Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 09:47 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
Eorl wrote:
I'd rather He spent the effort saving a few more from the Tsunami.


*snaps*

T
K
O


Tell me how nothing is supposed to do anything TKO or Eorl!
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 10:00 pm
Bartikus wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Translation: Set, how dare you use a easily recognized reference as a comparisson. How dare you interject a easily measured claim into this circus of non-sense.

T
K
O


Nice translation brought to us by the filter known as TKO. Let's compare the athletic skills of a star high school baseball player to that of a star major league player. Sound fair enough?

That kid is ok but, he would'nt last 10 seconds in a major league tryout and neither would you!

Pav is a professional with countless hours of training....Paul is an amateur who sold cell phones!

To make the comparison says it all! Can ya hear me now or do you need to switch carriers? Besides if Paul really is'nt that good and has been signed with Sony......That could be even more evidence.

It's a miracle! lol Thanks Set,TKO


So now there is nothing significant about this individual? Case closed. You've failed any burden of proof.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 10:03 pm
Bartikus wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Eorl wrote:
I'd rather He spent the effort saving a few more from the Tsunami.


*snaps*

T
K
O


Tell me how nothing is supposed to do anything TKO or Eorl!

That's exactly the point. Quit counting the angels on the tip of a pin.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 10:07 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Translation: Set, how dare you use a easily recognized reference as a comparisson. How dare you interject a easily measured claim into this circus of non-sense.

T
K
O


Nice translation brought to us by the filter known as TKO. Let's compare the athletic skills of a star high school baseball player to that of a star major league player. Sound fair enough?

That kid is ok but, he would'nt last 10 seconds in a major league tryout and neither would you!

Pav is a professional with countless hours of training....Paul is an amateur who sold cell phones!

To make the comparison says it all! Can ya hear me now or do you need to switch carriers? Besides if Paul really is'nt that good and has been signed with Sony......That could be even more evidence.

It's a miracle! lol Thanks Set,TKO


So now there is nothing significant about this individual? Case closed. You've failed any burden of proof.

T
K
O


You ask a question then close your case. I used the word IF as a qualifier.
I never said he was'nt significant...your projecting.
0 Replies
 
Terry
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 10:12 pm
Bartikus wrote:
Who said we are'nt?

Who said being able to sing well was the evidence?


A baby born with non-survivable defects is not a masterpiece. A priest who molests children is not a masterpiece. A mean-spirited and bitter soul that never achieves redemption is not a masterpiece.

You titled the thread "Evidence of God," posted a link to a clip of a man singing, and made reference to the man doing what he was born to do.

If you did not mean that his singing was the evidence, what did you mean? Do you think this man was predestined to sing? If so, why does God gift some people with talent and give others the desire to sing but not the right vocal apparatus? Why such a disparity in talents/abilities (precisely what you'd expect if we evolved) - instead of each person being given their fair share by a just creator?

Exactly how do you think any of this constitutes evidence of God, when it is quite clearly just the opposite?
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 10:13 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Eorl wrote:
I'd rather He spent the effort saving a few more from the Tsunami.


*snaps*

T
K
O


Tell me how nothing is supposed to do anything TKO or Eorl!

That's exactly the point. Quit counting the angels on the tip of a pin.

T
K
O


Then what is the relevance of the *snaps*? Eorl would rather nothing (He) do something about the tsunami victims which sounds like big bang poofism.

Because nothing has been seemingly done.....God is nothing?

What have you guys done?
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 10:24 pm
Terry wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
Who said we are'nt?

Who said being able to sing well was the evidence?


A baby born with non-survivable defects is not a masterpiece. A priest who molests children is not a masterpiece. A mean-spirited and bitter soul that never achieves redemption is not a masterpiece.

You titled the thread "Evidence of God," posted a link to a clip of a man singing, and made reference to the man doing what he was born to do.

If you did not mean that his singing was the evidence, what did you mean? Do you think this man was predestined to sing? If so, why does God gift some people with talent and give others the desire to sing but not the right vocal apparatus? Why such a disparity in talents/abilities (precisely what you'd expect if we evolved) - instead of each person being given their fair share by a just creator?

Exactly how do you think any of this constitutes evidence of God, when it is quite clearly just the opposite?


Maybe God knows better than You or I or even Set. That's a stretch sometimes I know. The evidence is all around and not just in his singing is what i meant.

Everyone is given different talents. What disparity? I never claimed the man was doing what he was born to do....he did! This is what he said he believes.

How does evolution and your perceived disparities give evidence that there is no God? Because he does not present himself and do things as you think he should?

You apparently do believe in God.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 11:38 pm
Bartikus wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Translation: Set, how dare you use a easily recognized reference as a comparisson. How dare you interject a easily measured claim into this circus of non-sense.

T
K
O


Nice translation brought to us by the filter known as TKO. Let's compare the athletic skills of a star high school baseball player to that of a star major league player. Sound fair enough?

That kid is ok but, he would'nt last 10 seconds in a major league tryout and neither would you!

Pav is a professional with countless hours of training....Paul is an amateur who sold cell phones!

To make the comparison says it all! Can ya hear me now or do you need to switch carriers? Besides if Paul really is'nt that good and has been signed with Sony......That could be even more evidence.

It's a miracle! lol Thanks Set,TKO


So now there is nothing significant about this individual? Case closed. You've failed any burden of proof.

T
K
O


You ask a question then close your case. I used the word IF as a qualifier.
I never said he was'nt significant...your projecting.

If he doesn't compare to a measureable standard, he's not that significant. Further, if you want to contest the idea of him being compared, because of the same standard, you're making him irrelavant, hense insignificant. No projection needed.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Tue 21 Aug, 2007 11:43 pm
Bartikus wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Eorl wrote:
I'd rather He spent the effort saving a few more from the Tsunami.


*snaps*

T
K
O


Tell me how nothing is supposed to do anything TKO or Eorl!

That's exactly the point. Quit counting the angels on the tip of a pin.

T
K
O


Then what is the relevance of the *snaps*? Eorl would rather nothing (He) do something about the tsunami victims which sounds like big bang poofism.

Because nothing has been seemingly done.....God is nothing?

What have you guys done?

The sanps are because, if their was a god, this is how it would show itself. the "God knows best" line doesn't cut it. By that same line of reasoning, some crazy idiot could claim the holocaust as evidence of god.

Eorl does not want a nothing to something, he is simply pointing out that the notion of god which so many adore is useless.

What have I done? Here's a hint. Even if I've done nothing, I've done more than your nothing has done and which you have claimed to do everything.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 12:49 am
Diest TKO wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Bartikus wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
Eorl wrote:
I'd rather He spent the effort saving a few more from the Tsunami.


*snaps*

T
K
O


Tell me how nothing is supposed to do anything TKO or Eorl!

That's exactly the point. Quit counting the angels on the tip of a pin.

T
K
O


Then what is the relevance of the *snaps*? Eorl would rather nothing (He) do something about the tsunami victims which sounds like big bang poofism.

Because nothing has been seemingly done.....God is nothing?

What have you guys done?

The sanps are because, if their was a god, this is how it would show itself. the "God knows best" line doesn't cut it. By that same line of reasoning, some crazy idiot could claim the holocaust as evidence of god.

Eorl does not want a nothing to something, he is simply pointing out that the notion of god which so many adore is useless.

What have I done? Here's a hint. Even if I've done nothing, I've done more than your nothing has done and which you have claimed to do everything.

T
K
O


You have done more than a nothing has? Wow....i'm impressed! Where did I claim God has done everything?

The notion of God being useless in his eyes and in his mind.... I understand.

You say if there was a God...THIS IS HOW IT WOULD/should SHOW ITSELF statement is ridiculous.

You are apparently a believer as well. God knows best more than cuts it especially in comparison to what you know. Apples and oranges again.

Your knowledge and wisdom compared to his.

Would you expect God to see things as you do and think like you too?

Are you just all that and then some or what?

Are you sure you don't believe in God? lol
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 01:32 am
Wow that post needs a bit of tayloring.

You haven't specifically said god has done everything, but you seem to play the card of "God knows best" in regaurds to things like tsunamis. That's pretty much God does everything talk. Regaurdless, even if you don't believe god does everything, you seem to think that it does SOMETHING. So prove it.

Quote:
You say if there was a God...THIS IS HOW IT WOULD/should SHOW ITSELF statement is ridiculous.

How is this ridiculous at all? Back it up.

Quote:
You are apparently a believer as well. God knows best more than cuts it especially in comparison to what you know. Apples and oranges again.

Apple: My limited knowledge and experience.
Orange: The assumed infinite knowledge and experience or a being that doesn't exist.

Orange sounds nice, but the apple is still worth more.

Quote:
Would you expect God to see things as you do and think like you too?

If a god existed in such a way (the same preposition you tried to scold me for earlier) I would simply insist that they see and think. they would not have to see and think like me. Before anyone could ever find out what god see ans thinks, god would first have to exist.

Taking the quiet stance with my questions still?
K
O
0 Replies
 
Bartikus
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 09:21 am
Diest TKO wrote:
Wow that post needs a bit of tayloring.

You haven't specifically said god has done everything, but you seem to play the card of "God knows best" in regaurds to things like tsunamis. That's pretty much God does everything talk. Regaurdless, even if you don't believe god does everything, you seem to think that it does SOMETHING. So prove it.

Quote:
You say if there was a God...THIS IS HOW IT WOULD/should SHOW ITSELF statement is ridiculous.

How is this ridiculous at all? Back it up.

Quote:
You are apparently a believer as well. God knows best more than cuts it especially in comparison to what you know. Apples and oranges again.

Apple: My limited knowledge and experience.
Orange: The assumed infinite knowledge and experience or a being that doesn't exist.

Orange sounds nice, but the apple is still worth more.

Quote:
Would you expect God to see things as you do and think like you too?

If a god existed in such a way (the same preposition you tried to scold me for earlier) I would simply insist that they see and think. they would not have to see and think like me. Before anyone could ever find out what god see ans thinks, god would first have to exist.

Taking the quiet stance with my questions still?
K
O


So you agree God would not have to see and think like you?

yet....

This would not make your statement about "THIS IS HOW IT WOULD/should SHOW ITSELF.....ridiculous?

This statement is backed up by your own words.

You make no sense whatsoever.
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 10:48 am
Bartikus:

Interesting topic - one that's been bantered about on here in many ways. Non-believers claiming there is no scientific evidence of God - yet they will go to their grave insisting that their Mom loves them and vice versa. (Of course w/o scientific evidence of proof.) :wink:

Both scenarios are clearly emotion-based conclusions.

And the man can sing - I am happy that he is so blessed!
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 01:04 pm
Bartikus wrote:

So you agree God would not have to see and think like you?

I think I've been pretty clear about that. IF (being the keyword) god existed, I don't think that we'd have to see and think congruently.
Bartikus wrote:

yet....

This would not make your statement about "THIS IS HOW IT WOULD/should SHOW ITSELF.....ridiculous?

This statement is backed up by your own words.

No it's not Bart. You just don't have the grounds to back up your claim. Remove God and interject the flying spagetti monster, I won't argue semantics, it's not the point right here.

The point is quite simply that a person singing, people reacting, etc is no evidence whatsoever that god exists. The only reason Tsunamis get brought up is that tsunamis are no doubt a part of nature and cetainly a better means to illustrate a supernatural presence. If there was a god, I would expect evidence, you have not provided any. It is not ridiculous for any individual to have some expectation on a given theoretical circumstance.

IF a meteor hit the earth
IF Aliens attacked
IF Zombies rose from the earth
If god existed

Your objection is out of line. There is nothing ridiculous about someone pointing out the very obvious notion that if you were a god and were leaving evidence around, you might choose better means than giving a person a singing voice. So back it up or shut up.

Bartikus wrote:

You make no sense whatsoever.

I believe you created a thread on evidece of god then posted a link to youtube. Your idea sucked, deal with it.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 01:08 pm
baddog1 wrote:
Bartikus:

Interesting topic - one that's been bantered about on here in many ways. Non-believers claiming there is no scientific evidence of God - yet they will go to their grave insisting that their Mom loves them and vice versa. (Of course w/o scientific evidence of proof.) :wink:

Both scenarios are clearly emotion-based conclusions.

And the man can sing - I am happy that he is so blessed!

BTW, I'm not sure if it was you who I've discussed this comparisson of the evidence of God with the notion of love, but it seems plainly clear what the difference is.

I can recreate, reproduce, qualify and validate evidence that my mother loves me. I can do this because my mother is REAL.

There just is zero credible evidence of god.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 01:23 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
baddog1 wrote:
Bartikus:

Interesting topic - one that's been bantered about on here in many ways. Non-believers claiming there is no scientific evidence of God - yet they will go to their grave insisting that their Mom loves them and vice versa. (Of course w/o scientific evidence of proof.) :wink:

Both scenarios are clearly emotion-based conclusions.

And the man can sing - I am happy that he is so blessed!

BTW, I'm not sure if it was you who I've discussed this comparisson of the evidence of God with the notion of love, but it seems plainly clear what the difference is.

I can recreate, reproduce, qualify and validate evidence that my mother loves me. I can do this because my mother is REAL.

There just is zero credible evidence of god.

T
K
O


My question does not ask for proof of your mother, I agree that she is real. It asks for proof of your mother's love. And of your love for her.
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 02:20 pm
My proof is that we can both testify to that claim because we are real. This evidence can be recreated, reproduced, qualified and validated.

The burden of proof to prove god's exisitance is still waiting to be satisfied.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
baddog1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 02:34 pm
Diest TKO wrote:
My proof is that we can both testify to that claim because we are real. This evidence can be recreated, reproduced, qualified and validated.

The burden of proof to prove god's exisitance is still waiting to be satisfied.

T
K
O


OK, I think I've got it. (But I'm asking to be sure!) Because you and your Mom are "real" whatever you say to each other is undeniably true?
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 02:38 pm
baddog1 wrote:
Diest TKO wrote:
My proof is that we can both testify to that claim because we are real. This evidence can be recreated, reproduced, qualified and validated.

The burden of proof to prove god's exisitance is still waiting to be satisfied.

T
K
O


OK, I think I've got it. (But I'm asking to be sure!) Because you and your Mom are "real" whatever you say to each other is undeniably true?


Undeniably true, not nessisarily. However even if challenged, we are real, our behaivors can be observed and recorded.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
littlek
 
  1  
Reply Wed 22 Aug, 2007 03:42 pm
Diest TKO wrote:

Bartikus wrote:

You make no sense whatsoever.

I believe you created a thread on evidece of god then posted a link to youtube. Your idea sucked, deal with it.

T
K
O


That was perfect, Diest!
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

700 Inconsistencies in the Bible - Discussion by onevoice
Why do we deliberately fool ourselves? - Discussion by coincidence
Spirituality - Question by Miller
Oneness vs. Trinity - Discussion by Arella Mae
give you chills - Discussion by Bartikus
Evidence for Evolution! - Discussion by Bartikus
One World Order?! - Discussion by Bartikus
God loves us all....!? - Discussion by Bartikus
The Preambles to Our States - Discussion by Charli
 
  1. Forums
  2. » Evidence of God!
  3. » Page 2
Copyright © 2019 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/13/2019 at 04:58:59