Search results

... so your only hope is things that can't be explained will leave gaps for gods and goblins that can't be explained. Your arguments rely on the abdication of explanations. ...in short your religion summed up is I won't think , therefore IT IS

In your dreams you fixed it. You merely substituted the word universe which demonstrates existence, for another word God, that doesn't

Yep and it's mathematical. There is no universal set which contains all other sets . Ask Georg Ferdinand Ludwig Philipp Cantor . He'll show you. Beer too regularly proves God is wrong.

I'm wondering or rather sensing you've changed your tune after years of screaming Goddidit. What !? Having to prove time existed before big bang is irrelevant. You're the one suggesting it's either a tuner or multiverse , or rather your "top scientists", who you blindly cut & paste out...

...and that demonstrates yet again, how you can't stop yourself from making statements based on fallacy

You made two loaded presuppositions leaving any reasoning for them therefore based on fallacy. The anthropic principle or so called fine tuning of the universe, is not science. Trying to infer a (supernatural) creator of the universe because of so called fine tuning, is to...

Why would you want to be so quick to try and create a false argument just from loaded presuppositions? I can assure you going by his record, Jem can make enough mess of a reply without your help.

No, I said you clearly don't understand what you are saying would mean. Throwing the word Nobel and "top scientists" and Dawkins into the mix every time, is not making your comments any less than ignorant. All you have there is an astronomer that doesn't like multiverses. Just ask...

Bible cosmology descibes a flat earth. There isn't even a complete "circle" . btw. The Tooth Fairy is situated above where it says GOD

All any of that compulsive ignorance of yours would show, is that the universe won the powerball. What lottery did your "Creator" not win? The odds against it must be impossible.

Christianity is not a pre-requisite to empathy Best response from a Christian ..... ...Christians are not against empathy.... they just don't empathize with it.

Since pre-monotheistic times, when classic philosophy found morality, ethics and goodness could only be truly meaningful when they were decided upon by mortals for the wellbeing of mortals, and not deliberated under the whim and capriciousness of Gods , there has been , and fortunately is...

You don't have to be angry or fear imaginary beings or be a Budhist to do good or to be good-hearted. Goodness is of itself, so religion is surperfluous, and is often seen as not beneficial to bringing good about.

Ah yes, 50 years ago women were prettier, music was real music , it was always sunny and the grass was greener . Medicine was better, technology and living standards too. And it was thanks to everyone fearing an almighty imaginary God goblin. You are talking about fear as a reason for...

Anyway thanks for the kindly words KTS. .... woo that certainly agitated the para-military wing of the ET 'Ignorance Through God Forever ' faction. The Guardians Of Darkness:eek:

A thousand billion billion zeroes against, is evidence of a thousand billion billion zeroes against. It is not evidence of a creator (designer). But even if there were a thousand billion billion zeroes against, there is a universe against any odds. So what now the odds against a creator...

The flip side of not being able to prove something isn't more of the same. Can't prove God , can't prove big bang , would be one side of the same coin surely? On the flip side of the coin might be things that can be proved. Like for instance the power which you say must guide the...

You're welcome.

That’s not what I meant it seems you missed the point. For some weird reason or other, there are those who want to put God before science. They often try to do so by pretending those scientific theories are merely articles of faith, whilst all the time those theories lead to new...

Your "legal training" had you continuously writing one of the fundamental words a legal practitioner would be aware of wrongly on numerous repeated occasions. It took many attempts to correct your unlearned flunk . Your "legal training" has you mentioning the vatican and then trying to say...