-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Since I understand string theory and I have access to Wikipedia, I would fill in 90 percent of the circle.
God exists, and I Can Prove It.
Posts
Total:
531
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
God only kicked them out of the Garden, because they disobeyed his one rule, and they had sin in their hearts. So, they could no longer be in his presence.
You really are shite at reading any scripture aren't you? You are as bad as Tradesecret.
Read this slowly and please at least try to see what is being said and why.
Genesis 3:20-24
New International Version
Adam named his wife Eve, because she would become the mother of all the living.
The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
The Lord God made garments of skin for Adam and his wife and clothed them. And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.” So the Lord God banished him from the Garden of Eden to work the ground from which he had been taken. After he drove the man out, he placed on the east side of the Garden of Eden cherubim and a flaming sword flashing back and forth to guard the way to the tree of life.
YouFound_Lxam, that is vying to be the #1 Bible fool of this Religion Forum, where Miss Tradesecret will be sad,
Then very simply, show us the links in where you allegedly already addressed Matthew 15: 3-4 many times!!! WAITING!
DAY 1 RUNAWAY FROM THIS POST: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/361900
DAY 2 RUNAWAY FROM THIS POST: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/361968
DAY 3 RUNAWAY FROM THIS POST: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/362113
DAY 4 RUNAWAY FROM THIS POST: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/362262
DAY FIVE!!!!!
NO RESPONSE YET FROM "YOUFOUND_LXAM" TO HIM PROVING THAT HE ADDRESSED SAID PASSAGE ABOVE LIKE HE SAID HE DID, OTHER THAN TO CONTINUALLY RUN AWAY FROM IT BECAUSE HE IS NOT A CHRISTIAN!
.
.
FLRW QUOTE: "OK, it's time to vote. Do you think YF_L proved that God exists?"
FU*K NO!
-->
@BrotherD.Thomas
FU*K NO!
Praise The Lord!
-->
@FLRW
@Best.Korea
Ok so Best. Korea filled in 0.000657843267876567865 % of the circle
And FLRW filled in 90% of the circle.
Let me ask you a question FLRW. You think, that out of all the knowledge of the universe, you know 90% of it? Thats a large claim, but it is still usable.
Let me rephrase what the circle represents. The circle represents all knowledge. Everything that could ever be known about any subject. All the sciences, all the arts, etc.
So, you guys put in a percent, that isn't fully 100%. So, you guys are admitting, that there are still things out there that you don't know. You just haven't discovered those things yet.
Therefore, could God not exist, in a dimension, that you haven't discovered yet?
Answer: Yes.
So, anyone who says they are an atheist, and agrees to this example, is not an atheist, but an agnostic.
An astronomically small percentage barely worth noting.How could this possibly be used as proof of a God?
I'm sorry, I didn't see your post on this. Same goes for yours though.
QESTION 1
Imagine I draw a circle on a white board.The space inside the circle represents all knowledge.It contains Physics, Chemistry, etc.Even knowledge that we are still trying to find, exists in this circle.Now I ask you this question. If I gave you a pen, and asked you to fill in how much knowledge you think you have/know in the circle, how much of the circle would you fill in?Just answer me that.
QUESTION 2
Let me rephrase what the circle represents. The circle represents all knowledge. Everything that could ever be known about any subject. All the sciences, all the arts, etc. So, you guys put in a percent, that isn't fully 100%. So, you guys are admitting, that there are still things out there that you don't know. You just haven't discovered those things yet.Therefore, could God not exist, in a dimension, that you haven't discovered yet?Answer: Yes.
No. the answer is, no. Now tell me why I have answered-NO ?
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
"you guys are admitting, that there are still things out there that you don't know."
Yes. I admit that.
"Therefore, could God not exist, in a dimension, that you haven't discovered yet?"
Well, you are presenting a coin toss argument.
In your argument, there are only two options.
1) God exists
2) God doesnt exist
Since there is no proof for either option, you say chances are 50 : 50.
However, the options are further divided on possibilities of over 3000 made up Gods and possibly even more hidden or forgotten Gods.
Because of so many Gods and possibilities, chances to be right are not really 50 : 50. They are 1:3000 and even lower.
Nobody here has even 1% chance to get it right.
Is this your final proof, or is there more?
-->
@Best.Korea
Is this your final proof
"Final proof"!!?
Stephen
I know its not proof. But maybe he thinks it is and maybe he can explain to us why he thinks that.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
So, you guys are admitting, that there are still things out there that you don't know. You just haven't discovered those things yet.Therefore, could God not exist, in a dimension, that you haven't discovered yet?
Is it not possible that literally ANYTHING could exist in a dimension that's yet to be discovered? I presume you don't have the entire circle filled in either, right? So, let's try and see.
Could a Priffleprimp exist in a dimension that hasn't been discovered yet?
Also, your argument isn't for a capital G god. It's a terrible argument, but it's a terrible argument for Deism, not for any specific religion. Watch again:
Could Zeus exist in a dimension you haven't discovered yet?
-->
@ludofl3x
@Best.Korea
Is it not possible that literally ANYTHING could exist in a dimension that's yet to be discovered? I presume you don't have the entire circle filled in either, right? So, let's try and see.Could a Priffleprimp exist in a dimension that hasn't been discovered yet?Also, your argument isn't for a capital G god. It's a terrible argument, but it's a terrible argument for Deism, not for any specific religion. Watch again:Could Zeus exist in a dimension you haven't discovered yet?
Yes. The circle argument is just to help prove a deistic belief. Not any in particular.
n your argument, there are only two options.1) God exists2) God doesnt exist
Yes......that is what everyone is arguing.
Maybe I'm missing something here.
If, in one given case, one knows 90% of all knowledge. That leaves 10% not known.
Is it possible that in that 10% there is either the absolute knowledge that God doesn't exist, or simply no knowledge that God does exist?
The answer is "yes" so therefore, in the absence of all (100%) knowledge, God's existence can NOT be proven and the entire premise of this thread is flawed. Can we go home now?
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
I have one question for all of you. Just answer this one question, and I will continue with my argument.Imagine I draw a circle on a white board.The space inside the circle represents all knowledge.It contains Physics, Chemistry, etc.Even knowledge that we are still trying to find, exists in this circle.Now I ask you this question. If I gave you a pen, and asked you to fill in how much knowledge you think you have/know in the circle, how much of the circle would you fill in?Just answer me that.
There is an infinite amount of knowledge that can be understood.
Can you provide your strongest proof for the existence of God?
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Therefore, could God not exist, in a dimension, that you haven't discovered yet?Answer: Yes.So, anyone who says they are an atheist, and agrees to this example, is not an atheist, but an agnostic.
This is just semantics. You can label us however you choose, doesn’t change the lack of a rational basis for your assertions.
But if you want to talk about the label, Gnosticism addresses knowledge, not belief, so it is not some middle ground between theism and atheism. I am an agnostic atheist, other combinations are valid as well.
Beyond that point, the main reason it is wrong to try and plug in a middle ground between the two is because theism encompasses all god claims, so this effectively means there is no such thing as an atheist because no person could possibly conceive of every god concept let alone form a conclusion on each one. As an atheist I can only react to the concepts of god I am exposed to, so labeling me as someone who believes there are no gods is fallacious since there are many concepts out there I’ve never even thought of let alone decided don’t exist.
I'm sorry, I didn't see your post on this. Same goes for yours though.
The more important post you missed was right before it (443)
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
Yes. The circle argument is just to help prove a deistic belief. Not any in particular.
It's completely uncompelling, though. If some nameless being in a dimension we can't confirm exists decided to somehow 'start' the universe in a way that we can't describe, and it doesn't interact in any demonstrable way with reality...well what's the point of believing in it? And how, more importantly, do you get from this nameless entity to the god you believe in? That's the important part.
-->
@Bones
There is an infinite amount of knowledge that can be understoo
False. We live in a finite, occupied space Universe/God, that is complemented by a finite set of physical laws and cosmic principles.
Those who invoke infinite --other than Meta-space infinite, and the macro-infinite truly non-occupied space outside of God/Universe---, are:
1} ignorant, and/or,
2} lack logical critical thinking abilities. and/or,
2} seeking a way to keep others from finding relevant truths, order i.e. keep others in chaos mode, to avoid relevant truth, by always invoking infinite this, or that, thus, always allowing some irrelevant possibility that any thing they say may be true, within the context of their saying, their exists infinite possibility, even when logical critical thinking informs us, that, such broad range of infinities does not exist, never has existed and never will exist,
irrespective of how many times the child lays on the floor throwing a temper-tantrum yelling, no-no-no-no-no-no etc
I am an agnostic atheist, other combinations are valid as well.
You are either agnostic or atheist, you can't be both.
Agnostic is someone being unsure of a God.
Atheism is someone who is sure a God doesn't exist.
-->
@ludofl3x
It's completely uncompelling, though. If some nameless being in a dimension we can't confirm exists decided to somehow 'start' the universe in a way that we can't describe, and it doesn't interact in any demonstrable way with reality...well what's the point of believing in it? And how, more importantly, do you get from this nameless entity to the god you believe in? That's the important part.
We believe it because we have faith in that possibility. I'm not saying faith is a proof, but that is an answer to why. Just because you can't see something or its effect on you, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
We have never been able to see or prove that Dark Matter exists. But a lot of Atheists believe it is a thing.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
We believe it because we have faith in that possibility.
So, would another way to say it be that you believe it, because you believe it?
Just because you can't see something or its effect on you, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Almost think I agree here, as I can't see "gravity" or "time," but then I can demonstrate quite easily the existence of both. Given that your topic is "God exists and I can prove it" explicitly, can you demonstrate the effect of "small G god" in reality?
-->
@ludofl3x
Almost think I agree here, as I can't see "gravity" or "time," but then I can demonstrate quite easily the existence of both.
Fair point. But then again, you can see the effects of a God. The fact that we are here, is a demonstration of the existence of God. I encourage you to watch The Privileged Planet, it goes more into depth of how unlikely it is that random coincidences caused all of this to be precise enough for us to live in.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
The fact that we are here, is a demonstration of the existence of God.
How so, specifically? To me, the fact that we are here only demonstrates that we are here. Can you show me how that conclusively demonstrates a god exists? (Bonus: can you show me how it's your version and not, say, the Norse pantheon)
how unlikely it is that random coincidences caused all of this to be precise enough for us to live in.
This sounds like about five different fallacies. Argument from incredulity would be the lead here I think, but I'm not sure. In any case, the argument for a fine tuned universe isn't great when you consider the actual properties of the universe rather than the anthropic principle, which I also think is in here somewhere.
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
How do we know that dark matter exists?
But if we cannot see dark matter, how do scientists know it is there? The answer is gravity. Astronomers indirectly detect dark matter through its gravitational influences on stars and galaxies. Wherever normal matter resides, dark matter can be found lurking unseen by its side.
-->
@FLRW
That argument requires a level of understanding of gravitational theory that's pretty uncommon in order for it to be compelling, though, to be fair. I don't have it and while I wikipedia'd dark matter to see what it was about, I didn't bother with it because the proper explanation of the underlying theories takes too long and won't move anyone, besides it's immaterial to the OP. :)
-->
@YouFound_Lxam
.
YouFound_Lxam, that is vying to be the #1 Bible fool of this Religion Forum, where Miss Tradesecret will be sad,
Then very simply, show us the links in where you allegedly already addressed Matthew 15: 3-4 many times!!! WAITING!
DAY 1 RUNAWAY FROM THIS POST: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/361900
DAY 2 RUNAWAY FROM THIS POST: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/361968
DAY 3 RUNAWAY FROM THIS POST: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/362113
DAY 4 RUNAWAY FROM THIS POST: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/362262
DAY 5 RUNAWAY FROM THIS POST: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/8271/post-links/362335
DAY SIX!!!!!
NO RESPONSE YET FROM "YOUFOUND_LXAM" TO HIM PROVING THAT HE ADDRESSED SAID PASSAGE ABOVE LIKE HE SAID HE DID, OTHER THAN TO CONTINUALLY RUN AWAY FROM IT BECAUSE HE IS NOT A CHRISTIAN!
.
-->
@rosends
resends,
YOUR REVEALING QUOTE THAT SAYS YOUR SERIAL KILLER YAHWEH GOD DOESN'T EXIST FOR YOU ANYMORE: "The answer is "yes" so therefore, in the absence of all (100%) knowledge, God's existence can NOT be proven and the entire premise of this thread is flawed. Can we go home now?"
Rosey, you've been home on the farm at all times since you started to frequent this Religion Forum, so there is no need for you to go home to said farm. Therefore, at least you said that your brutal serial killer Yahweh god can't be proven to exist, where YOU are finally coming to terms in accepting the FACT that we Christians stole your Yahweh God from you in the New Testament as our Jesus! LOL!
Because of the religious FACT shown above, is this why your Hebrew cohorts "bang their heads upon Western Jewish Wailing Wall" in Jerusalem because they can't accept the FACT that they don't have a god anymore, as shown in the link below? LOL!
.
-->
@ludofl3x
The first type of evidence supporting the existence of dark matter has to do with the way dark matter affects the movement of celestial bodies. In our solar system, almost all of the mass is in the sun. The innermost planets like Mercury and Venus orbit the sun the fastest. As the distance from the sun increases, the speed at which planets move decreases. This is because there is less gravitational pull from the sun on planets farther out and, to keep from spiraling into or away from the sun, they must move slower. We can apply a similar analogy to galaxies. If we assume that the bright part of a galaxy shows where most of the mass is, then most of the mass is near the center, and at the dim edge of a galaxy there should not be much mass. Therefore, objects orbiting far from the center of the galaxy should move slower than objects closer to the center, just like the planets in our solar system.
To test this hypothesis, scientists recorded the incoming light from a distant spiral galaxy (our home galaxy, the Milky Way, is also considered a spiral galaxy) and plotted the velocities of the stars vs. their distances from the center of the galaxy. Scientists discovered that the stars were not behaving in the way anticipated. They found that the stars farther away from the center were moving much faster than predicted. The only way this is possible is if there is more mass in the outer parts of galaxies than we can observe. The fact that we are unable to see this mass, because it is not emitting light, suggests the presence of dark matter.
-->
@FLRW
The only way this is possible is if there is more mass in the outer parts of galaxies than we can observe. The fact that we are unable to see this mass, because it is not emitting light, suggests the presence of dark matter.
Again I know what you're saying, but a theist is very likely to respond to this the same way you or I might respond to the explanation for the unconventional behavior of the galaxies if it were posited thus:
Scientists discovered that the stars were not behaving in the way anticipated. They found that the stars farther away from the center were moving much faster than predicted. The only way this is possible is if there is more mass in the outer parts of galaxies than we can observe. The fact that we are unable to see this mass, because it is not emitting light, suggests the presence of god, holding it together via divine will.
If we can't see it and we don't have any way to really confirm it, we can only theorize about it, then I have to follow my conviction that the time to believe in something is when there's good evidence to support it, not before. For me, that means I can't say 'dark matter definitely exists.' Though the dark matter theories are supported by evidence, they are not in any way enough to change someone's pre-determined stance on the matter.
Also, please cite the source of your post, just to avoid the appearance of trying to be an authority on something. https://kids.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/frym.2021.576034
-->
@ludofl3x
Well, I did graduate from Harvard and MIT. My thinking is along the lines of Stephen Hawking.