You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Did God Create Science?
- Thread starter 2cents
- Start date
Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
Another ET Klone who thinks he is Kreskin....
Too funny...
I thought you'd be thanking me for telling the truth about you...
I mean, come on, won't it help you reach that next troll level? Do you things get different belts to wear like a karate practitioner?
Think of the bragging rights if you can drag Tdog into a useless debate when he KNOWS you're being obtuse on purpose.
Go for the brass ring troll. Go go go....
What an entertaining view. Speaking of spoiled children, which notable ET poster is known for name calling and personally insulting those posters who do not agree with his viewpoint? I may disagree with others and think their opinions are suspect (I may use a different word), but which of us is more likely to resort to personal attacks and name calling? Take your time. There IS a right answer.Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
...You are just like all the other ET Klones (except they don't act like spoiled children and claim they are leaving ET for six month, then don't keep their word) who can dish it out, but can't take it coming back in their face with their own words...
As for my early return after announcing my hiatus, you do have a point. ET has a certain addictive quality. I really should work harder to resolve this addiction. Of course, you would know since you have more posts than anyone else here even though you have been banned a number of times for egregious conduct and this is only your most recent incarnation. Yes, my early return says something about me. But what does your posting frequency and repeated return with a different alias say about you, aside from the fact that you live your life here?
Another Klone that must be suffering from past spankings...
Try counseling, or some 12 step program for your nagging resentments...
Try counseling, or some 12 step program for your nagging resentments...
Quote from Haroki:
I thought you'd be thanking me for telling the truth about you...
I mean, come on, won't it help you reach that next troll level? Do you things get different belts to wear like a karate practitioner?
Think of the bragging rights if you can drag Tdog into a useless debate when he KNOWS you're being obtuse on purpose.
Go for the brass ring troll. Go go go....
I suppose in your mentally ill state, you actually think the way you reply to your own quotes reflective of conceit, calling theists conceited...actually deflects away from your failed New Year's resolution and the rest of your losing existence...
Carry on Cleo...
Carry on Cleo...
Quote from Thunderdog:
What an entertaining view. Speaking of spoiled children, which notable ET poster is known for name calling and personally insulting those posters who do not agree with his viewpoint? I may disagree with others and think their opinions are suspect (I may use a different word), but which of us is more likely to resort to personal attacks and name calling? Take your time. There IS a right answer.
As for my early return after announcing my hiatus, you do have a point. ET has a certain addictive quality. I really should work harder to resolve this addiction. Of course, you would know since you have more posts than anyone else here even though you have been banned a number of times for egregious conduct and this is only your most recent incarnation. Yes, my early return says something about me. But what does your posting frequency and repeated return with a different alias say about you, aside from the fact that you live your life here?
Look 2cents , I assure you, I am not being argumentative, which I gather from the tone of your posts to me you think I am.. This is not to do with the last word, not on my behalf anyways.Quote from 2cents:
no more than it would "presuppose" Create, Did or Science, therefore not an useful distinction... i am simply communicating with theists therefore using a language i believe they'll be at peace with... but if u want the last word on this, u can have it now, or u can call it even if u are in the mood... your call mate
movin' on to bed
God is no more presupposed than science... come on 2c, are you sure?
You see, I understood you want to debate the issue you opened the thread on, and not to steer away from any substantive issues reasonably brought.
I am merely confirming the point with you that you cannot expect to successfully debate a philosophical concept (God) , without acknowledging the way your question is posed must resolve inevitably to insubstantiality (ha, is that catholic?? ) That is because your question presupposes its subject .
A substantial premise cannot form out of your question in its present form, is my opinion. This is because I am sure you know a premise must first be assumed to be true,. The subject of your question (God) is a philosophical presumption, not a premise which can be assumed to be true. The subject of your question is a presumption based upon imaginary emotional invisible concepts . Without first acknowledging that, the question is as meaningless as Did Gilbert create science.
I know to stimulate a theistic response, taking God as a granted is often an approach. But to what use that in any partly seriously advanced enquiry? Surely to arrive at anything which may provide firm insight or fresh angles, there should be less obscurity in a question, not the implication of more.
If you want to presuppose everything is presupposed, -perhaps in some way the Iam-Jesus dude might ,- then you are not discussing science - or more precisely, not discussing science arrived at via the scientific method.
A presupposition should really be declared implicit where it is so. It is so. That is all I intended to show..
Did anything thought to be God create science? Answer still no.
"Did anything thought to be God create science? Answer still no."
The knower of ultimate reality, stupid speaks....
When stupid speak, it reminds me a bit of "Seth Speaks" but this time we have stupid not in the practice of channeling any disembodied spirit, but channeling the venom of an angry failed theist...
The knower of ultimate reality, stupid speaks....
When stupid speak, it reminds me a bit of "Seth Speaks" but this time we have stupid not in the practice of channeling any disembodied spirit, but channeling the venom of an angry failed theist...
Quote from stu:
Look 2cents , I assure you, I am not being argumentative, which I gather from the tone of your posts to me you think I am.. This is not to do with the last word, not on my behalf anyways.
God is no more presupposed than science... come on 2c, are you sure?
You see, I understood you want to debate the issue you opened the thread on, and not to steer away from any substantive issues reasonably brought.
I am merely confirming the point with you that you cannot expect to successfully debate a philosophical concept (God) , without acknowledging the way your question is posed must resolve inevitably to insubstantiality (ha, is that catholic?? ) That is because your question presupposes its subject .
A substantial premise cannot form out of your question in its present form, is my opinion. This is because I am sure you know a premise must first be assumed to be true,. The subject of your question (God) is a philosophical presumption, not a premise which can be assumed to be true. The subject of your question is a presumption based upon imaginary emotional invisible concepts . Without first acknowledging that, the question is as meaningless as Did Gilbert create science.
I know to stimulate a theistic response, taking God as a granted is often an approach. But to what use that in any partly seriously advanced enquiry? Surely to arrive at anything which may provide firm insight or fresh angles, there should be less obscurity in a question, not the implication of more.
If you want to presuppose everything is presupposed, -perhaps in some way the Iam-Jesus dude might ,- then you are not discussing science - or more precisely, not discussing science arrived at via the scientific method.
A presupposition should really be declared implicit where it is so. It is so. That is all I intended to show..
Did anything thought to be God create science? Answer still no.
And thus deflects Z10 who, apparently, has yet to see himself for the first time. As with the sun, looking at it directly for any length of time can be painful.Quote from ZZZzzzzzzz:
I suppose in your mentally ill state, you actually think the way you reply to your own quotes reflective of conceit, calling theists conceited...actually deflects away from your failed New Year's resolution and the rest of your losing existence...
Carry on Cleo...