difficulty of the first year math exams (1 Viewer)

[walla]

much like i can believe that flying pigs exist, but i'm still patently wrong (sorry opal).

 

[KeypadSDM]

Originally posted by xiao1985
there's no point in arguing something whether god exists... to a person who believes it does, it does to him/her; to a person who doesn't believe it, it doesn't to him/her...

tis all a perspective thing, i mean, i can argue all day long how good beef is to ur health, but then, to a vegetarian due to religion person, there's not much point is there?? he/she will continue the beliefs he/she had...

so y dont we put a full stop on this arguement??

You're not addressing the point og this argument. That God by necessity has to exist.

I believe in God, but there's no proof that he MUST exist.

 

[famunlau]

Originally posted by KeypadSDM
You're not addressing the point og this argument. That God by necessity has to exist.

I believe in God, but there's no proof that he MUST exist.

Um by keypad....arguing about whether a god exists and whether there was someone who created the creator is pointless and will get u in a lot of trouble. Just let them be, have ur own opinions, voice them but do not question other people's beliefs and they won't question urs....dun make chaos out of nothing

 

[KeypadSDM]

Originally posted by famunlau
Um by keypad....arguing about whether a god exists and whether there was someone who created the creator is pointless and will get u in a lot of trouble. Just let them be, have ur own opinions, voice them but do not question other people's beliefs and they won't question urs....dun make chaos out of nothing

Ok, here's a little logic: Belief is not Proof. Please, if you're going to say something about what I said, at least make it related to what I said.

Jeez, I'm saying you can't prove God exists, and you're telling me that I have to respect that other people have their own BELIEFS? Did you even READ what I wrote when you quoted me? I BELIEVE IN GOD.

Idiocy annoys me.

 

[famunlau]

Originally posted by KeypadSDM
Ok, here's a little logic: Belief is not Proof. Please, if you're going to say something about what I said, at least make it related to what I said.

Jeez, I'm saying you can't prove God exists, and you're telling me that I have to respect that other people have their own BELIEFS? Did you even READ what I wrote when you quoted me? I BELIEVE IN GOD.

Idiocy annoys me.

If u believe that he exists then he does....no need to prove....u cannot prove the supernatural....although I myself believes there is a god...but u do not need proof to believe...and by antagonising people...by telling them to prove that god exists is not a good idea...

 

[Collin]

Originally posted by famunlau
If u believe that he exists then he does....no need to prove....u cannot prove the supernatural....although I myself believes there is a god...but u do not need proof to believe...and by antagonising people...by telling them to prove that god exists is not a good idea...

Why would God exist just because he believes he exists? I could out of complete idiocy believe somehow that the Earth was genuinely flat, when in actuality it's obviously not. Like padKey already stated, belief is not proof.

I only came into this debate because it was mentioned by someone a few pages ago that God must exist as a consequence of common sense that everything has a creator, and that creator somehow must be God; implying that God by necessity must exist. But like already elaborated, it's unreasonable and legitimately stupid to try and justify that he must exist.

Trying to justify something as a necessity when the evidence for it doesn't exist only achieves a waste of time.

 

[KeypadSDM]

Originally posted by famunlau
u cannot prove the supernatural

Oh you're one of them. Get out of the science board. No one likes a dolt.

 

[KeypadSDM]

Originally posted by famunlau
If u believe that he exists then he does....no need to prove

Ok, and this one? You moron. Do you have any idea how many humans have 'wasted' their lives on this idea of: I have a hypothesis, lets try to prove it true or false. It's called the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

 

[famunlau]

But why are we trying to prove something exists?...I'm just saying it causes trouble....

 

[KeypadSDM]

Originally posted by famunlau
But why are we trying to prove something exists?...I'm just saying it causes trouble....

If you bothered reading, I'm saying we CAN'T prove it exists. The only reason it causes trouble is because of small minded people with silly little biased thoughts of what "should be" because we "all know" God doesn't need proof, he's just there.

Sigh

 

[Collin]

Originally posted by famunlau
But why are we trying to prove something exists?

We're not. Someone else assumed that it exists when the irrefutable evidence for it's validation doesn't exist (currently). I.e:

Originally posted by KeypadSDM
we CAN'T prove it exists.

Originally posted by famunlau
I'm just saying it causes trouble....

Why..

 

[famunlau]

Originally posted by KeypadSDM
If you bothered reading, I'm saying we CAN'T prove it exists. The only reason it causes trouble is because of small minded people with silly little biased thoughts of what "should be" because we "all know" God doesn't need proof, he's just there.

Sigh

Yes I know we can't prove it....but arguing about it to some certain groups can cause a lot of trouble...i.e.
1) try the EU
2) try catholic and Christian Church ministers

this is because some illogical small minded people as u say...cannot take this kind of response..and all they do is go into a strong defence..and major chaos occurs..I know..I've tried

 

[Collin]

That wouldn't get us into trouble, but only exploit their argumentative weaknesses. When something cannot be proven due to the inexistence of the irrefutable evidence, the argument is 100% concrete for you. Hence no matter what they throw at you, it can be deduced down to irrelevance because they will never be able to bypass or corrupt this point. So in the end, they falter and crumble under their own arguments. Conclusively the only way they can ever shut us up in finality is to produce something irrefutable, such as physical proof. But they can't, and because they can't, they can't get us into trouble because we're arguing on fundamental reasoning and logic which can't be ignored.

Why would the European Union care?

 

[Calculon]

If god were proven to exist it would remove the fundamental principle upon which christianity is based; faith.

 

[famunlau]

Originally posted by JKDDragon
That wouldn't get us into trouble, but only exploit their argumentative weaknesses. When something cannot be proven due to the inexistence of the irrefutable evidence, the argument is 100% concrete for you. Hence no matter what they throw at you, it can be deduced down to irrelevance because they will never be able to bypass or corrupt this point. So in the end, they falter and crumble under their own arguments. Conclusively the only way they can ever shut us up in finality is to produce something irrefutable, such as physical proof. But they can't, and because they can't, they can't get us into trouble because we're arguing on fundamental reasoning and logic which can't be ignored.

Why would the European Union care?

NONONONO the evangelical union...not european union....it doesn't matta.....belief is not proof is the best thing I've heard of so far...but yeah..its just arguments like this...tend to annoy people who are interested or have a faith....

 

[Collin]

Originally posted by famunlau
NONONONO the evangelical union...not european union....it doesn't matta.....belief is not proof is the best thing I've heard of so far...but yeah..its just arguments like this...tend to annoy people who are interested or have a faith....

Exactly, it annoys them but they can't get me into 'trouble', because they don't have the argumentative means to.

Have I ever told you I believe in God? I actually do, so as you can see I'm not one of those skeptics who simply dismiss without reason.

 

[sam04u]

wow, you people go to uni?

my sisters (3 and 5) have more "proof" in their arguments
wheres the evidence not just "oh im god and i dont need proof"

 

[sam04u]

anyone from any religion that was made less that 10 years ago would agree that this sort of argument is a sin "haroum"
however you look at it.

you have to agree that their is a celestial force, a creator.
big bang theory?? nigga please

if it was possible what is the probability of it happening? 1/10x10^1000??
why doesnt it happen again??

x>>x
xy>>xy

if nothing comes in nothing comes out

nothing cant make something
their is a god.


questioning if their is one is stupid,insane,pointless its common sense...
why? he made us?
how? he made us?

those are worthwhile questions

 

[Collin]

anyone from any religion that was made less that 10 years ago would agree that this sort of argument is a sin "haroum"
however you look at it.

you have to agree that their is a celestial force, a creator.
big bang theory?? nigga please

if it was possible what is the probability of it happening? 1/10x10^1000??
why doesnt it happen again??

x>>x
xy>>xy

if nothing comes in nothing comes out

nothing cant make something
their is a god.


questioning if their is one is stupid,insane,pointless its common sense...
why? he made us?
how? he made us?

those are worthwhile questions

What the hell are you talking about? How does the proposition of there being a creator irrefutably imply that that creator must be God? Why is questioning such a concept stupid, pointless, insane or non-common sensical? It looks like you haven't even read the thread. Proclaiming your sisters have better arguments will only give you a slap back in the face.

Prove that God must exist. You can't, so drop it.

 

[sam04u]

hahahaha on the contraire my friend i needed a volunteer to argue what you did so i can relate it to the topic.

well if it isnt god but there is a creator would he be the best? and no one would be better?