Jump to content

Was intelligent life ever meant to exist?


Icefiddell

Recommended Posts

Second, that theory you talked about is just a theory(has not been proven[ the big bang is a theory too])

 

Enough with the "just a theory" idiocy. You do realize that "the earth is not flat" is just as much a theory as the big bang and matter out of nothing? In fact, it is even more so, as I can prove the earth is flat with just a simple re-arrangement of the coordinate system.

 

And did I mention that gravity and disease by bacteria are also "just theories"? Since you consider theories worthless, you won't mind if your doctors perform surgery on you with dirty knifes, of if I throw you off a tall building.

 

Also, what created this matter and antimatter. The basic thing is that in order for there to be an effect there must be a cause. That cause is made by something/ someone.

 

Fine, a cause is an absolute requirement to have an effect. There are zero exceptions to this rule.

 

What created god?

Not quite. I'm too busy with plasma physics right now.

 

Are you familiar with quantum mechanics?

 

I see. So you dismiss the theory I mentioned without having any understanding of the subject.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 59
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Peregrinne: First, the earth is flat is wrong. Satelites give us proof that it is round. If you have ever been on top of pikes peak you would also see the curvature of the earth. Second. God cannot be classified as in this dimension. He made the rules and laws. We cannot base God and how he works on our limited knowledge of our dimension. Gravity is also a proven theory. In fact it is no longer a theory since it has been proven true.

 

(From the guy who is still #1 in the top ten posters today! :cheesy: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Peregrinne: First, the earth is flat is wrong. Satelites give us proof that it is round. If you have ever been on top of pikes peak you would also see the curvature of the earth.

 

No they don't. They only give evidence to support a theory. If theories are considered nearly absolute proof of something, then that evidence has value. But if, like you said, theories are meaningless (matter out of nothing is "just a theory"), that evidence is equally worthless.

 

Besides, what you are saying depends on the equally unreliable theory-of-satelites-exist and the hopelessly speculative theory-of-your-eyes-see-what-really-exists.

Gravity is also a proven theory. In fact it is no longer a theory since it has been proven true.

 

There is no such thing as a proven theory. Try again when you actually know what you're talking about.

Also. Bacteria can cause disease. that is also a proven fact. Get your theories and factsstright before post ing again please.

 

Not only is there no such thing as a proven theory, but even if there was, this one wouldn't be. There is strong evidence to suggest that a cause and effect relationship between the two, but no definite proof.

 

Besides, it's "just a theory". Theories are just speculation, remember?

 

 

 

Second. God cannot be classified as in this dimension. He made the rules and laws. We cannot base God and how he works on our limited knowledge of our dimension.

 

But matter out of nothing is an absolute law, that can not be violated in any way. Remember? You used this argument to say that inanimate creation is impossible.

 

So which is it? Can that law be violated or not?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

obviosly (based on your replies) your mind is not yet ready to have a civilised and intelectual conversation. You have yet the power to grasp even the easiest of points. it is very simple. God is not of this dimension. where he comes from has different laws. and if he wants to invent another dimension. so be it. He is granted the power from his dimension to do whatever he wants (except sin). Theories are ideas. Ideas are never worthless. They are worth looking into atleast. A proven theory is true. It is an idea that was proven true.

 

 

(From the guy who is still #1 in the top ten posters today! :cheesy: )

Link to comment
Share on other sites

God is not of this dimension. where he comes from has different laws. and if he wants to invent another dimension. so be it.

 

Fine, I will concede that God can ignore what we consider the laws of this universe.

 

 

Unfortunately for you, that means that the laws are not absolute. If god can ignore/alter them, so can other beings/forces/etc. They are no longer absolute proof that the required "matter out of nothing" creation is impossible.

 

 

 

 

He is granted the power from his dimension to do whatever he wants (except sin).

 

Granted by who? I thought god was the highest power in the universe?

 

And if god is not capable of sin, then god is not omnipotent. We can no longer assume that god is capable of creation just because he is omnipotent.

 

Theories are ideas. Ideas are never worthless. They are worth looking into atleast. A proven theory is true. It is an idea that was proven true.

 

Wrong again. Come back when you've passed Science 101.

 

With the exception of a few fundamental laws (conservation of energy, f=ma, etc), theories are never proven. They are just generally accepted as the most likely explanation, and subject to revision at any time if new evidence appears.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First to theta: Do you have proof that the tooth fairy is real. God has atleast written evidence that is documented by eye witnesses that he is real.

 

To Peregrine: So what you are saying is that court cases are just theories.(ideas accepted and qualified for revision) Even if the eye witnesses saw a man kill another with his eyes. I don't think so. Also you're saying that fact is basically theory.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First to theta: Do you have proof that the tooth fairy is real. God has atleast written evidence that is documented by eye witnesses that he is real.

 

She might not, but I do. I have sitting on my desk here a written document by an eye witness stating that the tooth fairy is real.

 

To Peregrine: So what you are saying is that court cases are just theories.(ideas accepted and qualified for revision) Even if the eye witnesses saw a man kill another with his eyes. I don't think so. Also you're saying that fact is basically theory.

 

Come back when you can pass Science 101. You obviously have no idea what the scientific definitions (and this is an argument of scientific theories, so they are the relevant ones) of fact, theory, and law are. I have tried explaining them, but you insist on using the popular non-scientific meanings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

First to theta: Do you have proof that the tooth fairy is real. God has atleast written evidence that is documented by eye witnesses that he is real.

 

 

 

 

Written evidence? The bible was written by humans. Eye witnesses? Are you familiar with neurotheology? Can you prove that so-called eye-witnesses were reliable, not under the influence of drugs, not mentally impaired, not promoting a particular agenda, that in fact they were telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

 

All in all, the tooth fairy is as 'real' as any god - she just doesn't have as good a PR department.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...