Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Read Aristotle: Selections edited by W.D. Ross.No, they do not. You said an effect is something that has a beginning and has some sort of motion or change. Aristotle and most dictionaries define an effect as something that is brought about in part by at least one cause. Therefore to consider the universe an effect it must first be determined to have a cause, not the other way around. I repeat myself, so this will be my final response.
I definitely dont remember you explaining it 50 times! I think you are making this up.Bite? Like I want to waste time explaining it to you for the 50th time. Lol, no. You do more damage to your own side being an apologist. Stay there. We're fine over here on the atheist side.
Same could be said of reality.
I get it. You've fantasized that someone around here has made the claim "There is no God" and then they refused to prove it because you also fantasized that person also claimed "You can't prove a negative", but none of that happened. So you made a thread showing that you can prove a negative and then proceeded to make negative claims while refusing to prove your negative claims... and we have the double standard?
Causality is the process by which a system transitions from one state to another state.
It requires physical forces.
Also I love your "No is the result of yes" nonsense and of course you wouldn't be you without redacting large portions of text and cherry picking what to respond to.
I ask for you to prove me wrong and "no is the new yes" is all you've got. Absolutely hilarious.
Yeah, I stand by my post. This is just further proof I'm right. Merle, nor anyone else, made a negative claim and then refused to prove it. Only you did that, chum.I refuse to prove it, because I made a negative claim. I know how you people work.
Ah, the chances of a galaxy having life might be close to 1/infinity.Not really, the probabilities are too low for all these things to be just coincidences and controlled by natural laws. As Einstein said, laws imply a Lawgiver. The laws of physics are designed just right for these things to occur with only certain galaxies and only on possibly only one planet that contains intelligent life.
Pay attention: I am hereby stating "There are no credible arguments for Paulomycin's position." Paulomycin would wants me to prove that negative claim. Apparently I don't need to prove it, because I made a negative claim. Apparently that is how it works.Pay attention: I stated, "There is no eternal model of naturalism." Merle wants me to prove that negative claim. I refuse to prove it, because I made a negative claim. I know how you people work.
Emphasis mine.Read Aristotle: Selections edited by W.D. Ross.
effect
[əˈfekt]
NOUN
- a change which is a result or consequence of an action or other cause.
Yeah, I stand by my post. This is just further proof I'm right. Merle, nor anyone else, made a negative claim and then refused to prove it. Only you did that, chum.
Pay attention: I am hereby stating "There are no credible arguments for Paulomycin's position." Paulomycin would wants me to prove that negative claim. Apparently I don't need to prove it, because I made a negative claim. Apparently that is how it works.
It sure does. If only it said what you wished it did, lol.But the thread speaks for itself.
What rule is that and what atheist around here has cited it?Suddenly you're making a complete break with atheists' generally perceived rules on burden of proof.
Whoever makes a claim carries the burden for that claim. Or we can just play Calvinball if you want.I typically choose to take the side that the positive claim carries the burden of proof.
We don't know if it's finite (personally, I think it's always existed), and fabricating imaginary accounts is the height of arrogance.
If the uni/multi/mega/omniverse has always existed, why haven't we invented time machines yet?
Why haven't Marty McFly and The Doc Emmett shown up yet.
Dear Science...I want my hoverboard. TIA
It sure does. If only it said what you wished it did, lol.
What rule is that and what atheist around here has cited it?
Whoever makes a claim carries the burden for that claim.
Or we can just play Calvinball if you want.
He only claimed it's possible. He didn't claim it's true. You didn't ask him to support his claim. You made the counter claim:Which is evidently what Merle is doing. He's claiming "eternal naturalism." I'm saying he carries the burden for that claim (as per your rules that you just stated here).
So that burden is on you. Yet you refused because it's a negative claim here:There is no eternal model of naturalism.
And here:How precious. Merle's demanding that I prove a negative.
Just like you said in the thread you started, there's nothing wrong with proving a negative, so get to it.It's a negative claim. Please stop with the atheist double-standards!
How many fingers am I holding up as I click "Post Reply"?"We don't know" is never a determinate conclusion. You can't spin "we don't know" as an ontological finality.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?