Liberals are...smarter!

[WAdude]

So the bits that support your argument are literally true; those that you've referenced in the post I quoted?

Stop trying to be smart.

 

[OrderFromChaos]

Well true, but what makes you believe that maybe in the future we might have the knowledge and technology to prove a god real, or possible atleast. I mean, you never really know, yet these guys are confident that there will never be a god, or proof of one, not even a possibility atleast.

You cannot prove a negative, that is a logical fallacy. In turn, why would one expect science to prove a god exist? This god would be part of a super-natural world, correct? What is science? Do you see a possible disconnect here?

 

[mpw]

.

 

[OrderFromChaos]

You're not using proper logic in the first argument. Just because certain aspects of paganism have been proven wrong is not a basis that Christianity has also been proven wrong. (Not a very scientific or logical argument here.)

Please see my previous quote by Stephen Roberts.

Also, are you sure the exact age of the universe has been scientifically proven? If so, I must have completely missed that headline. Last time I checked, it was an estimation. (Your second illogical & flawed argument).

Until we have a better explanation, then yes. The same minds that approximate the age of the known universe also brought you GPS, nano-technology, quantum mechanics, etc. There is still much to learn (inflation?), but that does not invalidate previous thinking.

Are you a dog whisperer? How on earth do you know dogs' concept of right and wrong? Dogs can be trained to do or not do certain things, but this hardly proves they have a logical understanding of right & wrong. (Third flawed argument).

You do know that dogs have demonstrated the ability to preceive injustices committed against them? Why do you automatically make the assumption that other living species are not capable of critical thought, specifically right and wrong?

I understand how non-believing people can be offended by belivers' faith & how that causes them to belittle & insult believers' intelligence in order to further convince themselves of their beliefs, but it seems like those on this discussion who are trying to defend faith are the ones trying to make logical arguments, while the athiests are turning more to insult & emotional arguments. I don't hate anyone, and am much more a loving person than before I became a believer. I just hope there are some athiests out there who can find find a way to become a believer. It must be terribly depressing to live a life while ultimately believing that life is meaningless, and ends when it ends. It's easy to have that viewpoint when one is healthy and young, but I wonder how many actually question those beliefs when they see death near.

Do not make assumptions about other peoples lives as you only make yourself look ignorant in the process, and please do not take the term ignorant as an insult. It is not terrible at all. I wake up every day grateful for the fact that I still live. You see, IMO I only have one life. That's it. I need to make the most out of this life before my time is out. That is why I try to enjoy each and every day, and do not dwell on what has past and what cannot be changed. It is also the reason why I try to avoid stepping on insects as I walk my dog, hey those little creatures only have one life too. The "no atheists in a fox hole" routine is honestly rather tiring and played out.

If there's one thing I've discovered, it's that people have an uncanny ability to be wrong. Personally, I'd rather be a Christian who is wrong about his faith, than be an Athiest who is wrong about his (or lack of). (your mileage may vary)...

Speaking of played out, who queued Pascal? If you have never heard of Pascal's Wager I would highly advise you to look it up.

 

[OrderFromChaos]

You and Chaos are killing me.

Glad to be of service.

I'll be here all week.

 

[OrderFromChaos]

If the universe was 6,000 years old, all of what we can see in the sky would be within 6,000 light years of our position. I think we'd be a little cramped if that was true...

Hubble Ultra Deep Field - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I have that image set as my wall paper. Flippin amazing.

 

[Isthmus]

Yet, the speed of light cannot be proven by technology, only by numbers.

Ok dude, I've tried to be nice and give you positive comments, that is just plain ignorant. Go read a textbook and get off the computer, you are becoming an embarrassment.

 

[WAdude]

This is not proof.

If I provided proof on paper, written in tomato sauce that said;
"Keith is, like, totally the one true God, and I Spagetti Monster made up the whole Christian thing to draw attention away from him 'cause he was being, like, all 'whoa look at me and my elephantine homeies' and cruising the cosmos picking all the girls, and making me jealous"

would you accept that as proof, and denounce Jesus in favour of Keith?

Also as you mention Romans as a source of 'proof', can I just check whether the next line is literal or not:

Surely that shouldn't be taken literally; their hearts can't have been darkened, merely less lit.

If you think Its a metaphor then It probably is one.
Ok.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[WAdude]

?? The boy's in the well?

I corrected it. I'm typing on the phone so don't think it'll be perfect.

 

[smacky]

3possible answers, and you managed to expect one of them! Jeez, wouldn't want to play you at chess with such an awesome analytical mind as that processing away

Wouldn't want to have you trying to explain your crock of shit views to a Muslim by telling a Muslim his God's name is "Allah."

 

[WAdude]

Yet, the speed of light cannot be proven by technology, only by numbers.- WAdude

Ok dude, I've tried to be nice and give you positive comments, that is just plain ignorant. Go read a textbook and get off the computer, you are becoming an embarrassment.- Isthmus

Thank you.

Personally, I would have to say no for a couple of reasons. First, zero is not a number (I know, semantics and technicalities ). Second, are we talking about the theory with respect to quantum mechanics? If so, how do you get around the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? Also, this is basically the same as the theory on the speed of light. We lack the technology to actually test the theories. BTW, if it helps I'm also not 100% sold on the speed of light either.

That's not what this guy says. Go argue with him, then get back at me.

 

[mpw]

.

 

[RAND0M1ZER]

Also, are you sure the exact age of the universe has been scientifically proven? If so, I must have completely missed that headline. Last time I checked, it was an estimation. (Your second illogical & flawed argument).

No it is an estimate with evidence to support it, we are getting more precise all the time. What is your point?

Are you a dog whisperer? How on earth do you know dogs' concept of right and wrong? Dogs can be trained to do or not do certain things, but this hardly proves they have a logical understanding of right & wrong. (Third flawed argument).

If a dog shits on the rug or eats food of the counter it puts its head down in shame. They also show love and loyalty towards other living things.

I understand how non-believing people can be offended by belivers' faith & how that causes them to belittle & insult believers' intelligence in order to further convince themselves of their beliefs, but it seems like those on this discussion who are trying to defend faith are the ones trying to make logical arguments, while the athiests are turning more to insult & emotional arguments. I don't hate anyone, and am much more a loving person than before I became a believer. I just hope there are some athiests out there who can find find a way to become a believer. It must be terribly depressing to live a life while ultimately believing that life is meaningless, and ends when it ends. It's easy to have that viewpoint when one is healthy and young, but I wonder how many actually question those beliefs when they see death near.

I have not insulted anyone...

If there's one thing I've discovered, it's that people have an uncanny ability to be wrong. Personally, I'd rather be a Christian who is wrong about his faith, than be an Athiest who is wrong about his (or lack of). (your mileage may vary)...

Well true, but what makes you believe that maybe in the future we might have the knowledge and technology to prove a god real, or possible atleast. I mean, you never really know, yet these guys are confident that there will never be a god, or proof of one, not even a possibility atleast.

Although I doubt that will ever happen, I will keep an open mind but right now there is no evidence that suggests there is a god.

Yet, the speed of light cannot be proven by technology, only by numbers.

WTF....

 

[mpw]

.

 

[RAND0M1ZER]

To me, the world around us is the best evidence and proof that God created the universe. The very existence of the universe cannot be understood or explained using our five senses. The actual creation of this world was a miracle and cannot be explained by natural phenomenon. Only a supernatural force such as God could have been behind the supernatural act of creation

I agree, the universe cannot be understood using our five senses. Alot of the electromagnetic radiation which we use to study the universe is not visible to the human eye.

There is also the possibility of other dimensions beyond our reach:
M-theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just because that statement is true does not mean that god has to be the explanation.

 

[WAdude]

You cannot prove a negative, that is a logical fallacy. In turn, why would one expect science to prove a god exist? This god would be part of a super-natural world, correct? What is science? Do you see a possible disconnect here?

No disconnect here, you yourself said that we lack the technologies to prove these theories. Just as we lack the technology to prove the speed of light. You said it all yourself.

 

[RAND0M1ZER]

What are you talking about??

I was wondering the same thing...

 

[WAdude]

I agree, the universe cannot be understood using our five senses. Alot of the electromagnetic radiation which we use to study the universe is not visible to the human eye.

There is also the possibility of other dimensions beyond our reach:
M-theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Just because that statement is true does not mean that god has to be the explanation.

I agree. We did not know about these things invisible to our senses, yet we, with time and technology, proved It real, why not the same with god? With time and technolgy, we might just find out.

 

[WAdude]

Yet, the speed of light cannot be proven by technology, only by numbers.- WAdude

Ok dude, I've tried to be nice and give you positive comments, that is just plain ignorant. Go read a textbook and get off the computer, you are becoming an embarrassment.- Isthmus




That's not what this guy says. Go argue with him, then get back at me.

Again (RANDOM1ZER), refer back to this guy, then get back to me. I mean, if your gonna argue about what I said, why arent you gonna argue it with this guy?


Originally Posted by OrderFromChaos

Thank you.


Personally, I would have to say no for a couple of reasons. First, zero is not a number (I know, semantics and technicalities ). Second, are we talking about the theory with respect to quantum mechanics? If so, how do you get around the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? Also, this is basically the same as the theory on the speed of light. We lack the technology to actually test the theories. BTW, if it helps I'm also not 100% sold on the speed of light either.

 

[RAND0M1ZER]

No disconnect here, you yourself said that we lack the technologies to prove these theories. Just as we lack the technology to prove the speed of light. You said it all yourself.

What do you mean 'prove' the speed of light?

Prove that c in a vacuum = ~300 000 000 m/s?

Prove that nothing can travel as fast as the speed of light?

The Particle Accelerator at CERN will be able to move particles at 99.9999991% the speed of light.

Tim Radford on the Cern's particle accelerator experiments | Education | guardian.co.uk

The reason it is so hard to reach the speed of light is because as the velocity approaches c (the speed of light) the mass approaches infinity.

Mass in general relativity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[WAdude]

Thank you.

Personally, I would have to say no for a couple of reasons. First, zero is not a number (I know, semantics and technicalities ). Second, are we talking about the theory with respect to quantum mechanics? If so, how do you get around the Heisenberg's uncertainty principle? Also, this is basically the same as the theory on the speed of light. We lack the technology to actually test the theories. BTW, if it helps I'm also not 100% sold on the speed of light either.

RANDOM1ZER, talk to this guy (OrderFromChaos) then get back at me. He said the same thing as I did. Just look at what he posted.

 

[RAND0M1ZER]

I agree. We did not know about these things invisible to our senses, yet we, with time and technology, proved It real, why not the same with god? With time and technolgy, we might just find out.

That's true, one day it may be discovered that there is a god. I guess anything is possible. Which is why I said this a couple posts up:

Although I doubt that will ever happen, I will keep an open mind but right now there is no evidence that suggests there is a god.

However there is no way you can prove that there IS NOT a god, so the burden of proof falls on you.

and no this is no good:

the Universe cannot be understood or explained using our five senses. The actual creation of this world was a miracle and cannot be explained by natural phenomenon. Only a supernatural force such as God could have been behind the supernatural act of creation

 

[WAdude]

That's true, one day it may be discovered that there is a god. I guess anything is possible. Which is why I said this a couple posts up:



However there is no way you can prove that there IS NOT a god, so the burden of proof falls on you.

and no this is no good:

Ok. The burden of proof does fall on me. But if there Is one, what will you do? What will you think of your life the way you lived it, godless?

I will not ridicule your answer, its simply my curiosity.

 

[RAND0M1ZER]

RANDOM1ZER, talk to this guy (OrderFromChaos) then get back at me. He said the same thing as I did. Just look at what he posted.

I'm sorry, he said he is not 100% sold on the speed of light. Your statement was also rather vague too, which is why I asked for clarification.

Anyway, the speed of light is rather irrelevant to this discussion because even if there were some errors in the way light is measured the age of the universe would still be in the billions, not mere thousands.