I did, but not in the same way as GeneralofCarthage, and not for 8 pages. Edit- Also, who do you think is winning?
Page 12, look it up.... SInce I started Bobianism with christian arguments on the sole purpose of getting some christian to say it is a dumb argument, I pretty much think that it was worth it ^^ Page 12 PAGE 12 PAGE 12 BOBDAMNIT! If it cant be observed, nor its influence felt or influenced in any way (besides from voices in peoples heads xD), then you should disregard your theory, and fall back to point 0. Thats how evaluating a theory works. Many men formulated theorys on dark matter, or the string theory. They couldnt demonstarte either exiosts, so they reverted back to stand 0, which is: it doesnt exist until prooven otherwise. If you do not, you willingly believe something without evidence. Which would be stupid.... EDIT;: I should xclude Dark Matter, because it can be felt in space, but it has no matter... i suck at physics!
Assuming a lot here. 1) That I am a Christian. 2) That I called your argument dumb. I mean look at most of my responses to your Bobianism. But memory is hard, I know. I know. I posted once on page twelve about that. And you still have yet to respond to this in any way besides typing P-A-G-E-1-2. So we cannot really come to any conclusion on the existence of a deity, which I have stated at least twice on this thread. But that memory, may want to have it checked out. Edit- No, this is what he is arguing over, or pretending that it has more significance then it does. Thanks for the help though.
Leon Troptzky did, you just picked it up, criticing me. So I was so kind to explain. If you really want a discussion, you should read what is posted before you. I am juzst poking fun a bit ^^ No sense in loosing all the humor in a discussion about imaginary friends If you create a deity that is outside of observability (in any way, shape or form) you can neither disprove or prove its existence. That is were I agree with you. Now, where we go apart is, that you think that if you can formulate such a deity, that it is viable to believe it exists. I can imagine alot of things that happen to be outside of our observability. Like the Universe ia a giant canonball, launched from a cannon in an Hyperdimension. It will seize to exist once it hits it target. Now, you cant disprove it, but you will agree that believing such thing, without any hints that it is true, is insane.
Yes, but that was before he came I believe. I am responsible for what LeonTrotsky says? But, if we are unable to instigate an action from this deity, and the actions by this deity were seemingly random and rare in occurrence, could we not mistake that for an inactive god?
Are you fucking trolling me? READ IT! I was debating with Leon trotzky, you came in and criticied my argumentation I had with Leon Trotzky,. Then I explained to you what I discused with Leon Trotzky because you picked the argument up without reading beforehand how we got to that point of discussion. Just read it up man, dont waste my time We could that mistake for a fart of a cave dragon. Or whatever you like. You can fill that gap with everything you can imagine and everything that you cant imagine too! Point stands, you do not know if its a "god" in a sense you want to believe in it, or if its something completely different. Or if there is something at all... The argument "We dont know (for sure) if a god exissts within these parameters or something other exists there, or nothing exists, therefore I decide god exists." If you do, you will have to live with me calling it stupid.
I don't understand what the big deal is. I read both LeonTrotsky's and your comments, and then commented in a way that fit both my and his criticisms of your posts. If you have yet to pick up on it already all I have been doing this entire time is disproving atheism. All your arguments up until now, including the comment above, prove that we cannot now for certain the existence of a god, but nothing that supports your view of the non-existant god.
-.- First of all, i played along your stupid argument to describe to you how while flawed with disproving atheism in mind, it still fails. You faul to see it though, which gets on my nerves a bit. It is late allready here, and I fail to see the point argueing over it again and again, because you bring it up repeatedly, despite we know its bullshit allready. But how many times do we have to go about this spiral - I give it one last try. If you still want to post the same god damn thing that I explained to be unlogical again, I will give up on you. So, here it goes: Creating a theory in which the predetermined result is, that it cant be proven or disproven is NOT VALID. I can create those with whatever I want. Fairys, Giant Ants, Pink Unicorns, The Teapot between Saturn and Jupiter, EVERYTHING. Even if you cant disprove it, it doesnt mean it exists. Therefore you fall to the default position WHICH IS THAT IT DOESNT EXIST.The burden of proving existence, lies in the person making the claim that a god COULD exist. If I say that there is a invisible dragon living in my garage, I am the one who needs to prove it. My believe in it is not valid, just because we cant prove otherwise. That is not even the question. Again, this is my last post regarding the whole "prove of existence" discussion. I have better things to do than debate with an automated answer machine who repeats its arguments till I give up
Use proper grammar, I can't understand you. Just because we can't prove it, does it mean we are doing the wrong thing by believing? I am not seeing what your point is other than that we cannot prove nor disprove God's existence. You have been saying the same thing over and over. What concern is it of your's on if we believe in God/gods or not? Does it really matter? I have only one question for you: How can the universe be created without a divine power?
If believers do harm to others, and looking at the history of mankind they did and still do, than it does matter. LOL. Your fallacy is so dumb, its funny. You ask how it could be "created". In your questuin you allready assume that there must be something that created it. Easy answer: It wasn't. If you answer the question how the universe came to be with "there could only be a creator", than who created the creator? oO You are not answering the question at all that way... do you see it? All evidence points to the Big Bang btw, like the expanding universe....
Then what caused the Big Bang. I also have a video for you. It isn't about God but evolution which some atheists believe disproves God. Just tell me HOW IS IT POSSIBLE THAT THE BIG BANG JUST HAPPENED?
First of all, stop topic hopping. Concentrate on one and dont post random videos. In regards of the video. This guy is an idiot xD Life didn't "create" itself in a week or a month or a year in freaking tube. Life evolved in a matter of hundreds of millions of years. The earth is 4.5 billion years old, first life cells evolved some 500 million years after that. The reason this idiot cant see life spreading all over that tube is, because he cant look at it for 500 million years. Evolution is a fact. For 200 years it has been observed and verified, be it through genetics or whatever. Also, while evolution doesnt disprove god, and I certainly didnt say it does, it does disprove the whole "god created man and earth" nonsense. Secondly, the Big Bang theory states, that the "Bang" occured due to a chemical reaction, back when all matter was concentrated together. Thats why the universe is expanding, through the force created due to the Big Bang. IF you want to learn it in more detail, ask someone who doesnt suck in physics (like me), or just dont sleep through your science classes....
Uhhhhhhh.....I love science...Anyways how can you call someone an idiot when you don't have nearly as much knowledge in the subject? Then how did the chemical reaction occur?
Are you trolling? I dont even know who this guy is, but i can tell that he has no knowledge... Its like that peanutbutter video, where a creationist proved that evolution is wrong because there was no life spreading in a glass of peanut butter. I lol'ed hard.... Also, if you really like real science, not that creationist, ID crap, I allreqady told you to ask real scientist with more knowledge on the matter. Or read a book or something. Ah forgot, your religion prohibits reading anything except that one book EDIT: You can also read up on the Wiki Page for the Big Bang.... they can explain way better than me. I am an historian, no physicist....
By demanding that we do something on your account knowing full well that your not the only religion on earth you openly disrespect polythesists on no other grounds but thinking you are more credible then them because of no reason. You are an arrogant scumbag and may the Gods have no mercy on you.
Maybe you should give up, because you're only making yourself look foolish. Instead of trying to counter our arguments, this entire time you've been blathering on about how it only fall upon us to prove our point of view, and that your's is simple the default belief. Calling both myself and Coex 'automated' is quite ironic since we've changed the dynamic of our own arguments several times, ranging from the nature of belief to logic, and have even settled to argue for agnosticism in a vain attempt to even promote a more diverse response than "I don't have to prove anything"
