrote: Nature does things we can't do all the time. Nuclear fusion (the sun does that), travel at the speed of light (light does that you see), planet creation, interstellar travel (comets do that), and on and on.
Notice I was specifically talking about "smarts". Nice try, though.
(November 2, 2014 at 3:38 pm)His_Majesty Wrote: The Modal Ontological Argument.
I can just as easily post a vid that backs up my position, can't I? How about explaining to me why you think the argument isn't sound/valid?