Religion

rug

(82,333 posts)

48. The nature of the thing demands it.

Reply to AtheistCrusader (Reply #47)

Wed Aug 3, 2016, 10:37 PM

Aug 2016

Or a natural explanation.

I get the unstable part. You explained that well.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

62 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

A Review of Ray Comfort�s The Atheist Delusion (Yep, I Watched the Whole Thing) [View all] rug Jul 2016 OP

If part of the "Great Commission" is to convert the heathens, why are they charging me? brooklynite Jul 2016 #1

You of all people can afford the $19.99 download. rug Jul 2016 #2

Intelligent design destroyed in one question Cartoonist Jul 2016 #3

Where did the matter come from that exploded in the first explosion? guillaumeb Jul 2016 #4

It was left over Cartoonist Jul 2016 #5

Which begs the follow up question: guillaumeb Jul 2016 #6

If it was made in China anoNY42 Aug 2016 #29

there are scientific explanations edhopper Jul 2016 #13

You have inadvertently put your finger on the crux of the matter. rug Jul 2016 #7

Matter Cartoonist Jul 2016 #8

Because by its very nature, it requires a cause and in turn makes an effect. rug Jul 2016 #9

With one major difference Cartoonist Jul 2016 #10

I can think. rug Jul 2016 #11

I think therefore edhopper Jul 2016 #12

I think, therefore it may. rug Aug 2016 #15

If all of creation is a reflection of the Creator, then yes, guillaumeb Aug 2016 #19

Reality vs imagination Cartoonist Aug 2016 #14

Do you think thinking is simply imagining? rug Aug 2016 #16

A and B edhopper Aug 2016 #17

Nothing important Cartoonist Aug 2016 #18

Seeing things is no guarantee of knowing things. rug Aug 2016 #20

that is why we don't trust edhopper Aug 2016 #21

What instruments do you use to take measurements of infinity? rug Aug 2016 #22

Is that Ram Das edhopper Aug 2016 #23

That's Baba to you. rug Aug 2016 #24

I don't think a construct like infinity edhopper Aug 2016 #25

Well, then, do you accept or reject such a construct? rug Aug 2016 #26

I accept the concept. edhopper Aug 2016 #27

So, how do you measure it? rug Aug 2016 #28

it's a construct used in math edhopper Aug 2016 #50

Math, usually. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #30

Hardly. rug Aug 2016 #39

Moore's law applies, in this case. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #42

By the same token, one cannot assert there is no evidence of a god if they lack the rug Aug 2016 #44

Infinity is a thing that 'we get'. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #54

By definition, infinity can not be within anything, including another infinity. rug Aug 2016 #55

Then you sir are not a mathematician. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #57

Mathematics is a poor measure of meta-physics. We're not in the Mathematics Group, are we? rug Aug 2016 #58

I am unable to express infinity in any other way. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #59

It's a hard concept to even analogize. rug Aug 2016 #60

Infinity: does it exist? Jim__ Aug 2016 #61

Real interesting. Thanks. rug Aug 2016 #62

Matter is energy. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #32

At the end of the day you're confronted with either eternal matter/energy or rug Aug 2016 #33

No. It need not be eternal. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #34

If it either begins or ends, it is not eternal. rug Aug 2016 #37

Virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #40

From where? rug Aug 2016 #46

Presupposes a 'from'. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #47

The nature of the thing demands it. rug Aug 2016 #48

Are you familiar with 'spooky action at a distance'? AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #52

The EPR Paradox. rug Aug 2016 #56

And you've call us "Incurious" AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #31

You really should identify "us" if you're speaking for them. rug Aug 2016 #36

You tell me. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #41

You used "us" so you tell me. rug Aug 2016 #45

That's an incredibly rude proclamation. AtheistCrusader Aug 2016 #53

I'd like to know how they came about determining their god was eternal Lordquinton Aug 2016 #43

Philosophy now says an uncaused cause is incoherent Brettongarcia Aug 2016 #35

I'll take your authority on incoherence but I need a link to the philosopy you assert. rug Aug 2016 #38

It was Nietzsche, I think, who warned us about spending too much time struggle4progress Aug 2016 #49

Intelligent Design destroyed with math: DetlefK Aug 2016 #51