- Nothing-- he’s spirit.
- No, he’s inaudible.
- There are certain things the spirit would never say.
Are you freaked out yet?
Why in the world would I be “freaked out” by you making the same tired and unsupported claims made by so many others on this board over the years?
- If he’s a spirit and you didn’t see him, it could have been your imagination.
- If he’s inaudible, the only talking you did was with yourself. For your sake, I hope you didn’t do any of your “conversation” out loud where others could hear.
- Who are you, that you know what a spirit might or might not say?
“God wouldn’t say that” certainly isn’t supported by the Old Testament or by the idea that humans can’t know God’s will.
Why is it that when I see something along the line of “You cannot know the will of God…” it is almost immediately followed by a claim that in essence says “…but I can.”?
Now that’s just plain nasty.
Atheists make themselves look bad by doing this.
Interesting that you scrolled back up the thread to find this and comment on it. 
The bottom line is that post indicated no understanding of science, and that’s assuming commoncents meant what he said. The post doesn’t say anything about atheists as a group. It’s a comment by an individual.
True. Good point. I suppose the assumption that God’s intelligence is infinite is a matter of faith, as is all things concerning God.
I’ve reached the end of my position. There’s nothing more I can say about it. This is not an argument I’m trying to “win.” I’m not trying to “beat” you. I just want to say what I have to say. The mounting :mad: hostility:mad: in this thread is pointless.
And Man, being fallible, is capable of misplacing faith.
Really? To whom?
People who are predisposed to dislike them.
The forum is called Great Debates, not Mundane Pointless Stuff I Must Share. The expectation is that if you’re posting here, it’s because you’re defending a particular position. You’re no longer able to mount a defense, and so you’re looking for a face-saving way out. “I wasn’t really trying to debate” is a fairly common one.
You mistake my tone. I’m not mad at you. I’m DEBATING you.
What if your model is wrong?
I’m sure our understanding of the universe will continue to be revised. The evidence behind the Big Bang is strong and I wouldn’t expect that to be overturned, but if the facts say it needs to be replaced with a better theory, that’s what will happen. I mentioned the Steady State theory earlier. Dark matter was a surprise and so is the increasing rate of expansion of the universe. That’s what is good about science: it’s a method of inquiry and understanding, not a series of answers that need to be justified. Science doesn’t give you answers like “That’s not for us to understand” on scientific issues.
Our model is limited in the ways it can be wrong, and any future models would have to accommodate all of the information which lead us to this position.
So, if our model is wrong it is likely the right model is some variation of it.
It probably is, in some respects. If science finds evidence that a theory is wrong, people work to find a correction.
You religious folk, however, deny that evidence is even necessary for your God, and so essentially claim your model can’t be wrong.
The model fits the evidence and observations made to date. Do you have evidence that might challenge the model? If so, the model can be revised as needed.
It’s a price I’m willing to pay.
Largely, it’s an argument based on “it’s how I was brought up”.
So someone’s parents and teachers told them something all through their childhood.
No Stephen Hawking, Brian Cox, or Richard Dawkins will ever override that. No amount of scientific reasoning. Basically, they were told that in their formative years, and it’s ingrained.
I know this because I was brought up Catholic. And although fully on the side of empirical study, some small part of my psyche will never let me absolutely declare “there is no God” - even though I understand why that is so, and even though I am happy to argue the empirical evidence requirement for such things. One tiny bit of me doesn’t let me take that final step.
Why? Other than the psychology of my upbringing (read: indoctrination) it is also comforting to accept the possibility. This is, I know, entirely in my own brain, and I would never argue it. I’ll argue the opposite.
But understanding how and why your opponent believes as such is always important.
Its Howard. Its in the Lord’s Prayer…
“Our Father who art in Heaven.
HOWARD be thy name”.