If God were real, you wouldn’t need a book

Cypress said:
So what? Isaac Newton, Galileo, Kepler, Maxwell, even Einstein to an extent thought physics and cosmology pointed to something divine inherent in the universe.
Click to expand...
The Universe is not a person. Cosmology is not physics. Cosmology is not a branch of science. Science is not religion. The Universe is unorganized.
Cypress said:
You obviously don't want physics and science to be part of the dialog because you don't understand physics and never took a class in it.
Click to expand...
Science is not a class, college, universe. degree, license, or government agency.
Courtier's fallacy.
 
Ross Dolan said:
You have asserted that gods don't exist. The burden of proof for that assertion DOES fall on you.

If I made such an assertion, it would indeed fall on me.

YOU MADE AN ASSERTION THAT "GODS DON'T EXIST."

The burden for the proof of that assertion does fall on you...and so far, you have not met that burden. I suspect that is because you can no more meet it than the religionists can meet the burden of proving their gods exist. But the religionists, mostly, are more honest than you. They, mostly, claim they "believe" their gods exist. You specifically claim gods do not exist.

So, where is your proof that "GODS DON'T EXIST?"
Click to expand...
This was my response to ZenMode earlier. (My 3371)

THIS IS WHERE ZEN JUST IGNORES MY RESPONSE AND RETURNS TO HIS BULLSHIT POSTS HEAPING SCORN AND CONTEMPT ON RELIGIONISTS, PRETENDING HE IS SOMEHOW MORE REASONABLE, LOGICAL, AND INTELLIGENT THAN THEY.

Zen, you aren't. Religionists and atheists like you are making blind guesses about the REALITY of existence...and your blind guesses are no more logical, reasonable, scientific, or mathematically derived than are the blind guesses of the religionists.

Just sayin'!
 
Ross Dolan said:
This was my response to ZenMode earlier. (My 3371)

THIS IS WHERE ZEN JUST IGNORES MY RESPONSE AND RETURNS TO HIS BULLSHIT POSTS HEAPING SCORN AND CONTEMPT ON RELIGIONISTS, PRETENDING HE IS SOMEHOW MORE REASONABLE, LOGICAL, AND INTELLIGENT THAN THEY.

Zen, you aren't. Religionists and atheists like you are making blind guesses about the REALITY of existence...and your blind guesses are no more logical, reasonable, scientific, or mathematically derived than are the blind guesses of the religionists.

Just sayin'!
Click to expand...
He is not an atheist. He is a fundamentalist in several religions. He doesn't know what 'real' means or how it's defined.
 
ZenMode said:
I'm certain that I don't know the answer to all questions, but that isn't a license to create an answer.

There are lots of things that man didn't know, lightning, disease, etc, that he used God to answer ...and he was wrong.

Again, retroactively explaining isn't the same as "it was designed that way".
Click to expand...
totalitarians feel a mystery is a threat to their power.

yes. they're that crazy.
 
Into the Night said:
Cosmology is not a branch of science!!
Click to expand...
According to NASA, the definition of cosmology is "the scientific study of the large scale properties of the universe as a whole."

www.space.com/16042-cosmology.html
Into the Night said:
The universe is unorganized!!
Click to expand...
einsteinfieldeq.jpg


images
 
ZenMode said:
I'm not agnostic. The evidence for gods is not sufficient for me to believe in them. It's been repeatedly proven to be "God of the gaps".
Click to expand...
So on the one hand you are absolutely certain there is no external rational agency behind the origin and mathematical intelligibility of the universe.... but on the other hand, you claim you don't know what caused the origin and rationality of the universe.

That line of thinking is logically incoherent, unintelligible, and self-refuting.


God of the gaps is an atheist argument that holds no water. There's no reason James Clerk Maxwell and Johannes Kepler couldn't point to scientific laws as evidence of a law giver.
 
ZenMode said:
I'm not agnostic. The evidence for gods is not sufficient for me to believe in them. It's been repeatedly proven to be "God of the gaps".
Click to expand...

For the poster you are interacting with he will NOT allow that "Implicit Atheism" be a thing. He doesn't understand the concept that one can simply LACK belief without having a positive active belief. It doesn't compute for thumpers like Cypress.

Cypress often claims to be an agnostic, but just read his posts. He's a thumper.
 
Cypress said:
So on the one hand you are absolutely certain there is no external rational agency behind the origin and mathematical intelligibility of the universe....
Click to expand...
I'm absolutely certain that I do not believe in any of the gods man has made out of fear or to explain things about the world around him that he didn't understand.
Cypress said:
but on the other hand, you claim you don't know what caused the origin and rationality of the universe.
Click to expand...
Yes and it's significantly more honest to say "I don't know" than to invent magical beings.
Cypress said:
That line of thinking is logically incoherent, unintelligible, and self-refuting.
Click to expand...
It's not incoherent at all. Man has used gods and other imaginary beings to explain things like lightning, viruses, mental issues, etc for millenia and have been proven wrong every step of the way.
Cypress said:
God of the gaps is an atheist argument that holds no water. There's no reason James Clerk Maxwell and Johannes Kepler couldn't point to scientific laws as evidence of a law giver.
Click to expand...
Acknowledging that there are some things we just can't explain yet holds more water than inventing imaginary beings. Inventing imaginary beings has been proven wrong over and over and over.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top