Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Reesie on December 19, 2012 at 1:00pm

I did at the beginning and he just continued to call me ignorant even though he's the one who couldn't distinguish between a concept and actual proof. His main supporting argument was that since it wasn't an anthropomorphic god, it was considered proven because they saw their god as nature, which exists. So backwards.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by david garcia on December 19, 2012 at 2:34pm

tell him if that concept of proof was valid then he would have won a nobel award or somthing... the way he sees nature or the way he views the world has no bearing on actual proof of a god.. I would just say hey .. if nature is proof of a god for you that is great but thats is not proof for anyone other racinal  human ..that s why you havent won any awards for your discovery becuse no one in their right mind considerds that proof 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reesie on December 19, 2012 at 2:39pm

EXACTLY!

He's doing some serious mental gymnastics and going on about how everyone's interpretation is different, blahblahblah. But I'm like, there's a reason why we define things. There's a reason why the definition of "god" is not "a wooden writing utensil". There's actual meaning behind the word and he's trying to equate it with something else and pass it off as being proof. I just don't understand some people.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by david garcia on December 19, 2012 at 2:46pm

he playing games with fallacies.... I would just ask him questions until he cant answer them at a certn point he wont wont have any responses you just need to ask the right questions

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reesie on December 19, 2012 at 3:02pm

"Proof is there or not depending on criterias. If the criteria is that nature is the definition that is to be supported and all you need is tangible evidence that you do see something in there, it exists, but if the criteria is something that requires a much more agreed consensus and involves more stuff, then it does not. You know one could use your logics to sexuality and emotions, you know why right? If not, I'll clarify on all of the semantics issues and all of the wide possible interpretations."

WHAT?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by david garcia on December 19, 2012 at 5:23pm

ask this questions   ask him... to define God...no matter what he responds with .. say how do you know......  no matter what ....lol  trust me

 

Permalink Reply by david garcia on December 19, 2012 at 6:11pm

he is dumb ....its not about prefrence like  sexuality ,like;;; you like guys and i like girls.. and we are both right .. no proof needed...to find out the truth... . the question of wether god exsist or not has a right answer in principle... either he does or dosnt.. dosnt matter about emotions of prefrences....  and if he is saying that there is a god.. which he.. is.. tell him there needs to be a way to reach this conclusion together.. andnd his prefrence is not proof.. to you ..

Permalink Reply by david garcia on December 19, 2012 at 6:38pm

sayin that god in nature... is .... claimin that he have knowledge of god..  how did he get this knowldge... and if he is saying that its not tangible or unfalsifibale .. again he is also sayin that he has knowledge of god... again .. ask hwo does he know.. where did he get this knowledge...

Permalink Reply by Adam on December 19, 2012 at 1:55am

Saying god exists as nature is no different from saying god exists as a pencil. Giving god a materialistic characteristic doesn't make it anymore real.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Reesie on December 21, 2012 at 3:58pm

He tries to justify it by saying that "nature" is all that is - which is an extension of what people might consider a god to be. But nature existed independently from what humans would attribute to be gods, whether they're anthropomorphic or not. Just because some people might consider nature to be their god, doesn't mean that's proof of their claim.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by archaeopteryx on December 21, 2012 at 9:19pm

No, but it's certainly proof that they're delusional.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by jared manley on December 19, 2012 at 2:05am

 What is Nature? Everything. "Pan" means "all". I don't think it does any good to call everything God. We do have better words for it. Words like "everything" and "all".

 It sort of reminds me of one of the Gods in the Discworld Novels (Terry Pratchett) the "God of Evolution".

"Although no-one believes in the God of Evolution, he survives thanks to his own strong belief. He does not believe in himself, because he is an atheist, but he believes in what he does."

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page