Conquer Club

jonesthecurl wrote:So whatever anyone believes in is real?

In an infinite universe...

jonesthecurl wrote:It's someone else' turn to point out when the gospels were written. I can't be bothered to do it again.

In the afternoon, right after lunch but before sunset because the writers were too cheap to afford electric lamps.

jonesthecurl wrote:So whatever anyone believes in is real?

To believe that anything in the universe is "real" requires one to believe that things in the universe must be irrational (since the real number set contains both rational and irrational numbers) and in turn requires a universe of level Aleph One infinity.

Player,

Are you serious? What if someone believes that the Father is not real? And if someone believes a spaghetti monster created the universe out of meatballs, does that mean it's true? Have you tried believing a billion dollars into a bank account?

Well, I guess all those things really aren't the Curlson's fault then.

PLAYER57832 said: Whether there is definitive proof of Evolution or not is irrelevant. There IS proof that the Earth was not created in 6000 years. But there are 3 other threads to debate just that point.

where? prove the Earth wasn't created in 6000 years!

I'm not sure what's referred to there maybe, but you might want to check here...

viewtopic.php?f=8&t=114455&start=240

john9blue wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:So whatever anyone believes in is real?

In an infinite universe...

I believe I can fly

MeDeFe wrote:

john9blue wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:So whatever anyone believes in is real?

In an infinite universe...

I believe I can fly

I believe I can touch the sky

I think about it every night and day

Spread my wings and fly away

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:So whatever anyone believes in is real?

Why not? It's as good as any other answer.

Awesome.

So whenever someone compares your god to flying teapots and spaghetti-monsters and Santa you are now going to stop complaining?

Snorri1234 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:So whatever anyone believes in is real?

Why not? It's as good as any other answer.

Awesome.

So whenever someone compares your god to flying teapots and spaghetti-monsters and Santa you are now going to stop complaining?

Depends on the context. Most people who use that argument believe neither in flying teapots or spagghetti-monstors and are using it merely as a back-handed attempt to show themselves superior to anybody who would believe... anything at all.

If someone does believe a spaghetti monster created the universe out of meatballs, does that mean it's true?

Yes.

Pass the parmesan please.....


JRock

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:So whatever anyone believes in is real?

Why not? It's as good as any other answer.

Awesome.

So whenever someone compares your god to flying teapots and spaghetti-monsters and Santa you are now going to stop complaining?

Depends on the context. Most people who use that argument believe neither in flying teapots or spagghetti-monstors and are using it merely as a back-handed attempt to show themselves superior to anybody who would believe... anything at all.

Well yeah, the whole point is that not believing in flying teapots and santa is just as reasonable as not believing in God. It's not backhanded, it's honest and direct.

Snorri1234 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

jonesthecurl wrote:So whatever anyone believes in is real?

Why not? It's as good as any other answer.

Awesome.

So whenever someone compares your god to flying teapots and spaghetti-monsters and Santa you are now going to stop complaining?

Depends on the context. Most people who use that argument believe neither in flying teapots or spagghetti-monstors and are using it merely as a back-handed attempt to show themselves superior to anybody who would believe... anything at all.

Well yeah, the whole point is that not believing in flying teapots and santa is just as reasonable as not believing in God. It's not backhanded, it's honest and direct.

No, because its not true. No one, most particularly you, really believes in flying teapots.

So, like I said, it is merely your attempt to throw mud on beliefs that others hold true. Come up with a valid argument, fine. But that is just insulting.

What if some people honestly believe earth was created about 6 thousand years ago and some people honestly believe earth was created about 4.6 billion years ago? Can both be true?

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:

Snorri1234 wrote:

PLAYER57832 wrote:Why not? It's as good as any other answer.

Awesome.

So whenever someone compares your god to flying teapots and spaghetti-monsters and Santa you are now going to stop complaining?

Depends on the context. Most people who use that argument believe neither in flying teapots or spagghetti-monstors and are using it merely as a back-handed attempt to show themselves superior to anybody who would believe... anything at all.

Well yeah, the whole point is that not believing in flying teapots and santa is just as reasonable as not believing in God. It's not backhanded, it's honest and direct.

No, because its not true. No one, most particularly you, really believes in flying teapots.

So, like I said, it is merely your attempt to throw mud on beliefs that others hold true. Come up with a valid argument, fine. But that is just insulting.

Let me draw your attention to two important words in snorri's post.

MeDeFe wrote:Let me draw your attention to two important words in snorri's post.

No, you don't get a pass on this one. In this context whether you add "not" is irrelevant. The belief in flying teapots or lack of it, is not in any way equivalent to belief in God.

If I ever find someone who really and truly does believe in flying teapots or pink elephants or whatever, then they will have justification. You two do not. You are merely being insulting. And you are quite intelligent enough to understand what you do.

You have every right to deny God. I agree it is an intelligent and logical position. However, so is belief in God. Claiming otherwise IS illogical.. and when you do it in that manner, insulting

Intelligent and logical position to deny Yah? Psalm 14:1.

hey, maybe it's just me, but i can't really find why believing in God is NOT logical compared to evolution or NO God for that matter. did you hear what the EVOLUTIONISTS said?

Phillip Johnson: tell me one thing, any one thing about evolution that is true?

YOUR OWN PEOPLE said nothing and even said it was just theory, which is why it shouldn't be taught in school!
NOW THAT'S ILLOGICAL!!!! i know MANY things that could prove God's existence, but evolution doesn't know ONE thing?
THAT'S PLAINLY ILLOGICAL!!!!!!

BigBallinStalin wrote:

Calidus wrote:I just spent the last hour typing a response to you, when I tried to post it the website told me to relogin. There is no way I'm going to retype it all, but I'll point out a few things.

Your guys image is not the same. The shroud cannot be drawn.

Take a closer look at the images. You will see that my image shows that the darker spots are lighter and the lighter spots are darker. This is what happens when you have a photographic negative. Your picture does not do this. If a person were to draw this, it would basically be the same as you trying to sign your name upsidedown and with your left hand (If your right-handed). Now, try drawing an entire painting like this.

The shroud could not have been drawn, because when the scientists used a 3d imaging machine they were able to see a clear 3d image of the man on the shroud. There has not been any artist out there capable drawing with such detail. If you take the 3d imaging system and use it on these other drawings, the results come out very destorted.

"darker spots are darker and lighter spots are lighter" OH NO, ever heard of fading? There's certainly evidence of that between the two.

Ummmm... If you read it says "You will see that my image shows that the darker spots are lighter and the lighter spots are darker. This is what happens when you have a photographic negative. Your picture does not do this. If a person were to draw this, it would basically be the same as you trying to sign your name upsidedown and with your left hand (If your right-handed). Now, try drawing an entire painting like this.

There is no "fading" here....unless you are saying that fading over time means it will be the opposite color???

But yeah, I don't need to cover my ass with sources because I believe all of them and I'm not going to spend three hours looking for all my sources I used to research it. You can if you want to though, but the problem you will run into is not that my sources exist, but that you will say something biased and sarcastic like " oooooh this is soooo true", and I can say the same about your source too. My goal was to post something on here that I (not you) felt was evidence for God. You can then go and find out if what I have said is true. All you do is try to say that your guy's picture was a good copy, which again it's not.... refer to beginning.

The rest of my last post was simply saying that unless either one of us is going to use scientific measures to prove the evidence or disprove it, your not going to change my mind and visa-versa. That wasn't the point of my original posting of the Shroud of Turin.

BigBallinStalin wrote:
Calidus wrote:
Think back a few centuries. The world had certain phenomena that couldn't be explained, so nearly everyone attributed said phenomena to be the work of God because there was no good explanation at that time. Then the common misconception is disproven.
Wrong, the misconception is that finding a "natural" explanation must mean absence of God. This is just not true. It is well within God's power to manipulate and use the processes he, himself created.

Yeah Player...just wanted to say that I didn't say the above, it was BigBallinStalin

Lionz wrote:Intelligent and logical position to deny Yah? Psalm 14:1.

oh well, if the bible disagrees with the position that the bible isn't necessarily true, then that's very convincing indeed. I hadn't realized that the bible told you not to disagree with it.