Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

"The Origin of Specious Nonsense"

Options
1…170171173175176…334

Comments

  • Options
    #5162
    Mr. Boo
    Registered Users Posts: 347 ✭✭Mr. Boo


    J C wrote: »
    ...at least a Divine Agent has the theoretical and practical capacity to do so ...

    What practical examples (cause and effect) do we have of divine agents in action? It's news to me, but it could change my whole outlook.


  • Options
    #5163
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    ... and all discrimination has echoes with how the Jews were historically treated.

    robindch
    Grow up, FFS.
    Charming, Robin !!!:(

    I would also make the point that Ben Stein is a Jew who knows what happened to the Jews in the lead up to the Holocaust ... and he is drawing parallells between the current animosity towards Creationists and the animosity shown to Jews in Nazi Germany ... and I'll take his word on it ... before I'll take yours
    Ironically, many Creationists are also Orthodox Jews.

    ... and this thread shows a level of animosity towards Creationists, that has to be seen to be believed ... and many people are looking on in horror at what they are seeing.

    With Christian love to you all.


  • Options
    #5164
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    and he is drawing parallells between the current animosity towards Creationists and the animosity shown to Jews in Nazi Germany ... and I'll take his word on it ... before I'll take yours

    There is no parallel between the mass execution of people based on their ethnicity/beliefs - and criticism of creationism, and creationists who wish to push their illogical fairy-tale on school-children and pass it for science, when there isn't one single scientific piece of data to backup creationism.
    J C wrote: »
    Ironically, many Creationists are also Orthodox Jews.

    That's not ironic.
    J C wrote: »
    ... and this thread shows a level of animosity towards Creationists

    I have no animosity towards creationists, so long as they keep their fairytales in church where they belong. When you start using our tax to propagate your fairytale in science class - then we have a problem.
    J C wrote: »
    With Christian love to you all.

    We don't want your Christian love. Save it.


  • Options
    #5165
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    Ah, it's suddenly clear.

    You're a troll from Stormfront. Only possible explanation. No idea how I didn't see it beforehand.

    Well played, J C. Well played.


  • Options
    #5166
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    There is no parallel between the mass execution of people based on their ethnicity/beliefs - and criticism of creationism, and creationists who wish to push their illogical fairy-tale on school-children and pass it for science, when there isn't one single scientific piece of data to backup creationism.
    Ben Stein seem to think that there are parallells ... and I'll take his word for it, especially after seeing how I have been treated on this thread.


    wrote:
    Originally Posted by J C
    Ironically, many Creationists are also Orthodox Jews.

    dlofnep
    That's not ironic.
    Ironic doesn't even begin to describe it, if your grandparents were not allowed to work in their chosen career, because they were 1930's Jews ... and you aren't allowed to work in your chosen career, because you are a 2011 Creationist.

    dlofnep wrote: »
    I have no animosity towards creationists, so long as they keep their fairytales in church where they belong. When you start using our tax to propagate your fairytale in science class - then we have a problem.
    ... it's my tax money too, that you are talking about ... and you seem to be very happy to spend it to promote your worldview ... whereas I have no expectation that anybody's tax money will be spent to promote my worldview.
    ... in any event, you have shown total animosity towards me on this thread, and it isn't a school ... and nobodys taxes are being spent on it.
    Question my ideas, by all means ... tear them apart, if you can ... but please desist from the unfounded ad hominem remarks!!!
    ... all I ask is that you don't make untrue and deeply prejudicial personal remarks about me, when I come onto your forum ... and that you treat me with civility ... just like you would expect to be treated yourself!!!
    Creationists, who are conventionally qualified scientists are just as entitled, as anybody else, to publish their scientifically valid hypotheses - and to be treated with dignity and to have their faith respected on this forum ... and elsewhere.

    dlofnep wrote: »
    We don't want your Christian love. Save it.
    I can't make you love me ... all I can do is to love and respect you ... and hope that someday, you'll see the error of your ways.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5167
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    There is no such thing as a creation scientist. There are scientists, and creationists.

    The reason they are called scientists, is because the pursue truth based on fact. Evolution is a fact. Creationism, is not.
    OK, there are two basic possibilities for how the universe and life came to be.

    1. It was produced by the appliance of intelligence by an agent or agents unknown.

    2. It was all spontaneously generated by purely materialistic processes unknown without any intelligent input.

    You want the second possibility to be true to justify your Atheism and I want the first possibility to be true to justify my Theism.

    You want science to limit its enquiries to only examining the evidence for possibility 2, whereas I want science to evaluate the evidence for both possibilities.

    You say that science must confine itself to examining physical evidence ... but I say that there can be physical evidence for the action of an intelligent agent as well as physical evidence for purely materialistic processes.

    ... so let's say, for the sake of argument, that an Intelligent Agent DID produce the universe and all life on Earth ... do you think that we should all simply ignore the fact that this happened ... or never find out that it happened by refusing to scientifically evaluate whether it happened?


  • Options
    #5168
    kahf1_02
    Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭kahf1_02


    Atheism destroys. Everyone knows that.


  • Options
    #5169
    Undergod
    Registered Users Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    No one told me that! What does it destroy?


  • Options
    #5170
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,738 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    kahf1_02 wrote: »
    Atheism destroys. Everyone knows that.

    cheers for that, i do enjoy a good ole oxymoron.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #5171
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,382 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    J C wrote: »
    OK, there are two basic possibilities for how the universe and life came to be.

    1. It was produced by the appliance of intelligence by an agent or agents unknown.

    2. It was all spontaneously generated by purely materialistic processes unknown without any intelligent input.

    You want the second possibility to be true to justify your Atheism and I want the first possibility to be true to justify my Theism.

    You want science to limit its enquiries to only examining the evidence for possibility 2, whereas I want science to evaluate the evidence for both possibilities.

    You say that science must confine itself to examining physical evidence ... but I say that there can be physical evidence for the action of an intelligent agent as well as physical evidence for purely materialistic processes.

    ... so let's say, for the sake of argument, that an Intelligent Agent DID produce the universe and all life on Earth ... do you think that we should all simply ignore the fact that this happened ... or never find out that it happened by refusing to scientifically evaluate whether it happened?

    But science is itself confined by what is possible, and so much of the Creationist theory goes against what has already been proven by science. No one is saying that science should limit itself in any way. Science should take every single bit of evidence into account at all times. We are saying that science, as it stands now, cannot prove the Creationist Theory, and disproves many aspects of it.

    If this Agent (AKA God, because let's not kid ourselves, that's what you mean) created everything, then where is he? We cannot see him. We cannot hear him. We cannot feel him. Thoughts, consciousness, will, intelligence.... All we know about science tells us that these cannot exist outside of some type of vessel. There must be a form which houses these things. Not necessarily a brain, but something. If God could will or think the Universe into existence, that is impossible. You cannot just think about something and it appears. We don't think the Universe just suddenly began, we don't know what caused it as we are limited in what we can do with science.

    But think about how science has evolved over the past 500 years. We may not know now, but we may know in the future. And it may turn out that, yes, there was some intelligent agent behind it all. However, because we don't know that and that there is no scientific evidence to suggest that, we cannot assume that that is the answer, because it currently goes far beyond what we've learned from science.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5172
    kahf1_02
    Closed Accounts Posts: 53 ✭✭kahf1_02


    Any world leader that adopted Atheism, has been known for setting the world on a backward spiral of destruction. Take Hitler. nuff said.


  • Options
    #5173
    Dades
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 25,558 Mod ✭✭✭✭Dades


    kahf1_02 wrote: »
    Any world leader that adopted Atheism, has been known for setting the world on a backward spiral of destruction. Take Hitler. nuff said.
    Indeed - just look at Australia since Julia Gillard took over.

    It's like Mad Max down there now.


  • Options
    #5174
    Undergod
    Registered Users Posts: 2,858 ✭✭✭Undergod


    kahf1_02 wrote: »
    Any world leader that adopted Atheism, has been known for setting the world on a backward spiral of destruction. Take Hitler. nuff said.

    There's plenty wrong with what you said, but let's deal with your most basic error: small sample size. The proportion of atheist to theist world leaders throughout history is probably quite small, so no reliable conclusions can be drawn from that.

    That said, I am still concerned about the predations of atheists throughout history, for example the bloodthirsty dictator Gautama Buddha. And, to deal with the specific category you mentioned, let's not forget evil Jawaharlal Nehru, Prime Minister of India who is widely considered to be Ghandi's successor; or the despicable Giuseppe Garibaldi, who spearheaded the unification of Italy and set back human advancement by decades if not centuries.


  • Options
    #5175
    Genghiz Cohen
    Registered Users Posts: 7,182 ✭✭✭Genghiz Cohen


    Dades wrote: »
    It's like Mad Max down there now.

    Sooo.... better?


  • Options
    #5176
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    Ben Stein seem to think that there are parallells ... and I'll take his word for it, especially after seeing how I have been treated on this thread.

    Oh would you stop with your victim complex.
    J C wrote: »
    Ironic doesn't even begin to describe it, if your grandparents were not allowed to work in their chosen career, because they were 1930's Jews ... and you aren't allowed to work in your chosen career, because you are a 2011 Creationist.

    And who exactly is not allowed to work because they are a creationist? Frankly, I think it's disgusting that you are exploiting the memory of millions of innocent Jews to try and draw some parallel between them and today's creationists. It doesn't even come close. You should be ashamed of yourself.
    J C wrote: »
    ... it's my tax money too, that you are talking about ... and you seem to be very happy to spend it to promote your worldview ... whereas I have no expectation that anybody's tax money will be spent to promote my worldview.

    My world-view is backed up by science, and evidence. I don't care if you pay tax. If someone wants to teach that Black people are the devil incarnate in schools, being a tax-payer does not give them the right to have such absurd material taught. In the same respect, creationism is absurd, and lacks any rationale whatsoever.
    J C wrote: »
    I can't make you love me ... all I can do is to love and respect you ... and hope that someday, you'll see the error of your ways.

    I don't want your love, or your respect. And I certainly don't want you to dictate to me which ways are correct, and which are erroneous.


  • Options
    #5177
    dlofnep
    Closed Accounts Posts: 20,759 ✭✭✭✭dlofnep


    J C wrote: »
    OK, there are two basic possibilities for how the universe and life came to be.

    1. It was produced by the appliance of intelligence by an agent or agents unknown.

    2. It was all spontaneously generated by purely materialistic processes unknown without any intelligent input.

    You want the second possibility to be true to justify your Atheism and I want the first possibility to be true to justify my Theism.

    No, therein lies the difference. I don't 'want' anything to be true. It's your circular logic that aspires for creationism to be true, so that you can be settled with the thought of an afterlife.

    I believe, based on the best science available - that the big bang explains the expansion of the universe, and the creation of stars and planets. We live in 2011, where we can examine this process in great detail.

    I don't claim to 'know' for certain how life came about. But you do - that's the difference. You claim that some infallible being created the universe, and life - without a shred of evidence for it.

    I accept that it is theoretically possible, for simple life to spontaneously come from nothing - based on the results of the Miller-Urey experiment, and subsequent experiments. That's not to say that it demonstrated that life came from nothing - but that it's a step in the right direction.

    Life is probably abundant across the universe. One would have to be egotistical to believe that homo sapiens are a privileged species. We are but a grain of sand on a beach in the cosmic scale of things.
    J C wrote: »
    You want science to limit its enquiries to only examining the evidence for possibility 2, whereas I want science to evaluate the evidence for both possibilities.

    I would be more than happy for science to discuss the issue, if it actually had any scientific merit. But it doesn't. You accept the word of a 2000 year old book, that was written by goat-herders, who lived in a time where they believed the earth was flat, and that we were the centre of the universe. You're going to have to excuse me if I treat such a book with the contempt that it deserves.
    J C wrote: »
    ... so let's say, for the sake of argument, that an Intelligent Agent DID produce the universe and all life on Earth ... do you think that we should all simply ignore the fact that this happened ... or never find out that it happened by refusing to scientifically evaluate whether it happened?

    Yes, we should ignore it - because it is NOT fact, and has no evidence to state that it did actually happen. Coming from someone who doesn't even accept evolution - I don't think we're going to make any middle ground with you. You are brain-washed, and incapable of critical-thinking. That's about the bones of it. I have no desire to discuss anything further with you.


  • Options
    #5178
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    Oh would you stop with your victim complex.
    I'm not a victim of anybody ... and that is how I would like to keep it ... for myself and all other creationists.
    BTW, it isn't a 'victim complex' to object to proposals by other thread contributors to discriminate on the basis of religious belief ... or to ask contributors to concentrate on attacking ideas rather than the person with the ideas.

    dlofnep wrote: »
    And who exactly is not allowed to work because they are a creationist? Frankly, I think it's disgusting that you are exploiting the memory of millions of innocent Jews to try and draw some parallel between them and today's creationists. It doesn't even come close. You should be ashamed of yourself.
    Luckily nobody that I know, are being discriminated against ... but if ye guys had your way ... practically every Creation Scientist would not be allowed to work as scientists ... unless ye are withdrawing your stated intention to discriminate, on the threadbare excuse that Creationists who are conventional scientists aren't 'real' scientists.


    dlofnep wrote: »
    My world-view is backed up by science, and evidence.
    ... my worldview is certainly backed up by scientific evidence and logical deduction ... but I have yet to see the evidence for the spontaneous generation and transmutation of life.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    I don't care if you pay tax. If someone wants to teach that Black people are the devil incarnate in schools, being a tax-payer does not give them the right to have such absurd material taught. In the same respect, creationism is absurd, and lacks any rationale whatsoever.
    ... I know that Materialistic Evolution is an absurdity ... and breaks the known laws of logic, thermodynamics, information and biogenesis.


    dlofnep wrote: »
    I don't want your love, or your respect. And I certainly don't want you to dictate to me which ways are correct, and which are erroneous.
    That is fine by me ... and I wasn't dictating to you ... I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your beliefs in the power of material to spontaneously generate Complex Functional Specified Information ... which has always been observed to require an input of intelligence for its generation.
    You could, of course, believe through faith alone, in some other unknown power(s) that produced life ... but that is what you are accusing me of believing in!!!:eek::D


  • Options
    #5179
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,738 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    still waitig on you to provide evidence that god created the universe. you did say it was a fact after all.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #5180
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    dlofnep wrote: »
    No, therein lies the difference. I don't 'want' anything to be true. It's your circular logic that aspires for creationism to be true, so that you can be settled with the thought of an afterlife.
    ... of course you want your worldview to be true ... everybody does ... otherwise you would no longer hold it to be true.

    dlofnep wrote: »
    I believe, based on the best science available - that the big bang explains the expansion of the universe, and the creation of stars and planets. We live in 2011, where we can examine this process in great detail.
    ... or so you have convinced yourself.
    ... the best science available says that CFSI doesn't spontaneously generate ... because this is a mathematical impossibility

    dlofnep wrote: »
    I don't claim to 'know' for certain how life came about. But you do - that's the difference. You claim that some infallible being created the universe, and life - without a shred of evidence for it.
    I don't claim to know the exact details either ... but the appliance of Intelligence by an agent or agents unknown is the only scientifically valid hypothesis currently available.
    dlofnep wrote: »
    I accept that it is theoretically possible, for simple life to spontaneously come from nothing - based on the results of the Miller-Urey experiment, and subsequent experiments. That's not to say that it demonstrated that life came from nothing - but that it's a step in the right direction.
    Miller-Urey only demonstrated that amino acids can be spontaneously produced ... but this is the logical equivalent of saying that because red ochre can be spontaneously produced and can be used as paint ... that this proves that Medieval and Renaissance frescoes that used red ochre, were also spontaneously produced!!!
    dlofnep wrote: »
    Life is probably abundant across the universe. One would have to be egotistical to believe that homo sapiens are a privileged species. We are but a grain of sand on a beach in the cosmic scale of things.
    ... now you are moving into speculation and conjecture ... but even if you are correct, the appliance of intelligence is also required to produce the CFSI in any such hypothetical 'alien' lifeforms.



    dlofnep wrote: »
    I would be more than happy for science to discuss the issue, if it actually had any scientific merit. But it doesn't. You accept the word of a 2000 year old book, that was written by goat-herders, who lived in a time where they believed the earth was flat, and that we were the centre of the universe. You're going to have to excuse me if I treat such a book with the contempt that it deserves.
    ... my faith may be based on God's Word in the Bible ... but my science is firmly grounded in the real world of genetic information, that would 'frazzle' your brain in its specified complexity.

    dlofnep wrote: »
    Yes, we should ignore it - because it is NOT fact, and has no evidence to state that it did actually happen.
    If you keep repeating that mantra ... you just may continue to believe it ... despite all of the evidence that is available.

    dlofnep wrote: »
    Coming from someone who doesn't even accept evolution - I don't think we're going to make any middle ground with you. You are brain-washed, and incapable of critical-thinking. That's about the bones of it. I have no desire to discuss anything further with you.
    I used to 'accept' Evolution ... now I know that Creation is what happened ... and I believe that God did it.:)


  • Options
    #5181
    Sarky
    Closed Accounts Posts: 31,967 ✭✭✭✭Sarky


    J C wrote: »
    I'm not a victim of anybody ...

    Then kindly stop with the persecution complex. It's embarrassing and not a little disgusting to watch you claim the above after saying that rational people are a stone's throw away from holocaust-style mass murders.
    Nobody that I am aware of ... but if ye guys had your way ... practically every Creationist ... unless ye are withdrawing your intention to discriminate on the threadbare excuse that Creationists who are conventional scientists aren't 'real' scientists.

    Again with the paranoia. You may need to see someone about that, it's not healthy. The whole point of being a scientist is coming up with conclusions based on all the evidence available. Creationists don't DO this, they start with an answer and only take evidence that supports that. Basically, they're crap scientists. And nobody should have to be stuck with crap scientists.
    ... my worldview is certainlybacked up by scientific evidence and logical deduction ... but I have yet to see the evidence for the spontaneous generation and transmutation of life.

    You're lying again. The only parts of this thread not showing you evidence about how you're totally wrong are the posts you've written. Actually, half of those prove you wrong too and you're too blind and arrogant to even see it. And the other half are copy/pastes of some creationist website full of bad science that was debunked years ago.

    So no. Your worldview is bollocks, backed up by sweet f*ck all. Given the amount of evidence against you in this thread alone, it is a perfectly acceptable conclusion at which to arrive.
    ... I know that Materialistic Evolution is an absurdity ... and breaks the known laws of logic, thermodynamics, information and biogenesis.

    Except that it doesn't. You're lying again. We know you're lying, because you've watched all the videos that prove you wrong. It doesn't matter if you reject them. Rejecting them doesn't make you any less wrong. Seriously, you lie so often it wouldn't even make a good drinking game. We'd all be dead from alcohol poisoning before we left the first page.
    That is fine by me ... and I wasn't dictating to you ... I was merely pointing out the fallacy of your beliefs in the power of material to spontaneously generate Complex Functional Specified Information ... which has always been observed to require an input of intelligence for its generation.

    Again with your "complex functional specified information". You know how many holes there are in that rubbish. It's been explained many times. And you've claimed to have read the links, so we know you're lying when you talk about this, too.

    Frankly J C, I'm not sure how you can even look at yourself in the mirror each morning. You are easily the most dishonest person I have ever encountered. And I've done security work around the Fianna Fail tents during race week.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5182
    J C
    Registered Users Posts: 14,615 ✭✭✭✭J C


    Sarky wrote: »
    Then kindly stop with the persecution complex. It's embarrassing and not a little disgusting to watch you claim the above after saying that rational people are a stone's throw away from holocaust-style mass murders.
    ... we forget, at out peril, what happened with the Holocaust ... which is only 'a stones throw' away in time and space.

    The Nazis were, in their own opinion, ultra-modern and science based ... and yet, they did horrific, unbelievably evil things ... and it all started with job discrimination and name-calling directed against the Jews ... and escalated from there. Anybody who starts to make the same noises, about any religious minority, should indeed be challenged on it


    Sarky wrote: »
    Again with the paranoia. You may need to see someone about that, it's not healthy. The whole point of being a scientist is coming up with conclusions based on all the evidence available. Creationists don't DO this, they start with an answer and only take evidence that supports that. Basically, they're crap scientists. And nobody should have to be stuck with crap scientists.
    More of the same type of unfounded allegations of mental 'unfitness' that was directed against the Jews ... now being made by you against me, simply because I am a Creationist.
    Paranoia means that your fears are groundless ... but, the second part of your own quote, shows that my fears of job discrimination directed against Creation Scientists, if you have any say in the matter, are very well founded indeed.


    Sarky wrote: »
    You're lying again. The only parts of this thread not showing you evidence about how you're totally wrong are the posts you've written. Actually, half of those prove you wrong too and you're too blind and arrogant to even see it. And the other half are copy/pastes of some creationist website full of bad science that was debunked years ago.
    Once again, you are confusing a difference of opinon with lying ... I have a difference of opinon with you ... and so far no part of Creation Science has been debunked on this thread ... and no evidence of Pondlkind to Mankind has been provided, despite all of the 'handwaving' and videos that have been a feature of the evolutionist contribution to the thread.
    Sarky wrote: »
    So no. Your worldview is bollocks, backed up by sweet f*ck all. Given the amount of evidence against you in this thread alone, it is a perfectly acceptable conclusion at which to arrive.
    The use of foul language by you is a giveaway,that you have no substantive evidence for the validity of Pondkind to Mankind Evolution ... and you try to make up for this deficit, by using bluster ... while hoping that nobody notices.


    Sarky wrote: »
    Except that it doesn't. You're lying again. We know you're lying, because you've watched all the videos that prove you wrong. It doesn't matter if you reject them. Rejecting them doesn't make you any less wrong. Seriously, you lie so often it wouldn't even make a good drinking game. We'd all be dead from alcohol poisoning before we left the first page.
    All bluster and blather ... but no evidence.


    Sarky wrote: »
    Again with your "complex functional specified information". You know how many holes there are in that rubbish. It's been explained many times. And you've claimed to have read the links, so we know you're lying when you talk about this, too.
    ... yet more blather and bluster ... but still no evidence.


  • Options
    #5183
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,738 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    J C wrote: »
    All bluster and blather ... but no evidence.



    ... yet more blather and bluster ... but still no evidence.


    i love the irony of your post, you've avoided adressing my posts for the best part of a week.

    where's your evidence that god created the universe?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #5184
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    koth wrote: »
    where's your evidence that god created the universe?
    Is there any evidence God didn't create the universe?


  • Options
    #5185
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,738 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    dead one wrote: »
    Is there any evidence God didn't create the universe?

    now i've two people not answering my post.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #5186
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    koth wrote: »
    now i've two people not answering my post.
    oh Wow, you are genius, a great intellect of 22 century
    BTW: No one can change ignorance.....
    Now, as no one can answer your highly intellect based question, so would you kindly answer
    Is there any evidence God didn't create the universe?


  • Options
    #5187
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,738 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    dead one wrote: »
    oh Woh, you are genius, a great intellect of 22 century
    BTW: No one can change ignorance.....
    Now, as no one can answer you highly intellect based question, so would you kindly answer
    Is there any evidence God didn't create the universe?

    I have not seen any evidence god did create the universe.

    Now maybe you'll provide evidence that god did, seeing as you are saying that.

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #5188
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    koth wrote: »
    I have not seen any evidence god did create the universe.
    You see, i love innocence... You say, you haven't seen any evidence... Let see it again, tell, what you see in this picture?
    25.jpg
    koth wrote: »
    Now maybe you'll provide evidence that god did, seeing as you are saying that.
    You can't see God with material eyes, with a body which is full of hate/lust/greed/arrogance/..... . You even hate your existence, will you be able to see God who is so loving..... You can't see his creation.... I am talking about Sun.... You can't see Sun with your own eyes, How you will be able to see its creator in this material world....
    Now please answer what you see in above picture....


  • Options
    #5189
    Delirium
    Moderators Posts: 51,738 ✭✭✭✭Delirium


    dead one wrote: »
    You see, i love innocence... You say, you haven't see any evidence... Let see it again, tell what you see in this picture?
    25.jpg

    You can't see God with material eyes, with a body which is full of hate/lust/greed/arrogance/..... . You even hate your existence, will you be able to see God who is so loving..... You can't see his creation.... I am talking about Sun.... You can't see Sun with your own eyes, How you will be able to see its creator in this material world....
    Now please answer what you see in above picture....

    we're back to the pretty picture game again are we? Explain how that is evidence that god created the universe?

    If you can read this, you're too close!



  • Options
    #5190
    dead one
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,320 ✭✭✭dead one


    koth wrote: »
    we're back to the pretty picture game again are we? Explain how that is evidence that god created the universe?
    where is author in the picture? i mean human, who took snap shot or created picture or whatever


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #5191
    Penn
    Registered Users Posts: 33,382 ✭✭✭✭Penn


    dead one wrote: »
    where is author in the picture? i mean human, who took snap shot or created picture or whatever

    I think he may have been behind the camera taking the picture.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement