Richirich713:


Blah blah blah, just another way of saying u can't prove there's no God.

U don't KNOW if there's no God.
U believe there's no God, no proof.

In a postulation of a claim without empirical substantiation only the claim needs to be proven and the onus is on the claimant because how exactly can you disprove that which has not been proven to be in the first place. . . That is tantamount to nothing..

Let me demonstrate..



You see this picture of a table here, I believe, i have faith that there is a red cup on it now prove to me that there is no cup on top of it..

Teempakguy:
this is getting boring.

belief is NOT when you think some thing is true without evidence. for god's sake, are you a slowpoke? i've been repeating the same thing over and over again.

belief is thinking something is true. it is a general word. you can believe anything for any reason. and the reason atheist believe stuff is because they KNOW it's true.


for instance, i can say,
"i believe the apple you are about to throw up will fall. and you won't be able to eat it if you fail to catch it and it falls into the ocean."

just because i said i believe there doesn't mean i don't know it's true or that it cannot be proven that apples do fall when thrown up.
belief is another way of saying, i accept this is true.

Richirich713:


Does it look like I care wat hawking thinks or says?
I only brought him up cuz u care what man made science laws teach.
And I'm pretty sure he knows tens time more than u on science.
U don't even no wat a belief is

Second u speak as if all that crap u said about black holes are proven by science.
It's a theory, just like hawking theory, just like Einstein theory.
If that was proof I wonder why don't all scientists don't considered that proof.

Richirich713:

What scientist proved this?
I thought atheists only believe In stuff that is proven?
Do u agree with Hawking proofs of the big bang?

Richirich713:


Again just another way of throwing words together, trying to give the impression he no what he talking.

Atheist believe what they no know? Hahaha

Did atheists no there's no God?

No they just belief there's no God.

Shame u don't even no what u urself believe.

Teempakguy:
like i earlier said, belief is not what you are saying it is. it has nothing to do with evidence or proof anything. read my earlier posts. i hate repeating things.

johnydon22:


In a postulation of a claim without empirical substantiation only the claim needs to be proven and the onus is on the claimant because how exactly can you disprove that which has not been proven to be in the first place. . . That is tantamount to nothing..

Let me demonstrate..



You see this picture of a table here, I believe, i have faith that there is a red cup on it now prove to me that there is no cup on top of it..
.

Richirich713:


Atheist believe what they no know? Hahaha
Did atheists no there's no God?

No they just belief there's no God..

Richirich713:


Again just another way of throwing words together, trying to give the impression he no what he talking.

Atheist believe what they no know? Hahaha

Did atheists no there's no God?

No they just belief there's no God.

Shame u don't even no what u urself believe.

hahn:


What about the bottle of orijin?

johnydon22:


In a postulation of a claim without empirical substantiation only the claim needs to be proven and the onus is on the claimant because how exactly can you disprove that which has not been proven to be in the first place. . . That is tantamount to nothing..

Let me demonstrate..



You see this picture of a table here, I believe, i have faith that there is a red cup on it now prove to me that there is no cup on top of it..
.

johnydon22:
lol..

I am still waiting for my friend to prove to me there is no cup on that table....I this will end this argument once and for all...

Richirich713:
Proving that no cup on a table proves there's no God?

Are u drunk?

Richirich713:

A table and a cup does not represent our argument!

Richirich713:


A table and a cup does not represent our argument!

hahn:


You wish. Since when did theists start giving direct answers to direct questions?

He'll come back with a different question that will have you going wtfffffffffff?

Richirich713:
Proving that no cup on a table proves there's no God?
Are u drunk?

hahn:


That guy will only give you a headache

johnydon22:


Lmao actually it does depict the premise of the argument in every sense ..

and i was hoping you would be at least honest enough to tender an answer so i can fully paint for you the picture of the whole setting.. You asked Teempakguy to prove a God doesn't exist..

why not attempt it surely my brother a table is clearly shown in that picture...

Richirich713:


Does it look like I'm going to debate u atheists on table as if this illustration of a table proves anything.
The fact u talking nw about tables and red cups shows how weak and desperate ur argument has became.

lmao brother you are really becoming a bit hostile..

I want to illustrate for you the fully position of empirical substantiation, proof, belief and unbelief in relation to a claim..

I have no intent making it about the existence of a God so don't get defensive unnecessarily..

we all seeing the table.. so just a little attempt... it won't hurt i promise..

Richirich713:


No a cup does not represent God nor does a table.

And i am telling you that this has nothing to with a God... for "God" sake it just an analogy.. don't get defensive my good friend..

The cup and table represent a cup and a table not a God... are you not seeing the picture my good sir..

Is there a red cup on that table or not..... [img]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTtH2SNuQ39SI2MeuW7GP3DOaxzJwA-j64O7brX-tt9e8puj6cATPpCEPE[/img]

One could guess the answer to this should be obvious but bro you are not tendering one at all..

Richirich713:

No a cup does not represent God nor does a table.

Richirich713:
Proving that no cup on a table proves there's no God?

Are u drunk?

Teempakguy:
you know, the biggest problem when discussing with theists is making them realize the difference between the big bang and earth.

you see, THEY think that the earth came out of the big bang.
they can't understand how all this complexity could have come from an explosion, which in turn, came out of nothing,

what they do not realize is,

1. the earth is ridiculously young when compared to the universe. the big bang was purported to have happened fifteen billions of years ago. the earth is just five billion years. they still can't realize that is just a random planet. orbiting a random sun, orbiting a random galaxy. among millions of other ones.

2. the big bang itself was never said to come out of nothing. it is very possible that the universe is eternal, but this current one, with all our galaxies and current physical laws, is just fifteen billion years and it is a recycled product. the singularity that exploded to from us obviously did not form from nothing. something made it. the closest thing to that is the black holes we see today. they are sucking everything back in.

3. the earth actually looks like this because it's very very old. when it was a baby, it was just a ball of rock. with no atmosphere, no water, no life, nothing. it was even reddish like mars. with a glow. shows you what time can do.

Richirich713, this is for you. if you still don't get it . . . sorry. fun's over.

johnydon22:


And i am telling you that this has nothing to with a God... for "God" sake it just an analogy.. don't get defensive my good friend..

The cup and table represent a cup and a table not a God... are you not seeing the picture my good sir..

Is there a red cup on that table or not..... [img]http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTtH2SNuQ39SI2MeuW7GP3DOaxzJwA-j64O7brX-tt9e8puj6cATPpCEPE[/img]

One could guess the answer to this should be obvious but bro you are not tendering one at all..

Teempakguy:


this is the point.

the table is the universe, the cup is God.

now, we say that there is no cup on the table just as we say god is not in the universe because we cannot see him as we cannot see the cup on the table now.

now you say that god indeed exists. that is like saying the cup is really on the table. despite the fact that we cannot see it.

and then you ask us to prove that god does not exist. that is like asking us to prove that the cup is not on the table.

so . . . since you know there is god, here, despite the fact that we can't see him, why don't you prove it to us.

if you cannot prove that there is a cup on that table. when none of us can see it, why are you shouting that god exists when we cannot see him in the universe?

Richirich713:


1st I no science teaches that the earth is young and I no it teaches the universe is much older.

2nd Hawking is the main drive behind the big bang and he said the world came from nothing not me. It was his own words, not ur words u want in his mouth.

3Rd if the earth never had those things I wonder where those things came from, get it yet?

Again therefore there must be a creator who was eternal and intelligent not black hole manbo jumbo who with no intelligence creates the entire world intelligently.

Richirich713:


Major difference boy,
1st I and u can see the entire table , I can see all the possible spaces where the cup can be placed on,

I can't see the entire universe, in order for me to see everything in this universe I would have to be God.

Which already shows how bad this illustration represents our argument.

Teempakguy:
[img]http://ceperspecta.xyz/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/Pinterest-livingroom-design-pictures-inspiration-ideas.jpg[/img]

okay then.
prove that there is a dead body in this house.

Richirich713:

1st I no science teaches that the earth is young and I no it teaches the universe is much older.

2nd Hawking is the main drive behind the big bang and he said the world came from nothing not me. It was his own words, not ur words u want in his mouth.

3Rd if the earth never had those things I wonder where those things came from, get it yet?

It came from the result of natural interactions..

e.g this sand dune is actually so finely done that you would argue it was done by an intelligent being ..
But no sir it was done by action of wind on dust...

so the beauty or precision in earth does not really suggest design but only shows diversity of natural interactions. . i wonder if Tsunamis are design too.. lol..

Again therefore there must be a creator who was eternal and intelligent not black hole manbo jumbo who with no intelligence creates the entire world intelligently.

The results we have now only shows results of which you might perceive or recognize beauty in is as a result of natural interactions of elements resulting from another...

But we should not still be quick to discard your design theory we should simply keep an open mind to what we can learn through study by first agreeing we don't know ..

Richirich713:

Major difference boy,
[size=20]1st I and u can see the entire table[/size] , I can see all the possible spaces where the cup can be placed on,
I can't see the entire universe, in order for me to see everything in this universe I would have to be God.
Which already shows how bad this illustration represents our argument.

Richirich713:


Idiot does it look like I'm going to respond to another illustration?

U beg me to answer the table crap, now again?

Plz I don't have time to waste with people like u