• 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

gboisjo said:
Careful who your calling stupid, moderators frown on name calling.

Atheist and Agnostics back up there beliefs with the sciences and with evidence one can see and touch.

the Theist lives a world of make believe where faith trumps logic and common sense, that's the epitome of your word "stupid"

All one has to do is objectively look at the religious fanatics in the Middle East, witness the carnage and self destruction ..use it as mirror.
Click to expand...

Did I name any names? No...if the shoe fits...;)
 
Elvira said:
Did I name any names? No...if the shoe fits...;)
Click to expand...

You didn't have to, you replied to my post in which you implied that I and people like me are stupid.

Try living by your own belief ..scripture tells us that Christians should not name call others because it comes from unrighteous anger.

Ecclesiastes 10:12-14 Words from the mouth of the wise are gracious, but fools are consumed by their own lips.

Ephesians 4:31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage, anger, harsh words, and slander, as well as all types of evil behavior.

Matthew 12:34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

Luke 6:31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

Rather than dodging, ducking and weaseling out of your statement, own it and move on.
 
gboisjo said:
You didn't have to, you replied to my post in which you implied that I and people like me are stupid.

Try living by your own belief ..scripture tells us that Christians should not name call others because it comes from unrighteous anger.

Ecclesiastes 10:12-14 Words from the mouth of the wise are gracious, but fools are consumed by their own lips.

Ephesians 4:31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage, anger, harsh words, and slander, as well as all types of evil behavior.

Matthew 12:34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

Luke 6:31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

Rather than dodging, ducking and weaseling out of your statement, own it and move on.
Click to expand...

lol...it is what it is...I can play this game as long as you can...;)
 
gboisjo said:
You didn't have to, you replied to my post in which you implied that I and people like me are stupid.

Try living by your own belief ..scripture tells us that Christians should not name call others because it comes from unrighteous anger.

Ecclesiastes 10:12-14 Words from the mouth of the wise are gracious, but fools are consumed by their own lips.

Ephesians 4:31 Get rid of all bitterness, rage, anger, harsh words, and slander, as well as all types of evil behavior.

Matthew 12:34 You brood of vipers, how can you who are evil say anything good? For the mouth speaks what the heart is full of.

Luke 6:31 And as you wish that others would do to you, do so to them.

Rather than dodging, ducking and weaseling out of your statement, own it and move on.
Click to expand...

So Luke 6:31 is responsible for that terrible ethic. Good to know.
 
watsup said:
You have used the term militant atheist a number of times. You have called Krauss a militant atheist a few times.
What defines a “militant atheist”? Please expand.
Click to expand...

One who actively ridicules theism, who acts to discourage serious discussion about origins, one who is hostile to theism and strives to foster the view that only empiricism, scientism holds the key to understanding reality.

For example Richard Dawkins wrote the God Delusion where, as someone with no medical or psychiatric training diagnoses all who affirm God as suffering from a delusion, this obsessive, intolerant attitude to theism is a characteristic of militant atheism.
 
DarthPedant said:
Classic double down. Rather than admit you misjudged a book merely by its title, and admit you have to actually read a book to make an informed decision about its contents, you just wail about the definition not matching your uninformed expectation.
Click to expand...

I did admit early on to not reading the book and basing my opinion of what I already know about Krauss having seen him in debate several times and having seen reviews of the book by a variety of people, if you think this situation invalidates what I said then you are free to do so, but I did admit this openly and make no apologies for not doing what you deem necessary.

DarthPedant said:
Of course you pretend to like Penrose. He says a few things theists like to quote mine. I seriously doubt you've ever read him at any length, either.
Click to expand...

This is an ad-hominem, nothing more.

DarthPedant said:
For one, he has no problem with infinities, which you pretend physics will not allow, and further: he proposes a kind of steady state universe which dodges all your cosmological arguments quite nicely.
Click to expand...

What specifially have I written (please quote me) that you take issue with here?

DarthPedant said:
Indeed, if you were even mildly capable of understanding this stuff, you'd realize the theoretical nature of Penrose's speculations is open to the exact same criticisms that Ellis makes of Krauss, which you pretend settle the issue of Krauss' work without even reading it. This is just more theistic double standards.
Click to expand...

Again what did I say that has led you to resort to this emotional outburst?

DarthPedant said:
But science to you is just a prop for bad theistic arguments. All you need are your little websites that collate a few quotes for you and you're good to bash people on the internet. You have criticized atheists for being 'know it alls' while defending your 'amazing' deductive skills you use to justify making uninformed decisions with sub-minimal effort. It's lazy and unimpressive.
Click to expand...

Ad hominem, ad infinitum.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
One who actively ridicules theism, who acts to discourage serious discussion about origins, one who is hostile to theism and strives to foster the view that only empiricism, scientism holds the key to understanding reality.

For example Richard Dawkins wrote the God Delusion where, as someone with no medical or psychiatric training diagnoses all who affirm God as suffering from a delusion, this obsessive, intolerant attitude to theism is a characteristic of militant atheism.
Click to expand...

Science does indeed hole the key to reality in the study of nature.

And a person with psychiatric training does indeed agree with Dawkins, one Sigmund Freud: "Religion is mass neuroses".
And also Karl Marx: "Religion is the opiate of the masses".

I agree with all three of them.
 
gboisjo said:
Your a liar, you make numerous references to the Hebrew scriptures and religion in this thread. In a different thread "God probably exist" references to your belief in religion through the bible are made perfectly clear.
Click to expand...

I apologize, I was inaccurate to state I make no reference to scripture, clearly I have but would like to explain. My arguments for the existence of God are not predicated in scriptural arguments, I have made references to scripture but these were incidental, they were not foundational to my argument.

gboisjo said:
Let me ask you one question and hopefully I can get a straight answer ..one that doesn't involve slick evasive tactics and the art of rhetoric.
Click to expand...

By all means.

gboisjo said:
This the question > Do you believe humans were created by god some six or seven thousand years ago or do you believe humans evolved from the great apes in Africa sometime between six or seven million years ago.
Click to expand...

I don't know is my answer.

Genesis seems in places to use metaphors sometimes and it isn't always clear when.

So the Usher date of 6,000 or so years ago may be what's written or it may be using metaphor, it is not crystal clear to me.

Having said that I have thought for decades that archaeologically speaking I don't see strong evidence that human culture has been around for more than several thousand years.

Take written languages, the oldest seem to be around 3,500 BC - not too far off 6,000 years ago, I have always found it odd (even when I was a staunch atheist) that we never see evidence of written languages many tens of thousands of years ago, given what we're all told by the evolutionists humans have been evolving for many hundreds of thousands of years, t least 200,000 years ago by some reckonings.

If homo sapiens arose 200,000 years ago why would written languages appear only very recently?

I also have doubts that morphological similarities always imply evolutionary descent so claiming we are descended from homo erectus and so on, has always struck me as speculative.

On a different tack, it is possible that God created the universe and the earth with an inbuilt appearance of age, I find this claim bothersome but it is logically speaking a possibility that we cannot disprove.

Finally I am satisfied that the Cambrian explosion undermines Darwinian claims to much that it amounts to a refutation of them.
 
gboisjo said:
The Big Bang is commonly thought of as the start of it all some 13.8 billion years ago, the observable universe went boom and expanded into being and god caused it to happen with a magic wand say the theist

Scientist have theorized what may have preceded big bang, the short answer is they don't know, the long answer is a huge smorgasbord of ideas and theories.

As tempting as it is to take a godlike view, its not what most if not all scientist do. No one knows exactly what was happening in the universe until 1 second after the Big Bang before that its a mystery. To pretend to know especially as a laymen is arrogant and self serving.

One theory is before the Big Bang, the universe was an infinite stretch of an ultrahot, dense material, persisting in a steady state until, for some reason, the Big Bang occurred. This extra-dense universe may have been governed by quantum mechanics on a small scale.

Stephen Hawking theorized before the Big Bang, he said, events are not measurable, and thus undefined. Hawking called this the no-boundary proposal. Time and space, he said, are finite, but they don’t have any boundaries or starting or ending points, the same way that the planet Earth is finite but has no edge.

My point is this ..calling what preceded the big bang "god the cause" is simplistic, besides that its all tied up with supernatural religion not hard science.
Click to expand...

How can you say the universe started 13.8 billion years ago and at the same time say it started with some ultra dense hot material? surely if there was ultra dense hot material then it had already started and your just giving an account of how it developed after it had already started?
 
watsup said:
Science does indeed hole the key to reality in the study of nature.
Click to expand...

Well there are many people who share that belief and many who don't.

watsup said:
And a person with psychiatric training does indeed agree with Dawkins, one Sigmund Freud: "Religion is mass neuroses".
And also Karl Marx: "Religion is the opiate of the masses".

I agree with all three of them.
Click to expand...

The fact remains delusion has a medical definition in psychiatry and Dawkins is not a psychiatrist or doctor, in fact his contributions to science are close to nil, as I said earlier he is a pop-science writer who studied zoology.
 
watsup said:
Oh really? So what besides science holds the key to reality in nature, pray tell?
Click to expand...

Understanding oneself, everything begins with one's self awareness, one's awareness of one's own limitations, prejudices and assumptions, self examination.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Well there are many people who share that belief and many who don't.



The fact remains delusion has a medical definition in psychiatry and Dawkins is not a psychiatrist or doctor, in fact his contributions to science are close to nil, as I said earlier he is a pop-science writer who studied zoology.
Click to expand...

So what SPECIFIC argumentation of Dawkins do you disagree with? Instead of your ad hom towards him, that is.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Understanding oneself, everything begins with one's self awareness, one's awareness of one's own limitations, prejudices and assumptions, self examination.
Click to expand...


That’s is fine for SELF-AWARENESS, but it inno way contradicts my statement that science is the key to reality in and understanding of NATURE and the universe.
 
watsup said:
That’s is fine for SELF-AWARENESS, but it inno way contradicts my statement that science is the key to reality in and understanding of NATURE and the universe.
Click to expand...

As I said many people share that belief.
 
watsup said:
That’s is fine for SELF-AWARENESS, but it in no way contradicts my statement that science is the key to reality in and understanding of NATURE and the universe.
Click to expand...

You have likely never asked yourself why you believe the things you do, you are a creature of habit, the very way you think, the way you react and respond to others is habit, conditioning.

The subject of lateral thinking was once popular but today most have never heard of it which is a shame because it can help make one aware of one's bad mental habits.

I wonder if you ever truly cleared your mind, actually meditated to the extent you cease to think and get into a state of just existing, this is hard to do because we are so conditioned to think in a way that sometimes blinds us to certain knowledge and truths.

Edward de Bono introduced the term lateral thinking, it is something that ultimately led to me abandoning atheism.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
You have likely never asked yourself why you believe the things you do, you are a creature of habit, the very way you think, the way you react and respond to others is habit, conditioning.

The subject of lateral thinking was once popular but today most have never heard of it which is a shame because it can help make one aware of one's bad mental habits.

I wonder if you ever truly cleared your mind, actually meditated to the extent you cease to think and get into a state of just existing, this is hard to do because we are so conditioned to think in a way that sometimes blinds us to certain knowledge and truths.

Edward de Bono introduced the term lateral thinking, it is something hat ultimately led to me abandoning atheism.
Click to expand...

I was talking about science. I’m not sure where this applies to the topic, per se.
So my answer to it is: Whatever.
 
watsup said:
Science is not based on popularity or polls or petitions. It is based on research.
Click to expand...

Science is based on assumptions, beliefs about reality, so by entrusting science to inform you about reality you implicitly share those assumptions, those beliefs.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
Science is based on assumptions, beliefs about reality, so by entrusting science to inform you about reality you implicitly share those assumptions, those beliefs.
Click to expand...

A inaccurate description of science followed by more double-talk.
 
Sherlock Holmes said:
I did admit early on to not reading the book and basing my opinion of what I already know about Krauss having seen him in debate several times and having seen reviews of the book by a variety of people, if you think this situation invalidates what I said then you are free to do so, but I did admit this openly and make no apologies for not doing what you deem necessary.



This is an ad-hominem, nothing more.



What specifially have I written (please quote me) that you take issue with here?



Again what did I say that has led you to resort to this emotional outburst?



Ad hominem, ad infinitum.
Click to expand...
Like you said:


Sherlock Holmes said:
... you asserted something during our discussion believing it was true and I demonstrated that it was in fact false, your refusal to admit error tells me you are a dishonest individual who like our President will deny reality if it makes him feel better.
Click to expand...

Sent from my LM-V405 using Tapatalk
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom