On the failure to find God's fingerprints ...

[Autodidact]

Originally Posted by kmkemp

There's Auto, missing the point again. =(

Please explain it to me then.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

What I'm saying is that by definition, an effect that does not deviate from random chance is no effect.

Surely you DON'T feel that merely saying something makes it true, do you?

Originally Posted by Autodidact

If something cannot be perceived, and only creates effects that equal random chance, in what sense can thing be said to exist?

When was the last time YOU perceived an individual atom? How about an electron? Can you perceive that? Hmnnnn... I guess your perception is flawed.

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

Surely you DON'T feel that merely saying something makes it true, do you?

Then why believe in god or creation?

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

When was the last time YOU perceived an individual atom? How about an electron? Can you perceive that? Hmnnnn... I guess your perception is flawed.

You can though actually percieve those examples and the effect of those examples so simply not having had the opportunity yourself you are implying perception to be flawwed?

Are you seriously questioning whether or not atoms and electrons exist?

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Then why believe in god or creation?

Why not? It's true!

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

You can though actually percieve those examples and the effect of those examples so simply not having had the opportunity yourself you are implying perception to be flawwed?

Amazing, then they didn't exist during Plato's time then? They CERTAINLY did not perceive them then.

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Are you seriously questioning whether or not atoms and electrons exist?

Red herrings such as this only detract from understanding. Please avoid them whenever possible. Thanks

[BalanceFx]

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

Why not? It's true!

LOL. Prove it and write nature/SA etc and shut the atheist masses up already. If you could prove this all along why not come forward? Why hide the truth?

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

Amazing, then they didn't exist during Plato's time then? They CERTAINLY did not perceive them then.

Ahh you were accusing auto though... and I was unaware she was born in the time of plato...

I know you have a valid point but try and make it.

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

Red herrings such as this only detract from understanding. Please avoid them whenever possible. Thanks

Oh... I was just asking you to clarify your argument... My fault dude. I didn't realize you were just being funny.

[kmkemp]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

What I'm saying is that by definition, an effect that does not deviate from random chance is no effect. When we say, no effect, we mean, the same as random chance. They are synonymous. So if God is invisible, and cannot be perceived with any sense, and only creates effects that equal random chance, then by definition, that is the same thing as not existing. You have now defined God as a non-existent being, which is to say, you have asserted that God does not exist.

If something cannot be perceived, and only creates effects that equal random chance, in what sense can thing be said to exist?

You're simply putting God in a box and then showing that your God doesn't exist.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

LOL. Prove it

I have seen God. Prove me wrong.

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Ahh you were accusing auto though... and I was unaware she was born in the time of plato...

You are great at missing points. Work on your aim.

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

I know you have a valid point but try and make it.

It's not my fault if you can't follow along.

Originally Posted by BalanceFx

Oh... I was just asking you to clarify your argument... My fault dude. I didn't realize you were just being funny.

Your sarcasm, is yet another red herring.