Originally posted by Hand of HecateI dragged myself out of the 80s; so should you.
It means that you South Africans are in deep doo doo if your darkies figure out there is no heaven and no consequences to killing whitey wholesale. Rawanda's going to look like a tea party after they finish BBQ y'all over a pile of burning tires.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateYou have completely lost me! Your post reads similarly to a GB post to me. If you want to argue over this Berkley's theology then you should take it up with him or one of his fans, if he has any.
This isn't an argument. These are your feelings. At the risk of winning your debate for you an example of what I was looking for follows.
I suggest your read about Berkley and his attempt to develop a valid argument around the existence of God. It's been some time, but, basically Berkely argued that the material universe did not exist, that an o ...[text shortened]... clusion? If so, how does Berkely's argument support or undermine the Bible/Christianity?
You asked why I beleive in God, what brought me to my beleif, that's what I've given you, the reasons why. There is no wining, only discussing. I like reading other peoples perspective on God and His existance becasue it gives me a chance to clarify what I think for myself. If this isn't what you're interested in then '@yo its me' is the wrong title for the thread.
Originally posted by yo its meTake a deep breath and reread what I wrote. The argument I put forth for your consideration supports your belief in God.
You have completely lost me! Your post reads similarly to a GB post to me. If you want to argue over this Berkley's theology then you should take it up with him or one of his fans, if he has any.
You asked why I beleive in God, what brought me to my beleif, that's what I've given you, the reasons why. There is no wining, only discussing. I like readin ...[text shortened]... this isn't what you're interested in then '@yo its me' is the wrong title for the thread.
Look, if you can't take the time to read it, I'm not debating with you. I'm sorry you don't understand, but, I don't think I can dumb it down for you any further.
Originally posted by Hand of HecateLOL!! You asked a question and I answered it, it's you who hasn't read a post here, mine which you asked for I never asked for your post. I don't need any 'help' to put my points accross, it is clearly you who need help to understand what I have said.
Take a deep breath and reread what I wrote. The argument I put forth for your consideration supports your belief in God.
Look, if you can't take the time to read it, I'm not debating with you. I'm sorry you don't understand, but, I don't think I can dumb it down for you any further.
Let's read, in your own words, why you beleive God dosen't exist.
Originally posted by yo its me#I look around me and I know for certian that there's no way this is all an axcident, it was all very percisesly created. Here is a scientists explination of how balanced and exact it all is- http://www.firstscience.com/home/articles/big-theories/recipe-for-the-universe-just-six-numbers_1230.html
Since you asked so nicely 😉 I'll take the time to articulate why I'm so sure God is real;
#I look around me and I know for certian that there's no way this is all an axcident, it was all very percisesly created. Here is a scientists explination of how balanced and exact it all is- http://www.firstscience.com/home/articles/big-theories/recipe-for-the-u ...[text shortened]... ng I have survived and so have my siblings I beleive this is becasue my mum prayed for us.
I will just address this point as the other points you raised are due to personal subjective experience which would be impossible to conclude an argument for the existance of god.
The point is Martin Rees' argument may seem so convenient, but doesn't actually prove an intelligent designer by default. Martin Rees isn't even a true believer in the Anglican church according to what he has told Richard Dawkins. I agree that Mr Dawkins is quite ruthless in his approach in The God Delusion, but here is an extract:
http://www.transworld-publishers.co.uk/catalog/extract.htm?command=search&db=twmain.txt&eqisbndata=0593055489
Of which near the end Martin Rees is just going along with the Anglican church out of loyalty to the tribe.
As for the six numbers, a more plausible explaination than just "god did it" is that there could be infinite multi-universes of infinite parameters. We are observing one set of them that fit to allow our universe to exist. There is no way we can observe any other. Other life forms in another multi-verse will see a different set of parameters which fit, which they can say, "That is so convenient, it is so perfect, so there must be an intelligent designer!". Yet in universes which the parameters don't fit, they couldn't exist, therefore no conditions for life to evolve to even observe it. It is basically natural selection on a cosmic scale.
Here is a lecture given by the cosmologist Lawrence Krauss. He tries to explain deep theoretical physics on layman's terms, but hopefully you can get the gist.
Basically explaining that "Nothing" isn't really nothing. Sounds bizarre, but quantum physics is quite counter-intuiative as we aren't used to it in every day life, and the experiments and observations which lead onto working out how the universe started. It is over an hour long but it is worth taking it into consideration.
As for the evolution of life on Earth itself, I have also posted about it at the end of Thread 119650.
