Heaven is the concept of life, by Episcopalian standards. It is, rather than a concious perfection, an eternal state of life and all of it's downfalls, coupled (in my belief) with a certain contentedness. I'm sure you've felt it before, where you sit down with whatever you like most and feel like you don't need anything else in the world. WHY DID YOU HAVE TO DRAG ME INTO THIS
Jumping into this knowing nothing about the prior conversation BUT The way I figure it, if God wanted to give us perfection and full understanding straightaway there's no point in creating existence. God gave us these lives so we could live them, not to wallow in perfection and not have nothing left to do. Pls don't murder me because I don't really know what you guys were talking about beforehand I just wanted to get this out there
WELL LET'S GO MAN YOUR TERMSa EDIT: I think he logged off. That was anticlimatic.
Spoiler
BUT HE USED PERFECT GRAMMAR AND PUNCTUATION HE'S A CODER WHAT IS THISa
What's this? You're complaining about how you don't get challenges anymore? DOES THIS SOUND FAMILIAR JADEN
There is no problem with your argument, though there is a problem with Wolfie's. She used the immense amount of scientific evidence (which is defined by science) in favor of science and lack thereof supporting the existance of a God as an attempted offense against theism, as if they were two opposing forces. My point was that this cannot be used against the idea that a God exists because scientific evidence is, quite literally, only existant to support science.
Too bad that he didn't get his slice of the pie in the end.
I fail to see the point in stating that there's a lot of scientific evidence to support science.
Maybe in a little while. I'm not one to move fast either, and I'm sort of preoccupied at the moment.
Thank you.
Dear christ do want.
So I think this would go better if he just asked her for sex right now.
https://voxli.com/Bears Due to the recent outbreak of trolling, we have relocated to a room that can be moderated (at least somewhat).
Well you've got to have a sharp mind to do this stuff at all.
Some pretty cutting edge humor we have going on in this thread.
WE NEED MOAR PEOPLEa
I understand that one explanation is more complex than the other. And I understand that the concept of god is theoretical (rather than hypothetical, "hypothetical" implies a scientific experiment of some kind), however the concept of there not being a god is just as theoretical. And just because one is more complex than the other DOES NOT make it less likely to happen because both are equally theoretical (this is less so as we near Catholocism xD). We could go into Murphy's Law and Rube Goldberg machines and such, but my point is that adding one step to a process whose circumstances you know nothing/next to nothing about does not affect the probability of the scenario.
But your main problem here is that Occam's Razor was intended to choose among conclusions and hypothesis in a scientific experiment. That was its original purpose, not to go about logically supporting or denying anything. There is little to no outside knowledge of God, and therefore Occam's Razor does not work here; if we know nothing about an entity, how do you expect to use such logic as "It is a simpler deduction to make, therefore it is more likely to be the cause to this effect?"
New duelist, eh?
