That's a stretch of a "theory", not a "law" if I've ever heard one. how? That's assuming, by science's reckoning, that the laws of relativity and physics apply to all possible dimenseions out there.You ask me how? You know that you know that you know that ALL space and time are relative? You'd be the first person on the face of this planet with that knowledge if that's the case. So you're using a "theory" to rule out God. Since you're theory hasn't been "proven" you can't use it just as you say I can't use God. would you like to refute my "theory" now ? (which actually isn't a theory, it's a logical argument...one that you can't seem to refute.)
prove/show evidence for other "possible demensions". If you can't then this argument falls flat. Prove/show evidence that ALL space and time are relative. If *you* can't you're starting your debate on a shakey foot. oh man..you gotta be kidding me... Einstein's Theory of Relativity
For the sake of s.....{snip}.........-write or bend those laws. string and m-theory is too theoretical to be evidence for multiple demensions. As is the theory of Space and Time's relativity. Hence why it's STILL a "theory" and not a "law". Dunno why this is so hard to understand.
ToR doesn't say anything about multiple demensions. M-theory does. So I take it then you conceed the point since it seems you're more interested in comparing MTheory to ToR as if they were equally credible
(lol@the underlined part)
Understanding God is a personal thing. I've had experiences in my life that have assured me there is a God. anecdotal evidence(As anecdotal as Netwon's Evidence was when he tried to explain gravity to the people who called him a nut.) except Newton actually showed (with evidence) where he was correct. You just have a nice feeling and a anectdote.
That does not mean I don't understand or believe in Science. They're not mutaually exclusive. i know. it's like comparing apples and orangesLet us take the walls of Jericho for exa---{snip}-----ise moments.
irrelevent to the point.
Weird, it's like you were going to refute my argument, but instead decided to side step it completely and talk about bible events.
There's no arguement to refute? Only conjecture. You started your entire foundation on something you can't prove, but then don't allow other people to do the same. not conjecture. just a logical statement that you would rather ignore than to tackle. and it still stands btw.
like you said in another post, no one can know all things. no one can 100% certain of anything. all things have a level of probability.
however, with theism, god MUST exist with 100% certainty.
that said, we are certain that if we drop a ball it will fall toward the earth because every experiment seems to produces those results. because this happens so often it's predictable. therefore, gravity is fact. there is always that chance that one day the apple will fall away from the earth. if it does, we need to redefine what we mean by gravity...it will change everything we know about time/space.
science is equipped to deal with those types of changes...theism is not.
Here I will correct you with a small, short answer (which is uncharacteristic of me :P ). You're partially right in saying "Theism" is not always equipped to explain changes. However, God is. Our understanding, which is Theism, may be limited, but God Himself, if He created all things, rules, laws of science, and the like, is quite capable of "dealing" with changes.
you haven't tackled the first point yet. you don't get to use "God" since he doesn't exist in nature.
You don't get to rule out "God" since you can't prove He doesn't exist, especially not with an unproven theory.
LOL @ me having to prove this negative. The burden of proof is not on the nonbeliever but on the believer. If you don't believe me then prove the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist.
If you start defining what someone can or cannot use in an arguement we call that "manipulation". You want me to debate something with you with YOUR evidence not my own.
you don't have jack for evidence. that's the amusing part
Yet you can't seem to bring any proof to the table either. Pretty straight and forward. I did in fact tackle your "theory" that you were "certain" God does not exists. You used an unproven theory to refure His existence and I provided you with even more scientific theories that make your own theor even more unsure than it was from the beginning. I didn't even bother using faith or God.
WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
I provided a logical argument that refutes the possiblity of god (only as defined above) from exisiting in nature. Just because you say I didn't doesn't mean I didn't. There's a real easy way to solve this and that's to refute it. But you can't. Instead you type all these excusese. Interesting. So I'll just take this is your admission that you can't refute it. Noted.
You said "space and time ARE relative" as if you can prove that all space and time are to us. You've not yet done so. I providede you with theories of OTHER spaces and times that could even ruin your first theory if those given rules didn't apply to them. Now who is side-stepping?
That has got to me the most convoluded excuse I've ever heard. all you have to do is say you can't refute my claim and then back off...but no, you brought The Crazy!
The "conjecture" (or was it "theory"???)...whatever. my proposition still stands. hehe.
Okay. This is gonna be a couple pointer also. 2- The Catholic Church has no foot to stand on when it comes to interpretation. Nowhere in the Bible does is say a man of faith cannot marry, yet they came up with that one. Nowhere does it say in the Bible that we must pray to the Virgin Mary, but they came up with that one. Mind you, this is all pre-Vatican II, as it has been dubbed. Catholic doctrines have changed a lot in the last 40 years or so.
Yeah I know what you mean about the marriage.. thing... Here's a short lil talk about it.
Matthew 19
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitted divorce as a concession to your hard-hearted wickedness, but it was not what God had originally intended. 9And I tell you this, a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery--unless his wife has been unfaithful.[d]"
10Jesus' disciples then said to him, "Then it is better not to marry!"
11"Not everyone can accept this statement," Jesus said. "Only those whom God helps. 12Some are born as eunuchs, some have been made that way by others, and some choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone who can, accept this statement."
I assume that's where they pulled that one from. And they misconstrued it as well.... I dont know about catholic doctorine... The whole praying to mary and confessing to the priest... .... ... HEre's another place where Catholics probably misinterpretted..
1 Corinthians 7
32In everything you do, I want you to be free from the concerns of this life. An unmarried man can spend his time doing the Lord's work and thinking how to please him. 33But a married man can't do that so well. He has to think about his earthly responsibilities and how to please his wife. 34His interests are divided. In the same way, a woman who is no longer married or has never been married can be more devoted to the Lord in body and in spirit, while the married woman must be concerned about her earthly responsibilities and how to please her husband.
They probably took those passages to mean that inorder to be holy you must not marry... But that isn't wat (paul i think?) was saying... He was just saying It's easier to focus on God if you dont have many worldly things to focus on... Those people were smart weren't they... But the catholics changed that to be "YOU CANNOT MARRY argggghhhh !! (pirate face)"
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Your reasoning is all wrong. Independant of time and space does not mean one has to not exist for the other to exist.
ok, so then carlify something for me. If you believe that god only exists outside of time and space, do you also agree that you cannot have knowledge or even conceive of this god?
It just means that one's existance is not limited by the other. Just like... I am independant of lays potato chips. And even though lays potato chips exist that does not rule out my existance.... Does it?
can't really compare the two. your existance and the potato chip both exist in time/space.
The word independant is the antonym of the word Dependant. So one who is not dependant on time and space is independant of time and space. One is not dependant on lays potato chips is independant of lays potato chips.
and this leads me to believe that you believe god is outside of time and space. is this correct?
like you said in another post, no one can know all things. no one can 100% certain of anything. all things have a level of probability.
however, with theism, god MUST exist with 100% certainty.
that said, we are certain that if we drop a ball it will fall toward the earth because every experiment seems to produces those results. because this happens so often it's predictable. therefore, gravity is fact. there is always that chance that one day the apple will fall away from the earth. if it does, we need to redefine what we mean by gravity...it will change everything we know about time/space.
science is equipped to deal with those types of changes...theism is not.
Science is so called equipped to deal with changes because by Science... If it isn't proven it's not true...quick interjection here. with overwhelming evidence, one can reasonably call something true. but saying something is true (like gravity, evolution, etc..) is never stating it's ABSOLUTLEY true..absolutes have no place in science or the real world.So until Newton.... Gravity was a lie and elaborate hoax... used to get tidthes and offering from weak minded fools... Or Until heat was found to be the speed of atoms moving in a space... Heat was an element contained in the body. And anything else was poppycock.... Science isn't truth.. Science is just a big fat shared opinion.
Since the creature (god) is said to be independant of time wouldn't that also mean that he's independent of space? since time and space are relative. if such a being is independent of space, then it does not exist in space.
therefore, one can say with reasonably certainty that god does not exist.
Independent?
Here, let's just sum it up like this, God is a singularity.
There, your argument just fell apart.
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
That's a stretch of a "theory", not a "law" if I've ever heard one. how? That's assuming, by science's reckoning, that the laws of relativity and physics apply to all possible dimenseions out there.
You ask me how? You know that you know that you know that ALL space and time are relative? You'd be the first person on the face of this planet with that knowledge if that's the case. So you're using a "theory" to rule out God. Since you're theory hasn't been "proven" you can't use it just as you say I can't use God.
would you like to refute my "theory" now ? (which actually isn't a theory, it's a logical argument...one that you can't seem to refute.)
Sure, I'd love to refute your "theory" that you used to disavow God. Can you tell me what space and time are like at the center of the Milky Way? No, okay. Can you tell me what is AT the center of the Milky Way? No, didn't think so.
would you like to refute my "theory" now ? (which actually isn't a theory, it's a logical argument...one that you can't seem to refute.)
Sure, I'd love to refute your "theory" that you used to disavow God. Can you tell me what space and time are like at the center of the Milky Way? No, okay. Can you tell me what is AT the center of the Milky Way? No, didn't think so.
You said that since space and time are relative and that God can exist outside of time He must not exist. I am asking you to prove to me thatALL space and time are relative. When you can do THAT you can use your Theory to refute God. prove/show evidence for other "possible demensions". If you can't then this argument falls flat.
prove/show evidence for other "possible demensions". If you can't then this argument falls flat.
Prove/show evidence that ALL space and time are relative. If *you* can't you're starting your debate on a shakey foot.
I know what the Theory of Relativity is. But you can't seem to see the first word. Theory. Meaning "we think" Pretty lost on that one aren't you. It's not proven or known, it's thought. If you can prove the Theory of Relativity and get it to change to the Law of Relativity let me know, I will be the first to snap a photo of you with your Nobel Prize.
For the sake of s.....{snip}.........-write or bend those laws.
string and m-theory is too theoretical to be evidence for multiple demensions.
As is the theory of Space and Time's relativity. Hence why it's STILL a "theory" and not a "law". Dunno why this is so hard to understand.
ToR doesn't say anything about multiple demensions. M-theory does. So I take it then you conceed the point since it seems you're more interested in comparing MTheory to ToR as if they were equally credible
(lol@the underlined part)
You're easily lost. Never did I say any theory was more credible than the other. Only that they were all in fact what they are, Theories.
ToR doesn't say anything about multiple demensions. M-theory does. So I take it then you conceed the point since it seems you're more interested in comparing MTheory to ToR as if they were equally credible
(lol@the underlined part)
You're easily lost. Never did I say any theory was more credible than the other. Only that they were all in fact what they are, Theories.
ToR doesn't say anything about multiple demensions. M-theory does. So I take it then you conceed the point since it seems you're more interested in comparing MTheory to ToR as if they were equally credible
(lol@the underlined part)
You're easily lost. Never did I say any theory was more credible than the other. Only that they were all in fact what they are, Theories.
Understanding God is a personal thing. I've had experiences in my life that have assured me there is a God. anecdotal evidence(As anecdotal as Netwon's Evidence was when he tried to explain gravity to the people who called him a nut.)
Understanding God is a personal thing. I've had experiences in my life that have assured me there is a God. anecdotal evidence(As anecdotal as Netwon's Evidence was when he tried to explain gravity to the people who called him a nut.)
Understanding God is a personal thing. I've had experiences in my life that have assured me there is a God. anecdotal evidence(As anecdotal as Netwon's Evidence was when he tried to explain gravity to the people who called him a nut.)
except Newton actually should show (with evidence) where he was correct. You just have a nice feeling and a anectdote.
After TIME Newton got the chance to show his proof, but at the beginning the people he spoke too sounded an awful lot like you. I believe, that in time, I will have that same chance.
except Newton actually should show (with evidence) where he was correct. You just have a nice feeling and a anectdote.
After TIME Newton got the chance to show his proof, but at the beginning the people he spoke too sounded an awful lot like you. I believe, that in time, I will have that same chance.
except Newton actually should show (with evidence) where he was correct. You just have a nice feeling and a anectdote.
After TIME Newton got the chance to show his proof, but at the beginning the people he spoke too sounded an awful lot like you. I believe, that in time, I will have that same chance.
That does not mean I don't understand or believe in Science. They're not mutaually exclusive. i know. it's like comparing apples and oranges
Let us take the walls of Jericho for exa---{snip}-----ise moments.
irrelevent to the point.
That does not mean I don't understand or believe in Science. They're not mutaually exclusive. i know. it's like comparing apples and oranges
Let us take the walls of Jericho for exa---{snip}-----ise moments.
irrelevent to the point.
That does not mean I don't understand or believe in Science. They're not mutaually exclusive. i know. it's like comparing apples and oranges
Let us take the walls of Jericho for exa---{snip}-----ise moments.
irrelevent to the point.
Weird, it's like you were going to refute my argument, but instead decided to side step it completely and talk about bible events. There's no arguement to refute? Only conjecture. You started your entire foundation on something you can't prove, but then don't allow other people to do the same. not conjecture. just a logical statement that you would rather ignore than to tackle. and it still stands btw. I am starting to wonder if you have a clue what you are talking about and perhaps even lost on the English language and it vocabulary. Conjecture and logic can go hand in hand. Conjecture is just assuming something, thought your own logic. You ruled God out because you are so sure you know that ALL space and time everywhere are relative. Your "proof" that God does not exist is pretty weak when you can't even say with ANY certainty that you know the state of time thoughtout the universe. Even SCIENCE, which you hold in such high esteem, admits that time can be altered by forces, whether they be dialation due to gravitic forces or speed of movement. You've yet to prove God does not exist, but you said I can't use him in my arguement. So let me illustrate what you did. You cannot prove that ALL time and space are relative to what you know now. Yet you use that to rule God out. You effectively, in your own words, used the Magic Pink Unicorn to refute God. ToR only states that we would ALL be subject to the same laws in the same place and time. It does not define that the laws or time and space are unchangeable. By the way, you know that little guy who created ToR, you know, Einstein, he believed in God. I guess you must be smarter than him now. Talk about a LOL
like you said in another post, no one can know all things. no one can 100% certain of anything. all things have a level of probability.
however, with theism, god MUST exist with 100% certainty.
that said, we are certain that if we drop a ball it will fall toward the earth because every experiment seems to produces those results. because this happens so often it's predictable. therefore, gravity is fact. there is always that chance that one day the apple will fall away from the earth. if it does, we need to redefine what we mean by gravity...it will change everything we know about time/space.
science is equipped to deal with those types of changes...theism is not.
Here I will correct you with a small, short answer (which is uncharacteristic of me :P ). You're partially right in saying "Theism" is not always equipped to explain changes. However, God is. Our understanding, which is Theism, may be limited, but God Himself, if He created all things, rules, laws of science, and the like, is quite capable of "dealing" with changes. you haven't tackled the first point yet. you don't get to use "God" since he doesn't exist in nature.
You don't get to rule out "God" since you can't prove He doesn't exist, especially not with an unproven theory.
LOL @ me having to prove this negative. The burden of proof is not on the nonbeliever but on the believer. If you don't believe me then prove the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist.
LOL @ me having to prove this negative. The burden of proof is not on the nonbeliever but on the believer. If you don't believe me then prove the Invisible Pink Unicorn doesn't exist.
The Burden of Proof is on the one who wants to make the point. I am not trying to prove to you God exists at all. You tried proving to US that because space and time are relative that God does not exist. You made the claim, you must back it up. Will I concede that I can't prove God exists, yes. But nor can you prove He doesn't. That's fairly simple. Smarter people than you have tried.
If you start defining what someone can or cannot use in an arguement we call that "manipulation". You want me to debate something with you with YOUR evidence not my own.
you don't have jack for evidence. that's the amusing part If you start defining what someone can or cannot use in an arguement we call that "manipulation". You want me to debate something with you with YOUR evidence not my own.
you don't have jack for evidence. that's the amusing part you don't have jack for evidence. that's the amusing part
Neither do you, that's the sad part. I'm not claiming to have evidence but you are. After this we're going to work on your reading skills a bit.
Yet you can't seem to bring any proof to the table either. Pretty straight and forward.
I did in fact tackle your "theory" that you were "certain" God does not exists. You used an unproven theory to refure His existence and I provided you with even more scientific theories that make your own theor even more unsure than it was from the beginning. I didn't even bother using faith or God.
WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
I provided a logical argument that refutes the possiblity of god (only as defined above) from exisiting in nature. Just because you say I didn't doesn't mean I didn't. There's a real easy way to solve this and that's to refute it. But you can't. Instead you type all these excusese. Interesting. So I'll just take this is your admission that you can't refute it. Noted.
WTF ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT
I provided a logical argument that refutes the possiblity of god (only as defined above) from exisiting in nature. Just because you say I didn't doesn't mean I didn't. There's a real easy way to solve this and that's to refute it. But you can't. Instead you type all these excusese. Interesting. So I'll just take this is your admission that you can't refute it. Noted.
You'd make a terrible lawyer. You provided a reason that was logical to YOUR mind why you don't THINK God exists. Yet you didn't even say "think", you said "reasonable certain". Semmentics, sure, but you sure seem to think you have the answers for everyone.
You keep asking me to refute your logic, which is an OPINION. There's no way to do that. You tell me you don't like pizza, I can't tell you that you do. But you've not proved God exists. You gave a vague reason why, if these laws we live under are irrefutable, God may not exists. I gave you a vague reason why these laws we live under may be refutable.
You want me to refute an idea. That's impossible. And all you have provided so far is an idea. But you can't seem to see that.
You said "space and time ARE relative" as if you can prove that all space and time are to us. You've not yet done so. I providede you with theories of OTHER spaces and times that could even ruin your first theory if those given rules didn't apply to them. Now who is side-stepping?
That has got to me the most convoluded excuse I've ever heard. all you have to do is say you can't refute my claim and then back off...but no, you brought The Crazy!
The "conjecture" (or was it "theory"???)...whatever. my proposition still stands. hehe.
You give me viable proof to refute, and I will attempt to refute it. You give me an opinion, I can only give you other opinions.
As I have said before, you bring me irrefutable proof that God does not exists, and I will bring you irrefutable proof He does. At this point, I don't see EITHER happening.
If you want me to concede that you won, I have to ask you what you won? You gave me an opinion that I couldn't agree with or change your mind? Sure, you did that. But so far that's all you have done.
You say if God exists out of time he must exists out of space and therefore doesn't exists, but you've given NO proof who that's even possible on a scientific basis, let alone begin to think that this being may be above those laws.
Next you'll be telling me that if Decartes said "he thinks not" he would disappear...
That has got to me the most convoluded excuse I've ever heard. all you have to do is say you can't refute my claim and then back off...but no, you brought The Crazy!
The "conjecture" (or was it "theory"???)...whatever. my proposition still stands. hehe.
You give me viable proof to refute, and I will attempt to refute it. You give me an opinion, I can only give you other opinions.
As I have said before, you bring me irrefutable proof that God does not exists, and I will bring you irrefutable proof He does. At this point, I don't see EITHER happening.
If you want me to concede that you won, I have to ask you what you won? You gave me an opinion that I couldn't agree with or change your mind? Sure, you did that. But so far that's all you have done.
You say if God exists out of time he must exists out of space and therefore doesn't exists, but you've given NO proof who that's even possible on a scientific basis, let alone begin to think that this being may be above those laws.
Next you'll be telling me that if Decartes said "he thinks not" he would disappear...
I will concede that you are stuck on what you think is a great arguement and I will let you have it. But to date, you've proven nothing. Since I've condeded to you I assume I no longer have to answer you. For that I thank you since I can see now that no matter what I say, unless it's what you specifically WANT to hear, I'd sooner blow a wall of stone over with my breath.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Originally posted by Aldaron Originally posted by freethinker
Since the creature (god) is said to be independant of time wouldn't that also mean that he's independent of space? since time and space are relative. if such a being is independent of space, then it does not exist in space.
therefore, one can say with reasonably certainty that god does not exist. Independent? Here, let's just sum it up like this, God is a singularity. There, your argument just fell apart.
but....I'm not defining god. I'm an atheist and i don't believe in them. i was just using the definition presented.
if someone wanted to define god as a singularity, this argument would not even address that issue so, I agree, it would fall apart.
Originally posted by freethinker Originally posted by methane47
Your reasoning is all wrong. Independant of time and space does not mean one has to not exist for the other to exist.
ok, so then carlify something for me. If you believe that god only exists outside of time and space, do you also agree that you cannot have knowledge or even conceive of this god?
can't really compare the two. your existance and the potato chip both exist in time/space.
Are you relegating to word games? Independant means "NOT DEPENDANT ON".. not exclusive. in·de·pen·dent ( P ) Pronunciation Key (nd-pndnt)
adj.
Not governed by a foreign power; self-governing.
Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: an independent mind.
Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study.
often Independent Affiliated with or loyal to no one political party or organization.
Not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity: an independent food store; an independent film.
Not relying on others for support, care, or funds; self-supporting.
Providing or being sufficient income to enable one to live without working: a person of independent means.
Mathematics.
Not dependent on other variables.
Of or relating to a system of equations no one of which can be derived from another equation in the system.
Independent Of or relating to the 17th-century English Independents
how exactly you get "mutually exclusive" from the word independent.. I have no idea... So if I say god exists Independent of Time/space that means that God does not need time/space to exist for him to exist capiche? That is how the theory of "GOD created the Heavens and the Earth" can hold... Only If God's existance is not defined by the limits of Time/space... Not OUTSIDE.. but Independant..
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
I will concede that you are stuck on what you think is a great arguement and I will let you have it.
you can omit the red part. It is a great argument whether or not anyone conceeds it.
But to date, you've proven nothing.
Incorrect. That argument proves logically that god cannot exist in reality if he is said to exist outside of time (and therefore space).
Remember? That's the point you addressed when you first responded to it. Is this absolute? Well...I don't think anything is absolute...including all scientific theories and laws of logic. The only ones I ever hear making absolute claims are theists when they tell me that their god exists.
Originally posted by methane47 Originally posted by freethinker
Originally posted by methane47
Your reasoning is all wrong. Independant of time and space does not mean one has to not exist for the other to exist.
ok, so then carlify something for me. If you believe that god only exists outside of time and space, do you also agree that you cannot have knowledge or even conceive of this god?
can't really compare the two. your existance and the potato chip both exist in time/space.
Are you relegating to word games? Independant means "NOT DEPENDANT ON".. not exclusive. in·de·pen·dent( P ) Pronunciation Key (nd-pndnt)
adj.
Not governed by a foreign power; self-governing.
Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: an independent mind.
Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study.
often Independent Affiliated with or loyal to no one political party or organization.
Not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity: an independent food store; an independent film.
Not relying on others for support, care, or funds; self-supporting.
Providing or being sufficient income to enable one to live without working: a person of independent means.
Mathematics.
Not dependent on other variables.
Of or relating to a system of equations no one of which can be derived from another equation in the system.
Independent Of or relating to the 17th-century English Independents
how exactly you get "mutually exclusive" from the word independent.. I have no idea... So if I say god exists Independent of Time/space that means that God does not need time/space to exist for him to exist capiche? That is how the theory of "GOD created the Heavens and the Earth" can hold... Only If God's existance is not defined by the limits of Time/space... Not OUTSIDE.. but Independant..
the·o·ry (th-r, thîr)n.pl.the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Goddidit is not a theory..it's a naked assertion. Anyway...to address your argument....If god is not bound by time and space then he doesn't exist in nature, therefore one can conclude that god does not exist at all.
I will concede that you are stuck on what you think is a great arguement and I will let you have it.
you can omit the red part. It is a great argument whether or not anyone conceeds it.
One moment, I need to step around your ego to get back to this point. Not much room left here.
But to date, you've proven nothing.
Here's all I will concede to you. You say there are no abolsutes yet you demand on an absolute. Albeit, it may be a misunderstanding in words so I shall attempt to rectify that.
Incorrect. That argument proves logically that god cannot exist in reality if he is said to exist outside of time (and therefore space).
First, you are assuming, if you are conceding for sake of the arguement that there is a God, that God is held by the rules which you are so "absolute" in quoting. Let us from hence forth say then that God is "above" the rules of normal time and space as we know it. Does that make it easier to agree with? Perhaps the word "outside" is being taken too literal here. It would only stand to reason that if God created space and time they would be subjected to Him, not vice versa.
Remember? That's the point you addressed when you first responded to it. Is this absolute? Well...I don't think anything is absolute...including all scientific theories and laws of logic. The only ones I ever hear making absolute claims are theists when they tell me that their god exists.
Incorrect. You did state an abolsute. You said that God would be held by the rules of space and time as you know them as an abolsute. Meaning, that if you percieve space and time in a certain fashion and He is above those rules of laws that he must not exist. The absolute being that you KNOW that God would be subjected to the same rules of space and time that you are.
As for saying Theists claiming that God absolutely exists I don't see myself as having ever said that. While I will say I believe He exists, through my faith and personal experiences (which you call irrelevant).
Where you lost me utterly was that you were demanding I refute a hypothetical situation formed on an opinion. Sure, even YOU must be able to see that there is no way to refute something like that. However, we can get into the semmantics of the word refute if you wish.
Main Entry: re·fute Pronunciation: ri-'fyüt Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): re·fut·ed; re·fut·ing Etymology: Latin refutare to check, suppress, refute 1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous 2: to deny the truth or accuracy of
By your rights I did not achieve the first defintion, however I stand firm that there was nothing to refute because it was an opinion. I can't tell you that your opinions are right or wrong.
However, by the second account of the word refute, I most happily did so. So when you claim I did not or could not refute your "point" you're both right and wrong. However you want to spin it is up to you.
Closing, if God is held in check by the rules we "think" we know about this universe then perhaps your opinion might make more sense. If God is not, on the other hand, held by any rule or law we are then your opinion made no sense. I am sure you can see where I am coming from just as much I can see where you are coming from now with it more precisely explained.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Originally posted by britoca oh boy, this is just gonna keep on going and going huh?... Alright! I repent!
Brit, I told you, no matter how many times you say that, you're still not getting my Bud Light.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Originally posted by freethinker the·o·ry (th-r, thîr)n.pl.the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Goddidit is not a theory..it's a naked assertion. Anyway...to address your argument....If god is not bound by time and space then he doesn't exist in nature, therefore one can conclude that god does not exist at all.
Ohhh gee i guess you ARE going to play word games with me all day.. fine i'll comply... So what exactly is the Theory of Relativity? Oh wait... NOT a theory... just a naked assertion.. Black hole Theory? ... OHhhhh NOOESS not a theory.. naked assertion... Them dang'd weak minded brilliant scientists trying to trick us into believing their naked assertions....
String theory ... OH NOEESSS ... naked assertion... Big Bang theory... OH GODD NOESSsssss .... nake assertion... Or maybe you hold that big bang is testable? Anyways... there are tonnes of things that are held as theories that by totatly objective terms aren't theories at all... But really.. who cares... it's all just petty banter... who cares about the label... the content is more important right?
"If god is not bound by time and space then he doesn't exist(read: isn't bound) in nature" ummm .... yeah... DUHH thats was definitely a duhhh moment... I'm sure you are familiar with the terms ... "SUPERnatural" or the term "Metaphysical".... But i'll play down your "doesn't exist" to mean "isn't bound by" since that is what you used for the beginning of your arguement
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Why do believers have to prove God exsists? I have seen you say this before. I don't have to prove it, because I am not trying to convert anyone to my beliefs. Just like non-believers don't have to prove God doesn't exist as long as they are not trying to change anyones beliefs.
The only time anyone has to prove anything is when they are trying to change someone's thinking.
To sum up, I believe in God, you don't believe in God, who really gives a shit? It shouldn't really matter because at least we are all human and have the freedom of choice. (Oh shit I hope this doesn't turn into a free will thread now) Now lets go have a beer.
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
Originally posted by Malachi1975 Originally posted by freethinker
I will concede that you are stuck on what you think is a great arguement and I will let you have it.
you can omit the red part. It is a great argument whether or not anyone conceeds it.
One moment, I need to step around your ego to get back to this point. Not much room left here.
it's not MY argument to get my "ego" all riled up in the first place. I read it somewhere else and now I'm sharing it with you.
So go whine somewhere else please
Here's all I will concede to you. You say there are no abolsutes yet you demand on an absolute. I challenge you to post where I've demanded an absolute...considering I don't believe in them.
Incorrect. That argument proves logically that god cannot exist in reality if he is said to exist outside of time (and therefore space).
First, you are assuming, if you are conceding for sake of the arguement that there is a God, that God is held by the rules which you are so "absolute" in quoting.
Tryin real hard to turn it back around on me, aren't you. Now listen closely: I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING IS ABSOLUTE. k?
Let us from hence forth say then that God is "above" the rules of normal time and space as we know it. Does that make it easier to agree with? Perhaps the word "outside" is being taken too literal here. It would only stand to reason that if God created space and time they would be subjected to Him, not vice versa.
please...how could anything BE anywhere outside of time/space. That's a contradiction. It takes time to create things, it takes space to exist. Anyone professing that a being is (outside, above, underneath, not bound to, etc...) time/space is speaking incoherently.
Remember? That's the point you addressed when you first responded to it. Is this absolute? Well...I don't think anything is absolute...including all scientific theories and laws of logic.
The only ones I ever hear making absolute claims are theists when they tell me that their god exists.
Incorrect. You did state an abolsute. You said that God would be held by the rules of space and time as you know them as an abolsute. Meaning, that if you percieve space and time in a certain fashion and He is above those rules of laws that he must not exist. The absolute being that you KNOW that God would be subjected to the same rules of space and time that you are.
As for saying Theists claiming that God absolutely exists I don't see myself as having ever said that. While I will say I believe He exists, through my faith and personal experiences (which you call irrelevant).
Nice strawman.
I don't believe the laws of logic, science, time space ANYTHING is absolute. They are CONDITIONALLY true. Furthermore, it's not my problem if you don't understand the difference.
Where you lost me utterly was that you were demanding I refute a hypothetical situation formed on an opinion. Sure, even YOU must be able to see that there is no way to refute something like that.
Another strawman.
I didn't ask you to refute a "hypothetical situation formed on an opinion"
I asked you to refute a sound logical argument. You couldn't and still can't.
By your rights I did not achieve the first defintion, however I stand firm that there was nothing to refute because it was an opinion. I can't tell you that your opinions are right or wrong.
Once again...It's not an opinion. It's a sound logical argument that you can't refute.
please...how could anything BE anywhere outside of time/space. That's a contradiction. It takes time to create things, it takes space to exist. Anyone professing that a being is (outside, above, underneath, not bound to, etc...) time/space is speaking incoherently.
... Hmmm listen to this..
1006 AD: HOW CAN ANything exist on the underside of the world.. That is a contradiction THe world is FLAT! if anyone tells you there is water on the underside of the earth.. they are speaking incoherently because they probably had too much Ale.
2006 AD: How could anything BE anywhere outside of time/space. That's a contradiction. It takes time to create things, it takes space to exist. Anyone professing that a being is (outside, above, underneath, not bound to, etc...) time/space is speaking incoherently.
All it takes is time my friend. Remember Time/space is just how WE percieve the universe.
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Toe to toe Dancing very slow Barely breathing Almost comatose Wall to wall People hypnotised And they're stepping lightly Hang each night in Rapture
Back to back Sacrailiac Spineless movement And a wild attack
Face to face Sadly solitude And it's finger popping Twenty-four hour shopping in Rapture
Fab Five Freddie told me everybody's high DJ's spinnin' are savin' my mind Flash is fast, Flash is cool Francois sez fas, Flashe' no do And you don't stop, sure shot Go out to the parking lot And you get in your car and you drive real far And you drive all night and then you see a light And it comes right down and lands on the ground And out comes a man from Mars And you try to run but he's got a gun And he shoots you dead and he eats your head And then you're in the man from Mars You go out at night, eatin' cars You eat Cadillacs, Lincolns too Mercurys and Subarus And you don't stop, you keep on eatin' cars Then, when there's no more cars You go out at night and eat up bars where the people meet Face to face, dance cheek to cheek One to one, man to man Dance toe to toe Don't move to slow, 'cause the man from Mars Is through with cars, he's eatin' bars Yeah, wall to wall, door to door, hall to hall He's gonna eat 'em all Rapture, be pure Take a tour, through the sewer Don't strain your brain, paint a train You'll be singin' in the rain I said don't stop, do punk rock
Well now you see what you wanna be Just have your party on TV 'Cause the man from Mars won't eat up bars when the TV's on And now he's gone back up to space Where he won't have a hassle with the human race And you hip-hop, and you don't stop Just blast off, sure shot 'Cause the man from Mars stopped eatin' cars and eatin' bars And now he only eats guitars, get up!
Originally posted by freethinker Originally posted by Malachi1975 Originally posted by freethinker
I will concede that you are stuck on what you think is a great arguement and I will let you have it.
you can omit the red part. It is a great argument whether or not anyone conceeds it.
One moment, I need to step around your ego to get back to this point. Not much room left here.
it's not MY argument to get my "ego" all riled up in the first place. I read it somewhere else and now I'm sharing it with you.
So go whine somewhere else please
You've officially gone from babbling with some intelligence to drooling like a moron. Sorry to say. I'm not whining. You're comment that is IS a great argument is an opinion.
Here's all I will concede to you. You say there are no abolsutes yet you demand on an absolute. I challenge you to post where I've demanded an absolute...considering I don't believe in them.
Keep reading friend, I will shortly.
Incorrect. That argument proves logically that god cannot exist in reality if he is said to exist outside of time (and therefore space).
First, you are assuming, if you are conceding for sake of the arguement that there is a God, that God is held by the rules which you are so "absolute" in quoting.
Tryin real hard to turn it back around on me, aren't you. Now listen closely: I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING IS ABSOLUTE. k?
Let us from hence forth say then that God is "above" the rules of normal time and space as we know it. Does that make it easier to agree with? Perhaps the word "outside" is being taken too literal here. It would only stand to reason that if God created space and time they would be subjected to Him, not vice versa.
please...how could anything BE anywhere outside of time/space. That's a contradiction. It takes time to create things, it takes space to exist. Anyone professing that a being is (outside, above, underneath, not bound to, etc...) time/space is speaking incoherently.
"Tryin real hard to turn it back around on me, aren't you. Now listen closely: I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING IS ABSOLUTE. k?"
Hate to tell you chief, but you just went ABSOLUTE right there. You are saying God ABSOLUTELY cannot exists outside time and space.
Remember? That's the point you addressed when you first responded to it. Is this absolute? Well...I don't think anything is absolute...including all scientific theories and laws of logic.
The only ones I ever hear making absolute claims are theists when they tell me that their god exists.
Incorrect. You did state an abolsute. You said that God would be held by the rules of space and time as you know them as an abolsute. Meaning, that if you percieve space and time in a certain fashion and He is above those rules of laws that he must not exist. The absolute being that you KNOW that God would be subjected to the same rules of space and time that you are.
As for saying Theists claiming that God absolutely exists I don't see myself as having ever said that. While I will say I believe He exists, through my faith and personal experiences (which you call irrelevant).
Nice strawman.
I don't believe the laws of logic, science, time space ANYTHING is absolute. They are CONDITIONALLY true. Furthermore, it's not my problem if you don't understand the difference.
I do, you obviously don't and can't even go so far as to say anything other than flimsy insults. You call people opinions "anecdotal" or "strawmen". You're really hitting a new low moment by moment.
You just admitted that all things are conditionally true, therefore, one can say with reasonable certainty that if there IS indeed a God that He may be able to exist outside the concepts of space and time which you hold dear. Welcome to a condition.
Where you lost me utterly was that you were demanding I refute a hypothetical situation formed on an opinion. Sure, even YOU must be able to see that there is no way to refute something like that.
Another strawman.
I didn't ask you to refute a "hypothetical situation formed on an opinion"
I asked you to refute a sound logical argument. You couldn't and still can't.
Shall we again consult the dictionary? Let us.
Main Entry: re·fute Pronunciation: ri-'fyüt Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): re·fut·ed; re·fut·ing Etymology: Latin refutare to check, suppress, refute 1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous 2: to deny the truth or accuracy of
Hate to break it to you, chum, but I most certainly DID refute your idea. I am just not doing what YOU consider "refuting". Hence where I gather that you have an ego the size of a small, third-world country.
By your rights I did not achieve the first defintion, however I stand firm that there was nothing to refute because it was an opinion. I can't tell you that your opinions are right or wrong.
Once again...It's not an opinion. It's a sound logical argument that you can't refute.
Do you know what "opinion" means? No, shall we again?
Main Entry: opin·ion Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari 1 a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matterb: APPROVAL, ESTEEM 2 a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledgeb: a generally held view 3 a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b: the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
Your, or whoever it is you plagerised it from, arguement IS in the very essense an opinion. That's even an absolute. And having "denied the truth or accuracy of" I have in the very essence of the word...refuted your opinion.
Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, come back when you have a firm grasp of linguistics. Until then you can continue to use watered down insults to attack the person with which you disagree. In this debate, you have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.
Good day.
Let us from hence forth say then that God is "above" the rules of normal time and space as we know it. Does that make it easier to agree with? Perhaps the word "outside" is being taken too literal here. It would only stand to reason that if God created space and time they would be subjected to Him, not vice versa.
please...how could anything BE anywhere outside of time/space. That's a contradiction. It takes time to create things, it takes space to exist. Anyone professing that a being is (outside, above, underneath, not bound to, etc...) time/space is speaking incoherently.
"Tryin real hard to turn it back around on me, aren't you. Now listen closely: I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING IS ABSOLUTE. k?"
Hate to tell you chief, but you just went ABSOLUTE right there. You are saying God ABSOLUTELY cannot exists outside time and space.
Remember? That's the point you addressed when you first responded to it. Is this absolute? Well...I don't think anything is absolute...including all scientific theories and laws of logic.
The only ones I ever hear making absolute claims are theists when they tell me that their god exists.
Incorrect. You did state an abolsute. You said that God would be held by the rules of space and time as you know them as an abolsute. Meaning, that if you percieve space and time in a certain fashion and He is above those rules of laws that he must not exist. The absolute being that you KNOW that God would be subjected to the same rules of space and time that you are.
As for saying Theists claiming that God absolutely exists I don't see myself as having ever said that. While I will say I believe He exists, through my faith and personal experiences (which you call irrelevant).
Nice strawman.
I don't believe the laws of logic, science, time space ANYTHING is absolute. They are CONDITIONALLY true. Furthermore, it's not my problem if you don't understand the difference.
I do, you obviously don't and can't even go so far as to say anything other than flimsy insults. You call people opinions "anecdotal" or "strawmen". You're really hitting a new low moment by moment.
You just admitted that all things are conditionally true, therefore, one can say with reasonable certainty that if there IS indeed a God that He may be able to exist outside the concepts of space and time which you hold dear. Welcome to a condition.
Where you lost me utterly was that you were demanding I refute a hypothetical situation formed on an opinion. Sure, even YOU must be able to see that there is no way to refute something like that.
Another strawman.
I didn't ask you to refute a "hypothetical situation formed on an opinion"
I asked you to refute a sound logical argument. You couldn't and still can't.
Shall we again consult the dictionary? Let us.
Main Entry: re·fute Pronunciation: ri-'fyüt Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): re·fut·ed; re·fut·ing Etymology: Latin refutare to check, suppress, refute 1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous 2: to deny the truth or accuracy of
Hate to break it to you, chum, but I most certainly DID refute your idea. I am just not doing what YOU consider "refuting". Hence where I gather that you have an ego the size of a small, third-world country.
By your rights I did not achieve the first defintion, however I stand firm that there was nothing to refute because it was an opinion. I can't tell you that your opinions are right or wrong.
Once again...It's not an opinion. It's a sound logical argument that you can't refute.
Do you know what "opinion" means? No, shall we again?
Main Entry: opin·ion Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari 1 a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matterb: APPROVAL, ESTEEM 2 a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledgeb: a generally held view 3 a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b: the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
Your, or whoever it is you plagerised it from, arguement IS in the very essense an opinion. That's even an absolute. And having "denied the truth or accuracy of" I have in the very essence of the word...refuted your opinion.
Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, come back when you have a firm grasp of linguistics. Until then you can continue to use watered down insults to attack the person with which you disagree. In this debate, you have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.
Good day.
Let us from hence forth say then that God is "above" the rules of normal time and space as we know it. Does that make it easier to agree with? Perhaps the word "outside" is being taken too literal here. It would only stand to reason that if God created space and time they would be subjected to Him, not vice versa.
please...how could anything BE anywhere outside of time/space. That's a contradiction. It takes time to create things, it takes space to exist. Anyone professing that a being is (outside, above, underneath, not bound to, etc...) time/space is speaking incoherently.
"Tryin real hard to turn it back around on me, aren't you. Now listen closely: I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING IS ABSOLUTE. k?"
Hate to tell you chief, but you just went ABSOLUTE right there. You are saying God ABSOLUTELY cannot exists outside time and space.
Remember? That's the point you addressed when you first responded to it. Is this absolute? Well...I don't think anything is absolute...including all scientific theories and laws of logic.
The only ones I ever hear making absolute claims are theists when they tell me that their god exists.
Incorrect. You did state an abolsute. You said that God would be held by the rules of space and time as you know them as an abolsute. Meaning, that if you percieve space and time in a certain fashion and He is above those rules of laws that he must not exist. The absolute being that you KNOW that God would be subjected to the same rules of space and time that you are.
As for saying Theists claiming that God absolutely exists I don't see myself as having ever said that. While I will say I believe He exists, through my faith and personal experiences (which you call irrelevant).
Nice strawman.
I don't believe the laws of logic, science, time space ANYTHING is absolute. They are CONDITIONALLY true. Furthermore, it's not my problem if you don't understand the difference.
I do, you obviously don't and can't even go so far as to say anything other than flimsy insults. You call people opinions "anecdotal" or "strawmen". You're really hitting a new low moment by moment.
You just admitted that all things are conditionally true, therefore, one can say with reasonable certainty that if there IS indeed a God that He may be able to exist outside the concepts of space and time which you hold dear. Welcome to a condition.
Where you lost me utterly was that you were demanding I refute a hypothetical situation formed on an opinion. Sure, even YOU must be able to see that there is no way to refute something like that.
Another strawman.
I didn't ask you to refute a "hypothetical situation formed on an opinion"
I asked you to refute a sound logical argument. You couldn't and still can't.
Shall we again consult the dictionary? Let us.
Main Entry: re·fute Pronunciation: ri-'fyüt Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): re·fut·ed; re·fut·ing Etymology: Latin refutare to check, suppress, refute 1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous 2: to deny the truth or accuracy of
Hate to break it to you, chum, but I most certainly DID refute your idea. I am just not doing what YOU consider "refuting". Hence where I gather that you have an ego the size of a small, third-world country.
By your rights I did not achieve the first defintion, however I stand firm that there was nothing to refute because it was an opinion. I can't tell you that your opinions are right or wrong.
Once again...It's not an opinion. It's a sound logical argument that you can't refute.
Do you know what "opinion" means? No, shall we again?
Main Entry: opin·ion Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari 1 a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matterb: APPROVAL, ESTEEM 2 a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledgeb: a generally held view 3 a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b: the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
You're, or whoever it is you plagerised it from, arguement IS in the very essense an opinion. That's even an absolute. And having "denied the truth or accuracy of" I have in the very essence of the word...refuted your opinion.
Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, come back when you have a firm grasp of linguistics. Until then you can continue to use watered down insults to attack the person with which you disagree. In this debate, you have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.
Good day.
Let us from hence forth say then that God is "above" the rules of normal time and space as we know it. Does that make it easier to agree with? Perhaps the word "outside" is being taken too literal here. It would only stand to reason that if God created space and time they would be subjected to Him, not vice versa.
please...how could anything BE anywhere outside of time/space. That's a contradiction. It takes time to create things, it takes space to exist. Anyone professing that a being is (outside, above, underneath, not bound to, etc...) time/space is speaking incoherently.
"Tryin real hard to turn it back around on me, aren't you. Now listen closely: I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING IS ABSOLUTE. k?"
Hate to tell you chief, but you just went ABSOLUTE right there. You are saying God ABSOLUTELY cannot exists outside time and space.
Remember? That's the point you addressed when you first responded to it. Is this absolute? Well...I don't think anything is absolute...including all scientific theories and laws of logic.
The only ones I ever hear making absolute claims are theists when they tell me that their god exists.
Incorrect. You did state an abolsute. You said that God would be held by the rules of space and time as you know them as an abolsute. Meaning, that if you percieve space and time in a certain fashion and He is above those rules of laws that he must not exist. The absolute being that you KNOW that God would be subjected to the same rules of space and time that you are.
As for saying Theists claiming that God absolutely exists I don't see myself as having ever said that. While I will say I believe He exists, through my faith and personal experiences (which you call irrelevant).
Nice strawman.
I don't believe the laws of logic, science, time space ANYTHING is absolute. They are CONDITIONALLY true. Furthermore, it's not my problem if you don't understand the difference.
I do, you obviously don't and can't even go so far as to say anything other than flimsy insults. You call people opinions "anecdotal" or "strawmen". You're really hitting a new low moment by moment.
You just admitted that all things are conditionally true, therefore, one can say with reasonable certainty that if there IS indeed a God that He may be able to exist outside the concepts of space and time which you hold dear. Welcome to a condition.
Where you lost me utterly was that you were demanding I refute a hypothetical situation formed on an opinion. Sure, even YOU must be able to see that there is no way to refute something like that.
Another strawman.
I didn't ask you to refute a "hypothetical situation formed on an opinion"
I asked you to refute a sound logical argument. You couldn't and still can't.
Shall we again consult the dictionary? Let us.
Main Entry: re·fute Pronunciation: ri-'fyüt Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): re·fut·ed; re·fut·ing Etymology: Latin refutare to check, suppress, refute 1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous 2: to deny the truth or accuracy of
Hate to break it to you, chum, but I most certainly DID refute your idea. I am just not doing what YOU consider "refuting". Hence where I gather that you have an ego the size of a small, third-world country.
By your rights I did not achieve the first defintion, however I stand firm that there was nothing to refute because it was an opinion. I can't tell you that your opinions are right or wrong.
Once again...It's not an opinion. It's a sound logical argument that you can't refute.
Do you know what "opinion" means? No, shall we again?
Main Entry: opin·ion Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari 1 a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matterb: APPROVAL, ESTEEM 2 a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledgeb: a generally held view 3 a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b: the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
You're, or whoever it is you plagerised it from, arguement IS in the very essense an opinion. That's even an absolute. And having "denied the truth or accuracy of" I have in the very essence of the word...refuted your opinion.
Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, come back when you have a firm grasp of linguistics. Until then you can continue to use watered down insults to attack the person with which you disagree. In this debate, you have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.
Good day.
Let us from hence forth say then that God is "above" the rules of normal time and space as we know it. Does that make it easier to agree with? Perhaps the word "outside" is being taken too literal here. It would only stand to reason that if God created space and time they would be subjected to Him, not vice versa.
please...how could anything BE anywhere outside of time/space. That's a contradiction. It takes time to create things, it takes space to exist. Anyone professing that a being is (outside, above, underneath, not bound to, etc...) time/space is speaking incoherently.
"Tryin real hard to turn it back around on me, aren't you. Now listen closely: I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING IS ABSOLUTE. k?"
Hate to tell you chief, but you just went ABSOLUTE right there. You are saying God ABSOLUTELY cannot exists outside time and space.
Remember? That's the point you addressed when you first responded to it. Is this absolute? Well...I don't think anything is absolute...including all scientific theories and laws of logic.
The only ones I ever hear making absolute claims are theists when they tell me that their god exists.
Incorrect. You did state an abolsute. You said that God would be held by the rules of space and time as you know them as an abolsute. Meaning, that if you percieve space and time in a certain fashion and He is above those rules of laws that he must not exist. The absolute being that you KNOW that God would be subjected to the same rules of space and time that you are.
As for saying Theists claiming that God absolutely exists I don't see myself as having ever said that. While I will say I believe He exists, through my faith and personal experiences (which you call irrelevant).
Nice strawman.
I don't believe the laws of logic, science, time space ANYTHING is absolute. They are CONDITIONALLY true. Furthermore, it's not my problem if you don't understand the difference.
I do, you obviously don't and can't even go so far as to say anything other than flimsy insults. You call people opinions "anecdotal" or "strawmen". You're really hitting a new low moment by moment.
You just admitted that all things are conditionally true, therefore, one can say with reasonable certainty that if there IS indeed a God that He may be able to exist outside the concepts of space and time which you hold dear. Welcome to a condition.
Where you lost me utterly was that you were demanding I refute a hypothetical situation formed on an opinion. Sure, even YOU must be able to see that there is no way to refute something like that.
Another strawman.
I didn't ask you to refute a "hypothetical situation formed on an opinion"
I asked you to refute a sound logical argument. You couldn't and still can't.
Shall we again consult the dictionary? Let us.
Main Entry: re·fute Pronunciation: ri-'fyüt Function: transitive verb Inflected Form(s): re·fut·ed; re·fut·ing Etymology: Latin refutare to check, suppress, refute 1: to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous 2: to deny the truth or accuracy of
Hate to break it to you, chum, but I most certainly DID refute your idea. I am just not doing what YOU consider "refuting". Hence where I gather that you have an ego the size of a small, third-world country.
By your rights I did not achieve the first defintion, however I stand firm that there was nothing to refute because it was an opinion. I can't tell you that your opinions are right or wrong.
Once again...It's not an opinion. It's a sound logical argument that you can't refute.
Do you know what "opinion" means? No, shall we again?
Main Entry: opin·ion Pronunciation: &-'pin-y&n Function: noun Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari 1 a: a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matterb: APPROVAL, ESTEEM 2 a: belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledgeb: a generally held view 3 a: a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b: the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
You're, or whoever it is you plagerised it from, arguement IS in the very essense an opinion. That's even an absolute. And having "denied the truth or accuracy of" I have in the very essence of the word...refuted your opinion.
Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, come back when you have a firm grasp of linguistics. Until then you can continue to use watered down insults to attack the person with which you disagree. In this debate, you have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.
Good day.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Originally posted by seabass2003 Freethinker, Why do believers have to prove God exsists? I have seen you say this before. I don't have to prove it, because I am not trying to convert anyone to my beliefs. Just like non-believers don't have to prove God doesn't exist as long as they are not trying to change anyones beliefs. The only time anyone has to prove anything is when they are trying to change someone's thinking. To sum up, I believe in God, you don't believe in God, who really gives a shit? It shouldn't really matter because at least we are all human and have the freedom of choice. (Oh shit I hope this doesn't turn into a free will thread now) Now lets go have a beer.
Sadly, Seabass, at this very moment I am going to exercise my freewill to come steal your beer. And even sadder to the fact, I'm within driving distance to do it
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Originally posted by methane47 Originally posted by freethinker the·o·ry (th-r, thîr)n.pl.the·o·ries
1. A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural phenomena.
Goddidit is not a theory..it's a naked assertion. Anyway...to address your argument....If god is not bound by time and space then he doesn't exist in nature, therefore one can conclude that god does not exist at all.
So what exactly is the Theory of Relativity? Oh wait... NOT a theory... just a naked assertion..
Hmm..maybe you don't understand what a "naked assertion" is. Anyway, ToR is not one. It's a well supported theory by Albert Einstein. And you'd be nuts to try and refute it
Black hole Theory? ... OHhhhh NOOESS not a theory.. naked assertion... Them dang'd weak minded brilliant scientists trying to trick us into believing their naked assertions....
String theory ... OH NOEESSS ... naked assertion...
Here, you can educate yourself on String Theory. But, no, it's not a naked assertion.
Big Bang theory... OH GODD NOESSsssss .... nake assertion...
Again, you are incorrect. Do you like displaying ignorance? Not something I'd be proud of
Or maybe you hold that big bang is testable?
Current evidence points toward a singularity. Want to refute the theory? Then have fun coming up with a better theory that explains the Cosmic microwave background radiation, redshift/blueshift, etc...
(hint: this will require you to submit papers to a scientific journal for peer review.)
(or wait, lemme guess, Goddidit...heheh )
Anyways... there are tonnes of things that are held as theories that by totatly objective terms aren't theories at all... But really.. who cares... it's all just petty banter... who cares about the label... the content is more important right?
All of the above are scientific theories...some are more supported than others. You mocking me and (at the same time) displaying your ignorance on that doesn't change a thing. In fact, it reminds me a lot of this guy | | V
"If god is not bound by time and space then he doesn't exist(read: isn't bound) in nature" ummm .... yeah... DUHH
thats was definitely a duhhh moment... I'm sure you are familiar with the terms ... "SUPERnatural" or the term "Metaphysical".... But i'll play down your "doesn't exist" to mean "isn't bound by" since that is what you used for the beginning of your arguement
Not at all. Maybe you'd like to explain how something could exist without a place or a time to exist. Again, you mock when you should be attempting to explain your position.
Originally posted by Malachi1975 Originally posted by seabass2003 Freethinker, Why do believers have to prove God exsists? I have seen you say this before. I don't have to prove it, because I am not trying to convert anyone to my beliefs. Just like non-believers don't have to prove God doesn't exist as long as they are not trying to change anyones beliefs. The only time anyone has to prove anything is when they are trying to change someone's thinking. To sum up, I believe in God, you don't believe in God, who really gives a shit? It shouldn't really matter because at least we are all human and have the freedom of choice. (Oh shit I hope this doesn't turn into a free will thread now) Now lets go have a beer.
Sadly, Seabass, at this very moment I am going to exercise my freewill to come steal your beer. And even sadder to the fact, I'm within driving distance to do it
Logically speaking, the burden of proof lies on the person making the outrageous claim. We've gone over this a dozen times. If I say I can fly, you would say prove it. The burden of proof wouldn't lie on you to prove it wrong, since it's a ridiculous claim.
Originally posted by methane47 Originally posted by freethinker please...how could anything BE anywhere outside of time/space. That's a contradiction. It takes time to create things, it takes space to exist. Anyone professing that a being is (outside, above, underneath, not bound to, etc...) time/space is speaking incoherently.
... Hmmm listen to this..
1006 AD: HOW CAN ANything exist on the underside of the world.. That is a contradiction THe world is FLAT! if anyone tells you there is water on the underside of the earth.. they are speaking incoherently because they probably had too much Ale.
2006 AD: How could anything BE anywhere outside of time/space. That's a contradiction. It takes time to create things, it takes space to exist. Anyone professing that a being is (outside, above, underneath, not bound to, etc...) time/space is speaking incoherently.
All it takes is time my friend. Remember Time/space is just how WE percieve the universe.
False analogy. Here's why.
In your 1006 AD example, the flat earth would still have a place and time it existed. it is within the confines of reality. The same reality you're trying to remove your sky daddie from.
Originally posted by freethinker ... Bunch of stuff here
Sadly my friend I doubt you know what you are talking about. You tell me Goddidit is not a theory because it isn't testable... Well go ahead and show me what tests you have for Theory of Relativity, Black holes, Big Bang, String Theory....
Maybe ToR is a theory because it's backed up by Eiestein.. oh Wait... he had to invent a WHOLE NEW FORM OF MATH for his equations to work...
maybe black holes? Nope... Untestable...
Bigbang?... NOPE unless you have been able to produce an explosion large enough to create the universe... cuz i'd love to see that...
String theory... We dont even know HOW to test it... We barely understand this at all...
Now to say Goddidit isn't a theory because it's not testable is the same as denying all those others... Unless of course you have word of some test that shows those things are indeed fact?
EDit: dont even say those tests of ToR.. because those tests are widely debated... stand on a shakey footing... Can be caused by A number of things... Just dont say much about the theory..etc
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Originally posted by freethinker False analogy. Here's why.
In your 1006 AD example, the flat earth would still have a place and time it existed. it is within the confines of reality. The same reality you're trying to remove your sky daddie from.
Try again...or scream some more.
makes no difference to me *shrug*
Wooaa is that an absolute? Are you telling me that it is absolutely true that nothing can exist outside time/space? Or did you mean that's your opinion ... ... Cuz i know you dont believe in Absolutes ... Or maybe you exist outside of time/space so therefore you are able to tell me ... that nothing exists outside time/space ....
What's your Wu Name? Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader "Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.." <i>ME<i>
Originally posted by Malachi1975 Originally posted by seabass2003 Freethinker, Why do believers have to prove God exsists? I have seen you say this before. I don't have to prove it, because I am not trying to convert anyone to my beliefs. Just like non-believers don't have to prove God doesn't exist as long as they are not trying to change anyones beliefs. The only time anyone has to prove anything is when they are trying to change someone's thinking. To sum up, I believe in God, you don't believe in God, who really gives a shit? It shouldn't really matter because at least we are all human and have the freedom of choice. (Oh shit I hope this doesn't turn into a free will thread now) Now lets go have a beer.
Sadly, Seabass, at this very moment I am going to exercise my freewill to come steal your beer. And even sadder to the fact, I'm within driving distance to do it
Oh noes!!!1111!! I guess I should go buy some beer if your going to come steal it. Might want to bring your GF too because you are going to need the extra help, my GF is a Second Degree Black Belt. LOL. Its funny but we might actually meet in RL someday. As long as your not from North Las Vegas. HAHA!
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
Comments
==========================
Matthew 19
8Jesus replied, "Moses permitteddivorce as a concession to your hard-hearted wickedness, but it was not
what God had originally intended. 9And I tell you this, a man who divorces his wife and marries another commits adultery--unless his wife has been unfaithful.[d]"
10Jesus' disciples then said to him, "Then it is better not to marry!"
11"Not everyone can accept this statement," Jesus said. "Only those whom God helps. 12Some
are born as eunuchs, some have been made that way by others, and some
choose not to marry for the sake of the Kingdom of Heaven. Let anyone
who can, accept this statement."
I assume that's where they pulled that one from. And they misconstrued it as well.... I dont know about catholic doctorine... The whole praying to mary and confessing to the priest... .... ... HEre's another place where Catholics probably misinterpretted..
1 Corinthians 7
32In everything you do, I want you to be
free from the concerns of this life. An unmarried man can spend his
time doing the Lord's work and thinking how to please him. 33But a married man can't do that so well. He has to think about his earthly responsibilities and how to please his wife. 34His
interests are divided. In the same way, a woman who is no longer
married or has never been married can be more devoted to the Lord in
body and in spirit, while the married woman must be concerned about her
earthly responsibilities and how to please her husband.
They probably took those passages to mean that inorder to be holy you must not marry... But that isn't wat (paul i think?) was saying... He was just saying It's easier to focus on God if you dont have many worldly things to focus on... Those people were smart weren't they... But the catholics changed that to be "YOU CANNOT MARRY argggghhhh !! (pirate face)"
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
==========================
"Fear not death; for the sooner we die, the longer shall we be immortal."
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
but....I'm not defining god. I'm an atheist and i don't believe in them. i was just using the definition presented.
if someone wanted to define god as a singularity, this argument would not even address that issue so, I agree, it would fall apart.
==========================
Are you relegating to word games? Independant means "NOT DEPENDANT ON".. not exclusive.
in·de·pen·dent
adj.
- Not governed by a foreign power; self-governing.
- Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: an independent mind.
- Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study.
- often Independent Affiliated with or loyal to no one political party or organization.
- Not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity: an independent food store; an independent film.
-
- Not relying on others for support, care, or funds; self-supporting.
- Providing or being sufficient income to enable one to live without working: a person of independent means.
- Mathematics.
- Not dependent on other variables.
- Of or relating to a system of equations no one of which can be derived from another equation in the system.
- Independent Of or relating to the 17th-century English Independents
how exactly you get "mutually exclusive" from the word independent.. I have no idea... So if I say god exists Independent of Time/space that means that God does not need time/space to exist for him to exist capiche? That is how the theory of "GOD created the Heavens and the Earth" can hold... Only If God's existance is not defined by the limits of Time/space... Not OUTSIDE.. but Independant..What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
you can omit the red part. It is a great argument whether or not anyone conceeds it.
But to date, you've proven nothing.
Incorrect. That argument proves logically that god cannot exist in reality if he is said to exist outside of time (and therefore space).
Remember? That's the point you addressed when you first responded to it. Is this absolute? Well...I don't think anything is absolute...including all scientific theories and laws of logic.
The only ones I ever hear making absolute claims are theists when they tell me that their god exists.
==========================
Are you relegating to word games? Independant means "NOT DEPENDANT ON".. not exclusive.
in·de·pen·dent
adj.
- Not governed by a foreign power; self-governing.
- Free from the influence, guidance, or control of another or others; self-reliant: an independent mind.
- Not determined or influenced by someone or something else; not contingent: a decision independent of the outcome of the study.
- often Independent Affiliated with or loyal to no one political party or organization.
- Not dependent on or affiliated with a larger or controlling entity: an independent food store; an independent film.
-
- Not relying on others for support, care, or funds; self-supporting.
- Providing or being sufficient income to enable one to live without working: a person of independent means.
- Mathematics.
- Not dependent on other variables.
- Of or relating to a system of equations no one of which can be derived from another equation in the system.
- Independent Of or relating to the 17th-century English Independents
how exactly you get "mutually exclusive" from the word independent.. I have no idea... So if I say god exists Independent of Time/space that means that God does not need time/space to exist for him to exist capiche?That is how the theory of "GOD created the Heavens and the Earth" can hold... Only If God's existance is not defined by the limits of Time/space...
Not OUTSIDE.. but Independant..
the·o·ry
A set of statements or principles devised to explain a group of facts
or phenomena, especially one that has been repeatedly tested or is
widely accepted and can be used to make predictions about natural
phenomena.
Goddidit is not a theory..it's a naked assertion.
Anyway...to address your argument....If god is not bound by time and space then he doesn't exist in nature, therefore one can conclude that god does not exist at all.
==========================
I will concede that you are stuck on what you think is a great arguement and I will let you have it.
you can omit the red part. It is a great argument whether or not anyone conceeds it.
One moment, I need to step around your ego to get back to this point. Not much room left here.
But to date, you've proven nothing.
Here's all I will concede to you. You say there are no abolsutes yet you demand on an absolute. Albeit, it may be a misunderstanding in words so I shall attempt to rectify that.
Incorrect. That argument proves logically that god cannot exist in reality if he is said to exist outside of time (and therefore space).
First, you are assuming, if you are conceding for sake of the arguement that there is a God, that God is held by the rules which you are so "absolute" in quoting. Let us from hence forth say then that God is "above" the rules of normal time and space as we know it. Does that make it easier to agree with? Perhaps the word "outside" is being taken too literal here. It would only stand to reason that if God created space and time they would be subjected to Him, not vice versa.
Remember? That's the point you addressed when you first responded to it. Is this absolute? Well...I don't think anything is absolute...including all scientific theories and laws of logic.
The only ones I ever hear making absolute claims are theists when they tell me that their god exists.
Incorrect. You did state an abolsute. You said that God would be held by the rules of space and time as you know them as an abolsute. Meaning, that if you percieve space and time in a certain fashion and He is above those rules of laws that he must not exist. The absolute being that you KNOW that God would be subjected to the same rules of space and time that you are.
As for saying Theists claiming that God absolutely exists I don't see myself as having ever said that. While I will say I believe He exists, through my faith and personal experiences (which you call irrelevant).
Where you lost me utterly was that you were demanding I refute a hypothetical situation formed on an opinion. Sure, even YOU must be able to see that there is no way to refute something like that. However, we can get into the semmantics of the word refute if you wish.
Main Entry: re·fute
Pronunciation:
ri-'fyütFunction: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·fut·ed; re·fut·ing
Etymology: Latin refutare to check, suppress, refute
1 : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2 : to deny the truth or accuracy of
By your rights I did not achieve the first defintion, however I stand firm that there was nothing to refute because it was an opinion. I can't tell you that your opinions are right or wrong.
However, by the second account of the word refute, I most happily did so. So when you claim I did not or could not refute your "point" you're both right and wrong. However you want to spin it is up to you.
Closing, if God is held in check by the rules we "think" we know about this universe then perhaps your opinion might make more sense. If God is not, on the other hand, held by any rule or law we are then your opinion made no sense. I am sure you can see where I am coming from just as much I can see where you are coming from now with it more precisely explained.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
-virtual tourist
want your game back?
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
So what exactly is the Theory of Relativity? Oh wait... NOT a theory... just a naked assertion..
Black hole Theory? ... OHhhhh NOOESS not a theory.. naked assertion... Them dang'd weak minded brilliant scientists trying to trick us into believing their naked assertions....
String theory ... OH NOEESSS ... naked assertion...
Big Bang theory... OH GODD NOESSsssss .... nake assertion... Or maybe you hold that big bang is testable?
Anyways... there are tonnes of things that are held as theories that by totatly objective terms aren't theories at all... But really.. who cares... it's all just petty banter... who cares about the label... the content is more important right?
"If god is not bound by time and space then he doesn't exist(read: isn't bound) in nature" ummm .... yeah...
thats was definitely a duhhh moment... I'm sure you are familiar with the terms ... "SUPERnatural" or the term "Metaphysical".... But i'll play down your "doesn't exist" to mean "isn't bound by" since that is what you used for the beginning of your arguement
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
Freethinker,
Why do believers have to prove God exsists? I have seen you say this before. I don't have to prove it, because I am not trying to convert anyone to my beliefs. Just like non-believers don't have to prove God doesn't exist as long as they are not trying to change anyones beliefs.
The only time anyone has to prove anything is when they are trying to change someone's thinking.
To sum up, I believe in God, you don't believe in God, who really gives a shit? It shouldn't really matter because at least we are all human and have the freedom of choice. (Oh shit I hope this doesn't turn into a free will thread now) Now lets go have a beer.
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.
I will concede that you are stuck on what you think is a great arguement and I will let you have it.
you can omit the red part. It is a great argument whether or not anyone conceeds it.
One moment, I need to step around your ego to get back to this point. Not much room left here.
it's not MY argument to get my "ego" all riled up in the first place. I read it somewhere else and now I'm sharing it with you.
So go whine somewhere else please
Here's all I will concede to you. You say there are no abolsutes yet you demand on an absolute.I challenge you to post where I've demanded an absolute...considering I don't believe in them.
Incorrect. That argument proves logically that god cannot exist in reality if he is said to exist outside of time (and therefore space).
First, you are assuming, if you are conceding for sake of the arguement that there is a God, that God is held by the rules which you are so "absolute" in quoting.
Tryin real hard to turn it back around on me, aren't you. Now listen closely: I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING IS ABSOLUTE. k?
Let us from hence forth say then that God is "above" the rules of normal time and space as we know it. Does that make it easier to agree with? Perhaps the word "outside" is being taken too literal here. It would only stand to reason that if God created space and time they would be subjected to Him, not vice versa.
please...how could anything BE anywhere outside of time/space. That's a contradiction.
It takes time to create things, it takes space to exist. Anyone professing that a being is (outside, above, underneath, not bound to, etc...) time/space is speaking incoherently.
Remember? That's the point you addressed when you first responded to it. Is this absolute? Well...I don't think anything is absolute...including all scientific theories and laws of logic.
The only ones I ever hear making absolute claims are theists when they tell me that their god exists.
Incorrect. You did state an abolsute. You said that God would be held by the rules of space and time as you know them as an abolsute. Meaning, that if you percieve space and time in a certain fashion and He is above those rules of laws that he must not exist. The absolute being that you KNOW that God would be subjected to the same rules of space and time that you are.
As for saying Theists claiming that God absolutely exists I don't see myself as having ever said that. While I will say I believe He exists, through my faith and personal experiences (which you call irrelevant).
Nice strawman.
I don't believe the laws of logic, science, time space ANYTHING is absolute. They are CONDITIONALLY true. Furthermore, it's not my problem if you don't understand the difference.
Where you lost me utterly was that you were demanding I refute a hypothetical situation formed on an opinion. Sure, even YOU must be able to see that there is no way to refute something like that.
Another strawman.
I didn't ask you to refute a "hypothetical situation formed on an opinion"
I asked you to refute a sound logical argument. You couldn't and still can't.
By your rights I did not achieve the first defintion, however I stand firm that there was nothing to refute because it was an opinion. I can't tell you that your opinions are right or wrong.
Once again...It's not an opinion. It's a sound logical argument that you can't refute.
==========================
1006 AD: HOW CAN ANything exist on the underside of the world.. That is a contradiction THe world is FLAT! if anyone tells you there is water on the underside of the earth.. they are speaking incoherently because they probably had too much Ale.
2006 AD: How could anything BE anywhere outside of time/space. That's a contradiction.
It takes time to create things, it takes space
to exist. Anyone professing that a being is (outside, above,
underneath, not bound to, etc...) time/space is speaking incoherently.
All it takes is time my friend. Remember Time/space is just how WE percieve the universe.
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
Toe to toe
Dancing very slow
Barely breathing
Almost comatose
Wall to wall
People hypnotised
And they're stepping lightly
Hang each night in Rapture
Back to back
Sacrailiac
Spineless movement
And a wild attack
Face to face
Sadly solitude
And it's finger popping
Twenty-four hour shopping in Rapture
Fab Five Freddie told me everybody's high
DJ's spinnin' are savin' my mind
Flash is fast, Flash is cool
Francois sez fas, Flashe' no do
And you don't stop, sure shot
Go out to the parking lot
And you get in your car and you drive real far
And you drive all night and then you see a light
And it comes right down and lands on the ground
And out comes a man from Mars
And you try to run but he's got a gun
And he shoots you dead and he eats your head
And then you're in the man from Mars
You go out at night, eatin' cars
You eat Cadillacs, Lincolns too
Mercurys and Subarus
And you don't stop, you keep on eatin' cars
Then, when there's no more cars
You go out at night and eat up bars where the people meet
Face to face, dance cheek to cheek
One to one, man to man
Dance toe to toe
Don't move to slow, 'cause the man from Mars
Is through with cars, he's eatin' bars
Yeah, wall to wall, door to door, hall to hall
He's gonna eat 'em all
Rapture, be pure
Take a tour, through the sewer
Don't strain your brain, paint a train
You'll be singin' in the rain
I said don't stop, do punk rock
Well now you see what you wanna be
Just have your party on TV
'Cause the man from Mars won't eat up bars when the TV's on
And now he's gone back up to space
Where he won't have a hassle with the human race
And you hip-hop, and you don't stop
Just blast off, sure shot
'Cause the man from Mars stopped eatin' cars and eatin' bars
And now he only eats guitars, get up!
--------------------------------------
I will concede that you are stuck on what you think is a great arguement and I will let you have it.
you can omit the red part. It is a great argument whether or not anyone conceeds it.
One moment, I need to step around your ego to get back to this point. Not much room left here.
it's not MY argument to get my "ego" all riled up in the first place. I read it somewhere else and now I'm sharing it with you.
So go whine somewhere else please
You've officially gone from babbling with some intelligence to drooling like a moron. Sorry to say. I'm not whining. You're comment that is IS a great argument is an opinion.
Here's all I will concede to you. You say there are no abolsutes yet you demand on an absolute.
I challenge you to post where I've demanded an absolute...considering I don't believe in them.
Keep reading friend, I will shortly.
Incorrect. That argument proves logically that god cannot exist in reality if he is said to exist outside of time (and therefore space).
First, you are assuming, if you are conceding for sake of the arguement that there is a God, that God is held by the rules which you are so "absolute" in quoting.
Tryin real hard to turn it back around on me, aren't you. Now listen closely: I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING IS ABSOLUTE. k?
Let us from hence forth say then that God is "above" the rules of normal time and space as we know it. Does that make it easier to agree with? Perhaps the word "outside" is being taken too literal here. It would only stand to reason that if God created space and time they would be subjected to Him, not vice versa.
please...how could anything BE anywhere outside of time/space. That's a contradiction.
It takes time to create things, it takes space to exist. Anyone professing that a being is (outside, above, underneath, not bound to, etc...) time/space is speaking incoherently.
"Tryin real hard to turn it back around on me, aren't you. Now listen closely: I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING IS ABSOLUTE. k?"
Hate to tell you chief, but you just went ABSOLUTE right there. You are saying God ABSOLUTELY cannot exists outside time and space.
Remember? That's the point you addressed when you first responded to it. Is this absolute? Well...I don't think anything is absolute...including all scientific theories and laws of logic.
The only ones I ever hear making absolute claims are theists when they tell me that their god exists.
Incorrect. You did state an abolsute. You said that God would be held by the rules of space and time as you know them as an abolsute. Meaning, that if you percieve space and time in a certain fashion and He is above those rules of laws that he must not exist. The absolute being that you KNOW that God would be subjected to the same rules of space and time that you are.
As for saying Theists claiming that God absolutely exists I don't see myself as having ever said that. While I will say I believe He exists, through my faith and personal experiences (which you call irrelevant).
Nice strawman.
I don't believe the laws of logic, science, time space ANYTHING is absolute. They are CONDITIONALLY true. Furthermore, it's not my problem if you don't understand the difference.
I do, you obviously don't and can't even go so far as to say anything other than flimsy insults. You call people opinions "anecdotal" or "strawmen". You're really hitting a new low moment by moment.
You just admitted that all things are conditionally true, therefore, one can say with reasonable certainty that if there IS indeed a God that He may be able to exist outside the concepts of space and time which you hold dear. Welcome to a condition.
Where you lost me utterly was that you were demanding I refute a hypothetical situation formed on an opinion. Sure, even YOU must be able to see that there is no way to refute something like that.
Another strawman.
I didn't ask you to refute a "hypothetical situation formed on an opinion"
I asked you to refute a sound logical argument. You couldn't and still can't.
Shall we again consult the dictionary? Let us.
Main Entry: re·fute
Pronunciation:
ri-'fyütFunction: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·fut·ed; re·fut·ing
Etymology: Latin refutare to check, suppress, refute
1 : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2 : to deny the truth or accuracy of
Hate to break it to you, chum, but I most certainly DID refute your idea. I am just not doing what YOU consider "refuting". Hence where I gather that you have an ego the size of a small, third-world country.
By your rights I did not achieve the first defintion, however I stand firm that there was nothing to refute because it was an opinion. I can't tell you that your opinions are right or wrong.
Once again...It's not an opinion. It's a sound logical argument that you can't refute.
Do you know what "opinion" means? No, shall we again?
Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation:
&-'pin-y&nFunction: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
Your, or whoever it is you plagerised it from, arguement IS in the very essense an opinion. That's even an absolute. And having "denied the truth or accuracy of" I have in the very essence of the word...refuted your opinion.
Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, come back when you have a firm grasp of linguistics. Until then you can continue to use watered down insults to attack the person with which you disagree. In this debate, you have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.
Good day.
Let us from hence forth say then that God is "above" the rules of normal time and space as we know it. Does that make it easier to agree with? Perhaps the word "outside" is being taken too literal here. It would only stand to reason that if God created space and time they would be subjected to Him, not vice versa.
please...how could anything BE anywhere outside of time/space. That's a contradiction.
It takes time to create things, it takes space to exist. Anyone professing that a being is (outside, above, underneath, not bound to, etc...) time/space is speaking incoherently.
"Tryin real hard to turn it back around on me, aren't you. Now listen closely: I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING IS ABSOLUTE. k?"
Hate to tell you chief, but you just went ABSOLUTE right there. You are saying God ABSOLUTELY cannot exists outside time and space.
Remember? That's the point you addressed when you first responded to it. Is this absolute? Well...I don't think anything is absolute...including all scientific theories and laws of logic.
The only ones I ever hear making absolute claims are theists when they tell me that their god exists.
Incorrect. You did state an abolsute. You said that God would be held by the rules of space and time as you know them as an abolsute. Meaning, that if you percieve space and time in a certain fashion and He is above those rules of laws that he must not exist. The absolute being that you KNOW that God would be subjected to the same rules of space and time that you are.
As for saying Theists claiming that God absolutely exists I don't see myself as having ever said that. While I will say I believe He exists, through my faith and personal experiences (which you call irrelevant).
Nice strawman.
I don't believe the laws of logic, science, time space ANYTHING is absolute. They are CONDITIONALLY true. Furthermore, it's not my problem if you don't understand the difference.
I do, you obviously don't and can't even go so far as to say anything other than flimsy insults. You call people opinions "anecdotal" or "strawmen". You're really hitting a new low moment by moment.
You just admitted that all things are conditionally true, therefore, one can say with reasonable certainty that if there IS indeed a God that He may be able to exist outside the concepts of space and time which you hold dear. Welcome to a condition.
Where you lost me utterly was that you were demanding I refute a hypothetical situation formed on an opinion. Sure, even YOU must be able to see that there is no way to refute something like that.
Another strawman.
I didn't ask you to refute a "hypothetical situation formed on an opinion"
I asked you to refute a sound logical argument. You couldn't and still can't.
Shall we again consult the dictionary? Let us.
Main Entry: re·fute
Pronunciation:
ri-'fyütFunction: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·fut·ed; re·fut·ing
Etymology: Latin refutare to check, suppress, refute
1 : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2 : to deny the truth or accuracy of
Hate to break it to you, chum, but I most certainly DID refute your idea. I am just not doing what YOU consider "refuting". Hence where I gather that you have an ego the size of a small, third-world country.
By your rights I did not achieve the first defintion, however I stand firm that there was nothing to refute because it was an opinion. I can't tell you that your opinions are right or wrong.
Once again...It's not an opinion. It's a sound logical argument that you can't refute.
Do you know what "opinion" means? No, shall we again?
Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation:
&-'pin-y&nFunction: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
Your, or whoever it is you plagerised it from, arguement IS in the very essense an opinion. That's even an absolute. And having "denied the truth or accuracy of" I have in the very essence of the word...refuted your opinion.
Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, come back when you have a firm grasp of linguistics. Until then you can continue to use watered down insults to attack the person with which you disagree. In this debate, you have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.
Good day.
Let us from hence forth say then that God is "above" the rules of normal time and space as we know it. Does that make it easier to agree with? Perhaps the word "outside" is being taken too literal here. It would only stand to reason that if God created space and time they would be subjected to Him, not vice versa.
please...how could anything BE anywhere outside of time/space. That's a contradiction.
It takes time to create things, it takes space to exist. Anyone professing that a being is (outside, above, underneath, not bound to, etc...) time/space is speaking incoherently.
"Tryin real hard to turn it back around on me, aren't you. Now listen closely: I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING IS ABSOLUTE. k?"
Hate to tell you chief, but you just went ABSOLUTE right there. You are saying God ABSOLUTELY cannot exists outside time and space.
Remember? That's the point you addressed when you first responded to it. Is this absolute? Well...I don't think anything is absolute...including all scientific theories and laws of logic.
The only ones I ever hear making absolute claims are theists when they tell me that their god exists.
Incorrect. You did state an abolsute. You said that God would be held by the rules of space and time as you know them as an abolsute. Meaning, that if you percieve space and time in a certain fashion and He is above those rules of laws that he must not exist. The absolute being that you KNOW that God would be subjected to the same rules of space and time that you are.
As for saying Theists claiming that God absolutely exists I don't see myself as having ever said that. While I will say I believe He exists, through my faith and personal experiences (which you call irrelevant).
Nice strawman.
I don't believe the laws of logic, science, time space ANYTHING is absolute. They are CONDITIONALLY true. Furthermore, it's not my problem if you don't understand the difference.
I do, you obviously don't and can't even go so far as to say anything other than flimsy insults. You call people opinions "anecdotal" or "strawmen". You're really hitting a new low moment by moment.
You just admitted that all things are conditionally true, therefore, one can say with reasonable certainty that if there IS indeed a God that He may be able to exist outside the concepts of space and time which you hold dear. Welcome to a condition.
Where you lost me utterly was that you were demanding I refute a hypothetical situation formed on an opinion. Sure, even YOU must be able to see that there is no way to refute something like that.
Another strawman.
I didn't ask you to refute a "hypothetical situation formed on an opinion"
I asked you to refute a sound logical argument. You couldn't and still can't.
Shall we again consult the dictionary? Let us.
Main Entry: re·fute
Pronunciation:
ri-'fyütFunction: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·fut·ed; re·fut·ing
Etymology: Latin refutare to check, suppress, refute
1 : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2 : to deny the truth or accuracy of
Hate to break it to you, chum, but I most certainly DID refute your idea. I am just not doing what YOU consider "refuting". Hence where I gather that you have an ego the size of a small, third-world country.
By your rights I did not achieve the first defintion, however I stand firm that there was nothing to refute because it was an opinion. I can't tell you that your opinions are right or wrong.
Once again...It's not an opinion. It's a sound logical argument that you can't refute.
Do you know what "opinion" means? No, shall we again?
Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation:
&-'pin-y&nFunction: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
You're, or whoever it is you plagerised it from, arguement IS in the very essense an opinion. That's even an absolute. And having "denied the truth or accuracy of" I have in the very essence of the word...refuted your opinion.
Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, come back when you have a firm grasp of linguistics. Until then you can continue to use watered down insults to attack the person with which you disagree. In this debate, you have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.
Good day.
Let us from hence forth say then that God is "above" the rules of normal time and space as we know it. Does that make it easier to agree with? Perhaps the word "outside" is being taken too literal here. It would only stand to reason that if God created space and time they would be subjected to Him, not vice versa.
please...how could anything BE anywhere outside of time/space. That's a contradiction.
It takes time to create things, it takes space to exist. Anyone professing that a being is (outside, above, underneath, not bound to, etc...) time/space is speaking incoherently.
"Tryin real hard to turn it back around on me, aren't you. Now listen closely: I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING IS ABSOLUTE. k?"
Hate to tell you chief, but you just went ABSOLUTE right there. You are saying God ABSOLUTELY cannot exists outside time and space.
Remember? That's the point you addressed when you first responded to it. Is this absolute? Well...I don't think anything is absolute...including all scientific theories and laws of logic.
The only ones I ever hear making absolute claims are theists when they tell me that their god exists.
Incorrect. You did state an abolsute. You said that God would be held by the rules of space and time as you know them as an abolsute. Meaning, that if you percieve space and time in a certain fashion and He is above those rules of laws that he must not exist. The absolute being that you KNOW that God would be subjected to the same rules of space and time that you are.
As for saying Theists claiming that God absolutely exists I don't see myself as having ever said that. While I will say I believe He exists, through my faith and personal experiences (which you call irrelevant).
Nice strawman.
I don't believe the laws of logic, science, time space ANYTHING is absolute. They are CONDITIONALLY true. Furthermore, it's not my problem if you don't understand the difference.
I do, you obviously don't and can't even go so far as to say anything other than flimsy insults. You call people opinions "anecdotal" or "strawmen". You're really hitting a new low moment by moment.
You just admitted that all things are conditionally true, therefore, one can say with reasonable certainty that if there IS indeed a God that He may be able to exist outside the concepts of space and time which you hold dear. Welcome to a condition.
Where you lost me utterly was that you were demanding I refute a hypothetical situation formed on an opinion. Sure, even YOU must be able to see that there is no way to refute something like that.
Another strawman.
I didn't ask you to refute a "hypothetical situation formed on an opinion"
I asked you to refute a sound logical argument. You couldn't and still can't.
Shall we again consult the dictionary? Let us.
Main Entry: re·fute
Pronunciation:
ri-'fyütFunction: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·fut·ed; re·fut·ing
Etymology: Latin refutare to check, suppress, refute
1 : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2 : to deny the truth or accuracy of
Hate to break it to you, chum, but I most certainly DID refute your idea. I am just not doing what YOU consider "refuting". Hence where I gather that you have an ego the size of a small, third-world country.
By your rights I did not achieve the first defintion, however I stand firm that there was nothing to refute because it was an opinion. I can't tell you that your opinions are right or wrong.
Once again...It's not an opinion. It's a sound logical argument that you can't refute.
Do you know what "opinion" means? No, shall we again?
Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation:
&-'pin-y&nFunction: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
You're, or whoever it is you plagerised it from, arguement IS in the very essense an opinion. That's even an absolute. And having "denied the truth or accuracy of" I have in the very essence of the word...refuted your opinion.
Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, come back when you have a firm grasp of linguistics. Until then you can continue to use watered down insults to attack the person with which you disagree. In this debate, you have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.
Good day.
Let us from hence forth say then that God is "above" the rules of normal time and space as we know it. Does that make it easier to agree with? Perhaps the word "outside" is being taken too literal here. It would only stand to reason that if God created space and time they would be subjected to Him, not vice versa.
please...how could anything BE anywhere outside of time/space. That's a contradiction.
It takes time to create things, it takes space to exist. Anyone professing that a being is (outside, above, underneath, not bound to, etc...) time/space is speaking incoherently.
"Tryin real hard to turn it back around on me, aren't you. Now listen closely: I DON'T BELIEVE ANYTHING IS ABSOLUTE. k?"
Hate to tell you chief, but you just went ABSOLUTE right there. You are saying God ABSOLUTELY cannot exists outside time and space.
Remember? That's the point you addressed when you first responded to it. Is this absolute? Well...I don't think anything is absolute...including all scientific theories and laws of logic.
The only ones I ever hear making absolute claims are theists when they tell me that their god exists.
Incorrect. You did state an abolsute. You said that God would be held by the rules of space and time as you know them as an abolsute. Meaning, that if you percieve space and time in a certain fashion and He is above those rules of laws that he must not exist. The absolute being that you KNOW that God would be subjected to the same rules of space and time that you are.
As for saying Theists claiming that God absolutely exists I don't see myself as having ever said that. While I will say I believe He exists, through my faith and personal experiences (which you call irrelevant).
Nice strawman.
I don't believe the laws of logic, science, time space ANYTHING is absolute. They are CONDITIONALLY true. Furthermore, it's not my problem if you don't understand the difference.
I do, you obviously don't and can't even go so far as to say anything other than flimsy insults. You call people opinions "anecdotal" or "strawmen". You're really hitting a new low moment by moment.
You just admitted that all things are conditionally true, therefore, one can say with reasonable certainty that if there IS indeed a God that He may be able to exist outside the concepts of space and time which you hold dear. Welcome to a condition.
Where you lost me utterly was that you were demanding I refute a hypothetical situation formed on an opinion. Sure, even YOU must be able to see that there is no way to refute something like that.
Another strawman.
I didn't ask you to refute a "hypothetical situation formed on an opinion"
I asked you to refute a sound logical argument. You couldn't and still can't.
Shall we again consult the dictionary? Let us.
Main Entry: re·fute
Pronunciation:
ri-'fyütFunction: transitive verb
Inflected Form(s): re·fut·ed; re·fut·ing
Etymology: Latin refutare to check, suppress, refute
1 : to prove wrong by argument or evidence : show to be false or erroneous
2 : to deny the truth or accuracy of
Hate to break it to you, chum, but I most certainly DID refute your idea. I am just not doing what YOU consider "refuting". Hence where I gather that you have an ego the size of a small, third-world country.
By your rights I did not achieve the first defintion, however I stand firm that there was nothing to refute because it was an opinion. I can't tell you that your opinions are right or wrong.
Once again...It's not an opinion. It's a sound logical argument that you can't refute.
Do you know what "opinion" means? No, shall we again?
Main Entry: opin·ion
Pronunciation:
&-'pin-y&nFunction: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin opinion-, opinio, from opinari
1 a : a view, judgment, or appraisal formed in the mind about a particular matter b : APPROVAL, ESTEEM
2 a : belief stronger than impression and less strong than positive knowledge b : a generally held view
3 a : a formal expression of judgment or advice by an expert b : the formal expression (as by a judge, court, or referee) of the legal reasons and principles upon which a legal decision is based
You're, or whoever it is you plagerised it from, arguement IS in the very essense an opinion. That's even an absolute. And having "denied the truth or accuracy of" I have in the very essence of the word...refuted your opinion.
Merry Christmas, Happy Kwanzaa, come back when you have a firm grasp of linguistics. Until then you can continue to use watered down insults to attack the person with which you disagree. In this debate, you have been weighed, you have been measured, and you have been found wanting.
Good day.
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
"What is it I have against Microsoft, you ask? Well, you know how you feel when you wait for an MMO to come out and when it does you feel like you've paid to play it's beta test for another 6-9 months before anything even thinks of working the way it should? Being a network engineer you feel that way about anything Microsoft puts out."
Hmm..maybe you don't understand what a "naked assertion" is.
Anyway, ToR is not one. It's a well supported theory by Albert Einstein. And you'd be nuts to try and refute it
Here's more info
Black hole Theory? ... OHhhhh NOOESS not a theory.. naked assertion... Them dang'd weak minded brilliant scientists trying to trick us into believing their naked assertions....
LOL, Black Hole Theory? that's a new one
Maybe you mean Theoretical Physics? Or General Relativity? Who the heck knows *shrug*
String theory ... OH NOEESSS ... naked assertion...
Here, you can educate yourself on String Theory. But, no, it's not a naked assertion.
Big Bang theory... OH GODD NOESSsssss .... nake assertion...
Again, you are incorrect. Do you like displaying ignorance? Not something I'd be proud of
Or maybe you hold that big bang is testable?
Current evidence points toward a singularity. Want to refute the theory? Then have fun coming up with a better theory that explains the Cosmic microwave background radiation, redshift/blueshift, etc...
(hint: this will require you to submit papers to a scientific journal for peer review.)
(or wait, lemme guess, Goddidit...heheh
Anyways... there are tonnes of things that are held as theories that by totatly objective terms aren't theories at all... But really.. who cares... it's all just petty banter... who cares about the label... the content is more important right?
All of the above are scientific theories...some are more supported than others. You mocking me and (at the same time) displaying your ignorance on that doesn't change a thing. In fact, it reminds me a lot of this guy
|
|
V
"If god is not bound by time and space then he doesn't exist(read: isn't bound) in nature" ummm .... yeah...
thats was definitely a duhhh moment... I'm sure you are familiar with the terms ... "SUPERnatural" or the term "Metaphysical".... But i'll play down your "doesn't exist" to mean "isn't bound by" since that is what you used for the beginning of your arguement
Not at all. Maybe you'd like to explain how something could exist without a place or a time to exist. Again, you mock when you should be attempting to explain your position.
Now squirm some more...it's amusing
Or do you ALSO ready to conceed the point?
==========================
Logically speaking, the burden of proof lies on the person making the outrageous claim. We've gone over this a dozen times.
If I say I can fly, you would say prove it. The burden of proof wouldn't lie on you to prove it wrong, since it's a ridiculous claim.
https://easynulled.com/
Free porn videos, xxx porn videos
Onlyfans nudes
Onlyfans leaked
... Hmmm listen to this..
1006 AD: HOW CAN ANything exist on the underside of the world.. That is a contradiction THe world is FLAT! if anyone tells you there is water on the underside of the earth.. they are speaking incoherently because they probably had too much Ale.
2006 AD: How could anything BE anywhere outside of time/space. That's a contradiction.
It takes time to create things, it takes space
to exist. Anyone professing that a being is (outside, above,
underneath, not bound to, etc...) time/space is speaking incoherently.
All it takes is time my friend. Remember Time/space is just how WE percieve the universe.
False analogy. Here's why.
In your 1006 AD example, the flat earth would still have a place and time it existed. it is within the confines of reality. The same reality you're trying to remove your sky daddie from.
Try again...or scream some more.
makes no difference to me *shrug*
==========================
Maybe ToR is a theory because it's backed up by Eiestein.. oh Wait... he had to invent a WHOLE NEW FORM OF MATH for his equations to work...
maybe black holes? Nope... Untestable...
Bigbang?... NOPE unless you have been able to produce an explosion large enough to create the universe... cuz i'd love to see that...
String theory... We dont even know HOW to test it... We barely understand this at all...
Now to say Goddidit isn't a theory because it's not testable is the same as denying all those others... Unless of course you have word of some test that shows those things are indeed fact?
EDit: dont even say those tests of ToR.. because those tests are widely debated... stand on a shakey footing... Can be caused by A number of things... Just dont say much about the theory..etc
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
Or did you mean that's your opinion
Or maybe you exist outside of time/space so therefore you are able to tell me ... that nothing exists outside time/space
What's your Wu Name?
Donovan --> Wu Name = Violent Knight
Methane47 --> Wu Name = Thunderous Leader
"Some people call me the walking plank, 'cuz any where you go... Death is right behind you.."
<i>ME<i>
Sadly, Seabass, at this very moment I am going to exercise my freewill to come steal your beer. And even sadder to the fact, I'm within driving distance to do it
Oh noes!!!1111!! I guess I should go buy some beer if your going to come steal it. Might want to bring your GF too because you are going to need the extra help, my GF is a Second Degree Black Belt. LOL. Its funny but we might actually meet in RL someday. As long as your not from North Las Vegas. HAHA!
In America I have bad teeth. If I lived in England my teeth would be perfect.