You need to be logged in to your Sky Poker account above to post discussions and comments.

You might need to refresh your page afterwards.

Options

Why you cant have a relationship with god.

DoublemeDoubleme Member Posts: 1,822
I could try my own words and have said much of this sort of thing before myself but I cannot communicate it as well as this guy.
This guy is a true genius and says it perfectly
so will leave this video for people to find any flaw with (hint you wont)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qV0s5pv8uVA
«13456

Comments

  • Options
    mumsiemumsie Member Posts: 7,535
    That's a great post @Doubleme

    And the comments....clicking on the user names below makes a lot of sense.

    @dozer1323
    12 hours ago

    I don't poison ants in my garden
    They poison themselves by rejecting me



    @memecity9849
    13 hours ago

    They say God is outside of space and time. You know what else is outside of space and time? Imaginary friends


  • Options
    TheEdge949TheEdge949 Member Posts: 5,458
    Well that's 20 minutes of my life I'm not getting back. @Doubleme I have to ask what your definition of a genius is.

    It's nothing I haven't heard before, just the same message in a different package, with what I assume he thinks is a clever use of math.

    You're a mathematician so here's one for you.

    Scientists have acknowledged that the odds of creation being a purely random event are 10 to the power of 200.

    Apparently, that equates to giving every man, woman and child a rubik cube, blindfolding them and then at a specific time telling them all to start, and every one solves it within 10 seconds.

    My mind can't comprehend the enormity of that.

    Also I like memecity9849's comment, which displays a common misconception that God is physical. God is metaphysical and therefore exists both inside and outside of time and space.

    That's the point that all the Dawkins wannabes fail to recognise, they all look at God as a physical entity and therefore judge what they know based on the constraints of physicality.

  • Options
    goldongoldon Member Posts: 8,665
    You either believe, half believe, don't believe or somewhere inbetween ....

    Like all things it's something to think about.

    What does Winnie think. ?
  • Options
    goldongoldon Member Posts: 8,665
    And you know " when you bite into it, it's crunchie "
  • Options
    kapowblamzkapowblamz Member Posts: 1,540



    That's the point that all the Dawkins wannabes fail to recognise, they all look at God as a physical entity and therefore judge what they know based on the constraints of physicality.

    How are you coming to that conclusion? Surely if you subscribe to Dawkins views you are generally atheist and therefore you are absolutely not even remotely thinking of God as physical.

  • Options
    JammyFkerJammyFker Member Posts: 313
    edited May 24
    "Winnie" could be a higher power :smiley:
  • Options
    TheEdge949TheEdge949 Member Posts: 5,458



    That's the point that all the Dawkins wannabes fail to recognise, they all look at God as a physical entity and therefore judge what they know based on the constraints of physicality.

    How are you coming to that conclusion? Surely if you subscribe to Dawkins views you are generally atheist and therefore you are absolutely not even remotely thinking of God as physical.

    Because Dawkins bases his atheism on the belief that God doesn't do X Y or Z, or God has no physical presence that proves existence. Therefore it is a major factor in their atheism.

    However, Dawkins is still recovering from the failure of the Hadron Collider to find evidence of the God Particle that so many atheists were pinning there hopes on. I believe that they are having a 3rd go this year.

    A case once more of Science NOT disproving God.
  • Options
    kapowblamzkapowblamz Member Posts: 1,540



    Because Dawkins bases his atheism on the belief that God doesn't do X Y or Z, or God has no physical presence that proves existence. Therefore it is a major factor in their atheism.

    However, Dawkins is still recovering from the failure of the Hadron Collider to find evidence of the God Particle that so many atheists were pinning there hopes on. I believe that they are having a 3rd go this year.

    A case once more of Science NOT disproving God.

    The Higgs Boson has nothing to do with theology.
  • Options
    stokefcstokefc Member Posts: 7,697



    That's the point that all the Dawkins wannabes fail to recognise, they all look at God as a physical entity and therefore judge what they know based on the constraints of physicality.

    How are you coming to that conclusion? Surely if you subscribe to Dawkins views you are generally atheist and therefore you are absolutely not even remotely thinking of God as physical.

    Because Dawkins bases his atheism on the belief that God doesn't do X Y or Z, or God has no physical presence that proves existence. Therefore it is a major factor in their atheism.

    However, Dawkins is still recovering from the failure of the Hadron Collider to find evidence of the God Particle that so many atheists were pinning there hopes on. I believe that they are having a 3rd go this year.

    A case once more of Science NOT disproving God.
    I thought they already discovered it ?
  • Options
    stokefcstokefc Member Posts: 7,697
    Incidentally , we'll all soon find out one way or the other , because life is just a blink of an eye in the grand scheme of things , and , inbetween just enjoy it the best you can and not worry , i know i don't B)
  • Options
    DoublemeDoubleme Member Posts: 1,822

    Well that's 20 minutes of my life I'm not getting back. @Doubleme I have to ask what your definition of a genius is.

    It's nothing I haven't heard before, just the same message in a different package, with what I assume he thinks is a clever use of math.

    You're a mathematician so here's one for you.

    Scientists have acknowledged that the odds of creation being a purely random event are 10 to the power of 200.

    Apparently, that equates to giving every man, woman and child a rubik cube, blindfolding them and then at a specific time telling them all to start, and every one solves it within 10 seconds.

    My mind can't comprehend the enormity of that.

    Also I like memecity9849's comment, which displays a common misconception that God is physical. God is metaphysical and therefore exists both inside and outside of time and space.

    That's the point that all the Dawkins wannabes fail to recognise, they all look at God as a physical entity and therefore judge what they know based on the constraints of physicality.

    So I hear different people bring up different ideas on what they mean by creation I am not sure if you mean why do people exist why does life exist or why does the constants of the universe exist.

    So evolution is so evident that I am more convinced that evolution is true then I am that the world is a globe (note I am not a flat earther) I think any specific route in evolution will be very unlikely but taking that is disingenious its like been dealt 13 cards from a deck of 52 and saying once you have your hand that wow the odds of been dealt that specific hand are so unlikely, but you had to be dealt one specific hand there and you could say that about any specific hand there.

    As far as I am aware at the time of writing this abiogenis is not yet known so putting odds on this would be redundant.

    and as for the constants of the universe Its not just that I am too ignorant to give an answer to the odds of those constants the entire human race is, no one here yet fully understands the laws of the universe or why it is that way. Infact we are so far behind on that, to say no one fully understands is a misleading no one is even close to understand the 1% of that yet.

    So with all that in mind I do not know how any serious scientists or sceintific consensus could possibly say odds of 10 to the power of 200 or any other odds. I would request a source for this.

    All that been said something been incredibly unlikely or us not been able to explain it does not mean god. That just means we now have a very unlikely event that we cannot explain.

    Whilst people joke about winni here, Some would argue that there would be more of a case to argue winni the pooh been the creator of everything then the Abrahamic god been the creator of everything. They wouldn't seriously be advocating for Winni been our creator more claiming that the Abrahamic god is not a good explanation.

    However this video was talking about the absurdity of having a relationship with god not whether god does or does not exist. although yes Darkmatter2525 is an atheist.
  • Options
    goldongoldon Member Posts: 8,665
    Why you can't have a relationship with god.

    an Ancient Alien with magic power or a stone mason.......
  • Options
    DoublemeDoubleme Member Posts: 1,822
    Note I tried to create a winni picture of winni as a priest for this thread but it came out with a very shall we say suggestive pic which may not be appropriate for the forums. Also I dont want to create a story of winni been a victim of a nonze priest in narrative so that pic wont be posted.
  • Options
    TheEdge949TheEdge949 Member Posts: 5,458
    stokefc said:



    That's the point that all the Dawkins wannabes fail to recognise, they all look at God as a physical entity and therefore judge what they know based on the constraints of physicality.

    How are you coming to that conclusion? Surely if you subscribe to Dawkins views you are generally atheist and therefore you are absolutely not even remotely thinking of God as physical.

    Because Dawkins bases his atheism on the belief that God doesn't do X Y or Z, or God has no physical presence that proves existence. Therefore it is a major factor in their atheism.

    However, Dawkins is still recovering from the failure of the Hadron Collider to find evidence of the God Particle that so many atheists were pinning there hopes on. I believe that they are having a 3rd go this year.

    A case once more of Science NOT disproving God.
    I thought they already discovered it ?
    No the God Particle cannot be seen as it is there and gone too quickly to record but according to science it leaves behind a trace. No evidence of that trace has been found yet.

    Theologists do not deny the big bang. genesis tells us that, that is how it all started. we simply dispute the fact that the bang was a natural event.
  • Options
    DoublemeDoubleme Member Posts: 1,822

    stokefc said:



    That's the point that all the Dawkins wannabes fail to recognise, they all look at God as a physical entity and therefore judge what they know based on the constraints of physicality.

    How are you coming to that conclusion? Surely if you subscribe to Dawkins views you are generally atheist and therefore you are absolutely not even remotely thinking of God as physical.

    Because Dawkins bases his atheism on the belief that God doesn't do X Y or Z, or God has no physical presence that proves existence. Therefore it is a major factor in their atheism.

    However, Dawkins is still recovering from the failure of the Hadron Collider to find evidence of the God Particle that so many atheists were pinning there hopes on. I believe that they are having a 3rd go this year.

    A case once more of Science NOT disproving God.
    I thought they already discovered it ?
    No the God Particle cannot be seen as it is there and gone too quickly to record but according to science it leaves behind a trace. No evidence of that trace has been found yet.

    Theologists do not deny the big bang. genesis tells us that, that is how it all started. we simply dispute the fact that the bang was a natural event.
    as others have commented maybe winni created the universe.


  • Options
    TheEdge949TheEdge949 Member Posts: 5,458
    Doubleme said:

    Note I tried to create a winni picture of winni as a priest for this thread but it came out with a very shall we say suggestive pic which may not be appropriate for the forums. Also I dont want to create a story of winni been a victim of a nonze priest in narrative so that pic wont be posted.

    Probably as well, some things can be viewed as offensive.

    Also if he is the Priest how can he be the victim of a nonce Priest. Do you ever read what you write .
  • Options
    TheEdge949TheEdge949 Member Posts: 5,458
    Doubleme said:

    stokefc said:



    That's the point that all the Dawkins wannabes fail to recognise, they all look at God as a physical entity and therefore judge what they know based on the constraints of physicality.

    How are you coming to that conclusion? Surely if you subscribe to Dawkins views you are generally atheist and therefore you are absolutely not even remotely thinking of God as physical.

    Because Dawkins bases his atheism on the belief that God doesn't do X Y or Z, or God has no physical presence that proves existence. Therefore it is a major factor in their atheism.

    However, Dawkins is still recovering from the failure of the Hadron Collider to find evidence of the God Particle that so many atheists were pinning there hopes on. I believe that they are having a 3rd go this year.

    A case once more of Science NOT disproving God.
    I thought they already discovered it ?
    No the God Particle cannot be seen as it is there and gone too quickly to record but according to science it leaves behind a trace. No evidence of that trace has been found yet.

    Theologists do not deny the big bang. genesis tells us that, that is how it all started. we simply dispute the fact that the bang was a natural event.
    as others have commented maybe winni created the universe.


    Do one you nutjob.
  • Options
    DoublemeDoubleme Member Posts: 1,822

    Doubleme said:

    Note I tried to create a winni picture of winni as a priest for this thread but it came out with a very shall we say suggestive pic which may not be appropriate for the forums. Also I dont want to create a story of winni been a victim of a nonze priest in narrative so that pic wont be posted.

    Probably as well, some things can be viewed as offensive.

    Also if he is the Priest how can he be the victim of a nonce Priest. Do you ever read what you write .
    It had winni in front of a priest not as the priest it looked suspicious.

    Doubleme said:

    stokefc said:



    That's the point that all the Dawkins wannabes fail to recognise, they all look at God as a physical entity and therefore judge what they know based on the constraints of physicality.

    How are you coming to that conclusion? Surely if you subscribe to Dawkins views you are generally atheist and therefore you are absolutely not even remotely thinking of God as physical.

    Because Dawkins bases his atheism on the belief that God doesn't do X Y or Z, or God has no physical presence that proves existence. Therefore it is a major factor in their atheism.

    However, Dawkins is still recovering from the failure of the Hadron Collider to find evidence of the God Particle that so many atheists were pinning there hopes on. I believe that they are having a 3rd go this year.

    A case once more of Science NOT disproving God.
    I thought they already discovered it ?
    No the God Particle cannot be seen as it is there and gone too quickly to record but according to science it leaves behind a trace. No evidence of that trace has been found yet.

    Theologists do not deny the big bang. genesis tells us that, that is how it all started. we simply dispute the fact that the bang was a natural event.
    as others have commented maybe winni created the universe.


    Do one you nutjob.
    no need to get nasty
Sign In or Register to comment.