Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 91 (8839 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 05-26-2018 1:58 AM
224 online now:
AnswersInGenitals, AZPaul3, Dr Adequate, NoNukes (4 members, 220 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: Calvin
Post Volume:
Total: 832,478 Year: 7,301/29,783 Month: 1,525/1,708 Week: 416/474 Day: 5/68 Hour: 1/4


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
RewPrev1
...
2829
30
313233Next
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 436 of 489 (829158)
03-03-2018 11:03 PM
Reply to: Message 429 by dwise1
02-28-2018 6:03 AM


dwise1 writes:

quote:
Truly there is no scientific proof that any of the gods do not exist nor can there be.

Incorrect.

I have already done so for at least one definition of "god."

I even posted it twice.

If you do not agree with this definition of "god," then it would behoove you to define what you mean by "god" so that we might test your claim that the existence of god cannot be disproven.

What is your definition of "god"?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 429 by dwise1, posted 02-28-2018 6:03 AM dwise1 has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 437 of 489 (829160)
03-03-2018 11:11 PM
Reply to: Message 432 by Tangle
02-28-2018 1:30 PM


Tangle responds to Faith:

quote:
quote:
Have you tried adding up the years from Adam to the Flood?

No I haven't Faith, it's not really my thing.

But lots of strange people have and consequently been proven wrong.


You do realize you just contradicted yourself, yes?

You claimed that god cannot be disproven.

Well, Faith's definition of "god" requires there to have been a global flood that happened about 2250 BCE. Where does that number come from? From "adding up the years from Adam to the Flood" (and then continuing on with other chronologies in the Bible that can give us the date of creation and thus the date of the flood).

We can easily examine (and do it "scientifically") the evidence to see if there was a global flood at that time that killed everybody except for 8 people in a single boat and find it isn't true.

You even agree that this has been done...or did you mean something else when you said, "been proven wrong"?

So congratulations, Tangle. You now agree with me that you can disprove the existence of god. One wonders why you didn't pick up on that the multiple times I directly stated so in this thread. Of course, this leads one to question if you still stand by your original claim: God cannot be disproven?

Uh-oh...we're back to the definition you refuse to give: In order for "god" to be disproven, we need an agreed-upon definition of "god."

What is your definition of "god"? You're the one that said god can't be disproven, but we were clearly able to do so once we had a definition of "god" to go on. You did it yourself.

Is there a reason why you deny that which you were able to do?


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 432 by Tangle, posted 02-28-2018 1:30 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 438 by Tangle, posted 03-04-2018 2:27 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5676
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 438 of 489 (829172)
03-04-2018 2:27 AM
Reply to: Message 437 by Rrhain
03-03-2018 11:11 PM


Rrhain writes:

Is there a reason why you deny that which you were able to do?

I refer you to message 430. You wish to confuse beliefs about god with the existence of god. But you know this.

Edited by Tangle, : No reason given.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 437 by Rrhain, posted 03-03-2018 11:11 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 439 by Rrhain, posted 03-08-2018 3:11 AM Tangle has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 439 of 489 (829484)
03-08-2018 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 438 by Tangle
03-04-2018 2:27 AM


Tangle avoids the question:

quote:
quote:
Is there a reason why you deny that which you were able to do?

I refer you to message 430. You wish to confuse beliefs about god with the existence of god. But you know this.

Since I didn't respond to this post of yours which was not directed at me int eh first place, why do you say this? At any rate, your rebuttal is founded on a fallacy.

You write:

It think that's proof that those holding particular beliefs about a young earth etc are wrong about them, not that their god doesn't exist. They're just not reading his runes properly.

You mean believers don't know what they believe in? Who are you to tell someone else that they don't know the object of their own worship? Their definition of god includes this god acting a specific amount of time ago to create the entire universe. If it turns out that the age of the universe disagrees with that claim, then that necessarily means their god does not exist, in direct contradiction to your claim.

It would appear that you are engaging in the ad hoc fallacy, redefining what you mean by "god" in the face of disproof. So I guess you're going with the second disproof I provided: There is no definition of "god" and since things without definition necessarily don't exist, then god does not exist.

So you have your choice of how your claim fails: You can continue to engage in an ad hoc fallacy, redefining what is meant by "god" every time evidence is brought forward to disprove the necessary requirements that follow from said definition of "god," or you can simply abandon all definitions of "god" and thus resign yourself to "god" not existing at all since the term "god" would not mean anything.

Make your choice.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 438 by Tangle, posted 03-04-2018 2:27 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 440 by Tangle, posted 03-08-2018 3:26 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5676
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 440 of 489 (829485)
03-08-2018 3:26 AM
Reply to: Message 439 by Rrhain
03-08-2018 3:11 AM


Rrhain writes:

Make your choice.

I have made my choice, it was and is to hold you to your claim that you can prove the non-existence of god using science.

Unsurprisingly to anyone here you have failed to do this. But I live in (not much) hope.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 439 by Rrhain, posted 03-08-2018 3:11 AM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 441 by Phat, posted 03-08-2018 10:38 AM Tangle has responded
 Message 443 by Rrhain, posted 03-08-2018 6:40 PM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10770
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 441 of 489 (829499)
03-08-2018 10:38 AM
Reply to: Message 440 by Tangle
03-08-2018 3:26 AM


It seems to me that all that rrhain can do is disprove the validity of one's definitions. Since he believes that something undefined cannot exist, he claims victory. God, however, does not need any of our individual proofs nor definitions in order to exist.

jars construct explains it well:

quote:
If GOD exists, She exists regardless of any evidence She does not exist.
If GOD doesn't exist, It doesn't exist regardless of evidence It does exist.

In other words, the argument is not framed by human definition...apart from the logic of this construct.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Tangle, posted 03-08-2018 3:26 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 442 by Tangle, posted 03-08-2018 5:10 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply
 Message 444 by Rrhain, posted 03-08-2018 7:25 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5676
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 442 of 489 (829525)
03-08-2018 5:10 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by Phat
03-08-2018 10:38 AM


Phat writes:

It seems to me that all that rrhain can do is disprove the validity of one's definitions.

Not quite, what he wants to do is argue definitional semantics instead of what he claims he can do which is disprove the existence of god. He knows he's wrong, hence the disingenuous diversion.

Since he believes that something undefined cannot exist, he claims victory.

Which of course is pure crap. Atoms, giraffes and rocks existed before they were defined.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Phat, posted 03-08-2018 10:38 AM Phat has acknowledged this reply

Replies to this message:
 Message 445 by Rrhain, posted 03-08-2018 7:31 PM Tangle has responded

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 443 of 489 (829529)
03-08-2018 6:40 PM
Reply to: Message 440 by Tangle
03-08-2018 3:26 AM


Tangle runs away:

quote:
quote:
Make your choice.

I have made my choice, it was and is to hold you to your claim that you can prove the non-existence of god using science.

Which I did.

In two different ways.

And posted multiple times.

And yet here you are still complaining, even though you posted a disproof of god yourself.

I have no idea if anybody here is surprised at this, but it is very telling.

So it would seem you have chosen a third method of failure: Stick your fingers in your ears and scream, "LALALALALALA!"


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 440 by Tangle, posted 03-08-2018 3:26 AM Tangle has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 444 of 489 (829531)
03-08-2018 7:25 PM
Reply to: Message 441 by Phat
03-08-2018 10:38 AM


Phat responds to Tangle:

quote:
It seems to me that all that rrhain can do is disprove the validity of one's definitions.

Logical error: Equivocation. Everything we do is a "belief" in that context. To a believer, the object of their belief is a real object no different from any other object in that sense of being real. How do you recognize an object? By comparing its traits to the definition of said object: If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and flies like a duck....

We don't complain about this in any other situation. If we were to come across a crime scene, we would be able to engage in forensics to determine certain things about how the crime was carried out and traits about the perpetrator. If we come across a contradiction between the suspect and the forensic investigation, we rule the suspect out.

But somehow when it comes to god, the contradiction between god and the investigation of the universe around us means that we somehow don't understand the universe around us rather than ruling god out.

That's known as the logical error of "special pleading." The same process that allows us to disprove a suspect in a crime is somehow completely invalid when it comes to disproving god. You don't get to have it both ways.

quote:
Since he believes that something undefined cannot exist, he claims victory.

That isn't a belief. That is merely a truism: If something cannot be defined (and once again, that does not mean there is a definition but we simply don't know it...it means that no definition is possible), then it necessarily cannot exist. How does one discuss something for which there is nothing to describe? If something has no traits of any kind, how can it possibly interact with anything, thus displaying its existence? Again...not that we don't know what the traits are but that there are no traits to know.

I realize that this is problematic for some. It's the difference between saying that "atheists believe there is no god" and "atheists don't believe there is a god."

quote:
God, however, does not need any of our individual proofs nor definitions in order to exist.

Never said it did. People deny reality all the time. People who are emotionally invested in their beliefs will not give them up easily. We've been through this before, Phat.

But here's the thing, all you've done just now is say that your mind is closed and no evidence will convince you otherwise. God may not "need" our proofs in order to exist, but if the traits ascribed to god contradict reality, then that necessarily means that god doesn't exist.

You then have your choice of either engaging in ad hoc redefinitions of "god" so that you can continue to believe or you can abandon all definition of "god" and completely erase it from existence...while insisting that something that has no substance of any kind still has substance.

quote:
jars construct explains it well:

quote:
If GOD exists, She exists regardless of any evidence She does not exist.


Incorrect. This is a reversal of how proof works. This is like the claim that "Scientists say bumblebees can't fly." It isn't what scientists said. It is trivial to show that bumblebees can fly. What was said was that given what we knew about aerodynamics, we cannot account for how bumblebees fly. Note, we did not say that "god did it."

If god exists, then contradictions between the definition of god and reality need to be accounted for. Otherwise, said god necessarily cannot exist. Mere assertion is insufficient.

quote:
If GOD doesn't exist, It doesn't exist regardless of evidence It does exist.

Incorrect. Once again, this is a reversal of how proof works. If god doesn't exist, then contradictions between the disproof of god and reality need to be accounted for. Otherwise, said god necessarily does exist. Mere assertion is insufficient. We can trivially show that bumblebees can fly no matter how much rigid-wing aerodynamics on a macro scale say there isn't enough energy to allow them to do so (notice the festive clues in there which is why scientists never said bumblebees cannot fly).

quote:
In other words, the argument is not framed by human definition...apart from the logic of this construct.

Incorrect. The argument is precisely framed by the definition. Again, the problem seems to be a confusion between the idea that there is a definition, we just don't know it and the idea that there is no definition to be had no matter what.

If you can't define what it is you believe in, how can you say you believe in it? That's the essence of those who say, "Just look around!" They're not being very specific or detailed in their definition, but it's there: "The universe is too complicated to have happened on its own, therefore something must have done it."

And yet, when we do the work of looking around at the universe, we see that no, it isn't "too complicated." It is self-organizing and we can see it self-organizing right before our very eyes. The fact that the "look around"-ist is not clever enough to understand the physics, chemistry, and biology of the world around us doesn't mean nobody else is.

Since the default state is that there is no god (null hypothesis), it is up to the one who believes to define what is meant by the term "god" and to provide evidence showing its existence. That's the burden of proof. Tangle (and you and seemingly jar) seek to reverse that for the case of god.

That's not how this works.

That's not how any of this works.

I don't have to prove that 2 + 2 = 4 in order to show that they do not equal 5. If your god requires that 2 + 2 = 5, then any disproof of that also disproves god. But, it isn't up to me to say that your god requires that 2 + 2 = 5. After all, it isn't my god. It's yours. I'm not trying to convince me. I'm trying to convince you. And thus, you're the one who has to define what you mean by "god" or you'll simply accuse me of "straw godding" (and would be correct).

If you cannot define what you mean by "god," how do you know what you believe in?

And if you refuse to define what you mean by "god," how can it possibly be said to exist?

So we're back to the question Tangle keeps running away from: What is the definition of "god"? You put forward one and I rebutted it. You haven't responded to it, I notice.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 441 by Phat, posted 03-08-2018 10:38 AM Phat has not yet responded

    
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003
Member Rating: 1.5


Message 445 of 489 (829532)
03-08-2018 7:31 PM
Reply to: Message 442 by Tangle
03-08-2018 5:10 PM


Tangle waves his hands:

quote:
Not quite, what he wants to do is argue definitional semantics instead of what he claims he can do which is disprove the existence of god.

Incorrect. What I want are physical traits that can be compared against reality to determine if there are contradictions for if there are, then that means god does not exist.

quote:
He knows he's wrong, hence the disingenuous diversion.

Strange...that's what I was going to say about you: You know you're wrong, hence the protracted stu---er---"disingenuous diversion."

It's why you disproved god yourself (using a very similar argument to the one I used) and yet are still here complaining.

quote:
Which of course is pure crap. Atoms, giraffes and rocks existed before they were defined.

And you will note I never said otherwise.

Once again, you confuse not knowing the definition with no definition to be known.

But you know this is the source of your failure which leads one to speculate as to why you continue to evince it.

Burden of proof is on you. You're the one saying that god cannot be disproven. Therefore, you're the one who needs to define what you mean by "god" so that we can examine your claim for accuracy.

By refusing to provide a definition of "god," you necessarily cede your argument as false. Things without definition do not exist.

But spin the merry-go-round again, Tangle. Pretend the problem is merely that the definition of god isn't known as opposed to there not being a definition of god to be known. I'm sure you'll get something new this time.

C'mon...you know you want to.

SPIN IT!


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Minds are like parachutes. Just because you've lost yours doesn't mean you can use mine.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 442 by Tangle, posted 03-08-2018 5:10 PM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 446 by Tangle, posted 03-09-2018 2:50 AM Rrhain has responded
 Message 448 by Phat, posted 03-09-2018 10:10 AM Rrhain has responded

    
Tangle
Member
Posts: 5676
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 2.3


Message 446 of 489 (829545)
03-09-2018 2:50 AM
Reply to: Message 445 by Rrhain
03-08-2018 7:31 PM


Rrhain writes:

Incorrect. What I want are physical traits that can be compared against reality to determine if there are contradictions for if there are, then that means god does not exist.

Then I suggest you get on with it. Do what you claimed to be able to do, else stfu. I'm not going to do your work for you.


Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona

"Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android

"Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by Rrhain, posted 03-08-2018 7:31 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 447 by Phat, posted 03-09-2018 10:06 AM Tangle has responded
 Message 453 by Rrhain, posted 03-09-2018 5:28 PM Tangle has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10770
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 447 of 489 (829548)
03-09-2018 10:06 AM
Reply to: Message 446 by Tangle
03-09-2018 2:50 AM


The Irony
It suddenly occurred to me...quite humorously in fact--about how two of our resident atheists (Rrhain and Tangle) were actually engaged in an argument about proving that God does not exist.

I remember one time long ago when I was at a debate between the college Christian Club and an atheist, supported by the faculty.

The atheist ended up winning the debate due to superior logic, but the attitude was one of intellectual smugness and contrasted with the humility of the Christians.

Which I think speaks volumes.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 446 by Tangle, posted 03-09-2018 2:50 AM Tangle has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 449 by ringo, posted 03-09-2018 11:18 AM Phat has responded
 Message 452 by Tangle, posted 03-09-2018 1:55 PM Phat has not yet responded
 Message 454 by Rrhain, posted 03-09-2018 5:33 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10770
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 448 of 489 (829549)
03-09-2018 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 445 by Rrhain
03-08-2018 7:31 PM


Believe It Or Not
Rrhain,to Tangle writes:

Pretend the problem is merely that the definition of god isn't known as opposed to there not being a definition of god to be known. I'm sure you'll get something new this time.

But that's the essence of belief. The definition is not based on logic or fact.It is based on belief. Granted it is often derived from stories which others have written.

To actually make up one's own story in order to define the God in whom they believe seems a bit far-fetched.


Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 445 by Rrhain, posted 03-08-2018 7:31 PM Rrhain has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 455 by Rrhain, posted 03-09-2018 5:48 PM Phat has not yet responded

  
ringo
Member
Posts: 14584
From: frozen wasteland
Joined: 03-23-2005
Member Rating: 1.3


Message 449 of 489 (829555)
03-09-2018 11:18 AM
Reply to: Message 447 by Phat
03-09-2018 10:06 AM


Re: The Irony
Phat writes:

The atheist ended up winning the debate due to superior logic, but the attitude was one of intellectual smugness and contrasted with the humility of the Christians.

Which I think speaks volumes.


How often is it appropriate to put "Christian" and "humility" in the same sentence?

Are you really fooling yourself? Were those the real attitudes or were they what your apologetics told you to see?


An honest discussion is more of a peer review than a pep rally. My toughest critics here are the people who agree with me. -- ringo

This message is a reply to:
 Message 447 by Phat, posted 03-09-2018 10:06 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 450 by Phat, posted 03-09-2018 12:11 PM ringo has responded

  
Phat
Member
Posts: 10770
From: Denver,Colorado USA
Joined: 12-30-2003
Member Rating: 1.2


Message 450 of 489 (829559)
03-09-2018 12:11 PM
Reply to: Message 449 by ringo
03-09-2018 11:18 AM


Re: The Irony
Are you really fooling yourself? Were those the real attitudes or were they what your apologetics told you to see?
I was there. I watched the debate and the audience reactions. If my apologetics had any influence, it certainly didn't make me less honest. This happened in the year 2000, the last year I was in college.

Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. –RC Sproul
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." –Mark Twain "
~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith
Paul was probably SO soaked in prayer nobody else has ever equaled him.~Faith :)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 449 by ringo, posted 03-09-2018 11:18 AM ringo has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 451 by ringo, posted 03-09-2018 12:17 PM Phat has acknowledged this reply

  
RewPrev1
...
2829
30
313233Next
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2015 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2018