{{
`${userDetail.user.displayName}${userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode ? `#${standardizeBungieGlobalCode(userDetail.user.cachedBungieGlobalDisplayNameCode)}` : ""}`}}
{{getUserClans()}}
9/11/2015 2:00:40 PM
14
-
Said because you can't think of an argument that proves God...good job.
-
Edited by VII: 9/11/2015 2:35:53 PMPurse stated that arguments like [quote]Science can't explain X, therefore God is real[/quote] aren't valid arguments; and this is true. But nowhere did he say that the opposite statement[quote]Science [i]can[/i] explain X, therefore God [i]isn't[/i] real[/quote]is also an illegitimate argument
-
See there's the difference though . If science says something is expanding the universe at an accelerating rate but we don't know what yet.... And a religious person counters that the thing accelerating the universe must be God. Then simply God because an answer to questions we can't 'CURRENTLY' answer. It becomes the God of the gaps an all powerful being we invoke in areas we currently can't explain which recedes once we do understand the process behind the acceleration and so on with the next mystery until that's answered and so on and so on infinatum. Basically God is a forever receding pocket of ignorance/lack of knowledge and becomes nothing more then an excuse until the answer is found.
-
Edited by VII: 9/11/2015 3:05:58 PM[quote]Basically God is a forever receding pocket of ignorance/lack of knowledge and becomes nothing more then an excuse until the answer is found.[/quote] this statement cannot be proven or disproven, which goes back exactly to what I getting at. people cannot prove God is real, but they can't prove he isn't real either. your very long-winded post has done little to combat what I said, what you stated is nothing but a biased idea
-
An opinion for or against in any debate is biased as one argues for the other against only sconce provides facts to back up its claims with research,data,collaboration,testable theories and proof. Religion however does not.
-
*shakes head* *leaves argument*
-
I wasn't arguing.
-
Edited by Anti noise: 9/11/2015 2:08:45 PMActually modal logic proved Gods existence over 40 years ago. This was proven by Gödel's ontological proof. It has now been tested and proven further with the use of a super computer by two scientists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proof http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html
-
Axiom 3 assumes the existence of God, by forcing any model of the logic to feature a god-like entity. The proof therefore assumes god and is vacuous.
-
Sorry but no of God had been proven to exist then everyone would have heard about it. Also proving the existence of a higher power does not = the proof of the abrahamic God it would just as likely prove Vishnu,the Olympians,insert pantheon/monotheistic God here.
-
Actually modal logic proved Gods existence over 40 years ago. This was proven by Gödel's ontological proofIt has now been tested and proven further with the use of a super computer by two scientists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/G%C3%B6del's_ontological_proof http://www.spiegel.de/international/germany/scientists-use-computer-to-mathematically-prove-goedel-god-theorem-a-928668.html
-
Axiom 3 assumes the existence of God, by forcing any model of the logic to feature a god-like entity. The proof therefore assumes god and is vacuous.
-
Sh I see you are spamming as you are unable to argue your apparent point.
-
I don't need to, it has been proven.
