Blasphemy and Duck Rape

[Weston Super Saint]

2 hours ago, Matthew Le God said:

I do not have faith in anything. Faith is the excuse people use if they do not have evidence. If you had evidence, you would use it and not faith. If I do not have evidence for something, I do not believe in it.

Maybe you should have a look at the definition of 'faith'...

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/faith

Quote

great trust or confidence in something or someone:

If I remember correctly, you once mentioned you have a daughter.  This means, if you are being genuine, that you have never had great trust or confidence that your daughter can :

• Tie her own shoe laces or wipe her own arse.
• Walk unaided.
• Drink water without drowning herself.
• Complete her schoolwork (if she's old enough).
• Spell her own name or count to ten.

Your life must be incredibly sad / devoid of any joy if you have never been able to trust your own daughter.  If you still have a partner, you also have never trusted her not to have an affair, spend money wisely or cross the road without being run over.

It must suck to be you, but it explains why you are permanently angry on here.

[trousers]

I've come to the conclusion that MLG is my wife. She's the only person I know in the universe that is always right and never wrong. (Assuming this universe is real and not a figment of another being's imagination, of which we have no evidence of course...)

[Matthew Le God]

1 hour ago, egg said:

Ill repeat my unanswered point from the other day - have you ever taken a leap of faith, or put your faith in something or someone?

Yes or no. 

No

I do not have faith in anything. Faith is the excuse people use if they do not have evidence. If you had evidence, you would use it and not faith. If I do not have evidence for something, I do not believe in it.

 

[Matthew Le God]

58 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Maybe you should have a look at the definition of 'faith'...

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/faith

If I remember correctly, you once mentioned you have a daughter.  This means, if you are being genuine, that you have never had great trust or confidence that your daughter can :

• Tie her own shoe laces or wipe her own arse.
• Walk unaided.
• Drink water without drowning herself.
• Complete her schoolwork (if she's old enough).
• Spell her own name or count to ten.

Your life must be incredibly sad / devoid of any joy if you have never been able to trust your own daughter.  If you still have a partner, you also have never trusted her not to have an affair, spend money wisely or cross the road without being run over.

It must suck to be you, but it explains why you are permanently angry on here.

This is a thread about religion, I'm discussing the religious definition of faith.

In the Bible, faith is defined as "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Essentially, it's a firm belief and trust in God, even when there's no visible proof or guarantee. 

Edited Thursday at 17:31 by Matthew Le God

[Weston Super Saint]

10 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

This is a thread about religion, I'm discussing the religious definition of faith.

In the Bible, faith is defined as "the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen" (Hebrews 11:1). Essentially, it's a firm belief and trust in God, even when there's no visible proof or guarantee. 

You stated, very clearly, that you do not have faith in anything.

Would you like to revise your answer based on the dictionary definition of faith?

[Matthew Le God]

9 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

You stated, very clearly, that you do not have faith in anything.

Would you like to revise your answer based on the dictionary definition of faith?

This is a thread about religion, I'm discussing the religious definition of faith.

[badgerx16]

34 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

No

I do not have faith in anything. Faith is the excuse people use if they do not have evidence. If you had evidence, you would use it and not faith. If I do not have evidence for something, I do not believe in it.

 

Do you believe faith exists ?

Edited Thursday at 18:01 by badgerx16

[Matthew Le God]

6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Do you believe faith exists ?

Exists is spatial and temporal.

Faith is neither of those.

A God outside space and time is also not spatial or temporal... so can not meet definition of existing.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

Exists is spatial and temporal.

Faith is neither of those.

A God outside space and time is also not spatial or temporal... so can not meet definition of existing.

do you have faith in Spors delivering for Sports Republic?

[Weston Super Saint]

20 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

This is a thread about religion, I'm discussing the religious definition of faith.

Why are you narrowing the parameters?

What on earth are you so scared of?

Do you agree with the dictionary definition of faith that I posted a link to?

Where does it state this thread is about religion? Is 'duck rape' some religion I've never heard of?

Edited Thursday at 18:14 by Weston Super Saint

[Matthew Le God]

39 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

do you have faith in Spors delivering for Sports Republic?

I'd base my view of that on evidence from his past.

Sport, not Sports.

[AlexLaw76]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

I'd base my view of that on evidence from his past.

Sport, not Sports.

is that a yes then?

[Matthew Le God]

34 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Where does it state this thread is about religion? Is 'duck rape' some religion I've never heard of?

Thread is currrently titled Blasphemy! That is very much about religion!

Duck rape came from pointing out God's wonderful creation included ducks raping other ducks of same gender.

[Matthew Le God]

38 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Why are you narrowing the parameters?

What on earth are you so scared of?

Do you agree with the dictionary definition of faith that I posted a link to?

This is a thread titled Blasphemy... about religion. So using religious definitions... makes sense.

[Matthew Le God]

4 minutes ago, AlexLaw76 said:

is that a yes then?

How will Spors do? I'd use the same answer to the question is there a God.

To which my answer is... I don't know. 

[Weston Super Saint]

17 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

This is a thread titled Blasphemy... about religion. So using religious definitions... makes sense.

Odd that you'll discuss Spors, Sport and Sports on a thread about religion, but are terrified to discuss the dictionary definition of faith.

It's like you're almost scared to admit to yourself that you do indeed have 'faith'.

[Matthew Le God]

30 minutes ago, Weston Super Saint said:

Odd that you'll discuss Spors, Sport and Sports on a thread about religion, but are terrified to discuss the dictionary definition of faith.

It's like you're almost scared to admit to yourself that you do indeed have 'faith'.

Alex started the talk about Spors and Sport Republic, not me.

Why would you not use the religious definition of faith in a thread about Blasphemy and religion?

Edited Thursday at 19:41 by Matthew Le God

[badgerx16]

MLG, does your "evidence" have to be physical, or can it be theoretical ?

Do you believe in Black Holes or Dark Matter ? What about the Big Bang, or the end of the Universe ?

Edited Thursday at 19:25 by badgerx16

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

MLG, does your "evidence" have to be physical, or can it be theoretical ?

Do you believe in Black Holes or Dark Matter ? What about the Big Bang, or the end of the Universe ?

There is demonstrable evidence for black holes and the 'Big bang'. Where is the demonstrable evidence for the God of the Bible?

[trousers]

15 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Alex started the talk about Spors and Spprt Republic, not me.

 

Sport, not Spprt

[badgerx16]

8 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

There is demonstrable evidence for black holes and the 'Big bang'. Where is the demonstrable evidence for the God of the Bible?

As I have said repeatedly, hundreds of millions will trell you it is all around you. That you dismiss this 'evidence' because it relies on faith does not invalidate it's veracity in their eyes. There is a saying; "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

As for the "demonstrable evidence", this is open to question, so the fact that you accept it as proof shows faith in the science and mathematics;

https://www.lppfusion.com/science/cosmic-connection/plasma-cosmology/the-growing-case-against-the-big-bang/

 

"Since scientists first proposed the big bang theory, many people have questioned and criticized the model. Here's a rundown on some of the most common criticisms of the big bang theory:"

https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm

 

Edited Thursday at 19:41 by badgerx16

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

As I have said repeatedly, hundreds of millions will trell you it is all around you. That you dismiss this 'evidence' because it relies on faith does not invalidate it's veracity in their eyes.

What that is all around me is demonstrable evidence for the God of the Bible? Are you using the 'look at the trees' argument? What makes the existence of trees or something else in nature evidence for the God of the Bible rather than any other God?

[trousers]

How do we know when God made humans, he didn't also invent 'science' to make them believe that the universe was nothing to do with him? 

(Yes, I know it's a moot question given the universe doesn't actually exist)

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

 

 

"Since scientists first proposed the big bang theory, many people have questioned and criticized the model. Here's a rundown on some of the most common criticisms of the big bang theory:"

https://science.howstuffworks.com/dictionary/astronomy-terms/big-bang-theory7.htm

 

The beginning of that says...

"It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy."

The First Law applies within a system with time and space. Before the Big Bang, time and space as we know them didn't exist — they began at the Big Bang. So the First Law didn't apply before the Big Bang, because there was no "before" in the traditional sense.

[Matthew Le God]

6 minutes ago, trousers said:

How do we know when God made humans, he didn't also invent 'science' to make them believe that the universe was nothing to do with him? 

Would that count as trying to confuse humans?

"God is not the author of confusion" 1 Corinthians 14:33

Edited Thursday at 19:54 by Matthew Le God

[Weston Super Saint]

30 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Alex started the talk about Spors and Sport Republic, not me.

Why would you not use the religious definition of faith in a thread about Blasphemy and religion?

Because we all know your opinion about religion, you've given it enough times.

I'm interested to know your thoughts on faith as described in the dictionary, but you seem petrified to give it.

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, Weston Super Saint said:

1) Because we all know your opinion about religion, you've given it enough times.

2) I'm interested to know your thoughts on faith as described in the dictionary, but you seem petrified to give it.

1) Considering some on this forum continue to think I've said there is no God, you are wrong. Some clearly do not know/understand my position. 

2) Nonsense, as a non religious definition is not relevant in a discussion on religion.

[badgerx16]

14 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

What that is all around me is demonstrable evidence for the God of the Bible? Are you using the 'look at the trees' argument? What makes the existence of trees or something else in nature evidence for the God of the Bible rather than any other God?

You want "evidence" that you can believe, and you mock people who see "evidence" differently. What makes your evidence better than the evidence a devout Christian believes ?

[badgerx16]

10 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

The beginning of that says...

"It violates the first law of thermodynamics, which says you can't create or destroy matter or energy."

The First Law applies within a system with time and space. Before the Big Bang, time and space as we know them didn't exist — they began at the Big Bang. So the First Law didn't apply before the Big Bang, because there was no "before" in the traditional sense.

Where is your evidence ?

[trousers]

6 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Would that count as trying to confuse humans?

Nah, just to make them sound like buffoons...

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

You want "evidence" that you can believe, and you mock people who see "evidence" differently. What makes your evidence better than the evidence a devout Christian believes ?

Because there is no demonstrable connection to a deity and certainly no connection to a particular deity rather than the thousands of other human created Gods.

[badgerx16]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

1) Considering some on this forum continue to think I've said there is no God, you are wrong. Some clearly do not know/understand my position. 

So there could be ?

2) Nonsense, as a non religious definition is not relevant in a discussion on religion.

You have said on this very thread that you have no Faith, therefore YOU brought it into consideration and turned the thread into a discussion on faith rather than exclusively religion. The two are explicitly intertwined.

 

[trousers]

1 minute ago, Matthew Le God said:

Because there is no demonstrable connection to a deity and certainly no connection to a particular deity rather than the thousands of other human created Gods.

Indeed, that's exactly how God intended humans to think when he invented them. He's played a blinder to be fair.

[badgerx16]

3 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Because there is no demonstrable connection to a deity and certainly no connection to a particular deity rather than the thousands of other human created Gods.

That might be your opinion, but you are demostrably in the minority.

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, trousers said:

Indeed, that's exactly how God intended humans to think when he invented them. He's played a blinder to be fair.

And, of course, God created MLG.

[Matthew Le God]

6 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

Where is your evidence ?

Evidence from general relativity, the cosmic microwave background, and quantum physics that time and space as we know them began with the Big Bang. At the Big Bang’s singularity, our current physics breaks down, meaning concepts like "before" lose meaning. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem also supports the idea that even expanding or inflating universes must have a beginning. There's no observational evidence to confirm that time or space existed beforehand.

 

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Evidence from general relativity, the cosmic microwave background, and quantum physics that time and space as we know them began with the Big Bang. At the Big Bang’s singularity, our current physics breaks down, meaning concepts like "before" lose meaning. The Borde-Guth-Vilenkin theorem also supports the idea that even expanding or inflating universes must have a beginning. There's no observational evidence to confirm that time or space existed beforehand.

 

Can you prove that, or is it merely the current 'best fit' theory ? 1500 years ago people believed that God created the World in 7 days, and the Earth was no more than 4000 years old- all the evidence at the time supported this. Indeed, many still support this belief.

Edited Thursday at 20:12 by badgerx16

[trousers]

2 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

And, of course, God created MLG.

Yep, but purposely wired his (and others') brains to doubt His existence. It's working a treat...

Edited Thursday at 20:12 by trousers

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

That might be your opinion, but you are demostrably in the minority.

Argumentum ad populum fallacy!

Also, not merely an opinion it is demonstrably true. Lots of religious people say 'look at the trees' as evidence for God. But how does that connect to their God rather than another God? They've made an unsubstantiated leap.

[badgerx16]

Just now, trousers said:

Yep, but purposely wired his (and others') brains to doubt His existence. It's working a treat...

If God revealed himself fully to man's view then He would destroy faith.

[Matthew Le God]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

Can you prove that, or is it merely the current 'best fit' theory ? 1500 years ago people believed that God created the World in 7 days, and the Earth was no more than 4000 years old- all the evidence at the time supported this. Indeed, many still support this belief.

Bullshit! What demonstrable evidence supported that?

You also ise the word theory, but those religious claims are not a theory in a scientific sense. 

[badgerx16]

Just now, Matthew Le God said:

Argumentum ad populum fallacy!

Also, not merely an opinion it is demonstrably true. Lots of religious people say 'look at the trees' as evidence for God. But how does that connect to their God rather than another God? They've made an unsubstantiated leap.

You still don't get it - "Evidence" is only what an individual or group believe to be true. Sometimes the group is pretty much the entirity of humanity, sometimes it is the Global congregation of a religious dogma, sometimes it is a pedant on an Internet forum.  YOU dismiss the "evidence" of Creation because YOU don't belive it. The connection you ask about is FAITH, purely and simply, but as you don't have it you cannot comprehend it.

[trousers]

3 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

If God revealed himself fully to man's view then He would destroy faith.

Indeed. I just hope that religious people are thankful for doubters such as MLG given the hard work he puts in to reinforce their faith...

[trousers]

1 minute ago, badgerx16 said:

because YOU don't belive it. .

Believe, not belive

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, Matthew Le God said:

Bullshit! What demonstrable evidence supported that?

You also ise the word theory, but those religious claims are not a theory in a scientific sense. 

FFS, the 'demonstrable evidence' at the time was the Word of God, as published in the Bible.  Perhaps mankind and science have progressed since then, but at the time this was accepted wisdom.

 

[Matthew Le God]

11 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

And, of course, God created MLG.

Which God?

[trousers]

Anyway, what's the point of this discussion when no-one has any evidence that any of us exist...?

[badgerx16]

2 minutes ago, trousers said:

Believe, not belive

Peadnt.

[Matthew Le God]

5 minutes ago, badgerx16 said:

You still don't get it - "Evidence" is only what an individual or group believe to be true. Sometimes the group is pretty much the entirity of humanity, sometimes it is the Global congregation of a religious dogma, sometimes it is a pedant on an Internet forum.  YOU dismiss the "evidence" of Creation because YOU don't belive it. The connection you ask about is FAITH, purely and simply, but as you don't have it you cannot comprehend it.

You have answered a question I did not ask. Try answering the one asked.

 

Edited Thursday at 20:22 by Matthew Le God

[Matthew Le God]

Just now, trousers said:

Anyway, what's the point of this discussion when no-one has any evidence that any of us exist...?

I think, therefore I am.