Me: that's more than imaginary, remember the title of the thread?"
him: Only if there happens to actually be a God.
My argument is that we have strong reasons to bleieve there's a God. He wants to be able to continue the insulting connoations while deying that he means them. But when I claim that string tehory is imaginary too what does he say?
Im Lriginally posted by JimL
Neutrino's are detectable and are known to exist, there is nothing imaginary about them,
Meta:
atheists just really have a problem with understanding what is said don't you? Go is real and can be detected. What the person I was responding to said about the meaning of imaginary would apply to anything that is not directly and unarguably proved. Neutrinos are not directly oversexed. they are not directly observed. You can detect them but only by their effect upon other particles. There still remains no direct picture of one. They cannot be directly observed.
We can detect God by his effects upon people, that's what RE is. It's God's effect, the trace of God.
Jim L
and string theory is just that, a theory, based on the physics of the natural world, whereas God is merely an unscientific concept that gives to us an imaginary explanation as to the meaning of it all.
Again, Science is not the only form of knowledge. Understand? science is not the only form of knowledge. that means it doesn't have to be science to be true. That means bad mouthing God by saying "that's not scinece is not an argument! understand now? that's not a point in your favor. it's meaningless.
it does not make God imaginary. Just because something is not science doesn't mean it's imaginary. Logic is not science, logic is not imaginary. Phenomenology is not science, phenomenology is not imaginary. Understand now?
You are trying to privilege your position with words.
Meta
you are special pleading. You are trying to say that science is the only form of knowledge so therefore anything that is scientific is automatically redeemed from not having direct proof. But an idea that is not a scientific idea, if not proved directly must be imaginary. That's crap.
You do not have the right to privilege our position such that anything you say is exempt form direct proof but anything I say direct proof is automatically required.
Neutrinos and string theory cannot be proved directly no one thinks that makes them imaginary. God can be known by his effects and by one's understanding of being, so God is not imaginary.
Meta
Yes I sure and I have.(verify SN) See the threads I put down on how atheists have the wrong idea of the supernatural. The religious experience studies and the effects of navigation in the world are supernatural, a prori. they fit exactly what the original concept was about.Its' a Christian theological concept atheists do not have the right to define it!
Jim L
and so you are left with nothing but the imagination with which to construe an ultimate reality or God. Whether God exists or not you can only imagine.
you are not doing it again, give me some proof that anything that is not science is imaginary? why do you think you get to pronounce that? Science doesn't say that. Show me the scientific data that proves that?
Moreover, My argument is based upon 300 scientific studies and you don't have any. I can verify the SN by science because the first argument is the supernatural. Supernatural refers to God's power to transform lives, taht's exactly how the word was first. That's what it means that's what these 300 studies prove. you don't have any studies. you have no studies.
score, 300 to 0.
Theists = 300 studies proving our position
ahteist= 0 studies proving your position.
MEtaI am left with 300 empirical studies which show that the experiences that led to the creation of religion are real, they are experiences of something, they fit the criteria we use to determine reality so we have every right to think of them the effects of something real; they are about god we should assume God is that "something" that is real.
Jim L
not direct proof but more than imagination!
they don't have to be direct proof. you have offered no data or any sort of argument to prove that these are the only choices, either imaginary or totally proved directly. That's a silly idea. That's not science and it's not logical it's stupid. do you hear me its' stupid. got it? it's a dumb idea.
you are making extremely statements and you can't back them up.
I have studies showing an innate concept of God in the mind of humans. That means God had to put it there because evolution can't.
[not direct proof but more than imagination!
did you read the op? do you ever read anything? The point in the op is it doesn't have to be direct proof because it rationally warranted. do you understand that phrase?
I said in the first post that my point is not that God is directly proved but that it's rational to believe. So you come along and say "not direct proof" so what does that do to the argument? It agrees with it so it must no effect it at all do you see that?
I never defined imaginary thus. It merely means the construction of concepts in the mind with no definite reality.
So now it comes out that you don't understand what is meant by "connotations?" Atheists are indeed ignorant. It's a connotation of ignorance and stupidty and childishness if not why are you not willing to say that string theory is imaginary?
Hawkings numbers are imganiary how does that make you feel?
You can't prove it directly because whether true or not for you, like it or not, God is only a concept in your own mind.
what did I say about proving things directly? when are you going to start addressing the arguments?
No comments:
Post a Comment