Belz...
Fiend God
Edge said:
So god decided to kill only SOME of them ?
How merciful.
Proof of God
- Thread starter Dustin Kesselberg
- Start date
So god decided to kill only SOME of them ?
How merciful.
What an utterly ridicules statement.
What causes the break down of our structures that we build?
I believe that the Second Law of Thermodynamics went into effect at the time of the Fall and was probably not a feature of the original creation.
We do not observe God at work in the everyday world of nature because He almost always works within the framework of His own Laws.
O the depth of the riches and wisdom and knowledge of God! How unsearchable are his judgments and how inscrutable his ways! "For who has known the mind of the Lord, or who has been his counselor?" "Or who has given a gift to him that he might be repaid?" For from him and through him and to him are all things. To him be glory for ever. Amen. (Rom. 11:33-36)
Men caused this to happen by not doing their jobs. It would have been cheaper to tear the bridge down and put up a new one.
Now what is the cost? We think we are so smart and that we can make things last beyond the capability that we have. This is vanity at it’s most dangerous level.
We choose death over life it started with the original sin and continues today. We took the risk and still do and people have to die every day.
Here we are considering the case of the deistic god.
The deistic god is, by definition, unobservable.
The Earth, on the other hand, is not flat, so the analogy fails.
Here is a more direct exposure of the trick employed by Mobyseven:
Denying the antecedent is of the form:
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore not Q.
P: [The existence of god can be demonstrated]
Q: ["There is no god" can be falsified"]
If [The existence of god can be demonstrated], then ["There is no god" can be falsified"]
Not [The existence of god can be demonstrated]
Therefore not ["There is no god" can be falsified"]
Or, more simply
If [The existence of god can be demonstrated], then ["There is no god" can be falsified"]
The existence of god can not be demonstrated
Therefore "There is no god" can not be falsified"
Denying the antecedant is usually an INVALID argument, but there is an exception:
If the if-then premise is actually an if and only if-then claim, then the argument IS valid.
Let's try it:
If and only if [The existence of god can be demonstrated], then ["There is no god" can be falsified"]
The existence of god can not be demonstrated
Therefore "There is no god" can not be falsified"
In other words, the only way that "there is no god" can be falsified", is by demonstrating the existence of god. The existence of god can not be demonstrated, therefore "There is no god" can not be falsified"
By god, it works!
regards,
BillyJoe
Denying the antecedent is of the form:
If P, then Q.
Not P.
Therefore not Q.
P: [The existence of god can be demonstrated]
Q: ["There is no god" can be falsified"]
If [The existence of god can be demonstrated], then ["There is no god" can be falsified"]
Not [The existence of god can be demonstrated]
Therefore not ["There is no god" can be falsified"]
Or, more simply
If [The existence of god can be demonstrated], then ["There is no god" can be falsified"]
The existence of god can not be demonstrated
Therefore "There is no god" can not be falsified"
Denying the antecedant is usually an INVALID argument, but there is an exception:
If the if-then premise is actually an if and only if-then claim, then the argument IS valid.
Let's try it:
If and only if [The existence of god can be demonstrated], then ["There is no god" can be falsified"]
The existence of god can not be demonstrated
Therefore "There is no god" can not be falsified"
In other words, the only way that "there is no god" can be falsified", is by demonstrating the existence of god. The existence of god can not be demonstrated, therefore "There is no god" can not be falsified"
By god, it works!
regards,
BillyJoe
The question of nothing is not irrelevant:
The relevance is in the difference between time with a beginning and time without a beginning?
I agree that there is no time before time begins and, therefore, no time during which there is nothing. But nothing is still what distinguishes a universe in which there is time with a beginning from a universe in which there is time without a beginning.
Consider:
In a universe in which there was a beginning to time, there would be a beginning to space and a beginning to the appearance of material objects.
In a universe in which there was no beginning to time, there would always have been space and there would always have been material objects.
Therefore you cannot deny the concept of nothing.
If time has a beginning, there is nothing before time (and space and material objects) came into existence.
If time has no beginning, there is never nothing, and there is never a coming into existence of space and material objects.
Therefore nothing is not an irrelevant concept.
But first there has to be quantum physics.
First there has to be the possibility of quantum fluctuation.
How does quantum physics and hence the possibility of quantum fluctuation arise from nothing?
The concept of nothing is implicit in the difference between:
1) A universe in which there was a beginning to time - meaning a universe in which there was a beginning to space and a beginning to the appearance of material objects.
2) A universe in which there was NO beginning to time - meaning a universe in which there would always have been space and in which there would always have been material objects
You are the only one with this knowledge right.
Back at you,
I love the way that people incorporate the 2TOL as if they had a clue what its significance was in relation to the word of God. Modern delusions into their reality- as if they had a clue what its significance were to reality.
I notice that by your avatar you love anarchy too and your words.
So yes I’m going to listen to you. Not!
Get yea behind me demon and away you fly.
In the name of the lord Jesus Christ may he open your eyes, amen.
cyborg
deus ex machina
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,981
Yes.
Why not?
Cute - it's funny that you think this is some how a devastating rebuttal.
Of course that doesn't change the fact that you don't understand thermodynamics beyond the disinformation you can gleam from creationist websites.
Eh? Do you even know what the avatar is of?
I'm guessing not otherwise you wouldn't say something so monumentally stupid.
That and $10 will buy you a cheap whore to cast out your sin.
cyborg
deus ex machina
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,981
If you weren't being serious I'd laugh.
So, any luck finding that hooker?
Sure you would - but then as I already said because you don't understand thermodynamics you can't understand the reason why your creationist websites are lying (or just really stupid - I can go either way) to you when they invoke the 2TOL as an argument for your god.
So you don't know what it is but you go ahead and talk some nonsense about 'anarchy' anyway.
I'm guessing you don't know what 'anarchy' is either. There seems to be very little of anything you are not remarkably ignorant of.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
That is proof, your easy edge, real easy to fool.
Paul
Also according to you, your so-called god is the maker of all things and is therefore the source of all evil.
lying (or just really stupid - I can go either way)
That part you got right humm some honesty.
Cyborg says,
I stopped reading comic books a long time ago why don't you inlighten us all.
anarchy,without authority, and in your case without the authority of God, so yes you bring it.
So Own up to it!
Paul says,
This is the point that you don’t get.
Now we must learn why not to accept that line of thought,anarchy,without authority.
I'm not the one being fooled here paul.
That part you got right humm some honesty.
Cyborg says,
I stopped reading comic books a long time ago why don't you inlighten us all.
anarchy,without authority, and in your case without the authority of God, so yes you bring it.
So Own up to it!
Paul says,
Evil is a principality Paul and God created Satan who exposed us to the principality he created. Satan wasn’t like that to begin with and neither were we.
This is the point that you don’t get.
Now we must learn why not to accept that line of thought,anarchy,without authority.
I'm not the one being fooled here paul.
Paulhoff
You can't expect perfection.
- Joined
- May 1, 2005
- Messages
- 12,512
You so-called god made this so-called Satan edge, poof, Satan is gone, poof, that easy for a so-called all-powerful god, just poof, but no, you make excuses for your idea of a so-called god and type of universe you believe, you just make excuses for the so-called childish god.Paul says,
Evil is a principality Paul and God created Satan who exposed us to the principality he created. Satan wasn’t like that to begin with and neither were we.
This is the point that you don’t get.
Now we must learn why not to accept that line of thought,anarchy,without authority.
I'm not the one being fooled here paul.
Mine, no problem with understanding it all, life is just that life and BS happens and sometimes is doesn’t, no need for a Satan, no need for a so-called childish god, and no need for a so-called Jesus and no need to understand why something that doesn’t exist doesn’t do anything.
Paul
Put away the little black book and open your eyes edge.
Lonewulf
Humanistic Cyborg
- Joined
- Nov 12, 2005
- Messages
- 10,375
Edge said:
People that are "under authority" of god:
Kings/Emporers, who are ordained by God supposedly. Many of which led to many wars and deaths.
Inquisitions. The Spanish Inquisition just being one example of an Inquisition; that was quite a common tactic. When people disagree, murder/torture them in the name of God.
Hitler, who proclaimed God's authority.
George W. Bush, who did the same thing. Not as bad as Hitler, but still pretty bad.
The warriors and monarchs during the Crusades, on both sides.
Hmm... I could come up with more examples. However, God's authority isn't very appealing to me. Got anything better?
Dr Adequate
Banned
- Joined
- Aug 31, 2004
- Messages
- 17,766
That one comes high on AiG's list of arguments we think Creationists should NOT use.
So congratulations, edge. You've actually managed to make a statement about the Second Law of Thermodynamics which even other fundies think is stupid. I guess that makes you Top Creationist, you must be so proud.
15He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn over all creation. 16For by him all things were created: things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or powers or rulers or authorities; all things were created by him and for him. 17He is before all things, and in him all things hold together.
It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power (Col. 1:15–17) at the Fall so that the decay effect of the Second Law was no longer countered.
Point taken. God still flipped a switch on or off.
Either way it's still compelling.
It is more likely that God withdrew some of His sustaining power (Col. 1:15–17) at the Fall so that the decay effect of the Second Law was no longer countered.
Point taken. God still flipped a switch on or off.
Either way it's still compelling.
cyborg
deus ex machina
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,981
What has reading or not reading comic books have to do with anything?
I've never read comic books - does this have any significance?
So, what does anarchy have to do with the avatar?
No - you're not getting out of your dumbassery this way.
What does anarchy have to do with the avatar?
You want me to own up to not being under the authority of mythical entities?
I guess I can 'own up' to that - if you can comprehend how little that means to me.
cyborg
deus ex machina
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2005
- Messages
- 4,981
Compelling for what?