Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 63 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 916,332 Year: 3,589/9,624 Month: 460/974 Week: 73/276 Day: 1/23 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   The Greater Miracle
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 196 of 199 (509689)
05-23-2009 8:47 PM
Reply to: Message 187 by GDR
05-20-2009 5:00 PM


GDR writes:
quote:
It's not that I have faith of something, it's that I lack faith in something else. I see no reason to believe there is nothing but the natural, so until I am proven wrong, I continue in my life. This is not faith, it is exactly the opposite.
Congratulations. You just proved that atheists have no faith which is the precise opposite of your claim.
As the joke goes:
What's the difference between a theist and an atheist?
A theist claims that of the 1000 religions out there, 999 of them aren't true.
An atheist doesn't make an exception for that last one.

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 187 by GDR, posted 05-20-2009 5:00 PM GDR has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 197 of 199 (509690)
05-23-2009 8:50 PM
Reply to: Message 185 by GDR
05-20-2009 3:46 PM


GDR writes:
quote:
Either everything exists because of some unknown natural occurrence or else there is another intelligence outside of our space, time and matter universe that brought everything into existence.
And where did that "other intelligence" come from? Congratulations...you've just created an infinite regression.
If there are things that are capable of starting themselves, why can't the universe be one of them?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 185 by GDR, posted 05-20-2009 3:46 PM GDR has not replied

  
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6351
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 198 of 199 (509691)
05-23-2009 8:54 PM
Reply to: Message 192 by GDR
05-20-2009 11:10 PM


GDR writes:
quote:
Just because science has found natural solutions for things that were once deemed to be supernatural does not mean that it follows that the supernatural does not exist.
Indeed. But since we know that the natural one works and we can see it happening everywhere around us, you're going to have to come up with a pretty good justification for demanding the chocolate sprinkles.
If we know it can happen on its own and we can see it happening on its own, why are you insisting that it didn't? Where is your evidence?
Is there anything that happens on its own or is god required for everything?

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.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 192 by GDR, posted 05-20-2009 11:10 PM GDR has not replied

  
Jon
Inactive Member


Message 199 of 199 (509701)
05-24-2009 1:24 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by Percy
04-28-2009 2:41 PM


Bad Logic
Sorry, but you cannot base your out-right acceptance/dismissal of claims on their credibility alone; such reasoning is fallacious. And it is certainly fallacious to use the status of credibility as arguments against certain claims.
I wonder what those of religious persuasion think of Hume's Maxim.
Hopefully they think what anyone should: that they're malarkey plain and simple.
Jon

You've been Gremled!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Percy, posted 04-28-2009 2:41 PM Percy has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024