The official RRS defeats Way of the Master thread
Offline This is it. This is the official thread that Kelly and Sapient will try to interact with as many visitors as they can. If you are new here, welcome aboard. If viewing this from the homepage you can click the title of the thread, create an account, and post your comments. Kelly and Sapient will not have time to address all the email and would like to keep all of their exchanges public for the benefit of the readers who are curious. Soon we will have a downloadable document available right from this post that will expose as many arguments as we can expose from the ABC Nightline Face Off with Ray Comfort and Kirk Cameron. Here are the highlights of the face off from our eyes...
Did we make mistakes in the full debate? Yes. We stumbled on a few words, made an inaccurate point or two, and made a weak point at a moment or two. Ironically our worst points still seemed to be too much for them. So while we welcome criticism, especially constructive, please keep in mind that we feel we have a good handle on what we did wrong. We'll grow, learn, and get better. What we're really hoping for in this thread is for the actual content and discussion about gods existence to be brought into question. Challenge us to continue, and we will continue to respond to your claims. If you are a theist, please feel free to post your scientific evidence for God, leaving out the miserable arguments that Ray Comfort has already been beaten on of course. If you are having trouble finding the video on ABCs website, you can find most/all of the videos here. DIGG it.
A thread on our message board that has links to the entire unedited debate.
Other threads of interest:
Nightline Editing Bias - The Supporting Data
Gregfl starts a thread about Bashirs big blunder and the Nightline portrayal.
Some of the Christian mail coming in [YOU RESPOND] about the debate.
Pertaining to Jesus Mythicism A thorough examination of the evidence for Jesus by Rook Hawkins
A Silence That Screams - (No contemporary historical accounts for "jesus) by Todangst
Video from Rook outlining the basics of Jesus Mythicism
UPDATE Sapient spoke with ABC and voiced concerns leveled by many atheists in the community that the editing job for the Nightline piece gave Ray and Kirk a free pass. The most commonly voiced criticism of ABC was that it managed to show the debate as somewhat even and that there was no clear victor. This discussion was accepted only under the understanding that Ray and Kirk would prove God exists without invoking faith or the Bible. Anyone that understood the format saw that Ray and Kirk failed at their premise as soon as the proof of God became the Ten Commandments. ABC was made aware that commentary like "It was difficult to know if either side could claim victory" gave the impression that they were pandering to their largely Christian audience. While Sapient understood that this may be a wise business move, it was noted that it wasn't an accurate representation of the discussion. The Rational Response Squad brought it's "B" game and still destroyed every claim Kirk and Ray threw at them. In more positive news, we were made aware that the ABC unedited video of the debate was viewed over 160,000 times in the first 12 hours. Hopefully a few people have found the strength to overcome their god delusion.
AND THE PWNAGE CONTINUES:
THE FULL DEBATE!
EXPOSE OF POST DEBATE CHATTER AND BEHIND THE SCENES INFORMATION
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
- Printer-friendly version
- Login to post comments
Sapient, Here's your ANSWER:
GOD is the cause Himself.
Since a statement, on the lines of "a cause needs a cause" is LOGICALLY incorrect, God doesn't need a cause.
I humbly challenge you to TRY and break my statement on the following topic.
Here's why a true atheist doesn't exist!
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/miscellanous_forums/trollville/7550
To those who have moved their discussions to the proper forums, thank you.
To those of you who are still posting in this thread, I repeat:
There are multiple discussions going on in this thread which have veered sharply from the original intent of this thread.
Since everything is intermixed, it is impossible for the mods to split out the posts and start new threads in the appropriate forums. (When individual posts are moved, it's more than likely going to move posts not associated with the individual topic.)
Could the participants please start new threads in the appropriate forums and take the discussions there? You can always post a link at the end of this thread so interested parties can find it.
Thank you.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Who let the troll out?
Theist1, your response is here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7609Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
the only flaw in my theory is based on human ignorance, as i will show you right now.
Maya Says.
A bird is designed by millions of years of random mutation and natural selection.
If a bird is designed then surely a Heart is designed, therefore my Theoroum is true for maya.
The heart is part of the body, the body is the result of millions of years of evolution. Evolution is not controlled by a designer unless you are suggesting that evolution itself is the designer. Even in that case however that would not be intelligent design but chaotic design.
My statement was to show how the role of designer he claims must either be played by the process of evolution or through some elaborate universe factory that was intentionally designed to create a final design of man and life over millions of years.
Please see my response here...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7556
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
role of designer he claims must either be played by the process of evolution
this is a contradiction, a "procces" by definition can not be a "designer".
you know the rules of logic, no contradictions.
designed to create a final design of man and life over millions of years.
and it wasnt millions of years it was approxximatly 14.5 billion.
Man was not created over 14.5 billion years, that was the universe.
Now that you have learned how to make your posts readable I can see that you really don't have a point to make or an issue to debate. Your posts don't make any sense at all. You should really wait until you are old enough to calm down and make some sense before you try to argue philosophy.
I had a couple of questions about the debate on ABC. First thing I want to say is that I agree I think Ray and Kirk did not use scientific evidence in their case. Honestly I didn't see much of any scientific evidence either way. Both sides were based off of an emotionaly driven standpoint. There is one statement I caught Brian say and wondered if he could explain it to me. You said that energy has always existed. If you can believe energy has no beginning, why is it hard to believe God could have no beginning. I don't understand the reasoning on that. Also since there are only two belief systems on the beginning of our existence, either God created or evolution is true. I was wondering if you had any scientific proof of evolution. No one can proof God created but can we prove the evolutionary process. I was curious if anyone has ever found transistional fossils, that would be a pretty amazing discovering I think. Thanks
then this would only serve to prove that, as a "designer", your "god" is incompetent at best. the human heart is far from perfect, prone to failure, disease, chemical imbalance, defects, mutations, as is every other part of the human body. the structure of the human eye, alone, is overly complex, upside down and backwards, and evolution has actually improved on it's "design" in other species. if your "god" exists, and is the great "designer", his handiwork is laughable and he would be wise to pass the buck to evolution.
www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens
Welcome to the boards, jcw.
If it seems equally absurd/reasonable (whichever way it seems to you--it makes no difference) for god or energy to be the being without beginning, then there is a clear reason to not posit a god.
We know energy exists because we see it. God is generally proposed, especially in this case where we are talking about the cosmological argument, as a solution to a need for explanation. Thus, god is not seen and then said to be without cause, it is said to exist because something without beginningis needed (according to the argument) to explain the universe's existence.
To posit agod existing here is ad hoc. It's adding something to the question that is not necessary (if the universe itself is without cause, then god is extraneous) and adds more complexity (god must be complex and in need of explanation), and thus falls victim to Ockham's razor.
If I'm trying to figure out who ate my sandwich while I was gone, I could blame the dog or I could blame a ghost that I might think exists in my kitchen. We have evidence for the dog (he's taking a nap, looking quite well fed, I might add!), but my evidence for a ghost, in this case, arises because I need to hypothesize that it exists to explain the mssing sandwich. If the dog is sufficient to explain the data (missing sandwich), then I have no need to bring any ghosts in.
Similarly, if I see a universe, and I assume (or conclude through research/thinking) that it always existed in some form, then why would I pull in god if I can just as easily propose that matter/energy or time itself is somehow uncaused?
I have written about this issue before, and I encourage you to read the following article;
Refutation of the Kalam argument
I'll let someone else handle this more thoroughly. As was said in the debate, transitional fossils are everywhere. The term itself is a creation of anti-evolutionist apologists to try and make it look like there are tons of unfilled gaps.
I'll use this quick explanation and then quit. I will use an example that will be extremely over-simplistic. If, at one point, we had an ancestor that was somewhat like a rodent of some kind, then at some later date we were more like a monkey, and then we look like we do now, then that monkey is a transitional form between the rodent and us. The trick of the creationist is to then point at that monkey and say that not only is there a gap now between the monkey and the man, but between the monkey and the rodent. That is, every fossil that scientists do find creates two moire gaps that the creationist will try to exploit to say that we don't have transitional forms between the transitional forms.
The truth is that we do have gaps in the line some places, but that is not surprising considering how difficult it is to have fossils formed in the frst place, and then to find them. But despiite this, we still have many fossils that are transitional forms between species, and all you have to do is look at the research to know this.
The crocoduck is, frankly, absurd. It is not what the scientist is looking for. Here's a place to start;
Human evolution
Understanding Evolution
talkorigins.org
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
Satansbitch and Theist1:
Again, I ask that you start a new thread in the proper forum since your discussion does not pertain to the original post. I cannot move posts and do it for you since it would also move posts unrelated to your discussion.
PLEASE take your discussion to the proper forum. You may post a link at the end of this thread so folks can find it easily.
Thank you.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server.
Scottmax, Miketwo, Gato, Maya...
I have reposted our discussion (and as much of its context as I could) here:
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7700
This has been a really good conversation so far. I wish I had the time to respond to everything and more quickly. We should all buy plane tickets and meet at a pub or a coffee shop sometime!
Cheers,
Ockham's Razor is only as sharp as you are.
indeed, here is what is says about this thread.
What we're really hoping for in this thread is for the actual content and discussion about gods existence to be brought into question.
So I ask again, please explain the "intent" of the thread.
Nice "opinion" it is exaclty the kind of "opinion" I would expect from a darkened heart.
Man was not created over 14.5 billion years, that was the universe.
Obviously you do not have the reasoning power to understand how a proccess works, its starts from building blocks then the product is made after a period of time, let me show you.
Nike=factory+"6 Hours"
Man=Universe+"14.5 billion years"
Refer to 4 in the previous post to maya.
I will try and let you understand in a deiferant way, I think design is to loaded of a word, it is connotated in your mind, so let me use the word "former", here is the definition.
form·er2
/ˈfɔr
mər/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[fawr-mer] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–nounv. tr.
The artificial heart is Formed, it is produced through the process of manufacturing.
who is the Former?
The human heart is Formed, it is produced through the process of evolution.
who is the Former?
All things Form-ed require a Form-er.
Evolution and Manufacturing are the “process” of Formation, Therefore they can not be the Former.
The Former of the artificial heart is Man.
The Former of the human heart is God.
The Human Heart exists, therefore God exists.
Watched the entire debate a few days ago. Good stuff.
Some observations...
Ray Comfort tells us that god is just, therefore murders, rapists, thieves, fornicators, liars etc etc will be dealt with by god i.e go to hell. “No liar will inherit the kingdom of god” etc.
(side issue: has Kirk or Cameron ever admitted they have lied, stole etc)
Yet access to heaven or hell depends on whether one believes in Jesus as the saviour, as we are often told, and as Ray also told us! (Notice the contradiction? Then notice him try to deny is later!)So according to this, the kindest, most compassionate people who don’t believe in Jesus will go to hell, while the most evil people who do believe in Jesus will go to heaven (and that isn’t morality at all!)
So what was Ray talking about?
What happens to a murder/rapist who believes Jesus is a saviour? Do they do to heaven or hell?
If they go to hell, then clearly what they done during their lift (i.e. murder) supersedes their belief in Jesus.
So the Christian has a problem here… they must either concede that evil people can go to heaven, or they must admit that Jesus belief is not relevant in judgement.
Also, regarding evolution…
Scientists infer ‘macro’ evolution (evolution over long time scales) through the fossil record, and the fossil record clearly supports this.
Kirk stated that unless this is observed, we cannot say it is true.
Well, Kirk and Ray infer the existence of god from the existence of the universe, and if we apply his own argument we must ask: when did he obverse the creation of the universe?
I just loved the fact that Kirk and Ray were slick when they rehash their standard script, yet when on the spo, they suddenly go all quiet.
"It is far better to grasp the universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring" -- Carl Sagan
please all you super geniuses point out where the above argument fails logically. As you have stated that Theism is a "mind Disorder" please show me where their is disorder in my argument. Tell me what is not rational about "My God".
I am waiting with bated breath........
i would like to take back my comment on both sides of the opriginal debate being "pathetic"
ray and kirk were trying to "show" you something but you were to "blind" to "see".
It is not kirk or rays fault that you do not know how to properly use occams razor, as kirk does know how to use it, he is quite a philosopher.
example of occams razor used correctly;
design=design-er
form=form-er
I know that they were trying to show us something. I see it. I understand it. I simply see it as sophomoric.
You are leaning on a trick based on how the English language works. The fact that you can say "design=design-er" does not mean anything. In fact, it seems to be saying that the design is the designer. So, the design is self-caused?
The fact that we use words like design, creation, etc does not imply that everything has a conscious, intelligent, and sentient cause.
The reason nobody is responding to your argument above is not because we cannot spot what's wrong with it, it's because when we do, you don't spot it. it's a waste of our time. Luckily for you, I have a little free time at the moment to waste.
theist1, you are either intellectually dishonest, incompetent, or so self-deluded that you really believe that "design=design-er" actually makes reference to reality outside of linguistic rules that allow us to make a distinction between something and something else that is called it's cause. The relationship of the words does not necessitate the relationship of objects in the actual world. Linguistic relationships in the formation of words do not inform reality.
The fact that 'design' is a word, and 'designer' is another word that refers to something that causes said object with intent for some purpose does not necessitate that both necessarily exist.
The further fact is that I don't refer to the universe as a creation, as it having been designed, etc. The universe is. It's an interesting question to ask; how did it come about? But the fact that you can call it a design or a creation does not prove that it had a creator. It only proves that you want it to be called a design so that you can try and prove that there is a designer.
If Kirk Cameron seems to you to be a great philosopher, that might mean you don't quite grasp philosophy. You don't understand Ockham's razor, which has to do with the amount of ad hoc assumption, and not "simplicity" or any other nonsense like that.
Shaun ("master philosopher"
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
You are leaning on a trick based on how the English language works. The fact that you can say "design=design-er" does not mean anything. In fact, it seems to be saying that the design is the designer. So, the design is self-caused?
so words do not mean things now oh "wise" and "masterful" philosopher, thats new to me, tell me why "word" do not "mean" anything, thats foolishness.
you are such a "masterful" philosopher, please use this "trick" to rationalize how God does not exist please.
and i didnt use design in the theory, i used forms, and yes forms are real, go read plato and aristotle, you obviously have not , if you did you would understand about the world of forms, it is a real thing.
look foolzer, if their is a form, then their must be a former, its a fact, i didnt make it up.
I am beggining to think this site is only full of sophists and not philosophers.
go read the devided line theory from plato, and then also the alleggory of the cave, then maybe you can understand that the argument is actually true, and i will need for you to tell me why "my god" is not rational, i rationalized him in the argument with the word FORM, now it is up to you to disprove my argument, unless you can not do it.
oh "masturful" philosopher, most philosiphers are humble, apparently you are not.
If you want to argue, theist1, why don't you do as the mod has asked and start a thread somewhere else? Or do you like posting all your drivel here where we aren't supposed to respond to it?
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
LOL
You don't have to believe me, but I started reading plato and Aristotle when I was 13. i have read all of their works. Not to mention the seminars, grad school classes, papers, etc.
My MA thesis was about universals, and how they are abstractions and have no external reality.
I do not believe forms exist, and I really don't care much to try and prove it to you, because that would be a waste of my time.
But if you want, you can read mt MA thesis. I wouldn't say that i still agree with 100% of it, but it's sufficient to get my worldview across.
My MA Thesis
This should be fun.
Shaun
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
wow more sophistry with no real argument, strange that my argument can be laid out in a couple of sentences but you want be to go read your humongous thesis, no thanks, give me a run down, if its true, you should have a logical argument with a premise and a conclusion as I do, as none of you can challenge my argument with any logic, i will have to conclude that the truth is, it is hearmetically sealed, it is unbreakable, becasue it is true, im sorry that you fail to see any of this but as the famous prophets say, they see but they do not perceive, they hear, yet they do not understand, untill you have broken by argument and shown me exactly what is not logical,
you lose.
See, I told everyone this was going to be fun, didn't I?
I'll fight for a person's right to speak so long as that person will, in return, fight to allow me to challenge their opinions and ridicule them as the content of their ideas merit.
Atom
ORIGIN late 15th cent.: from Old French atome, via Latin from Greek atomos ‘indivisible,’ based on a- ‘not’ + temnein ‘to cut.’
Atom = that which cannot be cut or divided.
So, based on your flawless logic, atoms cannot be spit because they are called atoms. Nuclear power plants really don't work, the accident at Chernobyl is a myth, the US attack on Hiroshima never really occurred and there was no cold war because atoms are called atoms and, by dictionary definition, they cannot be split.
Does that about sum your argument up?
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
you've taken the misguided ramblings of primitive men who were struggling to explain the natural phenomenon occuring around them, and turned them into "creation science" and "worship". THAT is what is irrational. theism is not a mind disorder, it's a failing of human logic and reasoning, and above all, intelligence.
www.derekneibarger.com http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=djneibarger "all postures of submission and surrender should be part of our prehistory." -christopher hitchens
so where is the run down on your thesis and the refutation of my argument, oh, of course, as everyone can see they are non- existant.
you say my argument fails logic, please show me where, or are you just going to give me more opinions as usual.
man you lack any understanding, definitions evolve as we learn more about the universe, your quoting a definition from the dark ages haha, the concept of atom was created in ancient greece, not the dark ages, learn to define things with the evolved word and not some outdated concept.
here is the evolved word of ATOM
at·om
/ˈæt
əm/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[at-uh
m] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–nounChrist(LOGIC) Layeth the Smack Down!
Praise God the Almighty!!!!!!
Really? We've learned more about the univesre that we did 2,000 years ago? You don't say?
Do you check anything before posting? I'm quoting the original definition as defined by the the Greek philosopher Democritus in 450-370 BCE.
Democritus proposed that matter consisted of indivisible small particles called atoms, and that they were the fundamental particles of which all matter was made. While he was correct in that there are smaller components other than earth air water and fire, he was wrong in proposing that these particles could not be divided into smaller particles.
It wasn't until over 2,000 years later that we discovered atoms could indeed be split.
Again, just because you label something as being intelligently designed, doesn't mean that something really is intelligently designed.
I'd suggest you do the same. Evolution is process which modifies the pattern of Human DNA. As such, it is a organic design process.
Unless you can somehow prove that our DNA was INTENTIONALLY and INTELLIGENTLY designed by your proposed designer, you have no case. Until then, you're simply spewing the same thing over again. I won't be replying to this subject here again.
And you still haven't addressed any of my three counter points posted here...
http://www.rationalresponders.com/forum/sapient/atheist_vs_theist/7556
We do not learn by experience, but by our capacity for experience.
good bye
Ditto. Don't come back until you can give me a designer of the alleged designer, dipshit.
You know? The question that Ray and Kirk refused to respond to in the Faceoff?
Speaking of the debate... let's pull this back to the discussion.
Atheist Books, purchases on Amazon support the Rational Response Squad server, which houses Celebrity Atheists.
To the Church in Philadelphia
7 “And to the angel of the church in Philadelphia write: ‘The words of the holy one, the true one, who has the key of David, who opens and no one will shut, who shuts and no one opens.
8 “‘I know your works. Behold, I have set before you an open door, which no one is able to shut. I know that you have but little power, and yet you have kept my word and have not denied my name. 9 Behold, I will make those of the synagogue of Satan who say that they are Jews and are not, but lie—behold, I will make them come and bow down before your feet and they will learn that I have loved you. 10 Because you have kept my word about patient endurance, I will keep you from the hour of trial that is coming on the whole world, to try those who dwell on the earth. 11 I am coming soon. Hold fast what you have, so that no one may seize your crown. 12 The one who conquers, I will make him a pillar in the temple of my God. Never shall he go out of it, and I will write on him the name of my God, and the name of the city of my God, the new Jerusalem, which comes down from my God out of heaven, and my own new name. 13 He who has an ear, let him hear what the Spirit says to the churches.’
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
Seek out the Prophet Bob Marley, a True Sage and Man of God. Listen to his Musings.
The banana design boys have finally been put in their place and be exposed as they are just like every other christian out there. They cannot backup their claims.
When Ray spoke of the Coke can I was actually thinking "please dont humiliate youself with the banana" as no doubt everyone knows what made them the laughing stock of YouTube in the first plalce.
They got totally pwnd like everyone expected and despite not knowing which law of thermodynamics you were talking about. You creamed them easily. Congratulations.
I hope you get more debates like this in the future. Television exposure like that is what Athiests need to get the message out there
Peace out, renegadesx
Dare I ask you renegadeesx, what exactly is this "Message" that you have to "get out", I would much Like to Know what this "Message" is and Who is the "Messanger"?
I will wait patiantly for your response.
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
Since everyone in this thread has started acting like "deer in the headlights" and as if they were "looking to their daddy to save them" I will have to restart the debate, this is directed at you Sapiant my Brother, as this is the purpose of the thread.
This is it. This is the official thread that Kelly and Sapient will try to interact with as many visitors as they can.
And to quote Kelly on this aspect of the thread,
We havent seen a shred of it.
I can not allow you to keep up this rhetoric and very specious argument that you have going defacing the God of the Universe, as the Cult leader it is your responsibility Sapient to respond.
Here is how the debate will go Brother Sapient, I will put forth my Argument and you must explain why God is not rational, and please do not make a fool of yourself as Shaun did with his "words do not mean anything" reply, as he obviously does know they mean something as a he wrote a very confusing and illogical thesis about his worldview.
Here is my Argument again, I will be waiting for your reply.
The artificial heart is Formed, it is produced through the process of manufacturing.
The human heart is Formed, it is produced through the process of evolution.
All things Form-ed require a Form-er.
Evolution and Manufacturing are the “process” of Formation, Therefore they can not be the Former.
The Former of the artificial heart is Man.
The Former of the human heart is God.
The Human Heart exists, therefore God exists.
I will be out enjoying Gods Gift of Beer tonight, so I will probobly respond tommorow, I am anticipating a very good debate, do not dissapoint your devoted followers, even though Jesus is sure that you will.
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
and I want to make something clear about my "opinion" on your "blasphemy Challenge" , I can only make an opinion, becasue I am not the Lord Jesus Christ, In my Opinion you can not Blasphemy that which you do not even Know, so in my opinion you are all still safe from having to go through the Fire in order to enter the Heavenly Realm (Air Realm). Remember this is just my opinion, you will have too seek Jesus Christ if you want to find out if my "opinion" is true or not.
I have so much Love for all of you my brethren, I can not explain it in words, Just use your heart and your mind(intellect) to seek the truth.
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
Support this or shut up.
1. This is directed at Sapient not you
2. Forms require Formers it is a Fact of the universe, if you lack the ability to understand this then you need to go study Logic and reasoning,which I doubt you have, maybe you should actually go read some "books" becasue they have alot of information about things such as Forms and Form-ations, now also you must understand the basic english language, if something is Form-ed it requires a Form-er, this is a fact Tilberion, it is not under debate, if you would like to refute the Logic of the statement then go ahead and try, but you shall fail.
3. "Forms" are "Formed" they do not just "poof into existance" as must be what you believe because you are foolish.
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
I made a mistake here in my opinion, I forgot what the Bible said about everyone being babtised with fire and passing through the fire, as obviously we all must pass through the fire realm to enter the air realm (unless you still reject God when you enter the fire realm, then you will be "damned to the fire realm"
, woops, it all depends on if you have the Eternal Water from Jesus Christ to protect you on your passage through it, my fault, I am sorry for the mistake.
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
I sincerely hope that Sapient doesn't spend one second of his valuable time responding to your brainless drivel.
The rock in my garden wasn't formed by anyone. It has the form we see today because of the chaotic action of water eroding it over millions of years.
There is an example of a form that came into being without a personal former. Therefore your statement that forms necessarily have formers is false. And your entire chain of logic fails. Buh bye, wish I could say it was nice knowing ya.
Forms do not have to be formed, in the sense of intentionally made. Without exaggerating in the slightest, I can truthfully say that my six year-old has a better grasp of nature and logic than you do.
Lazy is a word we use when someone isn't doing what we want them to do.
- Dr. Joy Brown
It has the form
Indeed you can see the form of the rock, yet you are wrong about who the former is, it is not chaos.
Forms do not have to be formed
So you tell me the rock is formed then you back it up with this statement, nice try, you have Zilch logic.
Please let the Cult leader respond Tilberian, you have no sense whatsoever, maybe your Intelligent Leader can try to defy Logic, and make a fool of himself as you have.
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.
Just to clarify Tilberians position for everyone here is what tilberain says "FORMED" the "ROCK"
cha·os /ˈkeɪɒs/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[key-os] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation
–noun 1. a state of utter confusion or disorder; a total lack of organization or order.
2. any confused, disorderly mass: a chaos of meaningless phrases.
3. the infinity of space or formless matter supposed to have preceded the existence of the ordered universe.
4. (initial capital letter) the personification of this in any of several ancient Greek myths.
5. Obsolete. a chasm or abyss.
This is what I say "FORMED" the "ROCK"
God /gɒd/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[god] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, god·ded, god·ding, interjection
–noun 1. the one Supreme Being, the creator and ruler of the universe.
2. the Supreme Being considered with reference to a particular attribute: the God of Islam.
3. (lowercase) one of several deities, esp. a male deity, presiding over some portion of worldly affairs.
4. (often lowercase) a supreme being according to some particular conception: the god of mercy.
5. Christian Science. the Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, Love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle.
6. (lowercase) an image of a deity; an idol.
7. (lowercase) any deified person or object.
8. (often lowercase) Gods, Theater. a. the upper balcony in a theater.
b. the spectators in this part of the balcony.
–verb (used with object) 9. (lowercase) to regard or treat as a god; deify; idolize.
–interjection 10. (used to express disappointment, disbelief, weariness, frustration, annoyance, or the like): God, do we have to listen to this nonsense?
Decide for yourself who is right.
From God, God Formed Ether, From Ether, God Formed Energy, From Energy, God Formed Matter, From Matter, God Formed Mind, From Mind, God Formed Mankind, From Mankind, God Formed God.