Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What would a Godless world be like?

civilbuthonest
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 6:41:21 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What would a Godless world be like?
How different would it be to the world we live in now?
How would we know if God died (or ceased to exist) tomorrow?

I contend that the world would be indistinguishable in all material and measurable respects to the world we live in now. How so?

Would the sky fall in, or the world stop turning, or the sun stop shining? No, no and no. Today we thoroughly understand the physics of planetary motion, and the nuclear reactions that power the stars and our sun. A God is not necessary to keep the "big stuff" in the universe running smoothly.

Do the "big physical events" on our own beloved Earth depend upon a God then? Again, no. We understand what causes lightening and weather patterns and volcanos, and we do not need to invoke a God here either. These are all natural processes that simply follow the laws of science.

OK, but what about praying, for example. Well, actually, nothing would change here either, in any material or measurable aspect, which is how the question was phrased. Extensive studies have found that praying doesn't actually do anything, that is, the probability of what you pray for happening is no different than from chance alone. So again, nothing changes. You can pray in a Godless world too, and there can certainly be psychological benefits in praying, but in terms of the outcomes of praying, all available evidence shows it doesn"t actually matter if God exists or not.

Hmmm. Would anything at all change? Surely it must? I talk to God and he listens, and talks back, doesn"t he? Actually even the Pope makes no claim that he can communicate with God, but religious people can at least feel that God exists and knows and cares about them. In a Godless world that wouldn"t happen, would it?

I contend that that depends very much on whether you believe in a God in the first place. If you believe that your God hears you and cares about you, then it makes you feel good, and who can prove otherwise? If you believe in heaven or life after death, then it makes you feel good, and who can prove otherwise? That said, my contention was that a Godless world would be indistinguishable in all material and measurable respects, and again I must conclude that a Godless world would be indistinguishable to our present world. Those that believe would still believe, and get that nice warm feeling, and there would not be one material zot of difference. What is important here is the belief. If incontravertible evidence was found that God did not exist, then the psychological effect on people would be very real indeed. However, if the same incontravertible evidence that God did not exist was found by a small group of people, who did not share the information to others so that they continued to believe, then the effect would be zero in all respects.

It is for these reasons that I personally think it not important whether people believe in a God or not. What does matter is how we treat our fellow humans ( and arguably animals and the environment), and if a belief in God and/or respect for the wisdom contained in many scriptures makes us better people, then I"m all for it. Judge the person, not his religion.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 6:52:17 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 6:41:21 AM, civilbuthonest wrote:
What would a Godless world be like?
How different would it be to the world we live in now?
How would we know if God died (or ceased to exist) tomorrow?

I contend that the world would be indistinguishable in all material and measurable respects to the world we live in now. How so?

Would the sky fall in, or the world stop turning, or the sun stop shining? No, no and no. Today we thoroughly understand the physics of planetary motion, and the nuclear reactions that power the stars and our sun. A God is not necessary to keep the "big stuff" in the universe running smoothly.

Do the "big physical events" on our own beloved Earth depend upon a God then? Again, no. We understand what causes lightening and weather patterns and volcanos, and we do not need to invoke a God here either. These are all natural processes that simply follow the laws of science.

OK, but what about praying, for example. Well, actually, nothing would change here either, in any material or measurable aspect, which is how the question was phrased. Extensive studies have found that praying doesn't actually do anything, that is, the probability of what you pray for happening is no different than from chance alone. So again, nothing changes. You can pray in a Godless world too, and there can certainly be psychological benefits in praying, but in terms of the outcomes of praying, all available evidence shows it doesn"t actually matter if God exists or not.

Hmmm. Would anything at all change? Surely it must? I talk to God and he listens, and talks back, doesn"t he? Actually even the Pope makes no claim that he can communicate with God, but religious people can at least feel that God exists and knows and cares about them. In a Godless world that wouldn"t happen, would it?

I contend that that depends very much on whether you believe in a God in the first place. If you believe that your God hears you and cares about you, then it makes you feel good, and who can prove otherwise? If you believe in heaven or life after death, then it makes you feel good, and who can prove otherwise? That said, my contention was that a Godless world would be indistinguishable in all material and measurable respects, and again I must conclude that a Godless world would be indistinguishable to our present world. Those that believe would still believe, and get that nice warm feeling, and there would not be one material zot of difference. What is important here is the belief. If incontravertible evidence was found that God did not exist, then the psychological effect on people would be very real indeed. However, if the same incontravertible evidence that God did not exist was found by a small group of people, who did not share the information to others so that they continued to believe, then the effect would be zero in all respects.

It is for these reasons that I personally think it not important whether people believe in a God or not. What does matter is how we treat our fellow humans ( and arguably animals and the environment), and if a belief in God and/or respect for the wisdom contained in many scriptures makes us better people, then I"m all for it. Judge the person, not his religion.

Response: The world exist, only because there is a God that caused it to exist. So if there is no God, then there is no world.
civilbuthonest
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 7:04:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 6:52:17 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/12/2014 6:41:21 AM, civilbuthonest wrote:
What would a Godless world be like?
How different would it be to the world we live in now?
How would we know if God died (or ceased to exist) tomorrow?

I contend that the world would be indistinguishable in all material and measurable respects to the world we live in now. How so?

Would the sky fall in, or the world stop turning, or the sun stop shining? No, no and no. Today we thoroughly understand the physics of planetary motion, and the nuclear reactions that power the stars and our sun. A God is not necessary to keep the "big stuff" in the universe running smoothly.

Do the "big physical events" on our own beloved Earth depend upon a God then? Again, no. We understand what causes lightening and weather patterns and volcanos, and we do not need to invoke a God here either. These are all natural processes that simply follow the laws of science.

OK, but what about praying, for example. Well, actually, nothing would change here either, in any material or measurable aspect, which is how the question was phrased. Extensive studies have found that praying doesn't actually do anything, that is, the probability of what you pray for happening is no different than from chance alone. So again, nothing changes. You can pray in a Godless world too, and there can certainly be psychological benefits in praying, but in terms of the outcomes of praying, all available evidence shows it doesn"t actually matter if God exists or not.

Hmmm. Would anything at all change? Surely it must? I talk to God and he listens, and talks back, doesn"t he? Actually even the Pope makes no claim that he can communicate with God, but religious people can at least feel that God exists and knows and cares about them. In a Godless world that wouldn"t happen, would it?

I contend that that depends very much on whether you believe in a God in the first place. If you believe that your God hears you and cares about you, then it makes you feel good, and who can prove otherwise? If you believe in heaven or life after death, then it makes you feel good, and who can prove otherwise? That said, my contention was that a Godless world would be indistinguishable in all material and measurable respects, and again I must conclude that a Godless world would be indistinguishable to our present world. Those that believe would still believe, and get that nice warm feeling, and there would not be one material zot of difference. What is important here is the belief. If incontravertible evidence was found that God did not exist, then the psychological effect on people would be very real indeed. However, if the same incontravertible evidence that God did not exist was found by a small group of people, who did not share the information to others so that they continued to believe, then the effect would be zero in all respects.

It is for these reasons that I personally think it not important whether people believe in a God or not. What does matter is how we treat our fellow humans ( and arguably animals and the environment), and if a belief in God and/or respect for the wisdom contained in many scriptures makes us better people, then I"m all for it. Judge the person, not his religion.

Response: The world exist, only because there is a God that caused it to exist. So if there is no God, then there is no world.

There is no evidence that God 'caused' the world to exist, and there is certainly no reason to believe that a God is required to maintain the world and universe in it's present state, as I explained in the posting.

So, my question slightly modified for you is this. If God created the universe and world, and then disappeared leaving a Godless world, would this Godless world be any different in any material and measurable respects to the world we live in now?
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 7:16:33 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
What would a Godless world be like?
Indistinguishable from the world we have now for exactly that reason.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 7:32:20 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 7:04:22 AM, civilbuthonest wrote:


There is no evidence that God 'caused' the world to exist, and there is certainly no reason to believe that a God is required to maintain the world and universe in it's present state, as I explained in the posting.

So, my question slightly modified for you is this. If God created the universe and world, and then disappeared leaving a Godless world, would this Godless world be any different in any material and measurable respects to the world we live in now?

Response: The evidence of intelligent design clearly exist. As stated many times throughout the forum, a repeating pattern cannot originate from a non-choice. The proof is you yourself, as you cannot create a simple checkerboard pattern without choosing to do so. Thus the evidence is clear from firsthand evidence that a repeating pattern can only be created by choice. Therefore, the patterns in the universe and creation is proof of Intelligent Design, hence the existence of God.

As for your modified question, since the world only exist because of God, then if there is no God, there is no world.
civilbuthonest
Posts: 110
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 7:53:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 7:32:20 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/12/2014 7:04:22 AM, civilbuthonest wrote:


There is no evidence that God 'caused' the world to exist, and there is certainly no reason to believe that a God is required to maintain the world and universe in it's present state, as I explained in the posting.

So, my question slightly modified for you is this. If God created the universe and world, and then disappeared leaving a Godless world, would this Godless world be any different in any material and measurable respects to the world we live in now?

Response: The evidence of intelligent design clearly exist. As stated many times throughout the forum, a repeating pattern cannot originate from a non-choice. The proof is you yourself, as you cannot create a simple checkerboard pattern without choosing to do so. Thus the evidence is clear from firsthand evidence that a repeating pattern can only be created by choice. Therefore, the patterns in the universe and creation is proof of Intelligent Design, hence the existence of God.

As for your modified question, since the world only exist because of God, then if there is no God, there is no world.

I did not ask whether intelligent design exists, or whether God created the world or universe. However, to keep you on track to the original question, having intelligently created the world, life-on-earth, the universe and everything, just say your God disappeared tomorrow.

Would this Godless world be any different in any material and measurable respects to the world we live in now?
Kostakv
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 8:03:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 7:32:20 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/12/2014 7:04:22 AM, civilbuthonest wrote:


There is no evidence that God 'caused' the world to exist, and there is certainly no reason to believe that a God is required to maintain the world and universe in it's present state, as I explained in the posting.

So, my question slightly modified for you is this. If God created the universe and world, and then disappeared leaving a Godless world, would this Godless world be any different in any material and measurable respects to the world we live in now?

Response: The evidence of intelligent design clearly exist. As stated many times throughout the forum, a repeating pattern cannot originate from a non-choice. The proof is you yourself, as you cannot create a simple checkerboard pattern without choosing to do so. Thus the evidence is clear from firsthand evidence that a repeating pattern can only be created by choice. Therefore, the patterns in the universe and creation is proof of Intelligent Design, hence the existence of God.

As for your modified question, since the world only exist because of God, then if there is no God, there is no world.

That's not proof at all, that's just plain stupidity.... there is no scientific proof what so ever that God exists, now science cannot disprove something doesn't exist because that's just silly. What you basically said is that proof is yourself because you cannot do something like a pattern and not be true? what if I said I have a green bunny and every once in a while he screams and poops out rainbow balls, If my pattern is to keep believing in it does that automatically mean the bunny exists? No it just means you "believe" in something and saying God created the universe is pure ignorance, just because science hasn't gotten there doesn't mean it can't get there and the answer to all unexplained things is God...

The answer to the original question... Go outside that's what the world is like without a God... we live in one...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 8:07:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 8:03:30 AM, Kostakv wrote:


That's not proof at all, that's just plain stupidity.... there is no scientific proof what so ever that God exists, now science cannot disprove something doesn't exist because that's just silly. What you basically said is that proof is yourself because you cannot do something like a pattern and not be true? what if I said I have a green bunny and every once in a while he screams and poops out rainbow balls, If my pattern is to keep believing in it does that automatically mean the bunny exists? No it just means you "believe" in something and saying God created the universe is pure ignorance, just because science hasn't gotten there doesn't mean it can't get there and the answer to all unexplained things is God...

The answer to the original question... Go outside that's what the world is like without a God... we live in one...

Response: Saying firsthand evidence is not proof is foolish. So you sound completely retarded. Science is based on firsthand evidence. So the fact that you fail to create a repeating pattern without choice is firsthand evidence and scientific evidence that creation without choice causes disorder, and not a repeating pattern. Proving that the patterns in the universe originated from choice, thus God does exist. Debunked.
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 8:16:19 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 8:07:53 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/12/2014 8:03:30 AM, Kostakv wrote:


That's not proof at all, that's just plain stupidity.... there is no scientific proof what so ever that God exists, now science cannot disprove something doesn't exist because that's just silly. What you basically said is that proof is yourself because you cannot do something like a pattern and not be true? what if I said I have a green bunny and every once in a while he screams and poops out rainbow balls, If my pattern is to keep believing in it does that automatically mean the bunny exists? No it just means you "believe" in something and saying God created the universe is pure ignorance, just because science hasn't gotten there doesn't mean it can't get there and the answer to all unexplained things is God...

The answer to the original question... Go outside that's what the world is like without a God... we live in one...

Response: Saying firsthand evidence is not proof is foolish. So you sound completely retarded. Science is based on firsthand evidence. So the fact that you fail to create a repeating pattern without choice is firsthand evidence and scientific evidence that creation without choice causes disorder, and not a repeating pattern. Proving that the patterns in the universe originated from choice, thus God does exist. Debunked.
Hahahaha, you're funny Fati.

Provide your first hand evidence that your particular god created the universe.
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
Kostakv
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 8:21:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 8:07:53 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/12/2014 8:03:30 AM, Kostakv wrote:


That's not proof at all, that's just plain stupidity.... there is no scientific proof what so ever that God exists, now science cannot disprove something doesn't exist because that's just silly. What you basically said is that proof is yourself because you cannot do something like a pattern and not be true? what if I said I have a green bunny and every once in a while he screams and poops out rainbow balls, If my pattern is to keep believing in it does that automatically mean the bunny exists? No it just means you "believe" in something and saying God created the universe is pure ignorance, just because science hasn't gotten there doesn't mean it can't get there and the answer to all unexplained things is God...

The answer to the original question... Go outside that's what the world is like without a God... we live in one...

Response: Saying firsthand evidence is not proof is foolish. So you sound completely retarded. Science is based on firsthand evidence. So the fact that you fail to create a repeating pattern without choice is firsthand evidence and scientific evidence that creation without choice causes disorder, and not a repeating pattern. Proving that the patterns in the universe originated from choice, thus God does exist. Debunked.

Okay I don't know whether or not you've been to any science classroom at all... but there are many variations of proof... and saying first hand evidence isn't proof is completely logical... because first hand evidence is not evidence backed up by scientific proof and reasoning and logic.

What is first hand evidence? the evidence that results from seeing an event or being part of an event.

Okay.. there is many problems with this "evidence" What you basically said is because you claimed that you saw something means it automatically exists.... because according to you, you say that it is proof... let me give you another example this example shows how dumb your statement sounds...

I have schizophrenia... I hallucinated a cat eating a dog... due to first hand evidence... that means the cat eating a dog existed.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 8:43:55 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 8:21:53 AM, Kostakv wrote:


Okay I don't know whether or not you've been to any science classroom at all... but there are many variations of proof... and saying first hand evidence isn't proof is completely logical... because first hand evidence is not evidence backed up by scientific proof and reasoning and logic.

What is first hand evidence? the evidence that results from seeing an event or being part of an event.


Okay.. there is many problems with this "evidence" What you basically said is because you claimed that you saw something means it automatically exists.... because according to you, you say that it is proof... let me give you another example this example shows how dumb your statement sounds...

I have schizophrenia... I hallucinated a cat eating a dog... due to first hand evidence... that means the cat eating a dog existed.

Response: Science is firsthand evidence. So you continue to sound dumb. Science is based on what you test and observe yourself. That's firsthand evidence. So the redundancy that firsthand evidence is not supported by science is foolish when science itself is firsthand evidence.

So by stating that firsthand evidence is not the best evidence then that means that hearsay evidence is the best evidence. That means that according to you, if you were bouncing a ball and someone came along and said the ball does not bounce, you would accept that it doesn't, despite the fact that you are in the act of bouncing the ball. Any person can see the sheer idiocy in your logic, hence the stupidity of atheism and agnostics, and fails to disprove the existence of God.
Kostakv
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 8:56:53 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 8:43:55 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/12/2014 8:21:53 AM, Kostakv wrote:


Okay I don't know whether or not you've been to any science classroom at all... but there are many variations of proof... and saying first hand evidence isn't proof is completely logical... because first hand evidence is not evidence backed up by scientific proof and reasoning and logic.

What is first hand evidence? the evidence that results from seeing an event or being part of an event.


Okay.. there is many problems with this "evidence" What you basically said is because you claimed that you saw something means it automatically exists.... because according to you, you say that it is proof... let me give you another example this example shows how dumb your statement sounds...

I have schizophrenia... I hallucinated a cat eating a dog... due to first hand evidence... that means the cat eating a dog existed.

Response: Science is firsthand evidence. So you continue to sound dumb. Science is based on what you test and observe yourself. That's firsthand evidence. So the redundancy that firsthand evidence is not supported by science is foolish when science itself is firsthand evidence.

So by stating that firsthand evidence is not the best evidence then that means that hearsay evidence is the best evidence. That means that according to you, if you were bouncing a ball and someone came along and said the ball does not bounce, you would accept that it doesn't, despite the fact that you are in the act of bouncing the ball. Any person can see the sheer idiocy in your logic, hence the stupidity of atheism and agnostics, and fails to disprove the existence of God.

Saying God created the world is not first hand evidence either because you weren't there and nor did you see it happen. So you can't use first hand evidence to your own self because it's not in a controlled environment. Yes science is based on first hand evidence but you saying God created the universe is not...
Kostakv
Posts: 28
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 9:02:51 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Atheist do not disprove in God because you can't... But at the same time you cannot say that God exists because science fails to provide evidence of that. As an atheist it would be pretty dumb trying to disprove something that can't be disproved. We as atheist take the science side... and use that to gain knowledge and facts and we don't choose to take knowledge from a book that explains stuff about Unicorns. Yes the bible talks about Unicorns 8 times.. you should read it, According to the bible unicorns exist.

here is a perfect example. Beside me I have an invisible man who makes me laugh. Can you disprove my invisible man? NO because science cannot disprove that and anyone who says that because science can't disprove that, it means it exists... No But I can't say the invisible man really exists, well I can but HERE is where science comes in and says using science prove that it exists...
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 9:32:15 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 8:56:53 AM, Kostakv wrote:
.

Saying God created the world is not first hand evidence either because you weren't there and nor did you see it happen. So you can't use first hand evidence to your own self because it's not in a controlled environment. Yes science is based on first hand evidence but you saying God created the universe is not...

Response: You don't have to see God create to see the facts of intelligent design. So your argument fails. The proof of God's existence is based on firsthand evidence of Intelligent design, which any person can test and observe themselves. And when tested yourself, you yourself is a witness to the fact that you cannot create a repeating pattern without choice. Therefore, through deductive logic based on firsthand evidence, the patterns in the universe originated from choice. Proving God's existence.
popculturepooka
Posts: 7,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 9:35:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If God is concieved of that which grounds all being there wouldn't be a world without God.
At 10/3/2016 11:49:13 PM, thett3 wrote:
BLACK LIVES MATTER!
bulproof
Posts: 25,203
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 11:13:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 9:35:41 AM, popculturepooka wrote:
If God is concieved of that which grounds all being there wouldn't be a world without God.

If god is conceived of man's imagination, which it is, then we still exist and so does our universe.,
Religion is just mind control. George Carlin
KafkaF
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 11:18:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
@Kostakv- Don't bother arguing with Fatihah. He keeps using the same logic and not accepting anything that contradicts it. There was a thread he made where he presented this logic, and while people were disproving it on and on(for 20 pages I think) he still refused to accept that it is faulty.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 11:50:30 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 11:18:32 AM, KafkaF wrote:
@Kostakv- Don't bother arguing with Fatihah. He keeps using the same logic and not accepting anything that contradicts it. There was a thread he made where he presented this logic, and while people were disproving it on and on(for 20 pages I think) he still refused to accept that it is faulty.

Response: In other words, don't entertain Fatihah because just like Katkaf, you too will get exposed and debunked by the same logic, thus proving the thread "the absurdity of atheism and agnostics". Thanks for the clarification.
KafkaF
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 12:11:46 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 11:50:30 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:18:32 AM, KafkaF wrote:
@Kostakv- Don't bother arguing with Fatihah. He keeps using the same logic and not accepting anything that contradicts it. There was a thread he made where he presented this logic, and while people were disproving it on and on(for 20 pages I think) he still refused to accept that it is faulty.

Response: In other words, don't entertain Fatihah because just like Katkaf, you too will get exposed and debunked by the same logic, thus proving the thread "the absurdity of atheism and agnostics". Thanks for the clarification.

Your logic isn't debunking our claims. Ask anybody
on this forum(even the hardcore theists) and they will probably agree that your logic has flaws.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 12:27:41 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 12:11:46 PM, KafkaF wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:50:30 AM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/12/2014 11:18:32 AM, KafkaF wrote:
@Kostakv- Don't bother arguing with Fatihah. He keeps using the same logic and not accepting anything that contradicts it. There was a thread he made where he presented this logic, and while people were disproving it on and on(for 20 pages I think) he still refused to accept that it is faulty.

Response: In other words, don't entertain Fatihah because just like Katkaf, you too will get exposed and debunked by the same logic, thus proving the thread "the absurdity of atheism and agnostics". Thanks for the clarification.

Your logic isn't debunking our claims. Ask anybody
on this forum(even the hardcore theists) and they will probably agree that your logic has flaws.

Response: So Katkaf's logic is something is true, based on what everyone on the forum says.

Fatihah's logic is that the truth is based on the fact that you can't show any evidence to refute it.

Making my point as usual, of the sheer idiocy of atheism and agnostics. Thanks again.
xXCryptoXx
Posts: 5,000
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 1:26:40 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
If God ceased to exist then everything else would also.

Although for a moment we can assume that if God ceased to exist and everything else stays intact. In that case, the world would literally be plunged into Hell.
Nolite Timere
KafkaF
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 1:49:31 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 12:27:41 PM, Fatihah wrote:
Response: So Katkaf's logic is something is true, based on what everyone on the forum says.

No, I never said that. I just said that your logic has flaws, and that almost anybody that you ask will confirm that.

As for me, I have repeatedly shown the flaws of the logic in the 'Absurdity of atheism and agnosticism thread', but that has fallen on deaf ears.

Fatihah's logic is that the truth is based on the fact that you can't show any evidence to refute it.

Again, people have refuted it. They obviously demonstrated that snowflakes, for example, form with no intelligent designer behind them.

Now, I know what you are going to say:"If that was true, you would be able to form a checkerboard pattern without choice". As for that, people have again shown you why that logic is faulty, but you seem to have ignored it.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 3:18:19 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 1:49:31 PM, KafkaF wrote:
At 6/12/2014 12:27:41 PM, Fatihah wrote:
Response: So Katkaf's logic is something is true, based on what everyone on the forum says.

No, I never said that. I just said that your logic has flaws, and that almost anybody that you ask will confirm that.

As for me, I have repeatedly shown the flaws of the logic in the 'Absurdity of atheism and agnosticism thread', but that has fallen on deaf ears.

Fatihah's logic is that the truth is based on the fact that you can't show any evidence to refute it.

Again, people have refuted it. They obviously demonstrated that snowflakes, for example, form with no intelligent designer behind them.

Now, I know what you are going to say:"If that was true, you would be able to form a checkerboard pattern without choice". As for that, people have again shown you why that logic is faulty, but you seem to have ignored it.

Response: Yet you have no firsthand evidence of creating a repeating pattern without choice, thus debunking yourself as usual.
KafkaF
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 3:22:01 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 3:18:19 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/12/2014 1:49:31 PM, KafkaF wrote:
At 6/12/2014 12:27:41 PM, Fatihah wrote:
Response: So Katkaf's logic is something is true, based on what everyone on the forum says.

No, I never said that. I just said that your logic has flaws, and that almost anybody that you ask will confirm that.

As for me, I have repeatedly shown the flaws of the logic in the 'Absurdity of atheism and agnosticism thread', but that has fallen on deaf ears.

Fatihah's logic is that the truth is based on the fact that you can't show any evidence to refute it.

Again, people have refuted it. They obviously demonstrated that snowflakes, for example, form with no intelligent designer behind them.

Now, I know what you are going to say:"If that was true, you would be able to form a checkerboard pattern without choice". As for that, people have again shown you why that logic is faulty, but you seem to have ignored it.

Response: Yet you have no firsthand evidence of creating a repeating pattern without choice, thus debunking yourself as usual.

Did you even read my post?
12_13
Posts: 1,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 3:32:58 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 6:41:21 AM, civilbuthonest wrote:
What would a Godless world be like?

I think it would be hellish, much like what people are creating in this modern world when they have rejected God and contaminate, kill, rape and have wars all over this world.

Luckily we still have people that have not totally rejected God and more precisely his will to love others. And luckily God is still patient.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 3:35:33 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 3:22:01 PM, KafkaF wrote:
At 6/12/2014 3:18:19 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/12/2014 1:49:31 PM, KafkaF wrote:
At 6/12/2014 12:27:41 PM, Fatihah wrote:
Response: So Katkaf's logic is something is true, based on what everyone on the forum says.

No, I never said that. I just said that your logic has flaws, and that almost anybody that you ask will confirm that.

As for me, I have repeatedly shown the flaws of the logic in the 'Absurdity of atheism and agnosticism thread', but that has fallen on deaf ears.

Fatihah's logic is that the truth is based on the fact that you can't show any evidence to refute it.

Again, people have refuted it. They obviously demonstrated that snowflakes, for example, form with no intelligent designer behind them.

Now, I know what you are going to say:"If that was true, you would be able to form a checkerboard pattern without choice". As for that, people have again shown you why that logic is faulty, but you seem to have ignored it.

Response: Yet you have no firsthand evidence of creating a repeating pattern without choice, thus debunking yourself as usual.

Did you even read my post?

Response: The fact that it was refuted means it was read.
KafkaF
Posts: 103
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 3:41:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 3:35:33 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/12/2014 3:22:01 PM, KafkaF wrote:
At 6/12/2014 3:18:19 PM, Fatihah wrote:
At 6/12/2014 1:49:31 PM, KafkaF wrote:
At 6/12/2014 12:27:41 PM, Fatihah wrote:
Response: So Katkaf's logic is something is true, based on what everyone on the forum says.

No, I never said that. I just said that your logic has flaws, and that almost anybody that you ask will confirm that.

As for me, I have repeatedly shown the flaws of the logic in the 'Absurdity of atheism and agnosticism thread', but that has fallen on deaf ears.

Fatihah's logic is that the truth is based on the fact that you can't show any evidence to refute it.

Again, people have refuted it. They obviously demonstrated that snowflakes, for example, form with no intelligent designer behind them.

Now, I know what you are going to say:"If that was true, you would be able to form a checkerboard pattern without choice". As for that, people have again shown you why that logic is faulty, but you seem to have ignored it.

Response: Yet you have no firsthand evidence of creating a repeating pattern without choice, thus debunking yourself as usual.

Did you even read my post?

Response: The fact that it was refuted means it was read.

You just repeated the flawed argument: "Yet you have no firsthand evidence of creating a repeating pattern without choice, thus debunking yourself as usual."
If you had actually read my post, you would have seen that I have mentioned snowflakes, which have no intelligent designer behind them. The fact that you mentioned this argument without providing any proper refutation of the snowflake argument proves that you either ignored my point or that you didn't even read my post.
Fatihah
Posts: 7,716
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/12/2014 3:50:49 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 6/12/2014 3:41:49 PM, KafkaF wrote:


You just repeated the flawed argument: "Yet you have no firsthand evidence of creating a repeating pattern without choice, thus debunking yourself as usual."
If you had actually read my post, you would have seen that I have mentioned snowflakes, which have no intelligent designer behind them. The fact that you mentioned this argument without providing any proper refutation of the snowflake argument proves that you either ignored my point or that you didn't even read my post.

Response: And if you have read my response, you would see that the snowflake argument actually proves my argument of Intelligent Design. For firsthand evidence is the best evidence. And since you fail to create a repeating pattern without choice firsthand, than that proves that choice is required to originate a repeating pattern. THEREFRE, CHOICE is the origin that produced a snowflake.

Debunked as usual.