Logicboy03:


You dont. You feel that I am insinuating some kind of group think.

You think your atheism is so new and unique

Lol. No. By that, I meant that your definition of sensible is when it suits your taste. That's wrong bro.
I'm more concerned about questions right now. Feed me more questions if you have.

Reyginus: Lol. No. By that, I meant that your definition of sensible is when it suits your taste. That's wrong bro.
I'm more concerned about questions right now. Feed me more questions if you have.

Questions that you will answer ridiculously......

Logicboy03:


Questions that you will answer ridiculously......

Lol. You don't have any joor!

Can something come from nothing, fool?

NP indignation over the use of the word fool BTW. The Bible says you're a full, therefore you're a fool. Simple

Reyginus: Lol. No. By that, I meant that your definition of sensible is when it suits your taste. That's wrong bro.
I'm more concerned about questions right now. Feed me more questions if you have.

Weirdly interesting thread.

@reygenius I'm not sure if I admire your creativity, or think you are taking an incredible risk. You faith in God is not something you should fool around with. The Devil is not playing games...

Anyway, in the spirit of things, lemme ask one question...

Do you agree human perception is limited?

wiegraf: Can something come from nothing, fool?

NP indignation over the use of the word fool BTW. The Bible says you're a full, therefore you're a fool. Simple

As a man who holds science in high regard, I make bold to answer in the affirmative.

For example, in Quantum Physics, it is possible for the laws of thermodynamics to be violated, resulting in the creation of energy from nothing. This can be summarized as a vacuum flunctuation.

But I don't believe the content of the bible to be true in the first place, I don't also know it to be true. Like I posed to logicboy, a thing always in constant contradiction cannot and should not be taken seriously.

rapture_ready:

Weirdly interesting thread.

@reygenius I'm not sure if I admire your creativity, or think you are taking an incredible risk. You faith in God is not something you should fool around with. The Devil is not playing games...

Anyway, in the spirit of things, lemme ask one question...

Do you agree human perception is limited?

Ofcourse it is limited, but it is also more importantly in a constant evolutionary advancement. It can only get better with time.

Reyginus: Ofcourse it is limited, but it is also more importantly in a constant evolutionary advancement. It can only get better with time.

Ok.

Do you also agree that the scientific methods by which we make inferences/deductions on which we base our evidences/proofs are also by extension limited?

rapture_ready:

Ok.

Do you also agree that the scientific methods by which we make inferences/deductions on which we base our evidences/proofs are also by extension limited?

Yes. They are limited but I also think they can be made better with time.

Reyginus: Yes. They are limited but I also think they can be made better with time.

Fail....the scientific method can not be improved....it would be like trying to improve 1+1 = 2


how do you improve this

Logicboy03:


Fail....the scientific method can not be improved....it would be like trying to improve 1+1 = 2


how do you improve this

Lol. I don't think you get it when he says 'methods'. Maybe I misunderstood it myself.

What I understand it to mean is the technology involved in the workings of the scientific method.

Reyginus: Lol. I don't think you get it when he says 'methods'. Maybe I misunderstood it myself.

What I understand it to mean is the technology involved in the workings of science.

You are talking gibberish.....


here is what he said

rapture_ready:

Ok.

Do you also agree that the scientific methods by which we make [size=18pt]inferences/deductions[/size] on which we base our evidences/proofs are also by extension limited?

Note the part about inferences and deductions.......those are only made with logical steps

Logicboy03:


You are talking gibberish.....


here is what he said


Note the part about inferences and deductions.......those are only made with logical steps

Okay. I misunderstood his question if that is what he meant. I think you are right.

But I can bet he meant it to be the technologies employed.

Logicboy03: Reyginius, nice try....but you dont argue like an atheist......

Maybe I'm better. Maybe that's because I'm actually an atheist.

Lol. Logicboy is not ready to ask questions but has a PhD. Pull Him Down syndrome.

Reyginus: Lol. Logicboy is not ready to ask questions but has a PhD. Pull Him Down syndrome.

If I dont pull you down now, you would come back later and praise yourself that you debated like an atheist....then later pick holes in your very own "atheist" arguments to say that the stereotypical atheist arguments are flawed.

Uyi Iredia:

Maybe I'm better. Maybe that's because I'm actually an atheist.

of course

lomomike: This is how they start and next thing we know is devil takes total control of their lives and gradually causes them to slip from their spiritual stronghold next thing we hear they get frustrated with everything about life and die like one frustrated bush fowl.



"For the director of music. Of David. The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, their deeds are vile; there is no one who does good."
Psalms 14:1 (New International Version)

I think Jesus says calling your brother a fool puts one at risk of hell, apparently you (and maybe he) think this rule to be exempt where atheists are involved. In any case, the fool is one too bound to religion to look at earth square in the face and ask and find out for oneself where the earth and life is from. SMH for you.

Logicboy03:

If I dont pull you down now, you would come back later and praise yourself that you debated like an atheist....then later pick holes in your very own "atheist" arguments to say that the stereotypical atheist arguments are flawed.

He admits! Lol. But I don't think that's how to go about it.
You can work better with your PhD by asking me questions whose answers will trap me.

I wish you can give me a similar opportunity when this is over.

Uyi Iredia:

I think Jesus says calling your brother a fool puts one at risk of hell, apparently you (and maybe he) think this rule to be exempt where atheists are involved. In any case, the fool is one too bound to religion to look at earth square in the face and ask and find out for oneself where the earth and life is from. SMH for you.

Lol. Please don't rip him apart. My door is wide open for statements like his. Only if he has the nerve to come in.

Reyginus: Okay. I misunderstood his question if that is what he meant. I think you are right.

But I can bet he meant it to be the technologies employed.

Exactly.

You understood my question very well. I was referring to the scientific method which includes observation and experimentation which are done using techniques and technologies that can be improved.

No mind @flawedlogicboy.

Logicboy03:

of course

Saved. Tho' there are beliefs fairly common to atheists I don't share. 1) Belief in the Big Bang and earth's age (I'm skeptical of the latter, and cynical of the former (enough to think it false and ludicrous) particularly in the aspect of space expansion. 2) Morality of gays and PMS. In other respects, evolution inclusive, I'm okay.

rapture_ready:

Exactly.

You understood my question very well. I was referring to the scientific method which includes observation and experimentation which are done using techniques and technologies that can be improved.

No mind @flawedlogicboy.

Logicboy's attempt at pulling me down destroyed. .

Uyi Iredia:

Saved. Tho' there are beliefs fairly common to atheists I don't share. 1) Belief in the Big Bang and earth's age (I'm skeptical of the latter, and cynical of the former (enough to think it false and ludicrous) particularly in the aspect of space expansion. 2) Morality of gays and PMS. In other respects, evolution inclusive, I'm okay.

PMS?

Uyi Iredia:

Saved. Tho' there are beliefs fairly common to atheists I don't share. 1) Belief in the Big Bang and earth's age (I'm skeptical of the latter, and cynical of the former (enough to think it false and ludicrous) particularly in the aspect of space expansion. 2) Morality of gays and PMS. In other respects, evolution inclusive, I'm okay.

Lol. If you want to ask me a question make it direct.

Reyginus: Yes. They are limited but I also think they can be made better with time.

Next question.

Does the fact that it is possible our limited perception, observation techniques and experimenting technologies cannot yet prove the existence of God, mean he doesn't exist?

rapture_ready:

Next question.

Does the fact that it is possible our limited perception, observation techniques and experimenting technologies cannot yet prove the existence of God, mean he doesn't exist?

Let me surprise you by turning the question slightly up-side-down.

The problem with your question is that, it is assuming that there is no document that claims to proof the existence of god.
It is assuming that there is no portion or group of men who have already, laid claim to proof of god.

You failed to consider that with this limited perception, observational techniques and experimental technologies, these men are certain that god is in existence.

Since this is so, a simpler way of deducing if he exists is by looking into the claim presented by these group of humans. You may wonder why we shouldn't just ignore them and go ahead with the search, but, that in itself, will be a futile search for nothing.

The moment we begin to search for him outside the qualifications and so-called proof his worshippers relate with him we are then not searching for god but something else, but if we are to use the qualities attributed to him, we can only do this by questioning and deducing from their so-called evidence.

God as defined and qualified by the theist cannot be identified by any technology. If it happens, then what you have as the christain or muslim god is certainly not in existence.

So it is not a question of prooving it by scientifical means.

Sorry, Rey, slept off yesterday.

A bit busy now, weekend things. will be back to reply your post.

aManFromMars: Sorry, Rey, slept off yesterday.

A bit busy now, weekend things. will be back to reply your post.

Huh? I'm in trouble o! I think say you don give up

texanomaly:

PMS?

Pre-marital s€x. Hi

Reyginus: Let me surprise you by turning the question slightly up-side-down.

Bros you have been giving me pretty straight answers since. Wetin cum happen now?

Reyginus: The problem with your question is that, it is assuming that there is no document that claims to proof the existence of god.
It is assuming that there is no portion or group of men who have already, laid claim to proof of god.

Well according to atheists, "documents" like the bible cannot be accepted as evidence because they do not follow the usual basis of proof - which is logic.

They also argue that direct claims from any "group of people" about having proof of God cannot be verified/corroborated.

I've even had similar arguements with some of the gang in here.

Reyginus: You failed to consider that with this limited perception, observational techniques and experimental technologies, these men are certain that god is in existence.

Since this is so, a simpler way of deducing if he exists is by looking into the claim presented by these group of humans. You may wonder why we shouldn't just ignore them and go ahead with the search, but, that in itself, will be a futile search for nothing.

The moment we begin to search for him outside the qualifications and so-called proof his worshippers relate with him we are then not searching for god but something else, but if we are to use the qualities attributed to him, we can only do this by questioning and deducing from their so-called evidence.

I humbly beg to differ.

Whatever "evidence" any group of people have proffered based on "this limited perception, observational techniques and experimental technologies" have always been laughed off for the same reasons I mentioned above.

So there is no real way of "deducing if he exists is by looking into the claim presented by these group of humans"

I mean what if somebody told you he/she died and saw Jesus and heaven, is there any scientific way to "look into" that claim?

My assumption is correct.

Reyginus: God as defined and qualified by the theist cannot be identified by any technology. If it happens, then what you have as the christain or muslim god is certainly not in existence.

So it is not a question of prooving it by scientifical means.

So you admit that God cannot (yet) be proved/disproved using existing technology.

Why then do atheists go about claiming he does not exist as if they have proof?

Answer my original question.

Is it not possible that God very well exists, just that our scientific tools and human perception are limited and cannot find him yet?

Reyginus: Let me surprise you by turning the question slightly up-side-down.

The problem with your question is that, it is assuming that there is no document that claims to proof the existence of god.
It is assuming that there is no portion or group of men who have already, laid claim to proof of god.

You failed to consider that with this limited perception, observational techniques and experimental technologies, these men are certain that god is in existence.

Since this is so, a simpler way of deducing if he exists is by looking into the claim presented by these group of humans. You may wonder why we shouldn't just ignore them and go ahead with the search, but, that in itself, will be a futile search for nothing.

The moment we begin to search for him outside the qualifications and so-called proof his worshippers relate with him we are then not searching for god but something else, but if we are to use the qualities attributed to him, we can only do this by questioning and deducing from their so-called evidence.

God as defined and qualified by the theist cannot be identified by any technology. If it happens, then what you have as the christain or muslim god is certainly not in existence.

So it is not a question of prooving it by scientifical means.

Beautiful! Just one day in the shoes of an atheist and you read his mind well!