something from nothing

So you are asking me to live in a fairy tale world so that you can have your way? Why would you want anyone to live in an imaginary world?

 

I realize that you are upset that your ideas about the Bible and God were shown to be in contradiction with both yourself and reality. Perhaps rather than shoot the messenger you should consider changing the things about your perspective that make no sense.

 

And where can that book be purchased? What is the title of that book? Is "Doubtism" formally and officially recognized as a religion?

 

Your attempt above to make real something from your imagination is a complete failure.
"realize: 2. To bring into reality; make real:" www.thefreedictionary.com/realize

Maybe you should rejoin reality and face the things that you imagine are real.

 

Questioning the truth of a claim is part of the domain of Philosophy. I encourage you to familiarize yourself with this subject and a quick google search will yield a plethora of material.

I particularly encourage you to familiarize yourself with "logical fallacies" as perhaps then you will not commit them often.

Good luck and all the best,

 

Notice how often Incorporeal wants to ask a "parallel question"....to avoid answering the actual ASKED question in an OP?

 

It's called "Zweifel" and it's only given to the worthy. The first verse says that God was intelligently designed.

Now it's your turn. Prove that God was not intelligently designed. Feel free to use any book. You may be surprised at how much our books differ.

 

Your suggestions are rejected on the basis that there are no codes, rules, regulations, statutes, laws, or even TOS that mandate the global use of either philosophy or logic; or that one is required to be proficient in the use of either.

Another fail on your part.

 

I know it is difficult for you to accept that your claims such as "The freezing point of water is arbitrary" and " because the symbols on a measuring device were arbitrarily chosen, the measurements from that device are arbitrary (not empirical evidence)" have been proven to be false.

In the real world however, water freezes at the same temperature given the same experimental conditions. The freezing point of water is not "arbitrary" under such conditions like the random roll of a dice. Such experiment are repeatable and generate the same result for the freezing point of water.

Such is also true about the repeatability in measurement (even though the symbol for the number 3 was arbitrarily chosen)

Perhaps the repeatability of such experiments is "just my imagination" but the funny thing is that everyone else in the world (barring those in sanitariums) seem to be imagining the same thing ?!

When you that your perception of reality conflicts with the perception of everyone else, perhaps the problem is not everyone else.

Just sayin ...

 

Oh goodness... are you challenging me to prove a negative (as the non-theists would cry out)? So as it stands, you cannot prove that such a book is even in existence.

 

You asked for some information on "Doubtism". Why are you getting mad at me for providing you with the information you asked for ?

While Philosophy is not officially recognized as a Religion "as far as I know" it perhaps should be.

I know that the Church closed down all the schools of Philosophy because they did not want people to question Church doctrine so they must have viewed Philosophy as some kind of "competing belief/religion".

These day however, the Church does not excommunicate, torture, and burn people (well not the Christian Church ... Islam still does) for practising the art of "Doubtism" so you need not fear gaining a proficiency is this area.

 

Umm .. Pardy is making fun of the fact that you continually challenge people to prove a negative.

That you understand that proving a negative is impossible, yet continue throw out this challenge on a regular basis as if it were possible, is proof of your intellectual dishonesty.

 

Well, he made a positive claim. As such, the onus of proof is upon him.

 

Pardy made the claim knowing that the claim could not be proven in order to show you how silly your continued "Prove it - followed by asking someone to prove a negative" is.

The Joke is on you unfortunately.

 

Then that would mean that all the times a non-theist has asked for proof of the existence of God, that they were not serious? They were baiting the forum members? They were simply being antagonistic.. looking for an argument of any kind? They were fishing?

Yet when a non-theist makes a positive claim that non-theist is exempt from the alleged rules of debate wherein a positive claim has to be supported with evidence or argument? That sounds a little bit like double standards. Hypocrisy at its finest.

 

nope, just asking you to use your brain to visualize the scenario

if a jar has nothing in it, and I put two apples in it, the jar is no longer empty

but you want to play games and say well the jar could never be empty, it has air in it or what not

then why not say that there never was nothing, there was always something, thus no need for a creator....

 

An question to a question is not an answer. It would be freshing if you would simply state, "I don't know what or who created 'god'". At least that would be an honest answer.

- - - Updated - - -

^^^^^ Bingo. All gods are/were!

Gods are simply imaginary friends for grown ups.

 

Wrong again. You have asked me to imagine something that is not 'true'. Therefore, you have asked me to live in a fantasy world.

Really?

One could say that but I didn't.. so you seem to be exercising your fantasy world in attempting to imagine what I might do.

Then why don't you say that the something that was always there was the creator?

 

There ya again, with your mere opinions!

 

Hey Pardy: You still have not answered these questions. When you gonna answer them?

 

Doubtism

 

These are tough questions to answer for both sides. The best answer maybe "I don't know." The very first verses of the Bible would suggest that God had always existed. The idea that something cannot come from nothing comes from Aristolien philosophy. All objects are in motion. There must be a prime mover that initially set everything into motion.

 

Then 'god' cannot have started the Universe, if 'god' is unchanging.

To be unchanging means to be static and something that is static is unmoving. How can something that is unmoving put something into motion?

 

Hypocrisy is doing something over and over again to others and then complaining when the same thing is done to you. This is exactly what you did.

 

You should know that I consider myself a believer in God, if allowed to massage the meaning of the name God to mean things which I believe in. That is why I cannot consider myself an atheist.

However, that is not the argument I'm making. The argument I am making is exactly that which I mention in my last sentence. Regardless of the initial state of the universe, a coherent argument would be required to warrant belief in a God being more likely to appear than the universe if one is to believe so. That would indeed be a brilliant argument supporting God if such an argument would have been presented.