Stu which church and which dogma said the world was flat
- Thread starter jem
- Start date
Aphex:
>Just out of curiosity, how do you see god
>hiding when you perform tests?
No offense Aphex - you obviously are asking a serious question here, but do you not see the idiocy of that question? I don't "see" him at all.
>Is it not a logical possibility that God put in place all the
>physical laws of the universe, which allowed for us to be
>having this conversation in the first place?
I'll carefully answer "Yes" (it depends on your definition of "God" -- there are some definitions that don't make logical sense, others that can).
>Why does God have to prove his existence for you?
He doesn't . IF however he wishes for me to believe in him he must convince me of his existence. Only fair.
>Just because science is not the proper tool to view God
>doesn't mean that, by lack of a formal proof, we must
>automatically reject his existence.
I agree only with some of what you said.
I don't agree that science is not a proper tool to view god. Your assertion is one that can't be backed up.
To believe however, I do not insist that god use science to prove his existence to me. For starters, I'd be happy if he just stopped by for a chat sometime.
JB
>Just out of curiosity, how do you see god
>hiding when you perform tests?
No offense Aphex - you obviously are asking a serious question here, but do you not see the idiocy of that question? I don't "see" him at all.
>Is it not a logical possibility that God put in place all the
>physical laws of the universe, which allowed for us to be
>having this conversation in the first place?
I'll carefully answer "Yes" (it depends on your definition of "God" -- there are some definitions that don't make logical sense, others that can).
>Why does God have to prove his existence for you?
He doesn't . IF however he wishes for me to believe in him he must convince me of his existence. Only fair.
>Just because science is not the proper tool to view God
>doesn't mean that, by lack of a formal proof, we must
>automatically reject his existence.
I agree only with some of what you said.
I don't agree that science is not a proper tool to view god. Your assertion is one that can't be backed up.
To believe however, I do not insist that god use science to prove his existence to me. For starters, I'd be happy if he just stopped by for a chat sometime.
JB
these discussions are so asinine on their face,,
they canr explain their soory existences,
so they jump to concocting a grand
SANTEE CLAUS.
they say santee is all.
he is everything good and right.
he always was.
he always will be,
now their little minds are content.
how FOOLISH!
how CHILDISH!
How immature!!
god,
do you freakers have even two brain cells that have ever met??!
oir do you think excl;usively with
YOUR BRAINSTEMS!!
LOL
they canr explain their soory existences,
so they jump to concocting a grand
SANTEE CLAUS.
they say santee is all.
he is everything good and right.
he always was.
he always will be,
now their little minds are content.
how FOOLISH!
how CHILDISH!
How immature!!
god,
do you freakers have even two brain cells that have ever met??!
oir do you think excl;usively with
YOUR BRAINSTEMS!!
LOL
I am still waiting for the "scientists" to tell me where gravity came from, why it exists, and whether or not the force of gravity is "caused" by some other force yet unknown.
"Science" builds castles on the platform of many unknowns then proclaims "Science" is the king of the castle.
"Science" builds castles on the platform of many unknowns then proclaims "Science" is the king of the castle.
You don't know?