- Jesus__ChristDear Christians,314454
Why do you guys keep using arguments and theories that does not even prove god's existence? You guys are embarrassing yourselves. Please stop!
Don't be like my fellow christian Gangstar41145 here ...using an argument known as the simulation argument to prove my dad's existence. By the way, gangstar's thread can be found here:
http://forums.asiantown.net/topic.aspx?id=298340&c=28
But after Mr. Raging_Demon pointed out all the flaws in the argument, gangstar quickly realized his argument does nothing to prove god's existence and deleted Mr. Raging_Demon's comments to save himself from humiliation.
However, Raging_Demon "miraculously" recovered the deleted comments and re-posted it in a new thread that can be found here:
http://forums.asiantown.net/topic.aspx?id=313834&c=28
How EMBARRASSING for Mr. Gangstar41145.
So I advise all my fellow Christians to save yourself the embarrassment and stop trying to prove god's existence. I mean think about it... I am Jesus Christ (Son of God) and I can't even prove god's existence.
Heck, I can't even prove my own existence.
So what makes you think you can??? - Moua_559LMAO!!!!!!!61565450
- Yeng27I'll play. Geez "Jesus Christ" where have you been?61566060
I was wondering if you were Jesus Christ..I may have missed you.
UPS me 10M...ty. - Yeng27I believe Raging_Demon was loosing in our argument. He even agree to the definition of God, being space-less, time-less, transcendent etc. When he was attempting to be "God"... he has giving up his atheism.61566079
Therefore, to continue denying God is dishonest.
In other words, if he share the supernatural power as God, then how can he deny the supernatural..being God. Naw mean? - Yeng27Please atheists, do not embarrassed us. You're just making a fool out of yourself.61566086
- choua01Says the trolls who calls himself Jesus Christ.61566089
- DreamerL61566095
there are things you can only see with your heart, seeing isn't always believing, its believing that's seeing
- IMMEGod/Jesus/Mary..... even if they do not exist... at least they give hope to the hopelesss61566109
- RAGING_DEMON61567634Superman26 wrote:Me? Pretending to be god? Agreeing to the definition of god? You are seriously a delusional retard and definitely do NOT have the brains to see what I was doing.
I believe Raging_Demon was loosing in our argument. He even agree to the definition of God, being space-less, time-less, transcendent etc. When he was attempting to be "God"... he has giving up his atheism.
Therefore, to continue denying God is dishonest.
In other words, if he share the supernatural power as God, then how can he deny the supernatural..being God. Naw mean?
You simply made claims about god's description being space-less, time-less, transcendent, etc. ...WITHOUT PROOF!
I simply did it to show you that ANYONE can make the same claims as you did.
FYI: making claims about a being having space-less, time-less, transcendent attributes DOES NOT PROVE SH!T YOU FUKEN RETARD!!!
You need to prove that these attributes are real, but that is something YOU CONSISTENTLY FAILED TO DO. And you still have NOT been able to prove it to this very day.
Therefore, your attempt to prove god's existence FAILED!!!
In other words, I was nowhere near losing an argument to your retarded ass. - Linskees161567637RAGING_DEMON wrote:damn you're always raging. do you rage like this in real life?
Me? Pretending to be god? Agreeing to the definition of god? You are seriously a delusional retard and definitely do NOT have the brains to see what I was doing.
You simply made claims about god's description being space-less, time-less, transcendent, etc. ...WITHOUT PROOF!
I simply did it to show you that ANYONE can make the same claims as you did.
FYI: making claims about a being having space-less, time-less, transcendent attributes DOES NOT PROVE SH!T YOU FUKEN RETARD!!!
You need to prove that these attributes are real, but that is something YOU CONSISTENTLY FAILED TO DO. And you still have NOT been able to prove it to this very day.
Therefore, your attempt to prove god's existence FAILED!!!
In other words, I was nowhere near losing an argument to your retarded ass. - Yeng2761567942RAGING_DEMON wrote:Here's what I said:
Me? Pretending to be god? Agreeing to the definition of god? You are seriously a delusional retard and definitely do NOT have the brains to see what I was doing.
You simply made claims about god's description being space-less, time-less, transcendent, etc. ...WITHOUT PROOF!Superman26 wrote:Therefore, the argument for a space-less, time-less, immaterial, as the cause of the universe is valid.
The argument for God is well supported by the more established view of the universe ( i.e. the universe began with a "Big Bang")
Those premises of the Cosmological Argument are actually logical deductions. Each "claims" are an argument by itself, with the premise for each that lead to the conclusion being space-less, time-less, immaterial, etc, as cause of the universe.
Thus, the only possible being that could fit these descriptions on that level would be God.quote:No you missed the point idiot. That's not how it worked. I gave you the premises for the argument, so the only way for you to deny that God exist is to deny one of the premises. You didn't deny any of them. So logically speaking you conceded the argument retard.quote: FYI: making claims about a being having space-less, time-less, transcendent attributes DOES NOT PROVE SH!T YOU FUKEN RETARD!!!
quote:Yes they are real. There was no space and time at the cause event. If the universe has a cause, then it follows logically that the cause is space-less and time-less. In other words, the cause is without space and time.You need to prove that these attributes are real, but that is something YOU CONSISTENTLY FAILED TO DO. And you still have NOT been able to prove it to this very day.
Think about it for a minute. If the cause was in time, then it only begs the question, that would only be presupposing materialism in order to account for material but that didn't explain the material it first started with.quote:How so? You didn't refute any of the premises in the argument. If anything, it is you that failed. You failed according to your own claim not mine.Therefore, your attempt to prove god's existence FAILED!!!
quote:The problem you had was that when you posit a deity you've already forfeit atheism. Do you not see this?In other words, I was nowhere near losing an argument to your retarded ass.
Seriously, are you this slow? It doesn't matter if you're trying to prove your point to me by doing this or not, because the moment you take on these attributes, you've taken on the theist view, and therefore, you made a just cop out arguing for theism.
If you claim to share the same supernatural as God, then how can you deny the supernatural? - Moua_559yo jesus.... you ever jack off?61570573
- RAGING_DEMON61572003Superman26 wrote:All you're doing is making "assumptions" and pointing out "possibilities".
Here's what I said:
Therefore, the argument for a space-less, time-less, immaterial, as the cause of the universe is valid.
Thus, the only possible being that could fit these descriptions on that level would be God.No you missed the point idiot. That's not how it worked. I gave you the premises for the argument, so the only way for you to deny that God exist is to deny one of the premises. You didn't deny any of them. So logically speaking you conceded the argument retard.
Yes they are real. There was no space and time at the cause event. If the universe has a cause, then it follows logically that the cause is space-less and time-less. In other words, the cause is without space and time.
Think about it for a minute. If the cause was in time, then it only begs the question, that would only be presupposing materialism in order to account for material but that didn't explain the material it first started with.
How so? You didn't refute any of the premises in the argument. If anything, it is you that failed. You failed according to your own claim not mine.
The problem you had was that when you posit a deity you've already forfeit atheism. Do you not see this?
Seriously, are you this slow? It doesn't matter if you're trying to prove your point to me by doing this or not, because the moment you take on these attributes, you've taken on the theist view, and therefore, you made a just cop out arguing for theism.
If you claim to share the same supernatural as God, then how can you deny the supernatural?
"ASSUMPTIONS" and "POSSIBILITIES" does NOT prove SH!T. RETARD!!!
However, I'll repeat what I've previously stated (cause I know it takes trillions of repetitions for a retard like you to finally understand something):
You simply made claims about god's description being space-less, time-less, transcendent, etc. ...WITHOUT PROOF!
ANYONE can make the same claims as you did ...and again, making claims about a being having space-less, time-less, transcendent attributes DOES NOT PROVE SH!T!!!
But talk is cheap. So let's get to the bottom of this RIGHT NOW...
Have your god come down to earth and prove to us that his attributes/abilities are real... have him create a mini-universe right in front of our very eyes.
And yes, I'm talking about the best form of proof here... DEMONSTRATION!!! (Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof.)
It's now time to put up or shut up!!! - RAGING_DEMONYes, I rage in real life as well ...when I'm in bed ...with women.61572004
- Yeng2761572229RAGING_DEMON wrote:The Cosmological Argument for God's existence is more of an evidential apologetic (reasons and arguments are given in the premises) rather than straight presupposition. It's one facet of an argument supported by both scientific and philosophical evidence. But everything then is going to boil down to at least what each of us believes in.
All you're doing is making "assumptions" and pointing out "possibilities".
"ASSUMPTIONS" and "POSSIBILITIES" does NOT prove SH!T. RETARD!!!
However, I'll repeat what I've previously stated (cause I know it takes trillions of repetitions for a retard like you to finally understand something):
You simply made claims about god's description being space-less, time-less, transcendent, etc. ...WITHOUT PROOF!
ANYONE can make the same claims as you did ...and again, making claims about a being having space-less, time-less, transcendent attributes DOES NOT PROVE SH!T!!!
But talk is cheap. So let's get to the bottom of this RIGHT NOW...
Also, you're misrepresenting the argument. The Cosmological Argument is a logical deduction, God is not assume in any of the premises. If the premises are sound, then it logically follows that God exist is a valid argument, whether you like it or not.
If the argument cannot be made about God and the supernatural since it's just 'assumptions' then your entire argument against God and the supernatural is self-refuting.
Even the atheist like you cant get away from doing the same thing.
The logic in the argument is self-authenticating. In the end it's either God or it isn't. It's a dichotomy in fact.
(1) For any true proposition p, if p, then there is a proposition q such that q explain p.
(2) If there are logical laws (L1....Ln), then they are necessarily true propositions.
(3) If logical laws (L1...Ln) are necessarily true propositions, then L1....Ln have explanations.
(5) Therefore, God explains the logical laws. The impossibility of the contrary.
Wanna debate logic since you keep saying 'assumptions', do you even know what logic is and how to account for it's validity in the atheistic worldview? You cannot. The Christian worldview can. :)quote:He did... about 6,000 years ago. How do you expect the world got here?Have your god come down to earth and prove to us that his attributes/abilities are real... have him create a mini-universe right in front of our very eyes. And yes, I'm talking about the best form of proof here... DEMONSTRATION!!! (Extraordinary claims, require extraordinary proof.) It's now time to put up or shut up!!!
The bible say there was a global flood about 4500 BC, may have occurred long before the biblical account was written, but have you ever wonder why various cultures of that time recorded their own flood in their history too? What's the rationale behind this?
Did you know that before Buddhism and Lao Tzu and all these prominent religions in China all the emperors believe in One God? Study the temple in Beijing why do they built it there? I think there is some level of truth in all religions.. based on the fact that God spoke on some level to everyone. - DADOO__lmfao this is funny :O61572230Oh wells Raging demon is a raging troll :P
- Yeng27Bump61573321
- RAGING_DEMON61575899Superman26 wrote:I see that you're still making "assumptions" and pointing out "possibilities". Again... "ASSUMPTIONS" and "POSSIBILITIES" does NOT prove SH!T. RETARD!!!
The Cosmological Argument for God's existence is more of an evidential apologetic (reasons and arguments are given in the premises) rather than straight presupposition. It's one facet of an argument supported by both scientific and philosophical evidence. But everything then is going to boil down to at least what each of us believes in.
Also, you're misrepresenting the argument. The Cosmological Argument is a logical deduction, God is not assume in any of the premises. If the premises are sound, then it logically follows that God exist is a valid argument, whether you like it or not.
If the argument cannot be made about God and the supernatural since it's just 'assumptions' then your entire argument against God and the supernatural is self-refuting.
Even the atheist like you cant get away from doing the same thing.
The logic in the argument is self-authenticating. In the end it's either God or it isn't. It's a dichotomy in fact.
(1) For any true proposition p, if p, then there is a proposition q such that q explain p.
(2) If there are logical laws (L1....Ln), then they are necessarily true propositions.
(3) If logical laws (L1...Ln) are necessarily true propositions, then L1....Ln have explanations.
(5) Therefore, God explains the logical laws. The impossibility of the contrary.
Wanna debate logic since you keep saying 'assumptions', do you even know what logic is and how to account for it's validity in the atheistic worldview? You cannot. The Christian worldview can. :)
He did... about 6,000 years ago. How do you expect the world got here?
The bible say there was a global flood about 4500 BC, may have occurred long before the biblical account was written, but have you ever wonder why various cultures of that time recorded their own flood in their history too? What's the rationale behind this?
Did you know that before Buddhism and Lao Tzu and all these prominent religions in China all the emperors believe in One God? Study the temple in Beijing why do they built it there? I think there is some level of truth in all religions.. based on the fact that God spoke on some level to everyone.
And "He did it 6,000 years ago" is NOWHERE near being a form of proof. Furthermore, everything the bible says are just a bunch of claims.
Do you still not know the difference between "CLAIMS" and "PROOF"???
But I've already said it's time to put up or shut up!!! Now where's the DEMONSTRATION of proof???[ Edited by RAGING_DEMON on 7/11/2013 11:32:40 PM ]
- Yeng2761576102RAGING_DEMON wrote:You're still too slow to understand what a logical deduction is. This proves you know **** about logic.
I see that you're still making "assumptions" and pointing out "possibilities". Again... "ASSUMPTIONS" and "POSSIBILITIES" does NOT prove SH!T. RETARD!!!
And "He did it 6,000 years ago" is NOWHERE near being a form of proof. Furthermore, everything the bible says are just a bunch of claims.
Do you still not know the difference between "CLAIMS" and "PROOF"???
But I've already said it's time to put up or shut up!!! Now where's the DEMONSTRATION of proof???
Again, the argument does not assume God exists, but rather the conclusion follows logically if both the given premises are true..and it does. You're denial is very obvious.
If the argument cannot be made about God and the supernatural, then your entire argument is self-refuting. In other words, your entire comment is useless.
That would make everything you said as well as a claim. You claim that I claim. Thus, your entire argument cannot be sustained.
Do you see now that you don't understand logic.. you're not even consistent anymore.
I, on the other hand, is very logically consistent, given that if both premises are true, then the conclusion follows logically by the rules of logical inference. Thus, God exist!
Anyways, the bible is very accurate and adds weighs to the Christian position. God made everything in 6,000 years as it says in Genesis. The days in Genesis are 24 hours just like today. There's no evidence in the bible that these days are long periods. These long periods are added to accommodate science to try to fit the millions of years into the bible.
There's a lot of scientific evidence for a young earth but I won't get into this right now cuz I know it'll just confused you more. The old earth view is just purely assumptions. Tree ring datings and all that, are not even an accurate science. The 'scientific' calibrating methods involves the same principle, by compare C-14 dating with tree-rings, they assume each rings are an exact year representation. If a tree could grow fully in weeks complete with rings, then each ring is not a year. The year is merely how long it take for trees to grow in the present state. It's assuming that our present laws existed. Scientists do not know that they did, and since they do not know, then fawk all their scientific methods cuz they're just crap. - Linskees1i worship the marvel superheros, not jesus!61576103