• 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!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Possibly Impossible Part One

Ikari said:
Gods have been defined to exist outside the constraints of the universe.

There's lots of things we would have to technically say we don't know exist. From gods to unicorns and all sorts of other mythical beasts and delusions of human imagination. So what's the point? It's not significant. What is significant is proof.
Click to expand...

So fix your definition of God(s) then. So far yours sounds fatally flawed to me and full of affirmations of the subsequent.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
:shock: You think the bible is used as a reference by scientists, and it's the only book scientists use? Holy crap. That is so tosca of you to say.
Click to expand...

Rapid, stop. Be still, and focus. Ready? Here's what I said:

What Book is the only one ever referred to by some notable scientists as their point of reference? The BIBLE!


And yes....some scientists (including archelogists), had used the Bible as the point of reference in discovering something.



There is no difference between gods and God. It's whatever you feel like making up in your head. Some people choose multiple, some like yourself choose one, either way, it's what you've created.
Click to expand...

There is a difference.....and I've just explained what.



For someone who thinks it's impossible to prove god exists or doesn't exist, you sure do spend a lot of your time debating about god.
Click to expand...

Where did I say it's impossible to prove God? Why would I say anything conclusive as that?

Do we have the smoking gun right now? No. Do I think it's impossible to have? No. Why do I say it's not impossible? Because we already have numerous evidences that support the plausibility of His existence! And the evidences point to the God of Abraham.

Who knows....the way we're advancing....50 years from now, there'll be solid undeniable proof!

Heck, proof can come 30 minutes from now, or anytime - along with the blasts of trumpets!
 
Riveroaks said:
My brother William (ala The Conqueror) from the UK --

it is notoriously bad grammar and syntax to say "concurs with."

You either "concur in" or you "demure from" you do not "concur with." Legal terminology.
Click to expand...
BS.

Using "concur" in conjunction with "with" is perfectly acceptable.
 
Riveroaks said:
So fix your definition of God(s) then. So far yours sounds fatally flawed to me and full of affirmations of the subsequent.
Click to expand...

No, mine is as stated. They are not bound by the laws of physics and exist outside our conception of timespace. There's nothing wrong with what I wrote. Just because it doesn't meet your definition doesn't mean it's wrong.
 
Ikari said:
No, mine is as stated. They are not bound by the laws of physics and exist outside our conception of timespace. There's nothing wrong with what I wrote. Just because it doesn't meet your definition doesn't mean it's wrong.
Click to expand...

Well Einstein was no theist as Frank can point out for you, but I think Einstein would argue that NOTHING can exist outside of the laws of physics -- and thus God(s) IF they exist MUST do so WITHIN those laws just like every body and everything thing else.

Ergo your definition is inherently flawed, as I said before.

Your definition is also inherently biased and Satanic as well.
 
William Rea said:
Well, that exactly concurs with what I understand supernatural to mean so, there might be some grounds for consensus here. Imaginary I am would invite others to comment on as well.
Click to expand...

If that's your consensus then it is biased and Satanic -- which is a bit scary and self serving as well.
 
Riveroaks said:
Well Einstein was no theist as Frank can point out for you, but I think Einstein would argue that NOTHING can exist outside of the laws of physics -- and thus God(s) IF they exist MUST do so WITHIN those laws just like every body and everything thing else.

Ergo your definition is inherently flawed, as I said before.

Your definition is also inherently biased and Satanic as well.
Click to expand...

Obviously, if you go by the mythologies, gods do exist outside the laws of physics and time-space.
 
tosca1 said:
Rapid, stop. Be still, and focus. Ready? Here's what I said:

What Book is the only one ever referred to by some notable scientists as their point of reference? The BIBLE!


And yes....some scientists (including archelogists), had used the Bible as the point of reference in discovering something.





There is a difference.....and I've just explained what.





Where did I say it's impossible to prove God? Why would I say anything conclusive as that?

Do we have the smoking gun right now? No. Do I think it's impossible to have? No. Why do I say it's not impossible? Because we already have numerous evidences that support the plausibility of His existence! And the evidences point to the God of Abraham.

Who knows....the way we're advancing....50 years from now, there'll be solid undeniable proof!

Heck, proof can come 30 minutes from now, or anytime - along with the blasts of trumpets!
Click to expand...
So, to compress this ramble, some that deem themselves to be scientists refer only (exclusively) to the bible.

Well, who'd have thunk?

What, if any, is the point of this?
Where did I say it's impossible to prove God? Why would I say anything conclusive as that?
Click to expand...
If you could focus half as much as you demand of others, you'd have seen that what you quote was not directed at you at all.
 
How, by the beard of the prophet, did Satan manage to barge his way into here?
 
Ikari said:
Obviously, if you go by the mythologies, gods do exist outside the laws of physics and time-space.
Click to expand...

You are now trying to justify a philosophically and historically incorrect thesis.

Perhaps to you The God(s) exist only in fantasies. But here again as I have said so many times before, you are committing all sorts of fallacies --

- affirmation of the consequent in your definition

- hasty generalization

- red herring

- false authority.
 
Gods are superheroes.

300
Lord_Krishna_and_Kalia.jpg
Zeus_Jupiter_Greek_God_Art_03-224x300.jpg
jesusmoneychangers1-251x300.jpg
yoruba-deities-2.jpg
 
Riveroaks said:
If that's your consensus then it is biased and Satanic -- which is a bit scary and self serving as well.
Click to expand...

Is Satan a god? He appear to have a lot of power in your mythology.
 
Riveroaks said:
You are now trying to justify a philosophically and historically incorrect thesis.

Perhaps to you The God(s) exist only in fantasies. But here again as I have said so many times before, you are committing all sorts of fallacies --

- affirmation of the consequent in your definition

- hasty generalization

- red herring

- false authority.
Click to expand...

Meh, the Alpha and the Omega, right? Rises from the dead, creates things from nothing. But you are going to tell me that gods are beholden to the laws of physics? If so, they have a measurable then, yes? In the world of physics, everything that can actually influence the material world has hermitian hamiltonians, and thus can be measured. So now our gods are measurable, where's the measurement?

No, gods have evolved to immeasurable quantities. The way we define our current gods puts them outside the confines and laws of the universe. Omnipotent, yeah? Omniscient, yeah?

You're just upset because I have a different answer than you and you've assumed yourself correct.
 
Ikari said:
Meh, the Alpha and the Omega, right? Rises from the dead, creates things from nothing. But you are going to tell me that gods are beholden to the laws of physics? If so, they have a measurable then, yes? In the world of physics, everything that can actually influence the material world has hermitian hamiltonians, and thus can be measured. So now our gods are measurable, where's the measurement?

No, gods have evolved to immeasurable quantities. The way we define our current gods puts them outside the confines and laws of the universe. Omnipotent, yeah? Omniscient, yeah?

You're just upset because I have a different answer than you and you've assumed yourself correct.
Click to expand...

Yet another straw man argument.

I don't care enough to be upset.

I am only dutifully pointing out your rhetorical fallacies.
 
Riveroaks said:
Yet another straw man argument.

I don't care enough to be upset.

I am only dutifully pointing out your rhetorical fallacies.
Click to expand...

Are you? Or are you just making things up because you don't like my definition? Seems like the latter.
 
tosca1 said:
Rapid, stop. Be still, and focus. Ready? Here's what I said:

What Book is the only one ever referred to by some notable scientists as their point of reference? The BIBLE!


And yes....some scientists (including archelogists), had used the Bible as the point of reference in discovering something.





There is a difference.....and I've just explained what.





Where did I say it's impossible to prove God? Why would I say anything conclusive as that?

Do we have the smoking gun right now? No. Do I think it's impossible to have? No. Why do I say it's not impossible? Because we already have numerous evidences that support the plausibility of His existence! And the evidences point to the God of Abraham.

Who knows....the way we're advancing....50 years from now, there'll be solid undeniable proof!

Heck, proof can come 30 minutes from now, or anytime - along with the blasts of trumpets!
Click to expand...

What? The bible is the only book used by some scientists? That's a completely meaningless statement. Which scientists are these and are you sure you're using that term correctly? How is the bible used as a scientific reference and by whom? What kind of scientist uses only one book? How do you know there are not scientists only using one other book?
 
Riveroaks said:
Not relevant.

You are changing the subject.

If you want to start a new thread go ahead then.

Meanwhile please desist from jacking this thread.
Click to expand...
Why don't you, for a change, take your own advice and desist from jacking this one with your inanities. You haven't the slightest clue on logical fallacies and, not that any grammar Nazis are needed here, you haven't any of that on grammar either.

So quit playing the talkmaster here, I'm sure if consensus existed on needing one, we'd ask.
 
RabidAlpaca said:
What? The bible is the only book used by some scientists? That's a completely meaningless statement. v Which scientists are these and are you sure you're using that term correctly? How is the bible used as a scientific reference and by whom? What kind of scientist uses only one book? How do you know there are not scientists only using one other book?
Click to expand...


I've had some of those scientists listed in the old thread, Word of God, in Religion section.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/religious-discussions/156711-word-god.html


Matthew Fontaine Maury, known as "Pathfinder of the Sea" due to Psalm 8. He has a monument depicting him holding the Bible in one hand, and a compass in the other....the verse of Psalm 8:8 is quoted on his monument (in the US Naval Institute)

The latest one that I know of is a book titled, The Genesis Enigma by Andrew Parker. The book maintains that when the Bible (Genesis ) is read figuratively, the events appear to match the modern reconstruction of the history of earth
"when the biblical text is taken literally, it is left in the wake of advancing science. But when it is read figuratively, it not only keeps pace with the hottest science, it precedes or heralds it." (p 130)




Obviously, that's not what I'm saying. I meant to say the Bible is the only religious book that was used by some scientists as a point of reference.



Furthermore, it's the only religious book that so many had set out to prove wrong, only to end up being convinced, and some even converting.

At the top of my head is Sir William Ramsey who spent years trying to find fault with Luke as a historian and to refute the reliability of the Bible. In the end he concluded that Luke was a historian of the first rank.

Simon Greenleaf, a famous Harvard law professor who was considered among the top authority on legal evidences was challenged by his students to disprove the Resurrection of Christ. He ended up convinced that the Resurrection was a historical fact!
 
Maury did not discover what this myth claims, it (ocean currents) was discovered long before his time.

Parker is a zoologist who must have had a bad moment. He's also agnostic and hasn't reverted to any religious reference since.

Ramsay was conveniently misunderstood and some of the things attributed to him falsified and Greenleaf was neither an atheist nor particularly convinced towards theism in the manner cited. He didn't set out to disprove the resurrection either. He already believed and was looking for support.

To speak of scientist as of any of them is ludicrous and they no doubt read other books in their respective fields as well.

So we have the usual baloney as expected but what it's doing in this thread remains a mystery.


P.S. Some of what I outline above is listed in tosca's self advertising reference to her own thread. Of course she doesn't mention that. None of this however has anything to do with the thread topic here.
 
Last edited:
Riveroaks said:
Yet another straw man argument.

I don't care enough to be upset.

I am only dutifully pointing out your rhetorical fallacies.
Click to expand...

Your concern is noted.
 
Riveroaks said:
My brother William (ala The Conqueror) from the UK --

it is notoriously bad grammar and syntax to say "concurs with."

You either "concur in" or you "demure from" you do not "concur with." Legal terminology.
Click to expand...

Your grammar correction is noted. I had no idea that it was part of the definition for 'god(s)'.
 
Riveroaks said:
If you are speaking of God(s) as being fantasy beings, then you better hope They do not hear you.

Nothing would be more infuriating to Them than to hear you (or read about your) bad mouthing them.
Click to expand...

I am sure that they are bigger than that, if they exist but, I can't see how what they think of me is part of defining them unless you are saying that 'god(s)' take an interest and intervene at that level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom