14
   

Am i the only one?

 
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 12:40 pm
@neologist,
By the way, i call you a knowing liar because in the previous thread where you puked up this bullsh*t, you said yourself that the Persians diverted the river, now you're claiming the water "dried up." Liar.
neologist
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 12:56 pm
@Setanta,
Well, you know, I am of the delusion that diverting the river would essentially cause the channel to dry up.

I just can't seem to get it out of my head.
I do appreciate your reminders, though
neologist
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 12:59 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
Yeah . . . no doubt "cyberspace" is full of bullsh*t just like yours. Your claims are knowing lies, and they don't support any claim of god-inspired, inerrant scripture. You're a liar.
In themselves, of course they don't.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 01:00 pm
@neologist,
See, this is typical of your deceit. This is the first time you've mentioned the channel drying up, the channel did not in fact dry up, and the prophecies have nothing to say about the channel. This is just another willful lie.
neologist
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 01:21 pm
@Setanta,
Had you relied on the waters of the Euphrates as one of the principle defenses of your city, how dry would the waters have to be before you became concerned?
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 01:59 pm
@neologist,
You must think you're just as slick as snot on a doorknob. The point, which you keep attempting to evade, is that your claim of prophecies fulfilled isb bullsh*t.
neologist
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 02:33 pm
@Setanta,
Setanta wrote:
You must think you're just as slick as snot on a doorknob. The point, which you keep attempting to evade, is that your claim of prophecies fulfilled isb bullsh*t.
Taking one prophecy by itself, the fulfillment, no matter how precise or not, is as coincidence. I know that.
0 Replies
 
Setanta
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 02:50 pm
Your problem here is that none of them were fulfilled.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 06:21 pm
@Frank Apisa,
We have two fundamental disagreements. First of all, I believe that it is illogical to believe things with little or no evidence that they’re true. You have stated that you believe this is fine:

Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
It is always illogical to believe or guess that something is true with no evidence to indicate that it is true.


No...it is not.


My contention is that when one believes in a given proposition with little or no evidence, one tends to be wrong a lot. The technique doesn’t work. If one wants to be right about things, one should refrain from drawing conclusions until one has some actual information pointing to a conclusion. If you think guessing without evidence is a reliable way to determine truth, more power to you. I think you’re wrong. A guess based on nothing or nearly nothing is not as good as a guess based on relevant evidence.

Our second fundamental disagreement is this. You have said several times in different ways:

Frank Apisa wrote:
If a creator god exists...and we do not know if gods exist...everything we see is evidence that it exists.


And if a creator god doesn’t exist, then everything we see is not evidence of it. You could prove any arbitrary suggested cause for anything with this reasoning. If you propose that A was caused by B, and you are correct, then A is evidence of cause B. If you propose that A was caused by B and you are incorrect, then A is not evidence of B. Therefore, phenomenon A cannot be taken as evidence that B is its cause. If I am a police detective and I find that person A has been killed, I cannot claim that person B is guilty of the murder and use the mere fact of A’s death as evidence. Yes, if B is guilty, the death of A is evidence of it, but we do not know if B is guilty. This logic could also be used to show that person C is guilty. I can only assert, and good police do only assert, that person B is guilty based on evidence that cannot easily be interpreted another way, like B’s fingerprints on the murder weapon. Your suggested logic is invalid.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 06:26 pm
@Enaj,
Enaj wrote:

Quote:
Give me an example of something that is "intricately made" suggesting that it was designed by an intelligence.


You would be one.

You do not think that you are intricately made?



There are several possible explanations for my existence. A God is one. Evolution by natural selection is another one. How do you show that a God is more likely? Has there every been a case where a previously unexplained phenomenon has been finally explained in a demonstrable and repeatable ways by the supernatural? There sure have been a lot of cases where previously unexplained phenomena have been explained in demonstrable and repeatable ways by scientific descriptions of natural processes.
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 06:28 pm
Is not everything we accurately describe evidence of something?

What we argue is evidence of what?
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 06:30 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Is not everything we accurately describe evidence of something?

What we argue is evidence of what?

Yes. So what?
neologist
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 06:32 pm
@Brandon9000,
That's what I mean. . . .
What?
neologist
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 06:37 pm
@neologist,
Seriously.
You want evidence of creation.
It's all around you.
You want evidence of the beauty of chance.
It's all around you.

If that was all there was to it . . . . .
justforme23
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 06:45 pm
@CharliesGold,
First of all God is not santa, the sincere ones will heal in mind, body and soul the world will be a better place.
God helps us overcome sin, that's it. A after that people will change the problems in the world.
God works in mysterious ways.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 06:55 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Seriously.
You want evidence of creation.
It's all around you.
You want evidence of the beauty of chance.
It's all around you.

If that was all there was to it . . . . .

So, give me one and only one example of this evidence.
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 07:24 pm
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

We have two fundamental disagreements. First of all, I believe that it is illogical to believe things with little or no evidence that they’re true. You have stated that you believe this is fine:


I have never said anything of the sort, Brandon. In fact, I have never during all the years on Abuzz and A2K...EVERY said I "believe" anything. So you are dead wrong...positively wrong...absolutely wrong on this first item.

Not sure I can put any trust in any of the rest considering this opening jarring error.



Quote:
Frank Apisa wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
It is always illogical to believe or guess that something is true with no evidence to indicate that it is true.


No...it is not.


My contention is that when one believes in a given proposition with little or no evidence, one tends to be wrong a lot. The technique doesn’t work. If one wants to be right about things, one should refrain from drawing conclusions until one has some actual information pointing to a conclusion. If you think guessing without evidence is a reliable way to determine truth, more power to you. I think you’re wrong. A guess based on nothing or nearly nothing is not as good as a guess based on relevant evidence.


I could not care less about any of that, Brandon.

"Believing" something in the context of what we are discussing...IS NOTHING MORE THAN BLINDLY GUESSING ABOUT IT...and pretending it is something more by calling it "believing."

I do not do it...but if you want to do it...fine. But to suppose that YOU are basing your "beliefs" on rational thinking and the theists are basing theirs on something lesser...is a joke.




Quote:
Our second fundamental disagreement is this. You have said several times in different ways:

Frank Apisa wrote:
If a creator god exists...and we do not know if gods exist...everything we see is evidence that it exists.


Yes, I have. And I stand by it.

Quote:
And if a creator god doesn’t exist, then everything we see is not evidence of it.


Correct.


Quote:
You could prove any arbitrary suggested cause for anything with this reasoning.


No, you could not...and I haven't here. You cannot "prove" anything by what I have been saying.

In any case, you are looking for PROOF of the existence of a god as a standard for "believing" (guessing) there is a god.

But proof is not available.

You are mixing things up.



Quote:
If you propose that A was caused by B, and you are correct, then A is evidence of cause B. If you propose that A was caused by B and you are incorrect, then A is not evidence of B. Therefore, phenomenon A cannot be taken as evidence that B is its cause. If I am a police detective and I find that person A has been killed, I cannot claim that person B is guilty of the murder and use the mere fact of A’s death as evidence. Yes, if B is guilty, the death of A is evidence of it, but we do not know if B is guilty. This logic could also be used to show that person C is guilty. I can only assert, and good police do only assert, that person B is guilty based on evidence that cannot easily be interpreted another way, like B’s fingerprints on the murder weapon. Your suggested logic is invalid.



Forget all that crap...because it does not apply here.

You asked...actually, you defied anyone to show you "evidence" for the existence of a creator god.

I replied that IF a creator god existed...EVERYTHING would be evidence of that creator god.

I do not know if a creator god exists...and neither do you.

But IF one exists...EVERYTHING IS evidence of that creator god.

You may not like that...mostly because you apparently are convinced there are no gods...and you want to feel superior to theists who grovel before a cartoon god.

But the fact remains...that if a creator god exists...everything is evidence of that creator god.
0 Replies
 
Frank Apisa
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 07:27 pm
@neologist,
neologist wrote:

Seriously.
You want evidence of creation.


There is no certain evidence of creation...and there may not be "creation."

You are doing the same thing he is, Neo...but you operating on the opposite side of the coin. Probably because your blind guesses about the REALITY is different from his.





It's all around you.
You want evidence of the beauty of chance.
It's all around you.

If that was all there was to it . . . . .
[/quote]
0 Replies
 
neologist
 
  1  
Tue 2 Sep, 2014 08:14 pm
@Brandon9000,
neologist wrote:
Seriously.
You want evidence of creation.
It's all around you.
You want evidence of the beauty of chance.
It's all around you.

If that was all there was to it . . . . .
Brandon9000 wrote:
So, give me one and only one example of this evidence.
This is almost funny.
I was conceding your point.
But if you don't think there is any evidence the universe came about by chance, then I don't know what else there s to say .. . .
0 Replies
 
vinny86
 
  1  
Thu 11 Sep, 2014 04:05 pm
@CharliesGold,
why? because "we know we originate with God, but the whole world is lying in the power of the wicked one" (1john 5:19) .But its only for a while " And the Devil who was misleading them was hurled into the lake of fire and sulphur...." (revelation 20: 10). "And he will wipe out every tear from their eyes, and death will be no more, neither will mourning nor outcry nor pain be anymore. The former things have passed away." (revelation 21:4).
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Am i the only one?
  3. » Page 8
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 07/16/2024 at 09:14:26