freaking_out
Saddam's new life
yeah...why do u ask?
difficulty of the first year math exams (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter freaking_out
- Start date
KeypadSDM
B4nn3d
Ok, you IDIOT. Let us start on a year 9 topic in science.Originally posted by freaking_out
i can easily prove that god exists- its common sense...anyways, i don't wanna start on this thread.
Hypothesis: God exists.
Evidence for: None.
Evidence against: None.
Therefore we cannot discern whether god exists or doesn't exist.
Wow, guess what moron, there's no proof either way.
So shut up and deal.
freaking_out
Saddam's new life
what are you abt.?? of course there is evidence, its just common sense, coz everything needs a creator and hence the creator of this world is god...
KeypadSDM
B4nn3d
You dolt.Originally posted by freaking_out
what are you abt.?? of course there is evidence, its just common sense, coz everything needs a creator and hence the creator of this world is god...
And who made him?
1)Nothing.
Thus nothing made something.
Thus you don't need a god for the uniuverse to come from nothing.
2) Something
Where did the something come from?
...
etc.
...
Nothing.
Read above.
You really are annoying me now.
Correction: Irrefutable evidence for: None.
Irrefutable evidence against: None.
Common sense is subjective; to others, your common sense may not be valid. Common sense, in general is a form of prejudice, as it's fundamentally based around intuition which isn't necessarily correct for all sets of circumstances.
Now, for you to prove that God exists, you need physically viable proof, rather than purely speculative assumptions, such as the rudimentarily naive proposition: 'It's just common sense, cause everything needs a creator and hence the creator of this world is God'.
KeypadSDM
B4nn3d
What he said...
BlackJack
Vertigo!
Um... oh yeah...
DON'T aim to finish entire paper in one 1.5 hour sitting.
Do what you know best first.
Trust me on this, the papers for 1901 and 1902 are too long to finish perfectly, even if you can (eventually, let's say given another quarter to half an hour) do all the questions. They're not really conceptually hard, but they require work.
Unless you are, of course, on the level of math g0d.
DON'T aim to finish entire paper in one 1.5 hour sitting.
Do what you know best first.
Trust me on this, the papers for 1901 and 1902 are too long to finish perfectly, even if you can (eventually, let's say given another quarter to half an hour) do all the questions. They're not really conceptually hard, but they require work.
Unless you are, of course, on the level of math g0d.
But since you are a math g0d, by convention;Originally posted by BlackJack
Um... oh yeah...
DON'T aim to finish entire paper in one 1.5 hour sitting.
Do what you know best first.
Trust me on this, the papers for 1901 and 1902 are too long to finish perfectly, even if you can (eventually, let's say given another quarter to half an hour) do all the questions. They're not really conceptually hard, but they require work.
Unless you are, of course, on the level of math g0d.
the 'they're not really conceptually hard' claim probably doesn't apply for us . Well except for Keypad.
freaking_out
Saddam's new life
then what do u suggest to b used then if common sense and reasoning is not valid?
how is saying everything needs a creator a "speculative assumption"?? i mean, if u find a ship in the middle of a desert then, u'll straight away assume that some one made it and put it there- i.e it didn't "make itself" or came as a result "of chance".
likewise, what abt. the universe and everthing in it- which is way more complicated and perfect than a ship...how can u say that it didn't have a creator (and worse still) that it came about by pure "chance"? prejudice and stuff doesn't come into this, its common sense- i.e what all ppl. agree to!
freaking_out
Saddam's new life
so its a bit like the 4u maths paper ei?Originally posted by BlackJack
Um... oh yeah...
DON'T aim to finish entire paper in one 1.5 hour sitting.
Do what you know best first.
Trust me on this, the papers for 1901 and 1902 are too long to finish perfectly, even if you can (eventually, let's say given another quarter to half an hour) do all the questions. They're not really conceptually hard, but they require work.
Unless you are, of course, on the level of math g0d.
KeypadSDM
B4nn3d
People agreed the world was flat a while back. I tend to think you're an idiot. Dolt.
Your argument is flawed by the proposition that everything muct be created, except the creator itself. If you can't see the inherrent stupidity in that statement because you're biased by your "common sense", then I've lost all respect for you.
The reason you think a ship is made by someone is because you've seen something similar before, and that's been made by a sentinent being such as a human. So you've seen something similar to a universe created before, by God?
Idiot.
Common sense is a subset consequential of reasoning, but the two are not equal.
If common sense prevailed over reasoning, we would have no quantum mechanics.
Like Keypad implied, common sense can be fundamentally interpreted as bias. Any attempt to relate common sense and reasoning to parity would be a grave insult to the concept of reasoning.
KeypadSDM
B4nn3d
Why? Theology students haven't done logic. They're idiots.
Once I've done second year analysis, I'll be unstoppable.
Once I've done second year analysis, I'll be unstoppable.
freaking_out
Saddam's new life
i think this thread has drifted of (as usual )
Also consider this : An archaeologist digs deep into the desert sand and finds a piece of an old clay pot. After his investigations, this archaeologist can tell us, from this little old piece of dusty clay, so much about the civilisation that existed thousands of years ago that produced it; he can tell usabout the types of ovens, temperatues, and dyes that they worked with, the raw materials that they used, and thus assess the level of their artistic skill and technological ability, etc. All this from a small piece of clay lying in the desert.
Did this archaeologist ever see the civilisation that produced this pot ?
How does he know that it ever existed ?
He knows because he saw that the piece of clay was produced by someone who designed it, and shaped it, and had the intelligence to be able to heat it and produce the pot, and not only that, they also had the ability to colour it and make it look beautiful....and to say that it came abt. by chance is preposterous.
Because Design ==> Designer.
)so what if the ppl. thought the world was flat...it was disproved! The real idiot is the one who thinks this universe created itself and came out as a result of 'chance'.
look bfore i start justifying my propsition i wanna ask u- what do u say abt. the creation of this universe- ru one of those say that this whole world came from chance? or do u say something else? i wanna know...
look u automatically think its created bcoz of the complexity of it...i mean, even if u find a simple hut u'll automatically assume that someone created it...i.e it couldn't have came there by chance!!
Also consider this : An archaeologist digs deep into the desert sand and finds a piece of an old clay pot. After his investigations, this archaeologist can tell us, from this little old piece of dusty clay, so much about the civilisation that existed thousands of years ago that produced it; he can tell usabout the types of ovens, temperatues, and dyes that they worked with, the raw materials that they used, and thus assess the level of their artistic skill and technological ability, etc. All this from a small piece of clay lying in the desert.
Did this archaeologist ever see the civilisation that produced this pot ?
How does he know that it ever existed ?
He knows because he saw that the piece of clay was produced by someone who designed it, and shaped it, and had the intelligence to be able to heat it and produce the pot, and not only that, they also had the ability to colour it and make it look beautiful....and to say that it came abt. by chance is preposterous.
Because Design ==> Designer.
KeypadSDM
B4nn3d
You're avoiding the question which is at the heart of your pitiful argument.
Something that exists and is complex, must have had a creator. Except of course the thing that created everything. Despite his complexity and existance, he had no creator.
ARE YOU BLIND?!?!?!
Something that exists and is complex, must have had a creator. Except of course the thing that created everything. Despite his complexity and existance, he had no creator.
ARE YOU BLIND?!?!?!
there's no point in arguing something whether god exists... to a person who believes it does, it does to him/her; to a person who doesn't believe it, it doesn't to him/her...
tis all a perspective thing, i mean, i can argue all day long how good beef is to ur health, but then, to a vegetarian due to religion person, there's not much point is there?? he/she will continue the beliefs he/she had...
so y dont we put a full stop on this arguement??
tis all a perspective thing, i mean, i can argue all day long how good beef is to ur health, but then, to a vegetarian due to religion person, there's not much point is there?? he/she will continue the beliefs he/she had...
so y dont we put a full stop on this arguement??