Recent content by expletivedeleted

Maybe I misunderstand your problem, but the only advice I can give is to play around with it in practice mode until you know exactly where the hitbox is.

I'm sorry. I'll stop forcing you to participate.

The pure logic here is astounding. I'm--really--I'm blown away by this. Why are we all arguing, when the Bible tells us everything we need to know? So, Pete577, where have you been for all these religion debates? So are you saying that it's impossible to be truly in touch with your faith...

"Evidence" is different from proof. People see many "evidences" (in this context, as in my example before, evidence is subjective) for religion. Saying that people who are in touch with math need proof and therefor people who are in touch with religion need proof is wrong. You can't equate...

Webster says: Atheists have a disbelief in God. Agnostics say "I have no reason to believe in God." You can't compare religion with physics and math in this respect. Physics and math are based on the empirical--religion is not. Physics and math (math specifically) by definition requires a...

And I disagree slightly with that. If one is truly in touch with one's religion, then one will not have to prove it to oneself. What St. Thomas is trying to do here is prove it to everybody, and to convince everybody of the undeniable logic in God, so he does need a valid proof.

This is similar to Rossl15's proof presented earlier, in that it is not a proof, but a conjecture. As I said before on this forum, I think in this very thread, the biggest problem I have with these religious proofs--which extends to religion in general--is that religion can't accept unknowns...

Awesome. I was just watching Hellsing (the anime). That's my random quota for the day. As this thread currently does not have the posters that were here from the beginning, I'll re-post the original question: it comes straight of Bazooka Lucca's post, and you can read the rest of it at...

I agree with EdreesesPieces here. It can't be a proof because you're assuming (to use your own words, "the only conceivable, and the simplest probable cause") that God is the answer. It's Occam's razor with a religious slant. Not a proof.

Oh, but his theories are very much relevant. Your conclusion was entirely based on the assumption that time and space necessarily have a beginning. He is saying that they do not, or at least do not have to, a point I alluded to earlier. His theory necessarily refutes yours. Though physics...

Exactly. Your point? First of all, your "proof" assumes the existance of a god, by saying that something must have created matter and space in the first place. What about God? What created God? To assume that a being can exist that transcends the laws of time and space is leaving the...

Yeah, that sounds about right. --- What I meant is that you should be religious because you believe it (or whatever it is religious people do), not do the ceremonies emptilly (if that's even a word) just for fear of going to ****.

If someone is religious for that reason, they deserve to go to ****.

You have caught on to my evil plan to rule the world...now I must destroy you. Mufufufufu. So I'm using equivocation (or a statement which, whether intended to be or not, is) to make a point. Oops. I was trying to stress the similarities between the lack of the definitive in religion and...

Hooray for semantics! Again, semantics, I say. But I see what you're saying, and I'm not quite sure if I agree. I would like to see that Bible verse, if you can dig it up, I think it would help. It seems that we're both looking from a non-religious perspective. Are there any religious...