nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 152:
Line 152: − + − + − + − + − + − + − + − + + + + + + + + + + +
Debate:Who created God? (view source)
Revision as of 02:36, October 6, 2008
, 02:36, October 6, 2008→Break to assist editing: Try disputing /after/ you study up on the subject.
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 09:27, 5 October 2008 (EDT)
Im sorry if i came out...hastily before, i dont mean to have anybody pissed off...well unless i dont like them of course, lol :D.
:Im sorry if i came out...hastily before, i dont mean to have anybody pissed off...well unless i dont like them of course, lol :D.
Anyway...you can't prove that the supernatural ect. Cannot be understood, because if it cannot be examined, obviously, it doesn't have any way to reach us. In which case, it doesn't affect us.
Anyway...you can't prove that the supernatural ect. Cannot be understood, because if it cannot be examined, obviously, it doesn't have any way to reach us. In which case, it doesn't affect us.
Steps 6 and 7 are very simple.
:Steps 6 and 7 are very simple.
- God is the most powerful being, so he had to have had the greatest handicap in the creating of the universe, because if not, there is something that is more powerful than that.
:- God is the most powerful being, so he had to have had the greatest handicap in the creating of the universe, because if not, there is something that is more powerful than that.
- If god existed while creating the universe, then he didn't make the most impossible achievement, because the greatest would have been creating the universe from non-existence.
:- If god existed while creating the universe, then he didn't make the most impossible achievement, because the greatest would have been creating the universe from non-existence.
- God doesn't exist.
:- God doesn't exist.
Another simple point i'd like to make. Claiming that science cannot examine something makes no logical sense at all. Even if science couldn't examine something, there would be adequate debates on how the topic couldn't be studied and why it cannot. In which case, there is no EVIDENCE whatsoever that it exists. If you would like to argue about this, please try it at [http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=58941] Though i myself like to debate against such things, im not as far in the subject as most of the people on the forum.
:Another simple point i'd like to make. Claiming that science cannot examine something makes no logical sense at all. Even if science couldn't examine something, there would be adequate debates on how the topic couldn't be studied and why it cannot. In which case, there is no EVIDENCE whatsoever that it exists. If you would like to argue about this, please try it at [http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=58941] Though i myself like to debate against such things, im not as far in the subject as most of the people on the forum.
Anyway, im sorry about the theory thing, i was just paraphrasing and basing off what i can remember, im not exact, and im not very far in the studies of science or theology, though im still doing what i can to study both.
:Anyway, im sorry about the theory thing, i was just paraphrasing and basing off what i can remember, im not exact, and im not very far in the studies of science or theology, though im still doing what i can to study both.
[[User:ChillinBM]]
:[[User:ChillinBM]]
:: "''Anyway...you can't prove that the supernatural ect. Cannot be understood..''": I don't claim that the supernatural can't be understood, so I don't have to prove it.
:: "''...if it cannot be examined...''": But it ''can'' be examined, if it chooses to reveal itself to us. Which God has, Christians believe.
:: "''God is the most powerful being, so he had to have had the greatest handicap in the creating of the universe, because if not, there is something that is more powerful than that.''": No, that's a non-sequitur.
:: "''...the greatest would have been creating the universe from non-existence.''": That's still simply nonsense.
:: "''Claiming that science cannot examine something makes no logical sense at all. Even if science couldn't examine something, there would be adequate debates on how the topic couldn't be studied and why it cannot.''": There is ''likely'' to be such debates (and there is in the case of the supernatural), but it's not a given that there necessarily ''will be'' such debates.
:: "''In which case, there is no EVIDENCE whatsoever that it exists.''": Huh?
:: "''If you would like to argue about this, please try it at [http://richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=58941]''": No, ''you'' raised it, so I will debate it with ''you''.
:: "''Anyway, im sorry about the theory thing, i was just paraphrasing and basing off what i can remember, im not exact, and im not very far in the studies of science or theology, though im still doing what i can to study both.''": Then can I suggest that you ''do'' study the Christian view, instead of trying to refute something that you haven't studied enough to know what you are talking about?
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 22:36, 5 October 2008 (EDT)