Lord Logic...

nef2442 Says:

Nov 1, 2009 - The only difference with your belief and a Christian's belief is that Christians have answers. You however are stuck in the dark and on the slippery slope of nihilism. Because everyone is forced to fathom origins. And your "causes" are as "uncaused" as any, once extrapolated.

Mick0722MX Says:

Nov 2, 2009 - "Science tells us that its a cause without a cause, and you believe this." Open a dictionary and learn the difference between 'scientific law' and 'belief'. Then MAYBE you will see why that accepting the 1st Law of Thermodynamics does not require belief since it is a fact.

Mick0722MX Says:

Nov 2, 2009 - Since this statement proves that you have absolutely no knowledge of science at all shows me that you have no business arguing a subject you know nothing about.

nef2442 Says:

Nov 3, 2009 - Im not the only person quoting "thermodynamics" but I'm used to the liberal tactic of a non-reply, by replying that, "you have no knowledge of science." Sir Isaac Newton was a Creationist along with legions of acclaimed scientists. Would you would reply to Newton and other scientists with the same non-reply? You would! The moment a person does not share your worldview, then he does not know what he is talking about! Great Logic!!!!!

nef2442 Says:

Nov 3, 2009 - Oh scientific law and belief are different....ohhhhhhh......I didn't know that oooohhhhhh..... Now i get it..... Yeah right!!!! A scientific law yesterday is a fable today, for example, The theory of Eugenics was a very much prided and published theory. Laws in various states are still in implementation (not in use) but neither have they been rescinded. Now scientists abhor eugenics, what happened? A theory excepted by all is now a theory excepted by none! Years of BELIEF....

nef2442 Says:

Nov 3, 2009 - "How many things were articles of faith to us yesterday, which are fables to us today?" (Michel De Montaigne). The big bang is a belief system, nobody can prove it. You have to believe in it in order to except it as a scientific explanation. I'll give you another example, "primordial soup" is no longer in vogue with Darwinists. First it was a scientific fact and now its been removed from the books. Woolly Mammoths used to be millions of years old, now only 3 thousand...etc etc....

Mick0722MX Says:

Nov 3, 2009 - That has absolutely nothing to do with what I was saying.

Mick0722MX Says:

Nov 3, 2009 - Ummmm I believe you just abolished your own argument by stating that Eugenics was theoretical. You're right, it was theoretical and was eliminated. Theory does not equal scientific law. You are proving further that you have no idea what you're talking about.

Mick0722MX Says:

Nov 4, 2009 - No, the Big Bang is theoretical. Look up the word theory. You obviously don't know what it means. Evolutionary theory lies within the mechanism. Evolutionary fact lies within what's been observed. Again, you have no idea what you're talking about. Don't quit your day job

nef2442 Says:

Nov 4, 2009 - "theory does not equal scientific law." If I were you I'd get a day job!!! Gravity is a law, but we understand and explain it through a theory. It is both!

Mick0722MX Says:

Nov 5, 2009 - No kidding. Would you care to tell me something I don't already know?

nef2442 Says:

Nov 5, 2009 - "theory does not equal scientific law." Your words not mine! I'd suggest you hit up Monster. c o m and get that day job!

Mick0722MX Says:

Nov 6, 2009 - Yes, those were my words because I have a full understanding of the concepts. You obviously don't.

wonderouswonderloo Says:

Nov 7, 2009 - Asking "why" to pseudo-logical arguments don't necessitate the existence of valid counter-logic or 'correction' of pseudo logic. A logical proposition is proven biased when counter-logic is profound with tangible evidences or multiple instances of certainty.

wonderouswonderloo Says:

Nov 7, 2009 - Showing that there exists no reason for God to exist does not mean it is proven God does not exist. That would mean saying the universe does not exist because the innumerable physical systems and variations of universal truths have no reason to being from some sort of a dimensionless infinite-hyperspace to begin with.

Mick0722MX Says:

Nov 8, 2009 - No it doesn't, and the reason is because we know there is a universe simply because we can observe it, and do.

Mick0722MX Says:

Nov 8, 2009 - If there are instances of certainty, where exactly does this "bias" come to play?

wonderouswonderloo Says:

Nov 9, 2009 - That is certainly true. But the user in the video used the uncertainty in question about the existence of God to use it as a reason to argue why God does not exist. In exact duplication of his reasoning, there exists no universe simply because the reason for the existence of our universe is unknown.

wonderouswonderloo Says:

Nov 9, 2009 - Either I didn't elaborate it well, or you have misunderstood me. If person A makes a proposition that seems to adhere to the laws of logic, to prove that it is biased, person B would have to present a counter-proposition both logically profound and supported with 'instances where the logic holds true'. (If completely true, then this counter argument should hold true under any constraint.)

Mick0722MX Says:

Nov 9, 2009 - Thank you for clarifying.

Mick0722MX Says:

Nov 9, 2009 - Again, thanks for clarifying.

americasace Says:

Nov 14, 2009 - You want the short christian responses? ok then, "he just does", "he just does" and "it just is". and as always, since it will be in their best interest to just leave it at that, then that is precisely what they'll do. Oh, and one more question, why is god so often referred to as a "he"? Actually I already have an answer for that but I just thought I'd throw that in there for funnsies

GenRev1611 Says:

Nov 16, 2009 - In hearing what you're saying, you say that the law of logic is not prescriptive but descriptive you say that these descriptive laws are based on observation. Does that make observation ultimately absolute? How are we guaranteed that A and Non-A will not at some point come into being at the same time in the same sense in an evolutionary process. If you say that 'it just won't' you're assuming something you have yet to prove. Especially if it is merely descriptive.

SuperTruthlover Says:

Nov 20, 2009 - Isaiah 25:4 - You have been a refuge for the poor, a refuge for the needy in his distress, a shelter from the storm and a shade from the heat.

wildflower789 Says:

Nov 22, 2009 - "God's conciousness is random and unaccounted for"? That is silly. It may be true that with our finite minds we can't fully comprehend certain things about God, but just because we don't have all the answers, it doesn't logically follow that there is no answer, or that it's just "random." The bible says that right now our knowledge is like a cloudy mirror, but later we will see things clearly. So again, not fully knowing everything about God is no reason to throw everything out the window.