I have a question and it would be nice If somebody could answer it.
How is it possible that somebody believes in God although there doesn't exist any proof or at least an evidence for Gods existance besides some old books?
In my opinion God's an explanation for everything unknown.
If nothing existed. Not even a colour. No solid form. Nothing. You cannot imagine what would exist if there was nothing. You cannot imagine it. You cannot imagine God in His purest form. That, is proof that God exists.
i can imagine what would exist if there was nothing. An infinite vacuum. And word play isn't proof of god.
If nothing existed. Not even a colour. No solid form. Nothing. You cannot imagine what would exist if there was nothing. You cannot imagine it. You cannot imagine God in His purest form. That, is proof that God exists.
If we can't imagine nothing and we can't imagine God in his purest form, then wouldn't that mean God in his purest form is nothing?
If we can't imagine nothing and we can't imagine God in his purest form, then wouldn't that mean God in his purest form is nothing?
Doesn't necessarily. I guess there are more than two things we can't imagine, doesn't mean they're all the same thing, at least as long as there are not additional correlations, like both 'nothing' and 'god' doing more or less the same thing .
If nothing existed. Not even a colour. No solid form. Nothing. You cannot imagine what would exist if there was nothing. You cannot imagine it. You cannot imagine God in His purest form. That, is proof that God exists.
*Epic facepalm*
This is the most base religious fallacy of them all. You believe in something SIMPLY because you can't imagine it? That's just retarted, honestly.
Doesn't necessarily. I guess there are more than two things we can't imagine, doesn't mean they're all the same thing, at least as long as there are not additional correlations, like both 'nothing' and 'god' doing more or less the same thing .
Please use better sources then a creationist site. If all you want are a bunch of lies and fallacies they are great, otherwise they are useless.
What? A creationist site can't have the truth? Why, at least creationists give a reason for the earth's existance that cannot be completely debunked, while I can quote you as saying that atheists 'do not know'. How could something be incomprehensible in a completely physical world?
What? A creationist site can't have the truth? Why,
Creationist sites are heavily bias. I've yet to find one that doesn't quote mine and use other fallacies, use completely subjective evidence, or just out right lie to push their message.
at least creationists give a reason for the earth's existance that cannot be completely debunked
Putting forth an unfalsifiable statement doesn't do a thing for it's position. Just making up an explanation is no explanation at all. Let's take Harold Camping's recent statements as an example. He has stated we went through a spiritual rapture. That statement can't be verified or falsified. Since it can't be completely debunked does that mean we should accept this claim?
while I can quote you as saying that atheists 'do not know'. How could something be incomprehensible in a completely physical world?
Not knowing and it being incomprehensible are quite different. There is nothing wrong with not knowing.
