(10-23-2015 03:13 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 03:09 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You don't have to wholly discount the possibility that there is a deity to understand the simple math and evidence which shows that the biblical flood did not take place or that living in the belly of a whale for 3 days isn't possible. The idea that those are possibilities simply because you think a god is a possibility is just as interesting to me.

You don't have to be a Christian either to understand that the entire universe just popping into existence from complete nothingness isn't possible either.

The day that Science can prove there is no god and that he did not create the universe will be the day you have the truth to stand on.

Until then, you are going on just as much faith as I am. You can't prove a single theory you have on the origin of the universe.

See now, not only are your assumptions about atheism wrong, but your logical conclusions regarding these beliefs are invalid.

First of all, I have no idea what created the universe, what was here prior to it, or anything along those lines. As I understand it, the Big Bang (a theory devised by a Priest btw) explains the very beginning of our Universe pretty well, but I won't pretend to act like I understand that level of math. My view requires absolutely no faith whatsoever, because it is simply "I don't know because we have no evidence".

Contrast that to your belief, you claim you know who created the universe, and admit that there is no evidence. That is a belief on your part, one that requires faith.

Do you see the inherent differences between your opinion and mine? And how your statement that "I'm going on as much faith as you" is patently untrue?

(10-23-2015 03:26 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  See now, not only are your assumptions about atheism wrong, but your logical conclusions regarding these beliefs are invalid.

First of all, I have no idea what created the universe, what was here prior to it, or anything along those lines. As I understand it, the Big Bang (a theory devised by a Priest btw) explains the very beginning of our Universe pretty well, but I won't pretend to act like I understand that level of math. My view requires absolutely no faith whatsoever, because it is simply "I don't know because we have no evidence".

Contrast that to your belief, you claim you know who created the universe, and admit that there is no evidence. That is a belief on your part, one that requires faith.

Do you see the inherent differences between your opinion and mine? And how your statement that "I'm going on as much faith as you" is patently untrue?

This is just a silly reach of epic proportions.

I don't claim scientific proof of ANYTHING, and I certainly do not have to prove or validate my personal religious beliefs to you AT ALL.

The level of arrogance wrapped up in that suggestion is off the charts.

If you DON'T believe in the big bang and are just claiming ignorance or lack of belief in anything all the way around, then fine, you have no faith in any of it.

I have no problem with that at all.

I'm not even questioning you about it. Your beliefs are your beliefs.

We disagree and I'm fine with that.

(10-23-2015 03:29 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 03:26 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  See now, not only are your assumptions about atheism wrong, but your logical conclusions regarding these beliefs are invalid.

First of all, I have no idea what created the universe, what was here prior to it, or anything along those lines. As I understand it, the Big Bang (a theory devised by a Priest btw) explains the very beginning of our Universe pretty well, but I won't pretend to act like I understand that level of math. My view requires absolutely no faith whatsoever, because it is simply "I don't know because we have no evidence".

Contrast that to your belief, you claim you know who created the universe, and admit that there is no evidence. That is a belief on your part, one that requires faith.

Do you see the inherent differences between your opinion and mine? And how your statement that "I'm going on as much faith as you" is patently untrue?

This is just a silly reach of epic proportions.

I don't claim scientific proof of ANYTHING, and I certainly do not have to prove or validate my personal religious beliefs to you AT ALL.

The level of arrogance wrapped up in that suggestion is off the charts.

If you DON'T believe in the big bang and just claiming ignorance all the way around, then fine, you have no faith in any of it.

I have no problem with that at all.

I don't even know how this response makes sense.

I never said you claimed to have scientific proof or evidence, and in fact stated the exact opposite.

And I do believe that the theory of the Big Bang is the best explanation we have for the first moments of the universe. Notice, the Big Bang doesn't require you to believe anything about the universe prior to it occurring, which is why Catholic Doctrine officially accepts it.

(10-23-2015 03:40 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't even know how this response makes sense.

I never said you claimed to have scientific proof or evidence, and in fact stated the exact opposite.

And I do believe that the theory of the Big Bang is the best explanation we have for the first moments of the universe. Notice, the Big Bang doesn't require you to believe anything about the universe prior to it occurring, which is why Catholic Doctrine officially accepts it.

I don't know how many different ways to tell you the same thing.

I'm fine with your beliefs.

You have nothing to prove or validate to me.

If you believe in the Big bang just a little bit, or a lot, or just by whatever the current academic measure of the day is, then that's fine.

I respect your beliefs, even if I disagree.

(10-23-2015 03:43 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 03:40 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't even know how this response makes sense.

I never said you claimed to have scientific proof or evidence, and in fact stated the exact opposite.

And I do believe that the theory of the Big Bang is the best explanation we have for the first moments of the universe. Notice, the Big Bang doesn't require you to believe anything about the universe prior to it occurring, which is why Catholic Doctrine officially accepts it.

I don't know how many different ways to tell you the same thing.

I'm fine with your beliefs.

You have nothing to prove or validate to me.

If you believe in the Big bang just a little bit, or a lot, or just by whatever the current academic measure of the day is, then that's fine.

I respect your beliefs, even if I disagree.

And I don't know how many posts I have to make before you realize I've never tried to validate my beliefs in anyway to you, only correct your misunderstanding of them and the faulty logic you place in them.

Your belief requires faith, you incorrectly stated mine does too when it doesn't. I really don't understand why you flipped out the way you did, or where most of your statements came from, but that's literally all I was saying.

(10-23-2015 03:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 03:43 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 03:40 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't even know how this response makes sense.

I never said you claimed to have scientific proof or evidence, and in fact stated the exact opposite.

And I do believe that the theory of the Big Bang is the best explanation we have for the first moments of the universe. Notice, the Big Bang doesn't require you to believe anything about the universe prior to it occurring, which is why Catholic Doctrine officially accepts it.

I don't know how many different ways to tell you the same thing.

I'm fine with your beliefs.

You have nothing to prove or validate to me.

If you believe in the Big bang just a little bit, or a lot, or just by whatever the current academic measure of the day is, then that's fine.

I respect your beliefs, even if I disagree.

And I don't know how many posts I have to make before you realize I've never tried to validate my beliefs in anyway to you, only correct your misunderstanding of them and the faulty logic you place in them.

Your belief requires faith, you incorrectly stated mine does too when it doesn't. I really don't understand why you flipped out the way you did, or where most of your statements came from, but that's literally all I was saying.

I'll remember never to bold a sentence again, I don't want to scare you. lol

Seriously though, we agree. All is good.

(10-23-2015 03:20 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 03:18 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 03:17 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 03:15 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  How many times do we have to go over this... there is no way to prove a negative. We can't disprove ANY deity at this point.

How many time do I have to go over this too?

No one is claiming there is scientific proof of God.

Nobody in this thread is arguing that there is, unless I missed something.

Then what were you talking about?

If you don't want to believe in God then don't. No one is forcing you to.

The part of your post I bolded was what I was talking about:

Quote:The day that Science can prove there is no god and that he did not create the universe will be the day you have the truth to stand on.

Your viewpoint is the reverse of what's logical, and the reverse of the scientific process.

You don't start by accepting a hypothesis then work to disprove it. You form a hypothesis, then gather evidence. If a sufficient level of evidence is not found, the null hypothesis is accepted effectively rejecting the hypothesis you're testing. If a sufficient level of evidence is found, the null is rejected in favor of the alternative. Note that the hypothesis you set out to test is never actually considered false/true.

(10-23-2015 03:54 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 03:51 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 03:43 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 03:40 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  I don't even know how this response makes sense.

I never said you claimed to have scientific proof or evidence, and in fact stated the exact opposite.

And I do believe that the theory of the Big Bang is the best explanation we have for the first moments of the universe. Notice, the Big Bang doesn't require you to believe anything about the universe prior to it occurring, which is why Catholic Doctrine officially accepts it.

I don't know how many different ways to tell you the same thing.

I'm fine with your beliefs.

You have nothing to prove or validate to me.

If you believe in the Big bang just a little bit, or a lot, or just by whatever the current academic measure of the day is, then that's fine.

I respect your beliefs, even if I disagree.

And I don't know how many posts I have to make before you realize I've never tried to validate my beliefs in anyway to you, only correct your misunderstanding of them and the faulty logic you place in them.

Your belief requires faith, you incorrectly stated mine does too when it doesn't. I really don't understand why you flipped out the way you did, or where most of your statements came from, but that's literally all I was saying.

I'll remember never to bold a sentence again, I don't want to scare you. lol

Seriously though, we agree. All is good.

So then you agree that atheism as a belief does not inherently require any faith? Just making sure that's what we're agreeing on, it got a little jumbled with our responses.

(10-23-2015 03:56 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  The part of your post I bolded was what I was talking about:

Quote:The day that Science can prove there is no god and that he did not create the universe will be the day you have the truth to stand on.

Your viewpoint is the reverse of what's logical, and the reverse of the scientific process.

No man made process can tell us definitively that there is no God. No matter how its spun.

(10-23-2015 04:02 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  So then you agree that atheism as a belief does not inherently require any faith? Just making sure that's what we're agreeing on, it got a little jumbled with our responses.

Sure. If you believe in nothing, you believe in nothing.

That is zero faith.

(10-23-2015 04:02 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 03:56 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  The part of your post I bolded was what I was talking about:

Quote:The day that Science can prove there is no god and that he did not create the universe will be the day you have the truth to stand on.

Your viewpoint is the reverse of what's logical, and the reverse of the scientific process.

No man made process can tell us definitively that there is no God. No matter how its spun.

Nothing has been spun.

You simply can't claim something is real because it can't be disproven. If that IS the case, I'm a wizard and you can't prove otherwise.

(10-23-2015 04:02 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 03:56 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  The part of your post I bolded was what I was talking about:

Quote:The day that Science can prove there is no god and that he did not create the universe will be the day you have the truth to stand on.

Your viewpoint is the reverse of what's logical, and the reverse of the scientific process.

No man made process can tell us definitively that there is no God. No matter how its spun.

You don't try to prove that there is no god, that's what he's trying to explain. You don't prove a negative, you look for evidence of the positive.

(10-23-2015 04:04 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 04:02 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 03:56 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  The part of your post I bolded was what I was talking about:

Quote:The day that Science can prove there is no god and that he did not create the universe will be the day you have the truth to stand on.

Your viewpoint is the reverse of what's logical, and the reverse of the scientific process.

No man made process can tell us definitively that there is no God. No matter how its spun.

Nothing has been spun.

You simply can't claim something is real because it can't be disproven. If that IS the case, I'm a wizard and you can't prove otherwise.

But I didn't claim He was something real I could fully scientifically prove though, did I?

You see, you are just spinning yourself in a circle here.

If you agree we can't fully prove God or not, and I agree we can't fully prove God or not, then we are in AGREEMENT.

There is nothing for you to be arguing about.

You are so desperate to argue with with me about ANYTHING that you are spinning yourself into a circle.

(10-23-2015 04:06 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You don't try to prove that there is no god, that's what he's trying to explain. You don't prove a negative, you look for evidence of the positive.

He doesn't have to prove there is no God if he doesn't want to.

He is free to believe what he wants.

How many times do I have to keep posting that?

No one has anything to prove to you UCF. Give it a rest and stop obsessing over it.

(10-23-2015 04:12 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 04:04 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 04:02 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 03:56 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  The part of your post I bolded was what I was talking about:

Quote:The day that Science can prove there is no god and that he did not create the universe will be the day you have the truth to stand on.

Your viewpoint is the reverse of what's logical, and the reverse of the scientific process.

No man made process can tell us definitively that there is no God. No matter how its spun.

Nothing has been spun.

You simply can't claim something is real because it can't be disproven. If that IS the case, I'm a wizard and you can't prove otherwise.

But I didn't claim He was something real I could fully scientifically prove though, did I?

You see, you are just spinning yourself in a circle here.

If you agree we can't fully prove God or not, and I agree we can fully prove God or not, then we are in AGREEMENT.

There is nothing for you to be arguing about.

I would take if further - we can't prove or disprove god at all. No evidence presented thus far points to a deity over any alternative explanation.

(10-23-2015 04:14 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 04:06 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You don't try to prove that there is no god, that's what he's trying to explain. You don't prove a negative, you look for evidence of the positive.

He doesn't have to prove there is no God if he doesn't want to.

He is free to believe what he wants.

How many times do I have to keep posting that?

You don't have to post it at all, because it has nothing to do with my point. My point is trying to correct you in regards to proving a negative, something you continue to do throughout this thread. Shifting the burden on proof on those who don't believe in a god isn't logically valid.

(10-23-2015 04:12 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 04:04 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 04:02 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 03:56 PM)dmacfour Wrote:  The part of your post I bolded was what I was talking about:

Quote:The day that Science can prove there is no god and that he did not create the universe will be the day you have the truth to stand on.

Your viewpoint is the reverse of what's logical, and the reverse of the scientific process.

No man made process can tell us definitively that there is no God. No matter how its spun.

Nothing has been spun.

You simply can't claim something is real because it can't be disproven. If that IS the case, I'm a wizard and you can't prove otherwise.

But I didn't claim He was something real I could fully scientifically prove though, did I?

You see, you are just spinning yourself in a circle here.

If you agree we can't fully prove God or not, and I agree we can't fully prove God or not, then we are in AGREEMENT.

There is nothing for you to be arguing about.

You are so desperate to argue with with me about ANYTHING that you are spinning yourself into a circle.

He isn't spinning anything at all, you're just trying to evade the point he is making. Namely, that believing in a God because it can't be disproven isn't a logically sound argument. Believe what you wish, but don't portray it as a rational decision akin to not believing in something you see no evidence for. The latter works from a logical standpoint, whereas the former does not.

(10-23-2015 04:34 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  He isn't spinning anything at all, you're just trying to evade the point he is making. Namely, that believing in a God because it can't be disproven isn't a logically sound argument. Believe what you wish, but don't portray it as a rational decision akin to not believing in something you see no evidence for. The latter works from a logical standpoint, whereas the former does not.

You are talking gibberish. We both agreed we cannot prove or disprove God.

You need to step away from the keyboard for a bit.

(10-23-2015 04:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You don't have to post it at all, because it has nothing to do with my point. My point is trying to correct you in regards to proving a negative, something you continue to do throughout this thread. Shifting the burden on proof on those who don't believe in a god isn't logically valid.

No one has to prove anything to you, UCF. Time to get a grip on yourself.

Again, as has been repeated time and time again, you are not expected to prove anything.

You are free to believe whatever you choose. Or believe nothing at all if you choose.

I cannot prove God exists or not, and neither can you.

You just want to argue with me so bad about ANYTHING that you are arguing with imaginary things I haven't even said and do not believe.

(10-23-2015 04:39 PM)ericsrevenge76 Wrote:  

(10-23-2015 04:34 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  He isn't spinning anything at all, you're just trying to evade the point he is making. Namely, that believing in a God because it can't be disproven isn't a logically sound argument. Believe what you wish, but don't portray it as a rational decision akin to not believing in something you see no evidence for. The latter works from a logical standpoint, whereas the former does not.

(10-23-2015 04:30 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  You don't have to post it at all, because it has nothing to do with my point. My point is trying to correct you in regards to proving a negative, something you continue to do throughout this thread. Shifting the burden on proof on those who don't believe in a god isn't logically valid.

Again, as has been repeated time and time again, you are not expected to prove anything.

You are free to believe whatever you choose. Or believe nothing at all if you choose.

You just want to argue with me so bad about ANYTHING that you are arguing with imaginary things I haven't even said and no not believe.

What are you even talking about? I've never once said otherwise, and none of this has anything to do with my quotes above.

Listen, I'm taking part in this discussion in good faith and doing so politely, I apologize if it bothers you that I'm correcting your statements you make but repeating nonsensical statements like the one above isn't the way to go about it. If you disagree, then explain, and we can discuss.

(10-23-2015 04:49 PM)UCF08 Wrote:  What are you even talking about? I've never once said otherwise, and none of this has anything to do with my quotes above.

Listen, I'm taking part in this discussion in good faith and doing so politely, I apologize if it bothers you that I'm correcting your statements you make but repeating nonsensical statements like the one above isn't the way to go about it. If you disagree, then explain, and we can discuss.

I don't know what I'm supposed to be disagreeing with.

I don't have a clue what you are even talking about now.