-->
@crossed
You do understand that the burden of proof is on the claimant do you not? If you do not demonstrate your claims they can and should be dismissed.I left with none of my point disproven.
applying knowledge
Posts
Total:
137
-->
@Harikrish
Darn you
-->
@secularmerlin
God created the dog to grow more fur during the winter
- more fur will be x
- summer will be y
God created dog with x trait to help with y
My proof is that the dog shed fur. It can be tested that the dog can shed fur. even if i could not test it it would still be a good theory.
The reason why the dog is the way it is because god had foreknowledge that the dog would be cold and he used knowledge and designed the dog with more fur. I am saying the way the dog mechanically works is because the one who created it had knowledge of something. Case being the cold and design the dog with a mechanism to protect the dog.Case being more fur
-->
@crossed
Why do you keep restating your claim? I have already explained that without any evidence your claim can and should be dismissed.
-->
@crossed
What Secularmerlin is saying is if you cannot prove you are wrong then he will dismiss your inability. Isn't that what you want? You don't have evidence to prove God doesn't exist. Your failure might be more gratifying than if you succeeded. Secularmerlin's problem would be to succeed where you failed. So the burden is now in him.Darn you Harikrish!!
Harikrish biblical scholar and critical thinker!!
-->
@crossed
How do we test my cookies being stolen. how do we prove billsand is billbatard
I stole your cookies. No test needed. Stop leaving them out like a fool for any cookie shark to abduct and murder in cold blood.
-->
@Castin
Is that the only thing you steal of should we be warned the list is bigger?I stole your cookies. No test needed. Stop leaving them out like a fool for any cookie shark to abduct and murder in cold blood.
-->
@Harikrish
If I say your name three times will it banish you like in Beetlejuice?
-->
@Castin
If I say your name three times will it banish you like in Beetlejuice?
That sounds like a threat. I will hang on to my cookies. Thank you!!
-->
@Harikrish
You mean your curry
Franklin wrote: You mean your curry
Castin said cookies. Learn to read.
-->
@Harikrish
POKE
Franklin wrote: POKE
Sounds like the typical faggot pleading to get buggered. But that only works on DDO.
-->
@Castin
And that's how it's done, observe
-->
@Dr.Franklin
Dayum.
-->
@Castin
yeah pretty crazy
According to the definition of intelligence applying knowledge is something only an intelligent being can do. I will list an example of me applying knowledge then list a example of god applying knowledge.My exampleI have knowledge that plants die during the winter time. So i apply this knowledge and bring in my plants indoors so they do not die in the cold.Gods example.God has knowledge that dogs would be hot during the summer. So he applied this knowledge and designed the dogs to shed it's fur during the summer
Your "Gods example" is absolutely presumptuous: it denies the obvious that lifeforms adapt to their immediate environments such that any/all changes to their physiology are derivative therefrom. It is because such lifeforms need a coat during the cold while not needing it in heat they have evolved to grow/shed accordingly (to the environment). It can be said that life-in-and-of-itself is intelligent, but certainly not that:
i. there is therefor a God, and
ii. God therefor applied so-called knowledge to produce what we see
It can be explained without the assumption of any god.
Knowledge first begins with self: 'know thy self'.
If you take the universe and call it 'that I am'
and take any being 'I am' and place them in/of 'that I am'
how could 'I am' ever infer an unknown 'that I am' if 'I am'
is unknown unto/by itself?
This is why "belief" in matters pertaining to god are entirely ignorant less a knowledge of ones own self whence to infer such god. One can not infer an unknown by way of another unknown - it is impossible, and it takes a "believer" to "believe" otherwise.