This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

Religion IS crazy!

Jump to new

the fact that it is rotating now, and we know it will continue to rotate until a force acts on it to stop it, and there is not cosmic body within 24hours of it that would be able to provide the force to stop it rotating is proof that it will in fact continue rotating until tomorrow.

If you are saying that there is something that will be able to provide the force to stop the earth rotations within the next 24 hours then it is you that is making the positive claim, and you have the burden of proof.

Age of the earth.
You are assuming the methods used are accurate.
You are also assumming a number of things remaining constant or assuming certain rates of change.
This is all a projection. We don't know the conditions the further back we go.
Click to expand...

The methods have been shown to be accurate, and the date is not based on a single method, multiple methods have been used, from multiple areas of science.

My point is that in order to do any experimentation to show that something can come from nothing, you need to start with nothing.
Click to expand...

and we don't even know if nothing is possible to exist, if your speaking of nothing eg not even empty space or time, we don't even know if nothing is possible, hence the Lawrence krauss definition of nothing.
 
This is for any one trying to invoke a god to explain the gaps in science.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Where in the following post:

do the terms "god" or "proof" appear?

Are you trying to misconstrue my claims into something more than they are as some sort of a preemptive strike?
 
This really does just go around in circles.
I'm not sure why we all bother in here tbh.

As others have pointed out, you will continue to beleive what you wish to.

All the best.
 
cynic said:
Where in the following post:


do the terms "god" or "proof" appear?

Are you trying to misconstrue my claims into something more than they are as some sort of a preemptive strike?
Click to expand...

Well when you say you have evidence of a large life form that created our species and solar system, I thought you were referring to a god.

If you have a better term that you wish me to call this being/ life form by, let me know.

When you said you had evidence, I thought you were going to present the evidence in an attempt to prove this god/ being/ life form (whatever it is your refering too) existed, or at least was possible to exist.

So are you going to attempt to provide evidence? or what exactly were your offering?
 

I was offering what I originally said and not what you attempted to extrapolate!

If one wishes to confuse proof with evidence then one will need to be prepared to see many popular scientific theories (evolution, the big bang, etc.) thrown on the scrap heap!!!

I happen to like many of those theories, but I choose not to make the error of confusing evidence with proof!
 
pavilion103 said:
This really does just go around in circles.
.
Click to expand...

That's what happens when you keep bringing out the logical fallacies.

However I do think we made some progress, at least now you understand that the atheist position is not that we claim to know that no god exists.

and perhaps if you watched the video about probabilities and possibilities your have learned something too, I actually think the concepts expressed in it can carry over to over areas such as investing also.
 
cynic said:
I was offering what I originally said and not what you attempted to extrapolate!

!
Click to expand...

ok you said

I have observed scientific evidence that is supportive of the concept of our species, planet and solar system being a direct product of a very large and intelligent life form.
Click to expand...

Please share this evidence with us.

----------------------
I know you love word games, but try not to lose focus, just present your best piece of evidence.
 

Would love to see you put as much effort into the trading/investing threads.

I know this area must interest you, however your efforts are wasted here.
You could contribute some really good stuff trading related that would benefit all.
 
pavilion103 said:
Would love to see you put as much effort into the trading/investing threads.

I know this area must interest you, however your efforts are wasted here.
You could contribute some really good stuff trading related that would benefit all.
Click to expand...

I have contributed to many other threads.
 
Value Collector said:
... the concepts expressed in it can carry over to over areas such as investing also.
Click to expand...

He is a trader who believes in God.
You are an investor who has insufficient evidence to believe in God.
I am a gambler, I'll do 100 coin tosses, wish me luck!
 
burglar said:
He is a trader who believes in God.
You are an investor who has insufficient evidence to believe in God.
I am a gambler, I'll do 100 coin tosses, wish me luck!
Click to expand...

I think it's been shown that if you draw up a piece of paper of 100 leading stocks and threw 10 darts at it, you would have as much chance of making a profit as someone who thought they knew what they were doing.
 
pavilion103 said:
You're right I have no proof.
In the same way that no one has proof that the sun will rise tomorrow.
But you follow evidence to make your conclusion that it will.
(evidence that has been discussed over and over and over in here)
Click to expand...

Pav. I have only once noticed you posting "evidence" to back up your claims. In almost all cases you have rejected the evidence provided by others here by stating they are lazy and haven't looked at the rejections to such evidence that are on the web, but usually without you pointing to the specific articles rejecting such evidence. You just use blanket statements that such evidence is out there.

The one exception I recall was when you pointed to an article in Answers In Genesis in relation to an argument that was going on in regards to the origin of mankind. When I looked at the article the first thing I noticed was a statement similar to that I posted a few days back, that essentially said that any evidence that contradicted the biblical account of creation was rejected in the formulation of the article, as by definition it was wrong as only the biblical account could be correct. I think your next post was to declare you were running away for a few weeks, just like you did after I posted the bible quote where God authorised some king or other to rape young girls.
 

Good on ya!
Never heard it put better!!!

Disclosure: I work in a kitchen,
... correction I believe I work in a kitchen,
... I believe it is a kitchen and it exists!
 

Unfortunately you don't see evidence such as order and design, precise laws of the universe etc as evidence which points towards an intelligent mind.

Somehow you think time plus chance best explains them.

You ignore the things like the above that point to an intelligent mind while also ignoring your own neglect of current scientific evidence that life never comes from non-life, something from nothing etc.
 
SirRumpole said:
I think it's been shown that if you draw up a piece of paper of 100 leading stocks and threw 10 darts at it, you would have as much chance of making a profit as someone who thought they knew what they were doing.
Click to expand...

there is a big difference between having a chance, and having the same chance.

Offcourse any random method of picking stocks has a chance of picking a string of winners, however this random chance has the same chance at picking a string of losers.

If you are saying that making above average returns consistently over a long period of time requires only random chance and not knowledge and skills, I think your wrong.

Warren buffet wrote a great article debunking the idea of the market being all luck, the article is called "the super investors of Graham and Doddsville" If you get a chance its worth a read.

here the article

http://www4.gsb.columbia.edu/null?&exclusive=filemgr.download&file_id=522
 
while also ignoring your own neglect of current scientific evidence that life never comes from non-life, something from nothing etc
Click to expand...

Do you have scientific evidence that says life never comes from non-life?

You also ignore the fact that your god hypothesis faces the same problem. As I have said we both agree at some point life came from non life, I just think it was probably a natural process, you think it was a magic god.
 
Value Collector said:
ok you said



Please share this evidence with us.

----------------------
I know you love word games, but try not to lose focus, just present your best piece of evidence.
Click to expand...
I am going to give you my best recollection of matters that I've not studied for some decades now, so please forgive any minute aberrations. It's just that I don't experience some posters as being at all receptive to any information that contradicts their personal philosophy and hence do not wish to waste too much of my time!

Firstly observe the strong similarities between certain formulae produced by Newton, Coulomb, Rutherford and Bohr.

Note the similarities between the orbital motions of planets around a sun and electrons around the nucleus of an atom.

Examine the blood cells of a mammal under a microscope and note the behaviour of microbes,doing what microbes do and seemingly oblivious to the host within which they reside.

Consider the chemical components of glucose and petroleum, note their similarities also note the chemical result when these compounds react with oxygen!

Take a glance at time lapse footage of a major city with "arterial" roads and note the regular inward and outward pulse of traffic during peak hours. Now look at footage of the circulation of blood through the "arteries" of a mammalian respiratory system and note the regularity of the heartbeat.

The evidence is right in front of our eyes! Some prefer to overlook this in favour of the perception of believing themselves to be members of the most intelligent species in the multiverse and more intelligent than their ancestors. The evidence uncovered by their very own science does not support such vanity!
 
pavilion103 said:
Unfortunately you don't see evidence such as order and design, precise laws of the universe etc as evidence which points towards an intelligent mind.
Click to expand...

Yes they point towards an intelligent mind, but that isn't evidence. It is only jumping to conclusions without delving deeper.

Somehow you think time plus chance best explains them.
Click to expand...

Again the typical creationist misunderstanding of evolution. It also involved natural selection, which isn't chance.

You ignore the things like the above that point to an intelligent mind while also ignoring your own neglect of current scientific evidence that life never comes from non-life, something from nothing etc.
Click to expand...

Again, I am ignoring nothing. Your sources explicitly state what they ignore, which is everything that doesn't suit them. There is NO current scientific evidence that life DOESN'T come from no life. Equally, there also isn't yet any demonstrable evidence that life CAN COME from no life. As has to be pointed out dozens of times to some people: absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. That is why abiogenesis is still a hypothesis, but they are slowly understanding how it may have occurred. I have an open mind on the subject. Something from nothing has been demonstrated in particle physics. There is NO scientific evidence that something cannot come from nothing. A child might think it obvious as you said earlier, but I don't know of any children that have a grasp of quantum physics. But many who are certain Santa exists.

I am not ignoring anything and as has been said for the umpteenth time, there are many things we currently don't know. That is not evidence that the answer is a God or an intelligent designer. Go back a few hundred years and think of the things that were then assumed to be the result of the intervention of God, but we now know better. We have learned a lot since and human knowledge is increasing at an exponential rate.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...