Play Free War Battle Games Online, Multiplayer Games, Strategy Games, Top MMORPG

mrducky · **Posted:** Wed Jan 19, 2011 7:50 pm

w1lll wrote:

Routhy wrote:

Perhaps the specific Gods, but nobody on Earth can disprove the presence of a higher power, more intelligent being, whatever you want to call it.

Equally, nobody on Earth can disprove the existence of the Magical Flying Teapot that is currently orbiting the Sun. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Russells teapot <3

you cant actually disprove anything routhy, google "burden of proof" its up to the person with the positive claim to back up their claim. you cant disprove leprechauns or the all knowing unicorn just as you cant disprove god.

rederoin · **Posted:** Thu Jan 20, 2011 7:15 am

w1lll wrote:

Routhy wrote:

Perhaps the specific Gods, but nobody on Earth can disprove the presence of a higher power, more intelligent being, whatever you want to call it.

Equally, nobody on Earth can disprove the existence of the Magical Flying Teapot that is currently orbiting the Sun. Or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

Pie'nism is the true path to salvation.

I'm the son of God(Pie'nism).

Tom · **Posted:** Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:01 am

Quote:

random stuff i made up? EXCUSE ME. please dont insult my religious beliefs. like the greeks which had many followers or the norsic religion which had many follows or the egyptian religion which had many followers, my polytheistic belief contains many gods begetting each other. just like zeus pulled a god from his thigh, the all knowing unicorn used its laser vision to craft the magic hamster from magic space crystal who in turn created god from its shed fur.

talking snake still trumps this IMO.

Didn't I say that this was boring once already? Be more original. I don't care about your 'religious beliefs', they're ridiculous. I never claimed I could disprove them either, you're just putting words in my mouth.

FSM and the such was funny all those many years ago - think of somethnig new, something original. The same arguments over and over and over and over gets really dull.

rederoin · **Posted:** Thu Jan 20, 2011 8:57 am

Routhy wrote:

Quote:

random stuff i made up? EXCUSE ME. please dont insult my religious beliefs. like the greeks which had many followers or the norsic religion which had many follows or the egyptian religion which had many followers, my polytheistic belief contains many gods begetting each other. just like zeus pulled a god from his thigh, the all knowing unicorn used its laser vision to craft the magic hamster from magic space crystal who in turn created god from its shed fur.

talking snake still trumps this IMO.

Didn't I say that this was boring once already? Be more original. I don't care about your 'religious beliefs', they're ridiculous. I never claimed I could disprove them either, you're just putting words in my mouth.

FSM and the such was funny all those many years ago - think of somethnig new, something original. The same arguments over and over and over and over gets really dull.

Ducky is correct with the whole "burden of proof" tho.

Tom · **Posted:** Thu Jan 20, 2011 5:58 pm

The burden of proof applies to somebody attempting to assert a claim, something that I am not doing. You guys with your Flying Spaghetti Monsters etc are actually bound by it, though.

The only thing close to a claim that I have made in this thread is that it is impossible to disprove the existence of a higher being, my proof is the fact that nobody can indeed disprove such an existence.

rederoin · **Posted:** Fri Jan 21, 2011 4:51 am

Routhy wrote:

The burden of proof applies to somebody attempting to assert a claim, something that I am not doing. You guys with your Flying Spaghetti Monsters etc are actually bound by it, though.

The only thing close to a claim that I have made in this thread is that it is impossible to disprove the existence of a higher being, my proof is the fact that nobody can indeed disprove such an existence.

Nobody can disprove pie'nism or the flying spaghetti monster either.

Tom · **Posted:** Fri Jan 21, 2011 11:26 am

rederoin wrote:

Routhy wrote:

The burden of proof applies to somebody attempting to assert a claim, something that I am not doing. You guys with your Flying Spaghetti Monsters etc are actually bound by it, though.

The only thing close to a claim that I have made in this thread is that it is impossible to disprove the existence of a higher being, my proof is the fact that nobody can indeed disprove such an existence.

Nobody can disprove pie'nism or the flying spaghetti monster either.

Of course, but, as I roginally stated. The 'replace elements of Christianity with silly words/names' joke as a means of attacking it is very very old, and therefore not funny anymore. Seek fresh material.

w1lll · **Posted:** Fri Jan 21, 2011 5:00 pm

Routhy wrote:

rederoin wrote:

Routhy wrote:

The burden of proof applies to somebody attempting to assert a claim, something that I am not doing. You guys with your Flying Spaghetti Monsters etc are actually bound by it, though.

The only thing close to a claim that I have made in this thread is that it is impossible to disprove the existence of a higher being, my proof is the fact that nobody can indeed disprove such an existence.

Nobody can disprove pie'nism or the flying spaghetti monster either.

Of course, but, as I roginally stated. The 'replace elements of Christianity with silly words/names' joke as a means of attacking it is very very old, and therefore not funny anymore. Seek fresh material.

Christianity should "seek fresh material". The Bible is very old and is therefore not funny/accurate any more. The reason that replacing elements of Christianity works because it illustrates the lack of evidence for the existence of God.

Routhy wrote:

FSM and the such was funny all those many years ago - think of somethnig new, something original. The same arguments over and over and over and over gets really dull.

What do you call the arguments for the existence of God then?

mrducky · **Posted:** Sat Jan 22, 2011 10:41 am

Routhy wrote:

Quote:

random stuff i made up? EXCUSE ME. please dont insult my religious beliefs. like the greeks which had many followers or the norsic religion which had many follows or the egyptian religion which had many followers, my polytheistic belief contains many gods begetting each other. just like zeus pulled a god from his thigh, the all knowing unicorn used its laser vision to craft the magic hamster from magic space crystal who in turn created god from its shed fur.

talking snake still trumps this IMO.

Didn't I say that this was boring once already? Be more original. I don't care about your 'religious beliefs', they're ridiculous. I never claimed I could disprove them either, you're just putting words in my mouth.

FSM and the such was funny all those many years ago - think of somethnig new, something original. The same arguments over and over and over and over gets really dull.

well, maybe if that argument was defeated and made defunct there would be a reason to get a new argument, until then its a perfectly acceptable counter.

talking snakes convincing rib woman to eat fruit resulting in all evil we see today is more ridiculous. worse still, the part you quoted didnt have me saying for you to disprove it. you are putting words into my mouth :/

Routhy wrote:

The only thing close to a claim that I have made in this thread is that it is impossible to disprove the existence of a higher being, my proof is the fact that nobody can indeed disprove such an existence.

actually its impossible to disprove any baseless claim. oh snap. cause its baseless, see how i insult?

btw, replace "the existence of a higher being" with "anything supernatural based"

IMO, i find the god of the gaps arguments extremely dull

"HUURRRR DURRR WE DONT KNOW HOW THE EYE EVOLVED. GODIDIT"
*evolution of the eye demonstrated to have happened, more impressively, it could have happened independantly more then 10 times

"HURRRR DURRR WE DONT KNOW HOW THE FLAGELLUM EVOLVED. IRREDUCIBLY COMPLEX. GODIDIT"
*flagellum demonstrated to have evolved by seperate biological parts working in tandem. irreducibly complex made redundant and useless within 2 years.

"HURRR DURRR WE DONT KNOW HOW ATP SYNTHASE CAME ABOUT. GODIDIT"
*working on it, but im willing to bet $50 that within 10 years there will be definitive answers.

regardless, my point demonstrating ad infinitum was valid in a thread like this "who created god" with god unspecified.

Tom · **Posted:** Sat Jan 22, 2011 1:32 pm

Of course the Christian side of the argument gets dull, but it can't so easily be changed. A make-believe example can, an attack can. The side being attacked can hardly change their stance. (Inb4 'Chirstianity is make-believe)

@duck; Your whole argument is that I cannot disprove FSM, an intelligent shade of blue, etc. Hardly putting words in your mouth.

Naturally, it is still a 'perfectly acceptable counter', I never said it wasn't - just said it was dull.

Don't even know why you're going into eye/flagellum/synthase arguments, I certainly didn't bring them up. Nor did anybody else. Are you just defaulting to material you've used in past debates?

Who Created God? [Disscusion]