JJ Husker Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 You really need to pay closer attention carlfense. Here you are again attempting to tell other people what they really mean when the only problem would appear to be your comprehension skills. If you would've read my post directly preceding this one that you replied to (which I'm sure you did) you would know that I don't feel consensus proves anything. But, don't let that interfere with your attempts to reframe the discussion in a manner advantageous to your point of view. You are very good at that-no argument here. I would use one of your favorite lines "pot meet kettle" for the bolded above but, I can't in this instance because you are the only one in this discussion who has tried to claim consensus makes global warming a fact and simultaneously claim it means nothing as regards the stats I posted. Additionally, you may want to re-read my statements about scientific consensus of global warming. Show me exactly where I say there is no evidence of man caused gobal warming. I only spoke to the known inconsistencies of that consensus. Ah, yes. Consensus doesn't prove anything . . . BUT LOOK! . . . 92% of people agree with my worldview. You're trying to have it both ways. I'm calling you on it. That's about the extent of it. Also . . . this: Either that or I would have to be extremely egotistical and self centered to think I was that much smarter or more informed than so many other people. http://www.huskerboa...post__p__930059 Apparently disagreeing with a consensus makes one egotistical and self-centered. I would greatly appreciate you showing me where I said that near scientific consensus about global warming makes it a fact. A direct link to my statement would be greatly appreciated. Thanks. (This is when you realize that you fabricated that and that I had merely asked how you feel about a consensus about a topic other than your religion.) Apology accepted in advance. Well thank you for the advance thanks but no apology is forthcoming. You "insinuated" your position on global warming. I merely took you insinuation to it's logical conclusion. So, is it now your position that global warming is not happening? Or are you arguing with yourself again? As to your prior conclusion about disagreeing with consensus making one egotistical or self centered; thanks for including the ROFLMAO cartoon. That is exactly how I feel about that being your take away from what I said. Hint- When you cut & paste other peoples statements, it would help if you included the full context of what was actually said. The first clue that maybe you didn't get the whole context would be when you use a sentence that starts with "Either that or....." That might be a very good time to read the sentence immediately preceeding that and see what the other option(s) are. No need to reply. I am done playing word games with you today. It's fun for a couple exchanges but it gets old pretty quick. Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 You "insinuated" your position on global warming. No I didn't. You are lying. I asked how you felt about it. What does your religion say about dishonesty? Anyways, I forgive you even though you didn't apologize. Have a nice day. Link to comment
The Dude Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Boom. Hit the nail on the head. You can't use science to prove that God exists, nor is it possible to use science to prove that He doesn't exist. Why? Who knows. Maybe because God doesn't want it to be obvious that He is real, so that way he knows who are faithful to Him. Like Jesus said, "Blessed are those who believe without seeing." Science doesn't concern itself with proving things don't exist. Don't know why you keep bringing this up. Observation is the basis for science. We've observed polar bears, so we can rationally conclude that polar bears exist. We haven't observed sasquatches, so we can't rationally conclude that sasquatch exists. We haven't observed a god, so we can't rationally conclude that god exist. Coming to the conclusion that god exsits requires a leap of faith. As I brought up in another thread, I find the idea of relying on faith as the only way to make it to heaven to be unsettling. Why would a benevolent, loving god mess with our heads like that? Why would he make it so easy for it to rationally make sense that there is no god, then when we fall for it go, "sorry, now you have to suffer eternally"? Science doesn't concern itself with proving things don't exist. Don't know why you keep bringing this up. ......... Uh, read the thread. There are at least 4 or 5 people on this thread that are begging for scientific proof that God exists, that the words in the Bible are true, that magic is possible, etc... I didn't bring it up. In response to your last paragraph, I agree. It is a leap of faith. And I agree, the fact that we don't know the true meaning to life and the fact that we don't have answers to all of our questions is frustrating. But I like to think of it more as a blessing. I'm glad we don't have all the answers. It adds fun to life IMO. What would life be like if God was visibly hovering over the earth so no one could questin His existence, and he answered all of our questions and solved all of our problems? It would be too easy. You think that we have an obesity problem today? Think about a world with no concerns, no difficulties, and no challenges. People would just sit around all day and eat in their comfort and get fat because all of their problems would be taken care of. No, it's not a perfect world. But don't think of it as such a bad thing. hmmm... sounds more or less like the Christian idea of heaven. I agree it wouldn't be as interesting as real life, and it would last forever. Yuck. Link to comment
bennychico11 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Boom. Hit the nail on the head. You can't use science to prove that God exists, nor is it possible to use science to prove that He doesn't exist. Why? Who knows. Maybe because God doesn't want it to be obvious that He is real, so that way he knows who are faithful to Him. Like Jesus said, "Blessed are those who believe without seeing." Ugh, you can't use science to prove or disprove god because no evidence has been brought forth that would allow the scientific community to take it seriously. If I said I had an invisible pet dragon in my closet and that because you can't disprove it or prove it with science...that does NOT mean you are required to accept it as a possible truth. Your god, in the past, supposedly interacts with human beings all the time. Even manifesting himself physically into a human...but then saying that centuries later he just decides to remain hidden to test our faith? "If you're positing a god that can and does interact with reality, then there will be evidence for this (otherwise, how would you know any interaction had taken place). If you're positing a god that doesn't interact with reality... why? That which doesn't manifest is indistinguishable from that which doesn't exist." Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 Boom. Hit the nail on the head. You can't use science to prove that God exists, nor is it possible to use science to prove that He doesn't exist. Why? Who knows. Maybe because God doesn't want it to be obvious that He is real, so that way he knows who are faithful to Him. Like Jesus said, "Blessed are those who believe without seeing." Science doesn't concern itself with proving things don't exist. Don't know why you keep bringing this up. Observation is the basis for science. We've observed polar bears, so we can rationally conclude that polar bears exist. We haven't observed sasquatches, so we can't rationally conclude that sasquatch exists. We haven't observed a god, so we can't rationally conclude that god exist. Coming to the conclusion that god exsits requires a leap of faith. As I brought up in another thread, I find the idea of relying on faith as the only way to make it to heaven to be unsettling. Why would a benevolent, loving god mess with our heads like that? Why would he make it so easy for it to rationally make sense that there is no god, then when we fall for it go, "sorry, now you have to suffer eternally"? Science doesn't concern itself with proving things don't exist. Don't know why you keep bringing this up. ......... Uh, read the thread. There are at least 4 or 5 people on this thread that are begging for scientific proof that God exists, that the words in the Bible are true, that magic is possible, etc... I didn't bring it up. In response to your last paragraph, I agree. It is a leap of faith. And I agree, the fact that we don't know the true meaning to life and the fact that we don't have answers to all of our questions is frustrating. But I like to think of it more as a blessing. I'm glad we don't have all the answers. It adds fun to life IMO. What would life be like if God was visibly hovering over the earth so no one could questin His existence, and he answered all of our questions and solved all of our problems? It would be too easy. You think that we have an obesity problem today? Think about a world with no concerns, no difficulties, and no challenges. People would just sit around all day and eat in their comfort and get fat because all of their problems would be taken care of. No, it's not a perfect world. But don't think of it as such a bad thing. hmmm... sounds more or less like the Christian idea of heaven. I agree it wouldn't be as interesting as real life, and it would last forever. Yuck. Well I've gotta say, I've never heard that perspective before. If you think that a place filled with people/souls who do nothing but love you and an eternity of peace is "yuck" then.... okay then... Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 Boom. Hit the nail on the head. You can't use science to prove that God exists, nor is it possible to use science to prove that He doesn't exist. Why? Who knows. Maybe because God doesn't want it to be obvious that He is real, so that way he knows who are faithful to Him. Like Jesus said, "Blessed are those who believe without seeing." Ugh, you can't use science to prove or disprove god because no evidence has been brought forth that would allow the scientific community to take it seriously. If I said I had an invisible pet dragon in my closet and that because you can't disprove it or prove it with science...that does NOT mean you are required to accept it as a possible truth. Your god, in the past, supposedly interacts with human beings all the time. Even manifesting himself physically into a human...but then saying that centuries later he just decides to remain hidden to test our faith? "If you're positing a god that can and does interact with reality, then there will be evidence for this (otherwise, how would you know any interaction had taken place). If you're positing a god that doesn't interact with reality... why? That which doesn't manifest is indistinguishable from that which doesn't exist." I'm sorry but posting a bunch of questions and a quote that is bolded probably doesn't qualify as an argument. Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 Boom. Hit the nail on the head. You can't use science to prove that God exists, nor is it possible to use science to prove that He doesn't exist. Why? Who knows. Maybe because God doesn't want it to be obvious that He is real, so that way he knows who are faithful to Him. Like Jesus said, "Blessed are those who believe without seeing." Science doesn't concern itself with proving things don't exist. Don't know why you keep bringing this up. Observation is the basis for science. We've observed polar bears, so we can rationally conclude that polar bears exist. We haven't observed sasquatches, so we can't rationally conclude that sasquatch exists. We haven't observed a god, so we can't rationally conclude that god exist. Coming to the conclusion that god exsits requires a leap of faith. As I brought up in another thread, I find the idea of relying on faith as the only way to make it to heaven to be unsettling. Why would a benevolent, loving god mess with our heads like that? Why would he make it so easy for it to rationally make sense that there is no god, then when we fall for it go, "sorry, now you have to suffer eternally"? Science doesn't concern itself with proving things don't exist. Don't know why you keep bringing this up. ......... Uh, read the thread. There are at least 4 or 5 people on this thread that are begging for scientific proof that God exists, that the words in the Bible are true, that magic is possible, etc... I didn't bring it up. In response to your last paragraph, I agree. It is a leap of faith. And I agree, the fact that we don't know the true meaning to life and the fact that we don't have answers to all of our questions is frustrating. But I like to think of it more as a blessing. I'm glad we don't have all the answers. It adds fun to life IMO. What would life be like if God was visibly hovering over the earth so no one could question His existence, and he answered all of our questions and solved all of our problems? It would be too easy. You think that we have an obesity problem today? Think about a world with no concerns, no difficulties, and no challenges. People would just sit around all day and eat in their comfort and get fat because all of their problems would be taken care of. No, it's not a perfect world. But don't think of it as such a bad thing. Actually in a world with no concerns, we would sit around all day and eat, but wouldn't get fat, but instead turn into athletic, healthy individuals. Point taken. Link to comment
bennychico11 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Boom. Hit the nail on the head. You can't use science to prove that God exists, nor is it possible to use science to prove that He doesn't exist. Why? Who knows. Maybe because God doesn't want it to be obvious that He is real, so that way he knows who are faithful to Him. Like Jesus said, "Blessed are those who believe without seeing." Ugh, you can't use science to prove or disprove god because no evidence has been brought forth that would allow the scientific community to take it seriously. If I said I had an invisible pet dragon in my closet and that because you can't disprove it or prove it with science...that does NOT mean you are required to accept it as a possible truth. Your god, in the past, supposedly interacts with human beings all the time. Even manifesting himself physically into a human...but then saying that centuries later he just decides to remain hidden to test our faith? "If you're positing a god that can and does interact with reality, then there will be evidence for this (otherwise, how would you know any interaction had taken place). If you're positing a god that doesn't interact with reality... why? That which doesn't manifest is indistinguishable from that which doesn't exist." I'm sorry but posting a bunch of questions and a quote that is bolded probably doesn't qualify as an argument. I'm not the one that needs to make a qualified argument. I'm not the one making assertions about reality that I can't back up...I'm just questioning yours. ---edit--- funny that you commented on the addition of a bolded quote, seeing as how I replied to your post that had the same Link to comment
The Dude Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 Boom. Hit the nail on the head. You can't use science to prove that God exists, nor is it possible to use science to prove that He doesn't exist. Why? Who knows. Maybe because God doesn't want it to be obvious that He is real, so that way he knows who are faithful to Him. Like Jesus said, "Blessed are those who believe without seeing." Science doesn't concern itself with proving things don't exist. Don't know why you keep bringing this up. Observation is the basis for science. We've observed polar bears, so we can rationally conclude that polar bears exist. We haven't observed sasquatches, so we can't rationally conclude that sasquatch exists. We haven't observed a god, so we can't rationally conclude that god exist. Coming to the conclusion that god exsits requires a leap of faith. As I brought up in another thread, I find the idea of relying on faith as the only way to make it to heaven to be unsettling. Why would a benevolent, loving god mess with our heads like that? Why would he make it so easy for it to rationally make sense that there is no god, then when we fall for it go, "sorry, now you have to suffer eternally"? Science doesn't concern itself with proving things don't exist. Don't know why you keep bringing this up. ......... Uh, read the thread. There are at least 4 or 5 people on this thread that are begging for scientific proof that God exists, that the words in the Bible are true, that magic is possible, etc... I didn't bring it up. In response to your last paragraph, I agree. It is a leap of faith. And I agree, the fact that we don't know the true meaning to life and the fact that we don't have answers to all of our questions is frustrating. But I like to think of it more as a blessing. I'm glad we don't have all the answers. It adds fun to life IMO. What would life be like if God was visibly hovering over the earth so no one could questin His existence, and he answered all of our questions and solved all of our problems? It would be too easy. You think that we have an obesity problem today? Think about a world with no concerns, no difficulties, and no challenges. People would just sit around all day and eat in their comfort and get fat because all of their problems would be taken care of. No, it's not a perfect world. But don't think of it as such a bad thing. hmmm... sounds more or less like the Christian idea of heaven. I agree it wouldn't be as interesting as real life, and it would last forever. Yuck. Well I've gotta say, I've never heard that perspective before. If you think that a place filled with people/souls who do nothing but love you and an eternity of peace is "yuck" then.... okay then... That's cool and all, but wouldn't it get boring after a while? I mean, eternity is a long time. **Warning: adult language NSFW** http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-RJeqyh-vI Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted March 7, 2012 Author Share Posted March 7, 2012 That's cool and all, but wouldn't it get boring after a while? I mean, eternity is a long time. I just don't think that you, or I, or anyone really has a firm grasp of what heaven is like, but I doubt it would ever get boring... Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 You "insinuated" your position on global warming. No I didn't. You are lying. I asked how you felt about it. What does your religion say about dishonesty? Anyways, I forgive you even though you didn't apologize. Have a nice day. Well maybe I'm not done with you for today. I did not lie and I resent your statement that I did. At worst, I may have come to the wrong conclusion about your position but I am not lying. You were taking the opposite position of me in a discussion about consensus proving things, you chose global warming as an example only because you assume I do not believe in global warming and because you feel there is scientific consensus supporting it. Then you proceeded to do what you do; Accuse other people (me) of that which you are guilty, using consensus to support some claims and ignoring it for other issues. I may have used some statistics to help validate my position but no where did I claim that 92% consensus makes it true. If anyone is possibly lying or being dishonest in this discussion it is you. We only don't know that for sure because you will rarely answer any direct question in an unqualifed, un reframed manner. Discussing things with you reminds me of Bill Clinton needing every word of a simple question defined. "Did you have sex with that woman?" What do you mean by "sex"? What do you mean by "that woman"? If you ever wonder why people get frustrated with you, well that's it. I am not above being a little dishonest in the way I present my side of an argument and neither are you so you can drop the charade. But I do greatly resent being accused of lying. You are not important enough to me to have to resort to lying. If you continue to make unfounded claims such as this, we are going to have a problem bound for the woodshed. Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I am not above being a little dishonest in the way I present my side of an argument and neither are you so you can drop the charade. But I do greatly resent being accused of lying. I suppose a little dishonesty goes a long ways. If you're done now, have a nice day. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 I am not above being a little dishonest in the way I present my side of an argument and neither are you so you can drop the charade. But I do greatly resent being accused of lying. I suppose a little dishonesty goes a long ways. If you're done now, have a nice day. 4,597 posts. I suppose we can agree that is a long ways. You have a nice day as well. Link to comment
carlfense Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 4,597 posts. I suppose we can agree that is a long ways. You have a nice day as well. I would appreciate links to my lies. I can provide them for your own. Anyways. No worries. To sin is human, to forgive divine. Link to comment
johnnyrodgers20 Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 4,597 posts. I suppose we can agree that is a long ways. You have a nice day as well. I would appreciate links to my lies. I can provide them for your own. Anyways. No worries. To sin is human, to forgive divine. First take the board out of your eye!! Just messin' Link to comment
Recommended Posts