Eveery argument in P&R boils down to:

Quote from Gabfly1:

Believing that the unicorn has a Creator presupposes a belief in the existence of unicorns, which brings us back to my original question:
More...

Don't be thick
 
Quote from TraderZones:

Don't be thick
More...
You're right. Let's all prostrate ourselves before a "god" who, by all accounts clearly does not give a shit one way or the other. (Almost as if he wasn't there. Hmm.)

You first.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

The evidence, sketchy at best, that supports the claim of no need for a creator in no way provides proof that a creator does not exist. You and everyone else has zero proof that a creator does or does not exist. Proof, not belief. Proof!
More...
Exactly. No need for a Creator. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, when you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras. Ever hear of Occam?
 
Quote from Gabfly1:

Exactly. No need for a Creator. Unless you have evidence to the contrary, when you hear hoofbeats, think horses not zebras. Ever hear of Occam?
More...

Yes, and as it pertains to science I like this definition.
The most useful statement of the principle for scientists is "when you have two competing theories that make exactly the same predictions, the simpler one is the better."
Better being the operative word. Not absolutely correct, just better. Until one can be absolutely sure the search should continue, wherever it leads. To do otherwise is not being true to fundamental foundation of science.
 
Quote from Gabfly1:

You're right. Let's all prostrate ourselves before a "god" who, by all accounts clearly does not give a shit one way or the other. (Almost as if he wasn't there. Hmm.)

You first.
More...

you pretty much miss all the points... But apparently you "joined" here a couple of days ago, and are so bored, decided to camp on P&R.

The real question is, who are you the likely alias of...

(Don't bother responding, you will be on ignore before your next empty response hits your keyboard.)
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

The evidence, sketchy at best, that supports the claim of no need for a creator in no way provides proof that a creator does not exist. You and everyone else has zero proof that a creator does or does not exist. Proof, not belief. Proof!
More...
Sketchy evidence and no proof is all that's ever available to superstition.
 
Quote from CaptainObvious:

The evidence, sketchy at best, that supports the claim of no need for a creator in no way provides proof that a creator does not exist. You and everyone else has zero proof that a creator does or does not exist. Proof, not belief. Proof!
More...

I'm curious what would YOU consider proof of no god? What proof would you accept that god does not exist?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top