IrishEyes Posted May 5, 2004 Report Posted May 5, 2004 Quote --------------------------------------------------------------------------------Originally posted by: FreethinkerYou need to learn to break your responses up. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Thanks for the advice. Again, what a LAUGH!! FreeT, did you really tell someone to break up responses? ROTFLM*O!!! You are an absolute GEM!!
Veritas Posted May 6, 2004 Report Posted May 6, 2004 Okay. Heres a bit of information that doesn't completly prove the existence of God, but leans towards a creator being there. Dr. Roger Penrose at Cambridge University gave these stats: having a universe that is ordered like ours just exploding from the big bang is one to ten to the tenth to the thirtieth. For those of you with no idea what I'm saying, think of a number so large, that if you tried to write it out, and you could write one million zeros a second, it would take a few BILLION years to get it all down.
sanctus Posted May 6, 2004 Report Posted May 6, 2004 If you got an infinite number of universes and possibilities to try, the probability turns out to be 1, even if starting off you have a probability which is almost zero (see my post above)
Tormod Posted May 6, 2004 Report Posted May 6, 2004 Originally posted by: VeritasOkay. Heres a bit of information that doesn't completly prove the existence of God, but leans towards a creator being there. Dr. Roger Penrose at Cambridge University gave these stats: having a universe that is ordered like ours just exploding from the big bang is one to ten to the tenth to the thirtieth. For those of you with no idea what I'm saying, think of a number so large, that if you tried to write it out, and you could write one million zeros a second, it would take a few BILLION years to get it all down. Exactly how does this train of thought become "proof" of anything? Tormod
Veritas Posted May 6, 2004 Report Posted May 6, 2004 What if there isn't an Infinite number of universes?
Veritas Posted May 6, 2004 Report Posted May 6, 2004 I didn't say it was proof. I said it was close to proof.
Freethinker Posted May 6, 2004 Report Posted May 6, 2004 Originally posted by: VeritasWhat if there isn't an Infinite number of universes? Prove that there isn't.
Freethinker Posted May 6, 2004 Report Posted May 6, 2004 Originally posted by: VeritasWhat if there isn't an Infinite number of universes? Prove that there isn't.
Freethinker Posted May 6, 2004 Report Posted May 6, 2004 Originally posted by: VeritasI didn't say it was proof. I said it was close to proof.Another believer. Either unwilling or unable to remember what they previously actually said:Originally posted by: VeritasOkay. Heres a bit of information that doesn't completly prove the existence of God, There is all the difference in the world between NOT BEING proof ("close to proof.") and not being COMPLETE proof.
Tormod Posted May 6, 2004 Report Posted May 6, 2004 Originally posted by: VeritasI didn't say it was proof. I said it was close to proof. How close? It doesn't hold a shred of evidence. It is, like I said, a train of thought. If you are trying to be stupid you are doing very well. I would recommend taking your level of argument a few steps further up the ladder of intelligence. Or, you could try to answer these: 1) Why should it be considered proof?2) What does it (almost) prove?3) Is there any reason we should believe you are not biased in any way towards blindly accepting it as (nearly) proof? (like, you are a believer)? Tormod
Freethinker Posted May 6, 2004 Report Posted May 6, 2004 Originally posted by: IrishEyesOnly Christians are selfrighteous enough to make such absurd claims to perfect knowledge. And again I say "YOU ARE A GOOF"!!! I don't claim perfect knowledge, but everyone here knows I HAVE IT!! :>P (that was a JOKE!!!) Seriously, it is statements like the above that leave people feeling personally attacked. Not ALL Christians are 'selfrighteous enough to make absurd claims to perfect knowledge'. In fact, i would say that the ONLY one that can claim PERFECT KNOWLEDGE is GOD, or IPU, or whatever you want to call it! LOL. Am I going to have to go back and pull your previous quotes. The ones where you specifically say that even though you can not PROVE that your god exists, you KNOW that he DOES. and NOTHING will EVER change that knowledge for you? Please be honest enough to admit you said it so I don't have to waste the time showing everyone that you in fact DID say it. We both KNOW you did. It is this very thought process which PROVES my point. A Christian will state that they KNOW their god exists whether they can show ANY proof or not. That IS a claim of PERFECT Knowledge. Or are you going to acknowledge that someone that THINKS there MAY BE a god and it MIGHT fit the Christian def, perhaps including some LIMITED parts of the bible, actually IS a Christian. (And don't use the dodge of "thinks" they are a Christian, IS a Christian) Or are you willing to admit right here and now, contrary to your earlier posts, that there is every chance in the world that you might be wrong about the very existence of your god? That you do NOT know if there was a god made man we call Jesus on earth some 2,000 years ago. That it COULD all be fiction. And that you DON'T know if you are going to heaven or not? Or do you have PERFECT KNOWLEDGE and you KNOW your god exists, Jesus was his son here on earth and that knowledge guarantees you will go to heaven. Which is it? Vote NOW! 1) Jesus, the Christian god and his heaven could all be fairytales 2) I have perfect knowledge that the Christian god is real and the only god there is and Jesus was his son here on earth and I am going to heaven.
Freethinker Posted May 6, 2004 Report Posted May 6, 2004 Originally posted by: TormodOriginally posted by: VeritasOkay. Heres a bit of information that doesn't completly prove the existence of God, but leans towards a creator being there. ... it would take a few BILLION years to get it all down. Exactly how does this train of thought become "proof" of anything? This is what I continue to fight here. There is a serious ignorance of basic Critical Thinking skills. The basic difference between PROOF and explanations is lost. We see claims and explanations presented as if they PROVE something. When the effort is made to explain the difference and require adherance to basic logical construction of arguments, all we get is that they don't have any PROOFS that meet such extreme standards, but they KNOW such and such ANYWAY! And until we PROVE that such and such does NOT exist, it is equally valid, if not more so, to accept it.
Veritas Posted May 6, 2004 Report Posted May 6, 2004 You still haven't disproved the existence of God. You've repeatedly told me that I can't prove there is a god. I ask you to disprove it. As for my almost proof, it almost proves that the universe was created. Mathmatically.
Veritas Posted May 6, 2004 Report Posted May 6, 2004 As for my "blindly" accepting this as nearly proof, I usually search multiple sources for proof backing my faith.
Freethinker Posted May 6, 2004 Report Posted May 6, 2004 Originally posted by: VeritasYou still haven't disproved the existence of God. You've repeatedly told me that I can't prove there is a god. I ask you to disprove it. It is easy to prove your god does not exist/ did not create the universe. It is simple to prove because the Great Invisible Pink Unicorn created the universe, and if your god does exist, it is only because the Great Invisible Pink Unicorn created him also. I KNOW it for a FACT. It is mathematically proven. Look around you, you can see the Great Invisible Pink Unicorn's creation all around you. That alone is all the proof you need! And you can not prove I am wrong, so therefore I am right!
Freethinker Posted May 6, 2004 Report Posted May 6, 2004 Originally posted by: VeritasAs for my almost proof, it almost proves that the universe was created. Mathmatically. See! That is why I am right and you are WRONG. MY proof DOES prove COMPLETELY, not just your "almost" proof!
Freethinker Posted May 6, 2004 Report Posted May 6, 2004 Originally posted by: VeritasAs for my "blindly" accepting this as nearly proof, I usually search multiple sources for proof backing my faith. You only need "multiple sources" because your first source is not absolutely correct. Mine is. If your main source was perfectly accurate, there would not be the need for "multiple sources". Therefore I do not have your failing need, the need of "multiple sources". My main source IS perfectly accurate, never wrong, always correct. And you can not prove otherwise, so therefore I KNOW I am correct.
Recommended Posts