Pre-Big Bang

[watsup]

I'm afraid you are in error, because I never claimed I could prove that God has existed forever (this is revealed by God and taken on faith).

Witnessing and defining. It means nothing since you don't even have any objective reality-based evidence for your "God".

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Witnessing and defining. It means nothing since you don't even have any objective reality-based evidence for your "God".

Most posts in these threads mean nothing to you, then again not understanding how to communicate in English may have something to do with that.

 

[watsup]

No. You hit a snag! :lol:






:roll:


Now.....that's quite different from what you said before. Can't you tell the difference?


Refer to post #256.










....and he gives the google search page! Hahahahaha




Look - if you can't even tell the difference from what you said in post #256 (which I was particularly reacting to), and what you're saying now about science THEORIZING about pre-Big Bang......why should your opinion be credible at all?

You're showing not only can you not understand what you're reading...........heck, you don't even understand what you write! :lamo

This is a phenomenon with some of you atheists here......having this incredible ability to do a posturing mock-debate without
understanding what is being said! :mrgreen:
Like you're all cloned from the same stuff! Or.....you guys all came from the same LUCA!

Ad hom: "There’s no doubt that some ad hominem attacks can be clever. But one must learn to counter and debunk arguments, not simply deride or smear people.

2. It Destroys Civil Discourse
“Avoiding ad hominem attacks is, in fact, a foundational element of civil discourse,” writes Geher, professor of psychology at the State University of New York at New Paltz. “[As] hard as it may seem, most people, regardless of where they stand politically, share the same goals of making this world a better place. In a climate beleaguered with disagreement, let’s remember that all discourse should be respectful and civil. Avoiding the ad hominem attack is a basic aspect of best practices in political discourse.”

4. It Ends Fruitful Discussion of Ideas
One of the best ways to sharpen the mind and get closer to truth is to challenge one’s own ideas. This often involves dialogue with other people. Because people rarely see eye to eye on all matters, it’s not unusual for debates and disagreements to occur. This is entirely proper. The fruitfulness of discussion depends largely on how well people are able to listen to one another and respectfully exchange ideas. Once a discussion grows heated, it makes a fruitful exchange of ideas more difficult. When the ad hominem appears, it’s generally a sign that a healthy exchange of ideas is no longer possible."


5 Reasons to Avoid Ad Hominem Arguments - Foundation for Economic Education

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Ad hom: "There’s no doubt that some ad hominem attacks can be clever. But one must learn to counter and debunk arguments, not simply deride or smear people.

2. It Destroys Civil Discourse
“Avoiding ad hominem attacks is, in fact, a foundational element of civil discourse,” writes Geher, professor of psychology at the State University of New York at New Paltz. “[As] hard as it may seem, most people, regardless of where they stand politically, share the same goals of making this world a better place. In a climate beleaguered with disagreement, let’s remember that all discourse should be respectful and civil. Avoiding the ad hominem attack is a basic aspect of best practices in political discourse.”

4. It Ends Fruitful Discussion of Ideas
One of the best ways to sharpen the mind and get closer to truth is to challenge one’s own ideas. This often involves dialogue with other people. Because people rarely see eye to eye on all matters, it’s not unusual for debates and disagreements to occur. This is entirely proper. The fruitfulness of discussion depends largely on how well people are able to listen to one another and respectfully exchange ideas. Once a discussion grows heated, it makes a fruitful exchange of ideas more difficult. When the ad hominem appears, it’s generally a sign that a healthy exchange of ideas is no longer possible."


5 Reasons to Avoid Ad Hominem Arguments - Foundation for Economic Education

Please say something interesting, please? just this once?

 

[watsup]

Please say something interesting, please? just this once?

Ad hom: "There’s no doubt that some ad hominem attacks can be clever. But one must learn to counter and debunk arguments, not simply deride or smear people.

2. It Destroys Civil Discourse
“Avoiding ad hominem attacks is, in fact, a foundational element of civil discourse,” writes Geher, professor of psychology at the State University of New York at New Paltz. “[As] hard as it may seem, most people, regardless of where they stand politically, share the same goals of making this world a better place. In a climate beleaguered with disagreement, let’s remember that all discourse should be respectful and civil. Avoiding the ad hominem attack is a basic aspect of best practices in political discourse.”

4. It Ends Fruitful Discussion of Ideas
One of the best ways to sharpen the mind and get closer to truth is to challenge one’s own ideas. This often involves dialogue with other people. Because people rarely see eye to eye on all matters, it’s not unusual for debates and disagreements to occur. This is entirely proper. The fruitfulness of discussion depends largely on how well people are able to listen to one another and respectfully exchange ideas. Once a discussion grows heated, it makes a fruitful exchange of ideas more difficult. When the ad hominem appears, it’s generally a sign that a healthy exchange of ideas is no longer possible."

5 Reasons to Avoid Ad Hominem Arguments - Foundation for Economic Education

 

[Sherlock Holmes]

Ad hom: "There’s no doubt that some ad hominem attacks can be clever. But one must learn to counter and debunk arguments, not simply deride or smear people.

2. It Destroys Civil Discourse
“Avoiding ad hominem attacks is, in fact, a foundational element of civil discourse,” writes Geher, professor of psychology at the State University of New York at New Paltz. “[As] hard as it may seem, most people, regardless of where they stand politically, share the same goals of making this world a better place. In a climate beleaguered with disagreement, let’s remember that all discourse should be respectful and civil. Avoiding the ad hominem attack is a basic aspect of best practices in political discourse.”

4. It Ends Fruitful Discussion of Ideas
One of the best ways to sharpen the mind and get closer to truth is to challenge one’s own ideas. This often involves dialogue with other people. Because people rarely see eye to eye on all matters, it’s not unusual for debates and disagreements to occur. This is entirely proper. The fruitfulness of discussion depends largely on how well people are able to listen to one another and respectfully exchange ideas. Once a discussion grows heated, it makes a fruitful exchange of ideas more difficult. When the ad hominem appears, it’s generally a sign that a healthy exchange of ideas is no longer possible."

5 Reasons to Avoid Ad Hominem Arguments - Foundation for Economic Education

Nope, that was just as boring as the last one, please say something interesting, please? just this once?

 

[watsup]

Nope, that was just as boring as the last one, please say something interesting, please? just this once?

Just as a follow-on, I am just trying to help you. I would suggest that you carefully read the information about ad hom and take it to heart. You would then gain much respect among the more thoughtful people here. As it is, they consider you a poser because of your apparent constant need to demean the atheist debaters on both a personal and generalized level instead of focusing on the topic at hand. Only you can change that.

 

[zyzygy]

God exists because god must exist. I do not find that to be convincing.

 

[zyzygy]

Just as a follow-on, I am just trying to help you. I would suggest that you carefully read the information about ad hom and take it to heart. You would then gain much respect among the more thoughtful people here. As it is, they consider you a poser because of your apparent constant need to demean the atheist debaters on both a personal and generalized level instead of focusing on the topic at hand. Only you can change that.

There is a reason why he won't stick to the topic at hand.

 

[TypicalRussian]

God exists because god must exist. I do not find that to be convincing.

what if it could be proven that has to exist?

 

[devildavid]

You haven't sensibly or factually refuted anything I've proposed, only bloviated your ludicrous personal opinions about my posts.

You haven't established any facts that need refuting.

 

[devildavid]

what if it could be proven that has to exist?

It can't be.

 

[soylentgreen]

I'm afraid you are in error, because I never claimed I could prove that God has existed forever (this is revealed by God and taken on faith).

Reread my post, i did not accuse you personally. All i have done is point out that many theist have argued that their god is eternal Alpha and omega and all that ****.

 

[TypicalRussian]

It can't be.

neccessary beings

 

[grip]

You haven't established any facts that need refuting.

Neither have you.

 

[tosca1]

God exists because god must exist. I do not find that to be convincing.

Zyzygy:

God doesn't exists because I am atheist. Therefore, God MUST NOT exist!


DON'T YOU UNDERSTAND? I AM AN ATHEIST!


NO WAY! NO! CAN'T BE! NOT POSSIBLE! I SAID NO!

PLEASE. STOP TORMENTING ME! THERE CAN BE NO GOD! NONE! NEVER!

GO AWAY!

 

[Manc Skipper]

Zyzygy:

God doesn't exists because I am atheist. Therefore, God MUST NOT exist! NO WAY! NO! CAN'T BE! NOT POSSIBLE! I SAID NO!

PLEASE. STOP TORMENTING ME! THERE CAN BE NO GOD! NONE!

Such a mindless response typifies the very argument you rail against. "Assumption must trump logic."

 

[zyzygy]

Neither have you.

It is a fact that you have not presented any facts. You have now tacitly admitted that.

 

[zyzygy]

Such a mindless response typifies the very argument you rail against. "Assumption must trump logic."

tosca's eyesight must be very bad. I didn't type that. I don't say that a god must not exist, I say that I have never seen any evidence for the existence of any god. I say it a lot, but it never seems to penetrate a theist's brain.

 

[grip]

It is a fact that you have not presented any facts. You have now tacitly admitted that.

Bahaha, how do you prove a fact about a theory on an internet forum?

You scare me, you're so smart. :shock:

 

[zyzygy]

Bahaha, how do you prove a fact about a theory on an internet forum?

You scare me, you're so smart. :shock:

No need to be scared. The accepted method is to provide evidence to prove that the claim is a fact.

 

[RAMOSS]

Bahaha, how do you prove a fact about a theory on an internet forum?

You scare me, you're so smart. :shock:

You use sources that have done testing, of course. To deny that is to deny reality.

 

[grip]

You use sources that have done testing, of course. To deny that is to deny reality.

I use online sources, and accept reality explained by science, but not as the sole source of all logical deductions. Some of it is my own added analysis, which I try to keep plausible and sensible.

 

[RAMOSS]

I use online sources, and accept reality explained by science, but not as the sole source of all logical deductions. Some of it is my own added analysis, which I try to keep plausible and sensible.

Do you keep it plausible and sensible? How do you know that? And, how do you vet your online sources? Not all online source is created equal. When it comes to your logical deductions, how do you test for veracity? What process to you go through to figure out if your attempts at reasoning is rational?

 

[grip]

Do you keep it plausible and sensible? How do you know that? And, how do you vet your online sources? Not all online source is created equal. When it comes to your logical deductions, how do you test for veracity? What process to you go through to figure out if your attempts at reasoning is rational?

You sound like a little kid that doesn't understand, so you keep asking the same nonsense, over and over. I'll tell you what my father told me because I said so. When you unlock the helmet you've enshrouded your mind in, then maybe I'll make more sense to you.