I don't understand why people ask for a lock. How exactly is this thread being open detrimental to you? How will it be positive for you when closed? Like... literally: why do you care?
Was thinking about the example in video (When Jesus is on the cross and says something along the lines of "Forgive mankind for their sins."). Video good in general and Jauque is a very smart man but some arguments i already know the answer for, dissect it if you want.
4. Im not a moderator in this thread, and I dont exercise that power here. Which is why I dont intimidate anyone, or mind that any of our users here might insult me.
Wasn't there a little thread way back created by some highly intelligent individual located in off topic that was closed by you?
That's like saying C + + isn't intelligently designed because there are 77 septillion possible assortments of characters that won't compile correctly, and only a comparatively miniscule handful that will with the proper syntax.
The only thing I said which was "blatantly obvious" was that God does not care about the suffering of humans in the slightest, even if we're to believe he
exists.
Even though you were communicating that the "blatantly obvious" indifference lends itself to the notion of God's non-existence, I'll give you this one. So, it's just a hypothetical to illustrate that God's indifference isn't as "blatantly obvious" as you suppose.
haha, I was just asking for a lock before it gets outta control, if you read the past 80 post you can see the mood of the thread getting progressively worse and worse, soon it will turn into blatant insults.
Maybe because C + + was created to facilitate programming so that humans didn't have to bother with the cumbersome task of directly managing machine code. If C + + was invented by Arabs, it would use Arabic symbols instead of Latin-English characters. Instead of using "if", "for", "else", we could have used "tw", "pwi", "qosdut.];1234*drt".
There's no evidence supporting the existence of souls or afterlife, so souls and afterlife probably don't even exist.
We would have to know the lion's share of all there is to know for that probability to mean anything. It is folly to think our knowledge of creation is more than a drop in a bucket as big as a thousand suns.
Besides, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
Besides besides, how easy would it be for fallible ol' me to foster an ant farm in the basement with zero visible human contact if I so chose? Would it ever cross their ant minds that a sentient being was orchestrating their entire existence? Yet that would be the truth.
It's just like the absence of evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't the evidence of absence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Same goes for Leprechauns, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Mary Poppins, etc.
actually the operators of the largest Hydron Collider has said that it would be impossible for all of this to happen without some kind of mechanic to put it all in place.
It's just like the absence of evidence for the existence of the Flying
Spaghetti Monster isn't the evidence of absence of the Flying Spaghetti
Monster. Same goes for Leprechauns, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa
Claus, Mary Poppins, etc.
You're all too sure that none of those things exist.
We would have to know the lion's share of all there is to know for that probability to mean anything. It is folly to think our knowledge of creation is more than a drop in a bucket as big as a thousand suns.
It's just like the absence of evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't the evidence of absence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Same goes for Leprechauns, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Mary Poppins, etc.
It's just like the absence of evidence for the existence of the Flying
Spaghetti Monster isn't the evidence of absence of the Flying Spaghetti
Monster. Same goes for Leprechauns, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa
Claus, Mary Poppins, etc.
The reliability of your assertion that those things probably don't exist is equal to the ratio of what you know : all there is to know.
It's equal to the reliability of the assertion that gods, souls, afterlife exist.
Then you have never invoked the name of Jesus Christ in earnest. You should try it one time and see that you don't get immediate and tangible results, if you can muster the humility, courage, and strength of character. You have nothing to lose except your pride.
Already tried the experiment. I've also repeated the experiment with Ra, Krishna, Zemu, Cthulhu, Gaia, Zeus, ghosts, angels, saints, etc. No evidence supporting the existence of gods, souls, afterlife. It's not about courage, strength, or pride; it's about gathering evidence.
Already tried the experiment. I've also repeated the experiment with Ra,
Krishna, Zemu, Cthulhu, Gaia, Zeus, ghosts, angels, saints, etc. No
evidence supporting the existence of gods, souls, afterlife.
You're honestly so dense as to try Cthulhu? You just don't care is why your "experiments" didn't work.
To not bother testing Cthulhu would be dense. The experiments "didn't work" because those subjects probably don't exist.
Do you believe a tomato has the power to turn the night sky to a red color? How would you explain the tomato's lack of mouth, eyes, ears? One could say the all powerful tomato doesn't need mouth, eyes, ears. The tomato communicates through a higher plane. Humans lack the ability to communicate with the tomato.
And what of the cucumber and the yam?
And the cucumber sayeth, "Mighty Yamses, we are weary of building your food pyramid. Let my pickles go!"
I don't understand why people ask for a lock. How exactly is this thread being open detrimental to you? How will it be positive for you when closed? Like... literally: why do you care?
@EternalWraith: Go
Was thinking about the example in video (When Jesus is on the cross and says something along the lines of "Forgive mankind for their sins."). Video good in general and Jauque is a very smart man but some arguments i already know the answer for, dissect it if you want.
Wasn't there a little thread way back created by some highly intelligent individual located in off topic that was closed by you?
That's like saying C + + isn't intelligently designed because there are 77 septillion possible assortments of characters that won't compile correctly, and only a comparatively miniscule handful that will with the proper syntax.
Semantics. You say "excuse." I say "justification." I honestly gave you more credit than to pull this card. For shame!
Even though you were communicating that the "blatantly obvious" indifference lends itself to the notion of God's non-existence, I'll give you this one. So, it's just a hypothetical to illustrate that God's indifference isn't as "blatantly obvious" as you suppose.
@Mozared: Go
haha, I was just asking for a lock before it gets outta control, if you read the past 80 post you can see the mood of the thread getting progressively worse and worse, soon it will turn into blatant insults.
@SheogorathSC: Go
You mean this one?
I realize the setup was slightly different, but yeah - also curious to know why EW would look something like that but not this.
@Mozared: Go
Quite a few posts back, I did mention that religious people tend to be hypocrites...
@TheZizz: Go
Maybe because C + + was created to facilitate programming so that humans didn't have to bother with the cumbersome task of directly managing machine code. If C + + was invented by Arabs, it would use Arabic symbols instead of Latin-English characters. Instead of using "if", "for", "else", we could have used "tw", "pwi", "qosdut.];1234*drt".
We would have to know the lion's share of all there is to know for that probability to mean anything. It is folly to think our knowledge of creation is more than a drop in a bucket as big as a thousand suns.
Besides, absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence.
Besides besides, how easy would it be for fallible ol' me to foster an ant farm in the basement with zero visible human contact if I so chose? Would it ever cross their ant minds that a sentient being was orchestrating their entire existence? Yet that would be the truth.
@TheZizz: Go
It's just like the absence of evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't the evidence of absence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Same goes for Leprechauns, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Mary Poppins, etc.
@FDFederation: Go
actually the operators of the largest Hydron Collider has said that it would be impossible for all of this to happen without some kind of mechanic to put it all in place.
You're all too sure that none of those things exist.
Are you implying Santa isn't real?
@Taintedwisp: Go
Actually, no they didn't.
@TheZizz: Go
They probably do not exist.
@Doubleclick123: Go
What's your definition of "Santa Claus"?
We would have to know the lion's share of all there is to know for that probability to mean anything. It is folly to think our knowledge of creation is more than a drop in a bucket as big as a thousand suns.
@TheZizz: Go
It's just like the absence of evidence for the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster isn't the evidence of absence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. Same goes for Leprechauns, Tooth Fairy, Easter Bunny, Santa Claus, Mary Poppins, etc.
The reliability of your assertion that those things probably don't exist is equal to the ratio of what you know : all there is to know.
@TheZizz: Go
It's still greater than the reliability of the assertion that gods, souls, afterlife exist.
Then you have never invoked the name of Jesus Christ in earnest. You should try it one time and see that you don't get immediate and tangible results, if you can muster the humility, courage, and strength of character. You have nothing to lose except your pride.
@TheZizz: Go
Already tried the experiment. I've also repeated the experiment with Ra, Krishna, Zemu, Cthulhu, Gaia, Zeus, ghosts, angels, saints, etc. No evidence supporting the existence of gods, souls, afterlife. It's not about courage, strength, or pride; it's about gathering evidence.
You're honestly so dense as to try Cthulhu? You just don't care is why your "experiments" didn't work.
@TheZizz: Go
To not bother testing Cthulhu would be dense. The experiments "didn't work" because those subjects probably don't exist.
Do you believe a tomato has the power to turn the night sky to a red color? How would you explain the tomato's lack of mouth, eyes, ears? One could say the all powerful tomato doesn't need mouth, eyes, ears. The tomato communicates through a higher plane. Humans lack the ability to communicate with the tomato.
And what of the cucumber and the yam?
And the cucumber sayeth, "Mighty Yamses, we are weary of building your food pyramid. Let my pickles go!"