A test for the faithful -- you can not prove that "God" exists, can you?

Those things emphasized in red letter are all your very own personal property? They belong to you and no-one else? You must really be a very wealthy man to own so many different corporate structures.

 

I think you'll find that it's precisely because of the decisions not to adopt certain European traditions of installing official state religions that RStones199 now has the opportunity to say "my courts" and "my government".

 

Your reasoning is irrelevant. His declaration amounts to a declaration of ownership or of having a priority interest in. "my" this or "my" that, indicates ownership or priority interest in the subject matter.
"my" = "possessive pronominal adjective of, belonging to, made by, or done by me: also used before some formal titles and polite forms of address: "

 

Not a strawman, just a clear admission from you, that you cannot debate the point.

Omniscient, omnipotent god giving out freewill is an impossibility.

So if we have freewill then god either does not exist, or is not omnipotent or omniscient.

If god exists and is omnipotent and omniscient, then we only have the illusion of freewill.

And again, if this 'god' can create this big vast universe, then this 'god' certainly has the power to make him word understood by everyone.

To say otherwise, you either are trying to fit a square peg in a round hole or simply do not understand how vast this universe is and how insignificant humans are to the universe.

You stated: “I'm not sure that human beings have the mental ability to truly define and label God.”. That is simply a cop-out. Trying to fit a square peg in a round hole. Instead of calling everything a strawman, you should try debating once in awhile.

 

Why are you still alive?

http://youtu.be/T3vfnH86RSo

 

Well, thank you for denying the Big Bang Theory.

 

The same place you find any other choice that you make. Inwardly. BTW: "Choice" provides an option... subsequently "free will". Think before you post.

 

I feel no need to prove God exist. It's as impossible and frustrating a question as "who are you?". Are you your name, what you say and what you do, what you look like, what you want, what you value, maybe just the chemical compounds that make up your body? Or is there more to being You, a deeper reality to your existence?
I believe there is a God because I believe Reality is beautiful. I do not believe God is in any single book, but is in all books where wisdom is found. I have every right to blame God for every evil in the universe, but I must also credit God for all the joy and beauty in it. If there is a God then it speaks directly to each of us from the time our conscience is formed and until it ceases to exist. If there is no God then what difference does it make?

 

Um yeah. Okay.
Now if you had stated "I claim there is a statue of the ten commandments at the USSC!" I would have agreed! But you whined about how policy based on faith IS affecting your life. Which of course, is complete bullsh1t like your other claims.

So let's tally, shall we?
1. Proof of your claim that faith invaded your home and impinged on your personal life? Zero. I mean unless you're referring to your thing about being the victim of having to walk by some whackos holding signs at a baseball game. Other than that life-changing event, how has it actually affected your life? It hasnt. Zero.
2. Proof that faith has invaded your schools? Zero. Your only response was that some guy who may or may not ever be a GOP candidate and may or may not hold an office that can't introduce legisltion said he would like creationism taught - which will probably never happen. That was your "proof" that faith IS in schools. So again. Zero.
3. Proof that faith has invaded science? You didn't even take a shot at it and I don't blame you. So again, Zero.
4. Proof that faith has affected policy? Zero. Oh wait, there's a statue somehwere. Based on that logic, George Washington's horse has affected policy. But you cannot name a single faith-influenced policy that has in any way affected your life. Zero.
Total score.... Zero

I welcome you to try supporting your claims again. But let's be more logical and scientific, shall we? You claim that faith IS (not could, might, maybe someday) invading your home, schools, science and policy. Care to come up with something that isn't speculation? If so, pray tell, enlighten us with your acumen!

Oh and btw, I presonally believe in the seperation of church and state, that creationism should not be taught in schools and in addition to the 86% of the planet you judge to be deluded, I have known some atheist who were very intelligent.
So for all your whining, you're the only one displaying overt prejudice based on religion. Hmmm. Isn't that something atheists usually whine about Christians doing? Well, waddya know. I guess you're just like those Southern Baptists and the people who told you, you were going to hell! Congrats! You're no differen than the people you whine about!

 

There comes a point where you walk away from idiots.

I'll be a walking.

 

The former group. Interesting though - several atheists landed squarely in the latter group.

What does your "test" say about that, I wonder?

 

my body is still breathing is one reason.

i suppose you tink 'god' is telling you to breath?



why are you still posting?

how does your computer work?

how does your brain record memories?

what is the life of your body?

 

it aint the first time, nor the last time

Some just dont comprehend what they read.

 

This argument was childish and underwhelming in the God Delusion.

For the life of me I do not understand the arrogance of science. Firstly when we speak of God in the context of religion it is almost exclusively an immaterial thing, in other words undetectable by scientific methods. This is so because science is the exploration and understanding of the MATERIAL world. Science is utterly the wrong instrument to use in the search of god. Would you use a metal detector to locate buried wood? If, for whatever reason, you did and did not find any, would you conclude that necessarily there must not be any buried wood because your chosen instrument failed to detect any?

There are some fundamental questions science will have a hard time answering:
1. Why is there something rather than nothing?
2. Why should anything make sense; why are their natural laws to govern the behavior of material objects?
3. Why should their be a subject capable of making sense of these laws when the objective world does not require one? Why does subjectivity exist?
4. Where did the natural laws of reality, e.g. physics, come from and in what way were they fine tuned for life on this planet? Did they exist prior to the Big Bang or did they arrange themselves, and by what method, after said event?

These are just a few.

I've made the following point in other posts but I will reiterate it here. While our scientific advancements and achievements have been prolific and at times monumental, we only possess a modicum of the knowledge available in the universe. This fact is not expressed any more clearly when we compare the Classical Physics Paradigm to the Quantum Physics Paradigm. Our understanding of how "big bodies" behave vie classical physics was counter-intuitive to how "little bodies" behave in the quantum world. Simply put: reality was far more preposterous and extraordinary than we had first presumed given the available knowledge.

Knowing this I wonder why science would ever take on such an obviously ideological assertion that god is or is not. It is completely without respect to the spirit of science, which is to observe and understand that which is observable and understandable, of which we are not entirely knowledgeable in the first place. For science to try and and detect what, from the outset, was considered immaterial by their adversaries is clumsy and stupid, on a good day.

P.S.
I admire and indulge science.

 

Why questions are nothing more than human questions gone array.

There is no whys when it comes the universe. Only religious folk, IDers and Creationist need to ask whys. If they don't, they will be put out of business so to speak.

Your 4th questions is decidedly narrow minded. There are billions of galaxies, each with billions if starts. And it seems, there are billions of planets (we are finding more and more). With all those, odds are, you will find more than a few planets in the Universe that is capable of sustaining carbon based life.

What is especially narrow minded, is the fact that life adapts to its environment, NOT the other way around. Its called EVOLUTION with NATURAL SELECTION.

I smell a creationist here.

 

So really, you only had four points to start with. You got spanked on all four points.

So then came the Cut & Run, exactly as I predicted. That was easy.

 

BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Life adapts to its conditions. The conditions aren't adapted for life.

 

---Do you know that telling yourself that you won't like something will encourage you brain to confirm the notion? But alas, I am not a creationist. I see no refutation of the basis of my argument: science possess a modicum of available knowledge, and thus it should not assert that which it knows it does not know.

---My 4th question(s) are not decidedly narrow. The answers to such questions do not infringe upon the grounds of any other position. In fact, the way in which I posited them invite ANY possible answer. If I had asked them in such a way as, "In what way could the laws of reality occurred intelligently", that would have been narrow. In my opinion your disposition, in this matter, has acted as a reducing valve and was only capable of viewing my question(s) in your distinct scope of things.

 

You are simply attempting to put the universe into human terms when you use the phrase 'attribute of intelligence pervading the cosmos'. This is typical of a creationist.

Happenstance also suggest chance. This is also typical of a creationist.

There is no reason to think and or believe that there is any ' intelligence' in the universe or is there any chance in the universe.

Also, the universe does not need a reason for its existence.

Nope, sorry, this is 100% fact. Any and species either: adapts to its environment (and a relationship that you spoke of, would be included in environment), or the species goes extinct. Only the species that are able to adopt to their environment, survive.

Relevance?

And yes, your answers are typical of a creationist.

It was narrow minded because you ASSUMED that the laws physics are 'fine tuned' (a favorite saying of a creationist) for life.

Your quote:

By asking 'in what way', you are assuming the laws physics was fine tuned for life. This is incorrect. Life adapted to the laws of physics that it has to work with. I would assume the the laws physics were established in the Universe before life took hold on this planet.

 

---"In what way" does not assume life was fine tuned in the sense that a creator was at work, not necessarily. It means in what way-pressure, force, velocity, design-were the laws of physics developed and, more importantly, sustained through whatever equilibrium.

---For all you know I believe god is an evolutionary inevitability.

 

Its even better.

It about as dishonest as you can get.

After asking the same question countless times, usually very disrepsectfully, and then tearing into Christians and insulting them when they do honestly debate them he - gets an ephiphany.

His epiphany, after being challenged on his behavior, is as petulant as you can get. I mean when you run around telling people that they are morons, childish, etc. repeatedly, what is your standard?

Well, it is to start a 'secret' test. To ask the SAME question for the upteeth time, as if it is the SAME debate again - and then no debate. You see, it is secret test, so when someone says, "THIS AGAIN? What is your problem stud?"

Well, you fail the test in which only he has the answer. The actual response to the question? THIS AGAIN? DO you enjoy being obstinate? Its all just a test, just a test to be better than you!

I am however, still waiting to see how the FSM, which is by definition quite deliberate mocking, can pass the test for not getting personal (its pretty much flame bait and calling people of faith morons), but asking him any pointed questions or finding that the premise of making a 'test' out of an oft asked question is silly fails the 'test'?

Perhaps because the test is but mockery itself?

And proves only what I have long said about modern atheists - anything outgoing is good, anything incoming is ... the reason they are the most persecuted victims on earth.

 

I have to agree. It's like some guy who came into a thread whining about how he is the victim of faith. Apparently God has invaded his house (and is not paying fair share of rent or utilities), is right now in schools, science and US Govt policy.
So when I challenged him on it, you'll never guess what he did? Okay you guessed. Got all pissy, started insulting and never of course backed up a single claim. It was entertaining watching him squirm and back-peddle though. Fun examples:
"Oh well uh, here's what could happen!" or
"Well here's what some guy who has no power wants to happen!"
and my personal favorite:
"Well, well, well I had to walk by guys who were holding religious signs up at a baseball game!" Poor baby.

Finally, when he realized he'd been spanked like a little child, he cut & ran - after slinging one last petty insult saying that I wasn't a good debater and "this is stupid" and then calling me a poopyhead. LOL

 

Not really - more concrete: If you would speak in the same way in the real world with me like you did in the virtual world here than I would be astonished how your are breathing with my hands around your neck.

Good question. A feeling of responsibility I guess.

I don't like to write a book now.

Also in this question I don't like to write a book now.

Something else: I heard with an Al-atom we are able to construct a clock what would be so exact that it would differ only 10 minutes from the beginning of this universe until now. Why is time so precise - why are physical laws so unbelievable exact?

http://youtu.be/Roug4qG7qCY

 

You're just sore because you failed the test -- and in your VERY FIRST SENTENCE. You couldn't make an argument without personally attacking your opponent. Aw, cheer up Neutie, you'll be fine. Say 10 Hail Marys and drop a finski in the collection plate, all is forgiven.

 

I certainly hope you're not attributing that behavior to me. Because I have done none of those things.