www.abovetopsecret.com misterguch.brinkster.net www.answers.com janus.ucc.nau.edu legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com No Logical way to provide the empherical evidence because the Scientific procedure mandates you take God and bring God down to the natural level to provide scientific evidence.
@Kaddaemon No, it is not. Supernatural and non-existant are not synonyms. For example, if I imagine a product, such as a phone as thin as a credit card, the fact that such a phone does not exist does not put it in the category of supernatural. Such a product could exist in the natural world. It just doesn’t.
btw, I see you are still moving the goalposts… don’t think I haven’t noticed.
@blackadm Okay, then what signifies that God is non-existent? What evidence within reason will be accepted? I think none. I could give you material from God himself and you’d still deny it is God. Why? You’ve rejected all evidence most gave you so far. What evidence is this? Some have died in the name of God and claimed to have seen God himself. Why? If God doesn’t exist would these people die for a lie? Mind you it is more than one person and all have seen him. These people have existed.
@Kaddaemon this is all irrelevant to your claim.
@blackadm I’m stating a fact. Anyways my claim is that there can’t be empherical scientific evidence for God. Why? Both Atheists & Christians agree that God is SuperNatural. The Scientific procedure is criteria where things in Nature(not SuperNature) are explained. Since both Atheists & Religious seem to agree with this definition of God then you must create a new method to meet the criteria to explain the SuperNature within logic without the empherical realm of Science. There are more realms.
@Kaddaemon well, then, be my guest. But until this new method is created, there is no reason to assert, agree, condone, imply or infer that anything supernatural exists.
I don’t see where you can go from here.
@Kaddaemon – Your statistics are incorrect. Less than one percent of the world’s scientists are believers and among those, most are deists. Science has an explanation for most things now, including how we got here.
@Kaddaemon – An atheist is simply a person who believes in one less god than you do. Do you believe in Apollo or Zeus? I am a scientist, and I can tell you that there simply aren’t “many” explanations. There are a scant few and of those, none espouse a god figure. As human beings, we do not know absolutely everything. Science is honest about that. Religion claims, without a shred of evidence to back it up, that it does know everything. I suggest you do some reading…cont
@Kaddaemon – A good place to start is by going to your library and checking out a few rudimentary science books. Later, when you have a grasp of the basics, move on to other books. I recommend “The Big Bang” by Simon Singh to start with. When you begin to understand the nature of the world around you, you will no longer be compelled to defend this archaic superstition.
One of the convenient tricks religions have used in the modern age is to claim that god is neatly tucked away in the realm of the supernatural. The problem with that is that the supernatural does not exist. The moment anything claimed to be supernatural is proven to exist it then becomes natural. The term supernatural becomes synonymous with unreal.
@Christheatheist1 This reminds of project Steve.
@Christheatheist1
you said “The moment anything claimed to be supernatural is proven to exist it then becomes natural”
This is stupid. There are plenty of things that are non-natural that exist that we don’t say because it exists therefore its now natural. The un-natural exists. So according to your weak and pathetic logic things classified as unnatural are magically changed to being natural because you said so.
WEAK
@vrodTHEAntiAtheist13 – Name one
@Christheatheist1
Name one what?
If you want me to name one thing that is unnatural then how about I direct you to an atheist evolutionist fundy that claims that there are unnatural things?
The whole fallacious assumption in your comment is that you are assuming that if something exists it is natural.
@vrodTHEAntiAtheist13 – So you can’t name one unnatural thing. Figures. Fail
@Christheatheist1
I was asking you to clarify what you were asking.
According to some evolutionists, lions and tigers mating together doesn’t happen in the wild therefore when they mate together in zoos the physical interaction of them mating together is unnatural.
@vrodTHEAntiAtheist13 – Well, you have that 100% wrong. Not only do evolutionary biologists accept inter species mating between those two species, but there is a living example of a ‘liger.’ It’s a natural occurance. Google it. Anything that can be established to exist in this reality is natural.
@Christheatheist1
Well I don’t have it wrong, the people that you are claiming have it wrong are your own evolutionary biologist funders. They say that those tigers and lions mating together was only because of human intervention therefore making it not natural because if it was natural it would happen in the wild. If you don’t accept that, fine, thats you and your evolution cults problem.
But since you just disagreed with what biologist say then let me direct you to Richard Dawkins website
@Christheatheist1
Go to this webpage and remember to remove the spaces
h t t p:// richarddawkins . n e t /articles/580017-unnatural-genes-used-to-replace-missing-dna-keep-cells-alive
Oh no whats the title of the article
UNNATURAL genes used to replace missing DNA keeps cells alive
@vrodTHEAntiAtheist13 – Funders? You idiot! These people are scientists who have evidence to support their claims. It is natural because it happened in this reality. Evolution is an accepted scientific fact. YOU are in a cult which believes that a magical, invisible monster in the sky poofed everything into existence by magic. Project much?
@Christheatheist1
LOL so you give up? You sidestepped the argument by harping on the fact that I called your science idols that you worship funders?
how about you recognize that I just backslapped you and your stupid challenge to me. You challenged me to name one thing that was unnatural. And I gave it to you from your own evolution cult masters.
Does it hurt inside knowing that a theist just backhanded your silly challenge?
@vrodTHEAntiAtheist13 – Sorry, but you’ve spectacularly failed. I don’t think you really believe in a god at all. Because if you believed in an all-knowing, all-seeing god you would be terrified to lie the way you do for fear of being stricken down by him. No, you are as big an atheist as I am. The thought that all of your beliefs are a bare assed clown show is infuriating to you. So you hiss insults and plug your ears, singing “La-La-La!” so you don’t have to face your own unbelief. cont…
@vrodTHEAntiAtheist13 You know full well that your god is a myth. What kind of god requires someone as gripless as you to lie in order to prop him up? I think you are terrified of your own mortality. So you come to youtube and hurl nonsense and pat yourself on the back and go on lying to yourself to comfort yourself. How pathetic is that? You have my pity.
@Christheatheist1
but I didn’t LIE. I just backhanded your weak challenge to me. You dared to try to challenge me to find you something that is unnatural. And I did show you something from your atheist master Richard Dawkins own stupid website. And you have nothing to come back with. All you can do is nitpick that I called them fundies and cultists.
It makes me feel really good knowing that atheists like you get reduced to rubble with your weak and PATHETIC challenges
@Christheatheist1
And you are the one that is lying. You are lying in the name of atheism.
And what did I lie about? I just showed you an article from Richard Dawkins’ website that talks about UNNATURAL Genes.
Just because I humiliated you and met your weak challenge doesn’t mean that I am lying. You just feel bad because you challenged me to show you something which I did. Now you are reduced to sidestepping your original challenge with ad hominem attacks.
@vrodTHEAntiAtheist13 LOL! You’re busted