Topic Actions

Topic Search

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

GOD EXISTS

For anyone who might want to have a side conversation...you're welcome here!
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by Spacekiwi   » Sun Jun 07, 2015 2:59 am

Spacekiwi
Admiral

Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:08 am
Location: New Zealand

Except for the fact that a god is technically supernatural, and therefore cant be living, as it is outside of the natural world, aka living, so both candidates are therefore dead.







cthia wrote:I thought that would be obvious.

If two and only two candidates are running for Presidency and one is found dead then the other wins by default.



SO something obly to be taken in the right circumstances, when it is needed, and not taken otherwise?

cthia wrote:JESUS is a powerful dose of penicillin. Not to be taken with a grain of salt. And with as little food as a mustard seed.

****** *

This is a post that sets an example of decency and respect.

Kudos Grabthar, I respect your stance and its delivery.
`
Image


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
its not paranoia if its justified... :D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by cthia   » Sun Jun 07, 2015 3:25 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

Spacekiwi wrote:Except for the fact that a god is technically supernatural, and therefore cant be living, as it is outside of the natural world, aka living, so both candidates are therefore dead.

Regarding God, the question truly is "to be or not to be." Never is the question alive or dead. If dead implies that He was alive. If alive then He can never be dead. By definition of Supreme being.

Besides, do you really want to base your disbeliefs on a technicality?


cthia wrote:I thought that would be obvious.

If two and only two candidates are running for Presidency and one is found dead then the other wins by default.


Spacekiwi wrote:SO something obly to be taken in the right circumstances, when it is needed, and not taken otherwise?

Not just the right circumstance. The only circumstance.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by Spacekiwi   » Sun Jun 07, 2015 5:30 am

Spacekiwi
Admiral

Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:08 am
Location: New Zealand

I meant dead as to refer back to you: neither candidate (god or the science) was ever alive to begin with. Im not basing my thoughts around technicalities, but logic and the scientific method.


cthia wrote:
Spacekiwi wrote:Except for the fact that a god is technically supernatural, and therefore cant be living, as it is outside of the natural world, aka living, so both candidates are therefore dead.

Regarding God, the question truly is "to be or not to be." Never is the question alive or dead. If dead implies that He was alive. If alive then He can never be dead. By definition of Supreme being.

Besides, do you really want to base your disbeliefs on a technicality?


cthia wrote:I thought that would be obvious.

If two and only two candidates are running for Presidency and one is found dead then the other wins by default.


Spacekiwi wrote:SO something obly to be taken in the right circumstances, when it is needed, and not taken otherwise?

Not just the right circumstance. The only circumstance.
`
Image


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
its not paranoia if its justified... :D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by cthia   » Sun Jun 07, 2015 8:12 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

cthia wrote:
Spacekiwi wrote:Except for the fact that a god is technically supernatural, and therefore cant be living, as it is outside of the natural world, aka living, so both candidates are therefore dead.

Regarding God, the question truly is "to be or not to be." Never is the question alive or dead. If dead implies that He was alive. If alive then He can never be dead. By definition of Supreme being.

Besides, do you really want to base your disbeliefs on a technicality?


cthia wrote:I thought that would be obvious.

If two and only two candidates are running for Presidency and one is found dead then the other wins by default.


Spacekiwi wrote:SO something obly to be taken in the right circumstances, when it is needed, and not taken otherwise?

Not just the right circumstance. The only circumstance.

Spacekiwi wrote:I meant dead as to refer back to you: neither candidate (god or the science) was ever alive to begin with. Im not basing my thoughts around technicalities, but logic and the scientific method.


You are not referring back to me. You are referring back to my original postulate. The postulate is not dependent on life or death. It is dependent on two and only two possibilities that even science supports. And that is either GOD is the author of creation or some form of science.

One being found dead is outside the function of the postulate. f(x). X = postulate. One being found dead is simply a data point.

You must follow the chains of logic.
.
Last edited by cthia on Sun Jun 07, 2015 8:21 am, edited 2 times in total.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by Spacekiwi   » Sun Jun 07, 2015 8:18 am

Spacekiwi
Admiral

Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:08 am
Location: New Zealand

You had said that there were two candidates: god and science, and that science was the dead candidate. I based my reply off that. sorry for any confusion regarding ym posts. However, I would quibble that science is the idea with life behind it, as the scientific methods is surrently the most likely cause of the universe, and the probability of a god is low.



cthia wrote:
You are not referring back to me. You are referring back to my original postulate. The postulate is not dependent on life or death. It is dependent on two and only two possibilities that even science supports. And that is either GOD is the author of creation or some form of science.

You must follow the chains of logic.
`
Image


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
its not paranoia if its justified... :D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by cthia   » Sun Jun 07, 2015 8:51 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

cthia wrote:You are not referring back to me. You are referring back to my original postulate. The postulate is not dependent on life or death. It is dependent on two and only two possibilities that even science supports. And that is either GOD is the author of creation or some form of science.

You must follow the chains of logic.

Spacekiwi wrote:You had said that there were two candidates: god and science, and that science was the dead candidate. I based my reply off that. sorry for any confusion regarding ym posts. However, I would quibble that science is the idea with life behind it, as the scientific methods is surrently the most likely cause of the universe, and the probability of a god is low.


Let us agree on something: cthia did not say that there are two candidates. Science does. Cthia simply agrees. Stephen Hawking and all proponents against theism argues against whether a Deity is the author or science. With a Deity Being an inherent possibility. And the probability of God is not low. By nature of the postulate -- and proponents against theism -- HE is 50/50.

Do forgive my late edit of the previous post (you were concurrently posting. It mimics the problem of concurrency in computer programming. lol

But refer back to:

You are not referring back to me. You are referring back to my original postulate. The postulate is not dependent on life or death. It is dependent on two and only two possibilities that even science supports. And that is either GOD is the author of creation or some form of science.

One being found dead is outside the function of the postulate... f(x). x = postulate. One being found dead is simply a data point.

You must follow the chains of logic.

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by Annachie   » Sun Jun 07, 2015 9:09 am

Annachie
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 3099
Joined: Fri Jun 17, 2011 7:36 pm

If two and only two candidates are running for Presidency and one is found dead then the other wins by default.


You do know that that is not what happens don't you.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You are so going to die. :p ~~~~ runsforcelery
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
still not dead. :)
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by cthia   » Sun Jun 07, 2015 9:17 am

cthia
Fleet Admiral

Posts: 14951
Joined: Thu Jan 23, 2014 1:10 pm

Annachie wrote:
If two and only two candidates are running for Presidency and one is found dead then the other wins by default.


You do know that that is not what happens don't you.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Politically?

Son, your mother says I have to hang you. Personally I don't think this is a capital offense. But if I don't hang you, she's gonna hang me and frankly, I'm not the one in trouble. —cthia's father. Incident in ? Axiom of Common Sense
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by Spacekiwi   » Sun Jun 07, 2015 4:04 pm

Spacekiwi
Admiral

Posts: 2634
Joined: Sun Aug 07, 2011 3:08 am
Location: New Zealand

Even the dead can sometimes get elected..... sort of....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Carnahan




cthia wrote:Politically?
`
Image


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
its not paranoia if its justified... :D
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Top
Re: GOD EXISTS
Post by gcomeau   » Sun Jun 07, 2015 5:04 pm

gcomeau
Admiral

Posts: 2747
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:24 pm

PeterZ wrote:The E

I believe cthia was commenting on my exchange and the assumptions made to address the fault in gcomeau's logic.

Gcomeau's use of the term is inconsistent with Huxley's reasons for coining the term. Asserting the truth of God is indemonstrable requires faith since that has not been proven. Cthia merely commented on why gcomeau's attempt failed.


cthia made a silly unsubstantied declaration, you can believe it was a comment on what you think it was if you like.

In the meantime, I showed you quite clearly why the existence of God can never be proven or disproven and you continue to dance around the issue to avoid dealing with it.

Did God create the universe and the laws of physics? Yes or no?

If yes, then you cannot argue God is bound by the laws of physics since God would have had to precede and supersede them.

If no, we're going to have to have a talk about exactly what this thing you believe in is and why you're calling it "God" because it's *really* different from what most people are talking about when they use that word.


Which is it?
Top

Return to Free-Range Topics...