1. Joined
    29 Jan '07
    Moves
    3612
    22 Jun '08 17:08
    if the intelligence of the human race constantly advances like it's doing, will there get to a point where are knowledge is on a par with god, virtualy making us all gods..?

    i'm talking hundreds, even thousands, of years in the future here...
  2. Joined
    26 May '08
    Moves
    2120
    22 Jun '08 18:524 edits
    Originally posted by eatmybishop
    if the intelligence of the human race constantly advances like it's doing, will there get to a point where are knowledge is on a par with god, virtualy making us all gods..?

    i'm talking hundreds, even thousands, of years in the future here...
    1, God doesn’t exist (I am not implying that you said he did).

    2, no mater how advanced technology becomes, it cannot break the laws of physics.
    Also, the laws of physics not only make certain things literally impossible but also subtly and indirectly conspires to make a great many more things forever impractical no mater how advance technology becomes (such as making an airtight metal container that can pass through the core of the sun without its contents being incinerated? etc) although it is difficult to predict in advance which particular things will be forever impractical.
    This means we will always have many limits and in that sense we will never become ‘gods’.
  3. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    22 Jun '08 22:421 edit
    ====================================

    1, God doesn’t exist (I am not implying that you said he did).

    ======================================


    Please settle it all right now by showing us your mathematical formula proving beyond all reasonable of doubt the non-existence of God.
  4. Standard memberRemoved
    Joined
    08 Dec '04
    Moves
    100919
    22 Jun '08 22:51
    Originally posted by eatmybishop
    if the intelligence of the human race constantly advances like it's doing, will there get to a point where are knowledge is on a par with god, virtualy making us all gods..?

    i'm talking hundreds, even thousands, of years in the future here...
    No matter how much technology changes and advances, the human nature(heart) remains the same. Greed, lust, adultry, hate, murder, etc.
    None of this has changed in thousands of years and will be no different in thousands of years....just something to consider....
  5. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    22 Jun '08 22:58
    Originally posted by checkbaiter
    No matter how much technology changes and advances, the human nature(heart) remains the same. Greed, lust, adultry, hate, murder, etc.
    None of this has changed in thousands of years and will be no different in thousands of years....just something to consider....
    God's salvation intends to deify man and intends to cure the sin poisoned heart.

    The new birth - regeneration, sanctification, transformation, resurrection, and glorification all have the end of producing sons of God for the Father.

    The way to reach the will of God for man's deification is through cooperation with His salvation rather than advancement of technology without love and trust of the heavenly Father.


    Man can never be not dependent upon God and be fully human. And to not depend upon God is dehumanizing.
  6. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    22 Jun '08 22:58
    Originally posted by jaywill


    Please settle it all right now by showing us your mathematical formula proving beyond all reasonable of doubt the non-existence of God.
    Why would only a mathematical formula satisfy you? Surely any analytical proof would be sufficient.
  7. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    22 Jun '08 22:59
    I said to not depend upon God is to further dehumanize oneself.
  8. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    22 Jun '08 23:021 edit
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    Why would only a mathematical formula satisfy you? Surely any analytical proof would be sufficient.
    I don't think you have either a formula or sufficient analytical skills to prove the non-existence of God. If you did you'd be the first person in history to be able to do so.
  9. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    22 Jun '08 23:061 edit
    Originally posted by Conrau K
    Why would only a mathematical formula satisfy you? Surely any analytical proof would be sufficient.
    Don't you think that a mathematical formula would be more conclusive and scientific?

    Is it my preference that concerns you or the limitation of your ability?
  10. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    22 Jun '08 23:061 edit
    Originally posted by jaywill
    I don't think you have either a formula or sufficient analytical skills to prove the non-existence of God. If you did you'd be the first person in history to be able to do so.
    I never claimed to have a proof. In fact, given your constraint on what a proof would be (i.e. mathematical), I do not expect a proof to be possible. I only want you to justify why only mathematical formulae could qualify as proofs of God's non-existence.

    This is just as bad than Scottishinnz's demand for empirical proof of God.
  11. Standard memberscottishinnz
    Kichigai!
    Osaka
    Joined
    27 Apr '05
    Moves
    8592
    22 Jun '08 23:07
    Originally posted by jaywill
    [b]====================================

    1, God doesn’t exist (I am not implying that you said he did).

    ======================================


    Please settle it all right now by showing us your mathematical formula proving beyond all reasonable of doubt the non-existence of God.[/b]
    No. The burden of proof is on you. YOU are the one making the extraordinary claim.
  12. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    22 Jun '08 23:10
    1.) That's questionable since you made the unilateral statement "God does not exist".

    Noticing your lack of ability to scientifically prove that you back off into saying it is my responsibility to prove you wrong.

    Then we get into a long debate on why the burden of proof should be on who.


    2.) I admit that I have a faith and that we preach a faith.

    So I tell you right up front that the experience of God is a matter of faith.

    You see faith leaves man with nothing to boast about in himself.
  13. Joined
    02 Aug '06
    Moves
    12622
    22 Jun '08 23:12
    Originally posted by scottishinnz
    No. The burden of proof is on you. YOU are the one making the extraordinary claim.
    The burden of proof is on you why the claim should be "extraordinary".

    Why should it be extraordinary that God exist ?
  14. Joined
    15 Sep '04
    Moves
    7051
    22 Jun '08 23:181 edit
    Personally, I think this fudging of "burden of proof" between theists and atheists only frustrates debate. If anyone makes a claim, they should justfy it. If they believe it, they ought to have some reason to believe it. So whether someone says "God exists" or "God does not exist", they ought to have some justification - saying the burden of proof is on the other person is not good enough; it is simply an evasion of responsibility to justify their belief.
  15. Melbourne, Australia
    Joined
    17 Feb '04
    Moves
    49979
    22 Jun '08 23:20
    Originally posted by jaywill
    The burden of proof is on you why the claim should be "extraordinary".

    Why should it be extraordinary that God exist ?
    It's not extraordinary. It's supernatural.
    Since we are talking about a being or some sort that defies laws of nature (in fact, I guess you would say it creates the laws), that is capable of creating the universe, that can 'work miracles' then we are clearly talking about something that can operate 'beyond' nature - hence is supernatural.
    For such a claim you muct be able to provide proof or evidence of some sort.
    We - the naysayers - are simply saying that explanations for the world are,and will be, natural. You invoke the supernatural and should be able to defend that position.
    So, what's your proof?
Back to Top