Are you ******* kidding me?Follow

I don't think anyone could, with good concience, argue with you about issues of insecurity. Were there a Nobel Prize for insecurity they'd be compelled to rename it the Thundra Prize.

ROFL

Somehow the term "trolling" takes on a sinister meaning when used in concert with "getting some".

But, it takes all kinds...i guess :/

Eb


Edit: Dangled a participle.

Edited, Wed Apr 28 12:58:44 2004 by pickleprince

You are so helpful! What did humanity ever do without your kindness?!

Rein,

Did you complete him/her/it?

Eb

have any of you considered the "Causal Argument" its a simple set of rules pertaining to the natural and super natural and encompasses everything known to be real. the causal argument has two rules...

1) Everything that exists has a cause
2) I exist

following the "I exist" rule, one would then list his or her "cause" for existing, i.e. biological reproduction. one would then list the cause for the biological reproduction, which would be the results of parents doin the nasty. following this same pattern one can retrace the causes of everything that exists... all the way up to the big bang that is.

once the big bang is reached you are left with two choices for a cause
1) God (super natural)
2) infite series of natural causes (natural)

God is a very simple explanation for the creation of the universe, becuase he is all powerful, and therefore self caused, he can cause our universe. while option 2 is not so simple. this theory would mean that there has always been a series of causes taking place, each cause resulting in something new, which eventually resulted in the creation of our universe. since there was no beginning cause its a very difficult theory for one to wrap their mind around. This theory must be infinate because it is impossible to create something from nothing, therefore it is a theory following the same mind frame as time, has no beginning and no end. This makes option 2 just as difficult to believe as option 1. Since science has proven neither of these things to be true, then i dont see a problem with people believing in either of them. its like the old argument...
person 1 "prove god exists"
person 2 "prove god does not exist"

until science proves either of these to be true, then what is wrong with a person believing in either of them?

Where and when did this happen? I must have missed it when science proved God didnt exist. There is the Big Bang Theory, the Theory of Evolution. Lots of theories no proof. There is no proof that man evolved from apes. In fact there is a significant lack of said evidence.

*Aegisfang kicks the dead horse*

I never said that I could prove scientifically that God exists. Only that science has certainly not disproved His existance. As has been said eariler religion is based on faith not proof.

Darwin's THEORY of Evolution has never been proven hence the fact that it is still a THEORY and not a Proof or Law of science. What I choose to believe is irrelevent. You stated that science had proven that God didnt exist. I said really please show me. Therefore since you cant because scientists havnt, I guess we are at an impasse until one of two things happens.

1) they pull the missing link out of the ground or
2) you go to hell.

I suggest shorts I hear it's mighty warm there.

Since i don't believe in God due to the COMPLETE lack of ANY evidance and concurently dont' believe in hell, it's not something i have to worry about is it.

Theory it may be but since it's the only one that stands up to any sort of scrutiny then it's enough proof for me.

Evidance for evolution = many effects that can be reproduced today or are historically accurate following that model since it's introduction, I.e the increase in average height of humans in the last 100 years.
The fossil records that Darwin had no excess to have done nothing but support his theory.
The newer technology that has dated the age of the earth.
Carbon dating of certain artifacts have since put those items into the right time frame that Darwin put them <or very close> even though he had no excess to this technology.

Evidance for God = Nothing, nada, ziltch, zero. Unless you treat the bible as a historical document, or believe that the earth is 6-7 thousand years old.

200