DeletedUser
Praised be Helen Keller!
Praised be Helen Keller!
DeletedUser
There is simply no possible way, that I can think of, to prove that the world is or is not a computer program. Maybe you could use unexplained phenomena (ghosts, events that don't follow the laws of science) or conundrums (how did the world begin), but how would we tell?
Maybe, if it's true, the program has been designed to see if we are capable of figuring out that we are just a computer program...
Maybe, if it's true, the program has been designed to see if we are capable of figuring out that we are just a computer program...
DeletedUser
There's no evidence to back up your ******ed theory that this world is a computer program, which is something that a lot of people seem to forget. It's not the burden of DISPROVING something, it's the burden of PROVING something for those who want to be taken seriously.
DeletedUser
Ok, plx tell me who wrote the BIBLE ?
And why do you know BIBLE says so ?
You must saw the BIBLE by yourself , right ?
Then you make your own decision to believe, so it means you choose to believe.
Aha, yes, it is true.
But when i said i want to believe, then i also mean i actually believe.
The Original Bible has several books that the Catholic Church banned, and they are very rare, and the Church changed the books they didn't ban, so the Church actually just took what they liked and used that, and Protestants ended up with the same book, so few people know what Jesus originally wrote (I have nothing against Catholics, I just don't like the organization).
DeletedUser
Jesus didn't write anything, he disciples did.
DeletedUser
I didn't say the world was a computer program, I just said that there is no way to prove or disprove it.
If Jesus wrote anything, it had to have been the Old Testament because I don't recall him ever saying himself that he was the son of God. In fact, I believe that it was the Jews who first started saying that after he died and the Pro-Jesus Jews evolved into the Roman Catholics.
If Jesus wrote anything, it had to have been the Old Testament because I don't recall him ever saying himself that he was the son of God. In fact, I believe that it was the Jews who first started saying that after he died and the Pro-Jesus Jews evolved into the Roman Catholics.
DeletedUser
More senseless rambling that isn't applicable to the conversation we were having. Thanks.
DeletedUser
I'll give you a piece of advice, one we all recieved in basic training regarding radio communication, I am sure you will benefit from it both on these boards, and in real life as well.
"Think, push (the button), talk".
Don't mix it up, too many of your posts have been in the reversed order.
DeletedUser
I remember hearing this, " I can show u an atheist who became a christian, show me a christian who became an atheist."
DeletedUser
That would be me. So yes.
DeletedUser
There are plenty. My question to you would be, "what's your point for this dialogue?"
DeletedUser
We'll never know if God exists. We'll just have to wait and found out......
DeletedUser
That assumes that anyone will ever be in a position to "find out"...
DeletedUser
Well we all are going to die arent we?
DeletedUser
Are we?
DeletedUser
If we truly die, and our consciousness ceases to exist, there is no way for us to "find out" anything after we have died...
DeletedUser
What are you saying here?That no country can start without "God"
Exactly.If in 1000 years a copy of Harry Potter is found amongst the ruins,would that civilzation not believe that to be gospel and base their faith on that?
Last edited by a moderator:
DeletedUser
Yep. Supposing the languages of present civilization are still understood. Not many people will know Ancient American or Ancient French.
DeletedUser
Where is your evidence that Jesus didn't write anything? He was an intelligent man with many literate people around him.
HINT: It is scientifically impossible to prove the non-existence of something. To do so you would need to exist at all points of the Universe in a single instant in time.
HINT: It is scientifically impossible to prove the non-existence of something. To do so you would need to exist at all points of the Universe in a single instant in time.
DeletedUser
Nothing in the Bible was written by Jesus, nor are there any documents in existence that are claimed to have been written by Jesus, nor is there any indication, in any writing, from any of his disciples, that Jesus wrote anything. I believe that was Divest's intended argument, if not his presented one.
In other words, there is no evidence to suggest that Jesus wrote anything, and all that is available in the Bible was not written by him, which is a sufficient argument in contra to the post Divest was responding to. I.e., by all accounts, pertaining to the context of these discussions, Jesus did not write anything.
( Also, there is no such thing as a scientific impossibility. Practical impossibilities yes, but scientific impossibilities... that goes into the realm of belief, and thus is an argument posed from a belief-based perspective. Well, actually, if something violates a law of physics, it can be deemed as impossible, unless that something presents itself in a circumstance that relies on alternative laws, or distortions to the particular law of physics that is alleged to be violated. Such is the case when we do not have all the information available to make a conclusive, indisputable, determination. An otherwise impossible state, and thus the paradox of the argument. )
In other words, there is no evidence to suggest that Jesus wrote anything, and all that is available in the Bible was not written by him, which is a sufficient argument in contra to the post Divest was responding to. I.e., by all accounts, pertaining to the context of these discussions, Jesus did not write anything.
( Also, there is no such thing as a scientific impossibility. Practical impossibilities yes, but scientific impossibilities... that goes into the realm of belief, and thus is an argument posed from a belief-based perspective. Well, actually, if something violates a law of physics, it can be deemed as impossible, unless that something presents itself in a circumstance that relies on alternative laws, or distortions to the particular law of physics that is alleged to be violated. Such is the case when we do not have all the information available to make a conclusive, indisputable, determination. An otherwise impossible state, and thus the paradox of the argument. )
Last edited by a moderator: