Originally posted by eatmybishop1, God doesn’t exist (I am not implying that you said he did).
if the intelligence of the human race constantly advances like it's doing, will there get to a point where are knowledge is on a par with god, virtualy making us all gods..?
i'm talking hundreds, even thousands, of years in the future here...
2, no mater how advanced technology becomes, it cannot break the laws of physics.
Also, the laws of physics not only make certain things literally impossible but also subtly and indirectly conspires to make a great many more things forever impractical no mater how advance technology becomes (such as making an airtight metal container that can pass through the core of the sun without its contents being incinerated? etc) although it is difficult to predict in advance which particular things will be forever impractical.
This means we will always have many limits and in that sense we will never become ‘gods’.
====================================
1, God doesn’t exist (I am not implying that you said he did).
======================================
Please settle it all right now by showing us your mathematical formula proving beyond all reasonable of doubt the non-existence of God.
- Joined
- 08 Dec 04
- Moves
- 100919
Originally posted by eatmybishopNo matter how much technology changes and advances, the human nature(heart) remains the same. Greed, lust, adultry, hate, murder, etc.
if the intelligence of the human race constantly advances like it's doing, will there get to a point where are knowledge is on a par with god, virtualy making us all gods..?
i'm talking hundreds, even thousands, of years in the future here...
None of this has changed in thousands of years and will be no different in thousands of years....just something to consider....
Originally posted by checkbaiterGod's salvation intends to deify man and intends to cure the sin poisoned heart.
No matter how much technology changes and advances, the human nature(heart) remains the same. Greed, lust, adultry, hate, murder, etc.
None of this has changed in thousands of years and will be no different in thousands of years....just something to consider....
The new birth - regeneration, sanctification, transformation, resurrection, and glorification all have the end of producing sons of God for the Father.
The way to reach the will of God for man's deification is through cooperation with His salvation rather than advancement of technology without love and trust of the heavenly Father.
Man can never be not dependent upon God and be fully human. And to not depend upon God is dehumanizing.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by jaywillWhy would only a mathematical formula satisfy you? Surely any analytical proof would be sufficient.
Please settle it all right now by showing us your mathematical formula proving beyond all reasonable of doubt the non-existence of God.
Originally posted by Conrau KI don't think you have either a formula or sufficient analytical skills to prove the non-existence of God. If you did you'd be the first person in history to be able to do so.
Why would only a mathematical formula satisfy you? Surely any analytical proof would be sufficient.
Originally posted by Conrau KDon't you think that a mathematical formula would be more conclusive and scientific?
Why would only a mathematical formula satisfy you? Surely any analytical proof would be sufficient.
Is it my preference that concerns you or the limitation of your ability?
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Originally posted by jaywillI never claimed to have a proof. In fact, given your constraint on what a proof would be (i.e. mathematical), I do not expect a proof to be possible. I only want you to justify why only mathematical formulae could qualify as proofs of God's non-existence.
I don't think you have either a formula or sufficient analytical skills to prove the non-existence of God. If you did you'd be the first person in history to be able to do so.
This is just as bad than Scottishinnz's demand for empirical proof of God.
Originally posted by jaywillNo. The burden of proof is on you. YOU are the one making the extraordinary claim.
[b]====================================
1, God doesn’t exist (I am not implying that you said he did).
======================================
Please settle it all right now by showing us your mathematical formula proving beyond all reasonable of doubt the non-existence of God.[/b]
1.) That's questionable since you made the unilateral statement "God does not exist".
Noticing your lack of ability to scientifically prove that you back off into saying it is my responsibility to prove you wrong.
Then we get into a long debate on why the burden of proof should be on who.
2.) I admit that I have a faith and that we preach a faith.
So I tell you right up front that the experience of God is a matter of faith.
You see faith leaves man with nothing to boast about in himself.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
Personally, I think this fudging of "burden of proof" between theists and atheists only frustrates debate. If anyone makes a claim, they should justfy it. If they believe it, they ought to have some reason to believe it. So whether someone says "God exists" or "God does not exist", they ought to have some justification - saying the burden of proof is on the other person is not good enough; it is simply an evasion of responsibility to justify their belief.
Originally posted by jaywillIt's not extraordinary. It's supernatural.
The burden of proof is on you why the claim should be "extraordinary".
Why should it be extraordinary that God exist ?
Since we are talking about a being or some sort that defies laws of nature (in fact, I guess you would say it creates the laws), that is capable of creating the universe, that can 'work miracles' then we are clearly talking about something that can operate 'beyond' nature - hence is supernatural.
For such a claim you muct be able to provide proof or evidence of some sort.
We - the naysayers - are simply saying that explanations for the world are,and will be, natural. You invoke the supernatural and should be able to defend that position.
So, what's your proof?