Nohelp is correct, there are literally hundreds of gods out there that cannot be proven.
|
Nohelp is correct, there are literally hundreds of gods out there that cannot be proven.
That is the result caused by all the empty wild claims made by so many here, and which (could) have consequences for others with different views...Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
If theists would just believe in their deity/deities, there would be no "objective-subjective debate".
But (some) theists can't accept that there are people who have different world views.
And these theists insists that their own personal religious views should be the views of all.
For me nobody has to prove anything - that being subject to theists accepting that there are people with different views, and to stopping their un-constitutional attempts to force their religious views on to non-theists.
:rolleyes:
·
I guess I just don't see 'Theists INSISTING that their own personal religious views should be the views of all so I can't understand the objective/subjective *debate*
Hundreds? No trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x trillion x gods that cannot be proved to exist. NONE OF THEM !Quote:
Originally Posted by NeedKarma
Seems more that gods do not exist at all...
:D :rolleyes: :D :rolleyes: :D
·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Trillions... mmm? I think you are getting a little carried away here... sound like one your imfamous unprove claims andBELIEFS...
Niether can you prove a magical Big Bang that was intelligent enough to make the universe.. lol So we are in the same boat my friend.. :D
But haven't you seen the religious ones going on about knowing "the Truth" (like they invented the word) and condemning all who aren't like them?Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
No and I have asked for specific direct quotes that show that and haven't gotten any
Replies other than more accusations that they do it.
I do see an occasional My denomination is the right one though
There is no evidence that there is not a teapot orbiting around Jupiter, yet you don't believe adamantly that there is, do you?
Capuchin
That is not the point and has already been covered here.
[QUOTE]Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
Yes like the empty claims you make about your unproven magical Big Bang which you have been claiming is a fact and yet have failed to prove it. :D
Quote:
If theists would just believe in their deity/deities, there would be no "objective-subjective debate".
But (some) theists can't accept that there are people who have different world views.
And these theists insists that their own personal religious views should be the views of all.
Apparently you are the one who can't accept that there are people out there like theist who do not share your athiestic beliefs. It obviously bothers you considering you spend at least 60% of your spare time on a religious forum trying to promote your beliefs as being better. Like I said before we don't need someone trying to convert us to their beliefs.. we are quite happy as theists and we would much appreciate it if you didn't waist your time with your humanistic propaganda.
Niether have you proved your magical big bang. We are still waiting for proof that this so called big bang is the father of all life...Quote:
For me nobody has to prove anything - that being subject to theists accepting that there are people with different views, and to stopping their un-constitutional attempts to force their religious views on to non-theists.
This ridiculous comparison tactic & is severely flawed and ludicrous that you have to wonder about the sanity of the person using it. It basically lumps all paranormal phenomena in the same category as anything a skeptic like you makes up out of thin air. It is more of a belittling tactic than a reasoned argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Capuchin
The premise behind this argument is that if a claim is unprovable, then it's in the same category as everything that is deliberately made up or fictionalized. However, not only is this false and a mere play on words, but it is a complete straw man argument because it falsely redefines the opposing position in terms that make it more easily attackable, using false comparisons.
That analogy does not make any sense because there is nothing the existence an orbiting teapot have to show for anything. However the existence of God explains the existence of the universe and throughout history millions of honest, sane, intelligent people have experiences with God which resulted in life changing effects, but the same can't be said about your orbiting tea pot which makes your comparison invalid.
And also just because something is unprovable does not automatically put it in the same category as everything else that is unprovable. For example, I can't prove what I ate last night for dinner or what I thought about. Without witnesses, I can't prove what I saw on TV or how high I scored in a video game either. But that doesn't mean that these things are in the same category as every story in the fiction section of the library.
So pleas if you are going to have an intelligent debate about something, please make reasonable points instead of these invalid cheap and played out analogies. :rolleyes:
Well you never know Sassy aliens could drink tea and could have lost their pot.
Lol.. anything is possible :DQuote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
That's exactly what's being said - you finally got it! :)Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
More bull manure... I never stated that what is called the Big Bang is a fact. I stated that there is a lot of objective supporting evidence for the flash expansion that in popular terms is called "the Big Bang".Quote:
Originally Posted by sassyT
This in stark contrast to the total lack of any objective supporting evidence for the religious creation claim.
Why do you always try to twist everything and/or tamper with quotations by making false suggestions as to what was really stated? Perhaps because you can not support your own religious wild claims ?
:rolleyes:
·
Maybe if you attended a science class that teaches about advanced scientific theories you would know why the big bang is presented as a theory. I'm not going to try to prove it to you because anything I say about it your either going to say I'm wrong or god did that way. Frankly I have decided that I created the world last Tuesday and created you all with memory of days before that simply to amuse myself. You can't prove me wrong so it must be true.
As I have already said even with all the scientific proof in the world HOW does it DISPROVE God? Scientific proof does not mean God did not create it.
It doesn't, you can't disprove something that doesn't exist. It's not possible. Especially things like gods. Who have no properties of matter. By their very nature gods are set up so that they can't be disproven because if you could disprove it almost no one would believe it. Even if you claim god did something like creating the universe, if we prove the big bang was the start of it all. All it means to religious people is that god used the big bang to create the universe and it doesn't disprove him at all.
If 100% of the people who believed in religion were like most people who believe in religion, it wouldn't be that big a deal. The problem is the people on the edge. The people who halt progress in the name of religion. The people who insist I live my life according to their religion. The people who would do harm because of their religion. The people who knock on my door at 8o'clock on a Saturday morning and insist on telling me about their religion and don't go away when I don't answer the door after 10 minutes of them knocking and ringing the bell. If some of the people who believe in Santa Clause and unicorns used their believe to justify these crimes, I wouldn't like them either.
Exactly
Exactly.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
That's true, for me science just proves to me that the natural world is created in such a way that I cannot deny the existence of a Creator.
And the thing is that individuals cannot go out on their own to research the organisms/systems in nature to strengthen their beliefs in a Creator,we need the people who do such research in order for us to understand better the works of the Almighty.
Not to divert away from the main point,but was there something in history that actually made believers deny science or for science to deny the possibility of a Creator?
I cannot understand the need to deny one to believe in the other.
Firm,
There are lots of examples of the christian religion trying to keep knowledge away from the people. From Galileo being jailed for claim the earth obits the sun, to the modern era where religious zealots are trying to force the teaching of creation in our public schools.
By Christian religion, do you mean the Catholic Church?Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
If so, I believe you are mistaken. Galileo for instance, did not discover that the earth orbited the sun. A Jesuit, Copernicus, did so. The Catholic Church was studying the question before making any premature announcements such as Galileo made.
In addition, Galileo was not jailed for revealing that the earth orbitted the sun but for claiming that the Word of God was in error. If he had stuck to science and left theology out of his commentary, the Church would have had no problem with his announcement.
Sincerely,
De Maria
Um, because there are so many claims on these boards that God DOES exist. I'm not sure why you can't understand this. If I assert there is an invisible gremlin living in my closet, you have no reason to believe me until I offer some sort of evidence this is true. Many feel the same way about your god. What's so hard to understand about that?Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
I can understand it. I don't know why you can't understand why I am trying to get both sides to understand that it is useless to debate by hashing it out here so MAYBE Christians AND atheists will get it off their chest here instead of arguing on others posts.
Will airing it out here stop those christians from going door to door trying to convert me to their religion?
Can any one describe precisely what love is and can the listener understand exactly what it was just said?
Can any one know how a new kind of food tastes like by listening and not try to put that food in his mouth?
Human language and the material on this earth are not the right tools to describe all about what GOD is. And worse than that, the human mind is way too incapable to understand GOD, let alone language or science. MEDITATE ! Get out of the human mind and depends on how high your level of consciousness, you will understand GOD, or define GOD at your level.
nt45kcl, that's what I've been saying. Apparently there are many who will not admit to their mental limitations. Refuse to see the truth of who and what they are, indefinable beings. These individuals feel it is necessary to show that their opinion is the correct one by making other opinions look wrong.
Winning a debate means that you are good at picking apart ideas and being "more" right. If one is not feeding his ego and feeling superior to someone else, wouldn't they be looking for similarities not differences?
Exactly what I mean people are going to believe what they are going to believe SO WHY argue over belief, subjective, objective, etc...Quote:
Originally Posted by simoneaugie
Lets stop here and go find out for our own answers about GOD and pleasure to know GOD and our unlimited potentials...
I am still down to earth where the true gravity is so high that my soul is so dwelled strongly. I need GOD where all the happiness are there. This life is fun just a little bit but the suffering is way too much.
Simonaeugie and N0help4u, Thank you for your answers.
I didn't say Gaileo discovered the heliocentric model I said "claimed" different to discover I can claim the earth revolves around the sun without discovering it. He was jailed because he went against the current teachings of the church and that means he was jailed for his ideas a big no-no. Also how can you stick to just science when part of the churches teaching what it considers science from god and that science is wrong? How can you make a premature announcement when you are right and all the evidence supports you are right? Unless of course religion is weapon of control.Quote:
Originally Posted by De Maria
Of course I know this is meaningless to you as someone who would probably burn Darwin at the stake as a heretic with glee in his heart.
Just a couple of comments:Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
* While Galileo didn't discover the heliocentric model, he eagerly supported Copernicus and was very instrumental in popularizing the theory.
* You have to realize that many people who peruse these forums aren't merely religious, but refuse to even accept modern science. It's why I scan these forums from time to time. It's so incredibly sad that this many grown adults do not grasp the reality of evolution. Especially, when those who argue against it will eventually be proven just as wrong as those who argued against Galileo and Copernicus. Anyone interested in learning about evolution will quickly see it is as much common knowledge as planetary orbits are.
There is no objective supporting proof for God to exist and be the Creator. So why should there be any "objective proof that God was not the power/force behind the creation of the universe"?Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
What you actually ask here is equal to : where/what is the objective proof that the Flying Pink Unicorn was not the power/force behind the creation of the universe even with all the scientific facts?
:D
·
As I stated in my post on this we covered that there already.
BTW there are no flying pink unicorns...
Flying pink elephants and/or one eyed, one horned flying purple people eaters BUT NO flying pink unicorns.
OK : just the Pink Unicorn than , or a flying Spaghetti Monster. All these suggested-to-exist entities - all of them - fail any objective supported evidence towards their existence, and my point is that it is not up to anyone to prove that they do not exist, but to those who claim so to prove that they do exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
If that was the conclusion of the discussion, than I agree with that.
:D
·
This is where we differ because I do not think either 'side' has to PROVE anything.Quote:
Originally Posted by Credendovidis
You have your belief, I have mine, De Maria has their belief, Allheart has her belief,
Lobroster has his belief,
NO proving even if somebody insists they are right it isn't going to change any of our minds.
I even believe that if someone could some how actually PROVE the truth that others would not believe it any way unless it happened to ALREADY be what they believed anyway.
Would you basically tend to agree with that??
I have always stated that everyone should be allowed to believe whatever suits the person.Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
Where the problem with many theists is, is that they insist to use their influence to force their religious ideas and force it onto others.
If you believe in God : fine ! If you want to go to church : fine ! If you state here that you believe that God wants you to this or that : fine !
But the moment that you try to force your religion and your religious views onto someone else I say : first you have to prove that what you say is correct.
Therefore as to the topic question : "objective/subjective how does it disprove God?" : it is not a fair question.
You ask for ways to DISPROVE God. Not to PROVE God. Why should anyone want to try to disprove something that so far has never before with objective supported evidence been proved to be correct?
:rolleyes:
·
Well, that's not true of me nor do I think it's true of most atheists. I will immediately become a believer upon sufficient evidence. And that's the thing...Quote:
Originally Posted by N0help4u
I care about whether my beliefs are true. I am open to being shown that I am wrong. But I tend to agree with you when it comes to most theists. I don't think there is any amount of evidence that will persuade them that heir belief in god could be wrong. Nothing whatsoever. I think that's a sad way to go through life clinging to a belief no matter what.
Think of it this way say you own acres of land and you want to put a house on it. However a bunch of protesters are saying you can't put a house on it because bigfoot lives on it and this group of protesters are large enough that many of the members of this group are part of the local government that grants building permits. Would it be fair that you have to prove that bigfoot doesn't exist which means having every sq inch of every forrest looked at 24 hours a day or should the people that say bigfoot exists have to at least give some evidence that bigfoot exists other than that Billy Bob something in the woods.
Don't be silly. Examining every sq inch STILL doesn't prove bigfoot doesn't exist. Maybe he has super natural camouflage abilities and works in mysterious ways. You can't prove he doesn't! Go back to where you came from. We don't want no a-bigfootists moving in corrupting our children. We're Yeti lovin' folk in these parts.Quote:
Originally Posted by michealb
Another reason why you can't prove something that doesn't exist. The moment you think you have a fool proof way of proving something doesn't exist someone attaches another characteristic to it so that your original idea doesn't work any more.
| All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:56 AM. |