I have a very simple example for you.
The number of points between 1 and 2.
You can divide into infinite points between them.
But your infinite set is still contained between them.
Moving on… 8th grade math, for 50, Alex.
the ball analogy is excellent, I just wanted to hear him explain it in his own words 
In that case, the universe is no more infinite than the basketball used in the analogy. You may be able to travel infinitely, but the universe itself is not infinite (limited volume). That is the distinction, and this is what allows the measurement of properties such as dimension.
The universe is quite possibly infinite.
Density of the matter within it, however, is another consideration.
And anyone who has opened a history book would know that statement was moronically false. Cue post WWII-Japan, or China during and after the Opium Wars.
Oh and let’s not forget the Fall of the Qing Dynasty and Mao Eras, where Confucianism took even more damage.
I’d like to think the Greek Gods are used for a lot more than simply transferring the understanding of an emotion. They are involved in a wealth of Greek literary and spiritual tradition, and are as much a part of Greek cultural heritage as anything else, even though Hellenismos was pretty much crushed by Christianity.
[/SIZE]
I did read what you wrote and you were plain as wrong. Infact you even ate your own words in this recent post which i will get to later. Anyway, I’ve told you to go find Dawkin’s debates and even referenced Sociology and Social Science so you are the one who is plugging his ears shouting lalalala. Additionally, this whole post you took the time to write does not have any single counter to anything (outside of the BS 8k argument) that i have said. All i am seeing is "illogical, and mentioning of certain details that i have already addressed. Thank god this is a forum because if this was an actual debate, you lost. Just like Htichens and Harris against Craig.
Disapproving is disapproving it, you even gave something very important in the later part of your post that contradicts everything you are saying.
You can disapprove and show someone is wrong with the help of Academic support and sources, what can’t be done is changing the persons belief or just flat out ave the person accept everything you said.
[/SIZE]
Did you even read the entire bit i gave of Einstein? The main point of that part was in response to your “math” but instead you just focused on something else which i additionally gave already. Looks like you are just arguing for the sake of not losing the debate but anyway, Einstein couldn’t believe in a personal god because he couldn’t understand the concept of evil so in order to understand this God, einstein made an equation (which is known as einsteins unfinished work), an equation to understand the mind of God. Oh, you gave more BS with “most scientists”, since you are some guy who is entirely ignorant, i did expect you to give bogus statements like this. Most of the best scientists in history believed in a god, the sides are even. Copernicus, Bacon, Galileo, Kepler and Newton believed in the personal God.
Look at that! “Science showed that it is false” so you just literally shot down your own arguments in concerns about academics being a tool in disapproving. Secondly, in your first part you said"there are tons of christians" then in the second you say “the reason why there are NO christians…” which one is it? LOL. This self-contradictory already shows that the stuff you said in 1. is you giving lies. Please argue with something actually true.
But anyway…
- I’ve already told you how stupid it is to think that the time of a certain book dating way back into BC should equally be the same in our present time. Please have the decency to re-read most my post because i really don’t want to repeat the things i said. I’ve already covered that are some people who are unaware that the word EARTH is what they called the land and not the planet during the time and young earth creationists are such a small minority that the quantity is to pathetic to even be regarded.
[LEFT]2. The subject of Adam and Eve being real is divided in belief. Some Christians believe Adam and Eve are representatives and there are Christians who believe Adam and eve were real individuals[/LEFT]
[LEFT][SIZE=2][FONT=trebuchet ms]. [/FONT][/SIZE][/LEFT]
[LEFT]Paul talked the stuff in Genesis in an allegorical sense in Galatians, the only time paul ever referenced Adam as a Proper noun is in Romans and then end of that verse it says Jesus is the “Last Adam” so obviously Paul talked about Adam in a Symbolic sense. Next, Jesus never said anything directly about Adam and Eve. Come on Fishjie, you have said countless in the past that you have read every page in the bible so why are you unaware of some the most important parts in the NT? The actual segment of Jesus referring to Adam and Eve is a good example of the literacy of the old testament when you read that verse in full context, so thanks for bringing that up. Read it, because in that part, Jesus is being tested by the pharisees if he agrees with the Mosiac laws/Moses writings and look how he answers it, he clearly shows them that not every thing written in those books should be taken at general literal value. [/LEFT]
Watch the full version of the debate and watch how Hitchens almost cries.
Most of the questions that are talked about around the net is found in this long video…
here is the one with Sam Harris too.
[details=Spoiler]
[media=youtube]yqaHXKLRKzg[/media][/details]
Harris actually started saying that after his debate with Craig. If you look in facebook and have followed the stuff here, atheist really do claim there is no God because science and evidence. Then they try to make theists look stupid because of rationality, science, and evidence but in debates even in forums, which side is the one actually posting sources, examples, academic support? The reason why i am active in these things is because it gets on my nerves how arrogant atheists are and think they are the smartest group when in my eyes they are the strongest “men of faith” type of people.
I can’t contradict your philosophy because that’s your own right and your own point of view. I have the same kind of view point (in terms of premise) and think there is a distinction from a theist and a religious person.
StarvinMarvin is spending less time engaging anybody’s argument and more time telling us to go look up some videos he keeps blathering about.
Dude… unless you’re trying to waste people’s time, just post them. There’s even a little button in the post editor that makes it really easy.
It’s shaped like a little piece of 35mm film. You can’t miss it.
Which way to put this…if Atheism is the disbelief in god, that means that Atheist are willingly looking at the concrete evidence for a god and choosing to pretend he doesn’t exist. The problem is that there is no concrete evidence of a god. So the best atheist can do is shrug their shoulders and wait until more conclusive evidence appears.
The problem people have with the word Atheist is that you guys think that it is our belief that we don’t believe there is a god. The truth of the matter is that for the most part we don’t want religious people suddenly shitting on a lot of hard work done to find out how the universe functions. I mean as far as you guys know, god made it that way so we could go out and explore his universe and the way he created it.
I mean if you believe in this supernatural being that is supposed to be more intelligent than anything it is far more offense to lay claims of understanding its thought process as oppose to understanding what he gave us and trying to come to the best conclusions of how it works.
What in the fuck are you talking about? Stop peddling your misinformation about Einstein. The man didn’t believe in a personal god because he felt it was simply childish! Equation to understand the mind of god? Again, I kindly ask what the fuck are you talking about? I think you’re referring to his failed attempt at a grand unified theory of physics. What you should know, however, is that every single physycist at the time had made that their life’s goal. These scientists were motivated by the discovery of truths, not some bogus understanding of the mind of a god unless you’re speaking in the metaphorical sense, though I doubt you are. His other major blunder in his career? He wouldn’t accept the indetermistic view of the universe as seen through the lens of quantum mechanics. 50 years later we know he was dead wrong about that.
LOL sure, many of the great scientists in the past who were privy to far less knowledge of the universe than the scientists of the last 150 years did believe in a personal god. But these scientists lived during times when atheism was far less acceptable a view. The scientists of today know exponentially more about their respective fields than any in the past and live in times when it’s no longer exactly taboo to be an atheist. Guess how many of them believe in god? Hint: the sides are nowhere near even.
As far as the Craig VS insert atheist debates go, yes he has won many of them in terms of points scored simply because he is an expert debator going up against scientists or journalists with far less training, but never once has he offered any new tidbits of information from one performance to the next. It’s basically his same 5 arguments asserted ad nauseam. That fucker thinks that an atheist is unable to say that torturing children for fun is wrong. What bullshit is that?
i went years erringly thinking i was the only guy who actually read Dune.
Man Val is going to be pissed when he gets back.
Guys, (Yo cousin) Marvin (Berry) is trollin yall. Now, go pick up a guitar and create that new sound we’ve been looking for. :tup:
Posted from my DMC-12 with futura-talk.
If one doesn’t bother to explain or detail their secret wisdom they might as well have simply posted ‘ha im the cleverest boy around’.
just as a matter of general internet principle.
Did you even read his post because it’s rather obvious you didn’t even fully read what he was talking about, seeing that he said that Einstein didn’t believe in a personal god. He never thought the belief in a personal god was childish he just couldn’t get it due to evil in this world. The equation that StarvinMartian is talking about is called the god equation i think. It’s a string long equation that almost every reputable Physicists wants to finish/complete, even that asian collegue dud-friend of Dawkins (forgot his name) has that equation as his career goal. In Albert’s autobiography, his dream was to develop a certain equation that would give physics knowledge as to how this god of the universe thinks.
After reading this post and Goodmorning’s post it’s like the majority of you are uninterested in fully reading Starvin’s posts. However, i bet if this was me arguing with Fishjiz i would have gotten responses in context to my post because it is obvious that you all would fully read it (maybe not comprehend it). But, this debate is being worked by some other poster. Therefore it’s boring. Back in the day when i did this shit, not only did i academically destroy ever single atheist but i made the thread and the GD go “New York”… but now look. Look at how many posts are there in the GD look how uninterested Fishjiz is and look how both you and Goodmorning are too lazy to read about 5% of Starvin’s post. If i was the one debating here, Fishjiz (who actually admitted being a fan of mine in the past) would have responded with about 3 long ass posts against my single post. He would not sleep. Just like in the past. I could literally destroy Fishjiz’ arguments here in this thread just like the other past threads if i wanted to take the time but for some reason i’m not in the mood to intellectually slap some ass. wWhat I want is for all of you to feel and remain in this void of a board and continue in this uninteresting debate because it shows how i am the Greatest poster of Shoryuken. You all know for a fact that there is no body that can work religion threads or the entire GD better than i can, all of you who have been here for 5+ years know that deep down.
Oh… Manxx is an ass kisser.
-
When I’m reading a post and I run into shit that flatly contradicts reality (e.g. the nonsense about proving empirical negatives), I tend to start skimming.
-
I used to engage people in debate as a matter of duty, but I quickly realized that it’s the biggest fucking waste of time in the world. Therefore, I tend to pick apart a point here or there that interests me and leave it at that. I believe I even called attention to this on page one, which you’re probably aware of, since you’re so darned attentive to every dot and comma.
EDIT:
Ah, page two. Silly me.
-
I don’t think you ever literally destroyed fishjie’s argument, given that it has made a timely reappearance in this thread.
-
Einstein did indeed refer to belief in god as childish in at least one piece of correspondence. I’ll let you know if I find it.
EDIT:
- If you’re the greatest poster on SRK, I’m your mom.
I don’t care enough about 1 or 2 so i will start with 3.
-
You know i did but you, him or anybody wont admit it.
-
No. Einstein only said that before he started working on the theory of relativity, it was that theory that made him believe in a God - Spinoza’s God. - Admitting that is was proven wrong by goodmorning.
“I’m not an atheist and I don’t think I can call myself a pantheist. We are in the position of a little child entering a huge library filled with books in many languages. The child knows someone must have written those books. It does not know how. It does not understand the languages in which they are written. The child dimly suspects a mysterious order in the arrangements of the books, but doesn’t know what it is. That, it seems to me, is the attitude of even the most intelligent human being toward God.”
That Einstein quote can be found in [SIZE=2][FONT=verdana]Einstein*: A Life*[/FONT][/SIZE].
- I am. And you called yourself my mum which clarifies what i said in my latest great thread about SRK losing it’s manly-ness. It’s not too late goodmorning, now that i have returned all you need to do is follow my words.
edit: I just read the link. I’m not talking about him believing in the christian god i’m just saying he believed in a god (Spinoza’s god) due to the theory of relativity. Thanks for the link though.
- You’re flattering yourself a little bit here. As far as I’m concerned, you’re an SRK poster who’s been out of the picture for a while but was memorable enough that I recognize your name. I think you had a dancing banana avatar, or I might be mixing you up with somebody else.
Now, if Azrael came back, or if Will Gotti came back and stayed this time… ooh, baby.
- You said Einstein never referred to it as childish. I said he did, and furnished the appropriate evidence. I realize that’s beside the larger point, but I was specifically addressing what you said.
If you want to keep firing back and forth on noteworthy physicists and the wacky things they say about God (and the stages in their careers in which they said them), I’ll dust off Hawking’s semi-recent quote about the unnecessity of the God hypothesis. But I personally suspect that this entire line of argument is neither here nor there–taking the word of scientists about something that they themselves would argue is unprovable in the first place.
Just so the thread does not get derailed lets make it clear that no body denyed that Einstein believed in a non-personal God. I am suprised why the subject on what god Einstein believed in is being used and is being used against me when i addressed first that he didn’t believe in a personal god just for the sake of preventing this from happening, but it happened anyway so next time you people should start reading.
The main point i gave in concerns with Einstein was in respons to Fishjie’s part in concerns of disapproving in a mathematical sense. Einstein’s view on the personal god is all semantics. Lets stay on topic about disapproving/approving. Goodmorning posting a link is an excellent example to my point. 
Where did i say that Einstein believed in a personal god? Do you people even read before you argue because i clearly stated that he didn’t believe in a personal god when i brought Einstein into the topic. Since you actually made it sound as if i am saying Einstein believed in a personal god then you obviously just want to argue and don’t want to take in time to read so what is the point in responding to this load of misinformed post you just gave? Start reading and when you do, i will take you in consideration and worth the time to respond to.
Research on Einstein’s last equation.
Christopher Hitchens and Sam Harris are not worthy opponents, aren’t these 2 part of the “4 horseman”? These two were picked by Dawkins himself to argue against Craig. And what is wrong with these “same” 5 arguments… he has every right to repeat them seeing that it has refuted such reputable atheists.
I only remember you having a superman avatar. I’m not flattering myself, i’m saying the truth.When i was active, the GD was going well and threads like this could be controlled by me but since i have been gone religion threads like this are not as interesting or valuable. Azrael and Gotti were all lovers of my threads and posts. Me > them.
Yes. I admit that i was error and i give you a high five for actually posting a reference.