Search results

Of course, maturity REQUIRES history...

Money IS barter. It used to be that if I needed some meat and you needed some fruit I'd trade you for some of the meat I had for some of the fruit you had. As long as we both agreed that the fruit I was giving you had the same value as the meat you were giving me, then it's a fair trade. We...

Funny that you say that, considering that the only reason you need to resort to this embedded age bunk in the first place is to reconcile the claims of the Bible with the evidence that science has provided. If you really thought that science could take a hike, you wouldn't need this embedded...

Age is the result of existence. If there's no existence, there's no age.

So how can something have an age unless it has actually existed for that time? Like, how can the earth have an age of billions of years unless it has actually existed for billions of years?

Or we could just get rid of money altogether... But that's a discussion for another thread...

I would disagree. AI can regurgitate things it can source, but that doesn't mean it has any actual understanding. For example, your first example talking about paywalls claims that paywalls level the field for all people who are willing to pay for the content. But this is not true. A struggling...

It doesn't appear to be very strong yet.

"2.1.1 Definition of Murder: Murder is the unlawful intentional taking of another's life through direct or indirect means." So what if I order a pizza, and as a result of this, the delivery driver is in a crash and is killed while bringing the pizza. Since I am the indirect cause of his death...

I think you missed my point... of course not. I'm sure the fact that it contradicts your claim has absolutely nothing to do with it... Ah yes. The typical believer's response when an atheist says that they did the things the believer said would give them proof of God. "Well, ya just didn't do...

Well, I'm waiting for something that ISN'T a subjective experience... Our knowledge of the outcome or lack thereof makes no difference. It's set in stone and completely unalterable whether we know the outcome or not.

In other words, you can't even say whether your religious text is meant to be literal or not. So why should I accept any of it as a factual account? I've yet to see evidence of that. And remember, a viewpoint can be logically consistent within itself, and still be inconsistent with reality. I...

Okay, so then when you asked me, "Why would you think that I'm here to show you, or try to convince you that my beliefs are true?" This is why. Because you just told me. Why not? Just provide the testable evidence for it. After all, I can convince you that I'm having Vegemite toast for...

First of all, this is just more subjective opinion, not objective evidence. There are people of faiths you believe are wrong who have experiences which are just as convincing to them as your experiences were to you. Secondly, if you really believe in determinism, that the outcome of everything...

By this logic, people can only ever investigate things that are real. And any time someone investigates a hypothesis, that hypothesis will inevitably be proved correct. So, how did people every consider the aether? By your logic, people would not have investigated it unless they had enough...

Something that would convince me is something that can be put to the test and works every time. I mean, I can drop a hammer, and it falls every time. So I am convinced that if I try it again, the hammer will fall. Does Christianity make any specific claim that can be tested? Some claim that...

You made a claim back in post 107. Why would you make a claim if you didn't care whether I believed it or not? And I'd be happy to accept the Gospel if I could be shown some evidence that it is accurate. But it seems that the best anyone has to offer is, "Believe that it is true first, then...

But that still just relies on your subjective feelings. Other people have equal certainty that some other deity is the correct one. They feel it just as strongly as you. And you would say that they are wrong. So we can conclude that strong feelings alone aren't enough to make something true...

The exercise depends on being able to state that two points on the Earth's surface are the same after billions of years. I'm just asking how that is determined. Until then, the exercise is based on an assumption.

But there's nothing there to show that one diagram isn't rotated completely different to the other.