Proof of God's existence! 1 million dollar challenge at the end! Randi better pay-up!

[muscleman]

This is a thread to end atheism and claims that God dont exist once and for all. I DARE anyone here refute my arguments, so far NONE have found any flaws of my argument...


Below are questions and answers that I was confronted over the years debating with many atheists.

I also have a 1 million dollar challenge at the end, this is no joke, Im serious.......


Here Ill post the proof of God's existence..........





Ultimate Reality…
“God, the giver of life??”




The first life form to evolve from earth is "Cell", the building blocks of life. It would take about 40,000 of your red blood cells to fill this letter O. A cell is alive-as alive as you are. It "breathes," takes in food, & gets rid of wastes. It also grows & reproduces (creates its own kind). And in time, it dies. An optical microscope can magnify a cell up to 2,000 times. An electron microscope can magnify a cell by 1 million times. An ant magnified 200,000 times would be more than 21/2 miles (4 kilometers) long. But even with such tremendous magnification, the detailed structure of some cell parts still cannot be seen.


Is it possible that a detailed and complex form happens by chance w/out an intelligent cause? Maybe there's a chance that computers could b formed by a series of hurricane/lightning/earthquake/ by Chance. Perhaps the lightning struck some rocks in place which caused it 2 melt & created wirings then the wind placed it in location where in Trillions of yrs earthquakes shook it & the design may possible turn into a laptop computer! But this won’t happen in a single step, but through random chance, the processor was made first, then the speakers, the keyboard, monitor, & so forth all by chance. No one dares question the laws of physics (LOL). Is this possible? NO! This analogy is IMPOSSIBLE, there’s no "chance" natural resources contain the necessary tools to create a detailed and complex laptop computer (soldering iron, laser beams, mechanical precision, proper timing &position, etc.) this requires intelligent cause. Though impossible, that analogy can be mentally visualized, unlike the claim that series of earthquakes, hurricane, sunlight, and lightning can gather atoms and molecules together, and then form it into mitochondria, ribosome, cytoplasm, nucleus, and thousands of the cell’s parts all at once then bring it to life.


For many years of observation & study, biochemists can only limitedly identify & label what’s contained in a cell, but never successful in creating one. Considering all the technologies modern science has to offer (electron microscope, etc.) they can even split an atom into half! Yet even then NOT ONE scientist are able to successfully create a single cell, NONE! If this was the case, why then do atheist claim that series of earthquake, wind, & lightning created life forms by accident "chance" when scientist with far better technology than wind & sunlight can't?


To use "natural physics" as an explanation for the atom to transform into a cell is not only unscientific, but also impossible! The cell is so tiny that as observed & studied, earthquake & lightning is incapable of creating it. Many biochemists testified, "The cell is as complex as the city of San Francisco ". It's impossible to form a tiny part of the cell such as the complex nucleus, or mitochondria, or any of cell’s parts alone out of gathering atoms, how much more impossible it is to create the whole body of cell all at once! For the whole entire body go hand in hand. It is like putting a human body parts together & bring it to life: putting a cell together is even far more impossible because of its tiny size. The impossible of the impossible. I don’t care how many millions of years lightning, earthquake and wind has. Fact is natural resources cannot gather the atoms/inert compounds, molecules together & shape it to become a cell membrane, cytoplasm, nucleus, mitochondria, etc. & thousands of other parts to form a cell, the wind cant do it, earthquake cant, neither lightning (too strong) for a cell is extremely defenseless delicate life form. I don’t care how many millions of years quantum physics, hurricane, or lightning have, FACT is no life form & creatures in this known universe can exist & function with one eye & no brain behind it, or one leg without muscles to move it. Fact is it’s all or nothing!


Don’t try to compare organisms to automobiles, car parts can wait before creating the rest of the parts, did u actually think there’s a brain lying around waiting for the rest of the parts to develop? Your strange you know that, u watch too much cartoon network! I don’t care how tiny or huge life form is (ostrich egg, cell, insects, etc) or how much time quantum physics, quantum mechanics, lightning, & wind have, the fact is the whole parts of the living organism must appear all at once or it will never survive! Impossible, no "chance" at all. This is your "belief/theory", the brain luckily appeared (nucleus), then the eyes luckily appeared, then the nose luckily appeared, etc. thousands of parts appeared all at once by luck (magic)! Super impossible! Any life form survive & grew in size because of their digestive system, liver, throat, intestines, acid, rectum, brain, muscles, etc. And to you, the complex, tiny & delicate, mitochondria, cell membrane, cytoplasm, nucleus, ribosome, etc. thousands parts of cell's body working together all appeared AT ONCE BY ACCIDENT thanks to earthquake, wind & fire. Super extra miraculously incredibly impossible!!


Ill make it easier for atheist, lets make a magic step over the impossible of the impossible, let’s just pretend that scientists were able to successfully build a cell together! Even then Ill still believe in God for the fact is, intelligence is the cause of the detailed & complex effect (scientist effort) not series of tornado, earthquake, & lightning. If the super impossibility of creating a cell were made possible, it still won’t survive for it requires one or more of its own kind! (Observed & studied) Lets make another super ultimate impossibility possible, let’s just say it survived, how then did u expect it to multiply from a single cell considering the lifespan of it is very short? If the dinosaurs with ultimate defense mechanism became instinct, how did u expect a defenseless delicate cell survive & replicate? By accident, coincidence, "chance", magic?


Evolution take is there was an earth w/a pond, hydrogen, methane & ammonia were in the pond & when lightning struck amino acids were formed, this has been demonstrated in the lab. Not all aminos were formed, however. Amino can form protein, & protein formed the first single cell. We have grave problems here because no one explains where the lightning, hydrogen, methane & ammonia came from & how to get around the missing aminos which are required for the over 200,000 proteins required for the single cell. No one can explain where ammonia, methane, hydrogen come from, but for the sake of sorry atheist, lets move on; Lets just say ammonia, methane, hydrogen popped out of nowhere magically & it formed amino acids/proteins thanks to lightning, the first single cell is composed of proteins, so what? So what if you can find a spare leg, heart, lungs, or arms out there? Does it mean that lightning, wind, & earthquake can gather the body parts together & create a living being? Do you think the wind will carry the arms, then the earthquake will shake the heart, &then the lightning will glue them together, &later on the spare parts became a living breathing person!? That’s absurd. So what if lightning can create amino acids out of the mysterious ammonia, methane, hydrogen, so what? Does it mean that Mr. earthquake, lightning, wind, & sunlight can gather the amino acids and shape it into a tiny and delicate nucleus, cell membrane, cytoplasm, mitochondria, & thousands of other parts of the cell together & then bring it to life? Fact is not one scientist w/ all the modern technology are able to successfully create a living cell, or any life form in the lab out of "atoms/particles", what made u think lightning, sunlight, earthquake accidentally did it? Not a chance. Just as there’s no "chance" a detailed laptop computer can b formed by earthquake, sunlight, wind, & lightning in a trillion years, no living cell can b formed the same way, this HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF, NEVER HAVE AND NEVER EVER WILL. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.the impossible of the impossible.

I don’t care what theory you use, theory of evolution, big bang theory, eternally oscillating universe theory, eternallypatheticatheist theory, the delusionallostkids theory, alter-elasticity theory, etc. I don’t care about supernova, quantum physics, quantum mechanics, physical pendulum, Casanova, formula E=MC2, mchammer djmix, probability, nsync-nelly dynamics, thermodynamics, virtual particle, critical density, entropy, electromagnetic force, cosmic background radiation, thermonuclear fusion, superfreak mechanics, wave mechanics, optics, etc. You can give names to what already exist as u wish, call it “stupido mechanics” do whatever u want, fact is NOT ONE among ALL of this can demonstrate creation of ANY life form, from cell to creatures. I don’t care if u measured force, angle, sound, speed, distance, length, time, weight, mass, inertia, force & torque of earthquake, wind, lightning, light, cars, airplanes, my foot up your butt, etc. (laws of physics), Fact is your measuring tape, paper, pen,& Casio stop watch cannot demonstrate creation of ANY life form. You can give names to elements that already exist (periodic table) & play around with it, mix it up etc. or clone humans off existing egg cells, so what. I don’t care if another scientist will come up with a new ways of mathematics other than “geometry & square root” naming it “geostupidroots” explaining m=5, b=3, u=1, d=4. D+U+M+B=13. -d=-4. 4(d=u)=?, etc. I don’t care if u come up with that, as Calvinist in his low life came up with something to waste peoples head with numbers, I don’t care, Fact is numbers is NOT inert compounds, particles, or atoms, number is number. You can label physics by writing measured numbers on paper, but the written numbers doesn’t become atom/particles. I don’t care how much Red ink you waste writing numbers on a paper, if you mix those written numbers with amino acid, its still just a red ink & amino acid on a paper, even if you wrote angles, light, &sound measurements on a paper, putting protein shake or creatine on top of the paper isn’t going to bring the red ink to life, weirdo.


Another especially strong evidence of God is the so-called anthropic principle, according to which the universe seems to have been specially designed from the beginning for human life to evolve. If the temperature of the primal fireball that resulted from the big bang some fifteen to twenty billion yrs ago, which was the beginning of our universe, had been a trillionth of a degree colder or hotter, the carbon molecule that is the foundation of all organic life could never have developed. The number of possible universes is trillions of trillions: only one of them could support human life: this one. Sounds suspiciously like a plot. If the cosmic rays had bombarded the primordial slime at a slightly different angle or time or intensity, the hemoglobin molecule, necessary for all warm-blooded animals, could never have evolved. The chance of this molecule's evolving is one in a zillions zillion. Add together each of the chances & u have something far more impossible than a laptop computer formed by series of hurricane, lightning, and earthquake.

There r relatively few atheist among neurologists & brain surgeons & among astrophysicists, but many among psychologist, sociologist, & historians. The reason seems obvious: the first study divine design, the second study human design.


But doesn’t evolution explain everything without a divine designer? Just the opposite: Evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. There’s very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex. But there is no scientific proof of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, Natural selection "explains" the emergence of higher forms w/out intelligence design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. But this is sheer theory. There is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love makes it easier for man to survive. How did they evolve then?

Furthermore, could the design that obviously now exist in a man & in a human brain come from something with less or no design? Such an explanation violates the principle of causality, which states that u cant get more in the effect than u had in the cause. If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must b intelligence in the cause. But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence. Therefore there must b a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a mind behind the physical universe. (Most of the great scientists (Albert Einstein, etc.) have believed in such a mind, by the way, even those who did not accept any revealed religion.)


What created the first life form? Ask yourself that question. We have an explanation, we call it God. If I make such claim, do I have proof that indeed it was God (All knowing: alpha & omega) that created the first life form? Yes I do. The proof is this. Every complex and detailed form is an effect of intelligent cause (as observed and studied), from biological to technological. Don’t say, "Well if the waves of water formed/shaped the sands differently, it doesn’t mean the waves of water have intelligence", stupid, Waves of water can move sands, but it cannot move sands to form into detailed sandcastles, maybe in trillions and trillions of years, but this is not proven, it is proven however that intelligence can make such act possible. I’m talking about detailed complex existence. Detailed cars, spaceship, computers, etc. can be designed by human intelligence, cell cant. The complex and detailed life form’s existence (cell) requires intelligence far greater than human intelligence, as scientist in their failure have proven so. Again, as biochemists will say, to clone an existing cell is possible, to demonstrate the existence of a "cell" is impossible.


"In the beggining was the Word, the Word was with God, and the Word was God: He (The Word) was in the beginning with God. All things came to be through the Word (Him) & without the Word nothing came to be. What came to be through the Word was life (Him), & the life was the light of man."- John
"Now the earth was a formless void, there was darkness over the deep, & the Spirit of God (Word) hovered over the waters. God said, 'Let there be light’, & there was light, etc."- Genesis.
The lesson here is that intelligence and knowledge was first (Word), then water & light, and then finally LIFE. This is as close to scientific method as it can get. Intelligent act caused the water & light 2 transform (energy source) into a life form. That’s logic as intelligent engineers caused engineering, intelligent scientist caused science, intelligent atheist caused atheism, intelligent designers caused designs, intelligent artist caused art. Intelligent Lifegiver caused life... Lets compare this to atheism's teaching concerning life on earth, I call it the "Delusionallostkids theory"...read on...


There was void, nothing, & we came from nowhere like mathematics "-we r,-1234567890=1234567890 (So if your a teen & mom caught you holding 3 bottles of beer, just tell her “be quite mom, the 3 bottles of beer came out of nowhere, it was -123=123, formula E=MC2.”). Then accidentally, a cell appeared! Don’t know how but I think the hurricane, lightning, & earthquake did it by "LUCK" (Physics). Then the single cell survived like a barbarian & "accidentally & luckily" got bigger. But this didn’t happen in one single step, but through random luck/chance (Super Extra Luck). The nucleus was luckily made first, this guy u wont believe it, he was very strong & was waiting until Mr. cytoplasm appeared. Then later on mitochondria accidentally appeared, he then said to cytoplasm & nucleus "sorry guys it took me 100,000,000,000,000,000 yrs to exist, its just that Mr. earthquake didn’t shake me right at first but it doesn’t matter, I accidentally appeared now, thanks for waiting guys", then ribosome accidentally appeared, then thousands & thousands of other parts accidentally appeared to join the rest of the crew until it became a fully develop cell. Men u wouldn’t believe it but for some weird reasons the first parts were mysteriously strong & survived on their own for millions of years w/out any help until the rest of the parts appeared to become a fully developed cell. Mr. Nucleus because he was waiting so long, he was mad at the lightning & wind saying "Punks, why did u guys make me wait this long! Damn it lightning, create Mr. cytoplasm quicker next time ok!" this cell was very strong, strong enough to survive alone & replicate itself until it became trillions & trillions & turned into a fish!! This cell is over trillions years old waiting all those time for the rest of the body parts to appear! If I were u, I wouldn’t mess around with this cell, I bet 100 bucks it could knock out Mike Tyson in 3 rounds. This fish then became land mammals, then dinosaurs, then here we are today zillions of zillions of years later, we are all accidents. (In this case, u can put a raisin outside & millions of yrs from now that sun dried grape will turn into dinosaurs, fishes, birds, etc., thanks to the simple laws of physics). There’s only one choice left, God. Accept God or you’ll share this theory, the "Delusionallostkids Theory".


As a true Christian, we agree of any theories supported with evidence, from evolution to the big bang. Its common sense, existing creatures evolve over time depending on environment, weather & food supply. Lesser food intake leads to smaller life form, more leads to bigger life form. Its common sense, you don’t need to b an expert to figure that out, we evolve from conception to adulthood, as caterpillars to butterflies. Big Bang, law of Newton, math, science, history, and physics are good education, they are taught in Christian college (by the way 99% of universities are founded by Christians, from Princeton to Harvard, so atheist are ridiculous to make a claim their intelligent, when the fact is most of them earn their education from us). The Pope has said we can have an access to evolution. The church even uses true science to verify true miracles. However, we disagree with "chance, coincidence, or Super Luck" as the cause for the extremely detailed & complex life form "cell", as I wrote above, that's already proven through scientific demonstration to be impossible!

[muscleman]

Why do you reason with “chance” what doesn’t have a chance? I can claim that there’s a “chance” my mother will win the million-dollar lottery, even if winning is slim, fact is there is still a chance. One evidence to support my claim is that demonstration made it possible, she won the lucky 3 few times, other lottery games, & fact is many won it before. Lottery is accessible right now, there is no reason I shouldn’t be able to provide proof of “chance”. This claim of “chance” is evident.

Another example of chance is competition; there is a chance that Evander Holyfield could regain the 4th heavyweight title considering the fact that there are others who has done it before, such as Muhammad Ali. This claim of “chance” is evident as well. But why do atheist make the claim that “earthquake, lightning, wind, and hurricane or any physics” have the chance of gathering atoms and molecules together then create a living breathing life form when the fact is no evidence supports such claim. Again, for one to make a claim of “chance”, one must present evidence to support the possibility…To say “series of earthquake and lightning will make me 1 million feet tall and weigh 50 trillion tons in 30 years by chance” and to say “Series of earthquake and lightning formed a living cell in a sudden gathering of atoms by chance”, is a lie, both are impossible, both doesn’t have any evidence to support the claims of possibility…


You heard them say, "slight chance is still a chance", wrong! Through scientific observation, study & demonstration, there is NO CHANCE that any physics discovered can gather atoms & molecules together then create a living-breathing cell. To use “proof less luck” or "proof less chance" as the cause is a lie; lies is NOT a scientific proof, never is & NEVER WILL. Never again say "Why say it's God's creation if we don’t know, it just means we don’t know", we do know, we know that hurricane, wind, lightning, amino acid, protons, neutrons, all chemicals, and any of earth’s natural resource through observation, study, and demonstration cannot create "cell" by itself as science have proven so. By scientific method "chance" is a lie as demonstrated, there is no chance! And intelligence in the other hand is proven.

Intelligence can find cure for diseases, cause brain and heart surgery, cause breast implant, observation and study of events, solving crimes, molding artworks, creating cars, rocket space ships, television, refrigerators, etc. Intelligence is capable of creating and forming spare cartilages to replace missing ears or nose construction. Intelligence is also capable of creating living creatures off existing cells, from humans to insects (cloning). Intelligence are even beginning to discover growing a human heart like a plant. Can you provide one example of any detailed and complex form from biological to technological that are caused by a non intelligent matter; such as a cell phone forming a 2 story house through 8 years of lightning and hurricane or a Reebok running shoe cloning a pit bull through 6 years of rain and hurricane, are those claims true? No! So if an ignorant guy (atheist) would say electrons, protons, & neutrons are responsible for the creation of “cell”, say back to this ignorant guy “that’s proven impossible by science, if you think your smarter than science, then prove your claim”, he cant because it’s a lie. Electrons, protons and neutrons are accessible right now! There is no reason he shouldn’t be able to provide proof of “chance”, if he claims those are the cause of life form, then why not show us demonstration after all electrons are accessible here! I have judgment, and so do you, so don’t act like you don’t have one, be wise and normal, use your judgment.

Think…. I simply don’t believe a lifeless atom which have no intelligence or will can perform creation of a complex and detailed life form, otherwise you might as well say my cellular phone formed a custom 2 story 5 bedroom house complete with doors, fireplace, windows, and toilets in 10 years of hurricane and earthquake, or my shoes shaped a sandcastle modeled after the white house in 8 years of flood and tornado, how can I disagree with that if I claim that series of earthquakes, hurricane, sunlight, and lightning gathered the atoms together, then formed and shaped it into a mitochondria, ribosome, cytoplasm, nucleus, and thousands of other parts all at once to become a living breathing cell, a detailed and complex life form?


Some atheists are desperate for lies and might say, “The word ”chance” is only intended for biology, not for technological engineering”. Listen atheist kids, the definition of “chance” is=likelihood; opportunity; possibility; accidental. Did it say biological likelihood? Or did it say biological possibility? No! Why are you making your own definition of chance? Liars. I suggest you should make your own dictionary if you are that ignorant, call it the “Ignorant Dictionary”. Biology is off nature. Cars and houses are made out of metals and wood, which is from trees and rocks, which are off nature as well. Where do u think trees and rocks come from? Planet Jupiter?


Since some atheist are cone heads and stubborn, ill repeat the evidence of God once more. Higher Intelligence exist because the ordered, complex, detailed universe implies an intelligent cause. If intelligent cause doesn’t exist, then the effect (ordered & detailed life) doesn’t exist (the principle of causality) but because ordered & detailed life forms exist, then the intelligent cause exist (God); every complex and detailed form is an effect of intelligent cause (as observed and studied), from mechanical to biological. Reality triumphs over Lies, Fact triumphs over Opinion…


At this point, some atheist will be so desperate and would say “Intelligence is an idea of human concept, if you were to take it out of human concept, then there must be infinite numbers of Gods who perform creation of the universe, and there is no evidence that human life existed then.” This is a ridiculous argument, an out of topic, nobody is talking about God’s lifespan, mortality, or his personal taste, what’s the next question atheist will post? That God is vegetarian and prefers Calvin Klein underwear? The topic above is intelligence, which is proven, how did you expect a mortal intelligence could create the universe? Earth is 15 billion years old; use your brain if you have one, no mortals can live that long? God is immortal. You make a claim of “chance” and I proved your claim false by observation & study; I make a claim of “Intelligence” (God), why don’t you try to prove “intelligence” false instead of maneuvering and changing topic? I know why you wont try, because you cant! Fact is intelligence is proven. This proves a pretty thick slice of God: some designing intelligence great enough to account for all the design in the universe & the human mind. If that’s not God, what is it? Steven Spielberg? At this point we need a psychological explanation of the atheist rather than a logical explanation of the universe. We have a logical explanation of the universe, its called God. But atheist doesn’t like it because they can’t handle the truth.

[muscleman]

Alot of the atheists I encountered ask this question, if God exist why cant he just appear to me?


First and foremost, to love God is to obey the virtues and commandments, to love God is to love your neighbors..

Why should you only love your neighbors, obey Jesus' teaching (moral guidance) if he appeared to you and did some great wonders?

Should your love for neighbors cost some price? Should you only love your neighbor if ull see great signs of wonders? What are u capable of?

If a kid is about to run over, and ur the only person who have the chance to save him, would u ran there (knowing that u will get hit) and save the child's life? Or would you only do it if the kid offered you money? WHY CANT U DO IT FOR LOVE? INSTEAD OF DOING IT FOR A PRICE?

"an evil and perversed generation seek for a sign, but not a sign will b given to them except that of Jonah"- Jesus..

The sign of Jonah was people converting without a price..

All the sign you will be given are testimonies..

When a Pharisee asked Jesus " I dont believe you are the Son of God"..

Jesus replied "If u donot believe I am the son of man, then believe in what I do.."

Jesus dont care whether you think he is God or not, what matters is that your virtous...

AND TO BE VIRTOUS, TO BE LOVING, THAT SHOULDNT CAUSE YOU ANYTHING BUT YOU SHOULD DO IT FREE OF CHARGE, IF YOU SAY YOULL ONLY BELIEVE IN GOD IF HE APPEARS TO YOU, THEN YOUR BASICALLY ASKING A PRICE BEFORE SERVING HUMANITY......

Im convinced that a Governor would prefer that you obey the rules he set and believe he dont exist, rather than believe the governor exist yet disobey his teaching.......

[MRC_Hans]

These are really old horses you are bringing out, Muscleman, my friend. Are you sure you will bet a million bucks on this? I'm a tad short on time just now, but I'll be back and address your arguments one by one. ---- Dont worry, I wont charge you ;)

Hans

----
mchammer djmix
----


LOL!

You can't touch this, because I'm too legit to quit, hey heeeeyy!


----
I can claim that there’s a “chance” my mother will win the million-dollar lottery, even if winning is slim, fact is there is still a chance.
----


The real question is: What is the chance you'll move out of her house in the next year?


You keep talking about:
(emphasis mine)

----
But why do atheist make the claim that “earthquake, lightning, wind, and hurricane or any physics” have the chance of gathering atoms and molecules together then create a living breathing life form when the fact is no evidence supports such claim.
----


etc.

Um, the atoms, etc. don't need hurricanes, etc. to move around.


----
I make a claim of “Intelligence” (God), why don’t you try to prove “intelligence” false instead of maneuvering and changing topic?
----


Why don't you prove God true? You've just given your opinion and then declared your opinion/tantrum that natural ways are impossible.

[muscleman]

Ill post my 1 million dollar challenge after I get a real good debate concerning the subject above (BELIEVE ME, I really do have a 1 million dollar challenge.)...Please, dont irritate me, I easily get mad, if your a dumb teen, or an adult who have a teenager brain, dont talk ok?

Honestly I dont call names to people who have common sense, but if your a dummy who acts smart, that ticks me off so when u post a question or an opinion, if u dont want me to call u names, make sure its a good argument.....

[CSSMariner]

The same old boring and tired BS rehashed eternally.

Of which "god" are we speaking? There have been about 10,000 of them floating about in the silly mind of man at one time or the other.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
mchammer djmix
----
Why don't you prove God true? You've just given your opinion and then declared your opinion/tantrum that natural ways are impossible.

Ok, this is what Ive been really trying to get at atheists for a long time, but we never get there.....

What kind of evidence do you want in order to b convinced that God exist? Explain.......

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Originally posted by muscleman
Ill post my 1 million dollar challenge after I get a real good debate concerning the subject above

But, if you want a really good debate, you shouldn't show up. It dramatically decreases the IQ level of the discussion, baby.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by CSSMariner
The same old boring and tired BS rehashed eternally.

Of which "god" are we speaking? There have been about 10,000 of them floating about in the silly mind of man at one time or the other.


Educate yourself first, read the link below, a thread started by me. Who is God)s)? Which god(s)? Why should I bother?


http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13530

[Khalid01]

I am violating my own plea in this post, but please listen, my friends. Do not reply to this troll, of all the trolls in the world, none is more obvious than this one. If you can't resist replying, just ask for this seemingly uneducated person to edit their post to make it reasonably understandable and readable. Otherwise, just allow this clockwork idiot to spin down and out of existence. Go busy yourself with a lesser troll, or read an Asimov novel.

To remove a second 'S' in Asimov because I can be a hypocrite at times, and am too lazy to turn around and glance at the books on the shelf behind me!

Originally posted by muscleman

----
What kind of evidence do you want in order to b convinced that God exist? Explain.......
----


muscleman,

You claimed a proof of God. I did not. Yet you want me to say what kind of evidence I need in order to be convinced?

You claimed the proof, so you should have the evidence, right?

I will look over any evidence that you may have. It is up to you to present convincing evidence.

[Lucifuge Rofocale]

Dolly is dead :(

[muscleman]

Originally posted by Whodini
Originally posted by muscleman
It is up to you to present convincing evidence.

But how can I present convincing evidence if you will not tell me what evidence will convince you??

I for one are far more overwhlemingly convinced God exist, many others have the same conviction..But that is proof for us...

Again I first need to know what evidence will u be convinced of before I can present a "convincing evidence" TO YOU BECAUSE U R THE ONE IM TALKING TO......

[muscleman]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans
These are really old horses you are bringing out, Muscleman, my friend. Are you sure you will bet a million bucks on this? I'm a tad short on time just now, but I'll be back and address your arguments one by one. ---- Dont worry, I wont charge you ;)

Hans

LOL, this is a subject, this is NOT the 1 million dollar challenge. The 1 million dollar challenge is what I can perform, I will not say it yet until I get real good arguments.

[CSSMariner]

Originally posted by Khalid01
I am violating my own plea in this post, but please listen, my friends. Do not reply to this troll, of all the trolls in the world, none is more obvious than this one. If you can't resist replying, just ask for this seemingly uneducated person to edit their post to make it reasonably understandable and readable. Otherwise, just allow this clockwork idiot to spin down and out of existence. Go busy yourself with a lesser troll, or read an Assimov novel.

Hear - hear!!!!!

A voice of reason in the wilderness of mankind's idiocy of gods.

[Flaherty]

What is the best Campbell's soup?

[justsaygnosis]

Where have the miracle workers gone?
It appears they disappear whenever a camera shows up.
I guess the guardian angels were out for coffee on 9/11/01 or didn't care that not only were the towers going to be hit but all the bloodshed that came and is yet to occur would happen. But 9/11/01 is only recent, we've been killing each other over religion for millenia. Guardian angels don't bring down psychopaths, physical force does. We are left with the choice of killing them ourself or waiting for age to take them off the planet.
I amazed this god took such painstaking effort to make homo-sapien and constituted him/her to be so incomplete.
It is often quoted, "God's folly is greater than man's wisdom."
Perhaps that's true but the problem is that quote has been used for centuries by idiots who want to be god's chosen agents and rule the world.


No one posting on this board oversees the million dollar challenge proccess. Get a form and get in line.

[sorgoth]

Is it possible that a detailed and complex form happens by chance w/out an intelligent cause? Maybe there's a chance that computers could b formed by a series of hurricane/lightning/earthquake/ by Chance. Perhaps the lightning struck some rocks in place which caused it 2 melt & created wirings then the wind placed it in location where in Trillions of yrs earthquakes shook it & the design may possible turn into a laptop computer! But this won’t happen in a single step, but through random chance, the processor was made first, then the speakers, the keyboard, monitor, & so forth all by chance. No one dares question the laws of physics (LOL). Is this possible? NO! This analogy is IMPOSSIBLE, there’s no "chance" natural resources contain the necessary tools to create a detailed and complex laptop computer (soldering iron, laser beams, mechanical precision, proper timing &position, etc.) this requires intelligent cause. Though impossible, that analogy can be mentally visualized, unlike the claim that series of earthquakes, hurricane, sunlight, and lightning can gather atoms and molecules together, and then form it into mitochondria, ribosome, cytoplasm, nucleus, and thousands of the cell’s parts all at once then bring it to life.




It's VERY possible. The chances of it happening on earth are incredibly small, yes, but so are the chances of winning the lottery. SOMEBODY has to win. Just because of the immense amount of occurences that has happened throughout the universe in all of time, it's actually pretty likely that some random line of events WOULD create a cell-like form. There was a TINY chance of it happening on each planet, really. When you think of the sheer number of planets likely to exist...It would happen, eventually.

[CSSMariner]

Originally posted by Flaherty
What is the best Campbell's soup?

God's own clam chowder

[evildave]

Originally posted by Flaherty
What is the best Campbell's soup?

I like the Progresso Lentil soup best.

It's not a Campbell's soup, so I guess it's not really answering the question you asked.

Cambell's has been changing their soup formulations lately, so it's hard to say, having not eaten any of their recent offerings.

[Frostbite]

Science evolves, religion does not. What was magic a 100 years ago is today scientific fact. All those things we'll be able to explain when the time comes.

[Earthborn]

But how can I present convincing evidence if you will not tell me what evidence will convince you??You seem to misunderstand what evidence is needed to win the JREF challenge. It is not about trying to convince anyone, it's about proving something objectively! That means that even if you convince anyone you still do not win.

Suppose someone claims that he can levitate. Does he win by convincing someone that he can? No! He wins by levitating!

So you can't ask any skeptic what kind of evidence will convince them. What you need to do is show evidence that will convince everyone (who has eyes in his head and half a brain)!

Trying to prove God by trying to poke holes in evolution has been done a million times and is always unsuccessful. The most you can achieve by that is proving that the theory of evolution is unable to explain certain phenomena. It is in no way proof that God is needed to explain them.

If you want to prove the existence of God, you need to find positive evidence: you need to find God and take him to Randi where He can be tested whether He really is God. Finding a talking burning bush (not a president) is not enough, because that would only prove the existence of talking burning bushes (which will win you the million dollars) not the existence of God.

You see, the million dollar prize is meant for paranormal/metaphysical phenomena that are directly observable. It can't be used for the existence of God (yet?).

[neutrino_cannon]

It seems what has been found is proof of the effectivity of evolution rather than proof of god. Sure, you could probably define the positions of the atoms in a perfect grain of salt with about ten bits. But take the Oklo reactor, totaly independant of natural systems, and very complex. Took some of the brightest minds to replicate it.

Of couse you could take this as evidence of god too. Of course, anything in the universe could be taken as irrefutable proof of god's existance, and it would be complete hooey.

----
But how can I present convincing evidence if you will not tell me what evidence will convince you??
----


How can I know in advance what will convince me? I can't read the future.

So therefore, you can present any evidence you may have.


Also, with Randi's million, I can call a bank and check to make sure it is there. Can you provide me with a number to a bank I can call just to check?

Thanks.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally posted by evildave


I like the Progresso Lentil soup best.

It's not a Campbell's soup, so I guess it's not really answering the question you asked.

Cambell's has been changing their soup formulations lately, so it's hard to say, having not eaten any of their recent offerings.

Some of their chunky soups are actually good. And also the Campbell's Select. Also, Wolfgang Puck soups are good.

[SortingItAllOut]

Hello muscleman,

Here's some constructive criticism free of charge. I'm not trying to attack you, just making some observations. I certainly encourage you to post all you like, but if you truly wish to have a discussion on the issues, these tips might help you .

1. You are all over the place. Focus on your subject. Present your opinion, some supporting sentences and then wrap it up. You replied to me in another thread and told me that I was wearing you out. Well, right back at you. I'm struggling to chop through all the extraneous pieces to get at the real topic you are discussing.

2. Avoid the words "always", "never", "impossible" and the like. Unless you can prove that something really does "always" or "never" happen, you are simply wrong.

3. Coneheads? Weirdo? Avoid the ad hominem attacks. They don't support your argument well. Sure, someone might be a conehead, but that doesn't mean they might not be correct. And do you really want to get spanked in an argument by upsetting the conehead? I think not.

4. Correct spelling is a real plus. I'm a *terrible* speller but I try to look over my posts, especially if I'm arguing a position. It certain affects how many folks will view your post.

and finally...

5. Remember that if you are asserting something, the ball is in your court to provide the proof. You simply cannot say "The Bible says X so it must be true." and expect many folks to let you slide with that. My point in saying this is not to attack your belief system. My criticism is directed at your approach. The Bible may in fact be 100% true. But if you cannot prove this, it is difficult to use it as a foundation for building an argument.

Cheers,
Sort:)

[The Fool]

Originally posted by muscleman


LOL, this is a subject, this is NOT the 1 million dollar challenge. The 1 million dollar challenge is what I can perform, I will not say it yet until I get real good arguments.

Yep...Just as I thought, you are a kook.
C'mon tell me what you are going to do....What can you perform? A disappearing act up your own alimentary tract?
You come here with Bands playing and fireworks displays claiming you are in possesion of some brilliant new proof of the existence of some supernatural being, then you trot out a rehash of intelligent design, give me a break.

Now please call me names....I just love it....Lol.

[Interesting Ian]

Originally posted by Khalid01
I am violating my own plea in this post, but please listen, my friends. Do not reply to this troll, of all the trolls in the world, none is more obvious than this one. If you can't resist replying, just ask for this seemingly uneducated person to edit their post to make it reasonably understandable and readable. Otherwise, just allow this clockwork idiot to spin down and out of existence. Go busy yourself with a lesser troll, or read an Assimov novel.

The End of Eternity is my favorite one. :)

[thaiboxerken]

We've heard all of these nonsensical arguements before. They are nothing but fallacy. You can prove god's existence, well tell us how you're gonna do it and then maybe your "challenge" will be entertained.

What are you gonna do, pray for Randi to become blind? That's been tried before.

So far, you haven't provided a speck of evidence for your god's existence. I'll tell you what I'd accept as evidence of god, something that is empirical and will convince the scientific community of god's existence. There you go, it shouldn't be that hard.

:rolleyes:

[Doctor X]

I have already proven the existence of Big Daddy. . .

. . . except he is either evil, incompetent, or irrelevant, or some combination of the three.

I claim half of the $1,000,000.

. . . unless, of course, he does not exist.

Sad that the poor boy cannot find the humanity to address the child.

--J.D.

[MRC_Hans]

OK, Muscleman, my old friend, lets look at your proof. Before I start, let me say thay I'm nor out to disprove the existence of God. I'm an agnostic, and I dont think the existence of God can be disproved.

Originally posted by muscleman
*snip*

The first life form to evolve from earth is "Cell", the building blocks of life. It would take about 40,000 of your red blood cells to fill this letter O. A cell is alive-as alive as you are. It "breathes," takes in food, & gets rid of wastes. It also grows & reproduces (creates its own kind). And in time, it dies. An optical microscope can magnify a cell up to 2,000 times. An electron microscope can magnify a cell by 1 million times. An ant magnified 200,000 times would be more than 21/2 miles (4 kilometers) long. But even with such tremendous magnification, the detailed structure of some cell parts still cannot be seen.


Is it possible that a detailed and complex form happens by chance w/out an intelligent cause?

Yes, there is quite a chance. The primordial cells, or protocells were MUCH simpler than even the simplest cells we see to-day. They were really just a compound of primitive proteins. All these primitive proteins have been created in the laboratory, under conditions that probably existed in the early Earth.

Maybe there's a chance that computers could b formed by a series of hurricane/lightning/earthquake/ by Chance. Perhaps the lightning struck some rocks in place which caused it 2 melt & created wirings then the wind placed it in location where in *snip*

Nobody ever claimed that cells like the ones we know to-day just poped into existence. Bear in mind that those early biological entities had no competition.

For many years of observation & study, biochemists can only limitedly identify & label what’s contained in a cell, but never successful in creating one. *snip*

There is still things to be know about cells, but we have discovered most by now. No, we have not yet created one. Actually I dont know how hard we are trying, after all, it would be of limited use.


To use "natural physics" as an explanation for the atom to transform into a cell is not only unscientific, but also impossible!*snip*

We cannot explain EXACTLY how it happened, but it is far from impossible.

Don’t try to compare organisms to automobiles, car parts can wait before creating the rest of the parts, did u actually think there’s a brain lying around waiting for the rest of the parts to develop*snip*

This is a Creationist argument. I know you are a devout Catholic. Your Church accepts Evolution, so we need not discuss this.

Ill make it easier for atheist, lets make a magic step over the impossible of the impossible, let’s just pretend that scientists were able to successfully build a cell together! Even then Ill still believe in God for the fact is, intelligence is the cause of the detailed & complex effect (scientist effort) not series of tornado, earthquake, & lightning. If the super impossibility of creating a cell were made possible, it still won’t survive for it requires one or more of its own kind! (Observed & studied) Lets make another super ultimate impossibility possible, let’s just say it survived, how then did u expect it to multiply from a single cell considering the lifespan of it is very short?

Uh, this is simle ignorance. Single-celled organisms multiply by dividing. A single cell can multiply. This is easily observable and common biological knowledge.

If the dinosaurs with ultimate defense mechanism became instinct, how did u expect a defenseless delicate cell survive & replicate? By accident, coincidence, "chance", magic?

Well, it was more or less alone. An entire Earth, and no competition.

Evolution take is there was an earth w/a pond, hydrogen, methane & ammonia were in the pond & when lightning struck amino acids were formed, this has been demonstrated in the lab. Not all aminos were formed, however. Amino can form protein, & protein formed the first single cell. We have grave problems here because no one explains where the lightning, hydrogen, methane & ammonia came from & how to get around the missing aminos which are required for the over 200,000 proteins required for the single cell. No one can explain where ammonia, methane, hydrogen come from,

Dead wrong! Thide sustances were abundant on the early Earth, they are abundant in the Universe, and they are still abundant here to-day, but most are now tied up in more complex compounds.

but for the sake of sorry atheist, lets move on; Lets just say ammonia, methane, hydrogen popped out of nowhere magically & it formed amino acids/proteins thanks to lightning, the first single cell is composed of proteins, so what? So what if you can find a spare leg, heart, lungs, or arms out there? Does it mean that lightning, wind, & earthquake can gather the body parts together & create a living being? Do you think the wind will carry the arms, then the earthquake will shake the heart, &then the lightning will glue them together, &later on the spare parts became a living breathing person!? That’s absurd.

This is an Intelligent Design argument. We could look into that, but you should not need it, as your church accepts Evolution.

So what if lightning can create amino *snip* this HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF, NEVER HAVE AND NEVER EVER WILL. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.the impossible of the impossible.

You are now repeating yourself. It has not been scientifically PROVED how life started. it has, however, been shown how it probably stared.


I don’t care what theory you use, *snip*top of the paper isn’t going to bring the red ink to life, weirdo.

You are now raving. Strong language wont prove your point.

Another especially strong evidence of God is the so-called anthropic principle, according to which the universe seems to have been specially designed from the beginning for human life to evolve. If the temperature of the primal fireball that resulted from the big bang some fifteen to twenty billion yrs ago, which was the beginning of our universe, had been a trillionth of a degree colder or hotter, the carbon molecule that is the foundation of all organic life could never have developed. The number of possible universes is trillions of trillions: only one of them could support human life: this one. Sounds suspiciously like a plot. *snip*

You are mistaking cause and effect. The present universe offers an exhaustive range of conditions. The Earth is not ideal for our life forms in order to accomodate us, its the other way around: We are here because this is the place where conditions are favorable.[
/b]

But doesn’t evolution explain everything without a divine designer? Just the opposite: Evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. There’s very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex. But there is no scientific proof of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, Natural selection "explains" the emergence of higher forms w/out intelligence design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. But this is sheer theory. There is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love makes it easier for man to survive. How did they evolve then?

[b]You are talking through your hat. Evolution is not sheer theoty, it is supported by a heavy amount of observation. Noe only that, but observations that seem to contradict evolution as the origin of humand are practically non-existent.

Furthermore, could the design that obviously now exist in a man & in a human brain come from something with less or no design? Such an explanation violates the principle of causality, which states that u cant get more in the effect than u had in the cause. If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must b intelligence in the cause. But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence.

How about the intelligence in some animals? Nobody ever claimed it happened by chance.

Therefore there must b a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a mind behind the physical universe. (Most of the great scientists (Albert Einstein, etc.) have believed in such a mind, by the way, even those who did not accept any revealed religion.)

This doesn't follow at all. Einstein was a great physicist; this doesnt make him an authority on religion.

What created the first life form? Ask yourself that question. We have an explanation, we call it God. *snip*

You have that explanation. You might be right, but there is no proof, period.

"In the beggining was the Word, the Word was *snip* However, we disagree with "chance, coincidence, or Super Luck" as the cause for the extremely detailed & complex life form "cell", as I wrote above, that's already proven through scientific demonstration to be impossible!

Seems you have no idea what "scientific proof" means



Hans

[evildave]

Originally posted by The Central Scrutinizer


Some of their chunky soups are actually good. And also the Campbell's Select. Also, Wolfgang Puck soups are good.

Then there's 'Healthy Choice' soups, which have a lot less salt in 'em, and are good anyway.

That's one of my pet peeves, BTW. People who think soup should have a little less salt in it than would make it a solid crystal of salt with noodles and veggies embedded in it. If it "needs salt" it's easy enough to add at the table. It's nigh impossible to remove if some nitwit puts too much into the pot.

A lot of soups blow your whole recommended daily allowance of sodium before you ever think of adding crackers.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by sorgoth





It's VERY possible. The chances of it happening on earth are incredibly small, yes, but so are the chances of winning the lottery. SOMEBODY has to win. Just because of the immense amount of occurences that has happened throughout the universe in all of time, it's actually pretty likely that some random line of events WOULD create a cell-like form. There was a TINY chance of it happening on each planet, really. When you think of the sheer number of planets likely to exist...It would happen, eventually.


Here u go again, a person who made a comment when he didnt even understand what I was trying to say..

A claim of "chance" need a proof of its possibility..

Lottery is a good example of claim of chance, its proven. Though winning are slim, there are others who have won,...So this claim of chance is proven..

However, the claim that nature can create cell by chance, HAVE NO PROOF OF ITS POSSIBILITY.. If u cant provide proof of chance, then you shouldnt claim of its existence by chance.. Otherwise ANYTHING CAN BE A CHANCE, might as well claim that the Pyramids of Egypt were created by rocks and woods flying around carried by series of tornado and earthquake in 10 yrs.....

Once again a cell eexisting by chancem CONTAINS NO EVIDENCE of its possibility, this is a lie.........

GOT IT?

[muscleman]

Originally posted by justsaygnosis
Where have the miracle workers gone?
It appears they disappear whenever a camera shows up.
I guess the guardian angels were out for coffee on 9/11/01 or didn't care that not only were the towers going to be hit but all the bloodshed that came and is yet to occur would happen. But 9/11/01 is only recent, we've been killing each other over religion for millenia. Guardian angels don't bring down psychopaths, physical force does. We are left with the choice of killing them ourself or waiting for age to take them off the planet.
I amazed this god took such painstaking effort to make homo-sapien and constituted him/her to be so incomplete.
It is often quoted, "God's folly is greater than man's wisdom."
Perhaps that's true but the problem is that quote has been used for centuries by idiots who want to be god's chosen agents and rule the world.


No one posting on this board oversees the million dollar challenge proccess. Get a form and get in line.

Face it kid, God is not going to strike you with a lightning rod if u chose to have sex before marriage. God is not going to stop you from stealing candies from the store. God is not going to stop you from going to the mall. God is not going to stop you from running every morning..

GOD IS NOT GOING TO STOP YOU OR ANYONE FROM DOING WHAT THEY WISH TO DO IN THIER LIFE. OTHERWISE MIGHT AS WELL TURN THEM INTO A VEGETABLE, INCAPABLE OF ANY OF THEM..


GOT IT CHILD?

[muscleman]

Originally posted by Frostbite
Science evolves, religion does not. What was magic a 100 years ago is today scientific fact. All those things we'll be able to explain when the time comes.

Ok, you need to shut-up. Your too dumb in this thread. Christianity (the one and original one the catholic church) have been so advanced compared to how small it started in Rome. While science struggled 600 yrs ago, the church struggled with it....

FACT HERE IS CATHOLIC CHURCH HAVE OUR OWN BIO-CHEMIST, AND SCIENTISTS UPDATING NEW RESEARCH AND SHARING THE INFO TO THE POPE....

Science is just a SMALL part of the catholic church..

Go talk somewhere else, dont ruin an intelligent debate (LOL, if that exist), yur too dumb to b here... ...

[Renfield]

Originally posted by muscleman



Here u go again, a person who made a comment when he didnt even understand what I was trying to say..

A claim of "chance" need a proof of its possibility..

Lottery is a good example of claim of chance, its proven. Though winning are slim, there are others who have won,...So this claim of chance is proven..

However, the claim that nature can create cell by chance, HAVE NO PROOF OF ITS POSSIBILITY.. If u cant provide proof of chance, then you shouldnt claim of its existence by chance.. Otherwise ANYTHING CAN BE A CHANCE, might as well claim that the Pyramids of Egypt were created by rocks and woods flying around carried by series of tornado and earthquake in 10 yrs.....

Once again a cell eexisting by chancem CONTAINS NO EVIDENCE of its possibility, this is a lie.........

GOT IT?

Your grammer is about as sound as your thinking musclehead. It's not like modern cells were simply thrown together by nature. The process took millions of years. Comparing this to the pyramids being built by random forces like tornadoes and earthquakes simply makes no sense.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by Earthborn
You seem to misunderstand what evidence is needed to win the JREF challenge. It is not about trying to convince anyone, it's about proving something objectively! That means that even if you convince anyone you still do not win.

Suppose someone claims that he can levitate. Does he win by convincing someone that he can? No! He wins by levitating!

So you can't ask any skeptic what kind of evidence will convince them. What you need to do is show evidence that will convince everyone (who has eyes in his head and half a brain)!

Trying to prove God by trying to poke holes in evolution has been done a million times and is always unsuccessful. The most you can achieve by that is proving that the theory of evolution is unable to explain certain phenomena. It is in no way proof that God is needed to explain them.

If you want to prove the existence of God, you need to find positive evidence: you need to find God and take him to Randi where He can be tested whether He really is God. Finding a talking burning bush (not a president) is not enough, because that would only prove the existence of talking burning bushes (which will win you the million dollars) not the existence of God.

You see, the million dollar prize is meant for paranormal/metaphysical phenomena that are directly observable. It can't be used for the existence of God (yet?).


Again, another person making comments and not knowing what I was talking about..

Evolution is fine, its common sense that life evolve, from conception to adulthood, caterpillars to butterflies. Thats just common sense, we evolve in millions of yrs, the church have accepted that fact already.

Now my 1 million dollar challenge is something I can perform, I can do it live if u want, AND IM NOT LYING... 100% of thew people I told this to didnt believe me, because it is supernatural phenomenon, but I havent given them the chance to see it yet, because this only happened to me lately, so I decided to give the 1 million dollar a shot.....And again, I wont say it yet till later......

[muscleman]

Originally posted by Renfield


Your grammer is about as sound as your thinking musclehead. It's not like modern cells were simply thrown together by nature. The process took millions of years. Comparing this to the pyramids being built by random forces like tornadoes and earthquakes simply makes no sense.

Ok this is what you are trying to say......

There was void, nothing, & we came from nowhere like mathematics "-we r,-1234567890=1234567890 (So if your a teen & mom caught you holding 3 bottles of beer, just tell her “be quite mom, the 3 bottles of beer came out of nowhere, it was -123=123, formula E=MC2.”). Then accidentally, a cell appeared! Don’t know how but I think the hurricane, lightning, & earthquake did it by "LUCK" (Physics). Then the single cell survived like a barbarian & "accidentally & luckily" got bigger. But this didn’t happen in one single step, but through random luck/chance (Super Extra Luck). The nucleus was luckily made first, this guy u wont believe it, he was very strong & was waiting until Mr. cytoplasm appeared. Then later on mitochondria accidentally appeared, he then said to cytoplasm & nucleus "sorry guys it took me 100,000,000,000,000,000 yrs to exist, its just that Mr. earthquake didn’t shake me right at first but it doesn’t matter, I accidentally appeared now, thanks for waiting guys", then ribosome accidentally appeared, then thousands & thousands of other parts accidentally appeared to join the rest of the crew until it became a fully develop cell.

Men u wouldn’t believe it but for some weird reasons the first parts were mysteriously strong & survived on their own for millions of years w/out any help until the rest of the parts appeared to become a fully developed cell. Mr. Nucleus because he was waiting so long, he was mad at the lightning & wind saying "Punks, why did u guys make me wait this long! Damn it lightning, create Mr. cytoplasm quicker next time ok!" this cell was very strong, strong enough to survive alone & replicate itself until it became trillions & trillions & turned into a fish!! This cell is over trillions years old waiting all those time for the rest of the body parts to appear! If I were u, I wouldn’t mess around with this cell, I bet 100 bucks it could knock out Mike Tyson in 3 rounds. This fish then became land mammals, then dinosaurs, then here we are today zillions of zillions of years later, we are all accidents. (In this case, u can put a raisin outside & millions of yrs from now that sun dried grape will turn into dinosaurs, fishes, birds, etc., thanks to the simple laws of physics). There’s only one choice left, God. Accept God or you’ll share this theory, the "Delusionallostkids Theory".

So what is your theory called? Delusionallostkids theory?

[ReasonableDoubt]

Originally posted by muscleman

... 100% of thew people I told this to didnt believe me, because it is supernatural phenomenon, but I havent given them the chance to see it yet, because this only happened to me lately, so I decided to give the 1 million dollar a shot.....And again, I wont say it yet till later...... Somebody is off their medicine.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
It seems what has been found is proof of the effectivity of evolution rather than proof of god. Sure, you could probably define the positions of the atoms in a perfect grain of salt with about ten bits. But take the Oklo reactor, totaly independant of natural systems, and very complex. Took some of the brightest minds to replicate it.

Of couse you could take this as evidence of god too. Of course, anything in the universe could be taken as irrefutable proof of god's existance, and it would be complete hooey.

LOL..:D :D :D ....No comment......

[muscleman]

sortingitallout, I completely agree. I dont make quotes in the bible and present them as if they are true, I only do that when the topic and science (and/or history) relates to it, thus proving it to be true.. And I completely agree with what yur saying......But then when I said "NEVER" for u to disagree with that is a matter of belief, opposition of my belief, unless of course u can prove that it "WILL" in the future and not "NEVER", then I would admit being wrong, and in the other hand that can b applied to me as well.

and TheFool, you are the kook......

Kickboxerken, many scientists acknowledges supernatural (unexplainable occurences). Many scientists are believers of God, many doctors, bio-chemists. Do u call that scientific community if they gather together? Well then, when are u goping to be baptized?

and one more thing, I wish the best for Randi and I have no bad thoughts concerning him. Im just worried for people like him (at ripe old age) to continue his life this way when his time is very short, AND HE GOT NOTHING TO LOOSE TO GIVE LIFE A SHOT......NOTHING, maybe his pride though.......

[MRC_Hans]

Mmmm, Muscle, you just made my ignore list. Congratulations!

Hans

[muscleman]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans


Yes, there is quite a chance. The primordial cells, or protocells were MUCH simpler than even the simplest cells we see to-day. They were really just a compound of primitive proteins. All these primitive proteins have been created in the laboratory, under conditions that probably existed in the early Earth. Hans



The first life form is cell, it multiplies & reproduce, contains nucleus (a program; dna), etc.

Again the topic is "life forms in which are programmed", the topic is not about proteins or amino acids which DOESNT reproduce...

Again if u red the topic concerning "CHANCE".. The claim of chance need a proof of its possibility before claiming it..

If I claim that there is a chance I can win lottery, I better see evidence of it (such as my mother winning it) so that I can acknowledge it and believe OF ITS CLAM OF POSSIBILITY..

A claim that cell appeared by chance CONTAINS NO EVIDENCE..

If claiming that u can win lottery by chance, and if there is no evidence supporting the claim. I FIND NO REASON WHY I SHOULD BUY A LOTTERY...PERIOD........SO WHY AGAIN DO YOU BELIEVE LIFE FORM EXIST BY CHANCE? AND IN FACT, WHY DO MANY OF THESE PEOPLE CLAIM TO ACKNOWLEDGE EVIDENCE WHEN THERE IS NO EVIDENCE OF LIFE AS CHANCE? ARE THEY INCREDIBLY STUPID?


Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Nobody ever claimed that cells like the ones we know to-day just poped into existence. Bear in mind that those early biological entities had no competition.

No competition or not, it contains DNA, PROGRAMMED, and reproduce..AGAIN claiming that it exist by chance need a proof of its possibility, otherwise might as well claim that woods and rocks were carried by series of tornado and lightning in 1,000 years and then formed the Pyramids of Egypt..


A CLAIM OF CHANCE NEED A PROOF OF ITS POSSIBILITY....PERIOD......

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

There is still things to be know about cells, but we have discovered most by now. No, we have not yet created one. Actually I dont know how hard we are trying, after all, it would be of limited use.


Fair enough.......

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

We cannot explain EXACTLY how it happened, but it is far from impossible.

Far from impossible? Your proposing that its close to possible, AND YET CANNOT DEMONSTRATE ITS POSSIBILITY..

Therefore thats yur belief, your opinion. Others can say its far from being possible, a comment nothing more valid than yours...


Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Uh, this is simle ignorance. Single-celled organisms multiply by dividing. A single cell can multiply. This is easily observable and common biological knowledge.

No crap. But then again, that took place because of the DNA, programmed (nucleus) within the life forms. THE BRAIN OF THE CELL......

IS IT CHANCE? again thats been taken cared of already, and if u wish I can bring this up again...


Originally posted by MRC_Hans

" Well, it was more or less alone. An entire Earth, and no competition."

No competition or not, it contains DNA....IS IT BY CHANCE??? :) And besides how would u know they didnt pop into existence all at once? OR DO U PROPOSE THEIR EXISTENCE WERE PROCCESSED IN MILLIONS OF YEARS? :)

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Dead wrong! Thide sustances were abundant on the early Earth, they are abundant in the Universe, and they are still abundant here to-day, but most are now tied up in more complex compounds.

I agree, they exist. But then again how did they came to life and reproduce?? LOL, by chance???


Originally posted by MRC_Hans

You are now repeating yourself. It has not been scientifically PROVED how life started. it has, however, been shown how it probably stared.


Fair enough. SO DONT USE THE WORD "SCIENCE SAYS THIS OR THAT" IF IT WAS JUST ATHEISTS "PURE BELIEF".......Using science as a refference for atheists pure belief is just misleading.......

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

You are now raving. Strong language wont prove your point.

I agree, but I cant help it. Dummies just tick me off......


Originally posted by MRC_Hans

You are mistaking cause and effect. The present universe offers an exhaustive range of conditions. The Earth is not ideal for our life forms in order to accomodate us, its the other way around: We are here because this is the place where conditions are favorable.

Fair enough. But that doesnt contradict the statement, the two are both valid points. You can look at it that way, or the other way..


Originally posted by MRC_Hans

You are talking through your hat. Evolution is not sheer theoty, it is supported by a heavy amount of observation. Noe only that, but observations that seem to contradict evolution as the origin of humand are practically non-existent.


Once again u didnt get what Im saying.. Did u even read it? Here ill post it again...

"Evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God. There’s very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex, etc."

"Natural selection "explains" the emergence of higher forms w/out intelligence design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. But this is sheer theory. There is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love makes it easier for man to survive. How did they evolve then? "

Evolution is a good accepted theory, a great clue to God. But it can also be a sheer theory, it just depends how u look at it. Again there is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love makes it easier for man to survive. How did they evolve then?


Originally posted by MRC_Hans

How about the intelligence in some animals? Nobody ever claimed it happened by chance.

LOL, c'mon dont play like that, apply the analogy of human mind here to animals as well aight?


Originally posted by MRC_Hans

This doesn't follow at all. Einstein was a great physicist; this doesnt make him an authority on religion.

Exactly, I can b smart in science and philosophy, but be dumb in archeology and others..

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

You have that explanation. You might be right, but there is no proof, period.

There is proof, maybe the proof is not valid to you, but it is to us. God is proven to many, maybe not to all, as some are convinced that Jesus never existed, or if he did, he was a black man.

Or u can convince yurself King Henry is a myth, but the point here is God and King Henry is proven to exist, maybe not to all, but to many indeed....


Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Seems you have no idea what "scientific proof" means

Oh I dont??

WELL THAN HANS, EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THINGS ARE TO BE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN, AND IF THEY ARE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN, ARE THEY MYTHS??? ...EDUCATE ME.......

[Yahzi]

Musclesinthemouthonly
Furthermore, could the design that obviously now exist in a man & in a human brain come from something with less or no design? Such an explanation violates the principle of causality, which states that u cant get more in the effect than u had in the cause. If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must b intelligence in the cause. But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence.
Shades of St. Augustine and Francis Sheaffer. Theology is like picking through a smoothie to try and figure out which fruits went into the blender.

There are several glaring logical flaws in this paragraph alone that completely destroy your so-called "proof" of God.

1. I have no idea where you came up with that "principle of causality," which seems to utterly ignore the existance of catalysts (which seems bizzare given that there is one in your car's engine). According to your principal, I would not expect to get more heat out of throwing a burning match into a can of gasoline than I would have gotten out of the match itself.

However, the laws of thermodynamics do allow for an increase in local complexity at the expense of entropy in another place: thus, the sun serves as both our energy source and our entropy sink.

2. Even if we concede that an intelligence was necessary to create the universe, you have failed to show that intelligence is in any way related to the burning bush a few hopped-up goat herders made up stories about. Or even that said intelligence still exists. Simply demonstrating that the Universe required a cause does not mean that you have a personal relationship with that cause. This is a basic principle of logic: if you find a house in the desert, and manage to conclude that the house was built by a man, you cannot automatically assume that the man who built it is still alive.


There you go: I have, using only the common rules of reason and evidence, demonstrated your position to be not only false, but simple-minded. However, I have no desire for your million dollars, since I am already wealthy beyond your means: instead, I request that you take your million dollars and buy a server, and make your own message board, and go there, and never return to here to bother us sensible folk again. In return, we promise never to bother you. Deal?

I would put this idiot troll on /ignore, but my ignore list is full. Are you listening, Hal Bidlack? We need more /ignore capacity!

[Loki]

muscleman,

Since you seem able to perfectly merge the worlds of science and theology, perhaps you can resolve the issue of the creation of the soul?

Are you aware of this comment from Father George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory :
"The theological doctrine of God directly creating the human soul has to be rethought."
Could you perhaps explain precisely when, and by what process, the soul is created, and at what point the soul and the fetus/human merge? Conception? Birth? First Trimester? Thanks!

[J3K]

This is pretty pathetic. As knowledge of how things work have evolved. Religion has changed where it was WRONG. And guess what muscleman, in the future, when we have answers to the things you say "prove" of god, the people that follow what you believe are simply going to be ignorant. It's fine that you believe what you do. But for you to "prove" god the way you are, it's not proof. All you have to do is give us proof that SHOWS that god exists. And most everybody will believe you. But saying "this couldnt have came along because the chances are so small" doesnt prove god.

[c4ts]

Time for some unrestrained (and unmedicated) commentary on Muscleman's proof here. Prepare to feel the power of... confusion!

Originally posted by muscleman
This is a thread to end atheism and claims that God dont exist once and for all. I DARE anyone here refute my arguments, so far NONE have found any flaws of my argument...


Below are questions and answers that I was confronted over the years debating with many atheists.

I also have a 1 million dollar challenge at the end, this is no joke, Im serious.......


Here Ill post the proof of God's existence..........

Ultimate Reality…
“God, the giver of life??”


The first life form to evolve from earth is "Cell", the building blocks of life.
While I'm really not getting anywhere with this first comment, I thought evolution was a process of refinement or differentiation, not generation itself, which would require the first cell to evolve from a previous cell. However, there is so much speculation regarding the formation of the first cell, it's just semantics until the actual argument is put forth. I'll list the points as they are made. After all, the first cell may have evolved from some sort of proto-cell that we wouldn't call "life."

-Cells are the borders of our definition of "life"
-We assume they came before any other form of life
-We assume that all things displaying any number of the characteristics of life are considered life as long as they are made of any number of cells (greater than 0)

It would take about 40,000 of your red blood cells to fill this letter O.
-Cells are tiny

A cell is alive-as alive as you are. It "breathes," takes in food, & gets rid of wastes. It also grows & reproduces (creates its own kind). And in time, it dies.
- Cells are the borders of our definition of life because they demonstrate the most elementary ("borderline") characteristics of life

An optical microscope can magnify a cell up to 2,000 times. An electron microscope can magnify a cell by 1 million times. An ant magnified 200,000 times would be more than 21/2 miles (4 kilometers) long.
- Microscopes make ants look big. (Are the numbers really necessary?)

But even with such tremendous magnification, the detailed structure of some cell parts still cannot be seen.
- Not all things can be seen under high powered microscopes.

Is it possible that a detailed and complex form happens by chance w/out an intelligent cause?
- Discussing the possibility of the negative of intelligent cause...

Maybe there's a chance that computers could b formed by a series of hurricane/lightning/earthquake/ by Chance.
- Unreasonable speculation concerning chance through capitalization errors

Perhaps the lightning struck some rocks in place which caused it 2 melt & created wirings then the wind placed it in location where in Trillions of yrs earthquakes shook it & the design may possible turn into a laptop computer!
- More speculation

But this won’t happen in a single step, but through random chance, the processor was made first, then the speakers, the keyboard, monitor, & so forth all by chance.
- More speculation

No one dares question the laws of physics (LOL). Is this possible? NO!
The laws of physics are "TLOP," not "LOL."
- The laws of physics are not unquestionable
- What that has to do with the speculation regarding spontaneously generated computers eludes me, since it is physically possible for natural disasters to assemble computers, which is the method preferred by Gateway (j/k :D but the possibility remains, however improbable it may be)...

This analogy is IMPOSSIBLE, there’s no "chance" natural resources contain the necessary tools to create a detailed and complex laptop computer (soldering iron, laser beams, mechanical precision, proper timing &position, etc.) this requires intelligent cause.
- The analogy is impossible because it is incomplete. So far it is "artifice is to natural causes (chance) as ________ is to artificial causes (intelligent design)"
- The reductio, therefore, is incomplete, since "_______ is to artificial causes as artifice is to natural causes, but artifice is to artificial causes, therefore it is absurd," because "nature" would complete the analogy but not the reductio.
"Nature is to artificial causes (intelligent design) as artifice is to natural causes (chance)" actually makes sense, since chance and nature are one set, artifice and intelligent design are the other set (A:B as B:A). Instead a reductio is applied to where the analogy should be completed, as though the analogy was meant to be "artifice is to natural causes as artifice is to artificial causes." But if it were completed that way, then there would be no reason to put forward such an analogy in the first place since it doesn't prove anything.

To summarize Muscleman's reasoning:
- computers are not the result of chance
- chance (nature) does not provide tools for making computers (artifice)
- the basis of these claims is the absurd speculation to the contrary provided
- the speculation provided is absurd because artifice requires intelligent design
- the analogy must be completed in an absurd way because the existing connection "artifice : natural cause" is absurd
- therefore the analogy is absurd ("IMPOSSIBLE!" according to Muscleman) when completed in an absurd way
Look, I've found an even bigger, more obvious flaw! (see italics)

Here is what I think Muscleman is trying to prove:
- Nature = artifice (chance = intelligent design)
- But since nature does not = artifice, nature = artifice of God
But the purpose of the paper is to prove the existence of God, so for now it is "artifice = artifice of man, nature = artifice of something other than man"
But the only thing Muscleman has really demonstrated is that artifice does not = nature, and that seems to be what he is trying to disprove in the first place.

The rift between nature and artifice is not closed by the denial of this analogy, nor by the completion of it. Things not invented by man still fall under the catergory of "may or may not be the result of whatever." So far nothing has been put forward to support intelligent cause in anything but artifice, and I have supplied that. There was a bit about using objects of artifice such as microscopes to observe nature, and that the microscopes were not wholly sufficient tools of observation. Intelligent design is brought up in the refutation of vapid speculation.

Though impossible, that analogy can be mentally visualized, unlike the claim that series of earthquakes, hurricane, sunlight, and lightning can gather atoms and molecules together, and then form it into mitochondria, ribosome, cytoplasm, nucleus, and thousands of the cell’s parts all at once then bring it to life.
- People can mentally visualize a tornado assembling a computer.
- People can mentally visualize a bunch of stuff coming together to make a living cell

Lots of things are imaginable. That doesn't make them true. That doesn't make them false. People can imagine the letters of the alphabet, too. Imagination is not always absurd.

For many years of observation & study, biochemists can only limitedly identify & label what’s contained in a cell, but never successful in creating one. Considering all the technologies modern science has to offer (electron microscope, etc.) they can even split an atom into half! Yet even then NOT ONE scientist are able to successfully create a single cell, NONE! If this was the case, why then do atheist claim that series of earthquake, wind, & lightning created life forms by accident "chance" when scientist with far better technology than wind & sunlight can't?
Basically, this is saying:
- Because scientists have never created life under laboratory conditions, why do atheists claim a series of natural disasters created life?
One problem is the Muscleman assumes atheists make claims about life that follow his own absurd claims along a similar line. There are other problems, such as the fact that he assumes atheists actually make that claim, or that he forgets that there are other scientific theories regarding the formation of life which may also be the claims of atheists (etc)...

To use "natural physics" as an explanation for the atom to transform into a cell is not only unscientific, but also impossible!
Since natural physics doesn't make the claim that atoms transform into cells, it would be impossible.

The cell is so tiny that as observed & studied, earthquake & lightning is incapable of creating it. Many biochemists testified, "The cell is as complex as the city of San Francisco ". It's impossible to form a tiny part of the cell such as the complex nucleus, or mitochondria, or any of cell’s parts alone out of gathering atoms, how much more impossible it is to create the whole body of cell all at once! For the whole entire body go hand in hand. It is like putting a human body parts together & bring it to life: putting a cell together is even far more impossible because of its tiny size. The impossible of the impossible. I don’t care how many millions of years lightning, earthquake and wind has. Fact is natural resources cannot gather the atoms/inert compounds, molecules together & shape it to become a cell membrane, cytoplasm, nucleus, mitochondria, etc. & thousands of other parts to form a cell, the wind cant do it, earthquake cant, neither lightning (too strong) for a cell is extremely defenseless delicate life form. I don’t care how many millions of years quantum physics, hurricane, or lightning have, FACT is no life form & creatures in this known universe can exist & function with one eye & no brain behind it, or one leg without muscles to move it. Fact is it’s all or nothing!
[/b][/quote]
Is it just me, or did he just confuse the testimony of scientists with documented scientific evidence?

Don’t try to compare organisms to automobiles, car parts can wait before creating the rest of the parts, did u actually think there’s a brain lying around waiting for the rest of the parts to develop?
Muscleman has already proved that his absurd comparisons are indeed absurd.

Your strange you know that, u watch too much cartoon network!
Wasn't this supposed to somehow prove God? I haven't seen anything along that line for a while and already the unfounded accustions begin...

I don’t care how tiny or huge life form is (ostrich egg, cell, insects, etc) or how much time quantum physics, quantum mechanics, lightning, & wind have, the fact is the whole parts of the living organism must appear all at once or it will never survive! Impossible, no "chance" at all. This is your "belief/theory", the brain luckily appeared (nucleus), then the eyes luckily appeared, then the nose luckily appeared, etc. thousands of parts appeared all at once by luck (magic)! Super impossible! Any life form survive & grew in size because of their digestive system, liver, throat, intestines, acid, rectum, brain, muscles, etc. And to you, the complex, tiny & delicate, mitochondria, cell membrane, cytoplasm, nucleus, ribosome, etc. thousands parts of cell's body working together all appeared AT ONCE BY ACCIDENT thanks to earthquake, wind & fire. Super extra miraculously incredibly impossible!!
It's funny because he's researched microbiology enough to know the names of several organelles, but only one theory regarding the formation of the first cell, which includes what the first cell probably... no, DEFINITELY (in Muscleman caps), contained.

Ill make it easier for atheist, lets make a magic step over the impossible of the impossible, let’s just pretend that scientists were able to successfully build a cell together!
You offer an "if so... then" condition, but introduced by your demand that logic be abandoned (which really makes it harder for everybody, including atheists). Do you live in this imaginary world of contradiction? It seems like you are so familiar with the terrain...

Even then Ill still believe in God for the fact is, intelligence is the cause of the detailed & complex effect (scientist effort) not series of tornado, earthquake, & lightning. If the super impossibility of creating a cell were made possible, it still won’t survive for it requires one or more of its own kind! (Observed & studied) Lets make another super ultimate impossibility possible, let’s just say it survived, how then did u expect it to multiply from a single cell considering the lifespan of it is very short? If the dinosaurs with ultimate defense mechanism became instinct, how did u expect a defenseless delicate cell survive & replicate? By accident, coincidence, "chance", magic?
You finally mentioned the word "God!" However you didn't include any proof with that mention.

Evolution take is there was an earth w/a pond, hydrogen, methane & ammonia were in the pond & when lightning struck amino acids were formed, this has been demonstrated in the lab. Not all aminos were formed, however. Amino can form protein, & protein formed the first single cell. We have grave problems here because no one explains where the lightning, hydrogen, methane & ammonia came from & how to get around the missing aminos which are required for the over 200,000 proteins required for the single cell. No one can explain where ammonia, methane, hydrogen come from, but for the sake of sorry atheist, lets move on; Lets just say ammonia, methane, hydrogen popped out of nowhere magically & it formed amino acids/proteins thanks to lightning, the first single cell is composed of proteins, so what? So what if you can find a spare leg, heart, lungs, or arms out there? Does it mean that lightning, wind, & earthquake can gather the body parts together & create a living being? Do you think the wind will carry the arms, then the earthquake will shake the heart, &then the lightning will glue them together, &later on the spare parts became a living breathing person!? That’s absurd. So what if lightning can create amino acids out of the mysterious ammonia, methane, hydrogen, so what? Does it mean that Mr. earthquake, lightning, wind, & sunlight can gather the amino acids and shape it into a tiny and delicate nucleus, cell membrane, cytoplasm, mitochondria, & thousands of other parts of the cell together & then bring it to life? Fact is not one scientist w/ all the modern technology are able to successfully create a living cell, or any life form in the lab out of "atoms/particles", what made u think lightning, sunlight, earthquake accidentally did it? Not a chance. Just as there’s no "chance" a detailed laptop computer can b formed by earthquake, sunlight, wind, & lightning in a trillion years, no living cell can b formed the same way, this HAVE NO SCIENTIFIC PROOF, NEVER HAVE AND NEVER EVER WILL. PERIOD. END OF DISCUSSION.the impossible of the impossible.
I see the battle cry of the close-minded makes every one of Muscleman's aspersions ABSOLUTE TRUTH...

I don’t care what theory you use, theory of evolution, big bang theory, eternally oscillating universe theory, eternallypatheticatheist theory, the delusionallostkids theory, alter-elasticity theory, etc.
Because if you really wanted to debunk science you would care. Or at least you would take the time to find actual flaws in any one of the current theories.
I don’t care about supernova, quantum physics, quantum mechanics, physical pendulum, Casanova, formula E=MC2, mchammer djmix, probability, nsync-nelly dynamics, thermodynamics, virtual particle, critical density, entropy, electromagnetic force, cosmic background radiation, thermonuclear fusion, superfreak mechanics, wave mechanics, optics, etc.
Again, it would appear that lack of care = lack of understanding.
You can give names to what already exist as u wish, call it “stupido mechanics” do whatever u want, fact is NOT ONE among ALL of this can demonstrate creation of ANY life form, from cell to creatures.
It is sad that you're old enough to remember "Superfreak," but your understanding of science is limited to only this.
I don’t care if u measured force, angle, sound, speed, distance, length, time, weight, mass, inertia, force & torque of earthquake, wind, lightning, light, cars, airplanes, my foot up your butt, etc. (laws of physics), Fact is your measuring tape, paper, pen,& Casio stop watch cannot demonstrate creation of ANY life form. You can give names to elements that already exist (periodic table) & play around with it, mix it up etc. or clone humans off existing egg cells, so what. I don’t care if another scientist will come up with a new ways of mathematics other than “geometry & square root” naming it “geostupidroots” explaining m=5, b=3, u=1, d=4. D+U+M+B=13. -d=-4. 4(d=u)=?, etc. I don’t care if u come up with that, as Calvinist in his low life came up with something to waste peoples head with numbers, I don’t care, Fact is numbers is NOT inert compounds, particles, or atoms, number is number. You can label physics by writing measured numbers on paper, but the written numbers doesn’t become atom/particles. I don’t care how much Red ink you waste writing numbers on a paper, if you mix those written numbers with amino acid, its still just a red ink & amino acid on a paper, even if you wrote angles, light, &sound measurements on a paper, putting protein shake or creatine on top of the paper isn’t going to bring the red ink to life, weirdo.
Funny you should mention that science proves nothing, Muscleman, because you still haven't proved that God exists.

Another especially strong evidence of God is the so-called anthropic principle, according to which the universe seems to have been specially designed from the beginning for human life to evolve. If the temperature of the primal fireball that resulted from the big bang some fifteen to twenty billion yrs ago, which was the beginning of our universe, had been a trillionth of a degree colder or hotter, the carbon molecule that is the foundation of all organic life could never have developed. The number of possible universes is trillions of trillions: only one of them could support human life: this one. Sounds suspiciously like a plot. If the cosmic rays had bombarded the primordial slime at a slightly different angle or time or intensity, the hemoglobin molecule, necessary for all warm-blooded animals, could never have evolved. The chance of this molecule's evolving is one in a zillions zillion. Add together each of the chances & u have something far more impossible than a laptop computer formed by series of hurricane, lightning, and earthquake.
But earlier he said science doesn't count. So the stupido superfly mechanics explaining the anthropic principle is as invalid as any stupido superfly mechanics refuting it.

There r relatively few atheist among neurologists & brain surgeons & among astrophysicists, but many among psychologist, sociologist, & historians. The reason seems obvious: the first study divine design, the second study human design.
Perhaps Muscleman should consult one of these people. Especially a neurologist or psychologist.

But doesn’t evolution explain everything without a divine designer? Just the opposite: Evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God.
Actually, either one of them is possible. It's a matter of interpretation. I gave up on documenting the points Muscleman was making because he stopped making them and went on knocking down straw atheists and quantum superfreak biologists.

There’s very good scientific evidence for the evolving, ordered appearance of species, from simple to complex. But there is no scientific proof of natural selection as the mechanism of evolution, Natural selection "explains" the emergence of higher forms w/out intelligence design by the survival-of-the-fittest principle. But this is sheer theory. There is no evidence that abstract, theoretical thinking or altruistic love makes it easier for man to survive. How did they evolve then?

Furthermore, could the design that obviously now exist in a man & in a human brain come from something with less or no design? Such an explanation violates the principle of causality, which states that u cant get more in the effect than u had in the cause. If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must b intelligence in the cause. But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence. Therefore there must b a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a mind behind the physical universe. (Most of the great scientists (Albert Einstein, etc.) have believed in such a mind, by the way, even those who did not accept any revealed religion.)

What created the first life form? Ask yourself that question. We have an explanation, we call it God. If I make such claim, do I have proof that indeed it was God (All knowing: alpha & omega) that created the first life form? Yes I do. The proof is this. Every complex and detailed form is an effect of intelligent cause (as observed and studied), from biological to technological. Don’t say, "Well if the waves of water formed/shaped the sands differently, it doesn’t mean the waves of water have intelligence", stupid, Waves of water can move sands, but it cannot move sands to form into detailed sandcastles, maybe in trillions and trillions of years, but this is not proven, it is proven however that intelligence can make such act possible. I’m talking about detailed complex existence. Detailed cars, spaceship, computers, etc. can be designed by human intelligence, cell cant. The complex and detailed life form’s existence (cell) requires intelligence far greater than human intelligence, as scientist in their failure have proven so. Again, as biochemists will say, to clone an existing cell is possible, to demonstrate the existence of a "cell" is impossible.

The most you can hope for is to prove that God can exist, which is not proof of an actual existence. Anything is possible, but not all of it is true. There are no reasons that miniaturized invisible CIA agents with mind control guns are not the cause of every automobile accident in the United States, and science can explain everything those agents would need to be invisible, miniturized, and loaded with psychic weaponry. Therefore it is a possibility, and I could restate that possibility in as many ways as I want with as much evidence supporting the possibility as I could come up with. You would have to disprove me though reductio. But that would be difficult, because the CIA keeps these people secret from everybody, even YOU! That's why I only know enough science to prove you wrong and prove me right.

As a true Christian, we agree of any theories supported with evidence, from evolution to the big bang. Its common sense, existing creatures evolve over time depending on environment, weather & food supply. Lesser food intake leads to smaller life form, more leads to bigger life form. Its common sense, you don’t need to b an expert to figure that out, we evolve from conception to adulthood, as caterpillars to butterflies. Big Bang, law of Newton, math, science, history, and physics are good education, they are taught in Christian college (by the way 99% of universities are founded by Christians, from Princeton to Harvard, so atheist are ridiculous to make a claim their intelligent, when the fact is most of them earn their education from us). The Pope has said we can have an access to evolution. The church even uses true science to verify true miracles. However, we disagree with "chance, coincidence, or Super Luck" as the cause for the extremely detailed & complex life form "cell", as I wrote above, that's already proven through scientific demonstration to be impossible!
He's lost track of his original argument entirely. And quite possibly, his sanity. He seemed to be foaming at the mouth for a while, and he spewed words that had lost all meaning since the 1970's before he tried to pull atheists down to his realm of insanity. At least he's satisfied with his own conclusion, and his victory over himself.

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by muscleman


The first life form is cell, it multiplies & reproduce, contains nucleus (a program; dna), etc.

*snip*

WELL THAN HANS, EXPLAIN TO ME HOW THINGS ARE TO BE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN, AND IF THEY ARE NOT SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN, ARE THEY MYTHS??? ...EDUCATE ME.......
Nobody knows if the earliest cells had DNA. Or how primitive DNA can be.

Scientific methods? Educate yourself. Go and actually read some books on the subject, science books.

Hans

[Yahzi]

[B]Musslesforbrains[/B[
Lesser food intake leads to smaller life form, more leads to bigger life form.
Evolution reduced to the simple-minded...

ROFL!

[c4ts]

Should I request to move this topic to the Million Dollar Challenge forum?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by c4ts
Should I request to move this topic to the Million Dollar Challenge forum?
I don't think there is much point until Muscleman reveals what feat he is going to do.....

It should be a beauty.....My guess is he will pull god out of a hat.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by The Fool

I don't think there is much point until Muscleman reveals what feat he is going to do.....

It should be a beauty.....My guess is he will pull god out of a hat.

"And fer' my next trick, I'm gonna make science disappear!"

[Doctor X]

I would recognize a coherent sentence with some pretension to proper grammer offered by the poor boy as a miracle worthy of notice by Rome.

--J.D.

[BobM]

I suppose it was wrong to hope that Muscleman actually had something new.

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

You are now raving. Strong language wont prove your point.Originally posted by muscleman

I agree, but I cant help it. Dummies just tick me off......

[stuggling]
Too. Many. Jokes.

Musn't. Bait. Troll.

Head. Exploding.
[/struggling]

[passes out]

[Plutarck]

Has someone gotten around to pointing out that science does not postulate that the evolution of any living thing, nor abiogenesis, happened entirely by "chance"?

[Doctor X]

Do not confuse the issue with facts!!

--J.D.

[richardm]

Originally posted by Plutarck
Has someone gotten around to pointing out that science does not postulate that the evolution of any living thing, nor abiogenesis, happened entirely by "chance"?

I think it's about time somebody did.

Muscleman, please take a look at this article (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/abioprob/abioprob.html) and let us know what you think of it. Thanks!

[Smalso]

The "proofs" of the existance of god offered here are nothing new. I recall the late Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God, setting forth the same arguments back in the fifties and sixties on radio programs, and later on television, and in his writings. (He also predicted, on authority of the Bible, that worldwide nuclear war would begin the Great Tribulation and that civilization as we know it would end in 1975.) It didn't wash then and it doesn't wash now.

[ebola]

Upchurch

You come back, but then you DON'T bait trolls? I am at a loss.

Eric

[Upchurch]

Originally posted by ebola
Upchurch

You come back, but then you DON'T bait trolls? I am at a loss.

Eric
Always aim for self-improvement. even if it does take a seriously long time.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by Upchurch

Always aim for self-improvement. even if it does take a seriously long time.

Evolution?

[thaiboxerken]

I'll tell you what, meat-head, win the million-dollar challenge of the JREF by proving god's existence and then I'll believe you.


You give physically strong people a bad name. I'm guessing you are just a flabber-baby and not a muscle-head at all.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Musclesinthemouthonly


1. I have no idea where you came up with that "principle of causality," which seems to utterly ignore the existance of catalysts (which seems bizzare given that there is one in your car's engine). According to your principal, I would not expect to get more heat out of throwing a burning match into a can of gasoline than I would have gotten out of the match itself.

However, the laws of thermodynamics do allow for an increase in local complexity at the expense of entropy in another place: thus, the sun serves as both our energy source and our entropy sink.

2. Even if we concede that an intelligence was necessary to create the universe, you have failed to show that intelligence is in any way related to the burning bush a few hopped-up goat herders made up stories about. Or even that said intelligence still exists. Simply demonstrating that the Universe required a cause does not mean that you have a personal relationship with that cause. This is a basic principle of logic: if you find a house in the desert, and manage to conclude that the house was built by a man, you cannot automatically assume that the man who built it is still alive.

Ill talk about the laws of thermodynamics later little child. And your second comment about even if there was an intelligent designer who created earth, its nature, and intelligence within life forms, it doesnt necessarily mean he/she is still alive...........Thats your belief.......

And about the parable of mustard seed, woman and the dragon in revelation, Pharisees being the brood of vipers, burning bush, splitting of the sea by Moses, etc. This is a bible debate...Another topic...

Originally posted by Yahzi
[
There you go: I have, using only the common rules of reason and evidence, demonstrated your position to be not only false, but simple-minded. However, I have no desire for your million dollars, since I am already wealthy beyond your means: instead, I request that you take your million dollars and buy a server, and make your own message board, and go there, and never return to here to bother us sensible folk again. In return, we promise never to bother you. Deal?

I would put this idiot troll on /ignore, but my ignore list is full. Are you listening, Hal Bidlack? We need more /ignore capacity!

LOL, common rules of reason, hahahaha. What do u know about common rules of reason? You believe that everything is "CHANCE" your an atheist, ALL atheists are either ultimately dumb, or ultimately stupid, or ultimately ignorant. A FACT.. You can only b agnostic, or theist of any sort to be normal.....

I wasnt offering 1 million dollars, I am giving the 1 million dollar a challenge...

[muscleman]

Originally posted by Loki
muscleman,

Since you seem able to perfectly merge the worlds of science and theology, perhaps you can resolve the issue of the creation of the soul?

Are you aware of this comment from Father George V. Coyne, director of the Vatican Observatory :

Could you perhaps explain precisely when, and by what process, the soul is created, and at what point the soul and the fetus/human merge? Conception? Birth? First Trimester? Thanks!

Whoever Father George is, he is incredibly ignorant. As stupid as a Cardinal in New York who was a homosexual and told another soul for the public to know (and I think he died of aids).. (I believe this are freemasons, peeps who doesnt really believe in the church, but went in, b baptized, seeks 2 b in higher authority then do something incredibly stupid, attempting to make the church look bad...)

Anyways, all life forms have a soul. Everything that lives have a soul that gives it life. But theres level of souls (and as our society clarifies it, the levels are judged by its intelligence.). Rocks, plants, trees, animals, then humans, all of this have souls that gives it life, w/out a soul, it wouldnt b alive...

If u can detect the energy that gives rock life, then u have detected the soul of rock.. You may name it "Bio-chupacabra monosodium glutamate chemical particle", is that the scientific name for a soul?

In conception (when the 2 becomes one.) the "human"" soul exist. Before that, its an egg soul, and a sperm soul, NOT a human soul (it takes 2 baby. The 2 shall become one flesh.. :) )..

Not one scientist can create life forms bcuz every life forms contains a soul, even their thinking is expirable (limited.). If our minds are NOT expirable, then maybe we can detect an energy that doesnt expire..).

Scientificaly speaking an energy cannot b destroyed..

"The world can destroy my flesh, but it cannot destroy my soul..."- Bible.......

[muscleman]

Originally posted by J3K
This is pretty pathetic. As knowledge of how things work have evolved. Religion has changed where it was WRONG. And guess what muscleman, in the future, when we have answers to the things you say "prove" of god, the people that follow what you believe are simply going to be ignorant. It's fine that you believe what you do. But for you to "prove" god the way you are, it's not proof. All you have to do is give us proof that SHOWS that god exists. And most everybody will believe you. But saying "this couldnt have came along because the chances are so small" doesnt prove god.

Religion has changed where it was wrong? Kind of like science, who few years ago claimed that atoms were the tiniest particle, and now its down to quarks and sub-atomic particles? LOL....

Peeps are ignorant for believing in God? 99% of the universities are founded by christians. 100% of the u.s senators, and presidents are ALL believers of God...

Even Einstein acknowledge nature as order (NOT chaos) and is a pantheism (believes in a God that reveals itself through order..).

So what does that leave for atheism???

All theories (and I mean all) that explains God dont exist have been DEBUNKED ALREADY, all of them..All of them..ALL........

Do u have anything else left? If there is a new idea, update me, so I can debunk that also...What is left for atheism? PURE BELIEF......Even worst that theist......

Nature as chance= DEBUNKED....

Atheists omniscience/freewill argument= DEBUNKED...

Thermodynamics leaves God out of the picture= DEBUNKED...

etc. etc.

All atheists argument have been debunked long time ago already, u just dont simply know about it. That, or just incredibly stupid...

[muscleman]

Originally posted by MRC_Hans

Nobody knows if the earliest cells had DNA. Or how primitive DNA can be.

Scientific methods? Educate yourself. Go and actually read some books on the subject, science books.

Hans

Primitive DNA? LOL< what do u mean by that? Primitive to the point where it cant function or reproduce? So once again, how did it began to function and reproduce? By LUCK?

LOL, why dont u explain to me how things are 2 b scientifically proven, SO I CAN POINT OUT TO YOU HOW ILLOGICAL IT IS TO BE AN ATHEIST, from your own words......

[MRC_Hans]

Originally posted by muscleman
Primitive DNA? LOL< what do u mean by that? Primitive to the point where it cant function or reproduce? So once again, how did it began to function and reproduce? By LUCK?

Which of the words dont you understand?. No primitive, but able to reproduce.

LOL, why dont u explain to me how things are 2 b scientifically proven, SO I CAN POINT OUT TO YOU HOW ILLOGICAL IT IS TO BE AN ATHEIST, from your own words......

No, I feel no obligation to educate you. Your ignorance is your problem not mine. But I will tell you that you are a bad ambassador for your faith. Proud, self-happy, insulting; those are not Christian virtues.

[thaiboxerken]

Religion has changed where it was wrong? Kind of like science, who few years ago claimed that atoms were the tiniest particle, and now its down to quarks and sub-atomic particles? LOL....

Yes, but science will simply change if evidence shows where it's wrong. Religion takes more than evidence to change, it takes public outcry and, often times, lots of violence to get religion to change it's mind.

Peeps are ignorant for believing in God?

I agree, they aren't ignorant, just wrong.

99% of the universities are founded by christians. 100% of the u.s senators, and presidents are ALL believers of God...

Whose god? Which god? Not all of the Presidents were christian. Also, the universities are founded by christians simply because christians have the power in this country. You'll find the numbers change drastically in the middle east. Ownership of universities does not show that christianity is correct in it's "science" or "faith".

Even Einstein acknowledge nature as order (NOT chaos) and is a pantheism (believes in a God that reveals itself through order..).

More like a diest. Einstein didn't believe in a god that meddles in peoples lives or assigns "heaven" and "hell" rewards. Einstien's "god" is more a metaphorical term for "universe". I suggest you read some of Einstiens essays and interviews.

So what does that leave for atheism???

It neither hurts or helps the atheist position.

All theories (and I mean all) that explains God dont exist have been DEBUNKED ALREADY, all of them..All of them..ALL........

Hardly debunked, just not proven. But it is also impossible to explain why invisible, intangible, pink unicorns don't exist. You really should be proving your god's existence instead of asking for people to prove he doesn't. Your claim is the positive one, it's the one that demands evidence. Have any evidence?

Do u have anything else left? If there is a new idea, update me, so I can debunk that also...What is left for atheism? PURE BELIEF......Even worst that theist......

Hardly, atheism is the skeptical position. It's the null position. It's a position that says "I don't believe in your god". I'm open though, I'll believe in your god if you provide evidence.

Nature as chance= DEBUNKED....

Has nothing to do with atheism.

Atheists omniscience/freewill argument= DEBUNKED...

Also has nothing to do with atheism.

Thermodynamics leaves God out of the picture= DEBUNKED...

Again, has nothing to do with atheism. But it does show your poor understanding of thermodynamics.



All atheists argument have been debunked long time ago already, u just dont simply know about it. That, or just incredibly stupid... [/QUOTE]

No, I'm atheist simply because you can't provide me evidence of god. Show me god and I'll believe.

[thaiboxerken]

Question:

If you actually prove god to me with evidence, do I still go to heaven since I believe without faith?

[Yahzi]

Musclesgonesoftinthehead
And your second comment about even if there was an intelligent designer who created earth, its nature, and intelligence within life forms, it doesnt necessarily mean he/she is still alive...........Thats your belief.......
:confused:

If you find a house in the desert, you can conclude that it was designed and built by a man. That much is logical. But, what logical principle or theory allows you to conclude that the man who built the house must still be alive, just because his house is still standing?

Surely you don't assume the continued existance of the creator of every obviously created artifact you have encountered. Surely you've seen buildings, or outhouses, or something constructed by people who are now dead.

If u can detect the energy that gives rock life,
:confused:
Could you give us an example of something that is not alive?

You believe that everything is "CHANCE" your an atheist, ALL atheists are either ultimately dumb, or ultimately stupid, or ultimately ignorant. A FACT.. You can only b agnostic, or theist of any sort to be normal.....
My two logical objections do not require me to be an athiest, nor can you necessarily deduce from them that I am an athiest. But I suppose this point is utterly lost on you.

All flames aside, do you understand, on some deep level, that your attempts at logic bear the same resemblance to real logic that Highlander II bore to Highlander? Or Episode II bore to Episode IV?

wasnt offering 1 million dollars, I am giving the 1 million dollar a challenge...
Given the general low quality of your prose, this misunderstanding is not surprising.

You have degenerated into boring old yelling. The only funny thing you have to say is that rocks are alive, and you are repeating yourself on that one. I wish I could put you on /ignroe, but my list is full.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Musclesgonesoftinthehead

:confused:

If you find a house in the desert, you can conclude that it was designed and built by a man. That much is logical. But, what logical principle or theory allows you to conclude that the man who built the house must still be alive, just because his house is still standing?

The universe are billions of years old, I find no reason why its creator could create its existence, but itself cannot last that long...

But then again thats my belief, and yur entitled to believe that "spirits" (energy) are mortal, even though your contradictory to science, your still entitled to that belief....

Originally posted by Yahzi
[
Surely you don't assume the continued existance of the creator of every obviously created artifact you have encountered. Surely you've seen buildings, or outhouses, or something constructed by people who are now dead.

Your definitely entitled to your belief, as I am to mine...Thats why "proof" lies on the observer...

Originally posted by Yahzi
[
:confused:
Could you give us an example of something that is not alive?.

Dont be confused, let the light shine...

Dead humans bcome cells. Dead cells bcome bacteria (I think). Or dead rocks become dust (also tiny rocks.). Dead atoms become quarks and sub-atomic particles...

When its mechanism its destroyed, its function is destroyed, thus it no longer is what it formerly was. Just as a component stereo, if the speakers, cd, etc. are removed and the only one left is the reciever, you can no longer say "its a stereo component", but u can say "its just a reciever"......

Just simple understanding child .:)

Originally posted by Yahzi
[
My two logical objections do not require me to be an athiest, nor can you necessarily deduce from them that I am an athiest. But I suppose this point is utterly lost on you.

All flames aside, do you understand, on some deep level, that your attempts at logic bear the same resemblance to real logic that Highlander II bore to Highlander? Or Episode II bore to Episode IV?


Given the general low quality of your prose, this misunderstanding is not surprising.

You have degenerated into boring old yelling. The only funny thing you have to say is that rocks are alive, and you are repeating yourself on that one. I wish I could put you on /ignroe, but my list is full.

LOL, honestly, if "normal" human beings see our argument, atheists are the real joke, although Im talking like a kid, im a kid who have better understanding that any of u guys....

Your completely ignorant about understanding of souls...LOL, thats why your an atheist. Ignorance made u the way you are, not knowledge......

[Doctor X]

Whilst the exhibition of stream of consciousness after a particularly bad night with Jose Cuervo Tin provides much amusement, I would prefer if this question had been answered:

If you damage a very small area of the upper brain stem, thereby separating the cerebral cortices from the ascending reticular activating system and preventing the person from ever regaining consciousness--kids, check with Mommy before trying this--what happened to his soul?

given:

"The world can destroy my flesh, but it cannot destroy my soul..."- Bible......

Unfortunately, it can and does.j

--J.D.

[Yahzi]

Musclemania
Dead humans bcome cells. Dead cells bcome bacteria (I think). Or dead rocks become dust (also tiny rocks.).
Live humans are made of cells. Dead humans become piles of chemicals, which are not alive. Bacteria eat the chemicals, and make more bacteria, which is alive. All rocks are dead, so the process of turning them into dust does not kill them.

The usual definition of "living" is entwined with "reproduction." Objects that do not reproduce are generally considered non-living. Rocks do not reproduce. I think you knew that one, right? About rocks not reproducing? Right?

I think by "dead" you really mean "destroyed." They are not synonyms. The two words are not interchangeable.

The universe are billions of years old, I find no reason why its creator could create its existence, but itself cannot last that long
I find no reason either. But not finding a reason is not the same as finding one. It is certainly possible that a creator could make himself immortal; but it is also possible that he could not (since nothing in the universe is actually as old as the universe - even the stars are second-generation matter). Since both are possible, logic does not allow you to rule one out by fiat. (No, not by a small Italian car, but by an act of will).

What you fail to understand is that the mere possibility that God exists is not the same thing as reason that God exists. It is entirely possible that a genetic clone of O.J. Simpson murdered Nichole, but it is entirely unreasonable to think so. Only deeply stupid, self-absorbed, ignorant fools could entertain such an idea.. oh wait... I'm sorry... did I just describe you?

Your completely ignorant about understanding of souls
That's the first intelligible thing you've said in ages. Why don't you tell us where you got your understanding of souls from? No, don't tell us what your idiotic theories are, we don't have that kind of stamina. Just tell us where they came from.

Originally posted by Smalso
The "proofs" of the existance of god offered here are nothing new. I recall the late Herbert W. Armstrong, founder of the Worldwide Church of God, setting forth the same arguments back in the fifties and sixties on radio programs, and later on television, and in his writings. (He also predicted, on authority of the Bible, that worldwide nuclear war would begin the Great Tribulation and that civilization as we know it would end in 1975.) It didn't wash then and it doesn't wash now.

Why don't you try reading Descartes about his proofs of the existence of GOD?

Do you think a bunch of fanatics and pseudo-skeptics in this forum are able to debate about GOD?

Do you think magicians are able to discuss about GOD?They are able to show you tricks.

You are more prepared to debate about evil.

Just take a look to both sides.

http://www.cftech.com/BrainBank/OTHERREFERENCE/PHILOSOPHY/ArguAbtGod.html

Now , put your favorite argument : "don't feed the trolls"

Thanks,
S&S

[Smalso]

I will believe in God when She walks up and shakes my hand.

Originally posted by Smalso
I will believe in God when She walks up and shakes my hand.

Until "then", keep on beleiving in Randi.
Enjoy your cult.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

Don't worry , you don't exist.You are not here. You are not able to think.
(According to this "woo woo"):

http://www.iusb.edu/~wrobbins/P100/outlinedescartes.html

[thaiboxerken]

Why don't you try reading Descartes about his proofs of the existence of GOD?

Why not sum it up for us, or give us a few examples?


Do you think a bunch of fanatics and pseudo-skeptics in this forum are able to debate about GOD?

Yes, simply because one doesn't believe in your god doesn't mean that they can't debate about it. You simply want to win the debate by saying "atheists don't know anything about the existence of god", that way you really don't have to give evidence or arguements. Do you have evidence for your god?

Do you think magicians are able to discuss about GOD?They are able to show you tricks.

Yes, any person can discuss and debate about this form of trickery called "god".

You are more prepared to debate about evil.

On what grounds do you make this assertion?


Just take a look to both sides.

I have many times, it seems one side doesn't believe simply because the other side cannot give evidence. I agree, give me evidence of god and I'll believe in it.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Until "then", keep on beleiving in Randi.
Enjoy your cult.

Thanks,
S&S

What cult? I hardly consider Randi my "leader". He's just a rolemodel of skepticism. I'm sure there are some things that I'd disagree with Randi on, politics and such, but about the paranormal (which includes gods) I'm in agreement.

Cults are comprised of people that believe in gods.

[thaiboxerken]

If you actually prove god to me with evidence, do I still go to heaven since I believe without faith?



Any theists care to answer this?

[muscleman]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Musclemania

Live humans are made of cells. Dead humans become piles of chemicals, which are not alive. Bacteria eat the chemicals, and make more bacteria, which is alive.

Thats a good explanation...

Originally posted by Yahzi

All rocks are dead, so the process of turning them into dust does not kill them.

The usual definition of "living" is entwined with "reproduction." Objects that do not reproduce are generally considered non-living. Rocks do not reproduce. I think you knew that one, right? About rocks not reproducing? Right?

LOL, just because they cant reproduce, it doesnt necessarily mean they are dead, or "non-living"....
Just because young kids (like you, j/k :) ) cant reproduce, it doesnt necessarily mean they are not living, so u can kill them. And if they died at age 6, it doesnt mean they were never alive because they cant reproduce...

And if you talk about "Human- life, human- soul" being different from "rock-soul, plant-soul", "reproduction" is not the main point, BUT ALWAYS REMEMBER THE ORDER OF LIFE, AS MENTIONED EARLIER, ITS CALLED "LEVELS OF INTELLIGENCE"..

We can reproduce, because we have that intelligence...

Originally posted by Yahzi

I think by "dead" you really mean "destroyed." They are not synonyms. The two words are not interchangeable.

LOL, both. If your brain got decapitated, DESTROYED by a shotgun, I would say your dead........

Originally posted by Yahzi

I find no reason either. But not finding a reason is not the same as finding one. It is certainly possible that a creator could make himself immortal; but it is also possible that he could not (since nothing in the universe is actually as old as the universe - even the stars are second-generation matter). Since both are possible, logic does not allow you to rule one out by fiat. (No, not by a small Italian car, but by an act of will).

As I mentioned earlier, Ill mention it again.. Energies scientifically speaking cannot b destroyed.. Period. Its eternal...Eternity is a fact.......

Originally posted by Yahzi

What you fail to understand is that the mere possibility that God exists is not the same thing as reason that God exists. It is entirely possible that a genetic clone of O.J. Simpson murdered Nichole, but it is entirely unreasonable to think so. Only deeply stupid, self-absorbed, ignorant fools could entertain such an idea.. oh wait... I'm sorry... did I just describe you?

Excuse me, but am I the one who uses "LUCK" as an explanation for the existence of life? :D

Originally posted by Yahzi

That's the first intelligible thing you've said in ages. Why don't you tell us where you got your understanding of souls from? No, don't tell us what your idiotic theories are, we don't have that kind of stamina. Just tell us where they came from.

The Catholic church...Im a catechist teacher.......

And one more thing, your not that smart are u...I believe I can make a better atheist than you (I was formerly one.)...Theres a strong argument against this which I thought u were going to post (but it doesnt matter cuz I can still debunk it), but u dont have it in your head......LOL

[billydkid]

Originally posted by muscleman



Again, another person making comments and not knowing what I was talking about..

Evolution is fine, its common sense that life evolve, from conception to adulthood, caterpillars to butterflies. Thats just common sense, we evolve in millions of yrs, the church have accepted that fact already.

Now my 1 million dollar challenge is something I can perform, I can do it live if u want, AND IM NOT LYING... 100% of thew people I told this to didnt believe me, because it is supernatural phenomenon, but I havent given them the chance to see it yet, because this only happened to me lately, so I decided to give the 1 million dollar a shot.....And again, I wont say it yet till later......

Look, if you can do something amazing just friggin do it and stop yacking about it! Frankly, I think you are out of your gourde and semi-dangerous to those in your immediate vicinity. Not a single person in the history of the world has been able to actually demonstrate a genuine "supernatural" ability of any kind (never mind that "supernatural" is a self negating concept), maybe, finally, after all these thousands of years you will be the one. Honestly, I think all you have to do is demonstrate it and Randi will be overjoyed to write the check out. In fact, I think all you would have to do is walk out into the middle of the street and do it and folks will crown you king.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Whilst the exhibition of stream of consciousness after a particularly bad night with Jose Cuervo Tin provides much amusement, I would prefer if this question had been answered:

If you damage a very small area of the upper brain stem, thereby separating the cerebral cortices from the ascending reticular activating system and preventing the person from ever regaining consciousness--kids, check with Mommy before trying this--what happened to his soul?

given:



Unfortunately, it can and does.j

--J.D.

I have no idea. When I die and my soul departs, maybe then Ill find out......

The world can change the form of my soul (as energies cannot be destroyed, but can only change form..scientifically speaking..).But the world cannot destroy it....

[Smalso]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Until "then", keep on beleiving in Randi.
Enjoy your cult.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.

Don't worry , you don't exist.You are not here. You are not able to think.
(According to this "woo woo"):

http://www.iusb.edu/~wrobbins/P100/outlinedescartes.html



This ain't no cult, Bunkie. Otherwise you would not be allowed to participate until you sign over all your worldly goods to us. I believe in the work James Randi is doing and I believe that he is one of the great men of our age. I state that without apology. As to your assertion that i am not able to think, I believe that I have as good a brain as any here. Perhaps lacking the formal education of some, but with as good a brain as any. I may be wrong, but it is not for lack of thinking.

[Doctor X]

I have no idea. When I die and my soul departs, maybe then Ill find out......

Yet that misses the mark.

Any theory of the world must explain or allow for what actually happens. Unfortunately, such a state as described happens all too frequently. Ipse dixit aside, your assertions concerning a soul, if worthy of respect, must account for this.

A person in such a state is gone. He is gone for good. However he is not dead. His brain is not dead. Where did the soul go?

The world can change the form of my soul (as energies cannot be destroyed, but can only change form..scientifically speaking..).But the world cannot destroy it....

Since you have not demonstrated evidence for the existence of a soul, I must consider this merely an ipse dixit. However, it still missed the mark. Where did this "energy" go?

--J.D.

[thaiboxerken]

And one more thing, your not that smart are u...

LOL. When trying to insult a person's intelligence, one should use good grammar. I hope that english is your 2nd language, because you aren't well versed in it.

[Loki]

muscleman,

The Catholic church...Im a catechist teacher...
So even religious education standards are declining...it's the end I tell, THE END!!

...I believe I can make a better atheist than you
Prove it!

... (I was formerly one.)
Sorry - once an atheist, always an atheist. Your soul has been marked by Us, and you can't get it back.

Whoever Father George is, he is incredibly ignorant.
I'll be sure to email the Pope and let me know that he has appointed an "incredibly ignorant" priest to head up the Vatican's *only*offically sanctioned scientific research program. I'm sure he'll be grateful to you for pointing this out to him.

Anyways, all life forms have a soul. Everything that lives have a soul that gives it life. ... Rocks, plants, trees, animals, then humans, all of this have souls that gives it life, w/out a soul, it wouldnt b alive...
If your definition of living includes rocks, then would it also include computers? Computer programs?

If u can detect the energy that gives rock life, then u have detected the soul of rock.. You may name it "Bio-chupacabra monosodium glutamate chemical particle", is that the scientific name for a soul?
No, "Bio-Chupacabra Monosodium Glutamate Chemical Particle" is actually the name of Michael Jacksons' latest child.

In conception (when the 2 becomes one.) the "human"" soul exist. Before that, its an egg soul, and a sperm soul, NOT a human soul
Do the sperm souls go to sperm heaven when the human soul comes into existence?

PS. Well done, Franko!

[Loki]

muscleman,

The final word, really. Your own words, taken from this thread.

First :
This is a thread to end atheism and claims that God dont exist once and for all. I DARE anyone here refute my arguments, so far NONE have found any flaws of my argument...
...
Here Ill post the proof of God's existence......

Then :
Your definitely entitled to your belief, as I am to mine...Thats why "proof" lies on the observer.
So, your "proof" boils down to an individual's decision to believe. Fair enough.

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Loki
muscleman,

The final word, really. Your own words, taken from this thread.

First :


Then :

So, your "proof" boils down to an individual's decision to believe. Fair enough.

I just popped in to see if we've gotten to the proof part yet.

Looks like my timing is pretty good.

I don't think it will take the million bucks.

As you were.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by c4ts
Time for some unrestrained (and unmedicated) commentary on Muscleman's proof here. Prepare to feel the power of... confusion!

Satan is the Father of lies, and the master of confusion. What r u getting in return for the favor your doing 2 him? Temporary pecae? Temporary comfort? Temporary pleasure? Is it worthit?

Originally posted by c4ts

While I'm really not getting anywhere with this first comment, I thought evolution was a process of refinement or differentiation, not generation itself, which would require the first cell to evolve from a previous cell. However, there is so much speculation regarding the formation of the first cell, it's just semantics until the actual argument is put forth. I'll list the points as they are made. After all, the first cell may have evolved from some sort of proto-cell that we wouldn't call "life."

Maybe so, just as we are a product of sperm and egg...

Originally posted by c4ts

-Cells are the borders of our definition of "life"
-We assume they came before any other form of life
-We assume that all things displaying any number of the characteristics of life are considered life as long as they are made of any number of cells (greater than 0)

We (humans) consider them life, because they contains the characteristic of "human life", it reproduce, contains nucleus (brain of the cell) it poops, it eats, in due time it dies.

Originally posted by c4ts

[b]
-Cells are tiny

[b]
- Cells are the borders of our definition of life because they demonstrate the most elementary ("borderline") characteristics of life

- Microscopes make ants look big. (Are the numbers really necessary?)

- Not all things can be seen under high powered microscopes.

.........

Originally posted by c4ts

[b]
- Discussing the possibility of the negative of intelligent cause...

[b]
- Unreasonable speculation concerning chance through capitalization errors

[b]
- More speculation

[b]
- More speculation

-Your opinion..
-Your opinion...
-Your opinion...

Originally posted by c4ts

[b]
The laws of physics are "TLOP," not "LOL."
- The laws of physics are not unquestionable
- What that has to do with the speculation regarding spontaneously generated computers eludes me, since it is physically possible for natural disasters to assemble computers, which is the method preferred by Gateway (j/k :D but the possibility remains, however improbable it may be)...

I disagree..The claim of chance need a proof of its possibility. How stupid of you. You really believe that its possible computer can be formed w/rocks carried by series of earthquake and tornado?
How dare you call theist delusional, speak for yourself..

I certainly believe in the claim of chance if evidence is provided for its possibility. Thats why my family still plays lottery, because its claim of chance is proven...

Originally posted by c4ts

[b]
- The analogy is impossible because it is incomplete. So far it is "artifice is to natural causes (chance) as ________ is to artificial causes (intelligent design)"
- The reductio, therefore, is incomplete, since "_______ is to artificial causes as artifice is to natural causes, but artifice is to artificial causes, therefore it is absurd," because "nature" would complete the analogy but not the reductio.
"Nature is to artificial causes (intelligent design) as artifice is to natural causes (chance)" actually makes sense, since chance and nature are one set, artifice and intelligent design are the other set (A:B as B:A). Instead a reductio is applied to where the analogy should be completed, as though the analogy was meant to be "artifice is to natural causes as artifice is to artificial causes." But if it were completed that way, then there would be no reason to put forward such an analogy in the first place since it doesn't prove anything.

trying to waste my brain cells figuring this out doesnt help any arguments.. Explain this in another form..LOL

Originally posted by c4ts

To summarize Muscleman's reasoning:
- computers are not the result of chance
- chance (nature) does not provide tools for making computers (artifice)
- the basis of these claims is the absurd speculation to the contrary provided
- the speculation provided is absurd because artifice requires intelligent design
- the analogy must be completed in an absurd way because the existing connection "artifice : natural cause" is absurd
- therefore the analogy is absurd ("IMPOSSIBLE!" according to Muscleman) when completed in an absurd way
Look, I've found an even bigger, more obvious flaw! (see italics)

Here is what I think Muscleman is trying to prove:
- Nature = artifice (chance = intelligent design)
- But since nature does not = artifice, nature = artifice of God
But the purpose of the paper is to prove the existence of God, so for now it is "artifice = artifice of man, nature = artifice of something other than man"
But the only thing Muscleman has really demonstrated is that artifice does not = nature, and that seems to be what he is trying to disprove in the first place.

The rift between nature and artifice is not closed by the denial of this analogy, nor by the completion of it. Things not invented by man still fall under the catergory of "may or may not be the result of whatever." So far nothing has been put forward to support intelligent cause in anything but artifice, and I have supplied that. There was a bit about using objects of artifice such as microscopes to observe nature, and that the microscopes were not wholly sufficient tools of observation. Intelligent design is brought up in the refutation of vapid speculation.

Ok, I admit you confused me. Happy now? Im sure Satan within you is rejoicing with this success...

Originally posted by c4ts

- People can mentally visualize a tornado assembling a computer.
- People can mentally visualize a bunch of stuff coming together to make a living cell

Lots of things are imaginable. That doesn't make them true. That doesn't make them false. People can imagine the letters of the alphabet, too. Imagination is not always absurd.

Not always absurd, so you believe that series of tornado and earthquake can create computer..HAHAHAHAHA....
And u know what, its also possible that a series of lightning, earthquake have created the pyramids of egypt in 1000 yrs..Yup...YOU ARE DELUSIONAL........Thabnk God im a theist, and dont use "LUCK' as explanation for a computer, nature, or airplanes to exist.......

Originally posted by c4ts

Basically, this is saying:
- Because scientists have never created life under laboratory conditions, why do atheists claim a series of natural disasters created life?
One problem is the Muscleman assumes atheists make claims about life that follow his own absurd claims along a similar line. There are other problems, such as the fact that he assumes atheists actually make that claim, or that he forgets that there are other scientific theories regarding the formation of life which may also be the claims of atheists (etc)...

Whatever the claim is, a claim is proven fake by lack of evidence... thats why toothfairies, and zeus etc. are all fake, by lack of evidence..And if you claim life exist by "LUCK", that too requires evidence, otherwise its disregarded....


Originally posted by c4ts


Is it just me, or did he just confuse the testimony of scientists with documented scientific evidence?

[b]
Muscleman has already proved that his absurd comparisons are indeed absurd.

You called my statement "absurd", YET IM NOT THE ONE WHO BELIEVES THAT ITS POSSIBLE THAT A COMPUTER CAN BE FORMED BY SERIES OF EARTHQUAKE AND LIGHTNING.......HAHAHAHAHA, so again whos delusional here?

Your defending this statement, BECAUSE IT IS ONE OF ATHEISM'S STRONGEST ARGUMENT, how pathetic. The other strongest argument from atheist is "Dont feed the trolls"........LOL :)

Originally posted by c4ts

[b]
Wasn't this supposed to somehow prove God? I haven't seen anything along that line for a while and already the unfounded accustions begin...

Hey, yur entitled to your belief. LOL, its obvious that u believe its possible a computer can be formed by series of tornadoes, Im not surprised if your an atheist, BECAUSE YOUR COMPLETELY ABSURD...U reject logic, and embrace "LUCK".....:)

Originally posted by c4ts


[b] You offer an "if so... then" condition, but introduced by your demand that logic be abandoned (which really makes it harder for everybody, including atheists). Do you live in this imaginary world of contradiction? It seems like you are so familiar with the terrain...

Speak for yourself..Claiming to be skeptic, yet cannot provide a single shred of evidence that God dont exist......Your self-contradictory....

Originally posted by c4ts

You finally mentioned the word "God!" However you didn't include any proof with that mention.

Because your blind. Nothing is proven then in this case......Prove to me King Henry exist.....(Oh is the topic about supernatural now? WELL BRING IT ON......)

Originally posted by c4ts

[b]

[b]
Because if you really wanted to debunk science you would care. Or at least you would take the time to find actual flaws in any one of the current theories.

LOL, false accusation, I donot debunk science, I debunk atheism's BELIEF.. I am not the one who uses "LUCK" as an explanation for the universe, then say "I only acknowledge evidence" then say "I BELIEVE IN SCIENCE"..LOL, you are the self-contradictory...

Originally posted by c4ts

[b]
Again, it would appear that lack of care = lack of understanding.
[b]
It is sad that you're old enough to remember "Superfreak," but your understanding of science is limited to only this.

What are the "INTELLIGENCE" of science that disproves "INTELLIGENT CAUSE" and proves "NATURE IS LUCK"???? LOL

Originally posted by c4ts

Funny you should mention that science proves nothing, Muscleman, because you still haven't proved that God exists.

Prove to me evolution took place and Ill prove to you God created the world. Prove to me King Henry exist, and Ill prove to you God exist.....

Originally posted by c4ts

[b]
But earlier he said science doesn't count. So the stupido superfly mechanics explaining the anthropic principle is as invalid as any stupido superfly mechanics refuting it.

I never said that science doesnt count, your PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH...I said "atheism's belief such as nature as "luck", etc." is illogic....

Originally posted by c4ts

[b]
Perhaps Muscleman should consult one of these people. Especially a neurologist or psychologist.

A christian neurologist? Or a stupid neurologist? Oops, I mean an atheist neurologist?

Originally posted by c4ts

[b]
Actually, either one of them is possible. It's a matter of interpretation. ..

I certainly dont believe its possible for a computer to exist by series of tornado and earthquake..again I refuse to be stupid like you, there are audience...

Originally posted by c4ts

[b]
The most you can hope for is to prove that God can exist, which is not proof of an actual existence. Anything is possible, but not all of it is true. There are no reasons that miniaturized invisible CIA agents with mind control guns are not the cause of every automobile accident in the United States, and science can explain everything those agents would need to be invisible, miniturized, and loaded with psychic weaponry. Therefore it is a possibility, and I could restate that possibility in as many ways as I want with as much evidence supporting the possibility as I could come up with. You would have to disprove me though reductio. But that would be difficult, because the CIA keeps these people secret from everybody, even YOU! .


LOL, I dont believe in invisible CIA agents causing car accidents, dont put words in my mouth..

Originally posted by c4ts

That's why I only know enough science to prove you wrong and prove me right.

Oh yeah, so you can prove to me God dont exist scientifically? Do u mean it?

Originally posted by c4ts

[b]
He's lost track of his original argument entirely. And quite possibly, his sanity. He seemed to be foaming at the mouth for a while, and he spewed words that had lost all meaning since the 1970's before he tried to pull atheists down to his realm of insanity. At least he's satisfied with his own conclusion, and his victory over himself.

You called me insane, YET IM NOT THE ONE WHO BELIEVES ITS POSSIBLE GATEWAY CAN BE FORMED BY SERIES OF TORNADO..Dude, just because Gateway isnt a very good computer, it doesnt mean series of tornado can form just like it..WAKE UP delusional guy...hahahahha..:D :D :D

[Blue Monk]

OK.

I'm just going to back away from this thread reeeal slowly alright?

[muscleman]

Originally posted by Loki
muscleman,


I'll be sure to email the Pope and let me know that he has appointed an "incredibly ignorant" priest to head up the Vatican's *only*offically sanctioned scientific research program. I'm sure he'll be grateful to you for pointing this out to him.

I dont care if he is the Pope's best friend...Fact here is, the guy is stupid for making that comment. He doesnt know that the catholic church teaches that life begins at conception. I dont think he said that if he was the Pope's right hand, but if he did say it, then again he is incredibly stupid...

Originally posted by Loki

If your definition of living includes rocks, then would it also include computers? Computer programs?.


You got something Yahzi failed to see...Computers, rocks (being organized by human intelligence, because we are given that authority..) does have a rock soul, tree-soul, etc. and are expoirable..In due time plastic's mechanism breaks down, in due time iron breaks down, etc..

No humans can create anything..Everything is already created (and that include your body and mind..).

You cant gather atoms together and said "I have created atomic bomb"...You havent created atomic bomb, you formed them, but God created its parts, which includes you..How can you create anything if you didnt even create yourself?? :)

Originally posted by Loki

Do the sperm souls go to sperm heaven when the human soul comes into existence?

PS. Well done, Franko!

LOL..LOL..LOL, your funny. The bible said "While the soul of animals go down, the soul of man goes up.."

We are the only souls in which is designed in the image of God...

[Tricky]

Originally posted by Blue Monk
OK.

I'm just going to back away from this thread reeeal slowly alright?
I think it would be more appropriate to roll up the windows and drive by real fast. It stinks worse than a dead ratsass.

[thaiboxerken]

I think that musclehead should be escorted to the closest asylum, he belongs there. Maybe they can teach him proper english as well.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by Loki
muscleman,

So, your "proof" boils down to an individual's decision to believe. Fair enough.

Yes, there will always be good, and evil. Heaven, and Hell..Stupid, and obedient. Intelligent, and Ignorant. It just depends which side are you on you know..:)

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by Tricky

I think it would be more appropriate to roll up the windows and drive by real fast. It stinks worse than a dead ratsass.

Dammit that's how I get sucked in.

A casual remark, a couple of jokes exchanged then WHAM!!!!

Next thing you know I'm locked in a life or death debate with someone of questionable logic skills.

Of course by then you'll be long gone. :)

[Smalso]

Originally posted by Blue Monk
OK.

I'm just going to back away from this thread reeeal slowly alright?

Yeah. Me too. Nothing here that hasn't been hashed about a dozen times.

[muscleman]

Loki, just to add..

Alot of stupid people, oops I mean alot of stupid atheist say "We created human life! Cant you see we cloned humans!!". How incredibly stupid.

You have just messed around what already exist. That is the same thing as saying "I have created life because I created a artificial intelligent robot which is capable of anything humans can do or more, its even conscious and feels paim!" Even if humans have done this, you still havent created that, because your intelligence have already been created and atoms have already been created..

If u gathered trees and metals togethewr then formed a stereo, you have not created a stereo for its existence is already created (trees and metals..)

In summary, what belongs to earth, stays on earth. "For dust you come to dust you go"..Our body, animals souls, plants souls stays on earth. But us humans who are created in the image of God will be united with God. What belongs to God goes to God...

What belongs to earth stays on earth (The devil belongs to earth, he is cast down here..) ...

God already knows before you were born whether you belong to him or not, because he created you.....:)

[DialecticMaterialist]

Is this a joke? Cause let me be the first to say: Bwahahaha.

Is this really "your" proof? Let me say they are common as dirt.


First lets start with your attack on abiogenesis:

1) You are attacking a straw man. No atheist believes complex lifeforms developed from simple chemicals via "chance." What they believe is more complex chemicals developed from less complex thousands or perhaps even millions of times, until we got what we call "life." And yes there are self-replicating chemicals buddy. The process is a gradual one not immediate.


2) As for your request that a scientist has to make a cell to maintain abiogenes: unwarranted. Sceintists likewise cannot cure the common cold...even though they can split an atom....does that mean we abandon germ theory? Scientists cannot make an object heavier by moving it faster....does that mean we ditch relativity? To say that inability to create an organism(which the scientist even says could not happen by one big-step and required millions of years in the wild) does not disprove their theory. That's a non sequitur buddy.(Basic logic...study it.)

Scientists likewise cannot make "oil" in a lab as well, that mean God created oil out of thin air?


Lets turn the tables around Muscles. To play fair then I want you to demonstrate God pull a complex animal out of thin air....he did it millions of times before...no reason He can't now. You can't? Well then I guess your theory does not hold water.

3) You reason in a circular manner: Life cannot come from nonlife because it can't. Such an argument is vaccuous to say the least.

Basically all you got here is the argument from design which simply creates more questions then answers and brings up the question....where did God come from?

On the anthropic principle:



1) You state the universe developed via chance so as to be sutaible for life: but who says chance had anything to do with it? It could simply be necessity, I mean its not like the universe has a choice or any options that you know of. Without some basis for offering another option, to suggest why the universe would be difefrent your argument is mute.

And without offering any mechanism that would make our universe imporbable as opposed to arbitrary: your inference likewise remains arbitrary. Given your reasoning, I could judge any universe, even one of pure chaos, as created by an insane God.


2) Your argument fails at the empirical level as well. If anything it seems the universe is more made for rocks,plasma,hydrogen then it is for life: and bacteria then it is intelligent life. Shall we presume then God favors hydrogen and bacteria?

3) Again this "solution" only creates a greater problem and itself relies on chance even IF we accept your premise of the universe being imporbable: that is what are the chances of getting a God that made such an improbable universe? If anything you are only compunding improbabilities at this point, making your case even more unlikely then that of the chance atheist's.

Your arguments for all their repitition, bold assertions and CAPS fall apart under five minutes of logical examination.

It seems to me Randi's money is safer then ever, but if you wish to try for it: by all means. If anything it will probably give Randi a nice laugh.

[Smalso]

God already knows before you were born whether you belong to him or not, because he created you.....

Prove it.

[Smalso]

In summary, what belongs to earth, stays on earth. "For dust you come to dust you go"..Our body, animals souls, plants souls stays on earth. But us humans who are created in the image of God will be united with God. What belongs to God goes to God...

Prove it.

[thaiboxerken]

I think this particular thread belongs in the new forum folder "Bogus or Brilliant"

[J3K]

Muscleman. you idiot. No offense, but you can't read. In my post I did not say you were ignorant for believing in god. There is no proof he does and no proof he doesn't exist. What I SAID was that in the future, when your "proof" for god, is debunked. The people that follow what you believe will be ignorant. I said in my post I dont care if you beleive what you believe. That is YOUR choice. And until there is hard proof either way, for god or against god, people can believe whatever they want to and what they feel is right. Hints why they are beliefs and not facts.

[thaiboxerken]

Everytime I click to read a thread of whodini's, I remember why I placed him on ignore. It's because he's an idiot.

[Yahzi]

Musslesinthehead
LOL, both. If your brain got decapitated, DESTROYED by a shotgun, I would say your dead
Yes, if I am destroyed, I am also dead. But - if I simply die from a quiet aneruism (spelling?), my body is virtually perfectly intact. It is not destroyed, even though I am dead.

This is typical of your so-called logic. You don't actually understand what logic is. You just do things that look like what we do, and then get angry when we spot you for an imposter. Sort of like a cargo cult of logic.

The Catholic church
The Catholic Church explicitly rejects the existance of immortal souls for rocks. Animals and plants, too, but definitely - without question - rocks.

Why are you trying to convince us that God exists? Why don't you first convince your fellow Catholics that rocks have souls? Start with your local priest. Do not let him off the hook - keep at him until he states, with complete sincerity, that rocks have souls. Then convince your local Bishop. When we see the Diocese posting this new teaching - that rocks have souls - then we will know you are a person to contend with, and then we will give your arguments the attention they deserve.

Until you can demonstrate that you can convince a Bishop of your theories, you have no place here. If you can't convince the Church that rocks have souls... you are heretic, and will be judged by God for false teaching, and sent to hell. Isn't that what your Church teaches?

[Yahzi]

ThaiBoxerKen
I thought that was a great question. And I noticed how Whodini dissed it, without actually answering it. Amazing how common that tactic is for theists, even of the non-Xian variety.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Is this a joke? Cause let me be the first to say: Bwahahaha.

Is this really "your" proof? Let me say they are common as dirt.

Hey, people are told all the time that drinking & driving are dangerous, thats a common as a dirt too, but people still do it...

Besides, if u call a claim with evidence as "dirt"...Then what do u call a claim with no evidence (like atheism)? Manure??

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

First lets start with your attack on abiogenesis:

1) You are attacking a straw man. No atheist believes complex lifeforms developed from simple chemicals via "chance." What they believe is more complex chemicals developed from less complex thousands or perhaps even millions of times, until we got what we call "life." And yes there are self-replicating chemicals buddy. The process is a gradual one not immediate.

That makes sense, I believe that too. But then again, how did all these chemicals "happened" to function with its environment, to the point where nature is self sufficient, and that life began its process...Surely I can open a computer, identify and label the parts within it (as scientists are doing with our environment.) and say "The processor was made first, then the random access memory, then the keyboard, then the monitor, etc." but did all these exist by chance?? IS CHANCE A LOGICAL ANSWER? WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF I SAY SERIES OF LIGHTNING, EARTHQUAKE, AND TORNADO CAN CREATE GATEWAY COMPUTER, THEN A PRINTER, THEN A SCANNER, ETC.?

Tell me whats the difference??? Is your claim of life existing by chance provable? Like chance of winning lottery?

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

2) As for your request that a scientist has to make a cell to maintain abiogenes: unwarranted. Sceintists likewise cannot cure the common cold...even though they can split an atom....does that mean we abandon germ theory? Scientists cannot make an object heavier by moving it faster....does that mean we ditch relativity? To say that inability to create an organism(which the scientist even says could not happen by one big-step and required millions of years in the wild) does not disprove their theory. That's a non sequitur buddy.(Basic logic...study it.)

Thank u for pointing out that science isnt infallible (as many pathetic children here thinks..). Science is a SMALL part of the Catholic church, but atheists worship that real small part. :)how ridiculous...

hahahaha, let me just clarify this. Did u just say that the first life form took "millions of years" to exist? I await for your answer to clarify how "much" u know.....

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Scientists likewise cannot make "oil" in a lab as well, that mean God created oil out of thin air?

Oil came from thin air? Who said that? We dont know how amonia, methane, hydrogen and all other chemicals exist, and where they come from, but they do exist, and they do function just "PERFECTLY" that it causes nature to be self-sufficient for life to exist..Again, by LUCK?? YOU ACT ALL INTELIGENT, YET USES "LUCK" AS AN EXPLANATION? WAIT, CANT U SEE THE TROUBLE HERE ALREADY?? ARE U BLIND? ANYTHING CAN BE EXPLAINED WHEN USING THE WORD "SUPER LUCK, COINCIDENCE, MAGIC"...IF U WISH TO CAPTURE PPL'S ATTENTION, I DONT THINK THE WORD "LUCK" WILL DO IT...:)

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Lets turn the tables around Muscles. To play fair then I want you to demonstrate God pull a complex animal out of thin air....

Do i sound like God to you? I know im smart but hey, your embarrasing me, Im not God, dont be mistaken... :)

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

he did it millions of times before...no reason He can't now.

I am not God...

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

You can't? Well then I guess your theory does not hold water.

STOP IT!! I said I am not God! Geesh...Your embarrasing me, Im not all that you know..:)

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

3) You reason in a circular manner: Life cannot come from nonlife because it can't. Such an argument is vaccuous to say the least.

Again, if u claim that life didnt exist because of intelligent cause but by "SUPER DIPER LUCK", then you need to provide proof of its possibility that "luck" is possible..

Winning lottery is an example, the odds are few, but its proven to take place....

We claim that intelligent life are effects of intelligent cause, AND THATS FAR PROVEN ALREADY...

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Basically all you got here is the argument from design which simply creates more questions then answers and brings up the question....where did God come from?



IF GOD CREATED THE UNIVERSE,
THEN WHO CREATED GOD?





Bob, a computer-engineer scientist engineered a 7-inch artificially intelligent robot, capable of judgment & learning independently. He also engineered a city made out of iron as big as a football stadium. The scientist can see the robot 200 feet above, but it can’t see him for its vision is limited to 20 feet. Years past, all the robot learned is machine stadium & self. The robot was skeptic & said, “Did someone engineered me or was I engineered by Luck (accident, chance, etc.)?”

The scientist in hearing these spoke to the robot’s computer chip brain through a walkie-talkie & said “Mr. Bob engineered you my friend”, robot replied, “Well if Bob engineered me, who engineered Bob?” the scientist replied “Bob cannot be engineered. You don’t understand”, the robot then said, “Through my observation & study (science) Bob is either engineered or he doesn’t exist” Bob being aware of robot’s limited intellect said, “Bob is, he is who is. Bob cannot be engineered, Bob’s kingdom is not in your world.”


Dan painted a living imaginary girl. Dan placed the living painting on a picture frame in his garage surrounded by nothing else but paints, paint floor, roof, wall, etc. as an art exhibit. The only thing other than paints in his garage is the wood frame. The painting observed &studied what’s around her. She can see paints around her, thus she knows she came from paint. The farthest she can see is the wood frame, because its unreachable, she assume the wood is some sort of paint, for paint is all she knows. Years past, the painting was skeptic & said, “Did someone painted me or was I painted through Luck (accident, chance, etc.)?”

Dan in hearing these spoke through the door crack & said “I painted you my friend”, painting replied “Well if you painted me, who painted you?” Dan replied, “I cannot be painted. Your world is not my world. You don’t understand,” the painting then said “Through my observation & study your either painted or you don’t exist” Dan knowing the painting is only exposed of paints but never of biology said to the painting “I just am as I am. I cannot be painted, my kingdom is not in your world.”


You see we believe only in existence of the tangible physical world. Through human observation & study, we are able to use the big bang theory, how life evolved, etc. This is human Biological understanding. The Big Bang, atom transformed into a cell, etc. whatever the theory is, that’s our understanding, God is beyond human understanding. We as a tangible physicality cannot relate to the spirit world, therefore we don’t understand God who is Spirit. That’s right u heard me, we cannot understand what we don’t relate to.
Even if the creator of the painting & robot revealed themselves to the creation, the robot & painting may hear it, but will not b able to relate to it. A robot brought out in the machine world was never exposed to the biological world, despite hearing it the robot will never relate to it, therefore the Robot will never understand it, that goes for the painting as well.


God revealed Himself to us to fit accordingly to our weak and transitory understanding. God is spirit. God is the Word became flesh, through the Word all came to be, & without the word nothing came to be (in other words through intelligence life existed), He is the light of the world, as everything existed through light, He is Word incarnate. Yahweh, Jehovah, Abba, etc. Can we understand God’s existence? Do we understand all this? Do we understand spirit? Were in the world of tangible physicality, we can never relate to Spirit, the existence of God; as a machine can never relate to the biological world.

So who created God the creator?

What kind of answer do u want? Physical products? Electrons protons/neutrons, amino acids, etc? Biological? Remember, God is Spirit- John. Spirit created tangible Physicality, God created the world. Why do u want physical understanding as an answer to the spirit? Should I give worldly understanding as an answer to the creator of the world? How can the worldly products create God who created the product of the world?

Alligator caused alligator bite marks. The foot caused footsteps. Engineers caused engineering, atheist caused atheism, designers caused designs, artist caused art, and Life giver caused life...

Can the existence of effect be used to explain the existence of the cause? How can you use the existence of a footprint (a mark on soil) as an explanation of the foot’s existence…nevertheless the body that holds the foot? How can u use a dog bite mark as an explanation of the dog’s creation? How can you use a creation as an explanation for the creator? I can state many analogies (maybe hundreds) that prove it’s impossible to use the creation as an explanation for its creator. For example, the existence and engineering creation of APPLE Mac computer cannot be used to explain the existence and biological creation of Bill Gates. Can you give one analogy that proves a creation can b used to explain its creator? Not at all!

What do I know about the creation of Spirit? Nothing! It’s like trying to physically prove to u what Ghost are made out of. Carbon monoxide? Hydrogen? These are all products of the world. I know God exist, but I don’t know how He exists.

Final answer is I cannot understand my creator. God may have a cause, but do I know what and how? Who can understand the mystery of God? Perhaps we may never find the answer to that question…Just because something can’t be explained, does it mean it’s a myth? So because u cannot explain what the black hole is, therefore black hole is a myth right? Or because u cannot explain how to cure cancer therefore cancer is a myth? I cannot explain homosexuals, so they r myth right? Is it visual? Because I cannot see oxygen therefore oxygen is a myth? Because I cannot see gas therefore gas is a myth? Because I cannot see gravity therefore gravity is a myth? I cannot see atom therefore atom is a myth? Because I cannot see what’s behind my wall, whatever is behind my wall is a myth? Because I cannot see 23 miles away from my city, therefore whatever is there is a myth? Is it taste & odor? Because I cannot see, feel, taste, smell the odorless tasteless poisonous gas, therefore it’s a myth? Because I cannot taste & smell the date rape drug, therefore it’s a myth? Because I cannot see, feel, taste, or smell your thoughts, therefore thoughts r myth? Because I cannot physically taste, or smell, or see your emotions, therefore emotions are myth? Because I have not seen, tasted, smelled, felt King Henry, Queen Elizabeth, Shakespeare, etc. therefore they r myth? So if you’re a dog, color blind, u would think color is a myth, but does the failure of your senses change facts? Is it about your 5 senses? I thought it’s about factual reality? If the 9 yrs old child have no idea how his father came into this world, does it mean his father is a myth? Do u feel me? I cannot explain child molesters, homosexuals, cancers, black hole, etc. & I cannot see or smell & taste atom, King Henry, Gas, Gravity, etc. & I don’t claim to understand God. But I know through solid logic factual evidence they all exist, Period.


My personal belief is that nothing Caused God for he is the causer and the creator cannot be created. (Don’t say I violate the principle of causality, I didn’t because through observation and study, that principle is applied to biological and technological existence, existence of the observed, not to the inaccessible “Spirit”, spirit ‘may’ have no need of cause but has always existed). I may have no scientific proof to believe that God is the truth, but neither does the atheist for claiming He is a liar, atheist people lied so many times because of that I have no reason to believe and put faith in both the immoral lawless atheism and atheists people.



continued........

[muscleman]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

On the anthropic principle:


1) You state the universe developed via chance so as to be sutaible for life: but who says chance had anything to do with it? It could simply be necessity, I mean its not like the universe has a choice or any options that you know of. Without some basis for offering another option, to suggest why the universe would be difefrent your argument is mute.

With this kind of argument, I can also use the same technique to prove that computers need no intelligent cause for its existence (acccording to you), its not like they have other options..LOL

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

And without offering any mechanism that would make our universe imporbable as opposed to arbitrary: your inference likewise remains arbitrary. Given your reasoning, I could judge any universe, even one of pure chaos, as created by an insane God.

Were not talking about planets that doesnt have life in it, but were talking about our existence here and nature. Besides, for u to imply they are chaos bcuz they contain no biological life as there is on earth, IS A PERSONAL STATEMENT, for all u know they may have had purpose (or was formerly full of life..). There is nothing chaotic about nature. YOUR OBVIOUSLY DELUSIONAL FOR MAKING THAT COMMENT, dont even say "Life isnt ordered but chaos because we die, and there are crippled people', STUPID, who r u to say they dont deserve to live? Who are u to say that they are useless?? Your father Satan?? And believe it or not, death is part of life...Nature is ordered, even Einstein clarified that, are u smarter than Einstein??

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

2) Your argument fails at the empirical level as well. If anything it seems the universe is more made for rocks,plasma,hydrogen then it is for life: and bacteria then it is intelligent life. Shall we presume then God favors hydrogen and bacteria?

What made u think universe is made more for them? Because they are numbered more than us? WE EXIST, AND WITHOUT THE CHEMICALS, NATURE WILL NOT BE COMPLETE..AGAIN YOUR PROPOSING THAT NATURE IS COMPLETE BY LUCK.......LOL, poor you.....

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

3) Again this "solution" only creates a greater problem and itself relies on chance even IF we accept your premise of the universe being imporbable: that is what are the chances of getting a God that made such an improbable universe? If anything you are only compunding improbabilities at this point, making your case even more unlikely then that of the chance atheist's.

Improbable universe? We exist dont we? LOL....Again the topic is nature & our existence, not Mars, Pluto, cupcakes, or feeding trolls..LOL, dont talk about something else....If life is improbable in other Galaxy, thats none of myconcern, BECAUSE THATS NOT THE TOPIC. The topic is NOT about how life is possible out there......

From the statement above, didnt u just said that "whoever claimed its chance? Its not like they have any options you know.." DIDNT U JUST SAID THAT??

So not only you have me mistaken for a God, you are a confused and self-contradictory kid..(u must be..)

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Your arguments for all their repitition, bold assertions and CAPS fall apart under five minutes of logical examination.

It seems to me Randi's money is safer then ever, but if you wish to try for it: by all means. If anything it will probably give Randi a nice laugh.

What do u know about logical examination, you have me mistaken for a God........hahahahhahaha.....:D

Ken said:

----
Everytime I click to read a thread of whodini's, I remember why I placed him on ignore. It's because he's an idiot.
----


I love you too Ken. :) By what credentials am I an idiot? I deleted my previous message because it seemed like you were offended by its stupidity. Sorry.


Yahzi said:

----
I thought that was a great question. And I noticed how Whodini dissed it, without actually answering it. Amazing how common that tactic is for theists, even of the non-Xian variety.
----


Yahzi, I am a little confused still. Why are Christians who wear seatbelts contradicting their faith?

And what type of theist am I Yahzi? Can you list the god(s) I believe in, if any? I gave the same challenge to Ken after accusing me of the same thing. No reply from him either. But I'm sure you're different...

Originally posted by Smalso


This ain't no cult, Bunkie. Otherwise you would not be allowed to participate until you sign over all your worldly goods to us. I believe in the work James Randi is doing and I believe that he is one of the great men of our age. I state that without apology. As to your assertion that i am not able to think, I believe that I have as good a brain as any here. Perhaps lacking the formal education of some, but with as good a brain as any. I may be wrong, but it is not for lack of thinking.

Smalso:

OK. You are a beleiver.Good for you.

So if you are able to think , then you must exist. I guess you agreed with Descartes.

Are you mad? Enjoy your cult, club or group.

Just use your cult favorite argument : "don't feed the trolls".

Thanks,
S&S

[muscleman]

Originally posted by Yahzi
Musslesinthehead

Yes, if I am destroyed, I am also dead. But - if I simply die from a quiet aneruism (spelling?), my body is virtually perfectly intact. It is not destroyed, even though I am dead.

huh? Dead because of ignorance? If someone can die because of ignorance, then everyone who dont speak english are dead to those who speak english..Is that what u meant? LOL.....

Originally posted by Yahzi

This is typical of your so-called logic. You don't actually understand what logic is. You just do things that look like what we do, and then get angry when we spot you for an imposter. Sort of like a cargo cult of logic.

And nature as "luck" is logic?? If u understand logic, and propose everything is "LUCK", then maybe I dont want to understand logic and be like you...:)

Originally posted by Yahzi

The Catholic Church explicitly rejects the existance of immortal souls for rocks. Animals and plants, too, but definitely - without question - rocks.

First of all, I never said that their souls are immortal, QUOTE THAT TO ME WHERE I SAID THAT..Your putting words in my mouth..

I said that "energies" cannot be destroyed, and that can be reffered to for a "soul" as science CLARIFIED existence of "eternal", and that is reffered to a "human soul" created in the image of God...

And again, everything that lives have a soul that gives it life, thats the Catholic church teaching (rocks, planbts, trees, animals, etc.)...But the soul of animals goes down, and the soul of man goes up (it depends; u may really be more like an animal than man & will stay down here with satan on earth, he was cast down here for rejecting God in his kingdom..:) )

Originally posted by Yahzi

Why are you trying to convince us that God exists? Why don't you first convince your fellow Catholics that rocks have souls? Start with your local priest. Do not let him off the hook - keep at him until he states, with complete sincerity, that rocks have souls. Then convince your local Bishop. When we see the Diocese posting this new teaching - that rocks have souls - then we will know you are a person to contend with, and then we will give your arguments the attention they deserve.

Until you can demonstrate that you can convince a Bishop of your theories, you have no place here. If you can't convince the Church that rocks have souls... you are heretic, and will be judged by God for false teaching, and sent to hell. Isn't that what your Church teaches?

LOL, your a complete moron... You were picturing "ROCK" the whole time, then visualing "human soul" trapped within a rock..

A rock-soul is simply an energy that make it the way it is..In case if u dont know, rocks also dies, its mechanism in due time can die and turn into dust..

LOL, ROCKS DONT HAVE HUMAN SOULS YOU IDIOT.....AGAIN ROCKS DONT HAVE HUMAN SOULS, ROCKS HAVE "ROCK LIFE" ROCK SOULS...

The Catholic church doesnt have a doctrine where it says "rocks doesnt have a soul" but "only plants, etc.'..

Everything is "part" of order, ROCKS ISNT EXCLUDED IN THAT ORDER, MAYBE THE LOWEST OF ALL, THEN FROM HERE TO PLANTS, SHRUBS, TREES, TO COCKROACHES, TO SALAMANDERS, ETC. BUT NEVERTHELESS ROCKS ARE PART OF ORDER.....

[CSSMariner]

BS There is no God or gods or anything of the sort.

Is so, then I dare, challenge, and defy He, She, or It , or he she or it, to strike me blind, deaf and dumb immediately, and for good measure toss in smell and touch as well so I am in total isolation. Furthermore, I challenge all the true believers to get down on their knees, no not before their "religious" leaders priests or otherwise, but before their deity and pray for their god, or God to do exactly what I demand.

I am waiting . . . . . . . but then I have made the same challenge many times before, and all the true believers can say in reply and self-defense of their belief system as it were, is that He "loves" me too much to such a nasty thing. Well, He allows true believers to blow themselves up with explosives in order to take out other true believers. He must be having far too much fun watching all that smoke and mayhem and games to bother with the likes of me.

Originally posted by CSSMariner
BS There is no God or gods or anything of the sort.

Is so, then I dare, challenge, and defy He, She, or It , or he she or it, to strike me blind, deaf and dumb immediately, and for good measure toss in smell and touch as well so I am in total isolation. Furthermore, I challenge all the true believers to get down on their knees, no not before their "religious" leaders priests or otherwise, but before their deity and pray for their god, or God to do exactly what I demand.

I am waiting . . . . . . . but then I have made the same challenge many times before, and all the true believers can say in reply and self-defense of their belief system as it were, is that He "loves" me too much to such a nasty thing. Well, He allows true believers to blow themselves up with explosives in order to take out other true believers. He must be having far too much fun watching all that smoke and mayhem and games to bother with the likes of me.

Hi Css Mariner:

You made your point. Is part of the athiest' beleivers arguments.

Why do you think you are special so "that" God must do what you are challenging?

Is your choise or not?

You are just part of humanity. You are just a small piece of **** in the hole universe.
Look around you , go outside, enjoy nature, enjoy the universe.

Then ask your self questions , if you want, or just stay beleiving in your leaders.

Thanks,
S&S

[Doctor X]

No, "Bio-Chupacabra Monosodium Glutamate Chemical Particle" is actually the name of Michael Jacksons' latest child.


BWA!HA!HA!HA!HA!HA!

Incidentally, I note that he has not addressed my connundrum regarding what happens to the soul.

Why not, I can only imagine.

--J.D.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by Doctor X


Yet that misses the mark.

Any theory of the world must explain or allow for what actually happens. Unfortunately, such a state as described happens all too frequently. Ipse dixit aside, your assertions concerning a soul, if worthy of respect, must account for this.

A person in such a state is gone. He is gone for good. However he is not dead. His brain is not dead. Where did the soul go?

Ok, the brain is part of the mechanism, which scientifically speaking can break down (LOL, thats why we die..)...

Understand the "energy" that gives us life is what we call a "soul", it is a FACT that it exist (as we are alive, & our mechanisms can be destroyed, but energies cannot be destroyed). But we cant prove it is "Conscious" as a living brain is...But you cant also prove it is "NOT" conscious for noone has been able to detect the energy responsible for life. The fact here is, we cant detect sub-atomic particles beyond 300,000,000 m/s. As there is no end to splitting an atom (U know singularity, that the size and mass of earth can be compressed to as small as a peanut if all the spaces are removed.)..

What we label as "physical" are the weakest form of energy (stopped energy) and we are conscious (obviously). I find no reason why its "IMPOSSIBLE" for energy more potent than what we label as "physical" to be not conscious. Energy are "Eternal"..

Again I cant prove to you that it is conscious, but you cant prove to me as well that it's not....

Im not saying all energies are conscious (such as rock energy, plant energy, animals, etc. their intelligence simply isnt at that point..), but I believe human soul (energy) is conscious after our physical mechanism is destroyed.....

Originally posted by Doctor X

Since you have not demonstrated evidence for the existence of a soul, I must consider this merely an ipse dixit. However, it still missed the mark. Where did this "energy" go?

--J.D.

I have demonstrated evidence for the existence of a soul, and that is life exist, and life expires , AND THE ENERGY RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT IS WHAT WE CALL "SOUL"...GOT IT? Do u have a different name for it? What do u call a soul nowadays? Bio-chupacabra monosodium glutamate chemical particle?? Again u are entitled to call "soul" in any name u wish child......

And where do the soul go? Ask God for your soul atleast...LOL, I have no idea where his kingdom is (which we call "heaven")...

But I know that in order for a soul to be in happiness, it must be ressurected to a body again. For a soul that doesnt get ressurected is a suffering soul. Jesus showed that it is through ressurection that one find his life......But it is a body that doesnt break down (a potent version of what we label as physical..)..

[Bjorn]

In the beginning, the muscle-for-brains stated - as the title of the thread:

Proof of God's existence! 1 million dollar challenge at the end! Randi better pay-up! Curiously, I've checked in every second day or so to see the evidence. After all, it would be a good story to tell the grandchildren that I was more or less present when JR had to put his money where his mouth was.

But no, surprise surprise, the muscle-no-brains has decided not to prove it anyhow, he can't do unless someone proves something to him first:

Originally posted by muscleman
Prove to me evolution took place and Ill prove to you God created the world. Prove to me King Henry exist, and Ill prove to you God exist..... I know he won't like me for this, but could I point out that he claimed he could prove God, I never claimed I could prove King Henry.

Meatbrain: You claim and then don't prove. Where I come from, that's considered lying.

I haven't seen worse since A-Force1. :p

The Catholic church doesnt have a doctrine where it says "rocks doesnt have a soul" Oh yeah it has, just there alongside the doctrine that says rocks doesnt (sic) go to heaven when they ... well ... stop breathing. Or brain functioning. Or whatever. :rolleyes:

What to do when people are claiming and not proving ... http://www.click-smilies.de/sammlung/fragend/confused-smiley-013.gif

I'll check again in a week or so. Dr. X, could you PM me if some sensational walking on the water should take place? So that I could test the water, so to write?

[Doctor X]

Ok, the brain is part of the mechanism, which scientifically speaking can break down (LOL, thats why we die..)...

Yet, in the case given the brain does not "break down." You have lost a rather small area--a few millimeters.

Wither then, the soul?

Understand the "energy" that gives us life is what we call a "soul", . . .

You consider the use of high energy phosphate bonds by ADP to make ATP the soul?

. . . it is a FACT that it exist. . . .

Ipse dixit and not established.

(as we are alive, & our mechanisms can be destroyed, but energies cannot be destroyed).

Which returns to the original problem. The energies "survive" in such a patient. He is quite alive.

Whither his soul?

But we cant (sic) prove it is "Conscious" as a living brain is...

As noted above, a living brain is not necessarily conscious.

But you cant also prove it is "NOT" conscious for noone (sic) has been able to detect the energy responsible for life.

Non sequitur et ipse dixit and, unfortunately, untrue.

The fact here is, we cant (sic) detect sub-atomic particles beyond 300,000,000 m/s.

I remain unaware of particles that move faster than 3 x10(8) m/s; nevertheless, I also remain unaware of unicorns and quality country western music.

All remain a non sequitur with regards to the question asked.

More non sequitur follows. . . .

I find no reason why its "IMPOSSIBLE" for energy more potent than what we label as "physical" to be not conscious. Energy are (sic) "Eternal"..

Other than the failure for evidence for such a conscious energy. Nevertheless, as noted above, with some repetition in its redundancy, these patients do not at all lack of energy.

They lack consciousness.

Permanently.

Wither then the soul?

Again I cant prove to you that it is conscious, but you cant prove to me as well that it's not....

Non sequitur aside, it is quite easy to demonstrate these patients are not conscious.

Thus:

. . . but I believe human soul (energy) is conscious after our physical mechanism is destroyed.....

where is it? Where does it hide? These patients are rather interested in the answer . . . if they could be interested in anything.

As noted, this is a serious question. Any theory must account for reality . . . FACTS . . . that is. . . .

Moi: Since you have not demonstrated evidence for the existence of a soul, I must consider this merely an ipse dixit. However, it still missed the mark. Where did this "energy" go?

I have demonstrated evidence for the existence of a soul, . . .

No. Ipse dixit et argument ad veritatum obfuscandum do not evidence make.

. . . AND THE ENERGY RESPONSIBLE FOR THAT IS WHAT WE CALL "SOUL"...GOT IT?

Nor does improper use of capitalization.

Do u (sic) have a different name for it?

See reference to adenosine triphosphate above.

What do u (sic) call a soul nowadays?

Since you have yet to demonstrate the existence of said soul--or whither it goeth in said patients--"nothing" seems a fair appelation.

Bio-chupacabra monosodium glutamate chemical particle?? Again u (sic) are entitled to call "soul" in any name u (sic) wish child......

Adding argumentum ad hominem to non sequitur et argumentum ad vertitatum obfuscandum similarly does not serve as evidence. Will note, en passant that the use of these fallacies proves quite "childish."

And where do the soul go? Ask God for your soul atleast (sic)...LOL, . . .

Methinks he suffers from gelastic seizures or, if an unkind man, I would think he suffers from an inability to control emotions after damage to his frontal lobes.

It does demonstrate, however, that he cannot provide evidence for the soul.

Quod erat demonstrandum.

But I know that in order for a soul to be in happiness, it must be ressurected to a body again.

Ipse dixit et non sequitur.

It does make one wonder if the soul of said patients fly to another person?

For a soul that doesnt (sic) get ressurected is a suffering soul.

Ipse dixit et non sequitur

Jesus showed that it is through ressurection (sic) that one find (sic) his life......

Not according to Mark, or John, for that matter.

But it is a body that doesnt (sic) break down (a potent version of what we label as physical..)..

Interesting sentence fragment since it resembles the patient described. His body does not "break down"--provided you care for it--feeding, cleaning.

His soul, however. . . .

--J.D.

[muscleman]

Ok, Im loosing the points here, so let me start from scratch...

A human being (containing the dna traits of a human..) if cannot see, or cannot talk, or cannot walk, or cannot move, or even cannot think is still a human being, it doesnt make him "a blob of tissue", it doesnt make you more human than him because you can speak 3 different language, nor it makes u more human than a man in coma. They are humans even if they are incapable of saying one little word..

Your best friends "Peter Singer" and "Carl Sagan" are both retards for making "likely comments" (both of them are atheists). While Peter Singer is saying that handicaps and retired old man dont deserve to live, Carl Sagan is also pointing out that prejudism against different species (like termites and ants.) is just like prejudism against human race. So killing a human is not a big deal, its the same thing as stepping on a worm, human life have no value. Both messengers of the devil...


I got caught up there, now lets go back to the topic of soul....

Everything that lives have a soul that gives it life...The Catholic church teaches that none of the other life forms have a soul eternal, only humans because we reflect a "second consciousness" OTHER than our mind, and heart...

Let me clarify this again. Everything that exist have a soul that gives it life, but it doesnt necessarily mean it is conscious after its mechanism expires...

As a human being, we have the highest intelligence of all the species, great enough to take over and posses something they dont have "A CONSCIENCE"...

A conscience is what we form in our life on earth. Some of us feel guilty if we cant kill, some of us dont. The church forms our conscience, though the streets can also form your conscience.

This "second" consiosness were forming as we live, is what makes up the shape and form of our soul for all eternity..

The animals, plants does have a soul, and it is eternal, but because their intelligence doesnt have that "second consiousness" their energy simply cannot remain as it is. For instance, a rock soul after it breaks down can turn into any form of life (as what God wishes it to be.) because it doesnt form the "second consiousness" like humans do, the rock simply doesnt have that intelligence..

Therefore the force or energy in which gives rock its life are eternal, but you cant call it "soul of rock" because it is not formed to be "rock", but God is free to turn that into whatever He wish......

Now if the human being is in coma, (cant think, cant talk, etc.) it doesnt "remove" the source of his consiousness (his soul) but his mind and body simply prevents the soul from forming to either "bad" or "good"...BUT HIS SOUL (THE SOURCE OF HIS CONSIOUSNESS) IS STILL THERE..HE IS JUST INCAPABLE OF USING IT....

[Yahzi]

Whodini
And what type of theist am I Yahzi?
The stupid kind that expects people to play guessing games. Hey chumpy, if you don't know what you are, don't ask me!

The fact is you did not answer his question, but you did make fun of it. You made fun of his assumptions - yet here you are, assuming, without any reason, that my comment about thiests was directed at you. What makes you think that?

Why are Christians who wear seatbelts contradicting their faith?
I made the assertion that the fact that Xians wear their seatbelts the same amount as other people shows that they value this life as much as athiests (despite claiming they get another, better one later). When a study was found that showed that Xians wear their seatbelts more, that was taken as proof that I was wrong.

Care to explain how that works?

Maybe it's that fabled theistic logic...

The fact remains that Xians do not expect to go to heaven, no matter how much they claim to believe in heaven.

Mucusman
A rock-soul is simply an energy that make it the way it is
I don't know what Augustianin jargon you are looking for, but trust me: the Catholic Church only recognizes one soul, and that is the immortal human kind. Everything else is not a soul. Ask your priest.

And again, everything that lives have a soul that gives it life, thats the Catholic church teaching (rocks, planbts, trees, animals, etc.)...
The Catholic church is animist? The Catholic church teaches that rocks are alive? :eek:

If you do not seek correction from your priest about this, I will be forced to contact the church and report your heresy. You - an alleged catechism teacher - are spreading false teachings. And not incidentally making the church look stupid.

You might mean something like the difference between essence and accidents. If so, you should be aware that Augustian logic should not be attempted by amateurs, let alone completely uneducated dolts.

Show your posts to your priest. See what he has to say about your crackpot theories.

Why are you afraid to talk to a priest about this?

Therefore the force or energy in which gives rock its life are eternal, but you cant call it "soul of rock"
But... you are the one that said rocks had souls... and they weren't eternal. Now you are saying they don't have souls, just eternal energies? Could you... pick one? Maybe? :confused:

I think I understand why you are afraid to talk to the priests - although I suspect its more they are afraid to talk to you, and start running when they see you approach.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by Yahzi


But... you are the one that said rocks had souls... and they weren't eternal. Now you are saying they don't have souls, just eternal energies? Could you... pick one? Maybe? :confused:

I think I understand why you are afraid to talk to the priests - although I suspect its more they are afraid to talk to you, and start running when they see you approach.


You are a cmplete moron.. Ignorant and stupid..SHOW ME ANY DOCUMENTED FACTS THAT THE CATHOILIC CHURCH SAID THIS..WHERE IS IT IN THE CANON LAW? IS THAT DOGMATIC? IS THAT IN THE HOLY TRADITION? IS THAT IN THE CATECHIST? IN THE BIBLE? You ignorant idiot...

Afraid to talk about it to a priest? LOL. Yes, and they appointed me to be a core leader for teen ministries, thats how afraid I am to talk to htem...

AGAIN U MORON....WHERE IS IT IN THE CATHOLIC CHURCH TEACHING THAT CONTRADICTS WHAT I SAID? WHERE? DONT SAY THAT A PRIEST COMMENT IS THE "CHURCH"..I HAVE THE CANON LAW WITH ME...TELL ME THE CHAPTER AND PAGE..

And again you moron. Just because Plants live, it doesnt mean I call it "Human life", a plant life isnt a human life..

Everything that lives have a soul that gives it life. But because animals and rocks is incapable of forming the "SECOND CONSCIOUSNESS", the energy that provides them life simply cannot be what they are for all eternity because its mechanism is incapable of forming them to be the way they are , UNLIKE HUMANS WHO HAVE THAT GIFT......STUPID....

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Hey musclehead, give us all an update - has Randi sent you the million dollar check yet???

Bwahahahahahahahahaha!!!

Moron.

[thaiboxerken]

Musclehead probably works out alot because there is no way he could survive on intelligence out in the world.

[c4ts]

Aw, come on guys. He can't help it if he's not as smart as you people. Haven't you teased him enough?

*reads Muscleman's posts again*

Nah! :p:p:p

[CSSMariner]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Hi Css Mariner:

You made your point. Is part of the athiest' beleivers arguments.

Why do you think you are special so "that" God must do what you are challenging?

Is your choise or not?

You are just part of humanity. You are just a small piece of **** in the hole universe.
Look around you , go outside, enjoy nature, enjoy the universe.

Then ask your self questions , if you want, or just stay beleiving in your leaders.

Thanks,
S&S


HA! You always have to go to meainingless assumptions about believing in leaders and/or other BS. If I do or not, they at least are not powerless, impotent myths and ghosts in neverland.

Piece of **** in the "Hole" universe??? You sir are the piece of **** in the A**hole of the whole universe.

Originally posted by CSSMariner



HA! You always have to go to meainingless assumptions about believing in leaders and/or other BS. If I do or not, they at least are not powerless, impotent myths and ghosts in neverland.

Piece of **** in the "Hole" universe??? You sir are the piece of **** in the A**hole of the whole universe.

Css Mariner:

I just asked you a question:Why do you think you are special so "that" God must do what you are challenging?

If you refuse to answer, is your choise. Is another characteristique (...) of your cult. That's ok. Don't worry.

The A**hole of the whole universe is part of the universe too.
Now you are begining to understand.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
**** _: atom or s**t if is more according to your nature.

[hal bidlack]

Folks,

I've received several requests to move this thread to the B/B forum. I think at this point that would be wrong, as there is still some ongoing discussion, and folks are being engaged in debate on the topic. If the name calling to content ratio becomes too large, I'll revisit the issue. But for now, I think it will stay here.

thaiboxerken wrote:


----
I think that musclehead should be escorted to the closest asylum, he belongs there. Maybe they can teach him proper english as well.
----


This is that atheist humanity that atheists want to convince the world that they have????

Maybe if atheists ruled the world they would throw the religious into asylums?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Well it seems you really try to replace quality with quantity. As if making the same bad points over and over makes them true. News flash: it just makes you look childish.


Hey, people are told all the time that drinking & driving are dangerous, thats a common as a dirt too, but people still do it...

Umm. Ohk. :rolleyes: What's your point? Still stupid to do. ANd likewise I doubt such people point this out as THE proof for God, presuming another hasn't heard it dozens of times before and refuted their claim a dozen or so times before.

Besides, if u call a claim with evidence as "dirt"...Then what do u call a claim with no evidence (like atheism)? Manure??

Your claim is dirt because it is not evidence.

That makes sense, I believe that too. But then again, how did all these chemicals "happened" to function with its environment, to the point where nature is self sufficient, and that life began its process

Are you asking for specifics? Focusing on technicalities? I likewise do not know how a computer functions....does that mean I escew theories about microchips and say "a supernatural force does it"?


...Surely I can open a computer, identify and label the parts within it (as scientists are doing with our environment.) and say "The processor was made first, then the random access memory, then the keyboard, then the monitor, etc."

False analogy. This argument was killed off over two hundred years ago my friend. We know computers are made by humans because they resemble other inventions made by humans and they function a certain way. We also know such properties as computers have are absent without a person who created it.

We know this via observation of humans creating such things.

We do not have such observations of another being creating life, in fact such observations seem to be absent. Making your inference at this point unwarranted and your reasoning backwards. As you are starting with the conclusion instead of the raw data on the matter.


but did all these exist by chance?? IS CHANCE A LOGICAL ANSWER?

Who said it was chance?


WHAT DIFFERENCE DOES IT MAKE IF I SAY SERIES OF LIGHTNING, EARTHQUAKE, AND TORNADO CAN CREATE GATEWAY COMPUTER, THEN A PRINTER, THEN A SCANNER, ETC.?

Again false anaology. Life is very different then a computer.

Basically your reasoning goes like this: If computers are created, life is created. Non sequitur.


We know computers are created because we know humans make such things beforehand via observation.

We have no such observations on which to infer life is created. Your anaology is thus weak because it misses a crucial element, and instead just assumes it is there. Basically all you are saying is "If some things are created...all things are created."

Tell me whats the difference???

With smaller steps you increase probability.

Example: All dogs for examples come from woleves. Now let me ask you Muscles, what is more likely to work, slowly breeding dogs and selecting them generation after generation until I get a poodle...or trying to breed two wolves and get a poodle right off the bat? The former works better because a smaller step in the right direction, is more likely to get results then a big leap forward.


Is your claim of life existing by chance provable? Like chance of winning lottery?

Never said life came by chance. That's a straw man muscles.


Thank u for pointing out that science isnt infallible (as many pathetic children here thinks..).

Like who? People the rest of us can't see?


Science is a SMALL part of the Catholic church, but atheists worship that real small part. how ridiculous...

Umm okay. I'm not a Catholic.

hahahaha, let me just clarify this. Did u just say that the first life form took "millions of years" to exist? I await for your answer to clarify how "much" u know.....

I said plausibly millions. I think its pretty clear.

Oil came from thin air? Who said that?

Given your reasoning that's how it works. I mean it couldn't have been "chance". God must have just done it....


We dont know how amonia, methane, hydrogen and all other chemicals exist,and where they come from,

Big Bang....


but they do exist, and they do function just "PERFECTLY" that it causes nature to be self-sufficient for life to exist.

Perfectly in comparison to what? Also if it's so perfect how come there isn't more life? Why could no other imaginable particle work? Also seeing as most energy consumed by life is wasted and life doesn't tend to last too long: I'd have to say performance is less then perfect.


.Again, by LUCK?? YOU ACT ALL INTELIGENT, YET USES "LUCK" AS AN EXPLANATION?

Never said it was luck. More like something I call "causality."


WAIT, CANT U SEE THE TROUBLE HERE ALREADY?? ARE U BLIND? ANYTHING CAN BE EXPLAINED WHEN USING THE WORD "SUPER LUCK, COINCIDENCE, MAGIC"...IF U WISH TO CAPTURE PPL'S ATTENTION, I DONT THINK THE WORD "LUCK" WILL DO IT...

True and you are doing just that. But instead of using magic luck, you bring in a magic God.

Do i sound like God to you? I know im smart but hey, your embarrasing me, Im not God, dont be mistaken...

Never said you were. But there's no reason why you can't show me God doing it. I mean, if you want to have an man who studies abiogenesis do it, then you have to be willing to put something on the table as well. Aree you saying God "just stops" or "refuses" well how conveniant for you.....conveniant and dubious. And with a bit of a double standard.

I am not God...

So basically you don't have an answer. Never asked you if you were God bud, just asked if you can show me God making life. If you can't then quite presuming He does at all.


STOP IT!! I said I am not God! Geesh...Your embarrasing me, Im not all that you know..

Oh. Har har. :rolleyes: Your "jokes" are even poorer then your arguments.

Well then scientists are not matter...so they can't make creatures out of natural substance.

Again, if u claim that life didnt exist because of intelligent cause but by "SUPER DIPER LUCK", then you need to provide proof of its possibility that "luck" is possible..

False dillema. It's not God vs luck. There are other possibilities, like causality,fate,etc.

We claim that intelligent life are effects of intelligent cause, AND THATS FAR PROVEN ALREADY...

Question begging.

(In response to the question of "who created God" muscles gives a long winded story of a computer program asking that of its creator.)

First your analogies are presumptuous; they assume what they are trying to prove. To compare a created thing to something we don't know was created presumes at the outset it was created.

Secondly, reasoning is fallible. Evidence CAN lead you astray buddy. Keep in mind the flaw can work in reverse, in that an uncreated thing, lets say God, just because it has the ability to create may assume it was itself created. It may also assume so incorrectly.

Third, Bob in your analogy was created. This means in your story someone did create Bob so by extension someone did create God.



We as a tangible physicality cannot relate to the spirit world, therefore we don?t understand God who is Spirit.

So basically the fact that your theory is at odds with understanding i.e. logic and evidence is "proof" to you? Well then I suppose the absurdity of a square-circle is proof that one exists.

That?s right u heard me, we cannot understand what we don?t relate to.

Well then you seem to have some understanding of it. For I certainly cannot descirbe something as incomperhensible unless I at some level comprehend it. Do you mean that your theist declarations are meaningless?


Even if the creator of the painting & robot revealed themselves to the creation, the robot & painting may hear it, but will not b able to relate to it.

So what? If I was "omnipotent" I could surely reveal myself to the robot, being all powerful I really couldn't be stopped could I?

But aside from that, you are again making a hasty generalization. I.e. some things cannot be comprehended by their creator therefore no creation can understand their creator.

I guess by that line of thinking I can declare that since some people are deluded, everyone is deluded. Companies make product, hence higher companies made life for profit. Some people cannot understand basic math(like toddlers and the mentally handicapped) that means nobody can.


A robot brought out in the machine world was never exposed to the biological world, despite hearing it the robot will never relate to it, therefore the Robot will never understand it, that goes for the painting as well.

And you know this on what basis Muscles? Assumption?


God revealed Himself to us to fit accordingly to our weak and transitory understanding. God is spirit. God is the Word became flesh, through the Word all came to be, & without the word nothing came to be (in other words through intelligence life existed), He is the light of the world, as everything existed through light, He is Word incarnate. Yahweh, Jehovah, Abba, etc. Can we understand God?s existence? Do we understand all this? Do we understand spirit? Were in the world of tangible physicality, we can never relate to Spirit, the existence of God; as a machine can never relate to the biological world.

So God is incapable? There's something God simply cannot do no matter how badly He wishes to? Well then God's not really so Almighty then is he?

So who created God the creator?

What kind of answer do u want?

That should be obvious. Maybe the Great Gawandola or something.


Spirit created tangible Physicality, God created the world. Why do u want physical understanding as an answer to the spirit? Should I give worldly understanding as an answer to the creator of the world? How can the worldly products create God who created the product of the world?

Miss the point. Your anaology is based on complexity not physicality. To say "If its physical it must be created" is mere question begging.

What you are saying is not that "rocks appeared by chance" but "complex things like computers appeared by chance" i.e. complexity, when it achieves a sort of function cannot appear via chance. This then includes God as God is complex and functions a certain way.

If you are going to now say "well only complex, physical things need to be created" by your reasoning then God appeared by chance. Also, why would God be an exception..."because he's spiritual" question begging. "Because the spiritual and physical are different" means "because the spritual is spiritual and physical is physical" which is again begging the question.

Can the existence of effect be used to explain the existence of the cause?

By definition it does. But that doesn't necessarily tell us what the cause was. In the past for example people believed the cause of illness to be bad air.



Basically the rest of your long-winded post is circular reasoning. Bite marks=biter. Life=God giver. Which again presumes from the onset that life is comparable to the dog bite.


Lastly you simply then dismiss the question of "who created God" for no solid reason. Basically with an "I don't know" and "the question only applies to what I say it applies to" without giving a reason other then question begging. i.e. the spiritual cannot be explained because it's spiritual. To promote this principle, then revoke it for such a poor reason is somewhat inconsistent.


But then again you say something is either created, or appears by chance. So then God was either created or appeared by chance. Since chance is so unlikely that then means God was created by a more complex being leading to infinite regress. Which is in many ways now just as unreasonable as pure chance. (Saying "I don't/cannot understand God" does not alter this fact, as their are no other possiblities in your scheme of things making the exact creator irrelevant i.e. I do not have understand God to realize, using your principles, God was created.)

[DialecticMaterialist]

With this kind of argument, I can also use the same technique to prove that computers need no intelligent cause for its existence (acccording to you), its not like they have other options..LOL

Nope because computers resemble products we see humans make. They also have human laguage, electricital parts which we know doesn't exist without humans etc. We lack similiar prior observations to life.


Your next comment has twp flaws 1) If we are talking about the universe via AP then all the universe including lifeless planets are relevant.

2) I never said nature was chaotic. Good way to blunder there pal. ;)

What made u think universe is made more for them? Because they are numbered more than us?

Yeah, because there is A LOT more of that and enviroment suited for that then for us.


WE EXIST, AND WITHOUT THE CHEMICALS, NATURE WILL NOT BE COMPLETE..AGAIN YOUR PROPOSING THAT NATURE IS COMPLETE BY LUCK.......LOL, poor you.....

Never said luck.


Improbable universe? We exist dont we?

Circles.


....Again the topic is nature & our existence, not Mars, Pluto, cupcakes, or feeding trolls..

Ah so we ignore anything that disproves our viewpoint.


LOL, dont talk about something else....If life is improbable in other Galaxy, thats none of myconcern, BECAUSE THATS NOT THE TOPIC. The topic is NOT about how life is possible out there......

Actually it is your concern if you are going to declare life unlikely in this galaxy without a creator.

From the statement above, didnt u just said that "whoever claimed its chance? Its not like they have any options you know.." DIDNT U JUST SAID THAT??

Yeah and you didn't seem to grasp that.

So not only you have me mistaken for a God, you are a confused and self-contradictory kid..(u must be..)

Rather that then a fanatical nut like yourself.

What do u know about logical examination, you have me mistaken for a God........hahahahhahaha.....

The laughing of a mad man......

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

I think that musclehead should be escorted to the closest asylum, he belongs there. Maybe they can teach him proper english as well.
----

This is that atheist humanity that atheists want to convince the world that they have????

Maybe if atheists ruled the world they would throw the religious into asylums?

Maybe if you would stop exaggerating people's statements, and then throwing them back as blatant strawman attacks against atheism, people wouldn't think of you as an annoying troll.

Dr. Stupid

[Smalso]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Smalso:

OK. You are a beleiver.Good for you.

So if you are able to think , then you must exist. I guess you agreed with Descartes.

Are you mad? Enjoy your cult, club or group.

Just use your cult favorite argument : "don't feed the trolls".

Thanks,
S&S

Huh?

Originally posted by Smalso


Huh?

Is hard to you to face the truth?

You are a beleiver. These are your words.. "I believe in the work James Randi is doing and I believe that he is one of the great men of our age."

Enjoy your cult.

Thanks,
S&S

[Blue Monk]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Is hard to you to face the truth?

You are a beleiver. Those are your words.

Enjoy your cult.

Thanks,
S&S

Oh I see you've learned a new word. Well that's just dandy. (cough)Sour Grapes(cough).

[thaiboxerken]

It's funny how the cultists (theists) like to call atheism a cult or a religion. I guess they cannot understand that all it takes to be an atheist is a lack of belief in their's or any other gods.

S&S, tell your sky buddy to come down and talk to me, then I'll believe. Oh, and he should do as I ask because I deserve to be in on his "master plan" as well. And yes, I am so very special that your god needs to tend to my needs.

[thaiboxerken]

Maybe if you would stop exaggerating people's statements, and then throwing them back as blatant strawman attacks against atheism, people wouldn't think of you as an annoying troll.

Yes, stimpy, that troll doesn't understand the dangers of musclehead's thinking patterns and posts. They are signs of an insane person that is a threat to society, he is the type of person that would perform violent deeds just to get people to believe in his god. He's also the type to try and force his beliefs on other's children.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It's funny how the cultists (theists) like to call atheism a cult or a religion. I guess they cannot understand that all it takes to be an atheist is a lack of belief in their's or any other gods.

S&S, tell your sky buddy to come down and talk to me, then I'll believe. Oh, and he should do as I ask because I deserve to be in on his "master plan" as well. And yes, I am so very special that your god needs to tend to my needs.

Who told you that cults are an exclusive for religions? Your leader? Keep on beleiving him.

Or learn a little more, if you can.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14066&pagenumber=1

Or repeat this quote (the time you can resist):
." I believe in the work James Randi is doing and I believe that he is one of the great men of our age."

Enjoy your cult and don't forget to buy something or to send your new donation.

"Don't feed the trolls". Obey your leader and minister .

Thanks,
S&S

[Doctor X]

Excellent!

I do not think I need underscore the irrelevant argumentum ad hominem. Thus:

Now if the human being is in coma, (cant (sic) think, cant (sic) talk, etc.) it doesnt (sic) "remove" the source of his consiousness (sic) (his soul) but his mind and body simply prevents the soul from forming to either "bad" or "good"...BUT HIS SOUL (THE SOURCE OF HIS CONSIOUSNESS) (sic) IS STILL THERE..HE IS JUST INCAPABLE OF USING IT....

This would then lead to a few important questions:

1. Is the soul, then, located to the area in the brain stem that is damaged?

2. If it is not, then where is it located and what does it do for, unfortunately sometimes, decades?

--J.D.

[CSSMariner]

Originally posted by S&amp;S


Css Mariner:

I just asked you a question:Why do you think you are special so "that" God must do what you are challenging?

If you refuse to answer, is your choise. Is another characteristique (...) of your cult. That's ok. Don't worry.

The A**hole of the whole universe is part of the universe too.
Now you are begining to understand.

Thanks,
S&S

P.S.
**** _: atom or s**t if is more according to your nature.

As before, all you know to do is get personal. You are henceforth on the ignore list.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


Are you asking for specifics? Focusing on technicalities? I likewise do not know how a computer functions....does that mean I escew theories about microchips and say "a supernatural force does it"?

I didnt brought out "supernatural" being the sole responsible for the computer, but using the same method of "chance" your claiming for the existence of life form, I can use that as well for the claim of the existence of the Pyramids of Egypt (forget the computer then..).

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

False analogy. This argument was killed off over two hundred years ago my friend. We know computers are made by humans because they resemble other inventions made by humans and they function a certain way. We also know such properties as computers have are absent without a person who created it.

A sign you FLAT OUT LOST the argument, because now your acting all dumb. Face it, I was just using that as ananlogy, and if u dont like the computer analogy, let me make the Pyramids of Egypt analogy, what difference does it make if I made a THEORY that it was formed by series of earthquake and tornado in 1000 yrs? How is that any different from your THEORY of the existence of life? BECAUSE IT DOESNT HAVE EVIDENCE??

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

We know this via observation of humans creating such things.

We do not have such observations of another being creating life, in fact such observations seem to be absent. Making your inference at this point unwarranted and your reasoning backwards. As you are starting with the conclusion instead of the raw data on the matter.


Just because we havent observed something, does it mean its a myth? SO BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN THE CHANCE TO OBSERVE BLACKHOLE 200 YEARS AGO, THEN BLACKHOLES WERE MYTHS? THEN IT BECAME REAL WHEN WE BEGAN TO OBSERVE IT??

Answer to me, if we have not observed something, then it means its a myth? AND IF U OBSERVED EVERYTHING, AND FAILED TO EXPLAIN IT, SHOULD THAT THEN BE LINKED TO SUPERNATURAL? (You seem like a little amateur..:) )

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Who said it was chance?

Ohh man, I just love it when people are in denial...Its just a sign they losed the argument....

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Again false anaology. Life is very different then a computer.

You obviously are in big denial now, blocking your senses and refusing to understand my points...

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Basically your reasoning goes like this: If computers are created, life is created. Non sequitur.

No, I said computers are caused by intelligence, and life is also caused by intelligence...BIOLOGICAL LIFE ARE CAUSES OF INTELLIGENT CAUSE. CELLS HAVE "NUCLEUS (DNA;PROGRAM)". WE ARE A CHAIN OF INTELLIGENT CAUSE, JUST LIKE A COMPUTER. thats a fact, and your obviously in denial NOW....

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

We know computers are created because we know humans make such things beforehand via observation.

Yes I know that, likewise we know that biological existence are also the effects of intelligent cause.....

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

We have no such observations on which to infer life is created. Your anaology is thus weak because it misses a crucial element, and instead just assumes it is there. Basically all you are saying is "If some things are created...all things are created."

You losed the argument..SO OBVIOUS ALREADY. Because we havent observed it, it doesnt necessarily mean it dont exist, and however we have observed that biological existence are a chain of intelligent causes, AGAIN THATS A FACT.... (((Patting my own back saying 'another one bites the dust..")))..

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

With smaller steps you increase probability.

Earlier you denied the claim of chance, now your saying "Probability increases", YOU MORON, a possibility is chance...

A claim of chance need a proof of its possibility, therefore, prove it. I never claimed biological life are chance, I claimed its an effect of intelligent causes..

You are confused, self-contradictory, and in denial, DEFINITELY LOSED THE ARGUMENT, NO DOUBT..

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Example: All dogs for examples come from woleves. Now let me ask you Muscles, what is more likely to work, slowly breeding dogs and selecting them generation after generation until I get a poodle...or trying to breed two wolves and get a poodle right off the bat? The former works better because a smaller step in the right direction, is more likely to get results then a big leap forward.

Stupid, I already agreed with evolution, that things evolve, but my claim is that their EXISTENCE are effects of intelligent cause, while u claim their existence are "possibility" that nature does it by luck, in other words "chance", but your in denial.....

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Never said life came by chance. That's a straw man muscles.

IN DENIAL AGAIN.......

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Perfectly in comparison to what? Also if it's so perfect how come there isn't more life? Why could no other imaginable particle work? Also seeing as most energy consumed by life is wasted and life doesn't tend to last too long: I'd have to say performance is less then perfect.

YOUR LOOSING IT....


Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Never said it was luck. More like something I call "causality.".

Hey kid, when you say the word "Probability increases" your saying "Possibility increses" thats another word for "chance". And chance is also another word for "luck", but u dont like to use that word.......SO AGAIN YOUR IN DENIAL, AND THE ONLY REAL LOSER HERE IS YOU...

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

True and you are doing just that. But instead of using magic luck, you bring in a magic God.

Magic God? LOL, thats fine, you remind me of neanderthals and cavemans thousands of years ago when they see "fire", they then say "it was the gods that did it!"...

Your so ignorant that you call God, "magic"...Your not worth the debate child.......

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Never said you were. But there's no reason why you can't show me God doing it. I mean, if you want to have an man who studies abiogenesis do it, then you have to be willing to put something on the table as well. Aree you saying God "just stops" or "refuses" well how conveniant for you.....conveniant and dubious. And with a bit of a double standard.

Convinient or not, face it. Im not God. So sorry, I cant perform creation of life for you, so dont ask kid......

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

So basically you don't have an answer. Never asked you if you were God bud, just asked if you can show me God making life. If you can't then quite presuming He does at all.

Again Im not God and I cant boss God around telling Him what to do, especially doing it for u..FACE IT, YOUR LOOSING YOUR MIND, YOU DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT NOW....

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist


So God is incapable? There's something God simply cannot do no matter how badly He wishes to? Well then God's not really so Almighty then is he?

Click on the thread below, and Ill debate with u there. Ask any question cooncerning it. Ill debunk it, guaranteed....
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13327

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

If you are going to now say "well only complex, physical things need to be created" by your reasoning then God appeared by chance. Also, why would God be an exception..."because he's spiritual" question begging. "Because the spiritual and physical are different" means "because the spritual is spiritual and physical is physical" which is again begging the question.

Your loosing it, scientifically speaking energies cannot be destroyed, its eternal.. And just because the stopped energy (which we label as "physical") can crumble down and perish, it doesnt necessarily mean that sub-atomic particles and "pure energy" can also crumble down and perish.

YOU LOSED THE ARGUMENT BUD...SORRY......


Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

By definition it does. But that doesn't necessarily tell us what the cause was. In the past for example people believed the cause of illness to be bad air.

People linked to "magic" or "sorcery" or "the gods" if they cant understand things, kinda like you who said earlieer "magic God"...LOL...

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

Lastly you simply then dismiss the question of "who created God" for no solid reason. Basically with an "I don't know" and "the question only applies to what I say it applies to" without giving a reason other then question begging. i.e. the spiritual cannot be explained because it's spiritual. To promote this principle, then revoke it for such a poor reason is somewhat inconsistent.

This comment of yours I can use against you as well. Now why dont u tell me where did amonia, methane, hydrogen, sub-atomic particles, etc. came from? LUCK? LOL.....

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist

But then again you say something is either created, or appears by chance. So then God was either created or appeared by chance. Since chance is so unlikely that then means God was created by a more complex being leading to infinite regress. Which is in many ways now just as unreasonable as pure chance. (Saying "I don't/cannot understand God" does not alter this fact, as their are no other possiblities in your scheme of things making the exact creator irrelevant i.e. I do not have understand God to realize, using your principles, God was created.)

No, INTELLIGENT CAUSE (EVEN IF ITS INFINITE) IS MORE REASONABLE THAN AN "INFINITE LUCK"..FACT HERE IS INTELLIGENT CAUSE IS PROVEN...INFINITE LUCK IS FAR MORE UNREASONABLE...YOUR LOOSING YOUR HEAD KID..

I didnt bother responding to the rest of your post because its full of DENIAL.......I cant argue with you anymore, because you just deny everything else..


BYE.......

[muscleman]

Originally posted by Doctor X
Excellent!

I do not think I need underscore the irrelevant argumentum ad hominem. Thus:



This would then lead to a few important questions:

1. Is the soul, then, located to the area in the brain stem that is damaged?

2. If it is not, then where is it located and what does it do for, unfortunately sometimes, decades?

--J.D.

This is the last time Ill respond to this soul debate, if u still cant understand it, then I cant help you anymore..

A soul is simply a reflection of life (the pure energy (spirit; soul) behind the stopped energy which we call "physical".).

Our body, (physical) is just a result of pure energy (soul;spirit). "Spirit" is the same as "soul", except Spirits are entities of God or "evil", while as "soul" is our own entity.

We form our soul through our physical being. When our physical ebing is harmed in any way, it just prevents it from "FORMING" the soul. The formation of soul "OUR SECOND CONSCIOUSNESS" is called a "conscience"...

A conscience is formed by the church. But unfortunately the world can also form your conscience. "THE MIND IS THE SEAT OF WISDOM".. For instance, a devout priest may feel guilty cursing his mother, while a streethood rat feels guilty not cursing his mother.

Its just a perception of how we are brought out in life, but the master of virtues is christianity, THE TRUE FORMATION OF OUR CONSCIENCE, OF HOW WE SHOULD BE... (reality check, we have all the virtues and beaititudes other religions simply lack of.)

Now if u are unable to form your conscience (SOUL, SECOND CONSCIOUSNESS.) because u were in coma, cant think, etc. It doesnt "remove" it, or it doesnt mean your just a "blob of tissue" or "not living". It just means u are unable to form it..

Is your soul going to hell? or heaven? I dont know, Im not the judge, but God is justice......He'll judge you according to what u deserve, what u did when you were capable of forming your conscience, I dont know....


- peace......

[Akots]

I'm not sure exactly who i'm adressing it to, but I need to say it...

I find it sickeningly offencive that one might consider a soul to have any corporeal properties. The parts of your body were either the food your mother ate while bearing you in her womb, or thefood you consumed after your birth. The idea that this lattice of physical matter, however wondrous in desing and function, could limit the soul's progress, assumes (erroniously) that the end all and be all of ourselves is the atoms we are made of, and not the feelings we have, or emotions we suffer, or thoughts we hold dear.

Regardless of wether you believe in a soul or not, a person with less of a body is NEVER less of a person. Less useful, functional, concious, yes. But not less of a person.

[MRC_Hans]

This is the last time Ill respond to this soul debate, if u still cant understand it, then I cant help you anymore..

Promises, promises :rolleyes:

Hans

[Yahzi]

Musclesatrophiedfromlackofuse
Hahaha, moron! I found some blank spots on my /ignore list!

Goodbye and good riddance!

[thaiboxerken]

Who told you that cults are an exclusive for religions? Your leader? Keep on beleiving him.

I don't have a leader, so please don't assign me one.


Or learn a little more, if you can.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14066&pagenumber=1

All this shows is you losing a debate, what am I supposed to learn besides the fact that you don't know what you are talking about?


Or repeat this quote (the time you can resist):
." I believe in the work James Randi is doing and I believe that he is one of the great men of our age."

I do agree that James Randi is doing great work and is one of the great men of our age, I also have the same opinion of Colin Powell and Bill Gates. Which one is my leader?


Enjoy your cult and don't forget to buy something or to send your new donation.

LOL. The JREF is an organization that doesn't include me as a member, I just happen to post here and agree with many of the other skeptics on several points. For the JREF to be a cult, there has to be a code of behavior assigned by a leader. JREF has no such stringent controls over it's members. JREF is such an open organization that they even let trolls like you interact with us. Cults promote isolationism, they don't want their members interacting with people that disagree with them.

It seems you have no idea what a cult is, even though you are a cultist.

"Don't feed the trolls". Obey your leader and minister .

HA, I'm the Reverend here and I have no leaders. I like feeding trolls like you because it only shows how silly your beliefs are.

Thanks,
S&S

You are about as smug as a fool that shoots a grizzly bear with a pellet gun and starts to dance victory.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken


Who told you that cults are an exclusive for religions? Your leader? Keep on beleiving him.

I don't have a leader, so please don't assign me one.


Or learn a little more, if you can.
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=14066&pagenumber=1

All this shows is you losing a debate, what am I supposed to learn besides the fact that you don't know what you are talking about?


Or repeat this quote (the time you can resist):
." I believe in the work James Randi is doing and I believe that he is one of the great men of our age."

I do agree that James Randi is doing great work and is one of the great men of our age, I also have the same opinion of Colin Powell and Bill Gates. Which one is my leader?


Enjoy your cult and don't forget to buy something or to send your new donation.

LOL. The JREF is an organization that doesn't include me as a member, I just happen to post here and agree with many of the other skeptics on several points. For the JREF to be a cult, there has to be a code of behavior assigned by a leader. JREF has no such stringent controls over it's members. JREF is such an open organization that they even let trolls like you interact with us. Cults promote isolationism, they don't want their members interacting with people that disagree with them.

It seems you have no idea what a cult is, even though you are a cultist.

"Don't feed the trolls". Obey your leader and minister .

HA, I'm the Reverend here and I have no leaders. I like feeding trolls like you because it only shows how silly your beliefs are.

Thanks,
S&S

You are about as smug as a fool that shoots a grizzly bear with a pellet gun and starts to dance victory.

Do You remember this quote?
Yes you wrote this:
-------------------------------------------
Originally posted by thaiboxerken
It's funny how the cultists (theists) like to call atheism a cult or a religion.
-----------------------------------------------

So according to your reply the cultist are theist.
Which one of your leaders told you that?

You can be an atheist, a pseudo-skeptic , a martial artist,a true beleiver in skepticism, and you are still beleiving in your cult.
Just face the facts, fanatic .
You can even join the nazi cult or KKK, the war cult, the arms cult.

But you are better identified with this forum cult. True beleiver.

Thanks,
S&S

[Doctor X]

I am sure the expressively dysphasic feel frustration that no one understands them; however, at least they have a coherent intent behind the incoherent attempt.

Not so, unfortunately, our poor individual.

He was asked a question.

Apparently, he cannot answer it and this, surprise and Heavens to Betsy, distempers him to incontinence, perhaps even INCONTINENCE.

Thus:

This is the last time Ill respond to this soul debate, . . .

Since the individual failed to respond to the questions it appear the last has become the first.

. . . if u (sic) still cant (sic) understand it, then I cant (sic) help you anymore..(sic)

Should the individual provide a coherent response he will generate understanding. Flinging fallacy and unintelligible prose proves a most singular conception of "help."

A soul is simply a reflection of life (the pure energy (spirit; soul) behind the stopped energy which we call "physical".).

While an ipse dixit, I will consider it a premise.

Very good, then I return to my original question: whither the soul in the patient described?

Our body, (physical) is just a result of pure energy (soul;spirit). "Spirit" is the same as "soul", except Spirits are entities of God or "evil", while as "soul" is our own entity.

See above.

Perhaps if I use some of the more histrionic tactics . . . let me see . . . perchance:

I return to my original question, whither the soul in the patient described?

We form our soul through our physical being. When our physical ebing (sic) is harmed in any way, it just prevents it from "FORMING" the soul.

Thus, the unconscious have no soul since they cannot "form" it. This rather contradicts previous claims concerning souls unless this statement is, itself, false.

The formation of soul "OUR SECOND CONSCIOUSNESS" is called a "conscience"...

Only one consciousness exists--a state, actually. Nevertheless, I would welcome demonstration of the "First," sorry, "FIRST CONSCIOUSNESS;" however, since we still wait for the "proof" promised I must confess I rather doubt I shall receive it.

A conscience is formed by the church. Et cetera

All quite irrelevant to the question which, for the benefit of providing direction to the individual's attention, I shall repeat:

I return to my original question, whither the soul in the patient described?

Whilst all irrelevant, en passant I note:

. . . but the master of virtues is christianity (sic), . . .

I would find the Jn's conception that a good man can never enter the kingdom of Big Daddy because he is not "born from above"--anothen = "ano" "above" and -then which places ano in the ablative, hence "from" which rather compares well with Junior's insult to the Merry Band of Jews Who Follow and Get Pissy that they are ek kato ["From below"--Ed.] whilst he is ek ano ["From above."--Ed.]--rather a contradiction of the concept of virtues, not to mention mastery of the same.

I can only recommend that individuals who wish to cite the NT or any text, gain some familiarity with it and recent scholarship.


Right, apparently back to the topic:

Now if u (sic) are unable to form your conscience (SOUL, SECOND CONSCIOUSNESS.) because u (sic) were (sic) in (sic) coma, cant (sic) think, etc. (sic) It doesnt (sic) "remove" it, or it doesnt (sic) mean your just a "blob of tissue" or "not living". It just means u (sic) are unable to form it..

which again bringeth me to the question of where "it" went.

Is your soul going to hell? or heaven?

Whilst an implied ipse dixit [Not really.--Ed.] It attempts to develop a point based on an assertion without any evidence. [Get on with it.--Ed.] Right, whilst an implied whatever, it implies that said soul has the ability to travel.

Where does it go in the patient?

I dont (sic) know, Im (sic) not the judge, but God is justice......He'll judge you according to what u (sic) deserve, what u (sic) did when you were capable of forming your conscience, . . .

Since the individual has thus far FAILED [No shouting.--Ed.] to justify the child's pontine tumor, it appears his claim proves rather weak if not patently false.

To summarize, then, the individual must address the question:

whither the soul in the patient described?

or accept the yellow plumes. . . .

--J.D.

----
Is so, then I dare, challenge, and defy He, She, or It , or he she or it, to strike me blind, deaf and dumb immediately, and for good measure toss in smell and touch as well so I am in total isolation.
----


I'm sure one of those, or something related, will happen to you as you approach the end of your life.

Does god(s) cause that? I don't know.

Originally posted by Stimpson J. Cat
Whodini,
Maybe if you would stop exaggerating people's statements, and then throwing them back as blatant strawman attacks against atheism, people wouldn't think of you as an annoying troll.
Dr. Stupid


Stimpy,

Ken can stick up for himself. He said that muscleman should belong in an asylum, and has said that anyone who is a theist should. Fact: Ken doesn't have the psychiatry training to make any statement, and it is just his intolerant opinion.

So in short, Stimpy, you can go blabber against Scientologists as usual instead of being Ken's defender.

Originally posted by thaiboxerken

----
Yes, stimpy, that troll doesn't understand the dangers of musclehead's thinking patterns and posts. They are signs of an insane person that is a threat to society, he is the type of person that would perform violent deeds just to get people to believe in his god. He's also the type to try and force his beliefs on other's children.
----


Ken,

Can you share with us your training in psychiatry? Certainly you have some to make such a statement about mental health?

Or, maybe you are bs-ing us with your intolerant opinion?

Who knows. ;)

[I'll_buy_that]

Originally posted by muscleman


You are a cmplete moron.. Ignorant and stupid.....

AGAIN U MORON....

And again you moron...

......STUPID....

ok, I really can't believe this topic has gone on for more than 1 or two postings. muscleman, you do nothing more than to just call people names and type incessantly about nothing.

May i suggest that you get a job, and move out of your parent's attic/basement.

by the way, Chicken Noodle is always a classic. :)

[I'll_buy_that]

Musclehead said...
Just because we havent observed something, does it mean its a myth? SO BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN THE CHANCE TO OBSERVE BLACKHOLE 200 YEARS AGO, THEN BLACKHOLES WERE MYTHS? THEN IT BECAME REAL WHEN WE BEGAN TO OBSERVE IT??



Musclehead, black holes and scientific claims like them are theory based on observation. They remain theory until observed and proven. Not myths.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by muscleman


Satan is the Father of lies, and the master of confusion. What r u getting in return for the favor your doing 2 him? Temporary pecae? Temporary comfort? Temporary pleasure? Is it worthit?
Why Muscleman, how did you know it was me, Satan, all along? BOO! :D (j/k That sentence was referring to one of my Franko comics. Your irrational convictions aren't helping you at all, and calling people you don't like or understand "Satan" is the first step toward crimes in the name of the Lord. Do you really want to start a personal witch hunt?)

I disagree..The claim of chance need a proof of its possibility. How stupid of you. You really believe that its possible computer can be formed w/rocks carried by series of earthquake and tornado?
How dare you call theist delusional, speak for yourself..
I said it was possible, but I never said it was very probable. To assume that the possible is also highly probable lacks a great deal of intellectual integrity, which you appear to have done.

I certainly believe in the claim of chance if evidence is provided for its possibility. Thats why my family still plays lottery, because its claim of chance is proven...

And how many times have you won the lottery jackpot?

trying to waste my brain cells figuring this out doesnt help any arguments.. Explain this in another form..LOL
Well, better wasted brain cells than money, right? I'm sure your lottery investments have paid off quite well.


Ok, I admit you confused me. Happy now? Im sure Satan within you is rejoicing with this success...
Are these the kinds of accusations that sane people make?


Not always absurd, so you believe that series of tornado and earthquake can create computer..HAHAHAHAHA....
And u know what, its also possible that a series of lightning, earthquake have created the pyramids of egypt in 1000 yrs..Yup...YOU ARE DELUSIONAL........Thabnk God im a theist, and dont use "LUCK' as explanation for a computer, nature, or airplanes to exist.......
Once again, the number of unlikely posibillities is as limited as the human imagination. You never proved that it was impossible in your diatribe, you just wrote the word "impossible" in capital letters. Do you deny that God could assemble a computer using natural disasters as His tools?


Whatever the claim is, a claim is proven fake by lack of evidence... thats why toothfairies, and zeus etc. are all fake, by lack of evidence..And if you claim life exist by "LUCK", that too requires evidence, otherwise its disregarded....
You're making unfounded claims that I'm making unfounded claims. Amazing! And honestly, I don't know what luck really is, or if it even exists. But since you seem to know everything there is to know about luck, perhaps you could enlighten me.



You called my statement "absurd", YET IM NOT THE ONE WHO BELIEVES THAT ITS POSSIBLE THAT A COMPUTER CAN BE FORMED BY SERIES OF EARTHQUAKE AND LIGHTNING.......HAHAHAHAHA, so again whos delusional here?
Read your sentence again. Next time, think before you type.

Your defending this statement, BECAUSE IT IS ONE OF ATHEISM'S STRONGEST ARGUMENT, how pathetic. The other strongest argument from atheist is "Dont feed the trolls"........LOL :)
Actually, the strongest argument for atheism is that theism produces superstitious biggots who accuse people of being Satan as an excuse to go kill them.


Hey, yur entitled to your belief.
Then stop calling me an atheist.

LOL, its obvious that u believe its possible a computer can be formed by series of tornadoes, Im not surprised if your an atheist, BECAUSE YOUR COMPLETELY ABSURD...U reject logic, and embrace "LUCK".....:)[/b]
Do you have anything else to say? I tire of your repetitive drivel.


Speak for yourself..Claiming to be skeptic, yet cannot provide a single shred of evidence that God dont exist......Your self-contradictory....
Why do you say the inability to prove a negative makes skepticism impossible?


Because your blind.
And you're not? :rolleyes:

Nothing is proven then in this case......Prove to me King Henry exist.....(Oh is the topic about supernatural now? WELL BRING IT ON......)
Well, you could go visit his grave...

LOL, false accusation, I donot debunk science, I debunk atheism's BELIEF.. I am not the one who uses "LUCK" as an explanation for the universe, then say "I only acknowledge evidence" then say "I BELIEVE IN SCIENCE"..LOL, you are the self-contradictory...
At least I'm not the one calling people Satan...
Also, how can you debunk atheism's belief? There isn't any. You can't debunk something that isn't there.

What are the "INTELLIGENCE" of science that disproves "INTELLIGENT CAUSE" and proves "NATURE IS LUCK"???? LOL
Are you going to defend yourself or just be repetitive? A flawed statement repeated 1,000 times is no less flawed.


Prove to me evolution took place and Ill prove to you God created the world. Prove to me King Henry exist, and Ill prove to you God exist.....
You're asking me to prove a scientific theory. Do you know what a theory is? Do you even understand the basis of scientific thought?? Or did you just get upset by the stuff you didn't like because you'we so scawed to be wong, awwww?


I never said that science doesnt count, your PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH...I said "atheism's belief such as nature as "luck", etc." is illogic....
But you did say that, and I even added your quote to my signature.


A christian neurologist? Or a stupid neurologist? Oops, I mean an atheist neurologist?
Any neurologist will do. Just see a doctor who can find out where the brain damage is.


I certainly dont believe its possible for a computer to exist by series of tornado and earthquake..again I refuse to be stupid like you, there are audience...
If you see a doctor about this repetition problem, he might be able to get a psychiatrist or neurosurgeon to fix it.

LOL, I dont believe in invisible CIA agents causing car accidents, dont put words in my mouth..
And why is that?

Oh yeah, so you can prove to me God dont exist scientifically? Do u mean it?
When did I say I was going to prove that something did not exist? Hmmmm?


You called me insane, YET IM NOT THE ONE WHO BELIEVES ITS POSSIBLE GATEWAY CAN BE FORMED BY SERIES OF TORNADO..Dude, just because Gateway isnt a very good computer, it doesnt mean series of tornado can form just like it..WAKE UP delusional guy...hahahahha..:D :D :D
I could recommend someone, you know.

[DialecticMaterialist]

I didnt brought out "supernatural" being the sole responsible for the computer, but using the same method of "chance" your claiming for the existence of life form, I can use that as well for the claim of the existence of the Pyramids of Egypt (forget the computer then..).

Again read my points: I never adopted the idea of chance to explain anything complex. Darwinian selection and natural processes are not chance.

As for the Pyramid: we know via observations of modern archeology and comparison of that to "natural" entities that we observe. Hence you cannot use my reasoning to say the Pyramids came by chance, as we have a better explanation :Egyptions based on the background knowledge that humans make structures.



A sign you FLAT OUT LOST the argument, because now your acting all dumb. Face it, I was just using that as ananlogy, and if u dont like the computer analogy, let me make the Pyramids of Egypt analogy, what difference does it make if I made a THEORY that it was formed by series of earthquake and tornado in 1000 yrs?

Did I do that?


How is that any different from your THEORY of the existence of life? BECAUSE IT DOESNT HAVE EVIDENCE??

Yeah. Having evidence does change quite a bit.

Just because we havent observed something, does it mean its a myth?

Depends. Most of the times it likely means this.


SO BECAUSE WE HAVE NOT BEEN GIVEN THE CHANCE TO OBSERVE BLACKHOLE 200 YEARS AGO, THEN BLACKHOLES WERE MYTHS? THEN IT BECAME REAL WHEN WE BEGAN TO OBSERVE IT??

Nope. Evidence though it is the best guide we have can lead one astray. But likewise 200 years ago we did not observe vampires,werewolves,leprochauns,fire spirits,bad air,elves,faries and santa claus. And those things are myths. Evidence is the best tool we have not because it makes one omniscient, but because it allows us to do the best we can with what we know and correct our mistakes as we go. Otherwise we are just making stuff up.

Answer to me, if we have not observed something, then it means its a myth?


If it deals with history: yes. Usually. Very likely.

AND IF U OBSERVED EVERYTHING, AND FAILED TO EXPLAIN IT, SHOULD THAT THEN BE LINKED TO SUPERNATURAL? (You seem like a little amateur.. )

Why would it? Non seq.




Ohh man, I just love it when people are in denial...Its just a sign they losed the argument....

I've never said it was chance.....I'm a determinist pal. Have been for a while.





You obviously are in big denial now, blocking your senses and refusing to understand my points...

And you are failing to adress my points.

I'm sorry to say now that even if I am in denial I cannot hold a candle to you.




No, I said computers are caused by intelligence, and life is also caused by intelligence...

Oh okay. So now we go from non sequitur to question begging.


BIOLOGICAL LIFE ARE CAUSES OF INTELLIGENT CAUSE. CELLS HAVE "NUCLEUS (DNA;PROGRAM)". WE ARE A CHAIN OF INTELLIGENT CAUSE, JUST LIKE A COMPUTER. thats a fact, and your obviously in denial NOW....

So "life is created because life is created." What proof.




Yes I know that, likewise we know that biological existence are also the effects of intelligent cause.....

No actually that is what you are trying to prove.


You losed the argument..SO OBVIOUS ALREADY. Because we havent observed it, it doesnt necessarily mean it dont exist,

Yes but that doesn't mean it does either. (Never mind this has nothing to do with my point on the matter of your failed analogy.)
In any event that can make a claim superfluous.


and however we have observed that biological existence are a chain of intelligent causes, AGAIN THATS A FACT.... (((Patting my own back saying 'another one bites the dust..")))..

Wow. Impressive. Looks like I "losed" the debate. lol.


Earlier you denied the claim of chance, now your saying "Probability increases", YOU MORON, a possibility is chance...

Ok you are obviously incapable of assuming the obvious so I'll spell out what I mean by probability: complex factors that we cannot with our limited knowledge predict. What I mean is that given more repititions, more agents will come closer to the set goal. I am not reffering to some sort of metaphysical randmomness.

A claim of chance need a proof of its possibility, therefore, prove it. I never claimed biological life are chance, I claimed its an effect of intelligent causes..

Never said it was chance either or what you mean: a leap from simple to complex chemicals. I am saying its possible for less advanced chemicals to become more advanced chemicals and so on, many,many times till you get modern bacteria and such. That scenerio is entirely plausible.

You are confused, self-contradictory, and in denial, DEFINITELY LOSED THE ARGUMENT, NO DOUBT..

Losed the argument? Sorry but I have my doubts.


Stupid, I already agreed with evolution, that things evolve, but my claim is that their EXISTENCE are effects of intelligent cause, while u claim their existence are "possibility" that nature does it by luck, in other words "chance", but your in denial.....

:rolleyes: Missed the point. My point was to show how small steps can make what would be impossible via a large, instantanious leap, plausible. My point was concerning abiogenesis not evolution, though it applies to both.



IN DENIAL AGAIN.......

Nice refutation.....




YOUR LOOSING IT....

Losing what?.....it?






Hey kid, when you say the word "Probability increases" your saying "Possibility increses" thats another word for "chance".


Nope. I'm saying you take a given population and a goal, and you get more of what is aimed at.

And chance is also another word for "luck", but u dont like to use that word.......SO AGAIN YOUR IN DENIAL, AND THE ONLY REAL LOSER HERE IS YOU...

Fallacy of equivocation.


Magic God? LOL, thats fine, you remind me of neanderthals and cavemans thousands of years ago when they see "fire", they then say "it was the gods that did it!"...


What a coincidence......

Your so ignorant that you call God, "magic"...Your not worth the debate child.......

Okay chico. So why are you debating with me? You like debating with children?

Convinient or not, face it. Im not God. So sorry, I cant perform creation of life for you, so dont ask kid......

Since when did you have to be God to pull this off?


Again Im not God and I cant boss God around telling Him what to do, especially doing it for u..FACE IT, YOUR LOOSING YOUR MIND, YOU DONT EVEN KNOW WHAT YOUR TALKING ABOUT NOW....

Okay dood seriously look at how you write. All caps? That means yelling. Who yells during an argument? Nuts, looneys,crazies, or the immature. So yelling "YOUR CRAZY" over and over again is just harming you more then anything.

Secondly, why would you need to boss God around to pull this off? God has done it what? Millions, perhaps even billions of times. Why all of a sudden stop? Sounds kinda fishy.




Click on the thread below, and Ill debate with u there. Ask any question cooncerning it. Ill debunk it, guaranteed....
http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/show...&threadid=13327

Why can't you debunk it now? You going to simply revise what you mean by omnipotent?




Your loosing it, scientifically speaking energies cannot be destroyed, its eternal..

Or created.....which you say God does.


And just because the stopped energy (which we label as "physical") can crumble down and perish, it doesnt necessarily mean that sub-atomic particles and "pure energy" can also crumble down and perish.

YOU LOSED THE ARGUMENT BUD...SORRY......

Bwahahahaha. Please stop, my cheeks are hurting.

People linked to "magic" or "sorcery" or "the gods" if they cant understand things, kinda like you who said earlieer "magic God"...LOL...


Yeah like your Magic God. You couldn;t be doing a better job of slitting your own throat here if you handed a psychopath a knife and strtetched it out.



This comment of yours I can use against you as well.

Obviously we differ in the interpretation of events here.


Now why dont u tell me where did amonia, methane, hydrogen, sub-atomic particles, etc. came from? LUCK? LOL.....

You said it, matter cannot be created or destroyed.






No, INTELLIGENT CAUSE (EVEN IF ITS INFINITE) IS MORE REASONABLE THAN AN "INFINITE LUCK"..FACT HERE IS INTELLIGENT CAUSE IS PROVEN...INFINITE LUCK IS FAR MORE UNREASONABLE...YOUR LOOSING YOUR HEAD KID..

But is infinite cause proven? Is infinite cause really so much more probable then infinite luck?

I didnt bother responding to the rest of your post because its full of DENIAL.......I cant argue with you anymore, because you just deny everything else..

Actually you are in denial. You have abandoned reason and evidence for the sake of a superstition, fear and what appears to a mild form of madness.

Chou.

[c4ts]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by c4ts

[b]
- The analogy is impossible because it is incomplete. So far it is "artifice is to natural causes (chance) as ________ is to artificial causes (intelligent design)"
- The reductio, therefore, is incomplete, since "_______ is to artificial causes as artifice is to natural causes, but artifice is to artificial causes, therefore it is absurd," because "nature" would complete the analogy but not the reductio.
"Nature is to artificial causes (intelligent design) as artifice is to natural causes (chance)" actually makes sense, since chance and nature are one set, artifice and intelligent design are the other set (A:B as B:A). Instead a reductio is applied to where the analogy should be completed, as though the analogy was meant to be "artifice is to natural causes as artifice is to artificial causes." But if it were completed that way, then there would be no reason to put forward such an analogy in the first place since it doesn't prove anything.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------



trying to waste my brain cells figuring this out doesnt help any arguments.. Explain this in another form..LOL

OK, I'll explain it to you step by step, but I will need your participation. Just answer my questions. First, what is chance?

Originally posted by Yahzi


----
The fact remains that Xians do not expect to go to heaven, no matter how much they claim to believe in heaven.
----


"Fact" remains? It is your opinion! LOL.

Because a study revealed that Christians wear seat belts more than atheists or whatever, that doesn't mean that one can conclude what you do.

Perhaps we can conclude that Christians also value this life more?

Just because someone expects to go to heaven where there is eternal life, etc., doesn't mean they don't value this life also.

[Galadriel]

God needs better PR people. Particularly ones who can spell and stay away from the caps key. He's not gaining a lot of credibility through the jabronis he's got working for him now.

[JANman]

this has been the most hilarious tread in a long time,thank you
"muscleman".
you might want to lay off Steroids though,(great for muscle buildup,but disturbing side effects)
such as anger and mental confusion you project,its depresing.

why are you so concerned about atheists going to hell anyway?
if god created us this way we realy have no choice,do we?
he put the tree of knowledge in the garden,so its HIS fault,
b/c he is all knowing,he knew what will happen,
dont you think?

btw if transendent/invisible god created man in his image,how come we are not invisible also?:rolleyes:

[c4ts]

Originally posted by muscleman
Therefore the force or energy in which gives rock its life...

Describe the effects of this energy as you observe them in a rock. Explain why the rock has life. To a psychologist.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by c4ts


OK, I'll explain it to you step by step, but I will need your participation. Just answer my questions. First, what is chance?

chance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chns)
n.

The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause.

A force assumed to cause events that cannot be foreseen or controlled; luck: Chance will determine the outcome.

The likelihood of something happening; possibility or probability. Often used in the plural: Chances are good that you will win. Is there any chance of rain?

An accidental or unpredictable event.

A favorable set of circumstances; an opportunity: a chance to escape.

A risk or hazard; a gamble: took a chance that the ice would hold me.
Games. A raffle or lottery ticket.

Baseball. An opportunity to make a putout or an assist that counts as an error if unsuccessful.

GOT THAT? CHANCE IS "LUCK". "ACCIDENTAL". "OPPORTUNITY", "POSSIBILITY", "PROBABILITY"... YOUR ATHEIST BROTHER "DIABETICMATERIALIST" IS AN IDIOT IN COMPLETE DENIAL...SERIOUSLY, IF YUR JUST GOING TO BE LIKE HIM AND DENY "FACTS", YOUR NOT GOING TO GO ANYWHERE, I REFUSE TO DEBATE WITH MORONS LIKE THAT.....

A CLAIM OF "CHANCE" NEED A PROOF OF ITS POSSIBILITY, OTHERWISE ANYTHING MAY BE REASONED WITH "CHANCE"....PERIOD..

note: I use caps because I dont know how to darken the words or underline it....

[MRC_Hans]

note: I use caps because I dont know how to darken the words or underline it....

Just above the window where you enter text are buttons for it all, but they dont always work well. Much better (although a little cumbersome) to use codes:

Bold letters: Bold letters[/b ]

Italics: [i]Italics[/i ]

Underline: [u]Underline[/u ]

So all codes start with [code ] and end with [/code ]. Normally the codes dont show, but in the above I have entered a surplus space them to make them visible.

You can [b]combine codes almost freely.

A hint: When you see a post with a set-up you'd like to use, click the edit button (lower right). In the edit window, the codes will be visible. You cant edit other people's posts, but you can cut and paste from them.

Caps are easy to use, but they are considered rude (like shouting), and all caps text is difficult to read.

Hans

[c4ts]

Originally posted by muscleman


chance ( P ) Pronunciation Key (chns)
n.

The unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause.

A force assumed to cause events that cannot be foreseen or controlled; luck: Chance will determine the outcome.

The likelihood of something happening; possibility or probability. Often used in the plural: Chances are good that you will win. Is there any chance of rain?

An accidental or unpredictable event.

A favorable set of circumstances; an opportunity: a chance to escape.

A risk or hazard; a gamble: took a chance that the ice would hold me.
Games. A raffle or lottery ticket.

Baseball. An opportunity to make a putout or an assist that counts as an error if unsuccessful.

GOT THAT? CHANCE IS "LUCK". "ACCIDENTAL". "OPPORTUNITY", "POSSIBILITY", "PROBABILITY"... YOUR ATHEIST BROTHER "DIABETICMATERIALIST" IS AN IDIOT IN COMPLETE DENIAL...SERIOUSLY, IF YUR JUST GOING TO BE LIKE HIM AND DENY "FACTS", YOUR NOT GOING TO GO ANYWHERE, I REFUSE TO DEBATE WITH MORONS LIKE THAT.....

A CLAIM OF "CHANCE" NEED A PROOF OF ITS POSSIBILITY, OTHERWISE ANYTHING MAY BE REASONED WITH "CHANCE"....PERIOD..

note: I use caps because I dont know how to darken the words or underline it....

Okay, let's work with the first part before we get to the rest. By attributing something to chance, that is, you attribute it to "the unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause" because you do not understand it and therefore are incapable of predicting it, why does that make the event an impossibility?

[Doctor X]

Noting that the individual has fled from the question, instructs Seed to send him the yellow feathers. . . .

--J.D.

[J3K]

This is pretty pathetic. All of this argueing, and from the get go, there has been no true evidence to prove god. Just unknowns that science hasn't figured out yet. But I do love the person who commented on how if "chance" is SO highly unlikely, then that must mean god had a creator as well. I mean damn, for an all powerful creator to create life(us) with so many flaws and possibilities for death. That must have been one damn good all powerful creator(a SUPER DUPER ALL POWERFUL CREATOR perhaps) to have created god. Most if not all of the "evidence" to prove god has been based off of that simple fact "chance" is too improbable to have happened. But I guess that would explain why 99.9999999%(just a guess, but im sure its close) of the universe DOESN'T have life. But in the end, there is no solid proof, for god existing, and for god not existing. So either find the proof that proves one or the other and all of this worthless argueing can end. I am fairly sure that most of the atheists or agnostics(spelling?) would become theist if solid proof was given for god. I would. The ones who didnt would simply be ignorant. And also(I am not as sure about this) but most religious people would(at least should) stop believing in a god if solid proof was given that he doesn't exist. That proof has not been found yet, so for right now, what we all believe IS JUST THAT, a belief. If there is solid proof of god ever given, you wont belief in god anymore, you will KNOW god exists and you will follow his rules. It is also the same if solid proof against god's existance comes about. But for right now, just let people believe what they want, and stop forcing what you believe down peoples throats(this really goes towards people like muscleman who continue right and left to call names and tell one who believes different from them that they are ignorant.) Lets leave this place for debate, not 2nd grade arguements.

[Hazelip]

J3K, the paragraph can be your friend. :rolleyes:

Claims of the super-nature have the burden of proof. It is not a two-way street here.

As far as everyone being entitled to believe as he or she wants, I'm quickly coming to the realization that such a sentiment is complete horse ****. The 9/11 attacks were a faith-based initiative. The Crusades, biblical justifications for slavery, the "mark of Cain" was to be born black, etc. Belief, especially strident and fundamental belief, in the super-nature and that which has no basis in evidence is a dangerous thing.

[J3K]

well when ones beliefs are turned into horse ****, like the slavery thing, 9/11 thing ect. they are wrong. And sorry, I didnt throw in, as long as your beliefs do not harm others. Because people believing what they want works fine in most cases, but for the ******** out there, you have to throw in, as long as it doesn't harm others. And please nobody get technical with me to situations when one's belief would harm someone, there are situations when this would be fine. I am speaking in general.

[Yahzi]

as long as your beliefs do not harm others
How can one's beliefs fail to harm others, when they are based on irrationallity and unreality?

Our only protection against error is truth, or at least the pursuit of it.

[J3K]

For the irrational. I would say the religious peopple that kill because of their religion. But for other religions, how does it harm you that you believe this and someone else believes that? Let people believe what they want. The exceptions to this have already been discussed. We all know a lot of people believe stuff that is simply ********, but you also know, you can't change their minds either. Show them truth, if they object too it with ********, let them live with their ignorance, and go on with your life.

[KillerBob]

I really don't feel like reading all of this.

Can someone just tell me if muscle's gotten around to the "challenge" yet or any of the alleged proof?

Thanks.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by J3K
For the irrational. I would say the religious peopple that kill because of their religion. But for other religions, how does it harm you that you believe this and someone else believes that? Let people believe what they want. The exceptions to this have already been discussed. We all know a lot of people believe stuff that is simply ********, but you also know, you can't change their minds either. Show them truth, if they object too it with ********, let them live with their ignorance, and go on with your life.

Religion sometimes teaches people to rely on what is convincing, rather than what they know. That's harmless, but when someone can't seperate morality from their own religion, and are convinced by the strength of their own convictions, then you have a serious problem because he or she will act on those convictions. If you completely integrate your religion into politics, one person like that can create a whole nation of problems.

[J3K]

You all have made your points. I guess my beliefs aren't the best.(lol of course) But they work for me, Nothing that I believe will allow me to hurt someone else. And when it comes down to everybody I know, letting people believe what they want is fine. I do see there are situations where that just won't work as well though.

[Dub]

Originally posted by J3K
well when ones beliefs are turned into horse ****, like the slavery thing, 9/11 thing ect. they are wrong. And sorry, I didnt throw in, as long as your beliefs do not harm others. Because people believing what they want works fine in most cases, but for the ******** out there, you have to throw in, as long as it doesn't harm others. And please nobody get technical with me to situations when one's belief would harm someone, there are situations when this would be fine. I am speaking in general.

Most religious people arent believing in what they want, they believe in what they are told to believe, usually from such a young age they cant question what they are being taught. All irratinal beliefs are potentialy harmful as they prevent truth.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by J3K
For the irrational. I would say the religious peopple that kill because of their religion. But for other religions, how does it harm you that you believe this and someone else believes that?

Because they will try to pass these beliefs off as knowledge and truth. This only serves to retard the progress of mankind.

[J3K]

All of this is true. I just think that after the rational thinkers have tried a few times to show the irrational religious people where their beliefs are flaw, and they still don't listen, you are stuck with letting them believe what they want, no matter how stupid it is, chances are, you wont change their mind.

[thaiboxerken]

I don't agree. By voicing the absurdities of religion, there are people that see how silly it is. I was raised christian, but after discussions like this, I realized how silly the idea of god is.

[Stimpson J. Cat]

Whodini,

Whodini,
Maybe if you would stop exaggerating people's statements, and then throwing them back as blatant strawman attacks against atheism, people wouldn't think of you as an annoying troll.
Dr. Stupid
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Stimpy,

Ken can stick up for himself.

I wasn't defending Ken. I was pointing out this very annoying pattern of yours to take any statement made by an atheist, and try to twist it into something it is not.

He said that muscleman should belong in an asylum, and has said that anyone who is a theist should.

If muscleman is really being sincere (which I seriously doubt), then he needs help. I wouldn't go so far as to say he should be locked up, but he is definitely a danger to himself and others. I also don't recall Ken ever saying that all theists should be locked up. If he did, then I of course disagree. But that has nothing at all to do with the statement I made above.

Fact: Ken doesn't have the psychiatry training to make any statement, and it is just his intolerant opinion.

You don't have to be a Physicist to know that momentum is proportional to velocity, and you don't need to be a Psychologist to know that people who sincerely believe the things Muscleman has been claiming to believe, are severely deluded.

So in short, Stimpy, you can go blabber against Scientologists as usual instead of being Ken's defender.

What are you talking about? I am not even involved in the Scientology discussion.

Dr. Stupid

[Franko]

Most religious people arent believing in what they want, they believe in what they are told to believe, usually from such a young age they cant question what they are being taught. All irratinal beliefs are potentialy harmful as they prevent truth.

And you are CERTAIN that this isn't also True of A-Theism?

You better pray real hard that you really do have magic "free willy" powers and that there really is no "god".

Hypocrisy and Hubris are two of the worse sins an individual can commit.

[Franko]

Because they will try to pass these beliefs off as knowledge and truth. This only serves to retard the progress of mankind.

Funny because 90+% of the world's population seems to think this is True about A-Theism.

[DialecticMaterialist]

Really? China and other communist nations are atheists. So are Buddhists(technically) and some taoists. China alone makes it less then 90 percent of the world anti-atheist.

[Dub]

Originally posted by Franko


Funny because 90+% of the world's population seems to think this is True about A-Theism.

Even if 100% of the population believed in something it still doesnt make it true.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Really? China and other communist nations are atheists. So are Buddhists(technically) and some taoists. China alone makes it less then 90 percent of the world anti-atheist.

Impressive. This would mean that somewhere about 20% of the world population is atheist right? While this may be open to debate, it does put a rather nasty 10% crimp on Franko's figures, and I doubt that this is very far off.

Look at Nazi Germany, which towards the end enacted many policies that could be considered atheist. While what happened under Adolph Hitler was repugnant in the extreme, the technology of the late 1930's doesn't hold a candle to the technology of the early 1950's. Germany was cheifly responsible for the advances in liquid propelled rockets (moon landings anyone?), Jet engines (ok, a little of britain there too, but mostly germany), guided missles, and land vehicle technology. Atheism holding back progress eh?

Stimpson J. Cat wrote:


----
I wasn't defending Ken. I was pointing out this very annoying pattern of yours to take any statement made by an atheist, and try to twist it into something it is not.
----


It is just like an atheist to say that. ;) ;) ;)


----
You don't have to be a Physicist to know that momentum is proportional to velocity, and you don't need to be a Psychologist to know that people who sincerely believe the things Muscleman has been claiming to believe, are severely deluded.
----


We aren't talking about physics, we are talking about someone's mental state. Only competent professional can make their qualified decision.


----
What are you talking about? I am not even involved in the Scientology discussion.
----


Not on this board anyway.

----
Atheism holding back progress eh?
----


Rockets, jet engines, and guided missles? I'd say that those things definitely hold back progress.

[neutrino_cannon]

How about light bulbs? Thomas Edison seems to have been a skeptic atheist. http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/james_haught/breaking.html

Couldn't find a better one.

And, yes, millitary technology is designed to kill people, but it often leads to huge advances in other fields. Look at microwaves, example of a hugely advanced concept in many homes. Derivd from radar, which was originaly intended as a "death ray" and was used ultimatly to detect people for the explicit purpose of killing them (who, incidentaly were trying to kill people as well).

----
Look at microwaves, example of a hugely advanced concept in many homes.
----


So warming up a burrito is more important than the lives war technology has completely distroyed?

I guess I don't understand. :(

[neutrino_cannon]

It is an example of A-theist technology being redeemed for new and better purposes. War technology is never used for "good" ends. It's offshoots are, because war doesn't pay. Although it would seem that greed is the motivation here, warming up a burrito is far better than tracking the 40 mm bofers cannon correct? They do come from the same source though, it's a matter of implementation, which is partialy why one can never fully recompense for the damage the other caused.

Furthermore, the benefits of technologies stemmed from war devices fully outweigh the sadness that was brought about. I, for one, am a fan of antibiotics. DDT is great if you've got a lot of malaria to deal with, and malaria has killed more people than people could ever kill. I'll keep my A-theist technologies thank you, especialy my light bulbs.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon
It's offshoots are, because war doesn't pay.

Provided that you lose the war, that is...

----
Furthermore, the benefits of technologies stemmed from war devices fully outweigh the sadness that was brought about.
----


That is up for debate.


I'd probably say it is about equal.

[Kimpatsu]

Oh, boy. Not another one. Muscleman doesn't know what evolution is. Evolution is NOT a "theory of chance". Random mutation is chance, but it is NOT the driving force behind evolution. Natural selection is. I suggest Muscleman read Climbing Mount Improbable (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393039307/qid=1045812963/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-5423854-9163933?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Richard Dawkins to understand that not only is no god necessary for evolution, but given the existence of evolution, no god is even likely.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu
Oh, boy. Not another one. Muscleman doesn't know what evolution is. Evolution is NOT a "theory of chance". Random mutation is chance, but it is NOT the driving force behind evolution. Natural selection is. I suggest Muscleman read Climbing Mount Improbable (http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0393039307/qid=1045812963/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_1/104-5423854-9163933?v=glance&s=books&n=507846) by Richard Dawkins to understand that not only is no god necessary for evolution, but given the existence of evolution, no god is even likely.

Somehow I doubt Muscleman will even bother with it. He's satisfied with knowing exactly what to say given an exact situation, and he's got a lot of bible quotes at his disposal. Think of him as one of those tic-tac-toe playing chickens. He knows where to move in response to something, and he gets treats when he wins, regardless of any understanding of what tic-tac-toe actually is. All he sees is that an X in a box means to peck at a specific point, and to peck somewhere else if he sees an O.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Originally posted by Franko
Hypocrisy and Hubris are two of the worse sins an individual can commit.

Not true.

There are no sins so one cannot commit something that does not exist.

[Filippo Lippi]

Originally posted by muscleman


You are a cmplete moron.. Ignorant and stupid..SHOW ME ANY

....
Afraid to talk about it to a priest? LOL. Yes, and they appointed me to be a core leader for teen ministries, thats how afraid I am to talk to htem...

AGAIN U MORON....

...

And again you moron.

...

UNLIKE HUMANS WHO HAVE THAT GIFT......STUPID....

MM, could you do me the great favour of posting the address of your diocese? I believe the church hierarchy would be most interested in the bahaviour of one of their 'core leaders for teen ministries.'

I wouldn't let you within a hundred miles of my kids.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by Fillipo Lippi


MM, could you do me the great favour of posting the address of your diocese? I believe the church hierarchy would be most interested in the bahaviour of one of their 'core leaders for teen ministries.'

I wouldn't let you within a hundred miles of my kids.

I doubt they would go within a hundred miles of him. Already, he doesn't seem to understand the people on this board or see things the way they do. Isn't that what the average teen says about what is wrong with his or her parents?

[Filippo Lippi]

If it weren't already a discredited organisation, the Catholic Church would be concerned. However, a petty, simplistic, childish, pedantic, close-minded and temperamental 'teacher' is probably the least of their worries.

Better that than another pederast.

What a ****** world we live in.

[Darat]

Originally posted by Whodini
----
Furthermore, the benefits of technologies stemmed from war devices fully outweigh the sadness that was brought about.
----


That is up for debate.


I'd probably say it is about equal.

How do you come to such a figure?

[The Fool]

Originally posted by Franko


Funny because 90+% of the world's population seems to think this is True about A-Theism.

You should stay away from Muscleman threads franko. As the First law of trolls requires you to agree with him you May end up looking like a Catholic Fundamentalist who enjoys repeatedly posting rubbish and abusing people...oops, forget that....you don't need Musclemans advice in that department.

Did you use your own arse to pull that 90% figure out of or did you borrow jedi's?

[DialecticMaterialist]

Actually I'd have to say Hitler and the Nazis were usually either theist or pagan. I doubt there were many atheists at all and if so they were not very forthcoming. The Nazis for example dispised logical postivism as atheistic,materialistic etc, and of course Jewish(he also reffered to relativity theory as "Jewish physics.")

However this does not change the fact that the Nazis sided with German idealism against logical postivism and theist proclamations were made by speeches and writings.

[neutrino_cannon]

Originally posted by DialecticMaterialist
Actually I'd have to say Hitler and the Nazis were usually either theist or pagan. I doubt there were many atheists at all and if so they were not very forthcoming. The Nazis for example dispised logical postivism as atheistic,materialistic etc, and of course Jewish(he also reffered to relativity theory as "Jewish physics.")

However this does not change the fact that the Nazis sided with German idealism against logical postivism and theist proclamations were made by speeches and writings.


When I made those statement I was kinda being sloopy. Thanks for the correction.

This would seem to mean that guided AAM's, ICBM's cruise missles and the like are not A-theist technologies them hmm?

Originally posted by neutrino_cannon



When I made those statement I was kinda being sloopy.

Hang on.

Originally posted by Darat


How do you come to such a figure?


Uh, how did the original person come up with:


----
, the benefits of technologies stemmed from war devices fully outweigh the sadness that was brought about.
----


?

[CapelDodger]

Proof of God's existence! 1 million dollar challenge at the end!

I skipped to the end - where's this proof?

[scotth]

Originally posted by muscleman
Furthermore, could the design that obviously now exist in a man & in a human brain come from something with less or no design? Such an explanation violates the principle of causality, which states that u cant get more in the effect than u had in the cause. If there is intelligence in the effect (man), there must b intelligence in the cause. But a universe ruled by blind chance has no intelligence. Therefore there must b a cause for human intelligence that transcends the universe: a mind behind the physical universe. (Most of the great scientists (Albert Einstein, etc.) have believed in such a mind, by the way, even those who did not accept any revealed religion.)


I thought since you put some words into Einstein's mouth, I would supply some real quotes by Einstein.

"[My] deep religiosity... found an abrupt ending at the age of twelve, through the reading of popular scientific books." (as quoted in Einstein, History, and Other Passions)

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
- Albert Einstein in 'Albert Einstein: The Human Side'

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

"Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning."

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955

"If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?" - Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950)

"I am convinced that some political and social activities and practices of the Catholic organizations are detrimental and even dangerous for the community as a whole, here and everywhere. I mention here only the fight against birth control at a time when overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet." - Albert Einstein, letter, 1954

Bolding mine of course.

I guess Einstein was clearly an idiot as well, eh Musclehead?

edited to add:
Thanks to Larry Thornton for getting all these Einstein quotes in one convenient location.

[CapelDodger]

from neutrino-cannon:
And, yes, millitary technology is designed to kill people, but it often leads to huge advances in other fields

The human race being what it is, any new technology is first examined for its military significance.

"It's a hand-axe. You can use it to kill antelope."
"Well, yeah. And I can use it to get that guy's antelope."

Brian Josephson is not a warlike person, but the Josephson junction was almost immediately slapped under miltary security because it measures tiny magnetic fields like those caused by nuclear subs under the Arctic ice. What a species. But a lot of theists seem to think that their god is rather proud of it.

[Solitaire]

Originally posted by muscleman
Ok, this is what Ive been really trying to get at atheists for a long time,
but we never get there..... What kind of evidence do you want in order
to be convinced that God exist? Explain......
Well, there was a user here who talked about taking illegal drugs
and reaching other dimensions via the altered state of the mind.
While in this state they could talk to other beings and see amazing
sights. If you can talk then you can communicate information. So I
proposed a simple experiment where we give encoded information
from one user to another user in these other dimensions. Keeping
them seperated so that no commucation through natural means in
our dimension can occure then that would be a good demonstration.
Could you do that?

[SimonJohnMorgan]

Go talk somewhere else, dont ruin an intelligent debate (LOL, if that exist), yur too dumb to b here... ...


Muscleman, like Yoda speak you, when on speed he is...

I personally think the most constructive thing this thread has done is given me an insight into Campbells soup.

I'm sorry I'm not even trying to engage in anything useful here, (I usually try - a little), but you seem to think dismissing everyone as stupid will get you somewhere, which it won't

I wonder if Randi logs on under assumed names producing this stuff and laughs himself silly at it. Just a paranoid thought.

Going the way of Monty Python, everyone sing - don't forget the pixie hats - the following to the tune of the first verse of "Jolly Holiday" from Mary Poppins...

Oh, MuscleMan you're a flip-
ping loony
And your grammar is quite bad
When I think people
have common sense
That's something you've never had

If you want to check how this matches... http://www.geocities.com/Broadway/Stage/7840/jollyholiday.htm

[CapelDodger]

Ah, I see the problem; we're not acually at the end yet.

Campbell's cream of asparagus soup and a hunk of still-warm wholemeal bread. Get between me and it and I'll get primeval on yo' ass.

[dave8888]

Originally posted by muscleman
This is a thread to end atheism and claims that God dont exist once and for all. I DARE anyone here refute my arguments, so far NONE have found any flaws of my argument...

Is it possible that a detailed and complex form happens by chance w/out an intelligent cause? Maybe there's a chance that computers could b formed by a series of hurricane/lightning/earthquake/ by Chance.

The chemistry of life does not operate on "chance" alone. In fact the laws of quantum mechanics dictate what molecules will get together under what conditions. Chance might enter when you throw in the varied conditions that an environment might find itself in.

You might have something if you asked where the laws of physics come from, but going after a strict "chance" argument sounds like the same old creationist story.

Evolution does not work by chance alone. Random events to happen, like a cosmic ray striking the genetic material of a cell. But natural selection acts as the seive on that randomness to pick out what works.

Originally posted by muscleman
But doesn’t evolution explain everything without a divine designer? Just the opposite: Evolution is a beautiful example of design, a great clue to God.

Some divine plan. If the fossil record is evidence of a divine plan, its the plan of a mad man. Instead of a design what you see is organisms arising, existing for relatively short periods, and perishing. Far more species have perished in the past than exist today. Does it make sense to imagine a designer constructing a perfect world of living things say 200 million years ago, then destorying it and starting over, then destorying it again and creating yet more living organisms, and so on. Why would a divine designer go about such a haphazard road that lasted 5 billion years just to get to humans? That just does not make any sense.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by scotth


I thought since you put some words into Einstein's mouth, I would supply some real quotes by Einstein.

"[My] deep religiosity... found an abrupt ending at the age of twelve, through the reading of popular scientific books." (as quoted in Einstein, History, and Other Passions)

"The further the spiritual evolution of mankind advances, the more certain it seems to me that the path to genuine religiosity does not lie through the fear of life, and the fear of death, and blind faith, but through striving after rational knowledge."

"It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it."
- Albert Einstein in 'Albert Einstein: The Human Side'

"A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death."

"Since our inner experiences consist of reproductions, and combinations of sensory impressions, the concept of a soul without a body seems to me to be empty and devoid of meaning."

"I cannot imagine a God who rewards and punishes the objects of his creation, whose purposes are modeled after our own -- a God, in short, who is but a reflection of human frailty. Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble souls harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotisms."
- Albert Einstein, obituary in New York Times, 19 April 1955

"If this being is omnipotent, then every occurrence, including every human action, every human thought, and every human feeling and aspiration is also His work; how is it possible to think of holding men responsible for their deeds and thoughts before such an almighty Being? In giving out punishment and rewards He would to a certain extent be passing judgment on Himself. How can this be combined with the goodness and righteousness ascribed to Him?" - Albert Einstein, Out of My Later Years (New York: Philosophical Library, 1950)

"I am convinced that some political and social activities and practices of the Catholic organizations are detrimental and even dangerous for the community as a whole, here and everywhere. I mention here only the fight against birth control at a time when overpopulation in various countries has become a serious threat to the health of people and a grave obstacle to any attempt to organize peace on this planet." - Albert Einstein, letter, 1954

Bolding mine of course.

I guess Einstein was clearly an idiot as well, eh Musclehead?

edited to add:
Thanks to Larry Thornton for getting all these Einstein quotes in one convenient location.

LOL, amateurs.. Einstein was living when he wrote those. At some stages in his life he believed in God, and I can quote to you where he expressed the word "God" as important in his scientific research. But at his near death, he seemed to be more atheistic (in other words narrow minded.)..

About "If God is "omnipotent", why am I responsible for my actions?"

And what do you mean by "responsible?" Good and bad rewards? What is good? and what is bad?

It comes down to these, dooes evil man "BELONG" or "DESERVE" to go to hell? and likewise good man belongs or "DESERVES" or "RESPONSIBLE" or "REWARDED" with heaven?

Go to this http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13327 a thread started by me..Ill debunk your arguments there....

[muscleman]

Originally posted by dave8888


The chemistry of life does not operate on "chance" alone. In fact the laws of quantum mechanics dictate what molecules will get together under what conditions. Chance might enter when you throw in the varied conditions that an environment might find itself in.

You might have something if you asked where the laws of physics come from, but going after a strict "chance" argument sounds like the same old creationist story.

Evolution does not work by chance alone. Random events to happen, like a cosmic ray striking the genetic material of a cell. But natural selection acts as the seive on that randomness to pick out what works.

Atleast your not like "diabeticmaterialist" in complete denial of "chance"..

But it doesnt matter where you say "its not chance alone" that atheists based their "PURE BELIEF". It doesnt matter. A claim of chance need evidence of its "possibility" otherwise you can reason everything with chance..

Christianity as well dont base their "Belief" with "Intelligent Design", but also with love, patience, kindness, justice, and perseverance...

Originally posted by dave8888

Some divine plan. If the fossil record is evidence of a divine plan, its the plan of a mad man. Instead of a design what you see is organisms arising, existing for relatively short periods, and perishing. Far more species have perished in the past than exist today. Does it make sense to imagine a designer constructing a perfect world of living things say 200 million years ago, then destorying it and starting over, then destorying it again and creating yet more living organisms, and so on. Why would a divine designer go about such a haphazard road that lasted 5 billion years just to get to humans? That just does not make any sense.

Amateurs, they always give me a smile..LOL, we already agreed with evolution, theres evidence that supports that claim. Such as fossil evidence as u pointed out..

Who says death, instinction, is hazard and isnt part of order of life? Whoever said "death"makes nature "chaos"?

Why would a divine designer decides "death" as part of order? Why would God design earth as it is? Why would you question his will? If he tells you to love your enemy and be forgiving, will u question his decisions? If he tells you to give up your wealth, and feed the poor will you question his authority? Child, theres a lot of things u need to learn, I can tell, because your an atheist (generalization can also be used sometimes..:) )

[muscleman]

Originally posted by c4ts


Okay, let's work with the first part before we get to the rest. By attributing something to chance, that is, you attribute it to "the unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause" because you do not understand it and therefore are incapable of predicting it, why does that make the event an impossibility?

I agree. Im not saying its impossible, but for one to claim its "possible", u need to present evidence of its possibility..

Again, a claim of "chance" need a proof of "chance" and its "possibility"..

The burden of proof lies on the one who makes the claim..

I agree, I have proof of God. You likewise have to provide proof of claim..

I can provide proof of God, and I posted "FEW" of them here...

Now, if evidence here doesnt convince anyone, what evidence do they desire that should "convince" them?

IN ORDER FOR ME TO CONVINCE YOU OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, YOU FIRST NEED TO TELL ME WHAT EVIDENCE ARE YOU CONVINCED OF. IF I CANT PROVIDE THAT EVIDENCE YOU ASKED, DOES IT MEAN A CLAIM LACKING THE EVIDENCE YOU ASKED IS A MYTH??

ONCE AGAIN, THE QUESTION LIES HERE..WHAT EVIDENCE ARE U CONVINCED OF IF YOU CLAIM TO BELIEVE IN GOD WHEN EVIDENCE ARE PROVIDED?? EXPLAIN.

Instead of talking about campbell soup and feeding trolls, why not deal with this question and not skip it? whats the matter? Cant handle the truth??

:) I shall await for your response amateurs.....

note: Sorry Han, hopefully this is the last time ill use caps, thank u for the info, and for now on Ill use the method you told me on bolding the words and underlinging it...

[SimonJohnMorgan]

Things that might convince me God exists, or at least make me believe in something supernatural...

1) Walking on water
2) Turn day into night
3) Raise the dead
4) You listening to a reasoned argument

You have no proof God exists, all your arguments are general rants of someone who already believes, and has come up with an argument to support this.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by muscleman


I agree. Im not saying its impossible, but for one to claim its "possible", u need to present evidence of its possibility..
You agree to it now, yet you said it was stupid in your post and I still want to know why.


Again, a claim of "chance" need a proof of "chance" and its "possibility"..
That has nothing to do with your lack of explanation.

The burden of proof lies on the one who makes the claim..
You misunderstand. Evidince for a possibility is the human imagination. Possibility is a matter of speculation, and it must be refuted by logic. Probability, on the other hand, requires proof when making positive claims. You provided the possibility yourself, and did not provide the logic necessary to refute it, because you did not say why it was impossible. Sorry, but the burden of proof is still yours. Better think of something so you don't lose to your own strawman.

I agree, I have proof of God. You likewise have to provide proof of claim..

I can provide proof of God, and I posted "FEW" of them here...

"Evidence" on an internet message board is limited to you providing some kind of media or test results to back your claim, which you still haven't done. And even then, it is easy to fake those kinds of things, so it is a lot easier if you go to Randi first. It should be no problem for you if you really have the proof you say you do.

Now, if evidence here doesnt convince anyone, what evidence do they desire that should "convince" them?
Any actual evidence at all. Even Randi confirming that you won his million dollars is enough for some.

IN ORDER FOR ME TO CONVINCE YOU OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, YOU FIRST NEED TO TELL ME WHAT EVIDENCE ARE YOU CONVINCED OF. IF I CANT PROVIDE THAT EVIDENCE YOU ASKED, DOES IT MEAN A CLAIM LACKING THE EVIDENCE YOU ASKED IS A MYTH??
You're not here to convince. You're here to prove. Your arguments, no matter how convincing, are not proof. Since you're the one with the proof, you know what it is, and it is up to you to show it to Randi and win your million dollars. Until you do, you might as well not have any.

ONCE AGAIN, THE QUESTION LIES HERE..WHAT EVIDENCE ARE U CONVINCED OF IF YOU CLAIM TO BELIEVE IN GOD WHEN EVIDENCE ARE PROVIDED?? EXPLAIN.
Have God to turn water into blood or something, and videotape it. Post a link to the video file. Then have God do it again for Randi, live. Win a million bucks, and I'll believe you. You could do it in front of me, but I'd rather not be anywhere near you...

Instead of talking about campbell soup and feeding trolls, why not deal with this question and not skip it? whats the matter? Cant handle the truth??

Afraid of being wrong?

Also, I demand that you quote my post where I mentioned campbell soup and troll feeding.

Explain to me how you discovered that God exists without assuming he already exists in the first place.

:) I shall await for your response amateurs....

As long as you don't bail out.

[Regnad Kcin]

- What man?

+ The man from the cat detector van.

- The loony detector van, you mean.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by CapelDodger


I skipped to the end - where's this proof?

There isn't any, but shhhh!, Muscleman doesn't know it yet.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by c4ts

You agree to it now, yet you said it was stupid in your post and I still want to know why.

U didnt understand my post..I simply said its completely stupid and irrational for one to use "chance" as a reason without being able to provide proof of its possibility. Winning lottery is an example of chance, because its proven...

I agree with yur statement. That the claim of impossibility need proof as well. So I agree with that.



Originally posted by c4ts


That has nothing to do with your lack of explanation.

[b]
You misunderstand. Evidince for a possibility is the human imagination. Possibility is a matter of speculation, and it must be refuted by logic. Probability, on the other hand, requires proof when making positive claims. [b]You provided the possibility yourself, and did not provide the logic necessary to refute it, because you did not say why it was impossible. Sorry, but the burden of proof is still yours. Better think of something so you don't lose to your own strawman.

Are you trying to escape the topic of "chance" again boy? Fine, lets leave "possibility" out of the picture and bring "probability" in the topic for the sake of the argument, just for you...

The burden of proof lies on the one who make a claim. And yes, I have the burden of proof for my claim, you as well have the burden of proof in your claim..

When you say "positive" claim. What do you mean by that? Are you trying to say claim of "non-existence" is a negative claim? And in being negative, does it mean its illogic to mention it?

I simply can prove that theres no giant man who carries earth and hold it by the name of Hercules (Hercules isnt a spirit or a soul.). By using satelites and photos all over planet earth, it just doesnt show a giant man carrying earth...

Now Im saimply saying that if you claim God dont exist, you definitely have the burden of proof as well. One role of "God" is the giver of life (creator of life.). You can prove God dont exist, by creating life forms.

But because you claim, BUT HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP, then you dodge this question, makes up excuses (such as the negative and postive claim..LOL). Saying "Im not atheist", but Im "agnostic"..

So what is it goping to be this time child? Are u gonna deny now that your an atheist? Or say your an atheist and then said "I never claimed God dont exist?"

DENIAL IS PART OF ATHEISM, LOL.....

Originally posted by c4ts
[B]
[b]

"Evidence" on an internet message board is limited to you providing some kind of media or test results to back your claim, which you still haven't done. And even then, it is easy to fake those kinds of things, so it is a lot easier if you go to Randi first. It should be no problem for you if you really have the proof you say you do.

Proof lies on the observer, and the other guy just mentioned what will prove him God exist (by someone walking on water, etc.), and Ill deal with it, hold on...

Originally posted by c4ts
[B]
[b]
Any actual evidence at all. Even Randi confirming that you won his million dollars is enough for some.

What do u mean by actual evidence???

Originally posted by c4ts

[b]
You're not here to convince. You're here to prove. Your arguments, no matter how convincing, are not proof. Since you're the one with the proof, you know what it is, and it is up to you to show it to Randi and win your million dollars. Until you do, you might as well not have any.

I labeled it as proof because I dont have any evidence lacking, I can provide more evidence for the existence of God than for KIng Henry...There are more people (STIL ALIVE.) who testified God in their life WITHOUT BEING PAID, than there is people who testified King Henry exist (for hes been dead for a long time, if he exist..).

So now the question I have for you is, can you prove King Henry exist???

Originally posted by c4ts

[b]
Have God to turn water into blood or something, and videotape it. Post a link to the video file. Then have God do it again for Randi, live. Win a million bucks, and I'll believe you. You could do it in front of me, but I'd rather not be anywhere near you...

I personally cant do that (maybe God can, ask Him, Im not God..:) ), but I can do something else which u may label as "supernatural"...

So now the topic is supernatural right?

What is supernatural? Beyond the laws of nature? This is the next topic....

Originally posted by c4ts

[b]

Afraid of being wrong?

Also, I demand that you quote my post where I mentioned campbell soup and troll feeding.

Explain to me how you discovered that God exists without assuming he already exists in the first place.

[b]

As long as you don't bail out.




I dont bail out (unless if im caught up with things...). I have u mistaken for someone else about campbell soup and feeding trolls, my bad...

I have many many evidence that "CONFIRMED" the existence of God to be not only a belief, BUT A BELIEF OF "FACTS". I believe God exist as much as I believe cars exist.....

Ill mention it to you later bcuz my friend is here right now, ill b back, kinda busy...

[Doctor X]

I dont bail out

However, he did.

His yellow plumes suit him well.

--J.D.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by muscleman


U didnt understand my post..I simply said its completely stupid and irrational for one to use "chance" as a reason without being able to provide proof of its possibility. Winning lottery is an example of chance, because its proven...

I agree with yur statement. That the claim of impossibility need proof as well. So I agree with that.





Are you trying to escape the topic of "chance" again boy? Fine, lets leave "possibility" out of the picture and bring "probability" in the topic for the sake of the argument, just for you...

The burden of proof lies on the one who make a claim. And yes, I have the burden of proof for my claim, you as well have the burden of proof in your claim..

When you say "positive" claim. What do you mean by that? Are you trying to say claim of "non-existence" is a negative claim? And in being negative, does it mean its illogic to mention it?

I simply can prove that theres no giant man who carries earth and hold it by the name of Hercules (Hercules isnt a spirit or a soul.). By using satelites and photos all over planet earth, it just doesnt show a giant man carrying earth...

Now Im saimply saying that if you claim God dont exist, you definitely have the burden of proof as well. One role of "God" is [b]the giver of life [b](creator of life.). You can prove God dont exist, by creating life forms.

But because you claim, BUT HAVE NO EVIDENCE TO BACK IT UP, then you dodge this question, makes up excuses (such as the negative and postive claim..LOL). Saying "Im not atheist", but Im "agnostic"..

So what is it goping to be this time child? Are u gonna deny now that your an atheist? Or say your an atheist and then said "I never claimed God dont exist?"

DENIAL IS PART OF ATHEISM, LOL.....



Proof lies on the observer, and the other guy just mentioned what will prove him God exist (by someone walking on water, etc.), and Ill deal with it, hold on...



What do u mean by actual evidence???



I labeled it as proof because I dont have any evidence lacking, I can provide more evidence for the existence of God than for KIng Henry...There are more people (STIL ALIVE.) who testified God in their life WITHOUT BEING PAID, than there is people who testified King Henry exist (for hes been dead for a long time, if he exist..).

So now the question I have for you is, can you prove King Henry exist???



I personally cant do that (maybe God can, ask Him, Im not God..:) ), but I can do something else which u may label as "supernatural"...

So now the topic is supernatural right?

What is supernatural? Beyond the laws of nature? This is the next topic....




I dont bail out (unless if im caught up with things...). I have u mistaken for someone else about campbell soup and feeding trolls, my bad...

I have many many evidence that "CONFIRMED" the existence of God to be not only a belief, BUT A BELIEF OF "FACTS". I believe God exist as much as I believe cars exist.....

Ill mention it to you later bcuz my friend is here right now, ill b back, kinda busy...

Here was my question:

By attributing something to chance, that is, you attribute it to "the unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause" because you do not understand it and therefore are incapable of predicting it, why does that make the event an impossibility?

Here is your answer as best as I can tell:

It is irrational to attribute a cause that you do not understand to "the unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems ot have no assignable cause" without proof.

What exactly, do you need to prove in a statement like that? How is that even reasonable, let alone possible? According to the reasoning behind your answer, if I say that I don't know something, I suddenly know it unless I can provide un-knowledge. If I am mistaken, don't just say so, please explain what you were really trying to say, and what I have mistaken it for.

All the rest of this will be addressed sooner or later, but it seems to be leading away from the original topic and you resort to hitting the capslock and calling me "boy," demanding that I prove history in order that you give me a straight answer, and by saying I'm in denial of whatever accusations you have made about atheists. Honestly, I don't see that as productive thought.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by c4ts


Here was my question:

By attributing something to chance, that is, you attribute it to "the unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems to have no assignable cause" because you do not understand it and therefore are incapable of predicting it, why does that make the event an impossibility?

Here is your answer as best as I can tell:

It is irrational to attribute a cause that you do not understand to "the unknown and unpredictable element in happenings that seems ot have no assignable cause" without proof.

What exactly, do you need to prove in a statement like that? How is that even reasonable, let alone possible? According to the reasoning behind your answer, if I say that I don't know something, I suddenly know it unless I can provide un-knowledge. If I am mistaken, don't just say so, please explain what you were really trying to say, and what I have mistaken it for.

All the rest of this will be addressed sooner or later, but it seems to be leading away from the original topic and you resort to hitting the capslock and calling me "boy," demanding that I prove history in order that you give me a straight answer, and by saying I'm in denial of whatever accusations you have made about atheists. Honestly, I don't see that as productive thought.

I shall deal with this swiftly and smoothly here once and for all, then address my statement above ok?

First of all, I said that every claim require evidence. You cant just say "I am a naturalized U.S citizen, born in California" but cannot provide proof of citizenship, I.D, driverse license, birth certificate, and heck, your name is not even on a computer. It is "LOGIC" to believe that you are lying, THAN TO SAY ITS POSSIBLE YOU ARE A CITIZEN WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF CLAIM...

Now many atheists I encountered reasoned that God dont exist because they have labeled "EXISTING" life forms, they have put names on it, mesed around with it, play with it, experiment how this "existing" forms works...

Some say "quantum the invisible ghostly physics" are the cause of life forms to exist by "SUPER LUCK" in other words "chance". That claim is fine with me, as long as you can provide proof of possibility...

So again can you provide proof that its possible life forms emerge out of earthquake, lightning, "GHOSTLY INVISIBLE UNKNOWN UNDETECTABLE PHYSICS" in other words "Quantum the invisible physics""...Can u provide proof of claim? No, therefore it is STUPID AND ILLOGIC to even believe this to begin with..

Now Im not speaking for the future, "MAYBE" its possible in the "FUTURE", but I dont claim to be a psychic (ARE YOU A PSYCHIC?), so again I am speaking for current sceintific FACTS. WHAT IS TODAY, IS FOR TODAY, TODAY YOU CANNOT PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF CLAIM, MEANWHILE I CAN PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF CLAIM..

So in summary, I cant say "its possible" or "impossible" FOR THE FUTURE BECAUSE I AM NOT A PSYCHIC (ARE U A PSYCHIC?), BUT I CAN ASSURE YOU I CAN SAY THAT TODAY, ITS IMPOSSIBLE FOR LIFE FORMS TO EXIST BY WHAT WE LABEL AS "NATURAL" MEANS, AND I HAVE SCIENTIFIC FACTS TO BACK IT UP...

If I was a border police patrol man, I refuse to believe you are a citizen unless u can provide proof of citizenship. If u claim "I can come up with the proof of citizenship in the future", I reject that claim. PROVIDE PROOF OF CLAIM NOW, OR GO BACK TO YOUR FOREIGN COUNTRY OK?

LOL, its amazing how stupid people can become...

[Doctor X]

Seed, noticing the commotion below the window, hands him the freshly loaded gun. . . .

Why not?

I shall deal with this swiftly and smoothly here once and for all, . . .

Given his failure to deal with questions in any fashion, "swiftly and smoothy" notwithstanding, one should consider this rather unlikely.

The child waits. . . .

The Lost Soul waits. . . .

then address my statement above ok?

It is "LOGIC" (sic) to believe that you are lying, THAN (sic) TO SAY ITS POSSIBLE YOU ARE A CITIZEN WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF CLAIM...

Whether true or not, one can then understand why his failure to provide the proof he has promised does not convince The Readership.

Now many atheists. . . .

Instructs Seed to have the firehose available given the sudden appearance of Strawmen.

Argumentum ad ignorantium of course and NOT RELEVANT [No shouting bodly.--Ed.] to the question of his promised proof.

I encountered reasoned that God dont (sic) exist because they have labeled "EXISTING" life forms, . . .

Perchance with great relief we do not wander in the same social circles, for I have yet to meet such "atheists."

Rather, the athiests I know simply note the failure of proof.

Now, the individual has promised this proof.

We, along with the Child and the Lost Soul, wait. . . .
Various non sequitur follows. . . .

Can u (sic) provide proof of (sic) claim? No, therefore (sic) it is STUPID AND ILLOGIC (sic) to even believe this to begin with..

Notice the attempt to shift the burden of proof. He claimed he had it. Now he claims others do not have proof for their claims he misrepresents.

Various rantings follow. . . .

For some reason, Macbeth's observation of life seem to apply hear. . . .

--J. "A Tale Told by an Idiot" D.

[c4ts]

Originally posted by muscleman


I shall deal with this swiftly and smoothly here once and for all, then address my statement above ok?

First of all, I said that every claim require evidence. You cant just say "I am a naturalized U.S citizen, born in California" but cannot provide proof of citizenship, I.D, driverse license, birth certificate, and heck, your name is not even on a computer. It is "LOGIC" to believe that you are lying, THAN TO SAY ITS POSSIBLE YOU ARE A CITIZEN WITHOUT BEING ABLE TO PROVIDE EVIDENCE OF CLAIM...
Yes, but if you say you are not a citizen, providing these things will refute you, and not providing these things is not providing evidence, therefore according to you, it won't back your claim.

So by your reasoning, if you want to say invisible miniturized CIA agents with psychic ray guns aren't causing car crashes, you cannot provide proof that they are not causing car crashes, therefore they must be. Is there something wrong with the reasoning here? Is there a different standard depending upon the claim? If so, what is it?

[Beleth]

Originally posted by muscleman

I can provide proof of God, and I posted "FEW" of them here...

Now, if evidence here doesnt convince anyone, what evidence do they desire that should "convince" them?

IN ORDER FOR ME TO CONVINCE YOU OF THE EXISTENCE OF GOD, YOU FIRST NEED TO TELL ME WHAT EVIDENCE ARE YOU CONVINCED OF. IF I CANT PROVIDE THAT EVIDENCE YOU ASKED, DOES IT MEAN A CLAIM LACKING THE EVIDENCE YOU ASKED IS A MYTH??

:) I shall await for your response amateurs.....



Fine. You want to convince me that there's a God? Convince me you have faith first.

There's an incredibly straightforward test of whether someone has faith or not. It's in the Bible. Jesus said it.


Matthew 17:20
And Jesus said unto them...: verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

And similarly, Luke 17:6
And the Lord said, "If you had faith as a grain of mustard seed, you could say to this sycamine tree, 'Be rooted up, and be planted in the sea,' and it would obey you.


There. A simple, direct, objective test.

If there's a God, and you believe in Him, videotape yourself telling a tree (any tree will do, doesn't have to be a sycamine tree) to go plant itself in the sea. If it does, and the only reason that it does is from your faith and the sound of your voice, you will have passed the preliminary test.

The final test will be when you move a mountain in the same manner.

Once you move a mountain merely by telling it to move, you will have convinced me. You will also have undoubtedly met the requirements of Randi's Million Dollar Challenge as well, so you can pick up a nice chunk of change on the way.

Fair enough?

[J3K]

lol, hahahhahhahahahahahahaha, i find that funny, sorry.:D

[Christian]

Please read Ecclesiastes 5:2-3 and my quote below. I have started to follow the advice not that long ago.

[J3K]

I disagree with your quote. I find lots of pleasure in understanding. It's something I do very well. And it keeps me from being a closed minded person and helps me know how and who a person is.

[thaiboxerken]

Originally posted by J3K
I disagree with your quote. I find lots of pleasure in understanding. It's something I do very well. And it keeps me from being a closed minded person and helps me know how and who a person is.

I guess you missed the part that said a FOOL finds no pleasure in understanding, unless you think of yourself as a fool. ;)

[J3K]

lol, dammit. no i didnt pay attention to that. lol, thanx for pointing that out to me. wow, I feel stupid, oh well, mistakes happen, life goes on. and I guess that means I DO agree with the quote.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by c4ts

Yes, but if you say you are not a citizen, providing these things will refute you, and not providing these things is not providing evidence, therefore according to you, it won't back your claim.

So by your reasoning, if you want to say invisible miniturized CIA agents with psychic ray guns aren't causing car crashes, you cannot provide proof that they are not causing car crashes, therefore they must be. Is there something wrong with the reasoning here? Is there a different standard depending upon the claim? If so, what is it? [/B]

You are weird...You have not addressed my points, and u are making this strange analogy for nothing..

Your saying If a guy claimed he is "NOT" a US citizen (by admitting it) and he cant provide proof of u.s citizenship, then he is providing proof of claim, that he is a citizen somewhere else, maybe in Bulgaria, or china (and he can claim being citizen there and that can be provided as well.)..

Now if you say "I am not a citizen", yet you have proof of citizenship, birth certificate, etc. THEN YOU DENY SUCH EVIDENCE AND SAY "THOSE BIRTH CERTIFICATES ARE MADE UP" or "MY MMOTHER IS LYING, THE GOVERNMENT IS LYING, ALTHOUGH MY NAME IS LISTED IIN THE COMPUTER AND THAT I AM A CITIZEN BY THEIR TESTIMONY, I REJECT THEIR CLAIM, THEY ARE LYING..."..

Now that reminds me of an atheist, a complete idiot, denying all the evidence provided..

YOU HAVE NOT ADDRESSED MY QUESTIONS, WHY? CANT HANDLE THE TRUTH?? :)

[muscleman]

christian, I am not interested in converting this fools, they chose to be what they are...They know they are a fool (they have to unless theyr retard) but denies it, that, or just a real retard (which I dont think they are..)...

What Im interested though is revealing it CLEARLY that they are stupid and ignorant...AS OF NOW, REVELATION IS ALL IM INTERESTED, NOT CONVERTION....

[J3K]

WHY cant you give any evidence for what you have been claiming from the get go. If you really do have proof you would show it and stop argueing with the people who have proved your previous points wrong. Unless you are that simple minded to just have fun arguing.
And weren't you suppose to start using the bold feature a few posts back?? Or are you just haveing fun yelling things or, since you are religious, are you practicing for a preaching position?

[Christian]

Muscleman wrote:
christian, I am not interested in converting this fools, they chose to be what they are...They know they are a fool (they have to unless theyr retard) but denies it, that, or just a real retard (which I dont think they are..)...

What Im interested though is revealing it CLEARLY that they are stupid and ignorant...AS OF NOW, REVELATION IS ALL IM INTERESTED, NOT CONVERTION....

Let me not keep you then. Thanks for the response.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by J3K
If you really do have proof you would show it and stop argueing with the people who have proved your previous points wrong.

Now comments like this ticks me off, your hearing voices in your head that aint true..

WHO HAVE PROVEN ME WRONG HERE? WHO???

I CAN PROVE TO MANY THAT ATHEISTS ARGUMENT ARE WEIRD AND ARE DEBUNKED (EVEN FROM THIS THREAD). ALL YOUR GOOD AT IS WISHFULL THINKING, DENIAL, AND SAYING THE WORD "CAMPBELL SOUP, FEEDING TROLLS, AND BATMAN AND ROBIN.." THATS IT......FROM THE THREAD I STARTED "ATHEISTS OMNISCIENCE/FREEWILL ARGUMENT DEBUNKED", I CAN QUOTE TO U HOW MANY OF YOUR ATHEISTS FRIENDS I PROVED WRONG.

SO AGAIN WHO HAVE PROVEN ME WRONG? ARE U TELLING THE TRUTH? OR JUST A FALSE ACCUSATION?...

[muscleman]

Originally posted by c4ts

So by your reasoning, if you want to say invisible miniturized CIA agents with psychic ray guns aren't causing car crashes, you cannot provide proof that they are not causing car crashes, therefore they must be. Is there something wrong with the reasoning here? Is there a different standard depending upon the claim? If so, what is it? [/B]

Again, those who claim toothfairies, atlas, evolution, God, King Henry, U.fo's, etc. have the burden of proof....

U claim of invisible cia agents causing accidents, I dont believe your claim, there is no historical, testimonial testimony that I can see. I AM A HARDCORE SKEPTIC, prove that to me...

Again this thread has just began, I am about to annihilate your belief atheism, i have more and more evidence coming child..Youll be surprised what this "Troll" can do...:)

[J3K]

Your proof of god was just holes in evolution. This doesn't prove god exists. It proves science still have things to find answers too. People have disproved what you have written in this thread, and each became arguements where you stopped responding. and just out of curiosity, were you yelling at me or still working on pressing that "b" above where you write your message?asdf I think I gots it down.
all we want is evidence of god. give that and people will shut up about him not existing.

[Franko]

j3k:

all we want is evidence of god. give that and people will shut up about him not existing.

Atoms obey The Laws of Physics (TLOP).
You are made of atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP (“God”)!

TLOP Controls YOU controls CAR

In the same way that YOU are more conscious than CAR, TLOP is more conscious than YOU. To claim otherwise is as rational as claiming that when YOU go for a drive in your CAR, your CAR is more in control than YOU are.

What is the YOU that is making the decision according to A-Theism/Materialism anyway? YOU are nothing but your physical brain, and your “brain” is simply a collection of atoms (chemicals). Don’t the chemicals in your brain OBEY the same rules that any other chemicals obey?

So what exactly is the YOU making the decisions? There is no YOU according to A-Theism/Materialism. You have already ceased to exist … you just haven’t perceived it yet.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by J3K
Your proof of god was just holes in evolution.

?? Are u stupid or something? I agreed with evolution, my definition of evol-ution is that things evolve overtime. Thats proven (atleast to me, considering the fossil evidence.), where are the holes that I pointed out with evolution? Life form existing through millions of yrs isnt "EVOLVE-LUTION", thats a realm of "LUCK/CHANCE/MAGIC" or better yet "CREATIONISM"..Theres a difference between my car's engine becoming stained over yrs, or it becoming a talking robot by "CHANCE (LUCK)"....

Originally posted by J3K

This doesn't prove god exists. It proves science still have things to find answers too.

That is not my proof of God, u just dont get it dummy...No crap, of course humans have still to find answers, whateveer that knowledge may be labeled (science, religion, medical science, electrical field, etc.)....

Originally posted by J3K

People have disproved what you have written in this thread, and each became arguements where you stopped responding.

NOW THIS IS WHERE YOUR HEARING VOICES IN YOUR HEAD THAT DONT EXIST.. How are my arguments debunked? AND WHO HAVE DISPROVED MY ARGUMENTS? WHO? DIABETICMATERIALIST WHO IS AN ATHEIST AND DENIED "CHANCE"? IS DENIAL DISPROVING FACTS OF INTELLIGENT CAUSE?

AGAIN WHERE WAS MY ARGUMENTS REFUTED? AND WHAT ARGUMENTS DID U PRESENT THAT I HAVENT RESPONDED TOO? POINT TO ME WHERE, ARE U LYING? IF NOT, THEN POINT IT, SO I CAN DEAL WITH IT (if it exist.)....

Originally posted by J3K

and just out of curiosity, were you yelling at me or still working on pressing that "b" above where you write your message?asdf I think I gots it down.
all we want is evidence of god. give that and people will shut up about him not existing.

Again I have provided you evidence already u just dont have eyes..So once again, because you are not convinced of the evidence presented...I asked, what are convincing evidence??

Can you provide me "of this convincing evidence" with the claim of King Henry?

Can you prove to me King Henry exist?

IF THERES ANYONE HERE SKIPPING QUESTIONS, ITS THE ATHEISTS...IN DENIAL...

note: Im not yelling, just too lazy to type the bolding thing....

[c4ts]

Originally posted by muscleman


?? Are u stupid or something? I agreed with evolution, my definition of evol-ution is that things evolve overtime. Thats proven (atleast to me, considering the fossil evidence.), where are the holes that I pointed out with evolution? Life form existing through millions of yrs isnt "EVOLVE-LUTION", thats a realm of "LUCK/CHANCE/MAGIC" or better yet "CREATIONISM"..Theres a difference between my car's engine becoming stained over yrs, or it becoming a talking robot by "CHANCE (LUCK)"....



That is not my proof of God, u just dont get it dummy...No crap, of course humans have still to find answers, whateveer that knowledge may be labeled (science, religion, medical science, electrical field, etc.)....



NOW THIS IS WHERE YOUR HEARING VOICES IN YOUR HEAD THAT DONT EXIST.. How are my arguments debunked? AND WHO HAVE DISPROVED MY ARGUMENTS? WHO? DIABETICMATERIALIST WHO IS AN ATHEIST AND DENIED "CHANCE"? IS DENIAL DISPROVING FACTS OF INTELLIGENT CAUSE?

AGAIN WHERE WAS MY ARGUMENTS REFUTED? AND WHAT ARGUMENTS DID U PRESENT THAT I HAVENT RESPONDED TOO? POINT TO ME WHERE, ARE U LYING? IF NOT, THEN POINT IT, SO I CAN DEAL WITH IT (if it exist.)....



Again I have provided you evidence already u just dont have eyes..So once again, because you are not convinced of the evidence presented...I asked, what are convincing evidence??

Can you provide me "of this convincing evidence" with the claim of King Henry?

Can you prove to me King Henry exist?

IF THERES ANYONE HERE SKIPPING QUESTIONS, ITS THE ATHEISTS...IN DENIAL...

note: Im not yelling, just too lazy to type the bolding thing....


Okay, after the entire thread and you still haven't said anything new, or paid any real attention to anybody but yourself. You quote and you act as though you refuted the same strawmen you've been losing to since your first post. I've tried to help, but all you've managed to do is p*ss your intellectual pants and run screaming into your little hidey hole of convictions whenever you got close to completing an actual thought. As far as debate is concerned, you're just a girly little crybaby who thinks everybody is out to prove him wrong because he's right and they're wrong. But you're not right. You're not wrong either, because you're not even arguing the existence of God, you're just seeking approval from anybody who might agree with you from the start. All you did was build a bunch of strawmen and tried to bring them down with the force of your vapid ridicule. You've probably never come up with anything original in your entire life, and chances are you'll die before you ever do. So go on. Cry, scream, type a bunch of accusations in capslock. You just made my ignore list.

[CapelDodger]

It has been said that if a sufficiently large number of monkeys tap at random on a keyboard for long enough they will produce, by chance, the whole works of Shakspeare. Why does this spring to mind when I look at ("read" isn't really the appropriate verb) the strange mish-mash of nouns, verbs, tenses (I assume) posted by muscleman? I keep picturing a Christian project to reproduce the Bible this way and one of the monkeys has broken out ... :D

Just from the grammar-free title of the thread I have to ask muscleman: where does proof of your god's existence leave faith? I thought faith was supposed to be important ("and the greatest of these is faith"). Who needs faith if you have proof? Surely your god would prefer proof of its non -existence (since that would make continuing faith more difficult and praiseworthy)?

Sorry if I'm repeating anybody; I can't be bothered to plough through this lot.

[J3K]

muscleman,
I am not lying. Sorry, but I was wrong of making it seem like what I said applied to everything. But there have been things in this thread that showed you wrong, you fought back, they fought back and you left that topic because you were wrong. So no voices in my head, just not making my words perfectly clear. But all people want is evidence. But how can you say "what evidence do you want?" What the hell is that, you should be able to show the evidence that without a doubt proves god exists. Not to mention people have said stuff that if you showed as evidence would prove to them god exists. Don't forget to ask god for forgiveness because you lied too. Because in an earlier post you said that after that post you would start using the bold feature. You haven't, so you lied, so you need to ask for forgiveness for your sin.

[Doctor X]

Would seem unfortunate if we found ourselves forced to add the distinction "liar" to that of "coward."

Such is not really an advance in social standing or maturity.

--J.D.

[Pablo]

Muscleman, I call you a liar.

You promised in the title of this thread proof that God exists. Not only have you not provided the promised goods, you've also caused me to waste the better part of an hour with your inane ramblings. I should have known better (btw, thanx to those who took the time to shout "danger, troll ahead"; I should have heeded your advice). Here and now, I banish thee to my ignore list; not because I disagree with you (which I do), but because you're incapable of dialogue.

An afterthought: you might want to reconsider that claim that Christianism started out in Rome.

Bye

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by Franko
Atoms obey The Laws of Physics (TLOP).
You are made of atoms.
YOU OBEY TLOP (“God”)!
The laws of physics are not god. They are only the laws of physics.

[J3K]

Kimpatsu, just, just, dont try. It's a waste of your human life. You will get more out of eating a pickle or digging a hole.

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by J3K
Kimpatsu, just, just, dont try. It's a waste of your human life. You will get more out of eating a pickle or digging a hole.
Don't try what, exactly? :confused:

[J3K]

dont try replying to anything franko says that seems to be completely stupid. Because, well, he has most likely said it a few 100 times before and been told the same things that prove it wrong. Like you did, replying about how "tlop" are not a god. You are not the first, and not the last that will show him his flaws with this. Only problem is, he will never change his mind no matter how wrong he is.

[Kimpatsu]

Franko is a whacko,
On that we all agree.
But rebutting him on JREF
Can be fun for you and me.

He writes such utter nonsense
He should go back to school.
He should definitely be neutered
For the sake of the gene pool.

Franko is a whacko,
On that we all agree.
But he, and JK, and the rest,
Are the JREF trolls, you see.
:D

[muscleman]

Originally posted by c4ts



Okay, after the entire thread and you still haven't said anything new, or paid any real attention to anybody but yourself. You quote and you act as though you refuted the same strawmen you've been losing to since your first post. I've tried to help, but all you've managed to do is p*ss your intellectual pants and run screaming into your little hidey hole of convictions whenever you got close to completing an actual thought. As far as debate is concerned, you're just a girly little crybaby who thinks everybody is out to prove him wrong because he's right and they're wrong. But you're not right. You're not wrong either, because you're not even arguing the existence of God, you're just seeking approval from anybody who might agree with you from the start. All you did was build a bunch of strawmen and tried to bring them down with the force of your vapid ridicule. You've probably never come up with anything original in your entire life, and chances are you'll die before you ever do. So go on. Cry, scream, type a bunch of accusations in capslock. You just made my ignore list.

First of all, u said earlier "Just dont bail out", but who bailed out now? This thread has just began, but why did u leave? Cant handle the truth?

And your right, some if not all of what has been said here might have been said before, just as people were told before over and over again that 9 months old arent a blob of tissue, but hey they still insist it is...Revelation is what Im interested, NOT convertion. Revealing who you really are..

And besides, what new is there for atheism? NOTHING..I can summarize your silly arguments..

1st one.."Prove to me God exist"...I say prove to me He dont exist". In fact, what is proof to you? You believe King Henry is proven right? Well then, prove King Henry to me SO ILL KNOW WHAT IS CONVINCING EVIDENCE TO YOU...

Then athiest dont respond to that question (like you c4ts), in denial, then they change topic and say. "Prove to me toothfairies dont exist"...Then I say "I never claimed toothfairies exist, the one who makes the claim have the burden of proof"...

Then you say "Your a troll!! Want a campbell soup?"


SO WHERES THE ARGUMENT IF YOUR GONNA BAIL OUT? ARE U A LOSER? THIS THREAD HAS JUST BEGAN.

When I didnt visit this for few days, this thread were rated 5 stars, LOL, maybe bcuz u think I lost the argument, but guess what, I didnt bail out, and the argument has just began..Im here.......

[muscleman]

Originally posted by CapelDodger
It has been said that if a sufficiently large number of monkeys tap at random on a keyboard for long enough they will produce, by chance, the whole works of Shakspeare. Why does this spring to mind when I look at ("read" isn't really the appropriate verb) the strange mish-mash of nouns, verbs, tenses (I assume) posted by muscleman? I keep picturing a Christian project to reproduce the Bible this way and one of the monkeys has broken out ... :D

Just from the grammar-free title of the thread I have to ask muscleman: where does proof of your god's existence leave faith? I thought faith was supposed to be important ("and the greatest of these is faith"). Who needs faith if you have proof? Surely your god would prefer proof of its non -existence (since that would make continuing faith more difficult and praiseworthy)?

Sorry if I'm repeating anybody; I can't be bothered to plough through this lot.


"There is no limit to knowledge. To say "God knows everything" is to say there is limit to knowledge. God doesnt know everything because there is no such thing as everything, the word "everything" implies limit....

There is no limit to size, or shape, or thought, etc. Minds can never learn enough, minds can never think enough, and minds can never know enough. "- By me,

its quoted from here--->http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13327 (Go there if u want to learn how the omniscience/freewill argument has been DEBUNKED already, atheist simply just dont know about it, that or did know but is completely stupid and dedicated to their cult.....)


Faith is a necessity in human race in all aspects, from scientific field, to religion, to historical, to sports, etc.

Faith is a sign of humility.... Faith is the truth of who we really are, a limited being, in an unlimited realm....

There is no such thing as limits, we are limits, whats around us isnt.....

We are mortal, around us are eternal..

Faith is life.............

[muscleman]

Originally posted by J3K
muscleman,
I am not lying. Sorry, but I was wrong of making it seem like what I said applied to everything. But there have been things in this thread that showed you wrong, you fought back, they fought back and you left that topic because you were wrong.

Again and again I asked, if your not lying, and you really did see my arguments being proven wrong, why dont you point it out to me so I can deal with it. If you claim you are not a liar, and that u did see my arguments being proven wrong IN THIS THREAD, then point it, so I can deal with it and let God be my witness if I am mistaken..UR MAKING IT SOUND LIKE THIS THREAD EVAPORATED AND PERISHED, THIS THREAD IS STILL HERE, SO WHY DONT U POINT THAT SO-CALLED ARGUMENT OF MINE THAT ARE PROVEN WRONG, if it exist, ok?

Originally posted by J3K

So no voices in my head, just not making my words perfectly clear. But all people want is evidence. But how can you say "what evidence do you want?" What the hell is that, you should be able to show the evidence that without a doubt proves god exists. Not to mention people have said stuff that if you showed as evidence would prove to them god exists. Don't forget to ask god for forgiveness because you lied too. Because in an earlier post you said that after that post you would start using the bold feature. You haven't, so you lied, so you need to ask for forgiveness for your sin.

I have not lied, ATHEISTS ARE JUST IN DENIAL...First I asked "Prove to me King Henry exist"...

Now I ask one more time, is King Henry proven to you?? Well then, BECAUSE KING HENRY IS PROVEN, WHY DONT YOU SHOW ME SUCH "VALID AND CONVINCING EVIDENCE" of King Henry, SO ILL UNDERSTAND WHAT IS A VALID EVIDENCE TO YOU, so that I can PROVE God...

This thread has just began, the proof is on its way..Just as I have debunked atheism/freewill argument, I will also debunk the ENTIRE argument of atheism...Are u scared? Cant handle your cult being perished? If your not scared, then deal with the arguments, dont be in denial, and dont bail out like a sissy ok?

[Kimpatsu]

Originally posted by muscleman
"There is no limit to knowledge. To say "God knows everything" is to say there is limit to knowledge. God doesnt know everything because there is no such thing as everything, the word "everything" implies limit....
But if she isn't omniscient, she's not god. Any god would know everything; that is, all that exists, all that is possible, and all that is impossible. So, god must by definition know everything.

Originally posted by muscleman
There is no limit to size, or shape, or thought, etc. Minds can never learn enough, minds can never think enough, and minds can never know enough. "- By me,
Not very pithy. What about cogito, ergo sum?
Originally posted by muscleman
Faith is a necessity in human race in all aspects, from scientific field, to religion, to historical, to sports, etc.
No it isn't. "Faith" in science is to trust from past experience, as opposed to "faith" in god, for which there is no evidence. You are guilty of amphiboly.
Originally posted by muscleman
Faith is a sign of humility.... Faith is the truth of who we really are, a limited being, in an unlimited realm....
Rubbish. Humility can be born of faith, but the two are not indivisible. There are humble humanists as well.
Originally posted by muscleman
There is no such thing as limits, we are limits, whats around us isnt.....
But if god doesn't know everything (see your earlier claim), then there is indeed a limit: the limit to god's knowledge.
Originally posted by muscleman
Faith is life.............
Rationality is life. Critical thinking is life. Faith is a waste of time.

[muscleman]

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

But if she isn't omniscient, she's not god. Any god would know everything; that is, all that exists, all that is possible, and all that is impossible. So, god must by definition know everything.

http://www.randi.org/vbulletin/showthread.php?s=&threadid=13327

Go to that thread. Debate me from there, and Ill annihilate your arguments as I did to the rest of your kind who challenged me there. And Yes, God is "all-KNOWING", knowing....again go there, I challenge thee...:)

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Not very pithy. What about cogito, ergo sum?

No it isn't. "Faith" in science is to trust from past experience, as opposed to "faith" in god, for which there is no evidence. You are guilty of amphiboly.
LOL, how old are you? Faith in science is past experience, and God isnt? LOL...stop the joke, your killing me.....

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Rubbish. Humility can be born of faith, but the two are not indivisible. There are humble humanists as well.

But if god doesn't know everything (see your earlier claim), then there is indeed a limit: the limit to god's knowledge.
Again go 2 the thread above I posted "atheist omniscience/freewill argument DEBUNKED", and Yes God is all knowing, I know yur a kid (so dont worry, yur probably the first one I wont call names :)) i always deal with young teenagers anyways.

Originally posted by Kimpatsu

Rationality is life. Critical thinking is life. Faith is a waste of time.

Faith is a waste of time? Again, stop the joke.. LOL...the only thing I want to debate with u is about omniscience/freewill argument, go there, bring it to life...