Proof of God

What I think is funny is that you two guys, (enlightment and newdawn,) are the ones becoming aggressive with code. Clearly you two wont be swayed on your beliefs or lack thereof....... and neither will code. He started this thread, welcomed rebuttal, and now you two are relentless in your childish behaviour.
Besides the issue of the thread...... you do realize that Code thinks himself just as correct as you two do?
LOL, 3 alpha males beating their chests................ (aplogizes if one of you are a female.)
 
A few infractions given, and more given out if you bunch of children need further babysitting.

I only ever ask for civility here, and anyone not capable of that single request request isn't welcome here.

Chill out, life's too short, and can the personal attacks - that goes for everyone.
 
I said:
Chill out, life's too short, and can the personal attacks - that goes for everyone.
Click to expand...

Very true.

Hey, Tao was sort of friend of mine, Brian.

Can you tell me what happened to him, please?

Why was he banned?

How long for?
 
greymare said:
What I think is funny is that you two guys, (enlightment and newdawn,) are the ones becoming aggressive with code.
Click to expand...

I fail to see how you could have got this far into the thread, and not seen that 'Code' is every bit, if not more, culpable.
 
I have already apologized once before for my part in the stupidity.
And I will apologize again. However, I still ask that the other side
present an argument instead of presenting simple wit, if this discourse is
to move forward.

So without further delay, if the other side can present an actual rebuttal,
I would be very grateful. :)
 
No, c0de, there is no rebuttal - only opinions.

God cannot be proven or disproven, hence belief in God is a matter of Faith. It's been a major point of discussion through millenia, and that the nearest anyone can get to a "proof" is through incidental inference.

The original ideas are interesting, but read as philosophy - a thought experiment in what science may or may not be extrapolated to - but it does so without scientific foundations, merely intellectual curiosity.

Interesting, but certainly not a proof.
 
I said:
No, c0de, there is no rebuttal - only opinions.

God cannot be proven or disproven, hence belief in God is a matter of Faith. It's been a major point of discussion through millenia, and that the nearest anyone can get to a "proof" is through incidental inference.

The original ideas are interesting, but read as philosophy - a thought experiment in what science may or may not be extrapolated to - but it does so without scientific foundations, merely intellectual curiosity.

Interesting, but certainly not a proof.
Click to expand...


Ok... I will rephrase the request.

Please provide a rebuttal to the OPINION stated in post #1.
 
cOde

There is only one intellectual proof of God that I know of and it was described quite well by Simone's brother Andre Weil.

God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the Devil exists since we cannot prove it.
Quoted in H Eves Mathematical Circles Adieu (Boston 1977).
Click to expand...

Rather then trying to prove God, it would be better IMO to understand what is meant by the "Devil" and how proof is denied.

We underestimate how far we are from this. We've proven that we cannot say anything beyond cliches to a fourteen year old about sex and the body since we don't understand. Yet even though we lack such basic understanding you want to prove God??. What's wrong with this picture? It's better to contemplate why we cannot prove God by getting to know the Devil.
 
I said:
No, c0de, there is no rebuttal - only opinions.

God cannot be proven or disproven, hence belief in God is a matter of Faith. It's been a major point of discussion through millenia, and that the nearest anyone can get to a "proof" is through incidental inference.

The original ideas are interesting, but read as philosophy - a thought experiment in what science may or may not be extrapolated to - but it does so without scientific foundations, merely intellectual curiosity.

Interesting, but certainly not a proof.
Click to expand...


*Applauds*

Thank you

:)
 
enlightenment said:
*Applauds*

Thank you

:)
Click to expand...


Still waiting on your rebuttal to the OPINION in post #1 there bud.

Also waiting for you to post a defense of your own views.
I did openly challenge you to a debate in which you would be
defending your views... If you refuse... it would pretty..
ungentlemanly of you ...
 
c0de said:
Still waiting on your rebuttal to the OPINION in post #1 there bud.

Also waiting for you to post a defense of your own views.
I did openly challenge you to a debate in which you would be
defending your views... If you refuse... it would pretty..
ungentlemanly of you ...
Click to expand...

Code.

I think it would be a waste of time, both for you and I.

Going by our previous discourse on here.
 
enlightenment said:
Code.

I think it would be a waste of time, both for you and I.

Going by our previous discourse on here.
Click to expand...


Of course not. It would be a debate. With no personal attacks at all.
A proper, debate. I will even go as far as to promise you right now that
even if you start with the personal attacks, I will not respond by
personally attacking you. But as for your views... the gloves are off.
 
Nick_A said:
cOde

There is only one intellectual proof of God that I know of and it was described quite well by Simone's brother Andre Weil.

God exists since mathematics is consistent, and the Devil exists since we cannot prove it.
Click to expand...
Rather then trying to prove God, it would be better IMO to understand what is meant by the "Devil" and how proof is denied.
Click to expand...


To claim that the devil exists because the devil cannot be proven simply insinuates that the devil is a big pink ballerina elephant, because that cannot be proven either.

This is really quite amazing - what is "the Devil" aside from a human construct extrapolating our own fears and desires?

Doesn't it strike anyone else as interesting that the Jewish offering to placate "the Devil" was a goat - a scapegoat.

All you understand when you study "the Devil" is that the concept of the devil is a scapegoat for humanity's own failings.
 
Any, and I would argue every, scientist working in a related field would I am sure state that science is as yet far from understanding what reality is. So to extract isolated bits of the scientific enquiry and to use them to support a theory of god is simply ridiculous.
 
NewDawn said:
Any, and I would argue every, scientist working in a related field would I am sure state that science is as yet far from understanding what reality is. So to extract isolated bits of the scientific enquiry and to use them to support a theory of god is simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...


Is this suppose to be a rebuttal?
You do realize that it amounts to nothing rite?
 
NewDawn said:
Any, and I would argue every, scientist working in a related field would I am sure state that science is as yet far from understanding what reality is. So to extract isolated bits of the scientific enquiry and to use them to support a theory of god is simply ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You are right.

Science has many gaps that it is yet to fill. Getting there though. What a scientific mind shouldn't do is fill those gaps with folklore, then pass them off as factual events, when they are anything but.

Steve
 
So you admit that your assertion that 'there is no God' is unfounded
because of these "gaps" in religion? Is this why neither of you is willing
to actually defend your views in a real debate?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top