Search results

read my other replies again carefully, i don't feel the need to reply to the latest rebuttals, they indicate misinterpretation of my claims

no no no. i am not using this analogy to prove god's existence, but to prove the premise that a lack of scientific proof doesnt merit it being false. i only used the premise that he did write the song in order to illustrate this, not to then say 'THEREFORE GOD EXISTS SO THERE'. i would now go on...

i have already understood your point. but again, god's love, and the experience of his love which we all can enjoy should we choose to, is a different way of coming to the conclusion that the unseen is real, not simply its lack of ability to be disproven

ahh, but what is important is what the truth is. the truth is that the composer DID write the song, and if you or i are able to believe it, there must have been some other avenue other than if it could be scientifically proven. say, the god's love? also, 'god's love' is not a chance...

you have demonstrated the differences in probability, but unfortunately have still provided two things which cannot be scientifically proven. the two are different things. the latter is the only one of importance in regard to what i said

you clearly didn't comprehend god being outside of time then

that wouldnt hold up. all that can be proved is that the friend wrote the song, from there you only have the friend's testimony that the artist actually came up with it. this is a similar concept to the argument you have been so tenaciously rebutting. you claim that personal experience of god...

what he dictated to a friend? he still wrote the song, but no tangible evidence attests to it

if it is to be literally interpreted (which it isnt) then you must also apply literally the verses in which god is said to be outside of time.

haha yeah i noticed that, and was like. but he was supporting your opinion? why are you calling him a brainwashed idiot? meh, i don't think this thread will ever work, because it is focused on scientific evidence. i konw i will get flamed for proposing this, but consider trying to prove...

the bible should not be interpreted as a historical textbook, seeing it is not written with intention of being one

i never liked the scripture teachers at caringbah. that rodd guy, and the matt guy. they were weird

shiyt comeback is , shiyt. i direct you to my comment on your worth to this site probably why its gone for so many pages. i spose its because both sides come to the argument with no intention of considering possibility of being wrong. not that i'm not guilty of that. meh

same. despite our differences me and tom can agree that sc means jaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaack

Re: Should Australia be a Republic.

get a life youngens. sc means less than a state government transport promise

this guy is yet to make a post of more than one word. the other two have been 'yeah' what an invaluable member

i spose thats true. but its just different people having the same argument at different times. except nikolas, who just seems to like publically revelling in his lack of genitalea

i just assumed he smoked a whole bunch of crack

step one to improving notes. don't spend time creating christmas trees out of words. it was a good effort though. getting in the spirit of things =]