Bah Kee Stan

[Ed de Ball]

What is pertinent is doc's 100% false claim that the existence of God had been disproved. Which it clearly hasn't and never will. .

Not sure it is as simple as that. The existence of Santa is disproved only because those who made up his existence (for the purpose of creating a sense of expectation and happiness in children) admit he is a fiction at around the time children can figure things out for themselves. It is the same with god. You either go with the faith or you look at the empirical evidence. The latter consists solely of ancient scripts containing numerous allegorical and social messages which have gone through numerous translations and iterations. If you look at these and come to the conclusion it is all hokum then there is a strong case saying you prove god does not exist. But you will never be able convince a faith based believer particularly one who is unable to say what form god exists in.

[TonInDublin]

You really aren't getting this at all. No one on here has to prove or disprove anything because no one other than Doc has told complete and utterly fabricated lies on this thread. Which he has not only done once but repeated. The absence of data is not fact. So I will ask him once again to either share with us where the existence of God has been disproved or just tell us what we all know. Namely that he made up an unsubstantiated lie. It really couldn't be simpler. And please stop talking about "my God" as if you in any way know me or what I stand for. It's patronising beyond belief

[bigdoc1874]

You really aren't getting this at all. No one on here has to prove or disprove anything because no one other than Doc has told complete and utterly fabricated lies on this thread. Which he has not only done once but repeated. The absence of data is not fact. So I will ask him once again to either share with us where the existence of God has been disproved or just tell us what we all know. Namely that he made up an unsubstantiated lie. It really couldn't be simpler. And please stop talking about "my God" as if you in any way know me or what I stand for. It's patronising beyond belief

Yes, fabricated by science, there is no absence of data, far from it, why did your god invent day and night before 'he' invented light ? Your god is the equivalent of folk posting messages to their dead on facebook, very disappointing to be honest. 

[TonInDublin]

Can you please tell us where it was proven that God doesn't exist. Or admit you lied and made it up.

It really couldn't be simpler.

 

We can get round to talking about anybody else's God when they make unsubstantiated claims about their God.

 

Right now though, you are the person who stated that it was proven that God didn't exist. Don't worry about anybody else. Can you please answer the question posed above.

 

After that we can get on to your equally ludicrous beliefs about the situation in Pakistan and when the bible was written.

 

Your move.

[Ed de Ball]

Someone has to define "God" first then we can see whether his/her existence is proven, disproved or not proven. Then we might know whether the argument is about Jehovah, Buddha, Mohammed, Neptune, Apollo etc.

 

By the way I didn't intend to personalise when I used "you" earlier, I thought I was using it in the plural form but it would have been better to say ones.

[TONofmemories]

Someone has to define "God" first then we can see whether his/her existence is proven, disproved or not proven. Then we might know whether the argument is about Jehovah, Buddha, Mohammed, Neptune, Apollo etc.

 

By the way I didn't intend to personalise when I used "you" earlier, I thought I was using it in the plural form but it would have been better to say ones.

 

Birthday caird pish. 

 

Have a red dot

[TonInDublin]

For the purposes of this thread we can leave the definition of God to Bigdoc, as apparently he has conclusive proof that the said God doesn't exist.

So when he publishes his facts and references, then we can we understand which definition of God was used to reach the conclusion.

 

So it's a bit of a circular argument till he does that to be honest. 

[Ed de Ball]

Birthday caird pish. 

 

Have a red dot

Clear evidence here that the evolutionary process is completely unguided by any superior being and that gene mutation has taken place.

[LargsTON]

Not sure it is as simple as that. The existence of Santa is disproved only because those who made up his existence (for the purpose of creating a sense of expectation and happiness in children) admit he is a fiction at around the time children can figure things out for themselves. It is the same with god. You either go with the faith or you look at the empirical evidence. The latter consists solely of ancient scripts containing numerous allegorical and social messages which have gone through numerous translations and iterations. If you look at these and come to the conclusion it is all hokum then there is a strong case saying you prove god does not exist. But you will never be able convince a faith based believer particularly one who is unable to say what form god exists in.

  

Clear evidence here that the evolutionary process is completely unguided by any superior being and that gene mutation has taken place.

Have another 3 red ones, dickhead.

[Cet Homme Charmant]

Clear evidence here that the evolutionary process is completely unguided by any superior being and that gene mutation has taken place.

 

There is unanimous consensus in the serious science community (i.e., not including bogus creationist 'scientists') that the universe was created with the big bang from which planets were formed and all life on earth evolved. None of that however disproves the existence of deity. One could still argue that a deity created the big bang from which everything else developed, and scientifically disproving that 'theory' would be nigh on impossible.

 

The definition of a 'scientific theory' is somewhat different from normal meaning of theory. Even to have something classified as a 'scientific theory' there must already be very strong peer-reviewed empirical evidence to support it. Until then it's only considered to be a hypothesis. Only when empirical evidence is absolutely incontrovertible can a 'scientific theory' become 'scientific fact'. That's why the big bang and evolution are still classed as theories, something which is wrongly interpreted by some creationists to mean there's still a reasonable level of doubt as to their veracity. Even if the scientific consensus of something is 99.99%, while that 0.01% element of doubt exists it's not considered to be proven and it remains a scientific theory.

 

Therefore, despite Ed and Doc's assertions, there is no incontrovertible evidence to prove that a deity does not exist, and it's extremely unlikely there ever will be. So, in short, this is a totally pointless discussion.

[Ed de Ball]

There is unanimous consensus in the serious science community (i.e., not including bogus creationist 'scientists') that the universe was created with the big bang from which planets were formed and all life on earth evolved. None of that however disproves the existence of deity. One could still argue that a deity created the big bang from which everything else developed, and scientifically disproving that 'theory' would be nigh on impossible.

 

The definition of a 'scientific theory' is somewhat different from normal meaning of theory. Even to have something classified as a 'scientific theory' there must already be very strong peer-reviewed empirical evidence to support it. Until then it's only considered to be a hypothesis. Only when empirical evidence is absolutely incontrovertible can a 'scientific theory' become 'scientific fact'. That's why the big bang and evolution are still classed as theories, something which is wrongly interpreted by some creationists to mean there's still a reasonable level of doubt as to their veracity. Even if the scientific consensus of something is 99.99%, while that 0.01% element of doubt exists it's not considered to be proven and it remains a scientific theory.

 

Therefore, despite Ed and Doc's assertions, there is no incontrovertible evidence to prove that a deity does not exist, and it's extremely unlikely there ever will be. So, in short, this is a totally pointless discussion.

[Ed de Ball]

There is unanimous consensus in the serious science community (i.e., not including bogus creationist 'scientists') that the universe was created with the big bang from which planets were formed and all life on earth evolved. None of that however disproves the existence of deity. One could still argue that a deity created the big bang from which everything else developed, and scientifically disproving that 'theory' would be nigh on impossible.

 

The definition of a 'scientific theory' is somewhat different from normal meaning of theory. Even to have something classified as a 'scientific theory' there must already be very strong peer-reviewed empirical evidence to support it. Until then it's only considered to be a hypothesis. Only when empirical evidence is absolutely incontrovertible can a 'scientific theory' become 'scientific fact'. That's why the big bang and evolution are still classed as theories, something which is wrongly interpreted by some creationists to mean there's still a reasonable level of doubt as to their veracity. Even if the scientific consensus of something is 99.99%, while that 0.01% element of doubt exists it's not considered to be proven and it remains a scientific theory.

 

Therefore, despite Ed and Doc's assertions, there is no incontrovertible evidence to prove that a deity does not exist, and it's extremely unlikely there ever will be. So, in short, this is a totally pointless discussion.

I didn't think I was making an argument that God did not exist. I am in the not proven camp on both creationist and scientific theories. I was simply curious as to the form etc that creationist thought God existed in. However if there is a creationist God his level of intervention is alarmingly low if the current state of the planet and mutants like Bob the Knob and Toby the Twat are anything to go by.

[LargsTON]

I didn't think I was making an argument that God did not exist. I am in the not proven camp on both creationist and scientific theories. I was simply curious as to the form etc that creationist thought God existed in. However if there is a creationist God his level of intervention is alarmingly low if the current state of the planet and mutants like Bob the Knob and Toby the t*** are anything to go by.

Ooft. Your patter gets worse by the day.

[LinwoodTON]

I didn't think I was making an argument that God did not exist. I am in the not proven camp on both creationist and scientific theories. I was simply curious as to the form etc that creationist thought God existed in. However if there is a creationist God his level of intervention is alarmingly low if the current state of the planet and mutants like Bob the Knob and Toby the t*** are anything to go by.

 

To be fair, LargsTON was described to me yesterday as 'one of the good guys'.

 

He's probably just a knob on the internet. 

[LargsTON]

To be fair, LargsTON was described to me yesterday as 'one of the good guys'.

 

He's probably just a knob on the internet. 

I am a good guy. You have to be a special kind of arsehole for me to take a dislike to you....which Ed is to be fair.

[TonInDublin]

To be fair, LargsTON was described to me yesterday as 'one of the good guys'.

 

He's probably just a knob on the internet. 

Why not introduce yourself at the next game and make your own kind up ?

[capitanus]

Ahem...

 

Nothing cowardly about Gordon Dyer.

 

 

 

Your turn:

 

 

 

 

 

Edit to add link:

 

http://www.greenockmorton.org/forum/index.php?showtopic=42568

[Cartoon Head]

[capitanus]

[Ed de Ball]

To be fair, LargsTON was described to me yesterday as 'one of the good guys'.

 

He's probably just a knob on the internet. 

He is what he is. As a Morton fan his heart is in the right place it's just a pity his brain is mislocsted. He does at least engage if increasingly on a tediously childish level. Not like Mr T, the silent red dot assassin, fuck knows what goes on in his head.