XPost: alt.atheism, sci.physics, alt.astronomy
XPost: alt.astrology
From: me@nothere.invalid
On 20-February-2016 10:56 AM, Arthur wrote:
> In article 213.giganet.hu>
> je suis charly wrote:
>> In article <9fnltad2dpu26tt5lno98eq1hu3nktngtc@4ax.com>,
>> Attila < wrote:
>>
>>> I do not reject scientific theory and have never indicated I do. At
>>> the same time I do not accept the existence of any creator nor do I
>>> automatically accept the requirement that existence alone proves
>>> something must have been created. Existence only proves itself and
>>> does nothing toward any origin either to prove one existed or what
>>> that origin was.
>> What you are is so combative that you cannot even cope with the verb
"create".
>> You are terrified that if you accept the normal meaning and use of the
word, it
>> will obligate you agree to concepts not even under discussion.
>>
>> Do you have a problem with ever verb that allows but does not require an
agent?
>> Do you have a similar freak-out at "the Earth's core is made of iron and
nickel"
>> because allowing that Earth's core is "made" of anything forces you to
accept
>> that there must be a "maker"? You are pathetic.
> Lol! You nailed him to the wall with his own hammer and nails.
no he didn't. made in that context simply means 'consists of'
>
>> --
>> Any one who has common sense will remember that the bewilderments
>> of the eye are of two kinds, and arise from two causes, either from
>> coming out of the light or from going into the light, which is true
>> of the mind's eye, quite as much as of the bodily eye.
--
"As long as there is this book [Koran] there will be no peace in the world"
-William Gladstone, four times PM of Great Britain
http://www.siotw.org/
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
