|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
 Posted - 02/15/2006 : 13:44:16 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
As I was saying,
1. Is the universe eternal?
2. If it had a point in time that it began to exsist then what was the first cause?
3. In a completely material universe how does that, which did exsist, begin to exsist?
1) Don't know. Do you know for fact? If so, back it up.
2) Don't know. Do you know for fact? If so, back it up.
3) Don't know. Do you know for fact? If so, back it up.
Here's mine:
1) What does this have to do with the original topic?
2) Why don't you start another thread?
EDIT: 3) Why the hell don't you use the quote feature correctly?
|
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 02/15/2006 16:38:15 |
 |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 15:54:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Do you have any evidence beyond the Blithering of the Book to support it's case?
(bill) I will assume that, as an Atheist, you subscribe to a completely materialistic universe. The universe is a material object that is fixed in time and space. Is it your belief that the universe is eternal? If not, then it had to have a point in time when it began to exist. What was the first cause which caused the universe, which previously did not exist, to begin to exist? This question could be asked of any, and all, known physical matter. Now remember, if you use any material objects in the explanation of how that which previously did not exist could begin to exist, then you must account for their existence as well. In other words, when on the topic of cosmology, I have been given many interesting thesis on the origin of the universe.
Example:
Atheist: Maybe it all started with "space dust"?
Bill: Is the space dust eternal, or did it have a point in time when it began to exist?
Atheist: Maybe strings had something to do with it?
Bill: Are the strings eternal, or did they have a point in time where they began to exist?
Atheist: Ok, well maybe aliens put everything here?
Bill: Are the aliens eternal, or did they have a point in time when they began to exist?
etc... etc... etc...
Heh... Pretty good.
But, you apparently do not know what an atheist is. We would never have such a discussion because I simply don't know and will admit it without a blush.
However, just because I don't know now doesn't mean that I will never know at least some of it. And your examples are close enough to ridiculous to resemble a straw man.
But, the atheist might state, if none of those things are true, or even no more than on the edges of remote possibility, this does not necessarily mean that some omnipotent being, for who knows what perverse reason, did it. Lots of other possibilies out there. An entirely different set of laws of physice, mayhap.
It ain't black & white, Bill, not until you can hold it in your hand, examine it, and publish your findinge in Copiea -- speaking figuritivly, of course.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
| Edited by - filthy on 02/15/2006 15:59:02 |
|
|
|
tomk80
SFN Regular
Netherlands
1278 Posts |
Posted - 02/15/2006 : 19:22:49 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by furshur
Atheist: Maybe it all started with "space dust"?
Bill: Is the space dust eternal, or did it have a point in time when it began to exist?
Atheist: Ah, who the fuck cares we're here so let's make the most of it.
Bill: God will send me to Hell if I think the wrong thing.
Atheist: Well I don't have to worry because there is no God.
As I was saying,
1. Is the universe eternal?
2. If it had a point in time that it began to exsist then what was the first cause?
3. In a completely material universe how does that, which did exsist, begin to exsist?
I like these kind of questions, because they allow me to state "I don't know." The theist (usually the fundamentalist christian) is often reasonably stunned with this admission, and with the subsequent admission that I couldn't care less. This is usually funny (for my perverted little sadist mind, that is). They usually have to agree with me if I subsequently point out that, just because I do not know how something happened, God is the answer to the question (although some can be pretty stubborn on that). |
Tom
`Contrariwise,' continued Tweedledee, `if it was so, it might be; and if it were so, it would be; but as it isn't, it ain't. That's logic.'
-Through the Looking Glass by Lewis Caroll- |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 01:55:43 [Permalink]
|
Bill wrote: It is just the anti-theist's lame attempt to rationalize away the fact that immaterial emotions such as love, hate, heartache, loneliness, exist in a, supposed, purely materialistic universe, driven forward by chance, with NS at the controls.
So you assume evolutionary psychology and sociobiology are bad science, even though you are clearly ignorant of them. You also assume that all sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists are not just atheists (which is not true), but are anti-theists. (which is definitely not true).
People said similar things about Galileo when he theorized about the earth being round.
I've always been interested in science books for the layman and scientific museums. I started out a Catholic. I liked being Catholic. My mom is Catholic (and I like my mom), I thought I'd go to heaven when I died, I could get rid of guilt through confession. Plus the songs we sung at mass were uplifting. My initial doubt in things spiritual turned into a painful shift over to complete materialistic atheism, and that happened over a period of about 5 years. I have known other atheists who weren't so keen on atheism when they first started thinking that way – sort of like Charles Darwin. He wrote all about how his views on natural selection were causing an emotional rift between him and his beloved wife, and he stressed out all the time over it. So it gets on my nerves when people like you suggest that we're using the science as an excuse to justify our atheism. Have you never heard of existential angst? Don't you think I'd prefer to believe in heaven?
Also, I'm not an “anti-theist”. I have a Unitarian bumper sticker on my car advertising my embrace of religious pluralism.
Bill wrote: Please explain to me how immaterial emotions such as love or loneness exist in a purely materialist universe driven by chance? How did the results of natural selection create the immaterial emotion of love?
That peoples' emotions are affected by our physical bodies is apparent. Hang out with a woman going through menopause. Teenagers have spontaneous impulses more than adults because of hormones. I have hypoglycemia; If I skip a meal, I can become agitated, paranoid, insecure, overwhelmingly sad, and then as soon as I eat something I suddenly feel normal again. My cousin has bipolar disorder; off her meds she married and divorced two different abusive men and dropped out of school, but on her meds she's gotten a good job, got herself out of debt, and is starting her own small business. Another cousin in an alcoholic, and when he gets drunks, he whole personality changes. People have had brain injuries that entirely changed their personalities, including causing them to fall out of love with their spouses. People who have been badly abused often have difficulty even falling in love because they have trust issues. Obviously the physical and mental/emotional are intertwined.
Bill wrote: Why does this only happen to the human animal species?
You might as well pick out any unique trait of any animal or plant species and ask “Why does this only happen to (fill in the blank) species?” I told you bonobo apes engage in homosexual acts just as often as heterosexual acts. Why are bonobos the only entirely bisexual ape? I don't know – we have to study them to figure that out. Homosexuality in humans has been around as far as there are historical records. Different societies have found different ways of dealing with it (and those ways of dealing with it usually correspond in some way to heterosexual relationships) but it has always been around. Even if we haven't concretely figured out all the reasons for it, we still observe that it naturally occurs at a predictable rate in our species. Are you denying that?
Bill wrote: (marf)Natural selection is not interchangeable with your concept of God.
(bill) I would agree.
(marf)Our worldviews are fundame |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
| Edited by - marfknox on 02/16/2006 02:06:03 |
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 02:10:06 [Permalink]
|
1. Is the universe eternal? Not enough information is known about the universe to answer that accurately. In other words, dunno.
2. If it had a point in time that it began to exsist then what was the first cause? repeat answer to #2.
3. In a completely material universe how does that, which did exsist, begin to exsist? repeat answer to #1 and #2. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
marfknox
SFN Die Hard
USA
3739 Posts |
Posted - 02/16/2006 : 02:19:59 [Permalink]
|
Bill's original conversation modified to be an accurate atheistic response:
Atheist: I just read this cool book called "The First Three Minutes" about the Big Bang. Maybe it all started with "space dust".
Bill: Is the space dust eternal, or did it have a point in time when it began to exist?
Atheist: Well how the heck would anyone know yet? We haven't even proven that it was space dust. It's a hypothesis for heck's sake, that's why I said "Maybe". Sheesh. Hey, you read any Brian Greene? Maybe strings had something to do with it.
Bill: Are the strings eternal, or did they have a point in time where they began to exist?
Atheist: Aren't you a little ahead of the program? Strings are still in the mathmatical stage. There aren't any experiments posed yet, so it's not even a sound scientific theory. It's basically still mere philosophy. Get with the program. *Then atheist rolls their eyes and says sarcastically:* well maybe aliens put everything here.
Bill: Are the aliens eternal, or did they have a point in time when they began to exist?
Atheist: Dude, I was kidding! There's isn't any evidence for aliens! Geez oh Pete, at least string theory had some math behind it. |
"Too much certainty and clarity could lead to cruel intolerance" -Karen Armstrong
Check out my art store: http://www.marfknox.etsy.com
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 08:28:12 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by marfknox
Bill wrote: It is just the anti-theist's lame attempt to rationalize away the fact that immaterial emotions such as love, hate, heartache, loneliness, exist in a, supposed, purely materialistic universe, driven forward by chance, with NS at the controls.
So you assume evolutionary psychology and sociobiology are bad science, even though you are clearly ignorant of them. You also assume that all sociobiologists and evolutionary psychologists are not just atheists (which is not true), but are anti-theists. (which is definitely not true).
People said similar things about Galileo when he theorized about the earth being round.
I've always been interested in science books for the layman and scientific museums. I started out a Catholic. I liked being Catholic. My mom is Catholic (and I like my mom), I thought I'd go to heaven when I died, I could get rid of guilt through confession. Plus the songs we sung at mass were uplifting. My initial doubt in things spiritual turned into a painful shift over to complete materialistic atheism, and that happened over a period of about 5 years. I have known other atheists who weren't so keen on atheism when they first started thinking that way – sort of like Charles Darwin. He wrote all about how his views on natural selection were causing an emotional rift between him and his beloved wife, and he stressed out all the time over it. So it gets on my nerves when people like you suggest that we're using the science as an excuse to justify our atheism. Have you never heard of existential angst? Don't you think I'd prefer to believe in heaven?
Also, I'm not an “anti-theist”. I have a Unitarian bumper sticker on my car advertising my embrace of religious pluralism.
Bill wrote: Please explain to me how immaterial emotions such as love or loneness exist in a purely materialist universe driven by chance? How did the results of natural selection create the immaterial emotion of love?
That peoples' emotions are affected by our physical bodies is apparent. Hang out with a woman going through menopause. Teenagers have spontaneous impulses more than adults because of hormones. I have hypoglycemia; If I skip a meal, I can become agitated, paranoid, insecure, overwhelmingly sad, and then as soon as I eat something I suddenly feel normal again. My cousin has bipolar disorder; off her meds she married and divorced two different abusive men and dropped out of school, but on her meds she's gotten a good job, got herself out of debt, and is starting her own small business. Another cousin in an alcoholic, and when he gets drunks, he whole personality changes. People have had brain injuries that entirely changed their personalities, including causing them to fall out of love with their spouses. People who have been badly abused often have difficulty even falling in love because they have trust issues. Obviously the physical and mental/emotional are intertwined.
Bill wrote: Why does this only happen to the human animal species?
You might as well pick out any unique trait of any animal or plant species and ask “Why does this only happen to (fill in the blank) species?” I told you bonobo apes engage in homosexual acts just as often as heterosexual acts. Why are bonobos the only entirely bisexual ape? I don't know – we have to study them to figure that out. Homosexuality in humans has been around as far as there are historical records. Different societies have found different ways of dealing with it (and those ways of dealing with it usually correspond in some way to heterosexual relationships) but it has always been around. Even if we haven't concretely figured out all the reasons for it, we still observe that it naturally occurs at a predictable rate in our species. Are you denying |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 08:33:00 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Do you have any evidence beyond the Blithering of the Book to support it's case?
(bill) I will assume that, as an Atheist, you subscribe to a completely materialistic universe. The universe is a material object that is fixed in time and space. Is it your belief that the universe is eternal? If not, then it had to have a point in time when it began to exist. What was the first cause which caused the universe, which previously did not exist, to begin to exist? This question could be asked of any, and all, known physical matter. Now remember, if you use any material objects in the explanation of how that which previously did not exist could begin to exist, then you must account for their existence as well. In other words, when on the topic of cosmology, I have been given many interesting thesis on the origin of the universe.
Example:
Atheist: Maybe it all started with "space dust"?
Bill: Is the space dust eternal, or did it have a point in time when it began to exist?
Atheist: Maybe strings had something to do with it?
Bill: Are the strings eternal, or did they have a point in time where they began to exist?
Atheist: Ok, well maybe aliens put everything here?
Bill: Are the aliens eternal, or did they have a point in time when they began to exist?
etc... etc... etc...
Heh... Pretty good.
But, you apparently do not know what an atheist is. We would never have such a discussion because I simply don't know and will admit it without a blush.
However, just because I don't know now doesn't mean that I will never know at least some of it. And your examples are close enough to ridiculous to resemble a straw man.
But, the atheist might state, if none of those things are true, or even no more than on the edges of remote possibility, this does not necessarily mean that some omnipotent being, for who knows what perverse reason, did it. Lots of other possibilies out there. An entirely different set of laws of physice, mayhap.
It ain't black & white, Bill, not until you can hold it in your hand, examine it, and publish your findinge in Copiea -- speaking figuritivly, of course.
But, you apparently do not know what an atheist is. We would never have such a discussion because I simply don't know and will admit it without a blush.
a·the·ist n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
atheist
adj : related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings" [syn: atheistic, atheistical] n : someone who denies the existence of god
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 09:02:28 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Do you have any evidence beyond the Blithering of the Book to support it's case?
(bill) I will assume that, as an Atheist, you subscribe to a completely materialistic universe. The universe is a material object that is fixed in time and space. Is it your belief that the universe is eternal? If not, then it had to have a point in time when it began to exist. What was the first cause which caused the universe, which previously did not exist, to begin to exist? This question could be asked of any, and all, known physical matter. Now remember, if you use any material objects in the explanation of how that which previously did not exist could begin to exist, then you must account for their existence as well. In other words, when on the topic of cosmology, I have been given many interesting thesis on the origin of the universe.
Example:
Atheist: Maybe it all started with "space dust"?
Bill: Is the space dust eternal, or did it have a point in time when it began to exist?
Atheist: Maybe strings had something to do with it?
Bill: Are the strings eternal, or did they have a point in time where they began to exist?
Atheist: Ok, well maybe aliens put everything here?
Bill: Are the aliens eternal, or did they have a point in time when they began to exist?
etc... etc... etc...
Heh... Pretty good.
But, you apparently do not know what an atheist is. We would never have such a discussion because I simply don't know and will admit it without a blush.
However, just because I don't know now doesn't mean that I will never know at least some of it. And your examples are close enough to ridiculous to resemble a straw man.
But, the atheist might state, if none of those things are true, or even no more than on the edges of remote possibility, this does not necessarily mean that some omnipotent being, for who knows what perverse reason, did it. Lots of other possibilies out there. An entirely different set of laws of physice, mayhap.
It ain't black & white, Bill, not until you can hold it in your hand, examine it, and publish your findinge in Copiea -- speaking figuritivly, of course.
But, you apparently do not know what an atheist is. We would never have such a discussion because I simply don't know and will admit it without a blush.
a·the·ist n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
atheist
adj : related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings" [syn: atheistic, atheistical] n : someone who denies the existence of god
Close, but far too simplistic. For example. I would reconsider my (lack of) beliefs if some empirical evidence of any version of God could be produced, as would any, thinking atheist.
Would you do the same in reverse? In my experience, probably not because your belief is based upon faith and requires no more than that. And of course, I am in the same boat as you because I can no more disprove God than you can prove that such a critter exists.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 09:50:34 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by filthy
quote:
Do you have any evidence beyond the Blithering of the Book to support it's case?
(bill) I will assume that, as an Atheist, you subscribe to a completely materialistic universe. The universe is a material object that is fixed in time and space. Is it your belief that the universe is eternal? If not, then it had to have a point in time when it began to exist. What was the first cause which caused the universe, which previously did not exist, to begin to exist? This question could be asked of any, and all, known physical matter. Now remember, if you use any material objects in the explanation of how that which previously did not exist could begin to exist, then you must account for their existence as well. In other words, when on the topic of cosmology, I have been given many interesting thesis on the origin of the universe.
Example:
Atheist: Maybe it all started with "space dust"?
Bill: Is the space dust eternal, or did it have a point in time when it began to exist?
Atheist: Maybe strings had something to do with it?
Bill: Are the strings eternal, or did they have a point in time where they began to exist?
Atheist: Ok, well maybe aliens put everything here?
Bill: Are the aliens eternal, or did they have a point in time when they began to exist?
etc... etc... etc...
Heh... Pretty good.
But, you apparently do not know what an atheist is. We would never have such a discussion because I simply don't know and will admit it without a blush.
However, just because I don't know now doesn't mean that I will never know at least some of it. And your examples are close enough to ridiculous to resemble a straw man.
But, the atheist might state, if none of those things are true, or even no more than on the edges of remote possibility, this does not necessarily mean that some omnipotent being, for who knows what perverse reason, did it. Lots of other possibilies out there. An entirely different set of laws of physice, mayhap.
It ain't black & white, Bill, not until you can hold it in your hand, examine it, and publish your findinge in Copiea -- speaking figuritivly, of course.
But, you apparently do not know what an atheist is. We would never have such a discussion because I simply don't know and will admit it without a blush.
a·the·ist n.
One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God or gods.
Source: The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language,
atheist
adj : related to or characterized by or given to atheism; "atheist leanings" [syn: atheistic, atheistical] n : someone who denies the existence of god
Close, but far too simplistic. For example. I would reconsider my (lack of) beliefs if some empirical evidence of any version of God could be produced, as would any, thinking atheist.
Would you do the same in reverse? In my experience, probably not because your belief is based upon faith and requires no more than that. And of course, I am in the same boat as you because I can no more disprove God than you can prove that such a critter exists.
Close, but far too simplistic. For example. I would reconsider my (lack of) beliefs if some empirical evidence of any version of God could be produced, as would any, thinking atheist.
(bill) But an atheist, according to the dictionary, is not one who has "a lack of belief" that God exists, but rather one who "denies" that God exists.
Would you do the same in reverse?
(bill) Well I already have to a degree. I never had belief in God until my 20's.
In my experience, probably not because your belief is based upon faith and requires no more than that.
(bill) You misuse faith in your context. When I fly I understand the concept of thrust and lift. I have a fair knowledge on the mechanics of the plane. I know the safety record of said airline etc... etc... I take all those factors into consideration and then based off that I decide to put my FAITH in the airplane to get me to where I want to go. Is this a leap of blind faith I have just made to get on the airplane? No. It faith based on evidence. When I considered all the evidence for God, and then pondered on it, I have concluded that based on the evidence I would put my faith in God. Far from closing one's eyes and just shooting in the dark, like how the doubters like to portray it.
And of course, I am in the same boat as you because I can no more disprove God than you can prove that such a critter exists.
(bill) I would agree. At the end of the day neither one of us can bottle up our worldview in a mason jar and set it on the counter for all to see. We look at the evidence, we evaluate the evidence, and the we decide what we are going to put our or faith and trust in. So both of us work off of faith. You have placed your faith in atheism, while I have placed mine in creationism.
|
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 10:14:38 [Permalink]
|
quote:
When I considered all the evidence for God, and then pondered on it, I have concluded that based on the evidence I would put my faith in God.
And this evidence would be....? And which god are you talking about?
quote:
You have placed your faith in atheism, while I have placed mine in creationism.
What the hell does this mean? Are you saying Atheism is a belief system in how life was created on this planet? |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
| Edited by - pleco on 02/17/2006 10:17:25 |
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 10:16:29 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
When I considered all the evidence for God, and then pondered on it, I have concluded that based on the evidence I would put my faith in God.
And this evidence would be....? And which god are you talking about?
The very creation itself.... And the God who created the universe.. |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
pleco
SFN Addict
USA
2998 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 10:17:50 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
When I considered all the evidence for God, and then pondered on it, I have concluded that based on the evidence I would put my faith in God.
And this evidence would be....? And which god are you talking about?
The very creation itself.... And the God who created the universe..
Ah, so you don't have any evidence. |
by Filthy
The neo-con methane machine will soon be running at full fart. |
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 10:19:32 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
When I considered all the evidence for God, and then pondered on it, I have concluded that based on the evidence I would put my faith in God.
And this evidence would be....? And which god are you talking about?
quote:
You have placed your faith in atheism, while I have placed mine in creationism.
What the hell does this mean? Are you saying Atheism is a belief system in how life was created on this planet?
What the hell does this mean?
The atheist can not prove that God does not exist. Therefore they go by faith when they say that God does not exist |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
|
Bill scott
SFN Addict
USA
2103 Posts |
Posted - 02/17/2006 : 10:39:57 [Permalink]
|
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
Originally posted by Bill scott
quote:
Originally posted by pleco
quote:
When I considered all the evidence for God, and then pondered on it, I have concluded that based on the evidence I would put my faith in God.
And this evidence would be....? And which god are you talking about?
The very creation itself.... And the God who created the universe..
Ah, so you don't have any evidence.
Ah, so you don't have any evidence.
(bill) No I have a whole universe of evidence |
"Lets get one thing clear, Bill. Science does make some assumptions." -perrodetokio-
"In the end as skeptics we must realize that there is no real knowledge, there is only what is most reasonable to believe." -Coelacanth-
The fact that humans do science is what causes errors in science. -Dave W.-
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Topic Locked
