Here is something to get the brain going. It's been said that God created ALL things. Also it's been said that God is 100 precent pure/good. So God created man and it was said that because of man's sinful actions bad/evil things were created. But if God created ALL things then God created bad/evil things, not man. So by God creating bad/evil things this does not make him 100 precent pure/good.
OK guys. Here's the deal. It's just the same arguments over and over again. Now we're not even arguing about God but about who should have to get proof. This is just stupid. Let's argue about something else... Cookies or Muffins?
OK guys. Here's the deal. It's just the same arguments over and over again. Now we're not even arguing about God but about who should have to get proof. This is just stupid. Let's argue about something else... Cookies or Muffins?
Your ignoring the basic principles of how burden of proof works. If you're unable to even get this, you have no place debating.
OK guys. Here's the deal. It's just the same arguments over and over again. Now we're not even arguing about God but about who should have to get proof. This is just stupid. Let's argue about something else... Cookies or Muffins?
Possum shamefully loses the debate, and instead of admitting it, goes for a dodge! This is not a good day for Possum on the debate front >_>
LOl I know it's not. But seriously. Why are we arguing about it anyway. And @mage: I get it, I just don't think it's logical. But seriously, Cookie or Muffin?
All religion is a load of crap... There is no proof any of this crap exists... I'll bet the bible was just a fiction story written by some random guy, hahaha.
You can disprove it if you can prove that it is literally IMPOSSIBLE for such a thing to exist.
We can only say something is improbable. Like in the video I offered Randi can't disprove that reindeer can't fly. However we can with the observed evidence come to the conclusion that it's likely reindeer can't fly. Until objective evidence is presented indicating otherwise it's reasonable to assume they don't.
There is no objective evidence indicating there is a God so it's reasonable to assume he doesn't exist until objective evidence is presented. Saying "well you can't prove he doesn't exist" doesn't mean anything. Not being able to disprove something isn't proof of something. Nor is it up to us to disprove. NOW GET IT THROUGH THAT THICK SKULL OF YOURS!
I'm talking about putting every animal into one food chain on an environment called Earth. We are definitely at the top. If you were an alien species studying Earth and you made a chain of dominance, humans would be king.
That would be impossible to put every creature into a single food chain.
Not true. There are plenty of animals that imitate other animals but that are VERY far from the other species genetically. E.G.: Stick bug.
So we were not made in his image? We are just a cheap imitation, a bootleg god?
So you're basically just saying you can't disprove God?
I'm saying that I, nor anyone else can disprove the existence of anything.
It matters not who is supposed to get the proof, the fact is that it isn't there for either side.
Then it should not be up for debate, maybe for speculation, but not treated as fact.
OK guys. Here's the deal. It's just the same arguments over and over again. Now we're not even arguing about God but about who should have to get proof. This is just stupid. Let's argue about something else... Cookies or Muffins?
Feel free to go to the tavern and start a thread about cookies and muffins.
LOl I know it's not. But seriously. Why are we arguing about it anyway. And @mage: I get it, I just don't think it's logical. But seriously, Cookie or Muffin?
I(and many others) think your wrong, and you(along with others) think you're right.
Very well, something to consider about Christianity.
Christianity while one of the most influencial religions in human history is not the oldest, or even one of the oldest. Christianity is out dated by several religions, and is in fact a mutation of Judaism, hence why the Old Testament resides in the modern christian bibles. So, this being a record of common historical fact, what makes the Christian way the right way?
Saying "well you can't prove he doesn't exist" doesn't mean anything.
Yes it does. It means that you have no right to call 90% of the world retarded for believing in something, especially when you can't prove they're wrong.
Yes it does. It means that you have no right to call 90% of the world retarded for believing in something, especially when you can't prove they're wrong.
Believing without proof. You demand proof for the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution before believing it and would likely consider someone foolish for believing it without proof. What makes God the exception?
For that matter You don't believe Zeus is real. Zeus can't be proven or disproven so what makes you think he isn't real? What about magic pixies do you think they are real just because they can't be proven or disproven?
IT'S NOT A MATTER OF DISPROVING SOMETHING IT'S A MATTER OF PROVING IT!
You demand proof for the Big Bang, Abiogenesis, and Evolution before believing it and would likely consider someone foolish for believing it without proof. What makes God the exception?
Because you say these are things are scientific fact and that there is no arguing on the matter. Believing in God however, is a choice, and not something that the schools tell you is real because scientists say it is.
This statement is not an arguement. Buddhism, Islam, Judaism, various Christian sects, any ancient mythology; these are all considered true religions. My point stands. How do you know your way is the right way?
The answer, as always, is faith. And, as always, you'll just say something stupid about how faith shouldn't be allowed in arguments and thepossum is stupid and BLAH BLAH BLAH...
