My Problem With the "God Did It" Explanation for the Existence of the Universe

[Hawkins]

Truth can only be found by honest study and hard work.... "Nurd" stuff, I know.
Such a path is the most responsible one.

So you mean that the one who ever use the work nurd shouldn't have found out any truth? Gee, that's that theory!

The truth of God cannot be found by those God wants them to find Him out.

 

[McBell]

Gee, an assertion without any slide support for.

God knows you would know one when you see one.
I mean it isn't like you have used anything else in this thread.

Again, another assertion without any argument. The use of your children as a leverage is obvious, but that won't help much. Present your argument if you can. The use of "my children have better argument" won't help you much, that only shows your lack of an argument.

um...
I am guessing that English is not your first language?

I'll give you a hint here. "Future" is the word. If you are willing to pay attention, prophecies are somehow future-related (so is science, if you'd like drill down). So you can't induce delusion into the future, which could make it "undeniable".

Huh?
So you are claiming that by inserting the word "future" makes your unsubstantiated claim "undeniable"?

So by your line of logic, because by far soul can not be concretely define, such that soul does not exist. So genius you've just proven that afterlife doesn't exist, which I am afraid not a single scientist will agree with.

Nice strawman.
Care to try again?

See? You've fallen for the fallacy that "because something cannot be concretely defined such that it must not exist". Moreover, there are sane people here and there are talking about souls, if you think that they are talking something non-senses, you much be in your own little world. Keep on dreaming!

No, I have fallen for the justifiable position of "until you can show it is something more than your imagination, I will be skeptical of it being anything more than your imagination".

Your inability to understand the difference is your problem, not mine.

In stone age, humans couldn't even give a more scientific defintion on what fire is, they however used it on a daily basis. Humans have the capability to explore things which don't necessarily have a specific definition. They can reach a consensus for those things to be discussed around. 'while your line of logic like "Because people can't give a more specific definition about God such that God must not exist" is moot. Live with that or continue to live inside your little world!

Still attacking your strawman.

So in your little world, soul has nothing to do with NDE?! Keep yourself in your own little world to deny how NDE is OBE is usually treated as similar things and that soul is implicitly concerned.

Since you have thus far been completely unable to define this "soul" thing you speak so much about....

Haha..I plainly showed you how this fits more to you. You are totally out of reality by turning a blind eye to the mass of discussion on souls and OBE and such. It seems that in your little world, no one ever heard of soul? :no: And whenever people talk about soul they must be talking about something nonsense. Gee.

you just love creating strawmen.

 

[Hawkins]

God knows you would know one when you see one.
I mean it isn't like you have used anything else in this thread.

You don't seem to have anything better to say here.

um...
I am guessing that English is not your first language?

Attacking language is another sign of lacking arguments.

Huh?
So you are claiming that by inserting the word "future" makes your unsubstantiated claim "undeniable"?

You are quite clueless about what I am talking about, aren't you? Do a study yourself on why humnas trust science! That belongs to another topic though.

Nice strawman.
Care to try again?

Yet another assertion providing no argument. Is that all you can do?

No, I have fallen for the justifiable position of "until you can show it is something more than your imagination, I will be skeptical of it being anything more than your imagination".

Gee, you are skeptical while you can be in a justifiable position? That's exactly what your little world is. But at least now you know that you should learn instead of giving out baseless assertions.

Your inability to understand the difference is your problem, not mine.

Assertion without argument again.

Still attacking your strawman.

Yet another assertion without argument.

Since you have thus far been completely unable to define this "soul" thing you speak so much about....

You apply your fallacy here again. Let me put it straight, not a single one in this world can ever provide an accurate definition for soul. But if you think that because so soul doesn't exsit and any discussion of it is nonsense, that's your faith as you are living in your own little world.

you just love creating strawmen.

You end your post up with yet another baseless assertion.

 

[McBell]

You don't seem to have anything better to say here.

Attacking language is another sign of lacking arguments.

You are quite clueless about what I am talking about, aren't you? Do a study yourself on why humnas trust science! That belongs to another topic though.

Yet another assertion providing no argument. Is that all you can do?

Gee, you are skeptical while you can be in a justifiable position? That's exactly what your little world is. But at least now you know that you should learn instead of giving out baseless assertions.

Assertion without argument again.

Yet another assertion without argument.

You apply your fallacy here again. Let me put it straight, not a single one in this world can ever provide an accurate definition for soul. But if you think that because so soul doesn't exsit and any discussion of it is nonsense, that's your faith as you are living in your own little world.

You end your post up with yet another baseless assertion.

 

[Hawkins]

Sometime that emote could be rightly expressed, yet some other times it becomes a kind of self-deception for the lack of arguments.

 

[McBell]

Sometime that emote could be rightly expressed, yet some other times it becomes a kind of self-deception for the lack of arguments.

Lack of argument?
You, king of the logical fallacy, implying that someone else is lacking an argument?

 

[Wotan]

Lack of argument?
You, king of the logical fallacy, implying that someone else is lacking an argument?

As I mentioned elsewhere some intellects are just not WORTH engaging.

The "Ignore" feature works.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You apply your fallacy here again. Let me put it straight, not a single one in this world can ever provide an accurate definition for soul.

Hence, your argument is meaningless since you're trying to prove the existence of something you cannot define. If it cannot be accurately defined, you have nothing to test for since you have no possible knowledge of the qualities you look for in order to demonstrate that it exists. This doesn't mean that a soul does not exist (pending a definition, of course), all it means is that you're engaged in an entirely meaningless, circular argument with no factual basis whatsoever.

In other words: You're wasting everybody's time.

 

[Hawkins]

Hence, your argument is meaningless since you're trying to prove the existence of something you cannot define. If it cannot be accurately defined, you have nothing to test for since you have no possible knowledge of the qualities you look for in order to demonstrate that it exists. This doesn't mean that a soul does not exist (pending a definition, of course), all it means is that you're engaged in an entirely meaningless, circular argument with no factual basis whatsoever.

In other words: You're wasting everybody's time.

You spread fallacy here again, why not just answer this straight?

1) Can stone age men define fire in a scientific term?
2) Can anyone define God in a more specific term?

So get your Nobel Prize by disproving God's existence, or admit that it's your fallacy!

 

[Hawkins]

Lack of argument?
You, king of the logical fallacy, implying that someone else is lacking an argument?

Point me out which part I said is the logical fallacy, such that you have an argument to present. Yelling without any argument makes yourself like a fool!

Be frank, I hate to talk to your kind because your kind has the ability to drag endlessly and pointlessly like this, that is, without presenting a single point!

 

[McBell]

Be frank, I hate to talk to your kind because your kind has the ability to drag endlessly and pointlessly like this, that is, without presenting a single point!

So you hate arguing with yourself.
Gotcha.

 

[McBell]

Point me out which part I said is the logical fallacy, such that you have an argument to present.

I already have.
Strawmen are logical fallacies.

Then you have post #229.

Perhaps you should go learn about logic fallacies and come back to this thread so you can be properly embarrassed.

Yelling without any argument makes yourself like a fool!

Are you saying you are their king?

 

[painted wolf]

So you mean that the one who ever use the work nurd shouldn't have found out any truth?

No... just that finding truth requires the things you claimed to shun.

Gee, that's that theory!

That is not a theory... it isn't even a hypothesis.

The truth of God cannot be found by those God wants them to find Him out.

wait what? Did you mean what you just wrote?
That even if God wants someone to learn the truth about "Him"... they can't do it.

wa:do

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You spread fallacy here again,

No, I was pointing out your fallacy.

why not just answer this straight?

1) Can stone age men define fire in a scientific term?

I have no idea.

What's your point?

2) Can anyone define God in a more specific term?

I have no idea.

Again, what's your point?

So get your Nobel Prize by disproving God's existence, or admit that it's your fallacy!

What does any of this have to do with the obvious fallacy you made by stating that "spirits" cannot be defined, and yet should be studied? Did you even read what I wrote?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

I feel sad for you if you think this is what I said.

I know you think you understand what you think I said but what I said is not what I meant. Enjoy your sadness but don't blame it on me.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

...what I said is not what I meant.

Yeah, this pretty much sums up everything you say.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Yeah, this pretty much sums up everything you say.

You win. Have a nice weekend and a good father's Day if you meet the requirements.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

You win. Have a nice weekend and a good father's Day if you meet the requirements.

You too.

 

[meogi]

Continue to live with that fallacy, I already pointed out that by your line of logic, blackhole shouldn't have existed in stone age due to the overwhelming lack of evidence to the stone age men.

No, you're going off the idea that an overwhelming lack of evidence is proof of absence. For one stone-age man to say to another, yes, perhaps, suggesting a black hole would seem rather ridiculous. Our technologies are radically different, and as such, we've had a different experience.

Give stone-age man modern telescopes and computers and a couple generations; see what happens.

[edit] Just so you know, I don't believe an overwhelming amount of evidence is proof of existence, either. It's the use of the word overwhelming that really determines why someone does or doesn't (should or shouldn't?) believe something. Degrees of certainty.

 

[James C]

you believe your sight has a limit right ?
and your hearing also has a limit right?

why can't you accept that your mind ALSO has a limit ?
we believe GOD IS BEYOND COMPREHENSION

very true words i belive u are a very smart person:angel2: