Gnosticism
-
It is no wonder that you believe in fantasy and delusions as truth. Nobody in their right mind would accept the existence of atoms unless somebody comes up with the proof thereof.Originally posted by Icemoon:Even the flintstones could see big things are made up of smaller things, so no, this is not even a proof.
Their idea of atom was the smallest indivisible unit of mater. Very small and indivisible. This they cannot prove. And they weren't taken seriously 'cos they had no proof! Just like casino_king liddat .. you don't take God seriously 'cos you claim theists have no proof!
It is so simple, I accept the existence of whales because I am given all the evidence of the existence of whales. I do not accept the existence of God because those who believe in God cannot show me the evidence like the evidence for the existence of whales. Yet I am asked to "talk" to this imaginary being and revolve my life around it as if it existed. -
For somebody who is stupid enough to suggest that a time machine can be built is not stupid enough to imagine a time machine as big as a space craft? OMGOriginally posted by Icemoon:No .. I can't. Do you know how heavy is an electron microscope? The time machine cannot tahan lah. And not all time machines are literally 'machines'. Some are just time portals where you jump into a hole in space and presto!
The point becomes stupidier 'cos the person whom I'm trying to convince is even more dense.
-
And I suppose that to prove the existence of imaginary beings, the only way is to provide imaginary evidence?Originally posted by Chin Eng:As I had said all along.... no point lah...
And I think I've said this before: the issue is not whether is evidence or not, but what one constitute as evidence. -
Not really. It really depends on how you view these:
This is warped when you try to argue for a benevolent God.
Actually the problem of suffering is part of the problem of evil. Well, they go hand in hand in whacking the theist position.
1.Who caused evil(suffering)?
2. Whether all suffering is evil
3. Evil(suffering) exists therefore God does not
He said he only belives if there are witness, colloborating evidence etc,
Well .. but he has yet to see your proof of God. Me too. So we dunno what you're up to.
I know of at least 2 billion people who will profess belief in God(isn't this considered as colloborating evidence) .
Of course, I'm not expecting any atheist to see things this way.
My response was the typical atheist response in reverse.He won't accept this position. He wants God to be as evident as the whale in documentaries, books and photographs.
Which is why I stated for and of God.
And anyway he has yet to show his proofs why God does not exist apart from these:
1. God does not exist because there are no proofs(I'll be happy to dispute this once you have got logical arguments in order)
Don't just keep telling us there are no proofs, show us the proofs for the non-existance.
2.I think God does not exist therefore God does not exist(This can't be helped )
My whole point of contention has been, his religious belief that atheism is based upon 'facts'.
Allow me to help you get started, here are the 13 basic atheist fundamental proofs why God cannot exist:
Proof 1: The theodice problem
Proof 2: Heisenberg's uncertainty principle
Proof 3: The ontological evidence
Proof 4: Occam's razor
Proof 5: Some things are impossible to do
Proof 6: God's omniscience restricts His free will
Proof 7: God cannot be almighty and allow free will simultaneously
Proof 8: God must be created so why does the universe need a Creator
Proof 9: If God created time and space, he must live outside of time and space. Thus he is non-existent.
Proof 10: God has never contacted me. He must not exist.
Proof 11: God cannot be involved in our universe if He stands above our time dimension
Proof 12: If God existed, prayer would have already changed the world into the best possible world.
Proof13: Only things that can be sensed with the five senses are meaningful to discus. Therefore, all discussion about God is meaningless.
You choose which one you want to discuss or any sub arguments related to the above. -
In ancient TAO, there is a saying that you cannot "see" the wind, but you and "feel" it. You need "air" to breathe, but yet you cannot see it around you.Originally posted by casino_king:It is no wonder that you believe in fantasy and delusions as truth. Nobody in their right mind would accept the existence of atoms unless somebody comes up with the proof thereof.
It is so simple, I accept the existence of whales because I am given all the evidence of the existence of whales. I do not accept the existence of God because those who believe in God cannot show me the evidence like the evidence for the existence of whales. Yet I am asked to "talk" to this imaginary being and revolve my life around it as if it existed.
These also applies to electroncs etc in olden days, and certainly applies to the existence of GOD.
-
But since there were no proofs for atoms 2000 years ago, does it mean they don't exist then? I think you have yet to answer this question.Originally posted by casino_king:It is no wonder that you believe in fantasy and delusions as truth. Nobody in their right mind would accept the existence of atoms unless somebody comes up with the proof thereof.
It is so simple, I accept the existence of whales because I am given all the evidence of the existence of whales. I do not accept the existence of God because those who believe in God cannot show me the evidence like the evidence for the existence of whales. Yet I am asked to "talk" to this imaginary being and revolve my life around it as if it existed. -
I'm much more creative than you.Originally posted by casino_king:For somebody who is stupid enough to suggest that a time machine can be built is not stupid enough to imagine a time machine as big as a space craft? OMG
You're still stuck in the time machine as spacecraft version.
I already progressed to the time portal in Xun Qin Ji (A Step into the Past) liao. -
Guess where does this come from?Originally posted by nightzip:In ancient TAO, there is a saying that you cannot "see" the wind, but you and "feel" it. You need "air" to breathe, but yet you cannot see it around you.
These also applies to electroncs etc in olden days, and certainly applies to the existence of GOD. 
-
You start a new topic lah.Originally posted by plo30360:You choose which one you want to discuss or any sub arguments related to the above.
Then let everyone whack you left right up down.
Wait .. I must find SIS back first. -
at the end of the day, anything one does not accept can be deemed as imaginary....Originally posted by casino_king:And I suppose that to prove the existence of imaginary beings, the only way is to provide imaginary evidence?
if I look at the skies and believe that a creator god made all these, am I imagining a creator god?
note I am not even talking about the Christian God.... I am merely speaking that beyond science, there is realm that science cannot explain. If you cannot acknowledge that there is a the realm of supernatural then there is nothing else to talk about.
So let's stop wasting each other's time and get on with some constructive in our separate paths. -
You are looking from hindsight. I already answered your question in 2 ways:Originally posted by Icemoon:But since there were no proofs for atoms 2000 years ago, does it mean they don't exist then? I think you have yet to answer this question.
1. The concept of the atom 2000 years ago is not the same concept of the atom like what we have now. Their concept of the atom is not "real." Get it???? How one who can write seemingly proper sentences but cannot understand such simple logic is beyond me.
2. In fact we say that the atom is this and that based on the evidence and proof presented so far.... so far, mind you. If some brilliant chap sometime in the future can come up with a an atom that is slightly different from our concenpt of the atom then we can say that our concept of the atom was not "real." Just like based on the evidence and proofs Newton provided, we say that Gravity is this and that. Einstein came along and said.... hey wait a minute... now we have a "better" concept of gravity; a "more" "real" concept of gravity.
3. I have tried to introduce you to the idea that there are things that the human mind has not conceived of yet... but I guess that would be too much for you since even basic stuff like what constitutes reality is lost on you. -
So you are suggesting that God is an inanimate object like that wind? Incapable of showing himself even though you claim that it is Omni this and Omni that? You are blaspheming your own God.Originally posted by nightzip:In ancient TAO, there is a saying that you cannot "see" the wind, but you and "feel" it. You need "air" to breathe, but yet you cannot see it around you.
These also applies to electroncs etc in olden days, and certainly applies to the existence of GOD. -
I have put it so simply to you- show me proof of God's existence like the proof people produce for the existence of whales... what is so difficult to understand about that? Of course it is imaginary if you say something exists that is Omni this and Omni that but is hiding in a place worse than Saddam Hussein in his hole....Originally posted by Chin Eng:at the end of the day, anything one does not accept can be deemed as imaginary....
if I look at the skies and believe that a creator god made all these, am I imagining a creator god?
note I am not even talking about the Christian God.... I am merely speaking that beyond science, there is realm that science cannot explain. If you cannot acknowledge that there is a the realm of supernatural then there is nothing else to talk about.
So let's stop wasting each other's time and get on with some constructive in our separate paths. -
I am trying to bring you people so called believers to a higher reality and deeper understanding of what exactly you are believing. If I make you stumble and leave the church, so be it you are not worthy....
-
So what is the concept of atom we have now? isn't it the smallest indivisible part of matter that is unique?Originally posted by casino_king:1. The concept of the atom 2000 years ago is not the same concept of the atom like what we have now. Their concept of the atom is not "real." Get it???? How one who can write seemingly proper sentences but cannot understand such simple logic is beyond me.
Don't give me the crap there are electrons and neutrons in the atoms. This is not important at all. The fact that atoms are the smallest indivisible part of matter that is unique still stands even if there are no electrons and neutrons but only protons (dun ask me how the atom can remain neutral this way), simply because all your protons and electrons and neutrons are not unique!2. In fact we say that the atom is this and that based on the evidence and proof presented so far.... so far, mind you. If some brilliant chap sometime in the future can come up with a an atom that is slightly different from our concenpt of the atom then we can say that our concept of the atom was not "real." Just like based on the evidence and proofs Newton provided, we say that Gravity is this and that. Einstein came along and said.... hey wait a minute... now we have a "better" concept of gravity; a "more" "real" concept of gravity.
So what is your position? Gravity also not real? So nothing is real to you? So you have no evidence of gravity also?
Then forget about your whale lah. I can dispute that is not a whale but a giant fish.
Of course God may turn out to be an alien after all.3. I have tried to introduce you to the idea that there are things that the human mind has not conceived of yet... but I guess that would be too much for you since even basic stuff like what constitutes reality is lost on you.
.. like God? 'cos God who is infinite cannot be comprehended by our finite minds. (I quote this from vince) -
but whales and supernatural beings belong to different class of objects. You cannot use the same type of proofing on both of them.Originally posted by casino_king:I have put it so simply to you- show me proof of God's existence like the proof people produce for the existence of whales... what is so difficult to understand about that? Of course it is imaginary if you say something exists that is Omni this and Omni that but is hiding in a place worse than Saddam Hussein in his hole....
Surprisingly for someone who sort of understand how science works, he can't understand the limitations of empirical proofs. What a pity. I think he still need to improve on his thinking and stop been so naive. -
If casino king, or anyone else for that matter, wants empirical proof of God, then please invent a time machine yourself and go back to 33 AD.
Witness the crucification of Christ.
Then see the risen Christ pass through walls.
Guarantee you will shout - "My Lord and my God!" -
your efforts are indeed relentless. but please have mercy on us. you can continue to live on that "higher reality" for all we care.Originally posted by casino_king:I am trying to bring you people so called believers to a higher reality and deeper understanding of what exactly you are believing. If I make you stumble and leave the church, so be it you are not worthy....
and try not to think too much. i am quite certain nobody stumbled because of your illogical and prideful ramblings. On the contrary, thanks to your ever prideful statements of self-existence, you have affirmed in me, what God warns us about the end times.
xie xie !
-
of course, casino king should not forget the lessons from "Raiders of the Lost Ark".
When the Holy Spirit (?) comes out of the Ark, better close your eyes like Indiana Jones. -
Actually you are quite right you know?Originally posted by casino_king:So you are suggesting that God is an inanimate object like that wind? Incapable of showing himself even though you claim that it is Omni this and Omni that? You are blaspheming your own God.
In Genesis, some translation actually wrote "the wind of God hovered above the water". IMHO, this translation should be closer to the Herbew original.
God did show Himself. God was in the flesh in the person of Jesus Christ. He also revealed Himself in various form to the different prophets. So He is definitely not incapable of showing Himself.
According to the New Testament, the next time Jesus show Himself (above the clouds?) mean something bad is gonna happen. -
So convenient... suddenly all the claims of God amounts to nothing and is only a supernatural being? No longer Omni this and that? No longer able to show itself to man? Can only appear once 2000 years ago and then disappear and play hide and seek? Can only exists in people's imagination? Right... sucker...Originally posted by Icemoon:but whales and supernatural beings belong to different class of objects. You cannot use the same type of proofing on both of them.
Surprisingly for someone who sort of understand how science works, he can't understand the limitations of empirical proofs. What a pity. I think he still need to improve on his thinking and stop been so naive. -
Such blatant stupidity... no wonder you can be such a sucker... if you can show proof that the whale is a fish... you can win the next nobel prize... but a whale is a fish? Such mindboggling stupidity.Originally posted by Icemoon:Then forget about your whale lah. I can dispute that is not a whale but a giant fish. -
Huh? God was all along a supernatural being! Which Christian tells you He isn't?Originally posted by casino_king:So convenient... suddenly all the claims of God amounts to nothing and is only a supernatural being? No longer Omni this and that? No longer able to show itself to man? Can only appear once 2000 years ago and then disappear and play hide and seek? Can only exists in people's imagination? Right... sucker...
No-one is saying he no longer omni this and omni that.
God is not playing hide and seek. After Jesus ascended into heaven and sit at the right hand of God, God did send His Holy Spirit to mankind.
God never promise to suka suka "show Himself". However the New Testament tells us the next time Jesus show Himself, something bad is gonna happen (to you, at least).
So if you dunno theology pls dun anyhow demand claims. -
well .. when Copernicus came out with his heliocentric theory, people also thought that was mindboggling stupid and heretical. Stupid because common sense tells you the sun rises and sets around the Earth.Originally posted by casino_king:Such blatant stupidity... no wonder you can be such a sucker... if you can show proof that the whale is a fish... you can win the next nobel prize... but a whale is a fish? Such mindboggling stupidity.
Well .. I might be able to show a whale is a fish .. very simple .. I just regroup the taxamony (sp?) only mah.
By the way, I am rather motivated by someone's comments earlier on. Spur me on further research in marine science:In fact we say that the atom is this and that based on the evidence and proof presented so far.... so far, mind you. If some brilliant chap sometime in the future can come up with a an atom that is slightly different from our concenpt of the atom then we can say that our concept of the atom was not "real."
Oh well .. I need to show our whales now are not "real". -
So convenient only suckers can accept such nonsense.. ask you to show proof like show proof that whales exists; give all sort of excuses... if you have no proof, just say so and if you like to live in a world of delusion instead of reality, just go ahead, there are so many suckers like you after all.... it is a good thing that the majority are are not.Originally posted by Icemoon:Huh? God was all along a supernatural being! Which Christian tells you He isn't?
No-one is saying he no longer omni this and omni that.
God is not playing hide and seek. After Jesus ascended into heaven and sit at the right hand of God, God did send His Holy Spirit to mankind.
God never promise to suka suka "show Himself". However the New Testament tells us the next time Jesus show Himself, something bad is gonna happen (to you, at least).
So if you dunno theology pls dun anyhow demand claims.