GOD EXISTS

Except for the fact that a god is technically supernatural, and therefore cant be living, as it is outside of the natural world, aka living, so both candidates are therefore dead.

cthia wrote:I thought that would be obvious.

If two and only two candidates are running for Presidency and one is found dead then the other wins by default.

SO something obly to be taken in the right circumstances, when it is needed, and not taken otherwise?

cthia wrote:JESUS is a powerful dose of penicillin. Not to be taken with a grain of salt. And with as little food as a mustard seed.

****** *

This is a post that sets an example of decency and respect.

Kudos Grabthar, I respect your stance and its delivery.

Spacekiwi wrote:Except for the fact that a god is technically supernatural, and therefore cant be living, as it is outside of the natural world, aka living, so both candidates are therefore dead.

Regarding God, the question truly is "to be or not to be." Never is the question alive or dead. If dead implies that He was alive. If alive then He can never be dead. By definition of Supreme being.

Besides, do you really want to base your disbeliefs on a technicality?

cthia wrote:I thought that would be obvious.

If two and only two candidates are running for Presidency and one is found dead then the other wins by default.

Spacekiwi wrote:SO something obly to be taken in the right circumstances, when it is needed, and not taken otherwise?

Not just the right circumstance. The only circumstance.

I meant dead as to refer back to you: neither candidate (god or the science) was ever alive to begin with. Im not basing my thoughts around technicalities, but logic and the scientific method.

cthia wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:Except for the fact that a god is technically supernatural, and therefore cant be living, as it is outside of the natural world, aka living, so both candidates are therefore dead.

Regarding God, the question truly is "to be or not to be." Never is the question alive or dead. If dead implies that He was alive. If alive then He can never be dead. By definition of Supreme being.

Besides, do you really want to base your disbeliefs on a technicality?

cthia wrote:I thought that would be obvious.

If two and only two candidates are running for Presidency and one is found dead then the other wins by default.

Spacekiwi wrote:SO something obly to be taken in the right circumstances, when it is needed, and not taken otherwise?

Not just the right circumstance. The only circumstance.

cthia wrote:

Spacekiwi wrote:Except for the fact that a god is technically supernatural, and therefore cant be living, as it is outside of the natural world, aka living, so both candidates are therefore dead.

Regarding God, the question truly is "to be or not to be." Never is the question alive or dead. If dead implies that He was alive. If alive then He can never be dead. By definition of Supreme being.

Besides, do you really want to base your disbeliefs on a technicality?

cthia wrote:I thought that would be obvious.

If two and only two candidates are running for Presidency and one is found dead then the other wins by default.

Spacekiwi wrote:SO something obly to be taken in the right circumstances, when it is needed, and not taken otherwise?

Not just the right circumstance. The only circumstance.

Spacekiwi wrote:I meant dead as to refer back to you: neither candidate (god or the science) was ever alive to begin with. Im not basing my thoughts around technicalities, but logic and the scientific method.

You are not referring back to me. You are referring back to my original postulate. The postulate is not dependent on life or death. It is dependent on two and only two possibilities that even science supports. And that is either GOD is the author of creation or some form of science.

One being found dead is outside the function of the postulate. f(x). X = postulate. One being found dead is simply a data point.

You must follow the chains of logic.
.

You had said that there were two candidates: god and science, and that science was the dead candidate. I based my reply off that. sorry for any confusion regarding ym posts. However, I would quibble that science is the idea with life behind it, as the scientific methods is surrently the most likely cause of the universe, and the probability of a god is low.

cthia wrote:
You are not referring back to me. You are referring back to my original postulate. The postulate is not dependent on life or death. It is dependent on two and only two possibilities that even science supports. And that is either GOD is the author of creation or some form of science.

You must follow the chains of logic.

cthia wrote:You are not referring back to me. You are referring back to my original postulate. The postulate is not dependent on life or death. It is dependent on two and only two possibilities that even science supports. And that is either GOD is the author of creation or some form of science.

You must follow the chains of logic.

Spacekiwi wrote:You had said that there were two candidates: god and science, and that science was the dead candidate. I based my reply off that. sorry for any confusion regarding ym posts. However, I would quibble that science is the idea with life behind it, as the scientific methods is surrently the most likely cause of the universe, and the probability of a god is low.

Let us agree on something: cthia did not say that there are two candidates. Science does. Cthia simply agrees. Stephen Hawking and all proponents against theism argues against whether a Deity is the author or science. With a Deity Being an inherent possibility. And the probability of God is not low. By nature of the postulate -- and proponents against theism -- HE is 50/50.

Do forgive my late edit of the previous post (you were concurrently posting. It mimics the problem of concurrency in computer programming. lol

But refer back to:

You are not referring back to me. You are referring back to my original postulate. The postulate is not dependent on life or death. It is dependent on two and only two possibilities that even science supports. And that is either GOD is the author of creation or some form of science.

One being found dead is outside the function of the postulate... f(x). x = postulate. One being found dead is simply a data point.

You must follow the chains of logic.

If two and only two candidates are running for Presidency and one is found dead then the other wins by default.

You do know that that is not what happens don't you.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Annachie wrote:

If two and only two candidates are running for Presidency and one is found dead then the other wins by default.

You do know that that is not what happens don't you.


Sent from my SM-G920I using Tapatalk

Politically?

Even the dead can sometimes get elected..... sort of....


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mel_Carnahan

cthia wrote:Politically?

PeterZ wrote:The E

I believe cthia was commenting on my exchange and the assumptions made to address the fault in gcomeau's logic.

Gcomeau's use of the term is inconsistent with Huxley's reasons for coining the term. Asserting the truth of God is indemonstrable requires faith since that has not been proven. Cthia merely commented on why gcomeau's attempt failed.

cthia made a silly unsubstantied declaration, you can believe it was a comment on what you think it was if you like.

In the meantime, I showed you quite clearly why the existence of God can never be proven or disproven and you continue to dance around the issue to avoid dealing with it.

Did God create the universe and the laws of physics? Yes or no?

If yes, then you cannot argue God is bound by the laws of physics since God would have had to precede and supersede them.

If no, we're going to have to have a talk about exactly what this thing you believe in is and why you're calling it "God" because it's *really* different from what most people are talking about when they use that word.


Which is it?