Re: Logical Proof of God? -- SPEAK UP

[ Show ]

Support VoyForums

[ Shrink ]

VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

[ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: 19:00:02 06/16/02 Sun
Author: Michael
Author Host/IP: qqq018.mtg.centurytel.net / 66.112.45.18
Subject: Re: Logical Proof of God?
In reply to: Patrick 's message, "Re: Logical Proof of God?" on 16:21:25 06/16/02 Sun

see you now are not only using your words out of context but now you are putting my words out of context...
if you cut and paste my words to use against me you are admitting i am right and you can not prove otherwise we will not have slate here or i was lied to about the groups goals.... i can cut and paste your post to make you say my points to...
you are still saying i must prove my facts when you are the one who posted well worded lies and enuendo to prove a point which you only have empirical evidence or religious dogma as your proof...
godels theory which you are harping as evidence is a theory which has not been scientifically proven to be based on any factual information....
i do not have to see the beginning of the universe to know it exsits i just have to open my eyes and see it....
i dont have to see all 6-8 billion people to know there are lots and lots of people i have seen and met lots and lots of people in 8 countries....
your syntax is a insult to science because you are using words like choice when the fact does not prove there is a choice... a explanation of how something is does not mean that is how it was created....
you are making assumptions because the wording you are using implies forthought when random chance is just a reasonable explanation...
as for what you are presenting is it facts or assumptions i do not know because your choice of syntax presents it as assumptions with no or little evidence of fact but your wording i find hard to agree with because of the forthought implications.. oh and god is not the simplist explanation but the hardest or we would not need to have this discussion...

i can show you evidence of the universe that you can see and touch i can show you lots and lots of people that you can meet and talk to and i offer these two pieces of evidence a fact....
show me real tangable evidence of god and i mean evidence that is incontrivertable such as show me god introduce me and let him tell me he exsists but do not use well written assumptions with no real evidence and then tell me i must prove my case when your post was full of falisies and incomplete facts and theories and your choice of syntax does not make for real discussion but instead is you trying to force your views without real proof{a very religious tactic}
your post was titled logical proof of god and your proof is assumptions without evidence...
a theory is not evidence a theory is a idea of what may be not of what is... a theory with no or incomplete evidence is not even a idea but a fantasy...
your points to prove me wrong are also incorrect i have seen scientific proof that the earth revolves around the sun and what i learned in my philosphy class taught me what you are saying is not truth but ambiguous and incomplete statements of ideas that could be facts...
real truth is something that is always the truth no matter who explains it... the truth is neither one of us has real truth proving that the other is wrong we both know of evidence to support both our assumptions but neither one of us has had god over for BBQ in the flesh recently and yes i know i am making assumptions myself i have taken what i consider facts along with a few real truths about myself and i made a personal judgement about the exsistance of god and that judgement is he doesnt exsist while you are trying to prove gods exsistance is logical your syntax makes implications that are not nessaccarily true.... a theory or hypothosis is not fact but a idea of what may be true but it could just as easily be untrue....

i dont have to prove anything i made a informed descision using the facts that to me have been proven and if you changed your syntax i might even agree with some of your ideas but your syntax choice forbades that option....

some falisies...
look at that night sky only a god could have arranged the stars so prettily{no proof}
my money is missing and i know a hundred people where here but its obvious you stole it because your not religious which means you are immoral{religious doent not mean moral}
its ok to kill those people they dont believe in the one true god besides we need there land.....

real truth does not need assumptions to prove its real truth...real truth is obvious to whomever sees it...
real truth does not need syntax trickery to prove its real truth it proves its real truth on its own merits...

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

Re: Logical Proof of God? -- Patrick, 20:51:10 06/16/02 Sun
- Re: Logical Proof of God? -- Geoff, 10:57:06 10/22/02 Tue
  - Re: Logical Proof of God? -- Katherine, 15:29:41 06/26/03 Thu
- Re: Logical Proof of God? -- dustin mckenzie, 12:09:38 01/31/04 Sat
  - Re: Logical Proof of God? -- Patrick, 17:19:46 04/11/04 Sun
Re: Logical Proof of God? -- Victoria, 15:29:59 03/21/06 Tue