does a santa exist?

ICABOD PEAPOD 30 Apr 01:37


would someone who arrived 500 years after a crime was committed be allowed to give evidence in a court i wonder

you've lost me again. What are you on about?

cristo, that is self explanitory you silly article

i once thought i woz still in the same place when on a aeroplane in the sky, and you know what ?

it woz all in a dream, then i woke, it woz all in the mind, never really went anywhere, bit like this thread really. love ya! x

Brodie 30 Apr 02:17


There are no true atheists on this thread. A true atheist treats the idea that a god exists as likely that cheese spread could power a rocket.
Totally out of the question.
Who debates whether cheese spread powers a rocket?
You get the metaphor I hope.



Yes I've noticed that they won't debate. It's beyond them. They like to trade insults, but when I won't join in they usually get bored. yes they do beg the question alot. A militant atheists attitude is like I've made my mind up now don't confuse me with the facts.

Yes I've noticed that they won't debate. It's beyond them.

------------------------------------

:0 you serious? I'd say Atheists are far more open to God existing than the '100% faith' approach of the believers. Indeed the whole idea of faith is the belief in something that has very little evidence; how could you possibly be swayed?

If God wants me to believe in him he is welcome to have a chat with me tonight (as, apparently, he does with many believers on a regular basis). Until then I'll assume either he doesn't exist or isn't bothered whether I believe in him.

[b]Knight Rider 30 Apr 04:33


Yes I've noticed that they won't debate. It's beyond them.

------------------------------------

[b]you serious?

yes


I'd say Atheists are far more open to God existing than the '100% faith' approach of the believers. Indeed the whole idea of faith is the belief in something that has very little evidence;




this is just your opinion.



how could you possibly be swayed?



Swayed about What?



If God wants me to believe in him he is welcome to have a chat with me tonight (as, apparently, he does with many believers on a regular basis). Until then I'll assume either he doesn't exist or isn't bothered whether I believe in him.





This is very childish. You think God should be at your beck and call?





[/b][/b]

J2BLUE. 29 Apr 23:33
Nothing has been rammed down my throat.

That's not the rumours on the forum.

Knight Rider 30 Apr 04:57
Swayed about your belief in God, obviously. God at my beck and call? Sure, why not? He's omnipotent isn't he? Don't see why that is childish.



Because he is omnipotent. He can do what ever he wants.You can't order him about. thinking you can is so arrogant.


[b]Why wouldn't he understand my rational reasons for not believing in him, given that he has never given any evidence that he exists?




This is your belief and you haven't given any reasons for it. Your attitude seems to be you only believe what you can see. So I guess you don't believe in radio waves then?



As I said above, clearly he either doesn't exist or isn't bothered whether I believe in him. Or I suppose a third option, he wants me to believe in him but doesn't have the power to tell me, which makes him the worst god ever.





This is another false dichotomy. Another option is that he is bothered and he sent his only son to die for you, but you reject the evidence.



If he wanted everyone to believe in him it would be quite simple, just appear in the Sky and tell everyone what's going on and which religion is the correct one. Might even be your religion, you never know.[/b]






What so the sceptics can try and explain it away with a mass hallucination. For those that don't want to believe they will always try and rationalize the evidence away or more likely just ignore it as has happened on this thread and every other time I have discussed this with non believers.

Why? Why keep posting these dumbass threads? It's like an obsession.

Go and get a copy of Watchman Nee's "The Spiritual Man,"...if you can find a copy, sell all your worldly possessions and buy it.

Watchman Nee was an example to us all.


The more I take part in debates like this the more I realise the Bible is proved true when it says

14 But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised. I Corinthians 2:14

You will of course consider this foolishness as well and not understand it, but that only proves the Bible true again.

You have a body, soul and spirit. This is reflected in the descriptions in the Old Testament, detailing the Jewish temple, which they were told to build, "According to the pattern I have shown you..."

thank fcuk for that then

It's human nature that, if you say something is "sinful", we are going to want to do it all the more.

Sunset Cristo 30 Apr 01:33
slartybartfast. 29 Apr 23:49


maleuk01., the problem with using the apparently infinitesimally small chance of our own existence to support the alleged existence of something called "God" (ie it was so unlikely it must have been designed/guided, etc) is that if it had happened any other way, and we hadn't been created, then we wouldn't be here to ask the question.

But just because we are evidently here doesn't mean we had to exist and were part of some grand plan. Indeed, consider the infinite other possibilities which will not have happened as the "opportunity cost" of the route along which the Universe has evolved.





This is a ridiculous argument. I bet the fish I feed think this. I can imagine the theist fish saying who keeps the water at the right temp and keeps putting food at the top and the tank and the atheist fish saying don't ask stupid questions we wouldn't be here to ask the question. I bet the atheist fish thinks nothing exists out side the tank as well because of his paucity of thinking and he hasn't ever experienced anything else.


You have misunderstood my point, SC. To be fair, it is a tricky one and perhaps I didn't put it well (I thought I did but it was late!). I am arguing against the point sometimes used to support the case for a creator God that is based on the apparently infinitesimally small chance of our existence (based on the combined probabilities of our star, planet, the formation of life, its evolution, etc). That argument states that the apparent extreme unlikelihood of our existence cannot have occurred "by accident" and therefore there must be a divine being who has designed the Universe in order to support our existence.

Quite apart from the dangers of making a general assumption from a partcular case (eg most of the probabilities are guesswork based on a sample of one - ie Earth and humans), my point is that this argument is illogical as we have no way of quantifying how many times the Universe has/would have evolved and not resulted in humans. And, moreover, we wouldn't be there to ask the question if we hadn't arisen.

It's a bit like the way people are amazed when they are thinking of someone when the phone goes and they find it is that same person phoning them. The probem is we tend not to remember the times when we were thinking of a different person or no one at all.

It is easy to be impressed by the apparent improbability of human life. But the fact that something is unlikely does not make it impossible nor the result of divine intervention. Bettors, of all people, should be aware of this! :D

^ agreed

live and let live

no harm in a bit of debate though ;)

lartybartfast. 30 Apr 09:39
Sunset Cristo 30 Apr 01:33
slartybartfast. 29 Apr 23:49


maleuk01., the problem with using the apparently infinitesimally small chance of our own existence to support the alleged existence of something called "God" (ie it was so unlikely it must have been designed/guided, etc) is that if it had happened any other way, and we hadn't been created, then we wouldn't be here to ask the question.

B[b]ut just because we are evidently here doesn't mean we had to exist and were part of some grand plan. Indeed, consider the infinite other possibilities which will not have happened as the "opportunity cost" of the route along which the Universe has evolved.





T[b]his is a ridiculous argument. I bet the fish I feed think this. I can imagine the theist fish saying who keeps the water at the right temp and keeps putting food at the top and the tank and the atheist fish saying don't ask stupid questions we wouldn't be here to ask the question. I bet the atheist fish thinks nothing exists out side the tank as well because of his paucity of thinking and he hasn't ever experienced anything else.


You have misunderstood my point, SC.


No I don't think so. from the fishes point of view what is the probability that the tank is just kept at the right temp or that food appears at the top of the tank twice a day just by random chance?
Common sense and logic dictate that it is infinitly more likely that some one is doing that than it just miraculous happens all by itself. To think other wise is the hight of irrational thinking.








T[b]o be fair, it is a tricky one and perhaps I didn't put it well (I thought I did but it was late!). I am arguing against the point sometimes used to support the case for a creator God that is based on the apparently infinitesimally small chance of our existence (based on the combined probabilities of our star, planet, the formation of life, its evolution, etc). That argument states that the apparent extreme unlikelihood of our existence cannot have occurred "by accident" and therefore there must be a divine being who has designed the Universe in order to support our existence.

Quite apart from the dangers of making a general assumption from a partcular case (eg most of the probabilities are guesswork based on a sample of one - ie Earth and humans), my point is that this argument is illogical as we have no way of quantifying how many times the Universe has/would have evolved and not resulted in humans. And, moreover, we wouldn't be there to ask the question if we hadn't arisen.



see above.while this may well be true it still doesn't get around the fact that chance doesn't cause anything and it's illogical to believe that every thing came from nothing in a random explosion.



[b]It's a bit like the way people are amazed when they are thinking of someone when the phone goes and they find it is that same person phoning them. The probem is we tend not to remember the times when we were thinking of a different person or no one at all.







This I agree with, but it has no relevance to what we are talking about.The only way it could be relevant is if you believe that the universe has exploded many times over already. There is no evidence of this.

It is easy to be impressed by the apparent improbability of human life. But the fact that something is unlikely does not make it impossible nor the result of divine intervention. Bettors, of all people, should be aware of this!



You have obviously never heard of Statistical analysis. People use this all the time to make deductions about what happened in the past and what happens in the future. If I keep getting a Royal flush when playing Poker wouldn't you think it was designed that way or would you think I was just being incredibly lucky. Of course you would believe the former and rightly so. So why do you not apply the same logic to the the big bang?

The BB has only happened once. How can I do a meaningful statistical analysis of such an event?

You've lost me.

Icabod i am atheist but you are doing us no favours.Your arguements are childish,petty and not well thought out,do yourself a favour and close your mouth!