According to a guy I was debating with earlier on in the thread, god doesn't need one because he is "supernatural". But to me, Everything has a beginning so I agree, what was god's beginning?
Oh right. I guess I forgot the whole meaning of this thread. Which is clear evidence there is a God. --There isn't. /thread.
That's why I'm agnostic. I want him to exist, so I can go to heavenz, but I'm pretty sure he doesn't exist. Sod's law and all that, y'know. I'll post a vid in a minute, just gonna have a shower and a shave. BRB Ok, back. Here
I know =( but most atheists (Me included) can't really see why the argument goes past the 'prove it' stage. And that video in the last post meant nothing. I watched the whole thing. So, the maker of the video believes that God was there, watching, and acting, to make sure the chalk did not break. So, if the professor was to pick the chalk up, and drop it again, the same would of happened? No, it would of broke. In enlgish, i think the point where the chalk did not break is called 'luck' 'unlucky' or a 'coincidence.'
You could say that, or you could say having faith is like believing something with no proof. I don't 100% rule out the possibility of a, or many gods, but that is not based on faith, but on the sheer number of possibilities.
Absolutely nothing wrong with having faith. It means your human, I have it too. I'm not here to judge what you have faith but what you do with that faith.
To the first part: it isn't my topic to debate. Truly, it would take me multitudes of time to counter what the things you've posted. Just as was noted, you are thorough. Were it my debate, I would happily spend the time proving my point, but that is not the case. I just didn't like the idea of that kind fellow being suggested that his beliefs were incorrect simply because of his own ignorance. (Again, ignorance is not a bad thing.) Also, all attacks can be defended. Often times, that defense may certainly not satisfy the human mind, but it is present. After all, a great deal of Christianity is solely based upon faith without sight. Subsequently, everything cannot be understood, even by those who practice it. Furthermore, I'm saving that quote. Haha! Suck my sig, newbz!
Sigs & Ignorance When is ignorance a good thing? Just a couple of examples, please. I'm glad you now understand the rules regarding sigs. You berated me on a few occasions punctuated with some pretty nasty name calling just because my signature was left on. It's okay, though. I might do that too, if my debating skills were weak in a particular post.
Faith. Faith means you believe without evidence. How did you come to believe what you believe if there is no evidence to suggest it to you? Also, god is a fairly important subject. Maybe you should take the time to answer at least one of my arguments.
I didn't say it was a good thing; I said it was not a bad thing. Basic algebra.... If A =/= B, that does not mean A =/= C. I say it is not a bad thing because everyone is ignorant of something. Ignorance simply means that you are capable of learning more, and I sure hope you don't reason that to be a bad thing. Lololol. I don't actually remember calling you out on it; nor do I remember the "pretty nasty name-calling." However, I'd like to bring a few things to your attention::::::: 1) Skill is a constant. Skill does not vary from post-to-post. Nice try. 2) I have the right to change my opinion or approach at any time. I learned this from a fellow debater: When your cards are down, make up some BS about his common human nature, assume things that aren't true, and refer to his "name-calling" in a sense that likens you to a young schoolgirl. ###################################### Faith is belief without sight. Evidence can be revealed in many, many other ways than sight. I believe what I believe because it was introduced to me, and I accepted it as truth. After having accepted it, I have found no logical counter to its truth (logical to me, that is). God is quite the important subject. However, I honestly haven't the time to argue with you. One simple argument would turn into a book-length discussion because we conveniently leave out a simple fact like the difference between evidence and sight. Besides, wasting my time with Mike is much more enjoyable.
No faith is not belief without sight. Look the basic definition is on the internet. In the Christian theological sense faith is described as "the trust in God and in His promises as made through Christ and the Scriptures by which humans are justified or saved." Before I go any further, I want to confirm, is that what you believe faith is? Pick an easy topic then. I'm giving you full range. I'm going to burn in hell here prove me wrong on something. Biblical justice, evidence in favor of god, Jesus' divinity, anything.
That's one definition, and actually one I've surprisingly never heard for having been a Christian my whole life and all. Exactly why I'm choosing to decline your request for a debate. What point is there when a definition a Christian gives of a Christianity-based emotion is considered less accurate than the one given by my Atheist opponent? I'd like to, as formally as possible, state my stance. I will not hold a debate with you. I believe that you are very intelligent. In fact, I believe you are intelligent enough to twist others' words, and manage for it to slip their notice. The topic is irrelevant. I see exactly where you were going by insisting a topic that required less research, and subsequently, less effort on both our parts. I honestly respect that, but my belief remains that neither of us will gain. Please, do understand that this is simply my observation and is intended for no other purpose than to explain myself.
I didn't give it, a theologian did that submitted it to Webster. I'm trying to use your definition, not mine. That's why I'm trying to confirm what you believe and how you believe. So I'm better at debating, not because I propose more sound arguments but because I twist around the Christian's words and make him the victim?...That's a lame cop out.
The best man can do is offer extensive evidence that evolution does not exist and has not existed. Then we must offer extensive evidence that other religions are false. Then we must offer extensive evidence that Christianity is true. In my opnion, we have this evidence already.
Errr. What evidence? I'm not sure what your post supports. I'm getting a vague idea, but please elaborate.
I really can't see your point with regards to faith as defined by sight, dented. Trite it may sound, but does a blind man therefore exist on faith alone? Faith could possibly be defined as belief without perception, via any sense. But, since the 5 senses* are the only way anything can be conveyed from outside to inside our minds or, well, us, then that is any perceivable form of evidence right there. Take the blind man example further, to someone who has no sight, smell, feeling, hearing, or taste. He has no evidence of any idea he may have of how the world is, he truly exists on faith alone. That is faith. I've heard arguments of inspiration for belief being conveyed in a means outside of the 5 senses, but then that argument is pretty circular, basing the reason for belief upon a premise which requires the existence of God. *My brother has rather correctly informed me that the scientific senses extend beyond the standard 5, to things like balance and internal senses that govern homeostasis etc. Just to clarify, this was a colloquial grouping for the scientifically appreciated senses of the human body and mind.
*Sigh* I haven't studied evolution problems in years, so I might be missing some points. I guess I'll start with the "provide evidence to show there must be a god" Problems with evolution: 1. The beginning - After the so called big bang, a solar system was created. This solar system was in the perfect part of the galaxy, had the sun within 1% of its needed size, and had its planet 1% from it's needed size 1% from its needed distance, with the perfect atmosphere, and the only known planet with water. I'd call those odds pretty slim. 2. The beginning on earth - Do you know what it would have taken to form the first molecule? To form a protein, amino acids must link together in a certain chain. Believe me, this chain is extremely long. Somewhere between 100 and 300 amino acids linking together in one specific pattern. (Think getting a full house is tough? Try getting it with 300 cards) All this to form one protein... 500 proteins are needed in the making of a molecule. Do you know what the odds of this happening are? 10 to the 85th power. A SCIENTIFIC IMPOSSIBILITY is 10 to the 70th (or 75th. Like I said, it's been a while.) 3. Real, disproven, substancial evidence for evolution could be fit on a pool table. Now, with 99% of time consisting of evolution, why have we only found that much evidence compared to all the normal animals we see today? 4. Wolly mammoths, found in Syberia, have been found with tropical vegetation in their digestive systems. This would only be possible if the earth was once completely tropical, like the creation account states due to the vapor cannopy creating a greenhouse effect. The evolution theory states that the north and south were always cold, which would not allow a wolly mamoth to have tropic vegetation. Accounts for Christianity being true: There were over 300 prophecies made in the Old Testament before Jesus' birth (And yes, we have scrolls that prove that they were written before.). Out of these 300, it has been called a miracle if someone could even cary out 50. Jesus carried out every one. (And yes, there are Roman archives speaking of Jesus of Nazereth's crowds, death, and so on. He cannot simply be dismissed as someone made up.) The odds of this happening would be equivilent in covering the state of Texas with quarters 3 feet high, then throwing in one quarter with a mark on it. On your first try, picking out that quarter. Pretty low, eh? Like I said, it's been a while since I've studied up on this, and I'm only 14. I'm getting a little bored writing this, so I'll just say im done for now.
:\ You proved god by disproving evolution. Disproof of one theory does not prove another. Statement 1 is misleading. We are not in the perfect part of anywhere. Statements 2-4 are falsehoods. Statement 5 can be dismissed as foreshadowing and 1,500 years of catholic indulgence. The bible is not in the same state today as it was 2,000 years ago. Whether or not Jesus was real is of no consequence, I want to know how you know he is divine. I would answer more in-depthly but I've done it so many times now it has become a chore. I now see why scientists don't participate in these evolution debates. There isn't one beyond ignorance.