• 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:
Listen, addressee, disagreeing with arguments is one thing -- dismissing them another -- and engaging them still another thing, of which you apparently know nothing, judging from your posts.
Click to expand...

Oh make no mistake...the Modern Morons will rarely engage.
 
Hawkeye10 said:
We stopped listening to the wisdom that those who have gone before us have gifted us, because we are morons,...the Modern Morons.
Click to expand...
My sincere apologies, man. I've retracted and deleted the contretemps. I've become touchy, spending too much time reading gadfly posts, it seems. I beg your pardon.
 
Angel said:
My sincere apologies, man. I've retracted and deleted the contretemps. I've become touchy, spending too much time reading gadfly posts, it seems. I beg your pardon.
Click to expand...

I am Zen.....True/Not True is all that we are about....and a part of True is that no human is a God, and thus no human can be held to God standards.....we make mistakes....and that is OK!
 
Angel said:
Listen, addressee, disagreeing with arguments is one thing -- dismissing them another -- and engaging them still another thing, of which you apparently know nothing, judging from your posts.
Click to expand...

When you claim to have Proof of something, expect to be asked questions. Ignoring the questions you've been asked does not advance your argument.

Of course some of us dismiss your arguments as you have shown an inability to support them sufficiently.

Engage the questions you're asked, and remain on the thread topic, NOT the persons asking questions.

I've asked more than once, without inserting religion/religious beliefs, what useful purpose does belief in a Gods existence provide us?
 
RabidAlpaca said:
There's the crux of the problem. You can't get people to even agree on the definition of god, much less in what form he exists, how many of them there are, what his role is, how he came to be, what we should do to appease him, or any other factor. It's all wildly subjective. Luckily for the first time in his entire life, Angel is admitting his beliefs are wildly subjective and don't apply and aren't automatically apparent to all other humans. Believe whatever the hell you want, Angel, just don't go around trying to make everyone else believe it. You have a deep psychological need to attack atheists on the internet and force everyone else to believe exactly what you do.
Click to expand...
Is it possible you don't agree with my definition of God because you don't understand it?
Is it possible you don't agree with my definition of God because you can't dismiss it, as you can your preferred definition -- "supernatural being"?
Is it possible Angel doesn't given a tinker's damn what anyone else believes or disbelieves in this matter and is merely post, like you, as amusement?
Is it possible for an Internet Skeptic to understand that God exists or God doesn't exist regardless of what anyone believes of disbelieves?

Anyway, my definition is so good, it bears repeating.

Definition of God:

Desideratum Ultimum et Explanans Mundi
(roughly the necessary ground of all that exists)​
 
Individual said:
When you claim to have Proof of something, expect to be asked questions. Ignoring the questions you've been asked does not advance your argument.

Of course some of us dismiss your arguments as you have shown an inability to support them sufficiently.

Engage the questions you're asked, and remain on the thread topic, NOT the persons asking questions.

I've asked more than once, without inserting religion/religious beliefs, what useful purpose does belief in a Gods existence provide us?
Click to expand...
And I've answered your question more than once.
 
Angel said:
And I've answered your question more than once.
Click to expand...

If you believe that to be true, then accept as fact that your answers have not been sufficient to convince me of any true facts supporting your claims of proof.
I'm not obsessed with proving God(s) do not exist, as even if they did it would not make any difference in life.
And again, without inserting religion/religious beliefs, my non-belief in the existence of God(s) in no way prevents you and/or others from maintaining such a belief.

Nature always prevails.
 
Individual said:
...I've asked more than once, without inserting religion/religious beliefs, what useful purpose does belief in a Gods existence provide us?
Click to expand...

Angel said:
And I've answered your question more than once.
Click to expand...

Individual said:
If you believe that to be true, then accept as fact that your answers have not been sufficient to convince me of any true facts supporting your claims of proof....
Click to expand...
I know that to be true: I know I've answered your question. What I believe is that you cannot tell us what my answer was. But I can tell you why you can't tell us what my answer was, and I shall tell you why once you admit to not being able to tell us what my answer was. How's that for laying our cards on the table?
 
Angel said:
I know that to be true: I know I've answered your question. What I believe is that you cannot tell us what my answer was. But I can tell you why you can't tell us what my answer was, and I shall tell you why once you admit to not being able to tell us what my answer was. How's that for laying our cards on the table?
Click to expand...

Basically, the closest thing to answering my question was that you believe God to be the best answer as the initial cause.
Do you feel you've provided a better answer than that one?
 
Angel said:
Is it possible you don't agree with my definition of God because you don't understand it?
Is it possible you don't agree with my definition of God because you can't dismiss it, as you can your preferred definition -- "supernatural being"?
Is it possible Angel doesn't given a tinker's damn what anyone else believes or disbelieves in this matter and is merely post, like you, as amusement?
Is it possible for an Internet Skeptic to understand that God exists or God doesn't exist regardless of what anyone believes of disbelieves?

Anyway, my definition is so good, it bears repeating.

Definition of God:

Desideratum Ultimum et Explanans Mundi
(roughly the necessary ground of all that exists)​
Click to expand...

That's your subjective definition of god, there are 7 billion other people with their own subjective definitions, most of which contradict yours. You spend every waking moment you're on this forum attacking people who don't believe like you and trying to get them to believe exactly what you do because you have a deep seeded need to be validated.

Otherwise you wouldn't be so hostile to everyone for not believing what you want them to and wouldn't create countless threads attacking and insulting them. The real question is WHY is it so important that everyone believes what you do?
 
Angel said:
Listen, addressee, disagreeing with arguments is one thing -- dismissing them another -- and engaging them still another thing, of which you apparently know nothing, judging from your posts.
Click to expand...

You dismiss anyone who gives you evidence you can not handle by calling them your favorite pet name rather than responding to the debate.


Our only recourse is to treat your argument as unfounded
 
Individual said:
How would believing in Natural causes be "so obviously beyond the possibility of physical verification" and belief in God(s) be rationally considered any less so?
Click to expand...

Let's try to open this up for understanding. What can no scientist prove scientifically? That God exists, for one. Also that some natural force by some unknown miracle caused the universe to big bang itself into existence from nothing without help from God. And so forth.
 
marke said:
Let's try to open this up for understanding. What can no scientist prove scientifically? That God exists, for one. Also that some natural force by some unknown miracle caused the universe to big bang itself into existence from nothing without help from God. And so forth.
Click to expand...

I have no need to prove God exists or doesn't exist.
I do however believe that nature exists, and with or without need/necessity of God(s) makes no difference in my existence.
And so on.
 
Individual said:
I have no need to prove God exists or doesn't exist.
I do however believe that nature exists, and with or without need/necessity of God(s) makes no difference in my existence.
And so on.
Click to expand...

Of course you believe God does not exist and nature exists. What you cannot scientifically verify is the unscientific idea that the universe just somehow miraculously big banged itself into existence with no help from God.
 
marke said:
Of course you believe God does not exist and nature exists. What you cannot scientifically verify is the unscientific idea that the universe just somehow miraculously big banged itself into existence with no help from God.
Click to expand...

It always existed
 
marke said:
What always existed, God or the universe? How can you even begin to prove that either God or the universe or both always existed, ESP?
Click to expand...

I never offer proof. Only evidence. I see very little evidence of god
 
vegas giants said:
I never offer proof. Only evidence. I see very little evidence of god
Click to expand...

I see. Since you think you saw a big bang and did not see God you think the big bang theory is science and God is ruled out by science? People who draw these conclusions are not wise.
 
marke said:
I see. Since you think you saw a big bang and did not see God you think the big bang theory is science and God is ruled out by science? People who draw these conclusions are not wise.
Click to expand...

People who draw these conclusions fo do based on the evidence. Lol
 
vegas giants said:
People who draw these conclusions fo do based on the evidence. Lol
Click to expand...

Of course. They think they see a big bang and not God so in their limited minds they think the big bang must be science and that God must not exist because of science. That is still not wise.
 
marke said:
Of course. They think they see a big bang and not God so in their limited minds they think the big bang must be science and that God must not exist because of science. That is still not wise.
Click to expand...

Why? Lol
 
marke said:
Of course you believe God does not exist and nature exists. What you cannot scientifically verify is the unscientific idea that the universe just somehow miraculously big banged itself into existence with no help from God.
Click to expand...
Nor can it be verified scientifically or by any other means that the universe required the help of God(s) to be conjured into existence.
 
marke said:
What always existed, God or the universe? How can you even begin to prove that either God or the universe or both always existed, ESP?
Click to expand...

Neither.

Can it be proven that God always existed or exists at all?

I know no one who claims the Universe always existed, but I find science has provided adequate evidence to show that the Universe had an initial beginning many billions of years ago.
 
Individual said:
...I've asked more than once, without inserting religion/religious beliefs, what useful purpose does belief in a Gods existence provide us?
Click to expand...
Angel said:
I know that to be true: I know I've answered your question. What I believe is that you cannot tell us what my answer was. But I can tell you why you can't tell us what my answer was, and I shall tell you why once you admit to not being able to tell us what my answer was. How's that for laying our cards on the table?
Click to expand...
Individual said:
Basically, the closest thing to answering my question was that you believe God to be the best answer as the initial cause.
Do you feel you've provided a better answer than that one?
Click to expand...
This is even more hopeless than I predicted. You don't even seem to understand your own question, let alone my answer to your question.

Your question was what practical (useful) difference the existence of God made.
My answer was that it meant the difference between hope and despair, meaning and unmeaning.
Does that ring a bell?

The reason you don't remember either your own question or my answer to your question is that you're really not paying attention in our exchanges of posts. This accounts for your unresponsiveness to my posts, something I've repeatedly complained about.
And the reason you're not paying attention is that your mind is closed to any real discussion of the matter. You're simply waiting for your turn to ignore what I've posted and put forward again your own thesis that Nature accounts for everything.

On that last point, you've ignored repeated posts pointing out that Nature cannot account for Nature, that according to one of the main doctrines of your religious belief, the doctrines of natural science or scientific naturalism, Nature had a beginning and one cannot reasonably rely on what only began X number of years ago to explain the beginning of what only began X number of years ago.
 
vegas giants said:
You dismiss anyone who gives you evidence you can not handle by calling them your favorite pet name rather than responding to the debate.

Our only recourse is to treat your argument as unfounded
Click to expand...
What evidence are you referring to? That one scientist a hundred years ago questioned the prevailing theory?
What recourse you find in your closed mind is your business.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom