Challenge to ALL to prove belief., page 6


Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7  >>
ATS Members have flagged this thread 0 times


reply posted on 8-1-2004 @ 09:40 PM by lilblam
Originally posted by Esoterica
Originally posted by lilblam

Lol I don't do either. Why should I BELIEVE it tastes like ham. Oh and there's no need to do any math. It looks like ham sandwich, and smells like a ham sandwich, and the environment that I receive it in is a plausible setting (not a bunch of drunk friends giving me something with a blindfold on). So I give it a high probability for potentially tasting like one too. BUT. Why should I believe? Or do math? I simply smell it, and HOPE it is and just bite into it. I don't believe it is. What if I BELIEVE THAT IT IS and it turns out to be a turkey sandwich with a ham-smelling spray on it. See where belief can lead you?

Belief can lead you to be wrong. Doesn't mean you don't do it.
Probability=math
And no, you do not entertain in your conscious mind for even a second that it won't taste like ham.


Yes, but imagine the surprise on my face if it tastes like milk instead? That means I "believed" that it tasted like ham based on evidence and past experience. By believing it, means I simply assumed it was TRUE. But it wasn't. Now, if I did NOT assume, that means I KNEW that it doesn't have to be but I took the risk anyway. I took the risk not BECAUSE I believed it was ham, but because I was stupid enough to assume there was no bomb inside that sandwich either. Remember the recent mail bombs sent to some prime minister? He probably thought it was just a letter! But it can be anything. So with a sandwich ANYTHING is possible. So why pretend to KNOW that it's ham, isn't that FALSE? The best you can do is HOPE!


reply posted on 8-1-2004 @ 09:51 PM by lilblam
Originally posted by Esoterica
Originally posted by lilblam


Ok screw Tom and his law.

So you're admitting you amde up Thom's Law? OK, one strike to credibility.
*** WRONG. The law isn't mine, look it up. Look at the link. Check Google. I said SCREW IT as in forget it was made by Thom, it's the LAW that's important, not that author.


Ok not his law. The law applies.

English, do you speak it?

***Attack my English, that gives YOU tons of credibility. I said: "Fine, let's say it's NOT his law since you're so sure it doesn't exist on Google, who really cares whose law it is". The next sentence: "The law still applies to reality, no matter who says it. If Thom didn't say 1+1=2 we don't care either".
Do you NOT agree that you cannot have something out of nothing?

I've seen evidence going both ways ont his issue, so to have one's mind made up is to believe. You lose.

****WRONG. You've never seen ANY evidence of something EVER coming out of nothing. Now you're lying, you lose!
Do you think an all-powerful God could violate that? Do you really think so?

Do you really think asking a quesiton twice makes your side more correcT? And since when does pointing out the obvious flaws in your argument make me believe in God? I may just think you're an idiot and a hypocrite.


*** Get hung up on sentence structure, after being hung up on my English. Yup more points for you. I asked it twice on PURPOSE so people like you can ignore the logical argument and complain that I asked it twice, there happy?

Oh by the way, calling me an idiot and hypocrite is your judgement and opinion. It doesn't really add to your credibility nor your intelligence. Man you're really hurting yourself here, I'd advise you stop while you're ahead... oh wait you're not anymore, are you?

[Edited on 8-1-2004 by lilblam]


reply posted on 8-1-2004 @ 10:03 PM by TheBandit795
Originally posted by lilblam

So you're admitting you amde up Thom's Law? OK, one strike to credibility.
*** WRONG. The law isn't mine, look it up. Look at the link. Check Google. I said SCREW IT as in forget it was made by Thom, it's the LAW that's important, not that author.


Googled up thom's law... See for yourself:
www.google.com...|lang_nl&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&safe=off&filter=0

Furthermore, they did not take into account such a thing as the Higgs field. Nothing may have meant "no matter" The Higgs field is not matter, but matter is formed from it. Other scientists have other names for it. Some call it the aether.

Again I point you to some other threads. Especially the posts I made in them.

The Higgs Field... How matter is formed.


what is nothing like?

Is our universe a living being


reply posted on 8-1-2004 @ 10:18 PM by Esoterica
Originally posted by lilblam

*** WRONG. The law isn't mine, look it up. Look at the link. Check Google. I said SCREW IT as in forget it was made by Thom, it's the LAW that's important, not that author.

Miss the part where I said googling turned up nothing? It's your responsibiltiy yourself to provide me with a link to this law, by whatever name.


***Attack my English, that gives YOU tons of credibility. I said: "Fine, let's say it's NOT his law since you're so sure it doesn't exist on Google, who really cares whose law it is". The next sentence: "The law still applies to reality, no matter who says it. If Thom didn't say 1+1=2 we don't care either".

But you have yet to provide a link that states Thom's Law IS true. You must give us infomration. You cannot make claims and then refuse to provide backing, telling us to do it. Your claim, you do the work.
****WRONG. You've never seen ANY evidence of something EVER coming out of nothing. Now you're lying, you lose!

I've never seen evidence of other planets outside our solar system. However, I DO know how to read and listen, and have never heard, in fact heard many times, that the universe may be finite or infinite, may have sprung from nothingness or something. You have absolutely NO evidence of how the unvierse was formed. You have theory, conejcture, and abckgroudn radiation. You don't know what sparked it all of. And until you do, you can get down from your #ing high horse. No one has any clue how the universe was formed, and you have the audacity to say what's right and wrong?


*** Get hung up on sentence structure, after being hung up on my English. Yup more points for you. I asked it twice on PURPOSE so people like you can ignore the logical argument and complain that I asked it twice, there happy?

Fine. By definition, yes, God could have existed before anything else may have existed, being that the definiton fo God as we are speaking is and omniscient, omniprsent, omnitemporal entity. The reality of that God may be in dispute, but the very definition of the supposed being we are speaking of makes it perfectly possible.
Oh by the way, calling me an idiot and hypocrite is your judgement and opinion. It doesn't really add to your credibility nor your intelligence. Man you're really hurting yourself here, I'd advise you stop while you're ahead... oh wait you're not anymore, are you?

[Edited on 8-1-2004 by lilblam]

It's the most logical conclusion. And you make a thread saying that anyone that beleives anything is ignorant, and now you're upset someone called you a hypocrite and ignorant?

[Edited on 8-1-2004 by Esoterica]
Pages: <<  3    4    5    6    7  >>    ^^TOP^^



Belief in God/Jesus through Personal experiences.
  Posted 18 days ago with 9 member flags
What was God doing before "In the beginning"?
  Posted 14 days ago with 9 member flags
Stay Out Of HELL.
  Posted 12 days ago with 9 member flags
Do Christians really want to Start World War 3?
  Posted 3 days ago with 9 member flags
My Hopeful Reintroduction to God
  Posted 17 days ago with 8 member flags