Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

by ROB Thu Feb 21, 2013 4:00 pm

First topic message reminder :

Shirina wrote:
Humans are easily fooled.

Perhaps that’s why atheism is growing in spite of its illogicalness.

To prove that an omniscient being does not exist, one must be an omniscient being. Only God can prove God’s existence, and only God can prove God’s nonexistence; thus, if God’s nonexistence is ever proven, God will have proven God’s own nonexistence.

by Tosh Wed Dec 04, 2013 12:25 pm

If you believe in science then you have to consider all that all scientists conclude and not knit pick.

Try following your own advice, 99.9% of all relevant scientist accept common ancestry, there is not a science academy on our planet that does not consider common ancestry an evidence based FACT.

It is like shooting blindfolded ducks in a bath with a 12 gauge shotgun from 3 feet, this person is barking.

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:01 pm

polyglide wrote:It is very evident that when one resorts to childish replies they are lost and not beyond the cradle.

If you believe in science then you have to consider all that all scientists conclude and not knit pick.

It is a fact of life that anyone can now obtain information on any aspect of life by the click of a button, what the button connot do is give the person who obtains the information, the ability to consider and evaluate that material to a given and intelligent end, as so many answers to my posts prove.

I do not quote other people by name but it is obvious everyone uses the findings and opinions of others, there is very little that has not been dealt with in depth, however, there is more to be learnt, far more, than we actually know and time will tell that man is his own worst enemy.

SCIENCE DOES NOT REQUIRE BELIEF, IT USES EMPIRICISM. headbang

Why are you so obtuse about this? Is it deliberate?

by Dr Sheldon Cooper PhD Thu Dec 05, 2013 9:05 pm

polyglide wrote:It is very evident that when one resorts to childish replies they are lost and not beyond the cradle.

As you have done repeatedly you mean, perhaps you'd like me to dig a few out quote them and provide links? Please please say yes, as I'm sorely tempted to post a few of the childish ad hominem attacks you've directed at others when you get all precious like this and try to play the victim, especially the criticism you're bleating about are directed at your posts; which lets face it are so stupid, and display such wilful ignorance that they would make a child laugh out loud. Rolling Eyes

by Shirina Fri Dec 06, 2013 11:11 am

polyglide wrote:If you believe in science then you have to consider all that all scientists conclude and not knit pick.

You mean like when Christians harp on gay people by knit-picking half of a verse out of Leviticus?

by polyglide Fri Dec 06, 2013 11:25 am

Any time you want Dr. Sheldon, any time.

by Tosh Fri Dec 06, 2013 12:46 pm

Delusions beyond belief.

by snowyflake Sat Dec 07, 2013 7:45 am

polyglide wrote:I know that if you have only one piece missing from a jigsaw it is useless.

It isn't useless at all! You still can see the 'big picture' and you can also see that all the other pieces fit exactly. Your analogy is poor.

by polyglide Sat Dec 07, 2013 10:42 am

The whole idea of a jugsaw is to complete it.

I would suggest you look up lexicology.

by Tosh Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:01 pm

The whole idea of a jigsaw is to reveal a picture, one does not need all the pieces to see the picture, there are sufficient pieces to disprove creationism and prove common ancestry.

I would suggest you look up " Scientific Theory ".

by Shirina Sat Dec 07, 2013 1:18 pm

polyglide wrote:The whole idea of a jugsaw is to complete it.

I thought the idea of a jugsaw was to cut apart containers - especially the kind you can blow into and make music.

by snowyflake Sat Dec 07, 2013 4:07 pm

polyglide wrote:The whole idea of a jugsaw is to complete it.

Are you looking at my boobs......AGAIN?

by stuart torr Sat Dec 07, 2013 11:12 pm

Snowyflake, I do believe it would have to be sawjugs for that my love. Wink

by Dan Fante Mon Dec 09, 2013 9:26 am

snowyflake wrote:
polyglide wrote:The whole idea of a jugsaw is to complete it.
Are you looking at my boobs......AGAIN?

by polyglide Mon Dec 09, 2013 2:17 pm

Yep, my spelling should be better but only because my typing is so bad.

The jigsaw already has a picture Shirina.

If you built a car and it was one wheel short with no possibility of obtaining one. what use would it be ?.

by stuart torr Mon Dec 09, 2013 3:09 pm

About the same as you. Wink

by polyglide Tue Dec 10, 2013 3:00 pm

At least Stu I would be 99% right and not as you 1%.

by **Phil Hornby** Tue Dec 10, 2013 5:18 pm

"If you built a car and it was one wheel short with no possibility of obtaining one. what use would it be ?".

Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2) - Page 25 9k=

Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2) - Page 25 9k=

by stuart torr Tue Dec 10, 2013 6:24 pm

You were saying pg. Laughing

by polyglide Wed Dec 11, 2013 3:08 pm

A three wheel car with one wheel missing would have only two wheels,

It would however be better to have one wheel short than all your screws loose with no chance of obtaining a screwdriver.

I know you are not intelligent enough to understand the implications.

by stuart torr Wed Dec 11, 2013 4:26 pm

You are not honest enough to admit you were caught out by phil, as your post insinuated a 4 wheeled car did it not? Embarassed

by **Phil Hornby** Wed Dec 11, 2013 6:47 pm

Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2) - Page 25 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7k9IaACpJn_vmTmIemAIOy1P9Owz_Ej7T2iMqoED1sTIqWHlMBw

" I told you we didn't need those other two wheels, Doris..."

by stuart torr Wed Dec 11, 2013 6:59 pm

Well done Phil. Laughing

by Heretic Wed Dec 11, 2013 10:04 pm

polyglide wrote:A three wheel car with one wheel missing would have only two wheels,

Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2) - Page 25 Hovercraft-6

You might consider this a car with no wheels but it is all the more adaptable partly because of it's alternative.

polyglide wrote:It would however be better to have one wheel short than all your screws loose with no chance of obtaining a screwdriver.

I thought Christians were meant to attempt to live a higher standard than anyone else. I can see that non-Christians might have a dig at another poster but I cannot see anywhere in the New Testament that recommends such a behaviour. Is it unfair that non-Christians expect higher standards from Christians? Yes it is but it is a consequence of what is taught by your preachers/ministers/priests/padres/pastors etc etc and your New Testament (in all its varieties).

polyglide wrote:I know you are not intelligent enough to understand the implications.

Another insult? See above.

Heretic

by stuart torr Wed Dec 11, 2013 10:20 pm

Most of his posts contain insults of some kind do they not Heretic.? geek

by Heretic Wed Dec 11, 2013 10:47 pm

stuart torr wrote:Most of his posts contain insults of some kind do they not Heretic.?

I wonder if he thinks that this passage has been recinded for him on this forum or does he just need to be forgiven each and every time?

Matthew 7:1-5 King James Version (KJV)
7 Judge not, that ye be not judged.
2 For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye mete, it shall be measured to you again.
3 And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye?
4 Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye?
5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye.

Perhaps he's in the camp that thinks "Once saved, always saved" and that in his current state of grace he can forget about the bible?

Heretic

by Dan Fante Wed Dec 11, 2013 11:24 pm

polyglide wrote:A three wheel car with one wheel missing would have only two wheels,

It would however be better to have one wheel short than all your screws loose with no chance of obtaining a screwdriver.

I know you are not intelligent enough to understand the implications.

If you built a car, you would have to manufacture the wheels. Therefore you would have the ability to make wheels so the situation where you couldn't obtain a wheel wouldn't be relevant. Next time you come up with an utterly meaningless analogy, at least try and use a plausible scenario.

by Norm Deplume Thu Dec 12, 2013 9:55 am

polyglide wrote:
If you built a car and it was one wheel short with no possibility of obtaining one. what use would it be ?.

If you have a human being with limbs missing what use are they?

Have you ever heard of thalidomide?

by stuart torr Thu Dec 12, 2013 11:32 am

Exactly folks false limbs are being made for people to cope daily, and improved upon too. I technically speaking have only half a brain, becaus one half is scarred and has a shadow on it and also I have a black spot at the base that no-one knows what it is. do I complain?

by polyglide Fri Dec 13, 2013 11:16 am

It is unfortunste that you are unable to comprehend a given situation and the meaning involved, perhaps lexicology, springs to mind.

Of course when you attempt to put forward instances where those who are unfortunate to have been less blessed and have limbs missing etc; as a reason and answer to something entirely unconnected it proves you do not understand in the first place.

You will also find that all the problems regarding the unfortunate people who have health problems can be traced to man not adhering to nature and that which God told him would be in his best interests.

by Dan Fante Fri Dec 13, 2013 11:35 am

Why don't you explain in simple terms what you meant then, PG? And perhaps you could make it clear how the analogy refutes natural selection. Failure to do so might prompt some to conclude that you have absolutely nothing of substance to say and have had to fall back on insults in an attempt to obfuscate this.

by polyglide Fri Dec 13, 2013 11:41 am

I do not wish to insult anyone just try to point out that to reply in an unfriendly and sarcastic manner will be responded in similar terms.

Of course I have never and still do not conform to all that is required of me to be a true 100% Christian in the general acceptance of the meaning, what I do, is try my best to do so under circumstances that would test the faith and understanding of a Saint.

When you get silly and none answers to straight forward questions
you have to try different methods to achieve a reasonable reply.

When an arrogant person says you do not understand evolution it shows a complete and utter disregard for the person concerned when in fact that person is well aware of what evolution claims but can refute it on sounder grounds regarding creation and the facts involved to the contrary.

I have never said evolution does not take place, what I have said evolution has nothing to do with the creation of life.

For anything to evolve it must have been created in the first place and involve intelligence far beyond our understanding and also the means beyond our understanding.

There are,I am well aware,several theories regarding natural creation and not one has any credibility.

I can give lists of scientists for and against all matters relative
to both creation and evolution and the contradictions involved proves that there is no sound ground only sand.

by Dan Fante Fri Dec 13, 2013 11:45 am

Go ahead and furnish us with those lists of yours then, assuming you're not lying.

-------

https://cuttingedge2.forumotion.co.uk/viewtopic.forum?t=990

by Sponsored content

Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)

Re: Evidence for the existence of God (Part 2)