STOCKTON said:
First of all No, you'd say to me if I said, God has ordained to remove Science. Secondly, who is this you, that you refer to when speaking about Denying Scientific Knowledge? Science has yet to prove God is false.
And you thank your God for that argumentative loop-hole every time your God is backed into a corner. Science cannot prove God is false - why don't you try to prove that my flying spaghetti monster is false? You can't, that's why. Does that make your God (or my flying spaghetti monster) any more real? NO.
STOCKTON said:
So you are saying there's a chance there is a god, even without physical proof? That's a first
That is not a first. As I said before in previous posts, I cannot be certain that God doesn't exist. Me saying that 'I know God doesn't exist' is just as preposterous as you saying that you know God exists. I am concerned with probabilities here - the chance of God existing. That chance is extremely low, very close to zero, so - FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES - He doesn't exist.
STOCKTON said:
Look at the Last Quote, and look at what you said now, you're contradicting yourself matie.
Look at my previous post. There is no contradiction. I typed 'for all intents and purposes' in my previous post for a reason. It's like me saying - 'the chances of me sleeping with Alyssa Milano are, for all intents and purposes, nil'. Now, there is a chance I might get to sleep with her, but the chances of that happening are so low that, FOR ALL INTENTS AND PURPOSES, they might as well be nil.
STOCKTON said:
Depends whether this knew knowledge actually makes sense, or is 100% Proven! Until a theory becomes a law, I'll shut up, but so far in Science there is no law proving the non-existence in God.
Why does it have to be 100% proven? Your God is 0% proven and you believe in him! Again you resort to that fallacious argument 'Prove God doesn't exist', knowing that is the only thing that Science can't do. Again, it doesn't make the existence of your God any more 'real'.
STOCKTON said:
Don't give me that bullshit, I know this shit already
Then you realise that the argument holds true. There is just as much evidence supporting the flying spaghetti monster as there is supporting your God, so why is one definitely real whilst the other is definitely illusory?
STOCKTON said:
Ok, mate did they ever worship a flying spaghetti in History?
What does that have to do with anything? Are you suggesting that, because numerous other people have believed in your God in the past, he must be real? OK then, instead of the flying spaghetti monster, let's replace him with Zeus. Numerous people worshipped Zeus in the past - why is he any less real than your God? Just as you can't prove that your God doesn't exist, you can't prove that Zeus doesn't exist.
STOCKTON said:
Well Jesus was God incarnate and he was documented. Just like George Washington. Or should we just simply submit ourselves to the doctrines of Science, because after all it proves everything, even coincidences etc.
So, someone wrote a book about Jesus and related him to God. Well, it must be true then! Don't believe everything you read Stockton, try to think for yourself once in a while.
STOCKTON said:
Ok, just like how the British think the Aborigines were animals huh? How Kangaroos resemble the British more when they came to Australia so they became a team to fight against the aborigines.
I've never heard of that one before. In what way does that refute my previous statement I wonder?