well if any of u r familiar with the law of conservation and mass, then u know that it states that matter cannot be created from nothing, or completely destroyed. so evolutionists say this, then turn around and say the big bang created the universe as we know it. WTF!!?!?!?!the universe went from non existent to existent in a fraction of a nanosecond! and where did the bigbang come from? nothing? nope, because if the law of conservation and mass is true, then the bigbang isnt. simple...
The list going on in the thread is puzzling, I think I must have gotten lost somewhere along the way. From what I can gather, rather than trying to argue for one or the other side of the coin, we're collecting statements that are against each, modifying the list, and then going to look at what's left? At that point, then what happens? We begin the debate based on what is left on the list?
If I'm missing the mark here, I'd be appreciative if someone could explain so I can get on the same page. I'd really like to be able to contribute but I want to make sure I understand what's going on.
Is there any certain criteria that would qualify as successfully proving or disproving any particular statement? (Or are we not to that point yet?) I can only assume that we could only rely on things that we can quantify and observe. Which, in the end might boil the entire lot down to: we just don't know. Perhaps what I'm getting at here is this: by making such a list are we not just taking the long road back to the original question? Or perhaps that is the entire point, organization and taking the scenic route.
From what I can gather, rather than trying to argue for one or the other side of the coin, we're collecting statements that are against each, modifying the list, and then going to look at what's left? At that point, then what happens? We begin the debate based on what is left on the list?
You got that part right. Almost. The one thing that is wrong is "modifying the list." When I modified the list, I was just combining repeated items...
Or are we not to that point yet?
Right again.
Or perhaps that is the entire point, organization and taking the scenic route.
You're good. I really can't argue about the Big Bang because of my lack of knowledge. Of course, when I looked for proof for both Creation and the Big Bang, I found nothing to argue with, nothing to grab on to. When I turned it around and tried to disprove them, there were a few things I could scrape up, but in the end, neither had an advantage. I made the list so that everyone else could see this. This does not mean I am agnostic or can't make up my mind about what I believe. If you continue from the creation of the universe, the path splits again. There is evolution and Creation. I have gone through that one in the same fashion already and, from my perspective, Creation wins...but we won't be going that way.
you pray to him (If he's there) and if you do something right you thank him,
Just because you pray to God and those prayers are unanswered doesn't mean he doesn't exist. I broke my leg and prayed to Chuck Norris to heal me. Nothing happened. But that doesn't mean he doesn't exist.
Just because you pray to God and those prayers are unanswered doesn't mean he doesn't exist. I broke my leg and prayed to Chuck Norris to heal me.
What a stupid comparison, Bruce Lee is better for one, and 2 everyone knows he exists, they can see him, hear him, smell him, taste him (Ew.) and definately feel him... With god the only feel you have would be morale on what I am positive on false belief, you can only taste the mint you had before you prayed, smell, well that's you or anything around you, you all believe in it, making you so stacked on it you probably forgot why you came to it in the first place, there is no proof, not even evidence, the only reason I would tell these fake stories to anyone is to put them to sleep, and seriously, they are good stories, but not real ones, so no, good stories aren't real ones (Not always anyway.), so and I'll say this again for the eightieth time, what PROOF or EVIDENCE have you got? And don't drift of saying God made this that and the other, because it won't work with me, PROOF.
If there was solid proof of Christianity, everyone would be a Christian. Religion isn't something you can prove to the world, or it would be the same thing as science. All royalmarine is saying is that you can't prove that God doesn't exist by saying that you don't have what you want. God is a father, and my dad doesn't give me everything I want.
But surely if he your father could ( forexample he is an omnipresent all powerful deity) he would. So why doesn't God.
Because if he spoils us, giving us everything we want, we wouldn't strive to be good people anymore. Suppose your father didn't set any rules for you. You wouldn't gain any life lessons from that. But instead of preparing us for the world, God is preparing us for judgement in the afterlife. Hope that makes sense.
But surely if he your father could ( forexample he is an omnipresent all powerful deity) he would. So why doesn't God.
He does not give us everything we want because we want the wrong things (like a chance to kill the guy next door or something). If we could have everything we wanted, the world would be destroyed. So instead of giving us what we want, God gives us what we need. Some person said something like this: "I have yet to see a true believer begging on the streets."
