Wanted: Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.

a reply to: neutronflux

I never said using the scientific method would give you proof of god.

a reply to: TzarChasm

No, it isn't what it was when it is.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I was just trying to help Pachomius with their systematic and “Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.”

a reply to: neutronflux

I mean, who on earth gave us the idea God doesn't exist? I think even the devil isn't like that.

Some people only use scientific evidence to define the reality they live in but that is simply limiting.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: neutronflux

I mean, who on earth gave us the idea God doesn't exist? I think even the devil isn't like that.

Some people only use scientific evidence to define the reality they live in but that is simply limiting.

The whole point of a solid definition. Limitation is identity. Otherwise there is no difference between 1 and 0.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh, but this was 't about 1 and 0 to begin with.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: neutronflux

I mean, who on earth gave us the idea God doesn't exist? I think even the devil isn't like that.

Some people only use scientific evidence to define the reality they live in but that is simply limiting.

If god didn’t want us to choose to believe or not believe, why give us freewill?

a reply to: neutronflux

I don't argue the ways of God.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: TzarChasm

Oh, but this was 't about 1 and 0 to begin with.

Is it real or not. 1 or 0. Yes that was the premise of this exchange.

originally posted by: Out6of9Balance
a reply to: neutronflux

I don't argue the ways of God.

Then why are you here

originally posted by: neutronflux
a reply to: TzarChasm

I was just trying to help Pachomius with their systematic and “Honest intelligent productive thinking to resolve the issue God exists or not.”

I understand what you're saying. It's a waste of time arguing with someone who invents their own definitions to make a theory work.

Addressing my opponents here:


You are intellectual cowards if you fear to concur with me that you and I exist.

Richard Dawkins has made his name as the scourge of organised religion who branded the Roman Catholic Church “evil” and once called the Pope “a leering old villain in a frock”. But he now stands accused of “cowardice” after refusing four invitations to debate the existence of God with a renowned Christian philosopher.May 14, 2011

Richard Dawkins Called "Coward" by Oxford Atheist for not Debating William Lane Craig 1-on-1 •Jul 6, 2011


See:
www.telegraph.co.uk...

a reply to: Pachomius

Weird how you don't mention the debate between Bill Nye and Ken Ham.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I just book marked wikipedia page Bill_Nye Ken_Ham_debate

I'll have to read it and check out the videos mentioned.

a reply to: Pachomius

Or Ravi Zacharias that can honestly use reason to make a case for God out of his spirituality, without creating dogmatic definitions, and not labeling “opponents” religious in a hypocritical manner.

I think some need to worry more about their own hypocrisy than worrying about people they see as “opponents”.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You really don't know? It's not like this was my first post. I'm really not impressed by you.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You're making no sense again with these last posts of yours.

Dear my opponents here, I still say that you are reminiscent of cowards, but of course intellectual cowards like Richard Dawkins, from your fear to concur with me that you and I we exist.


Dear readers here, let us sit back and await with bated breath for my opponents to concur or not concur on my statement that I and my opponents we exist.


I am sure you readers concur with me that you and I we exist.



So much verbiage in this thread on God exists or not, to no purpose except vain quest for display of fake learning and deficient thinking.

I challenge you my opponents, concur with me that you and I we exist, if you have any honest intelligent productive thinking in your brain.

a reply to: Pachomius

You

Dear my opponents here,

Speaking one’s opinion in a thread makes people “opponents”? Like there is something to win? We all win if we learn and get closer to truth.

still say that you are reminiscent of cowards

For freely speaking one’s mind? Or because nobody is playing by your rules? When you want to prove systematically god’s existence? But only have faith and opinion like everyone else you what to shoot down by labeling spiritual individuals religious. People open to many opinions while you try to trap god with a definition.

but of course intellectual cowards like Richard Dawkins,

You referring to people more open to the creation of human kind than your definition?

from your fear to concur with me that you and I we exist.

If I didn’t think we existed, I wouldn’t be debating about the nature of existence. Like many other people posting in this thread.

Dear readers here, let us sit back and await with bated breath for my opponents to concur or not concur on my statement that I and my opponents we exist.

While you hide behind a definition and a concept. While you define god in your conception. Your one dimensional language, and have no desire to learn god’s will?

I am sure you readers concur with me that you and I we exist.

I think most people posting belief they act under their own intellect, and believe they exist as a being.

So much verbiage in this thread on God exists or not, to no purpose except vain quest for display of fake learning and deficient thinking.

What your systematic proof of god again? Your faith in faulty logic with you providing no evidence to support your logic.

I challenge you my opponents, concur with me that you and I we exist, if you have any honest intelligent productive thinking in your brain.

Give a total of how many individuals posted in this thread. Now name and cite those that disagree we exist.

Scientists have been exploring creation for a long time now.