LizziexLaura's Waterfall
No, it can't. An argument is a connected series of statements to establish a definite proposition.
No. However I have some friends that try to do it to each other. They are crazy.
I heard that if yiu kick somebody in their well taint, gooch, perineum, or whatever you want to call it they will poop themselves.
Lol it may. I think it would be incredibly awesome to have glasses of that nature though.
In some instances paramedics may be able to revive the person, so they may live to die again. Thus living twice.
Is there no answer? Because you arent making any new statements or answering the question.
What started the first steps of life? What created earth and the sun and the moon and the stars?
I simply stated in multiple arguments that something must start creation.
This is Nox0? Thanks for telling me Cuaroc. I am only trying to learn as much as I can from both sides but he is only being rude.
God isnt a material being and if this effect works explain how it does if absolutely nothing exists? Logic. Use logic. But if you want to resort to name calling then dont post anything.
This isnt really about his personality or what the bible states. I just want to see arguments proving or disproving his existence. As in his literal existence.
Use logic and science. Thats it. Can you explain what created the big bang?
You cannot have been there because:
1) The atmosphere is not suitable for life.
2) No space shuttles were launched because it would have been on he news.
3) How would you get there on your own?
Not at all. First all we have to do is use science. Science shows up that something cannot come up out of nothing. If it cannot something must create it. This things that created it must be eternal because this being must be able to exist outside or space and time and if it is affected by time it cannot be the creator because it came before time. This means that creation starting with the big bang must have an eternal creator which would be God.
And it still hasnt been disproven so you cant say he doesnt exist unless you have proof that he 100% exists.
They go both ways. If you claim he doesnt exist then prove it. If you cant act civilized in a simple debate then dont post anything.
Prove me wrong then. Because science favors a creator. Using si.ple logic one can see that.
How so? You talked about child molestation. Thats has nothing to do with this debate.
This is how I feel about God. When christians ask me to prove his non-existence I laugh, because this is in my opinion a silly thing to say. Can you prove to me that Santa wasn't in my chimney last night?
So then it isn't truly silly then because you can't really say he doesn't exist. This just gives christians a hand.
If you believe Santa was in my chimney, then you are in the position to defend and explain why you believe, not the other way around because we are the opposition
Actually it is the work of both people. You have to show proof for your claims that God doesn't exist. Christians have to show proof for their claims also.
It hasn't been proven or disproven. Science actually leans in favor of a creator.
You aren't helping a case. You aren't posting anything relevant.
Also just because things exist doesn't mean they were created
Science can say otherwise.Things dont spawn by themselves.
And also again, just because there's a creator doesn't mean the creator is intelligent, let alone omnipotent, omnipresent, etc.
If you are not bound by space and time and created all of this then I would say that you must be eternal and omnipotent. It is the only way.
Not necessarily. Why could something not exist perpetually and eternally? I see no reason not to believe this is the case, and in fact, if one does not accept the fact that something could exist eternally and perpetually, then one cannot believe in a God (who would, by definition, have to exist eternally and perpetually). Either you accept that things may exist without a creator (the only argument that would, in fact, allow for an omniscient, omnipresent deity), or you require the need for a creator (but then who created the creator?). And clearly we may reject the latter, so we are left with the former argument; and really, if something may exist without a creator, then why invoke a creator at all?
This almost had me but I began to think. God is said to be eternal. Logically this is the only explanation. Science proves that you can't create something out of nothing which implies a creator. The creator must be eternal because if it wasn't it wound be bound by time making it not a God. God is said to be eternal. How do you create something that is eternal?
No, nothing had to have created space and time. What you understand about creating and existing is limited to that which you have experienced within this existence and therefor you (or I) could never understand what it means for something NOT to be made by something else
Let's dissect this one by one.
No, nothing had to have created space and time.
Then space and time can't exist. It can't just be there. Something started the clock. Science even proves that there is a beginning and an end.
What you understand about creating and existing is limited to that which you have experienced within this existence and therefor you (or I) could never understand what it means for something NOT to be made by something else.
Let's take this one step further shall we?
you (or I) could never understand what it means for something NOT to be made by something else
Yet science and simple logic proves that you can't create something out of nothing. This forth even science proves that we can understand a little bit about it.
Because that means God is just a term we use for the accident of existence, and therefore is just replacing the terms we already have in science.
Accident of existence? Something had an accident and caused existence? That implies a creator did this on accident then. What created humans?
To be god you have to be beyond space time and all of the finite reality. the only other things that meet this criteria are the things that don't exist. Therefore god is categorized under non-existence.
Not quite. Something must have created space and time correct? Thus forth this being cannot be limited by time or space. Something created it. Something started time.
Think about it, why would you ever make something for no reason? In fact we have a term for that which we "make for no reason", accidents. We could wish to be as much at best.
How does that disprove God though or the idea or a creator?
Existence hardly implies creation, and even if it did, a creator would not be
How so? Doesn't the sheer fact that something exists imply that something created it?
Not quite. In order to ensure free will the god, or shall we just use God, God must not be seen, you must have faith. If the creator doesn't exist then you have no us so that immediately is tossed out the window. A creator of all things knows all things and does not have to be physical.
Are we naming our extra members? Like pets? My bird's name is flip. My plants dont have names yet or the worms I have in a tank.
Without women men wouldnt exist. I would declare them important. What religion do you follow?
Female president? Maybe. We had a court justice that was female so I dont see why not.
Yes. In high school girls are now allowed to try out for the football team. Disney Channel had a big deal with one girl and they ran her commercial.
Man of the house? Yes. Quite often too. Sometimes the man just wants to sleep all day amd the wife works and pays the bills and the man just cleans up his mess.
Women are used for cooking, cleaning, and sex? Hmmm. Wouldnt it be wrong to say that men are practically good for......I dont know. Sex? Hunting? Thats about it. That would be false wouldnt it?
Considering the fact that women actually do more than that I have no need to dispute you. Simple celebrities can disprove your logic. First we have females serving in the armed forces. We have women in political power. We have women as police. We have female boxers. We have female business owners. We have female scientists. We have actresses. We have female singers. We have female tv show hosts. I can go on and on.
Clean the kitchen? Why cant a women do other things? Why follow that stereotypical housewife role from the 1950's when we live in the age where women do everything men do and men dont really care and actually promote the growth of women in "manly" arts? Arts such as fighting, football, or even being a soldier. Men dont care.
I really hope that this is not a serious comment. Because some peoppe here will take great offense to that.
Actually it is exactly like that. I think that makes sense. Yeah thats what I am talking about.
Lol. Everybody in the series fights somebody. All of them have anger issues.
Lol Joe. I know he becomes awesomely powerful. I dont know what exactly he does though.
I have been reading and watching the show. The series is quite thrilling.
Oh my gosh Srom it is amazing. There are more than 80+ characters. The moves are basically the same from Ultimate Ninja Storm 2. You will be able to play as the other tailed jinchuruki and even madara uchiha himself.
But what if she gets mad or something? Does it take up space on thw xbox memory?
She barely plays the xbox. She only plays when I ask her to play. She also thinks other people can see her through the kinect camera when the xbox is off.
It originally is here and I play it. So she would have to buy it.
But my Xbox 360 is much more entertaining now that I got Naruto: Ultimate Ninja Storm 3.
They dont have to walk into the stall then. They can just stand their all awkward like.
I could see guys just saying they are female just to walk into the girls restroom without consequences.
That makes no sense.
1) There are plenty of morals.
2) Your logic makes zero sense because there are many societies that follow plenty of moral codes.
3) Your argument practically flew off topic and isnt even following my argument.
Yes but by our morals we deem this to be incorrect of bad. Not by truth. Also you only point out the bad. Why not quote the good also or is that not important to you? Morals are morals and they have a wide spectrum and no man can judge or even condemn one above the other but can voice their opinion to pursuade a mass crowd. That is you. The one in the crowd.
About third of educated Muslims backs killing for Islam
This doesnt label them as an official terrorist. This just labels them as someone who will fight for their cause or history. Same thing America does.
Vast majority of Muslims never went to actual school, were only taught from Quran so I guess that the real number of radicals will be more than 60%.
60%? This would be "potential" correct? Also are they terrorists or are they fighting for something they believe in?
A survey of 600 Muslim students at 30 universities throughout Britain found that 32 per cent of Muslim respondents believed killing in the name of religion is justified.
Like I said. This is something they believe in so are they truly the terrorist that America hates or are they fighting for something they truly care about?
Your source is credible but it merely makes them seem like religious freedom fighters which eliminates that "terrorist" name.
Also by those definition movie shootings or school shootings count as acts of terror.
We have caught some Americans with home made bombs in a backpack. Planning to commit some terrorizing actions. A terrorist commits an act of terror and all terrorists do not have to be foreign. By these definition:
1) a person, usually a member of a group, who uses or advocates terrorism
2) a person who terrorizes or frightens others.
These definitions never state that a terrorist has to be foreign. Society just deems terrorists as foreign. Did I make myself clear enough?
Also can i see proof of this 7%? And can this proof confirm them as terrorists or does this deem them as "potential" terrorists?
