• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Proof of God

Angel said:
Lest I mistake the intent of a post of yours a second time, are you saying you are ready to discuss animism with me?
Click to expand...

If you feel it can in some way provide Proof of God, certainly.
 
Questerr said:
Angel,

Support these two parts of your claims:

5. Either God must exist or God must not exist. (law of thought)
6. It is not the case that God must not exist. (negation of impossibility)

Why the insistence on “must exist” as opposed to “could exist”? “Must exists” assumes the result before even asking the question because it posits that the universe has things that “must exist”, ie they are forced to by an outside force.

Also, on what basis can you claim “it is not the case that God must not exist”? Why is God one of the things that could not fall into the “must not exist” categories other than your wishful thinking? How do you know the intrinsic nature of the universe and know what “must” and what “must not” exist?
Click to expand...

Excellent point. Insertion of the word "must" creates a foregone conclusion.

5. Either God exists or God does not exist. (law of thought)
6. Neither case presented above can be proven. (the basis of beliefs is maintained only when factual supporting evidence is difficult/impossible to acquire)
 
Individual said:
If you feel it can in some way provide Proof of God, certainly.
Click to expand...
Only on that condition? Why not for intellectual stimulation, for testing and clarifying our ideas, or even just for the hell of it. I thought you were looking for discussion; then suddenly you become reticent and have to be wooed. What's that about?
 
Angel said:
Only on that condition? Why not for intellectual stimulation, for testing and clarifying our ideas, or even just for the hell of it. I thought you were looking for discussion; then suddenly you become reticent and have to be wooed. What's that about?
Click to expand...

Angel said:
Really? I saw my question as an opening through which we might actually have a conversation on the thread topic. Interesting reply.
Click to expand...

Is not the thread topic "Proof of God"?

If you have something to present related to animism which furthers your effort in the thread topic, I remain open to seeing it and discussing it but cannot do so until you present it.
 
Individual said:
Is not the thread topic "Proof of God"?

If you have something to present related to animism which furthers your effort in the thread topic, I remain open to seeing it and discussing it but cannot do so until you present it.
Click to expand...

Probably trying to change the subject as the OP’s “point” is defendable so instead they have trolled. ..


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
uptower said:
I saw a naked man wandering the desert talking to burning hushes and $#it.
Click to expand...

Oh yeah, that guy!

I saw him on the corner. He offered to clean my windshield in return for a contribution to his next meal (which was most likely a dime bag).
 
TomFitz said:
Oh yeah, that guy!

I saw him on the corner. He offered to clean my windshield in return for a contribution to his next meal (which was most likely a dime bag).
Click to expand...

That's my juniper bush!
 
1ekxE8u.jpg


In the desert
I saw a creature, naked, bestial,
Who, squatting upon the ground,
Held his heart in his hands,
And ate of it.
I said: “Is it good, friend?”
“It is bitter – bitter,” he answered;
“But I like it
Because it is bitter,
And because it is my heart.”

—Stephen Crane (1871-1900)


This poem is in the public domain.
In the Desert by Stephen Crane - Poems | Academy of American Poets


uptower said:
I saw a naked man wandering the desert talking to burning hushes and $#it.
Click to expand...

TomFitz said:
Oh yeah, that guy!

I saw him on the corner. He offered to clean my windshield in return for a contribution to his next meal (which was most likely a dime bag).
Click to expand...

zyzygy said:
That's my juniper bush!
Click to expand...
 
On the first part of the journey
I was looking at all the life
There were plants and birds and rocks and things
There was sand and hills and rings
The first thing I met was a fly with a buzz
And the sky with no clouds
The heat was hot and the ground was dry
But the air was full of sound

I've been through the desert on a horse with no name
It felt good to be out of the rain
In the desert you can remember your name
'Cause there ain't no one for to give you no pain
La, la

After two days in the desert sun
My skin began to turn red
After three days in the desert fun
I was looking at a river bed
And the story it told of a river that flowed
Made me sad to think it was dead

You see I've been through the desert on a horse with no name
It felt good to be out of the rain…

-America
 
Quag said:
On the first part of the journey
I was looking at all the life
There were plants and birds and rocks and things
There was sand and hills and rings
The first thing I met was a fly with a buzz
And the sky with no clouds
The heat was hot and the ground was dry
But the air was full of sound

I've been through the desert on a horse with no name
It felt good to be out of the rain
In the desert you can remember your name
'Cause there ain't no one for to give you no pain
La, la

After two days in the desert sun
My skin began to turn red
After three days in the desert fun
I was looking at a river bed
And the story it told of a river that flowed
Made me sad to think it was dead

You see I've been through the desert on a horse with no name
It felt good to be out of the rain…

-America
Click to expand...

A Source with No Name
Parody of "A Horse with No Name" by America
(Hebrews 1:1-13:25)

From the first part of the sermon
It was talkin' about the Christ
It compared the Lord with lots of things
Like the angels, Moses and priests
The first thing it said was that Christ was above
All those guys theres no doubt
That He was God and that they were not
And that theres no foolin around

I been through the letter from a source with no name
It fell in between Pauls words and James
And the experts they can't tell whence that it came
But the ancient ones called it Hebrews by name
La la la ah la la la la la la la la
La la la ah la la la la la la la la

Chapter two says dont reject the Son
Cause sin eventually earns death
Chapter three says keep it tender, hon
Try to listen while there is time left
Chapter four, well, it shows
If we give Him our souls
Like the Sabbath He gives us rest

You see, I been through the letter from a source with no name

It fell in between Pauls words and James
And the experts they can't tell whence that it came
But the ancient ones called it Hebrews by name
La la la ah la la la la la la la la
La la la ah la la la la la la la la
LEAD

Chapter nine says Christ is the Lords high priest
Thus He saves us eternally
There were fancy words and lots of things
That I cant begin to sing
The only thing the experts cant decipher right now
Is the person the writer was
Some possibilities (ahhh ahhh ahhh ahhh)
Might be Barnabas, Paul, Luke or Clement or Apollos

You see, I been through the letter from a source with no name

It fell in between Pauls words and James
And the experts they can't tell whence that it came
But the ancient ones called it Hebrews by name
La la la ah la la la la la la la la
La la la ah la la la la la la la la
La la la ah la la la la la la la la
La la la ah la la la la la la la la
La la la ah la la la la la la la la
La la la ah la la la la la la la la
La la la ah la la la la la la la la
La la la ah la la la la la la la la
 
Individual said:
Science can only work with what nature provides us to examine. The knowledge science has brought us is put to great use by both those believe in God(s) and those who do not. Would the insertion of a God or Gods make a difference to the knowledge science has brought forth?

The question remains, what illegitimate objections to to truth and facts, and what biblical truths have been illegitimately rejected, and what human speculations have taken their place as scientific facts
Click to expand...

Natural science can study the physical world around us, but natural science remains incapable of studying the unnatural or spiritual aspects of life, such as thought formations, memory emotions and so forth. Science does not find that these things are not real. Science is forced to humbly admit it has no ability to observe things it cannot see or touch with the five senses.
 
Individual said:
I'll ask again:
What biblical truths have been illegitimately rejected, and what human speculations have taken their place as scientific facts?
Click to expand...

Those who claim the supernatural cannot exist because natural science is incapable of observing and measuring it are wrong if they say natural forces provided the force by which matter, energy and life were formed, and not supernatural forces.
 
blarg said:
unnatural forces of unknown origins (you know that stuff you said in your post that i quoted come on now)
Click to expand...

Science cannot observe and measure supernatural forces. In that regard science is as ignorant as a rock.
 
weaver2 said:
Science has regarded unnatural forces ever since Genesis was written. Over time and research in biology, chemistry, geology and physics has led scientists to stop looking for unnatural forces and look for the origins in science. You can't prove the unnatural.
Click to expand...

The professors tell us science is not in the business of proving anything. Science certainly has no clue about the supernatural. Those who want to cast out the supernatural because it cannot be seen and measured are showing their bias towards ignorance.
 
blarg said:
has it? or is it just no one has found evidence of that?
Click to expand...

Science should stop looking for evidence of the supernatural. Science cannot see and measure things like thoughts. Science cannot explain how dumb chemicals can come together somehow by purely natural processes to create thoughts, memories and ideas. It is stupid to think it can.
 
marke said:
Science cannot observe and measure supernatural forces.
Click to expand...

Wait! What? You're somehow blaming science for its "inability to measure" something that's never been determined beyond the realm of theory and hypothesis in the first place? The blame for the fact that "supernatural" has never been proven to exist falls squarely upon the shoulders of science, instead of those who advocate for it?


OM
 
Individual said:
Science can only work with what nature provides us to examine. The knowledge science has brought us is put to great use by both those believe in God(s) and those who do not. Would the insertion of a God or Gods make a difference to the knowledge science has brought forth?

The question remains, what illegitimate objections to to truth and facts, and what biblical truths have been illegitimately rejected, and what human speculations have taken their place as scientific facts
Click to expand...

Natural science cannot measure spiritual things, like thoughts, emotions, ideas, memories and the like. Nobody should fall prey to the trick of casting out the spiritual aspects of life just because some researchers with irreligious biases want those things outlawed. That is stupid. We cannot deny the spiritual aspects of life. Humans have souls and spirits. Anyone saying that is not true is lying, whether in ignorance or not.
 
Individual said:
I'll ask again:
What biblical truths have been illegitimately rejected, and what human speculations have taken their place as scientific facts?
Click to expand...

Humans have souls. That is a fact even though science is incapable of observing and measuring souls. It is stupid to say humans do not have souls just because irreligious agnostics want to believe that lie.
 
marke said:
Science cannot observe and measure supernatural forces. In that regard science is as ignorant as a rock.
Click to expand...

Neither can religion all it can do is believe they exist
 
Last edited:
marke said:
Humans have souls. That is a fact even though science is incapable of observing and measuring souls. It is stupid to say humans do not have souls just because irreligious agnostics want to believe that lie.
Click to expand...

Correction that is a belief not a fact
 
Omega Man said:
Wait! What? You're somehow blaming science for its "inability to measure" something that's never been determined beyond the realm of theory and hypothesis in the first place? The blame for the fact that "supernatural" has never been proven to exist falls squarely upon the shoulders of science, instead of those who advocate for it?

M
Click to expand...

Nobody is blaming science for its limitations. Science cannot see and measure human souls, thoughts, memories, emotions, and so forth. That is not science's fault. It simply has its limitations and I believe science understands that fact and humbly accepts it in the right spirit.
 
marke said:
Nobody is blaming science for its limitations. Science cannot see and measure human souls, thoughts, memories, emotions, and so forth. That is not science's fault. It simply has its limitations and I believe science understands that fact and humbly accepts it in the right spirit.
Click to expand...

You just did it again... Blaming science ("limitations") for not "seeing" or "measuring" the theoretical (such as souls). It's funny however that you claim science hasn't devised a way of recording thoughts, memories, and emotions. Apparently you've never heard of fMRI.


OM
 
marke said:
Nobody is blaming science for its limitations. Science cannot see and measure human souls, thoughts, memories, emotions, and so forth. That is not science's fault. It simply has its limitations and I believe science understands that fact and humbly accepts it in the right spirit.
Click to expand...

"Science cannot see and measure human souls" because..wait for it--the idea of a soul is bull****!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom