Does God exist? (11 Viewers)

[sam04u]

That sentence.

I'm not racist, I just know how to push your buttons .

I think you're refering to the word 'surpede'? Well can you prove that It does not exist? I mean just because It isn't listed in the dictionary, I'm using it, It makes sense, and It is derived from latin and greek literature. It makes perfect sense right? when correlating a word we use other words?

Prove to me the word Surpede doesn't exist and I'll accept the fact that you may be as Intelligent as I am. (The word is Just symbollic of the Proof of God. )

 

[c_james]

I think you're refering to the word 'surpede'? Well can you prove that It does not exist? I mean just because It isn't listed in the dictionary, I'm using it, It makes sense, and It is derived from latin and greek literature. It makes perfect sense right? when correlating a word we use other words?

Prove to me the word Surpede doesn't exist and I'll accept the fact that you may be as Intelligent as I am. (The word is Just symbollic of the Proof of God. )

As a fairly objective observer, I'm gonna have to say that was among the stupidest of your posts, which really is saying something. He doesn't have to prove he's as intelligent as you - not that that would be a difficult thing for anyone to do - so stop fucking around and stay on topic.

 

[sam04u]

No, you couldn't "equally" suggest that, because atheists don't have a written code and institutionalised doctrine to follow. Atheists don't run non-secular governments, for obvious reasons, like that of Saudi Arabia.

Further, there's no "misrepresentation of ideas" if a sizeable portion of Muslims believe in these so-called "misrepsentations". Enough of them believe in what you call "misrepresentations" to form governments which don't only tolerate, but actively sanction honour killings, dismemberment for theft, and stonings.



I ask what he approves of to prove you're a hypocrite, much like all god-fearing religious types who superficially do "good deeds", but who, in most respects, really don't live up to the hype.

Could you prove that it was a sizeable ammount? I think you just explained that it was a misrepresentation proving that they're not affiliated with mainstream Islam. It's happened with every other group in the past and there has been equally as violent actions from anti-religious people. People who do not follow the main Ideas of the religion do not 'really' believe in the religion, and therefore are not apart of the religion. I could argue that theoretically they're atheists because they do not believe in god enough to follow the book but to make up stories and misrepresent the book in a bid to make war with other nations. (Including the 'nation of Islam' which isn't a physical nation. )

I think I've made it CLEAR that Islam as a whole does not support such actions and In a smaller community this is highlighted. Use Australia as an example, compare the number of Muslim people and the acts which you have described, the ratio would be completely insignificant.

 

[sam04u]

As a fairly objective observer, I'm gonna have to say that was among the stupidest of your posts, which really is saying something. He doesn't have to prove he's as intelligent as you - not that that would be a difficult thing for anyone to do - so stop fucking around and stay on topic.

I think it would be an almost impossible task to prove over the internet based on an argument. He said that he was as equally as intelligent based on the post which I made and therefore I challenged him to prove it. I'm not steering off-topic It's perfectly on topic infact. You're the racist who thinks that he can make a judgement of an entire religion (comprising of about 1.5 billion people) based on an insignificant number of radicals. (You're a fucking Idiot and you haven't made a plausible argument or rebuttal all day. I suggest you leave this argument for those who actually know what they're talking about instead of those who are regurgitating crap which they've absorbed and adopted as their own beliefs. (You)

 

[sam04u]

If you can't play it in scrabble it doesn't exist. It's not a colloquially known word, it's not recognised in a dictionary, it's not even appropriate slang.

Of course the word now does exist, but that doesn't mean it has any meaning

I can't play x-box in scrabble, but I had my x-box on all day. Please... Explain....?? *puzzled*

 

[Not-That-Bright]

You're the racist who thinks that he can make a judgement of an entire religion (comprising of about 1.5 billion people) based on an insignificant number of radicals.

A religion is not a race... something you can't choose... it's an ideology... you have choice... it's open to judgement/critique. I don't think judgements of the religion as a whole should be made off of radical groups (that would be selective sampling), but if you're examining that radical group you should keep in mind its connections with the wider religion and vice versa, if examining the religion you should keep in mind its connections with that radical group (and others).

I can't play x-box in scrabble, but I had my x-box on all day. Please... Explain....?? *puzzled*.

X-Box is a proper noun, perhaps?

edit: It's hard to tell if you're serious or just being stupid.

 

[sam04u]

Anyways, I'm tired. Nice Job in ganging up on me. I would like to call todays session 'Gang Rape', even though I held my own. Good Night and perhaps we can continue this debate on another night.

-End

 

[c_james]

Could you prove that it was a sizeable ammount? I think you just explained that it was a misrepresentation proving that they're not affiliated with mainstream Islam. It's happened with every other group in the past and there has been equally as violent actions from anti-religious people. People who do not follow the main Ideas of the religion do not 'really' believe in the religion, and therefore are not apart of the religion. I could argue that theoretically they're atheists because they do not believe in god enough to follow the book but to make up stories and misrepresent the book in a bid to make war with other nations. (Including the 'nation of Islam' which isn't a physical nation. )

Allow me to prove it is in fact a sizeable amount:

When people are dissatisfied with the actions of their government, they revolt, yes? Saudi Arabia's government has been committing the aforementioned atrocities for decades, if not centuries. There has been no Islamic revolution, nor has there been a very strong underground movement, I believe. I think it's fair to say the majority of Muslims living in the Middle East support such policies, if only because they've been indoctrinated to. And what they have they been indoctrined with? Oh, that's right. Islam.

I think I've made it CLEAR that Islam as a whole does not support such actions and In a smaller community this is highlighted. Use Australia as an example, compare the number of Muslim people and the acts which you have described, the ratio would be completely insignificant.

Saying you've made anything in this thread "clear" is a big claim coming from your pseudo-scientific mouth. You cannot possibly compare Muslim nations with non-Muslim nations. Muslims aren't in power here. They are over there. The atrocities don't occur here, but they do over there, where they have well-established traditions. What does that tell you?

 

[Not-That-Bright]

I would like to call todays session 'Gang Rape', even though I held my own.

Err... But really, like I made sure to establish it with you about 6 times already but i'll do it again. You believe that god is the 'something' that created the universe and nothing more?

 

[c_james]

I think it would be an almost impossible task to prove over the internet based on an argument. He said that he was as equally as intelligent based on the post which I made and therefore I challenged him to prove it. I'm not steering off-topic It's perfectly on topic infact. You're the racist who thinks that he can make a judgement of an entire religion (comprising of about 1.5 billion people) based on an insignificant number of radicals. (You're a fucking Idiot and you haven't made a plausible argument or rebuttal all day. I suggest you leave this argument for those who actually know what they're talking about instead of those who are regurgitating crap which they've absorbed and adopted as their own beliefs. (You)

Racist? What the hell? Wow, there goes all your credibility. I've already presented to you my logic for judging the wider by its smaller parts, and it's quite valid. I'm not talking about "radical groups", you moron, I'm talking about ISLAMIC GOVERNMENTS. Are Islamic governments "an insignificant number of radicals"? Sheesh, you're an idiot.

 

[c_james]

It's hard to tell if you're serious or just being stupid.

That question is worthy of its own topic. I think we should all just assume the latter, though, especially after he tried to play the 'You're Racist!' card.

 

[sam04u]

OMFG! You don't understand what RACISM IS, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR SAMPLE SPACE IS YOU FUCKING MORON!! (Unless It's 100%) You can't justify Judging 1,500,000,000 people because of the actions of an almost insignificant ammount of people. (Some of the actions which you stated I do not condone, However It is not a legal practive to stone women, or to saw the hands of criminas who do petty theft) Islamic Law, does not justify corporal punishment in mitigating circumstance and only when it involves heinous robberies and even then it has been abolished for the most part.

(I'm going to sleep, you're completely intolerable and I find no benefit in debating with a character such as you tonight. )


They have execution in the United States of America, remember that.

 

[c_james]

OMFG! You don't understand what RACISM IS, IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT YOUR SAMPLE SPACE IS YOU FUCKING MORON!! (Unless It's 100%) You can't justify Judging 1,500,000,000 people because of the actions of an almost insignificant ammount of people. (Some of the actions which you stated I do not condone, However It is not a legal practive to stone women, or to saw the hands of criminas who do petty theft) Islamic Law, does not justify corporal punishment in mitigating circumstance and only when it involves heinous robberies and even then it has been abolished for the most part.

(I'm going to sleep, you're completely intolerable and I find no benefit in debating with a character such as you tonight. )


They have execution in the United States of America, remember that.

So by your logic, I can hypothetically find 1,499,999,999 Muslims with the same belief, but I can't judge Islam as a whole based on that belief because one person happens to disagree with them?

Yeah, that's good. Shut up and go to sleep.

 

[sam04u]

That question is worthy of its own topic. I think we should all just assume the latter, though, especially after he tried to play the 'You're Racist!' card.

Dude, you have double standards and whether you want to accept it or not it's true. You support one government and condone another, you support one man's freedom fighter (Your Avatar) and condone another. It's obvious you're a racist and it can be proven by your vendetta to 'challenge' Islam. (I don't want to get into this. But, I will if I have to.)

 

[c_james]

Dude, you have double standards and whether you want to accept it or not it's true. You support one government and condone another, you support one man's freedom fighter (Your Avatar) and condone another. It's obvious you're a racist and it can be proven by your vendetta to 'challenge' Islam. (I don't want to get into this. But, I will if I have to.)

I don't support Che Guevara at all, actually. The man was, among other things, a murderer who did things almost as heinous as they do in Saudi Arabia. If you look closely at my avatar you'll see it's actually poking fun at rich, white kids who idolise Che.

Your credibility is going into the negatives.

EDIT: I don't have a "vendetta" to challenge Islam. I have a vendetta to challenge institutionalised religion itself. You'll find I treat Christianity no more leniently.

 

[c_james]

Dude, you have double standards and whether you want to accept it or not it's true. You support one government and condone another, you support one man's freedom fighter (Your Avatar) and condone another. It's obvious you're a racist and it can be proven by your vendetta to 'challenge' Islam. (I don't want to get into this. But, I will if I have to.)

I think you were after the word 'condemn', not 'condone'. 'Condone' means tolerate. Are you going to now tell me that words mean whatever you want them to mean, just like you can make up words like 'surpede'?

I suggest you learn English before attempting to argue with me. It'd just make things easier, for the both of us.

 

[sam04u]

Thanks for pointing that out, it was an honest mistake as I was typing as fast as I could because I was extremely tired. So, You challenge institutionalised religion because of it's extremes yet you support atheism which admits it doesn't know the answers because of some weak 'theories' which they hold. Atheism was built off the Big Bang theory, which is the most idiotic theory to have ever existed. (In its entirety, not single parts which are somewhat plausible. )

I provided scientific theory, and you brush it off as pseudo-scientific jargon without even properly contemplating it. (Because you're inadequate too)

I suggested that our universe and many like it are built from laws, which support the first law in the system. It may be difficult for you to understand of a universe with different laws then the ones that we have in our universe.

I'll explain it again, Prior to the laws, our universe didn't exist. It wasn't even a physical place, (this is not like the space we know of, because it consists of all the laws of physics) It was law-less. Untill the creation of the first law, which was the Law of Energy. It was this: (Energy exists, and it is a finite ammount it is this much exactly "y.yyx10^y".) So, there would be Energy but it would not be the Energy whcih we know today, which is governed by thermodynamics, it would exist as a type of Force. However, this energy would have needed to sustain itself as it would be under pressure as a whole. It would have had to transfer into something else to maintain the energy and this would have been Billions of small particles. (This would make the 2nd Law of physics in our universe. "The Law of Matter". )

Matter would not be the particles we know today as they wouldn't be governed by the laws of thermodynamics, and would have existed motionless. (Properly in a huge or tiny ball depending on your definition of huge and tiny. ) They would have Energy, they would not be energy anymore, (Energy could not be lost because of the first Law, the finite ammount of energy could never be lessened or lost, because of the first Law. ) So, the particles needed a way to maintain the energy. The birth of the third law was created, 'all matter has gravity which is the attraction to other matter', this law was created so that the energy could be maintained as it would be all positive, motionless energy which stressed the particle's form. The Law of gravity meant all the energy particles would 'come closer and closer together', this tightness would be the next challenge to the energy in an almost lawless universe, the first law has to be followed though and the pressure of the paticles compacting together gave birth to the next law. It was that energy could be 'transfered, but never lost.' which is the first law of thermodynamics. So, as the charged particles began colliding together, they were stressed enough to release another kind of energy particles. (ElectroMagnetic Radiation) The gravity in the radiation would cause it to travel in a wave, as it would leave the 'scene' on an angle whilst maintaining it's own 'gravity'. (The energy would not just have been waves, but tiny particles from the collision.. extremely tiny...)

Therefore the second law of thermodynamics was created, to protect the 2nd law of our universe (matter), so that matter could exist. (maintaining the energy which is held within them). The rest is pretty much how we know it today. Then energy became a hot, heap and bundle. It became overly hot, and the electromagnetic radiation, seeped through the particles (which slowly developped, through collisions and stresses, including negative particles which were a result of equalising 2 positive particles clashing, there would have to be an opposite force as energy woudl transfer from one particle to the other, leaving one half negative. )

Slowly, these electrons and protons exploded together, transfering negative's to positives, the energy from there crashes produced the energy needed for the block to explode and.


Here are things which you may ask:
How long between process one till the explosion: (I'd say less then 1x10^-999)

You said that the particles existed in a 'ball', isn't a sphere only a sphere because of the 4th law 'gravity'? : Yeah, that's probably right too but it's the best way to explain it.

Who made the first law? : I say god, because the entity could not have been from within the universe.

Who came up with this Idea?: Me, Lawl!

 

[littlewing69]

They have execution in the United States of America, remember that.

I don't think anyone in here defended that. In fact, I'm pretty damn sure most of the other guys posting in here are fairly liberal. I'm making a big assumption there, but I don't think I'd be too far off the mark if I said most of the atheists talking in here are in fact what Coulter would call "godless liberals".

Of course, I may well be wrong.

Personally, I think the U.S.A is very much on the wrong track, and has been post-WWII, and indeed, in some ways even before that. I detest capital punishment.

Scarily enough, I think the U.S may well be headed down the same path as the muslim states. Read up on a thing called "Dominion Theology" which is gaining momentum in the U.S. The evangelicals are a very powerful interest group over there right now, and they don't look like they're going to slow down anytime soon. Hell, they're already in the fucking White House.

 

[littlewing69]

Dude, you have double standards and whether you want to accept it or not it's true. You support one government and condone another, you support one man's freedom fighter (Your Avatar) and condone another. It's obvious you're a racist and it can be proven by your vendetta to 'challenge' Islam. (I don't want to get into this. But, I will if I have to.)

Seeing as you're a muslim, I would have thought you'd know that Islam is one of the least racially-interested ideologies around. The word you are searching for is 'bigoted', not 'racist'.


PS: He's not a bigot.

 

[c_james]

Thanks for pointing that out, it was an honest mistake as I was typing as fast as I could because I was extremely tired. So, You challenge institutionalised religion because of it's extremes yet you support atheism which admits it doesn't know the answers because of some weak 'theories' which they hold. Atheism was built off the Big Bang theory, which is the most idiotic theory to have ever existed. (In its entirety, not single parts which are somewhat plausible. )

Do you even read my posts? Seriously? I support agnosticism, not atheism - I don't propose to hold certain answers to questions which are necessarily uncertain. Look that big word up in your dictionary, the same one that includes bizarro words like 'surpede' and alternate definitions for 'condone'.

I provided scientific theory, and you brush it off as pseudo-scientific jargon without even properly contemplating it. (Because you're inadequate too)

I suggested that our universe and many like it are built from laws, which support the first law in the system. It may be difficult for you to understand of a universe with different laws then the ones that we have in our universe.

I'll explain it again, Prior to the laws, our universe didn't exist. It wasn't even a physical place, (this is not like the space we know of, because it consists of all the laws of physics) It was law-less. Untill the creation of the first law, which was the Law of Energy. It was this: (Energy exists, and it is a finite ammount it is this much exactly "y.yyx10^y".) So, there would be Energy but it would not be the Energy whcih we know today, which is governed by thermodynamics, it would exist as a type of Force. However, this energy would have needed to sustain itself as it would be under pressure as a whole. It would have had to transfer into something else to maintain the energy and this would have been Billions of small particles. (This would make the 2nd Law of physics in our universe. "The Law of Matter". )

Matter would not be the particles we know today as they wouldn't be governed by the laws of thermodynamics, and would have existed motionless. (Properly in a huge or tiny ball depending on your definition of huge and tiny. ) They would have Energy, they would not be energy anymore, (Energy could not be lost because of the first Law, the finite ammount of energy could never be lessened or lost, because of the first Law. ) So, the particles needed a way to maintain the energy. The birth of the third law was created, 'all matter has gravity which is the attraction to other matter', this law was created so that the energy could be maintained as it would be all positive, motionless energy which stressed the particle's form. The Law of gravity meant all the energy particles would 'come closer and closer together', this tightness would be the next challenge to the energy in an almost lawless universe, the first law has to be followed though and the pressure of the paticles compacting together gave birth to the next law. It was that energy could be 'transfered, but never lost.' which is the first law of thermodynamics. So, as the charged particles began colliding together, they were stressed enough to release another kind of energy particles. (ElectroMagnetic Radiation) The gravity in the radiation would cause it to travel in a wave, as it would leave the 'scene' on an angle whilst maintaining it's own 'gravity'. (The energy would not just have been waves, but tiny particles from the collision.. extremely tiny...)

Therefore the second law of thermodynamics was created, to protect the 2nd law of our universe (matter), so that matter could exist. (maintaining the energy which is held within them). The rest is pretty much how we know it today. Then energy became a hot, heap and bundle. It became overly hot, and the electromagnetic radiation, seeped through the particles (which slowly developped, through collisions and stresses, including negative particles which were a result of equalising 2 positive particles clashing, there would have to be an opposite force as energy woudl transfer from one particle to the other, leaving one half negative. )

Slowly, these electrons and protons exploded together, transfering negative's to positives, the energy from there crashes produced the energy needed for the block to explode and.

I'll again reiterate that this is a load of shit. The mere fact that we extrapolate laws from our universe doesn't necessarily mean some all-powerful entity created the universe with a view to creating these specific laws. Besides that, as NTB said, even if you are correct (which you're not) you still have to deal with the fact that your 'scientific theory' doesn't prove the existence of a tri-omni God, but merely proves that there's a prime mover.

Who made the first law? : I say god, because the entity could not have been from within the universe.

What an idiotic chain of logic. Just because it's not from our universe doesn't mean it's an omniscient, omipotent, omnibenevolent God. Your problem is that you're not working off a widely accepted definition of what a 'God' is. Under your definition, God could be Satan. He's not of this world. Surely he too could have created the universe? In fact, given the state of the world today, I wouldn't be surprised if he had.

In short, you lose on all fronts.

Who came up with this Idea?: Me, Lawl!

Hence the reason it sucks.