Search results

Not to be picky but I don't see what you mean by "the poster is wrong". Whom you refer to as the poster - DerekD - is is saying " To theists atheists say ,'no God until proven' ". He has clearly stated a viewpoint from what theists say, not what atheists say, as you go on to suggest. To be...

Those who are afraid to answer questions by making up ridiculous argument will never learn anything period. May I venture a suggestion, unless of course you are afraid to answer questions You become aware that you lost it, only after the wallet first had proved its own existence. An...

I don't think that is a very constructive approach. .You concede to an illogical belief because you say it puts you on the same level as something else you consider illogical . Can you explain exactly where there is any integrity in that . That's all well and good, it's personal. Though many...

yuk. Any place outside a Church , that would be considered insanity or perversion.

...so that they might have pity for you.

"As he took the only position logic supports Agnostic" Aren't you now illogically theist.

Wtf has that to do with anything, your point being what exactly? rc proposed "a logical sequence" and I put forward my reason for why it does not appear at all logical. Where's your beef with that?

Why the ... 'should' ... ?

Really? Ok, Let's see. Are you sure rc? Surely time, space, force, action matter would make more sense. Aren't you going to need some space early on in time to fit force, action and matter into. No time no space - no matter The order is a problem. Genesis is confounded. Apparently...

Am I to understand you are suggesting the equation should be somebody (God) x something = everything Neither way sounds believable to me. The second appears credible and rational as it brings with it vast amounts of essential fact and substantive reasoning to support it therfore sounds more...

With respect, my query was not about what the human mind may or may not be able to comprehend. Surely we are still in the realm of the comprehensible with your proposal nobody x nothing = divine creation. I merely ask would that require less faith / be more likely, than nobody x nothing =...

At that starting point of nobody x nothing, do you think it would take less faith or more faith to believe in a guess that says nobody x nothing = divine creation?

Well? Does it? Well? Does it? Let me guess. You might say no and no if you ever do allow yourself to answer any questions at all But according to you, that understanding could not come from another's writings. Science does not take stuff at face value. Science tests and re-tests...

In your makebelieve scenario you call The Kingdom, you only have win-win. In mine, you have win-win+1. According to what you say , a system of win-win is not now rational. To gain a win-win you must *lose* the win-win+1 system "because these systems are incompatible." Or do you not follow...

In that respect a watch does not prove the existence of a watchmaker. I don't expect you to believe anyone's experience about a watchmaker or a watch. So can you substantially prove there is a watchmaker, or do you simply have faith that there is one only because you see a watch? Or is there...

Or an even smarter theist .....?? Why I Left The Ministry And Became An Atheist

Your point -winning is losing- is an irrational one, made no more rational by the large amount of verbiage you dress it all up in. But no offense, you're a hippy, so it's expected.

Unanswered questions are the true Saviour of religion.

I have a winning system. Why would I fade it just because someone says it's losing whilst at the same time pretends they have a better one. stu Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too? Dougla Adams