<p>
[quote]
First you say God never existed, now you say God died. Do you have any evidence God is mortal?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I don't actually see him saying that God ever actually died. He merely considered it as a possibility. </p>
<p>And do you have any proof that God is immortal? That's the problem with these debates: They hinge on speculation and BS.</p>
<p>God is immortal because he is the Creator. As long as everything else exists and new things are being created, we can tell that He exists. </p>
<p>A NON LIVING BEING cannot create a LIVING being.</p>
<p>JamesN, by that logic non of us are living.</p>
<p>
[quote]
God is immortal because he is the Creator.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>That's a huge leap of logic, and a four-term fallacy.</p>
<p>
[quote]
JamesN, by that logic non of us are living.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>No, since God is living Being and he exists.</p>
<p>I have yet to see a table create a human :D</p>
<p>guguru:
I never said that the image was a fake, I said it was a false color composite. They are very commonly used in astronomy to highlight or enhance certain features. In this case, the colors were designed to highlight the different levels of ionization in the nebula. I'll post the link to the true color image again because it isn't working in my first post for some reason. <a href="http://www.astro.washington.edu/balick/WFPC2/catseye.jpeg%5B/url%5D">http://www.astro.washington.edu/balick/WFPC2/catseye.jpeg</a></p>
<p>If you really want me to do the rest of the verses I will. There were just too many of them for me to do all at once.</p>
<p>
[quote]
No, since God is living and he exists.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Proof? And no, the fact that something existed before the Big Bang is not proof.</p>
<p>Why is God living? Why does he exist? Do animals not create animals? Since they do, and they are the only things you see created why must god exist? He is not necessary for creation. In fact, since the amount of energy, and mass in the universe is constant (combined) he is not needed for anything.</p>
<p>The only reason why people believe in god is because before science people needed a way of explaining what they were seeing. If you take it as any more than that you're mistaken.</p>
<p>Why dont YOU proove that GOD DOES NOT EXIST. I said before, faith cannot be proven. Scientists can make all the assumptions they want and talk all about evolution, but they can never prove God never existed. I am not surprised that you are Japanese, after all they did have a history of beliefs which were secular.</p>
<p>JamesN,</p>
<p>It's funny that you "accuse" me of being Japanese, just because I live in Japan (I'm a Yank, for the record). ASSumption is a funny thing, and I'm hardly surprised that you'd ASSume stuff considering your weak logic so far.</p>
<p>You're the one making the statement that God exists. Considering that it's the much bolder statement considering the relative lack of evidence, the burden of proof is therefore on your shoulders.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why is God living? Why does he exist? Do animals not create animals? Since they do, and they are the only things you see created why must god exist? He is not necessary for creation. In fact, since the amount of energy, and mass in the universe is constant (combined) he is not needed for anything.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>And what created the animals?</p>
<p>
[quote]
The only reason why people believe in god is because before science people needed a way of explaining what they were seeing. If you take it as any more than that you're mistaken.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Somebody created the universe, and things dont happen "by chance." Its foolish to think anything opposing it. Humans dont "just happen" to be created. Science explains alot of things, but behind it all there is God.</p>
<p>Who is Japanese? </p>
<p>I find it funny that you demand proof from us seeing as you haven't given any to the contrary. I think science has given enough proofs that make the possibility of Gods existance lower. Furthermore, everytime science proves the lack of a God the religious people all get together to see how they can make it work. They date the universes creation, and outline what happened and the church says that that is when god created the universe. Scientists explore matter down to scales below anything anyone could dream of, the church says its design. I think it's high time religion actually PROVED something because as of yet (thousands of years) they have not done so.</p>
<p>
[quote]
but behind it all there is God.
[/quote]
</p>
<ol>
<li> There are unexplained things in the universe.</li>
<li> Science has not yet explained them.</li>
<li> Therefore, it was God.</li>
</ol>
<p>Again, this is a four-term fallacy, and extremely poor logic.</p>
<p>Actually, we were arguing about the current existance of God. I don't see what your point has to do with that. Beyond that, see my above post.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're the one making the statement that God exists. Considering that it's the much bolder statement considering the relative lack of evidence, the burden of proof is therefore on your shoulders.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Why dont you admit you cant proove s***? God is beyond humans, and its obvious you cant deal with such forces.</p>
<p>
[quote]
God is immortal because he is the Creator.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>To get into a debate over whether or not God is alive, you first have to believe that at one point, God existed. Seeing that you don't beleive in God, it's hard to provide evidence that God immortal - the knowledge that God is immortal comes with belief in God.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why dont YOU proove that GOD DOES NOT EXIST.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>I agree. Prove that God doesn't exist.</p>
<p>
[quote]
Why dont you admit you cant proove s***?
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What can't be proven, other than what existed before the singularity? Theists argued for a flat-earth, and science has since proven them flat wrong. Theists argued that the earth was 6000 years old, and that's been proven flat wrong.</p>
<p>You're the one arguing for us to believe in something that lacks any hard evidence. The burden of proof is on you.</p>
<p>
[quote]
I find it funny that you demand proof from us seeing as you haven't given any to the contrary.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>What do you call the previous 66 pages?</p>
<p>Lets see you give us some nice, solid facts.</p>
<p>
[quote]
You're the one arguing for us to believe in something that lacks any hard evidence. The burden of proof is on you.
[/quote]
</p>
<p>Well, if you have such hard evidence, why don't you share it with us?</p>
