- Mar 16, 2007
- 4,666
- 11
...I can comprehend about 80% of this, but the other 20 just kinda leaves me blank like %!% this dude talkin bout? According to this GOD can scientifically be proven.
This hurts my brain.
- Thread in 'General' Thread starter Started by numba1kickrocka,
- Start date
- Mar 16, 2007
- 4,666
- 11
...I can comprehend about 80% of this, but the other 20 just kinda leaves me blank like %!% this dude talkin bout? According to this GOD can scientifically be proven.
- Jan 13, 2007
- 2,724
- 210
Did this guy make up a bunch of words??
- Jan 13, 2007
- 2,724
- 210
Did this guy make up a bunch of words??
- Oct 4, 2009
- 1,650
- 109
Son. That #%#& was Brilliant.....If I understood correctly, that is.
- Oct 4, 2009
- 1,650
- 109
Son. That #%#& was Brilliant.....If I understood correctly, that is.
- Mar 16, 2007
- 4,666
- 11
no
- Mar 16, 2007
- 4,666
- 11
no
- May 18, 2005
- 24,030
- 1,928
he's just saying that the odds are slim..
yeah, ok?
you can point at anything, the more detail you go into it, the slimmer the probability it could have existed.
dont know how he goes into "probability couldnt have created itself", that doesnt really prove anything, doesn't prove a will.
yeah, ok?
you can point at anything, the more detail you go into it, the slimmer the probability it could have existed.
dont know how he goes into "probability couldnt have created itself", that doesnt really prove anything, doesn't prove a will.
- May 18, 2005
- 24,030
- 1,928
he's just saying that the odds are slim..
yeah, ok?
you can point at anything, the more detail you go into it, the slimmer the probability it could have existed.
dont know how he goes into "probability couldnt have created itself", that doesnt really prove anything, doesn't prove a will.
yeah, ok?
you can point at anything, the more detail you go into it, the slimmer the probability it could have existed.
dont know how he goes into "probability couldnt have created itself", that doesnt really prove anything, doesn't prove a will.
|A-Man|
formerly atgd7154xbbxmz
- Jan 5, 2011
- 17,340
- 2,011
Dude tried to argue himself to the length where he'd be right.
Why take it back to GOD being eternal and necessary? That's an unnecessary step. Why can't it be that the universe is eternal and necessary and in this universe that is infinite, that has always existed, a series of probabilistic events occurred that brought about our existence? In an infinite universe there can be a first cause to set those probabilities in motion where infinite regression is not a problem. Dude tried to sweep in one theory in science about how the universe came to be under the atheist umbrella so that his premise could be correct.
Also his statement that GOD(anything for that matter) is determined and necessary has no justification since all a fact is are justified true beliefs and that in it of itself leads to infinite regression.
Why take it back to GOD being eternal and necessary? That's an unnecessary step. Why can't it be that the universe is eternal and necessary and in this universe that is infinite, that has always existed, a series of probabilistic events occurred that brought about our existence? In an infinite universe there can be a first cause to set those probabilities in motion where infinite regression is not a problem. Dude tried to sweep in one theory in science about how the universe came to be under the atheist umbrella so that his premise could be correct.
Also his statement that GOD(anything for that matter) is determined and necessary has no justification since all a fact is are justified true beliefs and that in it of itself leads to infinite regression.
|A-Man|
formerly atgd7154xbbxmz
- Jan 5, 2011
- 17,340
- 2,011
Dude tried to argue himself to the length where he'd be right.
Why take it back to GOD being eternal and necessary? That's an unnecessary step. Why can't it be that the universe is eternal and necessary and in this universe that is infinite, that has always existed, a series of probabilistic events occurred that brought about our existence? In an infinite universe there can be a first cause to set those probabilities in motion where infinite regression is not a problem. Dude tried to sweep in one theory in science about how the universe came to be under the atheist umbrella so that his premise could be correct.
Also his statement that GOD(anything for that matter) is determined and necessary has no justification since all a fact is are justified true beliefs and that in it of itself leads to infinite regression.
Why take it back to GOD being eternal and necessary? That's an unnecessary step. Why can't it be that the universe is eternal and necessary and in this universe that is infinite, that has always existed, a series of probabilistic events occurred that brought about our existence? In an infinite universe there can be a first cause to set those probabilities in motion where infinite regression is not a problem. Dude tried to sweep in one theory in science about how the universe came to be under the atheist umbrella so that his premise could be correct.
Also his statement that GOD(anything for that matter) is determined and necessary has no justification since all a fact is are justified true beliefs and that in it of itself leads to infinite regression.
- Nov 22, 2007
- 36,194
- 5,768
*shrugs*
- Nov 22, 2007
- 36,194
- 5,768
*shrugs*
