Atheistforums.com

First I will make an opening statement. As I stated in my introduction my belief in theism is a belief, an opinion, what I think is true. I don’t claim it’s a fact it’s true that God exists, I admit I could be wrong. Therefore I don’t need to ‘prove’ God exists, I only need to provide a reasonable case from facts in favor of my opinion. I will provide several lines of evidence (facts) that support my contention and are the reason I believe in theism as opposed to atheism (real atheism by the way the belief (opinion) God doesn’t exist not the disingenuous lack of belief in God some promote).

The answer God is to the most basic philosophical questions that have been asked through the ages. Why is there a universe? Why is there something rather than nothing? How did our existence come about? And perhaps the most puzzling question is our existence the result of planning and design or was it the result of happenstance? There are two primary reasons I am a theist. First because there are facts (evidence) that supports that belief, secondly if I were to reject the belief that God created the universe and humans I would have to be persuaded that mindless lifeless forces somehow coughed a universe into existence and without plan or intent caused the right conditions for sentient life to exist. I'd have to believe that life and mind without plan or intent emerged from something totally unlike itself, mindless lifeless forces. I know most atheists prefer we just reject God first and then take it on faith that that our existence was caused by naturalistic forces that didn't intend our existence and that the universe also just came into existence for no particular reason. We should just assume that natural forces did it somehow. I'll leave it to atheists to persuade me such did happen or such could happen. After all we're not supposed to just take things on faith.

One of the chief objections to theism cited by atheists is they claim there is no evidence in favor of theism. I am often re-assured that they are very open minded and would be happy to evaluate any such evidence if only there was any. I agree that if indeed there is no evidence in favor of a claim that is a valid reason to reject such a claim (although it by no means disproves such a claim). There is often confusion about what evidence is and what proof is. Evidence is facts or objects that support a conclusion. For example, a knife in the back of the deceased is evidence that supports the conclusion the deceased was murdered. Typically the knife and pictures of the knife in the back of the deceased would be entered into evidence. A lot of evidence is circumstantial evidence.

From Wikipedia

Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact, like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directlyâ€"i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.

On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

From free dictionary.com

One important benchmark of admissibility is relevance. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states, in part, "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided." The goal of this rule is to allow parties to present all of the evidence that bears on the issue to be decided, and to keep out all evidence that is immaterial or that lacks Probative value. Evidence that is offered to help prove something that is not at issue is immaterial. For example, the fact that a defendant attends church every week is immaterial, and thus irrelevant, to a charge of running a red light. Probative value is a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. For instance, evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder would normally be irrelevant because people who eat spaghetti are not more or less likely to commit murder, as compared with other people. However, if spaghetti sauce were found at the murder scene, the fact that the defendant ate spaghetti that day would have probative value and thus would be relevant evidence.

I will present several lines of evidence that support the belief in theism. They don't prove theism is true, they merely provide good reason to think it's true. I'm not going to be making any 'God of the gaps' arguments nor am I going to offer any hypothetical scenarios or cite the mere possibility of something being true as evidence theism is true.

Before I present my first line of evidence let me state what is not evidence. Theories (whether scientific or not) are not facts and so are not evidence. The only theory allowed in this discussion is the theory we’re attempting to offer evidence in favor of, in my case the theory of theism that a personal agent commonly referred to as God was responsible for the existence of the universe and sentient life. I won’t bother refuting theories offered in support of the theory God doesn’t exist.

1. The fact the universe exists

that might seem like a paltry fact in support of theism. Suppose I was trying a case for murder, the first line of evidence I would produce is a dead body. After all, I couldn't accuse anyone of murder if there was no one deceased. If the universe didn't exist there would be no reason to invoke the existence of God. Moreover if a universe didn't exist there would be as atheists often claim no evidence God exists. In order for anyone to even think God exists a place for humans to exist must exist. There are certain facts that must be true for anyone to opine God exists. For humans to have any reason to think God might exist, we must have a place that allows us to live. There are several facts and conditions that must be true in order for there to be any reason to think the existence of a Creator is true. No facts need to be true for atheism to be true. Atheism doesn't require the existence of a universe to believe atheism is true. If the universe didn't exist atheism might still be false (God might exist but not have created the universe) but there would be no evidentiary reason to raise the existence of God. Additional lines of evidence soon to follow...

Long story short, you've got nothing. Next.

The existence of the universe does not "support" theism. The universe exists whether or not a god exists. You have to prove that
(A) there is a god and
(B) said god created the universe.

Sean Carrol, Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss, all highly regarded Particle physicists, have devised mathematical models that show the universe could come into existence without a creator. Try again.

I should probably expand on my previous post. Not that I expect you to listen, I don't, but just so I can say I made the effort.

So your argument and evidence essentially comes down to we exist therefore god. Its an oldie but a goodie that's been trotted out by a long line of theists before you. It goes without saying that your 'evidence' is not evidence but again, I don't for a moment expect you to listen.

Furthermore you state that athiests are wrong because in your mind its just simply impossible that the universe and everything in it came into existence just by random chance. And to that I say, you should take a math class. In fact, you should take quite a few math classes. Because you clearly do not have any gasp of the numbers involved in what you're claiming nor how odds work in relation to very large numbers. Again I know you're not going to listen but if writing this gets just one theist to sit down and try to actually understand the magnitude of the numbers involved, then my writing was not in vain.

Quote from: DrewM on June 27, 2014, 11:53:22 PM
Blah, blah, weak-ass version of the Kalaam cosmological argument, blah, yadda, bullshit

*yawn*

When I read the title, I expected a very brief OP.  I am disappoint.

circumstantial evidence...
I'm getting a flashback.

Is it coincidence that as I opened this thread, I felt a raging bout of diarrhea in my stomach? Off to the bathroom... Be back in a bit.

Right. another long winded asshole talking down to us 'cause he has to 'splain shit to us po dumb atheists. I declare chew toy. Go after this fucker.

After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:


It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg85IH3vghA), while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.

This OP sounds very familiar like it might be a cut and paste.  I think I've read it a month ago.

Quote from: DrewM on June 27, 2014, 11:53:22 PM
Therefore I don’t need to ‘prove’ God exists, I only need to provide a reasonable case from facts in favor of my opinion.

That's proving god exists, you berk.


Why are you people always so fucking stupid? That is a better question. I'm sick of you assholes coming in her and shitting on our carpet.

Quote from: DrewM on June 27, 2014, 11:53:22 PM
The answer God is to the most basic philosophical questions that have been asked through the ages. Why is there a universe?

What's a god?

Quote from: DrewM on June 27, 2014, 11:53:22 PM

1. The fact the universe exists.

You would have to show that the existence of a universe (U) necessarily implies the existence of God (G), that is

U IFF G.


Since no one has done such feat in the history of mankind, you lose.


Next.

All i can see are a couple of paragraphs of the same old bullshite that proves nothing,  the universe exists therefore god exists, Get A Fuckin Grip...

Why is there a God? Who created Him? Mankind did with their magical Neanderthal thinking and ignorance thinking they have knowledge. Solitary 

Stromboli,

Sean Carrol, Stephen Hawking and Lawrence Krauss, all highly regarded Particle physicists, have devised mathematical models that show the universe could come into existence without a creator. Try again.

I wrote in the OP...

QuoteBefore I present my first line of evidence let me state what is not evidence. Theories (whether scientific or not) are not facts and so are not evidence. The only theory allowed in this discussion is the theory we’re attempting to offer evidence in favor of, in my case the theory of theism that a personal agent commonly referred to as God was responsible for the existence of the universe and sentient life. I won’t bother refuting theories offered in support of the theory God doesn’t exist.

Besides that I don't deny its 'possible' we owe the existence of the universe and ourselves to mindless forces that didn't intend to create a universe or us. I should mention, I'm not submitting my case for the approval of my adversaries in this debate. Whether the case I make has merit is decided by the undecided, not those debating me.

Hello Annelid,

QuoteI should probably expand on my previous post. Not that I expect you to listen, I don't, but just so I can say I made the effort.

I appreciate your making the effort and your picture is funny.

QuoteSo your argument and evidence essentially comes down to we exist therefore god. Its an oldie but a goodie that's been trotted out by a long line of theists before you. It goes without saying that your 'evidence' is not evidence but again, I don't for a moment expect you to listen.

Evidence is facts that comport with a belief. The existence of the universe comports with the belief God caused the universe to exist. Just as a dead body found with a bullet hole comports with the belief a murder was committed. Its hard to try a murder case without first established a murder has taken place.

QuoteFurthermore you state that athiests are wrong because in your mind its just simply impossible that the universe and everything in it came into existence just by random chance.

No not impossible at all. I've stated theism as an opinion and I have admitted I could be mistaken.

QuoteAgain I know you're not going to listen but if writing this gets just one theist to sit down and try to actually understand the magnitude of the numbers involved, then my writing was not in vain.

I would be happy to hear what numbers, statistics or equations you refer to that might lead me to a different conclusion.

Hello Mollusk,

QuoteEven if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

If the universe is a simulator programmed by an intelligent being, that would be far closer to the theistic model of the universe than the mindless forces unintentionally caused a universe to exist without plan or intent, true?

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 11:43:29 AM
Before I present my first line of evidence let me state what is not evidence. Theories (whether scientific or not) are not facts and so are not evidence.

You're fucking stupid.

Go away.

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 11:43:29 AM
Evidence is facts that comport with a belief.

No. Evidence is the grounds for belief. Such as, your inability to express understanding for simple concepts is evidence that you are an idiot.

To call evidence something that comports with a belief is putting the cart before the horse. It's a great way to fall prey to the Forer effect. You accept the evidence that comports with your already existing belief and ignore evidence to the contrary.

This is what you do.

Because you are an idiot.

Go away.

Quote from: Johan on June 28, 2014, 12:10:46 AM
Long story short, you've got nothing. Next.

You read that? I couldn't get past the first line.

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on June 28, 2014, 12:24:31 PM
You read that? I couldn't get past the first line.

-Nam

He is particularly boring for one of these turds.

Quote from: the_antithesis on June 28, 2014, 12:25:38 PM
He is particularly boring for one of these turds.

As I state in his intro...I believe he's one of these New Age Christiansâ,,¢.

-Nam

Stromboli,

QuoteThe existence of the universe does not "support" theism. The universe exists whether or not a god exists. You have to prove that
(A) there is a god and
(B) said god created the universe.

No what I need to do is offer evidence and reason why its my opinion God exists. If I stated the belief that GM produces cars, the first line of evidence to establish that claim would be the existence of cars. I agree that doesn't 'prove' GM produces cars but if cars didn't exist my belief would be null and void right out of the starting gate, true?

What evidence? You haven't provided any.

-Nam

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 12:30:06 PM
Stromboli,

No what I need to do is offer evidence and reason why its my opinion God exists. If I stated the belief that GM produces cars, the first line of evidence to establish that claim would be the existence of cars. I agree that doesn't 'prove' GM produces cars but if cars didn't exist my belief would be null and void right out of the starting gate, true?

Uh, no. You would need to provide evidence that GM exists first because that is the entity in question. You're doing it backwards and half-assed.

Go away.

Hello the_antithesis,

No what I need to do is offer evidence and reason why its my opinion God exists. If I stated the belief that GM produces cars, the first line of evidence to establish that claim would be the existence of cars. I agree that doesn't 'prove' GM produces cars but if cars didn't exist my belief would be null and void right out of the starting gate, true?

QuoteUh, no. You would need to provide evidence that GM exists first because that is the entity in question. You're doing it backwards and half-assed.

No because in the case of GM I am attributing the existence of cars to GM. In the case of God I am attributing the existence of the universe to God. If what you say is true, a prosecutor would attempt to try a murder case by proving there was a murder first without entering in evidence a dead body.

That is a bad analogy since a murder necessitates a dead body whereas a universe does not necessitate a god.

Have you heard the infallible word of the tooth fairy? Lose teeth get money. ~amen

QuoteThat is a bad analogy since a murder necessitates a dead body whereas a universe does not necessitate a god.

Correct the existence of the universe alone doesn't necessitate the existence of God. Technically a dead body doesn't necessitate the occurrence of a murder (people die of natural causes).  However a dead body is nevertheless the first line of evidence a murder has taken place. If the universe didn't exist there would be nothing to attribute the existence of God to.

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 12:30:06 PM
Stromboli,

No what I need to do is offer evidence and reason why its my opinion God exists. If I stated the belief that GM produces cars, the first line of evidence to establish that claim would be the existence of cars. I agree that doesn't 'prove' GM produces cars but if cars didn't exist my belief would be null and void right out of the starting gate, true?

Your fucking opinion doesn't count, dumbass. And it is not proof.

And back to the other reply. The fact that anyone, theoretically or otherwise, can postulate a model wherein a god is not required, means that you in turn would have to, theoretically or otherwise, postulate a situation wherein only god and no other method or way could produce the universe. You can't do that. You can't do anything but, in your own words, offer an opinion. Opinion is not proof.

You got nothing, seriously. You are the lamest excuse for a theist we've had here for a while. And you don't set the fucking ground rules for how we argue on the forum.

Why do these pillocks always go for the first cause thing?

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 01:10:38 PM
Correct the existence of the universe alone doesn't necessitate the existence of God. Technically a dead body doesn't necessitate the occurrence of a murder (people die of natural causes).  However a dead body is nevertheless the first line of evidence a murder has taken place. If the universe didn't exist there would be nothing to attribute the existence of God to.

If/then post hoc fallacy. Try again.

Quote from: the_antithesis on June 28, 2014, 12:55:48 PM
That is a bad analogy since a murder necessitates a dead body whereas a universe does not necessitate a god.

To expand even further: even if you have a dead body it doesn't mean that a murder occurred. You have to have evidence that a murder occurred, and many suicides may initially look like homicide. There have been cases where people have shot themselves in the head, failed, shot themselves again, failed again, and so on. The most I'm aware of is 5 times in the head with a .38 caliber revolver.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2589286

These suicides are usually first investigated as homicides because multiple gunshot suicides are rare. After further investigation it is revealed to be a suicide. What it reveals is that you can not judge a dead body, or the universe on appearances. The OP's analogy of a dead body with a knife in the back is interesting. Usually in such a case that would indicate a homicide, but one would also have to look for multiple deep stab wounds (common in homicides with a knife), defense wounds, hesitation marks (which would indicate suicide), signs of a struggle, ect. and then look at the circumstantial evidence to come to the conclusion of murder. A dead body isn't evidence in and of itself, it has to be proven that the person was murdered before their body can be evidence in a murder case. In the same way the universe existing isn't evidence of anything. You have to point to the signs/evidence that show it was likely created before making a case for the creator. That being said the OP did promise more "evidence", so I'll wait before passing judgement.

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 12:50:48 PM
No because in the case of GM I am attributing the existence of cars to GM. In the case of God I am attributing the existence of the universe to God. If what you say is true, a prosecutor would attempt to try a murder case by proving there was a murder first without entering in evidence a dead body.

You know nothing of forensics, then. The dead body is extra. It's great to have, and it makes the case much, much easier to prosecute, but we don't need a dead body to prove a murder occurred.

The first thing the prosecution has to do is prove a murder occurred. Of course it's easier with the body, but the body isn't necessary.

YO! Have fun ladies. I go to go lay some paver stones.  :biggrin:

Quote from: Nam on June 28, 2014, 12:31:17 PM
What evidence? You haven't provided any.

-Nam

The evidence is: I think it's true, therefore it must be true... shades of Gasparov...

Stromboli

QuoteAnd back to the other reply. The fact that anyone, theoretically or otherwise, can postulate a model wherein a god is not required, means that you in turn would have to, theoretically or otherwise, postulate a situation wherein only god and no other method or way could produce the universe. You can't do that. You can't do anything but, in your own words, offer an opinion. Opinion is not proof.

No it doesn't mean 'that I in turn would have to, theoretically or otherwise, postulate a situation wherein only god and no other method or way could produce the universe' any more than if I cited evidence that Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy I would have to postulate a situation where as only Harvey Oswald could have been responsible. In a criminal case I would have to prove my point beyond a reasonable doubt, not any doubt. In the theist/atheist debate a mere preponderance of evidence suffices.

What we are talking about is the existence/non existence of a deity. A deity is by definition supernatural. Supernatural: (of a manifestation or event) attributed to some force beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature.

beyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. Get it? Because there is no natural or scientific way we can quantify or define what a god is, it is outside our ability to do so. Therefore any belief, opinion, point of view or supposed "faith based evidence" is all merely supposition. If in fact we can quantify and describe god, then he is no longer god, by definition. Then he becomes something else, but not a god.

You can argue all damn day about beliefs, opinions, supposed proofs and so on, but it still comes back to an unquantifiable supposition. This is why we always win. In my 5 years on here, no theist has ever come close to proving that god exists.

God is an either/or proposition. Either it exists or it doesn't. Either it created the universe or it didn't. The impossible argument at which you have failed dramatically, the first cause argument, has to assume that no other way of creating the universe can exist. That is an ASSUMPTION. If you can make an assumption, so can I. And if my assumption is based on not one but a few potential models, I have just as much right to believe an assumption as you do.

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 02:27:56 PM
Stromboli

No it doesn't mean 'that I in turn would have to, theoretically or otherwise, postulate a situation wherein only god and no other method or way could produce the universe' any more than if I cited evidence that Harvey Oswald killed Kennedy I would have to postulate a situation where as only Harvey Oswald could have been responsible. In a criminal case I would have to prove my point beyond a reasonable doubt, not any doubt. In the theist/atheist debate a mere preponderance of evidence suffices.

You keep using these really stupid bad analogies. and as far as a criminal case, you do need evidence, real evidence. Even though cases have been won with hearsay evidence and supposed circumstantial evidence, you still have to be able to create a situation where the perpetrator committed the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt" faith, belief, whatever is tantamount to witness only in the sense of belief and nothing else. People have been witnessing by faith for centuries. Proves nothing.

You are seriously out of your depth. go home.

The big problem with theists is that in their mind an opinion/faith is just as good as evidence. It's a position ready-made for the self-deluded. And since most of them are naive and gullible, they bite line, hook and sinker. Worse is when they have the arrogance to believe that their position is better than ours.  :wall:

Quote from: DrewM
... I will provide several lines of evidence (facts) that support my contention and are the reason I believe in theism as opposed to atheism...

1.The fact the universe exists...

Additional lines of evidence soon to follow...

We're waiting...

Hello Skeletal

QuoteYou know nothing of forensics, then. The dead body is extra. It's great to have, and it makes the case much, much easier to prosecute, but we don't need a dead body to prove a murder occurred.

Correct some cases have been successfully prosecuted without a body but they still have to prove (by offering a lot of evidence beyond a reasonable doubt) that someone was killed. If the triers of fact aren't convinced, the case will be lost.

Stromboli,

Quotebeyond scientific understanding or the laws of nature. Get it? Because there is no natural or scientific way we can quantify or define what a god is, it is outside our ability to do so. Therefore any belief, opinion, point of view or supposed "faith based evidence" is all merely supposition. If in fact we can quantify and describe god, then he is no longer god, by definition. Then he becomes something else, but not a god.

The fault lies with the definition of supernatural. Supernatural is defined as something that can't happen unless it turns out it does happen in which case its reclassified as 'natural' and therefore we can continue to claim the supernatural doesn't happen.

QuoteYou can argue all damn day about beliefs, opinions, supposed proofs and so on, but it still comes back to an unquantifiable supposition. This is why we always win. In my 5 years on here, no theist has ever come close to proving that god exists.

I intend to make a solid reasonable rationale case for why I believe in theism. I'm not claiming I can make a case that will convince you or other atheists on this board theism is true anymore than if I was trying a case in court I could convince the opposing lawyer of the merit of my case. The merits of my case don't rise or fall on the basis of whether they persuade those I'm debating...

QuoteYou keep using these really stupid bad analogies. and as far as a criminal case, you do need evidence, real evidence. Even though cases have been won with hearsay evidence and supposed circumstantial evidence, you still have to be able to create a situation where the perpetrator committed the crime "beyond a reasonable doubt" faith, belief, whatever is tantamount to witness only in the sense of belief and nothing else. People have been witnessing by faith for centuries. Proves nothing.

This isn't a criminal case, at best its a civil case where a mere preponderance of evidence (more than against) is necessary.

2. The fact life exists

Again this might seem like a trivial fact but I don't think anyone disputes life exists. If life didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to debate whether we owe our existence to a Creator, it’s the fact life exists that raises the question whether we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intend to cause life or even cause the existence of a universe that allows life in the first place. There is no condition that needs to true for atheism to possibly be true. There are conditions that need to occur in order for us to consider the existence of a Creator. Two of those conditions are a suitable place for us to live and for life to exist. No one would postulate God doesn't exist therefore I expect a universe with life to exist. The existence of the universe and life are red flags that lead folks to question the narrative that we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend either the universe or life, yet in spite of neither the desire, the intent or the plan to create life, without knowledge of how to do it mindless forces stumbled blindly upon the formula to create life and cause a universe that allows life. Moreover if we are to believe the atheist narrative, lifeless mindless forces created something totally unlike itself...life. Yet the only way we have observed life coming about is through life. We have yet to observe life coming from non-life. The theory is that's how it came about but we haven't been able to figure out using intelligence how to cause life that mindless forces are alleged to have produced without trying or knowing how.

If the universe didn't exist and life didn't exist it’s still possible a Creator who hasn't created anything might exist, but there would be no evidence to suspect there was a Creator. Under such a circumstance the atheists claim there is no evidence of a Creator would be true. The claim there is no evidence of a Creator is false. Now, let's be clear, the two lines of evidence I presented so far obviously doesn't persuade any atheist that God exists. However, evidence doesn't become non-evidence just because you don't agree with the conclusion. Most atheists will always claim there is no evidence in support of theism because they like to marginalize theism as strictly a faith proposition. If they were to admit there is evidence in favor of theism then it’s no longer just a faith proposition that can be easily dismissed.

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 03:36:59 PM


The fault lies with the definition of supernatural. Supernatural is defined as something that can't happen unless it turns out it does happen in which case its reclassified as 'natural' and therefore we can continue to claim the supernatural doesn't happen.

Wishful thinking. It's "natural" because it can be explained in terms of principles such as conservation of matter and energy, to name one, and these  are demonstrable, logical and consistent. "Supernatural" means there is no rational explanation as it is magical, outside of time and space, and poof, there goes a miracle, which is always implying that it can't be explained by any scientific, demonstrable and rational principle.

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 03:52:33 PM
2. The fact life exists

I believe that you are a troll. We've already shown that 1) the universe exists is no evidence whatsoever. And now, your second argument is that there is life, which is demonstrably shown to have arisen from inert matter. You're a waste  and it's time for the banhammer to come down.

Hello josephpalazzo

QuoteWishful thinking. It's "natural" because it can be explained in terms of principles such as conservation of matter and energy, to name one, and these  are demonstrable, logical and consistent. "Supernatural" means there is no rational explanation as it is magical, outside of time and space, and poof, there goes a miracle, which is always implying that it can't be explained by any scientific, demonstrable and rational principle.

The proposed singularity in which the universe is alleged to have spawned from isn't subject to any laws of nature we are familiar with...is it supernatural then?

Moreover quantum mechanics appear to defy our notions of cause and effect also. Prior to the discovery of quantum mechanics such would have been described as supernatural. But since such phenomena has been observed to occur its considered natural (even if inexplicable).

josephpalazzo

QuoteI believe that you are a troll. We've already shown that 1) the universe exists is no evidence whatsoever. And now, your second argument is that there is life, which is demonstrably shown to have arisen from inert matter. You're a waste  and it's time for the banhammer to come down.

Unless there was a major breakthrough I'm unaware of it hasn't been demonstrably shown that life arose from inert matter. If some scientist did make that breakthrough he or she would be as well known as Einstein. To the best of my knowledge, theories abound but no recreation of the conditions that are alleged to have caused life have been duplicated.

Why are you so anxious to ban me? Is that how you ultimately silence critics? Are you afraid the free thinkers in here might be exposed to something you don't want them to hear?

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 04:11:06 PM
Hello josephpalazzo

The proposed singularity in which the universe is alleged to have spawned from isn't subject to any laws of nature we are familiar with...is it supernatural then?

Moreover quantum mechanics appear to defy our notions of cause and effect also. Prior to the discovery of quantum mechanics such would have been described as supernatural. But since such phenomena has been observed to occur its considered natural (even if inexplicable).

You're about to get smacked down by a physicist. Just a heads up. 

QuoteYou're about to get smacked down by a physicist. Just a heads up. 

It will be a foot race to see if I smacked down or banned first...

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 04:17:44 PM
josephpalazzo


Unless there was a major breakthrough I'm unaware of it hasn't been demonstrably shown that life arose from inert matter. If some scientist did make that breakthrough he or she would be as well known as Einstein. To the best of my knowledge, theories abound but no recreation of the conditions that are alleged to have caused life have been duplicated.

Why are you so anxious to ban me? Is that how you ultimately silence critics? Are you afraid the free thinkers in here might be exposed to something you don't want them to hear?

We have created the components of life using the same environment as the early Earth. We're not totally done putting the theory together yet, but at least we're working on something. We do not yet know the total picture how life came to be, but you don't know either. Life existing is no more evidence of your god than it is for the abiogenic origin of life. You fail on point #2. 

ah...those who hold great esteem and worship to a god that finds a woman's menstrual cycle something to be frightened off.....yes sir..mighty powerful god you got there... or is this a different god you hold to such lofty heights? Which one pray tell, has you all a quiver while the majority of the human race finds so laughable?

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 04:17:44 PM
josephpalazzo


Unless there was a major breakthrough I'm unaware of it hasn't been demonstrably shown that life arose from inert matter. If some scientist did make that breakthrough he or she would be as well known as Einstein. To the best of my knowledge, theories abound but no recreation of the conditions that are alleged to have caused life have been duplicated.

Why are you so anxious to ban me? Is that how you ultimately silence critics? Are you afraid the free thinkers in here might be exposed to something you don't want them to hear?

You are not a freethinker, you are a theist. A free thinker is someone open to a host of possibilities. By assuming belief in a deity you obviate every other possibility. You may be a deist, meaning you believe in a possible god but not a defined one.

Every theist argument starts from ths same place. "There is no proof god DOESN'T exist, therefore God! But it doesn't work that way. Absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If you go fishing with a boat and scuba gear to a pond you see off the highway, and cast yourt line in the water, and catch no fish, then use the boat and catch no fish or see evidence of it, and then use the scuba gear and see no evidence of fish, then you can logically assume there are no fish.

Theists claim  that god exists and has interacted with man. But how? Miracles? No proof. Faith healing? Demonstrably doesn't work. The only "evide3nce"are personal and experiential. Go back to your court analogy. This is like saying I believe he did it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but didn't actually see it."

The lack of evidence only proves there is no evidence, period. And without evidence you got zip.

josephpalazzo,

QuoteWe have created the components of life using the same environment as the early Earth. We're not totally done putting the theory together yet, but at least we're working on something. We do not yet know the total picture how life came to be, but you don't know either. Life existing is no more evidence of your god than it is for the abiogenic origin of life. You fail on point #2. 

I'll say this again not that it matters. The merit of the case I'm making doesn't rise or fall based on the opinion of those I am debating with. Would it mean anything to you if I said your counter point failed? It isn't the fact we don't know exactly how life came about and can't recreate it, its the fact it exists at all that raises the question if life was intended to exist.

I know most atheists want to frame the debate that the theist has to incontrovertibly prove beyond any doubt and to the exclusion of any other possibility that God exists and created the universe and if they fail to do so (according to the judgment of atheists) then atheism prevails. Doesn't that sound like your creating a mental construct that is evidence proof? Its not just a one way street. To be an intellectually satisfied atheist you would still have to believe that mindless lifeless forces without plan or intent or desire, minus a degree in engineering or biochemistry not only caused a universe to exist with all the laws of physics to cause stars and planets but also caused the myriad of right conditions for life to exist by pure happenstance. I know you folks will never say that's what you believe...but what's left if you rule out the possibility the universe and life were intentionally created... true?

Stromboli,

QuoteTheists claim  that god exists and has interacted with man. But how? Miracles? No proof. Faith healing? Demonstrably doesn't work. The only "evide3nce"are personal and experiential. Go back to your court analogy. This is like saying I believe he did it beyond a shadow of a doubt, but didn't actually see it."

You're very talented at knocking down arguments you make on my behalf. When you're done playing with yourself maybe you'll reply to what I've written.

Quote from: DrewM on June 27, 2014, 11:53:22 PM
I will provide several lines of evidence (facts) that support my contention and are the reason I believe in theism as opposed to atheism (real atheism by the way the belief (opinion) God doesn’t exist not the disingenuous lack of belief in God some promote).

Provide it or fuck off

QuoteThe answer God is to the most basic philosophical questions that have been asked through the ages. Why is there a universe? Why is there something rather than nothing? How did our existence come about? And perhaps the most puzzling question is our existence the result of planning and design or was it the result of happenstance?

the only honest answer currently available is "I don't know." anything else is bullshit or opinion.

QuoteThere are two primary reasons I am a theist. First because there are facts (evidence) that supports that belief,

Bullshit, or you would have fucking provided it.

Quotesecondly if I were to reject the belief that God created the universe and humans I would have to be persuaded that mindless lifeless forces somehow coughed a universe into existence and without plan or intent caused the right conditions for sentient life to exist.I'd have to believe that life and mind without plan or intent emerged from something totally unlike itself, mindless lifeless forces.

As that is the only one that currently is backed by any sort of evidence(even if only scientifically theoretical)

QuoteI know most atheists prefer we just reject God first and then take it on faith that that our existence was caused by naturalistic forces that didn't intend our existence and that the universe also just came into existence for no particular reason.

Wrong...

Most couldn't care less what you believe, most just don't want YOUR bullshit shoved down their throats.

QuoteWe should just assume that natural forces did it somehow. I'll leave it to atheists to persuade me such did happen or such could happen. After all we're not supposed to just take things on faith.

Ever hear of evolution?

QuoteOne of the chief objections to theism cited by atheists is they claim there is no evidence in favor of theism. I am often re-assured that they are very open minded and would be happy to evaluate any such evidence if only there was any. I agree that if indeed there is no evidence in favor of a claim that is a valid reason to reject such a claim (although it by no means disproves such a claim). There is often confusion about what evidence is and what proof is. Evidence is facts or objects that support a conclusion. For example, a knife in the back of the deceased is evidence that supports the conclusion the deceased was murdered. Typically the knife and pictures of the knife in the back of the deceased would be entered into evidence. A lot of evidence is circumstantial evidence.

Circumstantial evidence can be dismissed quite easily. It lacks repeatability. Without that all I am left with is you claiming to have seen something, and again I have no reason to believe anything that you claim(much less something as outlandish as a god)

QuoteFrom Wikipedia

yea.....


about wikipedia.....

not a good source.

QuoteI will present several lines of evidence that support the belief in theism. They don't prove theism is true, they merely provide good reason to think it's true. I'm not going to be making any 'God of the gaps' arguments nor am I going to offer any hypothetical scenarios or cite the mere possibility of something being true as evidence theism is true.

Good reasons to whom? To me? If so you are going to need more than your bullshit claims. I require REAL fucking evidence.

QuoteBefore I present my first line of evidence let me state what is not evidence.

LOMOTHERFUCKINGL
You are going to tell me what counts as evidence when you are trying to convince me of your sky daddy?

QuoteTheories (whether scientific or not) are not facts and so are not evidence.

Scientific theories are based off of verifiable repeatable evidence. Evidence is something you are short on.

QuoteThe only theory allowed in this discussion is the theory we’re attempting to offer evidence in favor of, in my case the theory of theism that a personal agent commonly referred to as God was responsible for the existence of the universe and sentient life.

Again retard you are attempting to convince US of your bullshit beliefs. YOU don't set the standards of evidence here idiot.

QuoteI won’t bother refuting theories offered in support of the theory God doesn’t exist.

And right there is where you lose your argument.

IF you can't be bothered to refuting counters to your "logic" then all you are here to do is preach at us.
And fucktard that is against the rules.

TLDR for you?
I'll shorten it for you.
Go fuck yourself with a barbwire wrapped hot sauce dipped cactus.

A universe where no God is apparent in its workings is consistent with the hypothesis that there is no God, and thus lends support to the hypothesis that there is no God and undermines the competing hypothesis that there is a God. Thus, absence of evidence is evidence of absence. We've looked for God, and we can't find him anywhere. He's not in any hole in our ignorance we have filled with science, forcing theists like you to make God smaller and smaller and vaguer and vaguer, just so you can find a hole in our ignorance small and dark enough for him to hide in. What a pitiful God you believe in is.

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 03:52:33 PM
No one would postulate God doesn't exist therefore I expect a universe with life to exist.

What?

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 03:52:33 PM
The existence of the universe and life are red flags that lead folks to question the narrative that we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend either the universe or life, yet in spite of neither the desire, the intent or the plan to create life, without knowledge of how to do it mindless forces stumbled blindly upon the formula to create life and cause a universe that allows life.

Even given two cracks at explaining it, I fail to see how the mere existence of things indicates an as of yet undefined god.

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 03:52:33 PM
However, evidence doesn't become non-evidence just because you don't agree with the conclusion.

No evidence doesn't become evidence just because you say it is.

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 01:10:38 PM
However a dead body is nevertheless the first line of evidence a murder has taken place.

No, its not. A dead body is evidence that there is a dead body. A dead body alone is proof of nothing further than that. Even a dead body with what appears to be a bullet wound is not proof of a murder. The bullet wound may not have been fatal. More evidence is required for the answer to what happened can be proven.

Now if you want to argue that you choose to believe there is a god simply because you've decided that god existing is the most plausible answer, bully for you. But if that's the case, then what do you hope to gain by coming here? You must already know that you won't convince anyone here that you're right. And as far as I can tell, you don't seem to have any desire to be convinced that your line of thinking is wrong. So why are  you here?

^ To prosthelytize. He's hoping that his words will stick with someone and drag them to the Theist Side of the Force.

(http://blogs.coventrytelegraph.net/thegeekfiles/richardle2.jpg)

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on June 28, 2014, 06:25:37 PM
^ To prosthelytize. He's hoping that his words will stick with someone and drag them to the Theist Side of the Force.

Wow. That's like trying to sell a can of Old Bay seasoning to a crab.

holy crap. This is turning into the biggest load of wallpaper paste yet.

 :dance:

emoticon fight!

So......

1. the universe exists

2. Life exists

still first cause and still nothing. Wow.

(edit) Sorry aitm, i posted before I saw yours.  :naughty:

Quote from: stromboli on June 28, 2014, 06:56:42 PM
So......

1. the universe exists

2. Life exists

still first cause and still nothing. Wow.

(edit) Sorry aitm, i posted before I saw yours.  :naughty:

:axe:

 :vegetasmiley: :vegetasmiley: :vegetasmiley: :wtff:

Hello Moralnihilist

Quotethe only honest answer currently available is "I don't know." anything else is bullshit or opinion.

In your opinion it wasn't due to God, in mine it was.

secondly if I were to reject the belief that God created the universe and humans I would have to be persuaded that mindless lifeless forces somehow coughed a universe into existence and without plan or intent caused the right conditions for sentient life to exist.I'd have to believe that life and mind without plan or intent emerged from something totally unlike itself, mindless lifeless forces.

QuoteAs that is the only one that currently is backed by any sort of evidence(even if only scientifically theoretical)

Scientific theory isn't evidence.

QuoteWrong...

Most couldn't care less what you believe, most just don't want YOUR bullshit shoved down their throats.

Is it your wish that only atheists post to this board or do you wish to have open dialog? Our differences of viewpoint are philosophical only. I'm posting to have a debate, not convert anyone. Theism is a philosophy not a religion.

QuoteEver hear of evolution?

Heard of it and subscribe to it. Evolution in and of itself is a fact and can be offered as evidence. As it stands now, I could make a better case for atheism than the atheists thus far. First thing I'd do is drop the ridiculous atheism as a lack of belief definition.

QuoteCircumstantial evidence can be dismissed quite easily. It lacks repeatability. Without that all I am left with is you claiming to have seen something, and again I have no reason to believe anything that you claim(much less something as outlandish as a god)

I didn't claim to have seen something, I claim to live in a universe in which life exists and I can believe we are the intentional result of a Creator or the equally if not more outlandish claim we are the result of mindless forces that didn't intend to create a universe or one of the complexity required to create and support life. It just happened by accident.

I won’t bother refuting theories offered in support of the theory God doesn’t exist.

QuoteAnd right there is where you lose your argument.

IF you can't be bothered to refuting counters to your "logic" then all you are here to do is preach at us.
And fucktard that is against the rules.

Why are you so emotional? Did some religious person put a clothespin on your pee pee?

Hello Johan

QuoteNow if you want to argue that you choose to believe there is a god simply because you've decided that god existing is the most plausible answer, bully for you. But if that's the case, then what do you hope to gain by coming here? You must already know that you won't convince anyone here that you're right. And as far as I can tell, you don't seem to have any desire to be convinced that your line of thinking is wrong. So why are  you here

Originally I came to this discussion board because the top billing says Atheist Forums a community website for freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and believers I'm beginning to think its true minus the believers part. From the moment I made my introduction I was challenged to make my case for theism and I've been threatened with being banned since.

Of course given the available evidence I have come to the conclusion our existence and that of the universe is more likely due to the intentional act of a Creator than the result of mindless forces that just happened to get it right. The only thing I hope to gain is the satisfaction of knowing I can make a reasonable rational case for theism even on a hostile atheist board. Besides its supposed to be fun and would be if you folks didn't take it so seriously. All we have is a philosophical difference of opinion about something neither of us can be sure of.

Quote from: aitm on June 28, 2014, 06:55:42 PM
:dance:

emoticon fight!

:vegetasmiley: :axe: :anal: :toilet: :kidra:

Quote from: the_antithesis on June 28, 2014, 01:19:51 PM
Why do these pillocks always go for the first cause thing?

Because they're idiots?

-Nam

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 07:36:30 PM
Scientific theory isn't evidence.

Scientific theories are built on lots of evidence

Quote from: josephpalazzo on June 28, 2014, 02:05:09 PM
The evidence is: I think it's true, therefore it must be true... shades of Gasparov...

...but doesn't mean it's true. Opinions are not evidence.

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on June 28, 2014, 07:47:05 PM
...but doesn't mean it's true. Opinions are not evidence.

-Nam

I'm sorry, I thought this was a reply by the idiot. Still...

-Nam

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 07:36:30 PM
The only thing I hope to gain is the satisfaction of knowing I can make a reasonable rational case for theism even on a hostile atheist board.

You haven't done that.

QuoteBesides its supposed to be fun and would be if you folks didn't take it so seriously.

And it was fun the first couple hundred times theists like you came here. But debating their flawed logic gets kind of old after a while.

The only thing I hope to gain is the satisfaction of knowing I can make a reasonable rational case for theism even on a hostile atheist board.

QuoteYou haven't done that.

Well I haven't quite finished yet either...but to my satisfaction anyway.

QuoteAnd it was fun the first couple hundred times theists like you came here. But debating their flawed logic gets kind of old after a while.

Listening to the endless dribble of atheists convincing each other their right gets old too I would think.

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 08:26:02 PM
The only thing I hope to gain is the satisfaction of knowing I can make a reasonable rational case for theism even on a hostile atheist board.

Yeah, good luck with that. You still haven't addressed my post.


Sent from Monster Island. Titty sprinkles.

He can prove theism exists he just can't prove what theism is defined as as existing.

-Nam

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 08:26:02 PM
Listening to the endless dribble of atheists convincing each other their right gets old too I would think.

Yeah, I suppose it would seem like that to an unsinkable rubber duck.

So far, both your arguments boil down to an appeal to ignorance: you observe there is a universe, but you don't know how such a thing can come about without intelligent intervention, therefore something like a God (never mind you never explain how such a thing like the universe could come about even with intelligent intervention); you observe there is life, but you don't know how life could come about through non-life without intelligent intervention, therefore something like a God (again, never mind you never explain how life could come about even with intelligent intervention). These are not productive avenues of discussion.

For the origin of life, we actually have a pretty good grasp how it could come about without intelligent intervention. We've known for about a hundred years that life boils down to chemistry, and atomic matter is governed by chemistry, life or no. There is no sharp division between things with life and things without as you imagine it, at least as far as nature is concerned.

As to the origin of the universe, while it may be trickier to tackle, I find it ludicrous that a bunch of near-ignorant goat herders had anything approaching the truth, owing to their poor score in every other testable matter of fact.

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 04:51:59 PM
josephpalazzo,

I'll say this again not that it matters. The merit of the case I'm making doesn't rise or fall based on the opinion of those I am debating with. Would it mean anything to you if I said your counter point failed? It isn't the fact we don't know exactly how life came about and can't recreate it, its the fact it exists at all that raises the question if life was intended to exist.

I know most atheists want to frame the debate that the theist has to incontrovertibly prove beyond any doubt and to the exclusion of any other possibility that God exists and created the universe and if they fail to do so (according to the judgment of atheists) then atheism prevails. Doesn't that sound like your creating a mental construct that is evidence proof? Its not just a one way street. To be an intellectually satisfied atheist you would still have to believe that mindless lifeless forces without plan or intent or desire, minus a degree in engineering or biochemistry not only caused a universe to exist with all the laws of physics to cause stars and planets but also caused the myriad of right conditions for life to exist by pure happenstance. I know you folks will never say that's what you believe...but what's left if you rule out the possibility the universe and life were intentionally created... true?

Ok, let me put this in simpler terms that even a retard can understand:

The universe existing isn't proof of God/gods.
Life existing isn't proof of God/gods.

Origin theories, based off of actual evidence, being too complicated for you are not evidence that goddidit.

So far your "evidence" has been "The universe and life exist...therefore God".

That is not evidence, that is being fucking stupid.

I'm not asking for "incontrovertible proof", I'm asking for admissible evidence. What you're giving me are baseless assumptions.

Edit: Also I'm not Joe.

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 08:26:02 PM

Listening to the endless dribble of atheists convincing each other their right gets old too I would think.

1. Its they're not their.
2. Atheists do not need to convince other atheists of anything.
3. Go fuck yourself.

QuoteSo far, both your arguments boil down to an appeal to ignorance: you observe there is a universe, but you don't know how such a thing can come about without intelligent intervention, therefore something like a God (never mind you never explain how such a thing like the universe could come about even with intelligent intervention); you observe there is life, but you don't know how life could come about through non-life without intelligent intervention, therefore something like a God (again, never mind you never explain how life could come about even with intelligent intervention). These are not productive avenues of discussion

.

I could reject the belief a Creator caused and designed a universe for the purpose of creating life and subscribe to the belief that mindless-lifeless forces without plan or intent or a degree in biology or physics blindly stumbled upon the formula to create the universe, galaxies, stars, solar systems and planets and finally something utterly unlike itself...life. Thus subscribe to the notion we owe our existence to the most fortuitous act of serendipity imaginable. Of course I'd would have to accept this counter notion on faith...I don't see any atheists on this board stumbling over themselves to provide evidence such could or did happen.

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 10:20:09 PM
.

I could reject the belief a Creator caused and designed a universe for the purpose of creating life and subscribe to the belief that mindless-lifeless forces without plan or intent or a degree in biology or physics blindly stumbled upon the formula to create the universe, galaxies, stars, solar systems and planets and finally something utterly unlike itself...life. Thus subscribe to the notion we owe our existence to the most fortuitous act of serendipity imaginable. Of course I'd would have to accept this counter notion on faith...I don't see any atheists on this board stumbling over themselves to provide evidence such could or did happen.

At the core of your question... Are you asking us to disprove god?

QuoteOk, let me put this in simpler terms that even a retard can understand:

Good idea, play to your audience.

QuoteThe universe existing isn't proof of God/gods.
Life existing isn't proof of God/gods.

I didn't say it was proof I said it was evidence. Facts that comport with a belief are evidence in favor of a belief. The fact the universe exists comports with the belief God created the universe. Whether you agree or disagree is noted but not relevant.

QuoteOrigin theories, based off of actual evidence, being too complicated for you are not evidence that goddidit.

As opposed to naturedidit?

QuoteI'm not asking for "incontrovertible proof", I'm asking for admissible evidence. What you're giving me are baseless assumptions.

That's your opinion. How do you think we'd fare if we debated before an impartial group of people? First I'd have to establish if your an atheist who merely lacks belief in God (but doesn't deny God exists) or a real atheist. If you merely lack belief in God we can't debate the existence of God because even though you claim to be an atheist...you don't deny God exists.

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 10:20:09 PM
.

I could reject the belief a Creator caused and designed a universe for the purpose of creating life and subscribe to the belief that mindless-lifeless forces without plan or intent or a degree in biology or physics blindly stumbled upon the formula to create the universe, galaxies, stars, solar systems and planets and finally something utterly unlike itself...life. Thus subscribe to the notion we owe our existence to the most fortuitous act of serendipity imaginable. Of course I'd would have to accept this counter notion on faith...I don't see any atheists on this board stumbling over themselves to provide evidence such could or did happen.

We don't have to accept anything on faith. Consider the fact that 99% of climate related science confirms global warming but the dissenters are largely the religious conservatives. In order to do that they have to deny an ever mounting and already mountainous pile of evidence.

Like denying evolution. There is a massive amount of evidentiary support, but there is still a persistent effort by theists to discredit it, based on little more than biblical belief. There are literally billions of examples of both prehistoric animals and man to the transitory nature of evolution. Cretaionists have little or nothing to back anything they claim.

the origin of the universe and life is based on the scientific method, observation, experimentation and conclusions drawn from that. Theism is the opposite of science; it presuppposes the existence of a god and a creator without evidence and makes claims from that basis.

the Big Bang, evolution, the formation of the galaxies et al is based on observation and testing and conclusions drawn from that. Theism is static and rigid and unprovable. Science is dynamic and intellectually driven and adaptive.

You are static and immobile in your ideas, not a free thinker. We are dynamic and intellectually driven and adaptive.

Btw way, one more time: The existence of the universe is not proof of god

the existence of life is not proof of god. The fact that you keep going back to these idiotic and unproven notions shows how weak your argument is.

I could reject the belief a Creator caused and designed a universe for the purpose of creating life and subscribe to the belief that mindless-lifeless forces without plan or intent or a degree in biology or physics blindly stumbled upon the formula to create the universe, galaxies, stars, solar systems and planets and finally something utterly unlike itself...life. Thus subscribe to the notion we owe our existence to the most fortuitous act of serendipity imaginable. Of course I'd would have to accept this counter notion on faith...I don't see any atheists on this board stumbling over themselves to provide evidence such could or did happen.

QuoteAt the core of your question... Are you asking us to disprove god?

At the core of the debate is two competing hypothesis

1. That the universe and life was intentionally caused, engineered and designed by a Creator
2. That mindless forces without plan or intent fortuitously caused the universe and life to exist.

The irony is that many atheists find it difficult to believe an intelligent transcendent personal agent could cause and design a universe to exist for the purpose of life but that mindless forces without having any intelligence, plan or intent could do so.

You don't have to disprove God, just provide compelling reasons and evidence that would lead me to one conclusion over another.

The far simpler question is why.


Why would an almighty god design a billion light year universe of which we are mere nothings on a mote of nothing and then demand we splay ourselves in the dirt to almighty ...blah blah   blah....really? This is your god? I CREATED YOU!!!! WORSHIP ME OR DIE YOU FUCKING PIECES OF SHIT!!!!



REALLY?

This is the god you consider worthy of your worship?

Whatever "proof" you can provide as to your god...you reasoning sucks....fuck that god! Join humanity and ban gods! Join humanity and join humanity.

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 10:20:09 PM
I could reject the belief a Creator caused and designed a universe for the purpose of creating life and subscribe to the belief that mindless-lifeless forces without plan or intent or a degree in biology or physics blindly stumbled upon the formula to create the universe, galaxies, stars, solar systems and planets and finally something utterly unlike itself...life.

Why are stars, galaxies, blah blah blah so utterly unlike life? At what point does life start becoming unlike every other form of matter?

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 10:20:09 PM
Thus subscribe to the notion we owe our existence to the most fortuitous act of serendipity imaginable. Of course I'd would have to accept this counter notion on faith...I don't see any atheists on this board stumbling over themselves to provide evidence such could or did happen.

The evidence that would clinch the case wouldn't fit on this entire forum, let alone in a single post. Forgive us if we seem a bit reluctant to post it.

There is an entire web out there to find out this stuff. Why don't you do some damn legwork and bring yourself up to speed with what we do know about the origin of life before you start blabbing about what we don't know about it?

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 10:47:45 PM
At the core of the debate is two competing hypothesis

1. That the universe and life was intentionally caused, engineered and designed by a Creator
2. That mindless forces without plan or intent fortuitously caused the universe and life to exist.

The irony is that many atheists find it difficult to believe an intelligent transcendent personal agent could cause and design a universe to exist for the purpose of life but that mindless forces without having any intelligence, plan or intent could do so.

Because an "intelligent transcendent personal agent" would have to be an amazingly complex thing in and of itself, and is even more unlikely to occur on its own than even a universe with complex life in it, emerging spontaneously and fully formed, is easier to believe, let alone that complexity emerging from those mindless forces.

That agent solves nothing. It simply shoves back and complicates the problem of the emergence of complexity. If you posit this God, at the end of the day, you still don't know how complexity forms. No matter what form it takes, "Goddiddit" is still simply a dishonest way of saying "I don't know and I don't care to know."

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 10:47:45 PM
I could reject the belief a Creator caused and designed a universe for the purpose of creating life and subscribe to the belief that mindless-lifeless forces without plan or intent or a degree in biology or physics blindly stumbled upon the formula to create the universe, galaxies, stars, solar systems and planets and finally something utterly unlike itself...life. Thus subscribe to the notion we owe our existence to the most fortuitous act of serendipity imaginable. Of course I'd would have to accept this counter notion on faith...I don't see any atheists on this board stumbling over themselves to provide evidence such could or did happen.

At the core of the debate is two competing hypothesis

1. That the universe and life was intentionally caused, engineered and designed by a Creator
2. That mindless forces without plan or intent fortuitously caused the universe and life to exist.

The irony is that many atheists find it difficult to believe an intelligent transcendent personal agent could cause and design a universe to exist for the purpose of life but that mindless forces without having any intelligence, plan or intent could do so.

You don't have to disprove God, just provide compelling reasons and evidence that would lead me to one conclusion over another.

I wouldn't be able to disprove god, nor would anyone else. In order for something to be disproved, it needs to be proved in the first place.

You seem to be misled on what science is claiming. Science only claims what it finds and is able to test what is true and repeatable in nature. From what science has found, all things from where we are now on this multi-billion-year timeline that we're on to all the way back to the big bang, there is no evidence of a god found. Nothing with extraordinary conscious creation power.

Can you argue that a god with conscious creation power caused the big bang? possibly. But I would have to follow up with a major question that would be begging to be asked:

Who or what made that god?

And a bonus question would be:
If another god made the god that made our universe's conscious creator, who or what made that?

And so-forth...

You don't even need to understand science to realize that the logic of a god is completely flawed. If you did want to throw science in to the mix though, you will quickly realize that as science makes newer and newer discoveries, the room for evidence of a god becomes increasingly small.

That the oak was planted with intent
or grows by accident
matters not to the bird nesting in the tree.

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 07:36:30 PM
Hello Moralnihilist

In your opinion it wasn't due to God, in mine it was.

Wrong again fucktard. I CLEARLY said that the only honest answer is I DONT KNOW.
Reading isn't a strong suit of yours is it?

Quotesecondly if I were to reject the belief that God created the universe and humans I would have to be persuaded that mindless lifeless forces somehow coughed a universe into existence and without plan or intent caused the right conditions for sentient life to exist.I'd have to believe that life and mind without plan or intent emerged from something totally unlike itself, mindless lifeless forces.

Scientific theory isn't evidence.

According to whom?

QuoteIs it your wish that only atheists post to this board or do you wish to have open dialog? Our differences of viewpoint are philosophical only. I'm posting to have a debate, not convert anyone. Theism is a philosophy not a religion.

It is my(as well as many others on this forum) experience that theotards such as yourself come here only to preach. If a theist came here with no interest in preaching they would be more than welcome. In fact there have been several theists who have come and gone that didn't preach and they became well known and liked members of this forum. So get off your cross asshat.

QuoteHeard of it and subscribe to it. Evolution in and of itself is a fact and can be offered as evidence. As it stands now, I could make a better case for atheism than the atheists thus far. First thing I'd do is drop the ridiculous atheism as a lack of belief definition.

Frankly I could give two fucks what you would do. The word means exactly that a lack of belief. Nothing more, nothing less.

QuoteI didn't claim to have seen something, I claim to live in a universe in which life exists and I can believe we are the intentional result of a Creator or the equally if not more outlandish claim we are the result of mindless forces that didn't intend to create a universe or one of the complexity required to create and support life. It just happened by accident.

Neat-o a False Dilemma AND a First Cause fallacy all in one.... 

QuoteI won’t bother refuting theories offered in support of the theory God doesn’t exist.

Why are you so emotional? Did some religious person put a clothespin on your pee pee?

Actually shit for brains, I am an asshole not emotional. You come here to preach. And then have the unmitigated balls to try to tell me(and others on this forum) what counts as evidence. You want to know what IS evidence? It is simply repeatable, testable, falsifiable, VERIFIABLE evidence. Anything less simply won't work. Just because you are ignorant/retarded enough to believe something on ZERO evidence does not mean that anyone else here is. Put simply(for your pathetic mind) unless you can provide that, I would suggest that you move along.


in your

and then

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 03:52:33 PM
2. The fact life exists

Again this might seem like a trivial fact but I don't think anyone disputes life exists. If life didn't exist, we wouldn't be here to debate whether we owe our existence to a Creator, it’s the fact life exists that raises the question whether we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't intend to cause life or even cause the existence of a universe that allows life in the first place. There is no condition that needs to true for atheism to possibly be true. There are conditions that need to occur in order for us to consider the existence of a Creator. Two of those conditions are a suitable place for us to live and for life to exist. No one would postulate God doesn't exist therefore I expect a universe with life to exist. The existence of the universe and life are red flags that lead folks to question the narrative that we owe our existence to mindless forces that didn't plan, design or intend either the universe or life, yet in spite of neither the desire, the intent or the plan to create life, without knowledge of how to do it mindless forces stumbled blindly upon the formula to create life and cause a universe that allows life. Moreover if we are to believe the atheist narrative, lifeless mindless forces created something totally unlike itself...life. Yet the only way we have observed life coming about is through life. We have yet to observe life coming from non-life. The theory is that's how it came about but we haven't been able to figure out using intelligence how to cause life that mindless forces are alleged to have produced without trying or knowing how.

If the universe didn't exist and life didn't exist it’s still possible a Creator who hasn't created anything might exist, but there would be no evidence to suspect there was a Creator. Under such a circumstance the atheists claim there is no evidence of a Creator would be true. The claim there is no evidence of a Creator is false. Now, let's be clear, the two lines of evidence I presented so far obviously doesn't persuade any atheist that God exists. However, evidence doesn't become non-evidence just because you don't agree with the conclusion. Most atheists will always claim there is no evidence in support of theism because they like to marginalize theism as strictly a faith proposition. If they were to admit there is evidence in favor of theism then it’s no longer just a faith proposition that can be easily dismissed.

You and all those people don't understand the size of the universe and probability, at all, at all at all. Learn some math, learn something about the universe, stop purposefully being ignorant or stupid of information humanity has worked very hard to put at your fingertips. You're squandering a wonderful gift humans have given you.

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 10:47:45 PM
You don't have to disprove God, just provide compelling reasons and evidence that would lead me to one conclusion over another.

You seem to have this backwards, we don't care about convincing you of anything. You've proven yourself to be a dishonest person so I'd rather you stay a theist instead of becoming a regular on this forum, Now, if you have any evidence on why you think a giant sky daddy popped us into existence with a snap of his fingers, please provide that. We will analyse and interrupt all the data you provide us and to make sure you've not made any errors in your calculations.

How about addressing my post you never got to, bub? I'm very interested in hearing your response, because no theist has ever been brave enough to tackle this.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 28, 2014, 03:09:56 AM
After some analysis comparing the various gods of mythology to omnipotent characters in fiction, you will find there are no differences between the two.

I know that gods don't exist. It's surprisingly simple to sum up: Any being claiming to fit the human concept of a god can offer no proof that cannot equally be offered by this guy:

An advanced alien, like Q here, would be able to claim it is a god,
even your god, and offer any proof you demanded of him.
You would never be able to prove that he is anything other than what he claims.

It sounds like overly simplistic logic, but this is only because the nature of mythological gods itself speaks to how simplistic human imagination tends to be. Even the broadest interpretation of a god separate from the universe, that of deism, only exists to say, "The universe exists, therefore no matter how complex it is God surely must be able to make it," which is really just expanding an already made-up term to encompass new discoveries, rather than just admit that the concept was flawed to begin with.

Then you have the pantheistic and panentheistic definitions, respectively stating that god is the universe and the universe is within god; both of which pretty much mean the same thing after any deep analysis, and both of which beg the question, "If God and the universe are indistinguishable, then why separate the terms at all?" Like deism, the answer is obvious: it's expanding an older term to fit new discoveries, rather than admitting that the concept was flawed from the get-go.

The human concept of a god gets even more ridiculous once you introduce the concept of higher dimensions. Rob Bryanton's Imagining the Tenth Dimension (http://https//www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg85IH3vghA), while by no means describing a currently accepted scientific theory, nevertheless illustrates just how ridiculously huge our universe is should any concept of higher dimensions prove to be accurate (especially given the size of the observable universe we are already well aware of). As the universe gets bigger and bigger, any concept of gods must expand accordingly, to ludicrous levels as this concept should demonstrate.

Even if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

tl;dr version: There is no way anything we would regard as a god could ever prove that it is what it claims to a skeptical individual. Because the universe less resembles a mythical god's realm than it does a simulator, any designer we did find should be called a programmer, not a god. Therefore, we can reasonably conclude that there is no god.

First Cause argument

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_first_cause#The_assumptions

QuoteThe argument from first cause proceeds as follows.
Everything that comes into being must have a cause.
This is determined from both observation and the logic behind causality. Everything that is observed in the universe has some form of cause behind it and this forms the basis of conservation of momentum and energy. Within causality there is a unifying logic between an effect (something caused) and an affect (cause). An affectless effect and an effectless affect are logically nonsensical propositions.
An infinite regress of causes is impossible.
Disallowing an infinite regress of causes is, technically speaking, an assertion and just a requirement for the argument to work. However, a form of pleading can be made that while an infinite regress of temporal causes may be allowable, an infinite regress of non-temporal causes may not. In other words, a sequence of events in time may be able to go infinitely forward through the future and back through the past but time itself must have some other form of cause.
We must therefore arrive at a first cause.
Following from disallowing an infinite regress of causes, there must be a point where the first cause appears. This is the concept first developed by Aristotle and expanded upon by Aquinas as the "unmoved mover" or the "uncaused causer".
This first cause is God.
Having established the existence of the first cause, it is asserted that this cause is none other than the God of choice of the person making the argument.

QuoteThe assumptions

Self-causation is impossible

Related to the infinite regress of causes is the idea that something may cause itself to come into being. Aquinas argues that this is impossible on account of it never having been empirically observed, but also because of the impossibility and absurdity of an object causing itself. Specifically, for an object to cause itself to come into being, it must be prior to itself. This expressly forbids the universe from causing itself, which would otherwise scupper the conclusion.

The reasoning does not seem to apply to the laws of physics, since the notion of "being prior", e.g. preceding something in time, requires time to already exist to have any meaning.

This is to help our friend out here, since he seems to be stuck on this argument.

ONCE AGAIN. EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT GOD CREATED IT.
LIKEWISE, THE EXISTENCE OF LIFE IS NOT EVIDENCE THAT GOD CREATED IT.

You cannot therefore use either one as evidence. did you get it this time?

And please note the word assumption. Please note that.

Hello PickelledEggs,

QuoteI wouldn't be able to disprove god, nor would anyone else. In order for something to be disproved, it needs to be proved in the first place.

I'm not asking anyone to disprove God, just provide evidence and make your case between these two competing hypothesis.

At the core of the debate is two competing hypothesis

1. That the universe and life was intentionally caused, engineered and designed by a Creator
2. That mindless forces without plan or intent fortuitously caused the universe and life to exist.

QuoteYou seem to be misled on what science is claiming. Science only claims what it finds and is able to test what is true and repeatable in nature. From what science has found, all things from where we are now on this multi-billion-year timeline that we're on to all the way back to the big bang, there is no evidence of a god found. Nothing with extraordinary conscious creation power.

I have a few more lines of evidence I intend to present and argue from that do provide circumstantial evidence of a Creator (besides the two I have presented).

QuoteCan you argue that a god with conscious creation power caused the big bang? possibly. But I would have to follow up with a major question that would be begging to be asked:

Who or what made that god?

And a bonus question would be:
If another god made the god that made our universe's conscious creator, who or what made that?

And so-forth...

You realize that every atheist on every board eventually asks that 'gotcha' question. The answer is I have no idea how God came into existence or if a Creator created God, I'm not attempting to debate the question of how God came into existence, I'm debating the question of how the universe, life and humanity came into existence. The conundrum you point out isn't solved by ruling God out. I can ask what caused the big bang and what caused whatever caused the big bang and so on. If so we are faced with a greater conundrum, are we the result of an endless recession of events? If so how did we cross an endless recession of events to get to this point in time? It would appear then that time began to exist. What except a force transcendent to the laws of nature and time could cause time to begin? I should note some atheists will toss out the idea (not that they actually believe it) that the universe came into existence uncaused out of nothing. But they won't classify that as a magical supernatural event.

Hakurei Reimu

QuoteThe evidence that would clinch the case wouldn't fit on this entire forum, let alone in a single post. Forgive us if we seem a bit reluctant to post it.

I wonder how it would go over if I was asked (as I was) to make a case for theism and I gave this self serving response?


At the core of the debate is two competing hypothesis

1. That the universe and life was intentionally caused, engineered and designed by a Creator
2. That mindless forces without plan or intent fortuitously caused the universe and life to exist.

The irony is that many atheists find it difficult to believe an intelligent transcendent personal agent could cause and design a universe to exist for the purpose of life but that mindless forces without having any intelligence, plan or intent could do so.

QuoteBecause an "intelligent transcendent personal agent" would have to be an amazingly complex thing in and of itself, and is even more unlikely to occur on its own than even a universe with complex life in it, emerging spontaneously and fully formed, is easier to believe, let alone that complexity emerging from those mindless forces.

Why would it be surprising that something more complex created something complex and on what grounds is such even more unlikely to occur? If we trace back the existence of a car, we trace it back to something more complex than the car. Same with computers, cell phones, tablets and so forth.

I'll offer you another reason why it's very plausible this universe was caused and designed by a personal agent commonly referred to as God. Because we (humans) as personal intelligent agents do the same thing (on a much smaller scale) that I allege God did. Have you ever played in any of the popular virtual world simulation games like World of Warcraft, Second life or Everquest? Granted those 'universes' are simulated but nevertheless humans are the transcendent gods who caused those universes to exist. We simulate playing God all the time. 


Hello Hijiri Byakuren

QuoteHow about addressing my post you never got to, bub? I'm very interested in hearing your response, because no theist has ever been brave enough to tackle this.

What you wrote (or pasted) appeared to be a rambling diatribe, not anything in response to what I wrote.

QuoteEven if the observable universe is all there is, if it is really designed then it seems to act like what we would expect of a simulator; and any being capable of designing it should more accurately be referred to as a programmer than a god. "Why can't we just call the programmer God?" you ask. For the same reason we wouldn't call it a leprechaun: fictional though it may be, it already exists as a concept and, for the sake of not invoking confusion and/or emotional validation for irrational beliefs, the term should not be continually expanded to include any and every version of the universe's hypothetical creator. If it is more like a programmer than a god, then that is what we should call it, and how we should regard it. Given all of this, I cannot think of any explanation abiding by Occam's Razor that would lead me to believe that a being conforming to the mythical concept of a god exists.

Why don't you share with me what this means to you? I suppose we could call God a programmer or an engineer or even a scientist for that matter but if true, we owe our existence and that of the universe to a Creator and that would be simpatico with theistic belief.

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 11:20:34 AMWhat you wrote (or pasted) appeared to be a rambling diatribe, not anything in response to what I wrote.

So in other words, you don't think it's worth your time to demonstrate why a deity is even a provable concept to begin with. Noted.

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 11:20:34 AMWhy don't you share with me what this means to you? I suppose we could call God a programmer or an engineer or even a scientist for that matter but if true, we owe our existence and that of the universe to a Creator and that would be simpatico with theistic belief.

No, it wouldn't. Theists don't believe in a programmer, they believe in a god. A programmer wouldn't have irrational, emotional beliefs tied to it. The fact that you went to this old fallback tells me you have no real interest in countering anything anyone on this forum has to say. You're just here to proselytize. Noted.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand blocked.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 29, 2014, 11:32:19 AM
So in other words, you don't think it's worth your time to demonstrate why a deity is even a provable concept to begin with. Noted.No, it wouldn't. Theists don't believe in a programmer, they believe in a god. A programmer wouldn't have irrational, emotional beliefs tied to it. The fact that you went to this old fallback tells me you have no real interest in countering anything anyone on this forum has to say. You're just here to proselytize. Noted.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaand blocked.

Can I proselytize you to Namgod so I can get blocked? Okay, Namgod is a lazy god. It doesn't want anything from you except for you to leave it alone. It's a busy god doing nothing, and if you bother it it gets frustrated and may pee (rain) on you. Sometimes if one keeps bothering it it'll take a massive dump but don't worry, it usually breaks up in the atmosphere.

Don't you want to worship Namgod?

Do I get blocked now?

:smile:

-Nam

Please present your evidence, since you haven't actually presented any yet.

The third fact (evidence) that leads me to conclude we are the result of a Creator is:

3. The existence of sentient life.

As unlikely as it might seem that mindless lifeless forces would without plan, design or intent without a degree in physics or biology would cause a universe to exist with the conditions necessary for life, it would seem even more unlikely such forces would also cause sentient intelligent life to exist. No one would propose that mindless forces exist; therefore I predict the existence of a universe that supports life and sentient life so that the intelligent beings can debate the cause of their existence. There is a reason why the vast majority of intelligent humans believe we are the result of a Creator and it’s not because they are ignorant, or brainwashed, or brought up to believe in God. It’s because between the two competing hypothesis:

1. That the universe and life was intentionally caused, engineered and designed by a Creator
2. That mindless forces without plan or intent fortuitously caused the universe and life to exist.

The belief we are the intentional result of a Creator is more plausible given the evidence available to us.

Atheists continue to claim the reason they don’t believe we are the result of a Creator is because there is no evidentiary reason to believe there is a God. If there was no universe, no life and no sentient life I would absolutely agree, there is no evidence of a Creator. The fact there is a universe in a configuration that not only caused life but also maintains life and produced sentient life is the very evidence they claim doesn’t exist. Or are atheists going to say the existence of the universe, life and sentient life is evidence that mindless forces without plan intent or knowledge caused our existence?

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 12:08:47 PM
The third fact (evidence) that leads me to conclude we are the result of a Creator is:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLI0GMMbQaQ

Quote ''Atheists continue to claim the reason they don’t believe we are the result of a Creator is because there is no evidentiary reason to believe there is a God. If there was no universe, no life and no sentient life I would absolutely agree.''

This is a really stupid statement.

If there was no universe no life and no sentient life then you would not exist so how could u then 'absolutely agree or not.
fucking moron

Special pleading.

The mere fact of sentient life does not prove god. There are known prehistoric hominids- Neanderthal Man, Denisovan Man and us- that exhibited sentient behavior, and all developed within a window of a few million years. There is not "one species" selected out by a god for any specific reason.  Developmental capabilities have been shown with chimpanzees and bonobos, up to the point of communicating with sign language and even mechanical communication methods like typing.


http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/animal-emotions/201306/universal-declaration-animal-sentience-no-pretending

Quote"Convergent evidence indicates that non-human animals have the neuroanatomical, neurochemical, and neurophysiological substrates of conscious states along with the capacity to exhibit intentional behaviors. Consequently, the weight of evidence indicates that humans are not unique in possessing the neurological substrates that generate consciousness. Non-human animals, including all mammals and birds, and many other creatures, including octopuses, also possess these neurological substrates." They could also have included fish, for whom the evidence supporting sentience and consciousness is also compelling (see also). And, I'm sure as time goes on we will add many other animals to the consciousness club.

Apparently sentience is available to other species as well.

So sentience may be nothing more than an unintended but natural result of evolution.

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 11:20:34 AM
The conundrum you point out isn't solved by ruling God out.

I don't rule a god out.  However, unlike you, I don't rule one in.

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 11:20:34 AM
The irony is that many atheists find it difficult to believe an intelligent transcendent personal agent could cause and design a universe

That's probably because there is no evidence for such a agent.  So yes, it is difficult to accept.  However, that doesn't mean it's ruled out.  It's just that it's no more compelling than saying we don't yet have an answer.

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 11:20:34 AM
Why would it be surprising that something more complex created something complex and on what grounds is such even more unlikely to occur?

It's not surprising, and it very well may be the case.  It's not being ruled out.  Not at all, but it doesn't point at a god.  It points at an unknown.  We would like to identify that unknown, be it a god or some other complex cause.

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 11:20:34 AMI'll offer you another reason why it's very plausible this universe was caused and designed by a personal agent commonly referred to as God. Because we (humans) as personal intelligent agents do the same thing (on a much smaller scale) that I allege God did. Have you ever played in any of the popular virtual world simulation games like World of Warcraft, Second life or Everquest? Granted those 'universes' are simulated but nevertheless humans are the transcendent gods who caused those universes to exist. We simulate playing God all the time.

Unfortunately, this argument while somewhat clever, is irrelevant and/or non-sequitur:

Humans make computer games that simulate environments.
Therefore, a god created the universe. ???

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 12:08:47 PM
No one would propose that mindless forces exist;

Gravity, friction, air resistance, magnetic . . .

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 12:08:47 PM
therefore I predict the existence of a universe that supports life and sentient life so that the intelligent beings can debate the cause of their existence.

You really went out on a limb there, predicting something that already happened.

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 12:08:47 PM
The belief we are the intentional result of a Creator is more plausible given the evidence available to us.

Such as?

You keep saying evidence. I don't think you understand what evidence actually is.  :naughty:

Well, thats 3 for 3. I believe that ends the inning. going for a no hitter here........

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 07:36:30 PM
I'm posting to have a debate, not convert anyone.

We shall see…

QuoteI claim to live in a universe in which life exists and I can believe we are the intentional result of a Creator or the equally if not more outlandish claim we are the result of mindless forces that didn't intend to create a universe or one of the complexity required to create and support life.

It is a possibility that our life containing universe exists due to the intentional manipulation of an intelligent creator. It is also possible that our life containing universe exists due to natural processes and no intelligent creator was responsible.

QuoteIt just happened by accident.

While genetic mutations may be random, natural selection acting on those mutations is not an accident. Neither are the processes that formed the stars which created the elements heavier than helium nor the chemical processes that converted those elements into the chemical compounds necessary for life. Your belief that the whole argument against god is it was all an accident is a straw man.

QuoteI won’t bother refuting theories offered in support of the theory God doesn’t exist.

Originally I came to this discussion board because the top billing says Atheist Forums a community website for freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and believers I'm beginning to think its true minus the believers part. From the moment I made my introduction I was challenged to make my case for theism and I've been threatened with being banned since.

Of course given the available evidence I have come to the conclusion our existence and that of the universe is more likely due to the intentional act of a Creator than the result of mindless forces that just happened to get it right. The only thing I hope to gain is the satisfaction of knowing I can make a reasonable rational case for theism even on a hostile atheist board. Besides its supposed to be fun and would be if you folks didn't take it so seriously. All we have is a philosophical difference of opinion about something neither of us can be sure of.

And this is our problem with you and your ilk. You are here to preach. You want to present your argument, but by your own admission don’t want to discuss available alternatives to your hypothesis. Shit happens therefore god is a weak ass argument. I don’t believe natural forces could be responsible is an argument from ignorance and a false dichotomy if you exclude other possibilities. You are arguing Russell’s tea pot. Sound reasoning alone does not make a proposition true.

The kid is telling us how well he plays baseball while dribbling a basketball...I am not impressed with any of his cut and paste drivel of old.

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 11:20:34 AM
I wonder how it would go over if I was asked (as I was) to make a case for theism and I gave this self serving response?

Here's the thing I said in the paragraph immediately following, you twit:

Quote
There is an entire web out there to find out this stuff. Why don't you do some damn legwork and bring yourself up to speed with what we do know about the origin of life before you start blabbing about what we don't know about it?

The point being is that we're not here to be your fucking classroom. You do not have the background to understand what is being said, let alone participate in the discussion. Your personal incredulity is not evidence that there is something to this god thing of yours.

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 11:20:34 AM
Why would it be surprising that something more complex created something complex and on what grounds is such even more unlikely to occur?

Because it's answering the question of "why is there complex stuff in the universe like life" with "MOAR COMPLEXITY!" You're building the wrong damn way.

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 11:20:34 AM
If we trace back the existence of a car, we trace it back to something more complex than the car. Same with computers, cell phones, tablets and so forth.

And none of them reproduce. That is a key property of life that is lacking in every other of your examples. Since life is able to reproduce, complexity can be built up through trial and error mediated by the filter of survival. That implies that life can start as a very simple thing that by all rights can barely be called alive and then evolve that complexity. I don't have to assume complexity from the get-go to get complexity out. But with your notion, you're assuming the complexity from the start. Your guess solves nothing that I actually want answered.

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 11:20:34 AM
I'll offer you another reason why it's very plausible this universe was caused and designed by a personal agent commonly referred to as God. Because we (humans) as personal intelligent agents do the same thing (on a much smaller scale) that I allege God did. Have you ever played in any of the popular virtual world simulation games like World of Warcraft, Second life or Everquest? Granted those 'universes' are simulated but nevertheless humans are the transcendent gods who caused those universes to exist. We simulate playing God all the time.

Irrelevant. Each of those simulated universes is simulated on hardware made in a universe that actually exists. If you're assuming this god thing, then you are assuming that there is a higher order universe that actually exists for god to act in. Once again, you have not solved the puzzle of existence. You have merely pushed it back and complicated it.

Also, don't think I haven't noticed that you have used in this 'reason' an analogy directly paralleling Hijiri Byakuren's. This is funny, since you referred to hers* as "a rambling diatribe." So what does this make your 'reason'?

Anyone? Anyone?

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 12:08:47 PM
3. The existence of sentient life.

So you're having your God take credit for the evolution of Homo sapiens, saying that our intelligence would make no sense if there wasn't an intelligence guiding towards that eventuality, even though intelligence and a developed sense of self (sentience) are actually pretty potent survival tools that would be selected for in higher animals.

I'm seeing nothing here that gives you leave to criticize us atheists on our lack of belief in your mystical fairy in the sky.

*I don't actually know HB's gender.

So.... 3 fallacious arguments in a row. does not bode well in the long term, methinks.

Quote from: aitm on June 29, 2014, 02:04:41 PM
The kid is telling us how well he plays baseball while dribbling a basketball...I am not impressed with any of his cut and paste drivel of old.

That's the problem with many Christiansâ,,¢: no thoughts of their own.

-Nam

Row Row Row yer boat gently down the stream,
merrily merrily merrily merrily,
life is but a dream,
Cmon Drew join in, Row Row Row yer boat... etc      :pidu:  :kidra:

Quote from: Moralnihilist on June 29, 2014, 12:27:04 PM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WLI0GMMbQaQ

HAHAHA I literally laughed out loud at the "I can count to potato"

Hello Stromboli,

At least in this post you're responding to what I wrote...

QuoteThe mere fact of sentient life does not prove god.

I've never said any line of evidence or the case I am making 'proves' the existence of God. From the OP

First I will make an opening statement. As I stated in my introduction my belief in theism is a belief, an opinion, what I think is true. I don’t claim it’s a fact it’s true that God exists, I admit I could be wrong. Therefore I don’t need to ‘prove’ God exists, I only need to provide a reasonable case from facts in favor of my opinion. I will provide several lines of evidence (facts) that support my contention and are the reason I believe in theism as opposed to atheism (real atheism by the way the belief (opinion) God doesn’t exist not the disingenuous lack of belief in God some promote).

Whether or not the existence of sentient beings or the other lines of evidence I've cited are meritorious is up to impartial undecided folks to decide, not the people I engaged in a debate with. 

Secondly I wrote, the existence of sentient life.
I didn't say what sentience, or limit it to people. 

QuoteSo sentience may be nothing more than an unintended but natural result of evolution.

Evolution maybe the mechanism the Creator used to produce sentience.

Sgos,

QuoteI don't rule a god out.  However, unlike you, I don't rule one in.

Good, you don't deny God exists and neither do I. It's not a matter of ruling God in, its a matter of having an opinion.

QuoteThat's probably because there is no evidence for such a agent.  So yes, it is difficult to accept.  However, that doesn't mean it's ruled out.  It's just that it's no more compelling than saying we don't yet have an answer.

There is evidence, I have submitted three lines of evidence thus far. You can say you don't agree with the evidence, or the evidence doesn't persuade you but you can't call it non-evidence just because you don't agree with it.

I'll offer you another reason why it's very plausible this universe was caused and designed by a personal agent commonly referred to as God. Because we (humans) as personal intelligent agents do the same thing (on a much smaller scale) that I allege God did. Have you ever played in any of the popular virtual world simulation games like World of Warcraft, Second life or Everquest? Granted those 'universes' are simulated but nevertheless humans are the transcendent gods who caused those universes to exist. We simulate playing God all the time.

QuoteUnfortunately, this argument while somewhat clever, is irrelevant and/or non-sequitur:

Humans make computer games that simulate environments.
Therefore, a god created the universe. ???

I'm not making an iron clad premise. I'm making an argument from the fact that we as sentient human beings create and cause virtual universes to exist and that we are transcendent to such universes. It demonstrates the hypothesis I am defending is viable. Its also another line of evidence whether it meets with your approval or not.

Algae,


No one would propose that mindless forces exist; therefore I predict the existence of a universe that supports life and sentient life so that the intelligent beings can debate the cause of their existence.

QuoteYou really went out on a limb there, predicting something that already happened.

As Casey Stengel once said, 'Making predictions is really hard...especially about the future'.

The argument I am making is that the existence of the universe, life and sentient life isn't the model or prediction one would make who claims only mindless lifeless forces exist (if anything). The existence of the universe, life and sentient life is an aberration of the belief that such are the result of mindless lifeless forces not an expectation of such a force.

Hello PopeyesPappy

QuoteIt is a possibility that our life containing universe exists due to the intentional manipulation of an intelligent creator. It is also possible that our life containing universe exists due to natural processes and no intelligent creator was responsible.

Fair enough. I have subscribed to either opinion at various times.

QuoteWhile genetic mutations may be random, natural selection acting on those mutations is not an accident. Neither are the processes that formed the stars which created the elements heavier than helium nor the chemical processes that converted those elements into the chemical compounds necessary for life. Your belief that the whole argument against god is it was all an accident is a straw man.

I wasn't referring to genetic mutations, as I have stated elsewhere I don't have qualms with evolution. You're suggesting however, that since matter appears to be bound by the laws of physics that therefore the processes mentioned above aren't accidental or random. That would only be true under two circumstances, that the laws of nature are actual laws and that matter is compelled to obey them. Or that an intelligent transcendent being designed the universe to operate as it does. I don't believe you subscribe to either scenario. If not, then the laws of nature are just what we happen to observe to be true the overwhelming majority of time but they weren't planned, designed or intended to be as they are and thus it was unplanned and accidental (though fortunate for us) they operate as they do.

QuoteAnd this is our problem with you and your ilk. You are here to preach. You want to present your argument, but by your own admission don’t want to discuss available alternatives to your hypothesis.

I'd be happy to discuss any and all such alternatives to the theistic hypothesis. I'm not emotionally attached to theism, I have in the past subscribed to atheism. I'm a theist because in my opinion, that's the best explanation to the existence of the universe and humans.

QuoteI'll offer you another reason why it's very plausible this universe was caused and designed by a personal agent commonly referred to as God.

so you have passed from a "creator" to a defined god now. So please tell us, which of these gods "commonly referred to" are you trying to pass off as a designer of a universe? The one who can't beat a iron age army because they had iron wheels? The one who proclaims tatoos and shrimp are forbidden? Please let us know about this almighty creator you have chosen to follow.

Since you now claim that this personal agent is referred to as god you have laid the parameter to one of the "gods" of humanity...which one?

Ive read all of this supposed evidence that you have presented. There is zero ACTUAL evidence in any of it. All you have done is make a baseless claim(remember my vision). Baseless claims are NOT evidence. Not here, not in this supposed court style "argument" that you are attempting to present, not anywhere on the fucking planet. All you have done is waste server space.

I repeat again:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STeY6vSMk5A

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 09:27:01 PM
There is evidence, I have submitted three lines of evidence thus far. You can say you don't agree with the evidence, or the evidence doesn't persuade you but you can't call it non-evidence just because you don't agree with it.

We can call it not evidence because it is not evidence.

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 09:27:01 PM
I'll offer you another reason why it's very plausible this universe was caused and designed by a personal agent commonly referred to as God. Because we (humans) as personal intelligent agents do the same thing (on a much smaller scale) that I allege God did.

By that logic it is very plausible that mountains were molded by the hands of giants because I've done the same thing on a much smaller scale with sand and pebbles.

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 09:27:01 PM
No one would propose that mindless forces exist; therefore I predict the existence of a universe that supports life and sentient life so that the intelligent beings can debate the cause of their existence. [/i]

I already listed several.

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 09:27:01 PM
The argument I am making is that the existence of the universe, life and sentient life isn't the model or prediction one would make who claims only mindless lifeless forces exist (if anything).

The world of science is literally full of people who do.

Let me sum up the argument you are making and see if you can spot the problem: Why do things exist? Because god created them. How do I know god created them? Because things exist.

Quote from: aitm on June 29, 2014, 09:46:34 PM
so you have passed from a "creator" to a defined god now. So please tell us, which of these gods "commonly referred to" are you trying to pass off as a designer of a universe? The one who can't beat a iron age army because they had iron wheels? The one who proclaims tatoos and shrimp are forbidden? Please let us know about this almighty creator you have chosen to follow.

Since you now claim that this personal agent is referred to as god you have laid the parameter to one of the "gods" of humanity...which one?

There you go again, using that whole "logic" argument again. Don't you know you just have to have faith?

Quote from: DrewM on June 29, 2014, 09:27:01 PM
I'd be happy to discuss any and all such alternatives to the theistic hypothesis. I'm not emotionally attached to theism, I have in the past subscribed to atheism. I'm a theist because in my opinion, that's the best explanation to the existence of the universe and humans.

And of course it comes down to your obviously uneducated opinion, doesn't it? See, it's plain as day from here that you are, in fact, uneducated. You don't know what evidence is, and you don't know how the edifice of scientific knowledge was built, and are ignorant of its content. Why should this opinion be given any sort of respect whatsoever over the slew of scientifically educated "opinions" (read, consensus) that continue to find no role for God whatsoever in the origin and workings of our universe?

If you want your opinion to be taken seriously at all, you need to pony up and do some legwork. You need to learn the science behind all of your points 1-3 and what the actual state of scientific knowledge is before your opinion will have any weight at all. For instance, do you know of the existence of the Jefferys-Ikeda argument (http://quasar.as.utexas.edu/anthropic.html) which takes the fact of our existing in a universe with life with fine tuned universal laws and comes up with the opposite conclusion to yours? What makes your explanation better than those of Michael Ikeda and William H. Jefferys, whose analysis directly contradicts yours?

Is it education that makes your opinion better? No, both are scientists of some note, and you have dubious scientific credentials.

Is it evidence? No, they take essentially the same facts as yours to come up with their opposing conclusion.

Is it in analysis? No, they draw a straightforward analysis of the situation following the principles of Bayesian analysis, while your "analysis" isn't one. Note: staring agog because of your incredulity and waxing poetic about mindless forces and minds is not an analysis.

No, there is no way that your opinion is superior to that of Ikeda and Jefferys. Yours does not deserve respect, even from yourself.

All you've done is submit 3 fallacious arguments, none of which are remotely close to being evidence. You are as self deluded as your predecessor, Casparov. Go away.

Quote from: aitm on June 29, 2014, 02:04:41 PM
The kid is telling us how well he plays baseball while dribbling a basketball...

15-love!

-Nam

Is it me or are the theists that come on here getting stupider?

Quote from: stromboli on June 30, 2014, 12:21:11 AM
Is it me or are the theists that come on here getting stupider?

It's just you. The more you see a bad argument, the more obvious its flaws become.

Quote from: Hijiri Byakuren on June 30, 2014, 01:14:39 AM
It's just you. The more you see a bad argument, the more obvious its flaws become.

I see your point. and come to think of it, stupid is pretty hard to quantify.

Quote from: Nam on June 30, 2014, 12:16:28 AM
15-love!

-Nam

Lol that's tennis

Sent from your mom

Quote from: PickelledEggs on June 30, 2014, 01:22:40 AM
Lol that's tennis

Sent from your mom

I thought it was Volleyball. :sad:

-Nam

Quote from: Nam on June 30, 2014, 01:37:05 AM
I thought it was Volleyball. :sad:

-Nam

I think it's also volleyball.

Not basketball though haha

Sent from your mom

Hakurei Reimu,

QuoteThere is an entire web out there to find out this stuff. Why don't you do some damn legwork and bring yourself up to speed with what we do know about the origin of life before you start blabbing about what we don't know about it?

If you wish to dispute my case then do your own legwork.

QuoteSince life is able to reproduce, complexity can be built up through trial and error mediated by the filter of survival. That implies that life can start as a very simple thing that by all rights can barely be called alive and then evolve that complexity. I don't have to assume complexity from the get-go to get complexity out. But with your notion, you're assuming the complexity from the start. Your guess solves nothing that I actually want answered.

If you're arguing evolution, I have already stated I don't have any qualms with it. However, I am skeptical that in the case of evolution, or star and planet development or any other process that appears to have created greater complexity from something less complex. I won't deny its possible...lets just say I lack that belief. I believe its the laws of nature and their complexity and processes borrow from that complexity. The amount of information and available complexity remain the same.

I'll offer you another reason why it's very plausible this universe was caused and designed by a personal agent commonly referred to as God. Because we (humans) as personal intelligent agents do the same thing (on a much smaller scale) that I allege God did. Have you ever played in any of the popular virtual world simulation games like World of Warcraft, Second life or Everquest? Granted those 'universes' are simulated but nevertheless humans are the transcendent gods who caused those universes to exist. We simulate playing God all the time.

QuoteIrrelevant. Each of those simulated universes is simulated on hardware made in a universe that actually exists. If you're assuming this god thing, then you are assuming that there is a higher order universe that actually exists for god to act in. Once again, you have not solved the puzzle of existence. You have merely pushed it back and complicated it.

Who said its not complicated? I'm not assuming a higher order universe I'm hypothesizing a transcendent cause to the universe and our existence. Even if the universe came into the existence from a singularity, that itself is transcendent to the universe.

QuoteSo you're having your God take credit for the evolution of Homo sapiens, saying that our intelligence would make no sense if there wasn't an intelligence guiding towards that eventuality, even though intelligence and a developed sense of self (sentience) are actually pretty potent survival tools that would be selected for in higher animals.

No, I merely cited the existence of sentience as a fact that comports with the belief in theism. No one would postulate that mindless lifeless forces would create life and mind. That's not an expectation of such, its an aberration.

Quote
Cmon Drew join in, Row Row Row yer boat... etc

For a theist on an atheist river its decidedly an upstream row...

It is apparent you are not going to change your view no matter what we do. It is also apparent you lack a basic understanding of argument. And likewise it is apparent that nobody here is impressed with anything you have submitted, and won't be at any time in the future.

This is a huge exercise in stupidity. I'm not going to respond any further because you are not worth my time. If you aren't smart enough to see the futility of what you are doing, then you truly are stupid.

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 12:50:48 PM
Hello the_antithesis,

No what I need to do is offer evidence and reason why its my opinion God exists. If I stated the belief that GM produces cars, the first line of evidence to establish that claim would be the existence of cars. I agree that doesn't 'prove' GM produces cars but if cars didn't exist my belief would be null and void right out of the starting gate, true?


No because in the case of GM I am attributing the existence of cars to GM. In the case of God I am attributing the existence of the universe to God. If what you say is true, a prosecutor would attempt to try a murder case by proving there was a murder first without entering in evidence a dead body.

N. N

The real question is how often do you crap and fart?

Algae,

There is evidence, I have submitted three lines of evidence thus far. You can say you don't agree with the evidence, or the evidence doesn't persuade you but you can't call it non-evidence just because you don't agree with it.

QuoteWe can call it not evidence because it is not evidence.

Evidence in a court of law are simply facts that comport with a belief.  The three facts I have cited comport with the belief we are the result of a Creator who intended our existence. I made this clear in the OP. I know most atheists have a vested interest in claiming there is no evidence in favor of the existence of God because it is foundational to the claim they disbelieve or lack belief in the existence of God due to lack of evidence. They couldn't make that claim and admit there is evidence. I can call it evidence because it is evidence.

QuoteLet me sum up the argument you are making and see if you can spot the problem: Why do things exist? Because god created them. How do I know god created them? Because things exist.

There's always a problem when my adversaries attempt to sum up my arguments. When I'm finished I'll make my own closing argument.

QuoteIf you want your opinion to be taken seriously at all, you need to pony up and do some legwork. You need to learn the science behind all of your points 1-3 and what the actual state of scientific knowledge is before your opinion will have any weight at all. For instance, do you know of the existence of the Jefferys-Ikeda argument which takes the fact of our existing in a universe with life with fine tuned universal laws and comes up with the opposite conclusion to yours? What makes your explanation better than those of Michael Ikeda and William H. Jefferys, whose analysis directly contradicts yours?

Ha, if I wanted to be taken seriously, all I'd have to do is agree with atheism. I went to the link you posted. Here is an excerpt.

Why the "fine-tuning" argument is invalid

Expressed in the language of probability theory, we understand the "fine-tuning" argument to claim that if naturalistic law applies, then the probability that a randomly-selected universe would be "life-friendly" is very small, or in mathematical terms, P(F|N)<<1. Notice that this condition is not a predicate like L, N and F; Rather, it is a statement about the probability distribution P(F|N), considered as it applies to all possible universes. For this reason, it is not possible to express the "fine-tuning" condition in terms of one of the arguments A or B of a probability function P(A|B). It is, rather, a statement about how large those probabilities are.

The "fine-tuning" argument then reasons that if P(F|N)<<1, then it follows that P(N|F)<<1. In ordinary English, this says that if the probability that a randomly-selected universe would be life-friendly (given naturalism) is very small, then the probability that naturalism is true, given the observed fact that the universe is "life-friendly," is also very small. This, however, is an elementary if common blunder in probability theory. One cannot simply exchange the two arguments in a probability like P(F|N) and get a valid result. A simple example will suffice to show this.
Example

    Let A="I am holding a Royal Flush."

    Let B="I will win the poker hand."

    It is evident that P(A|B) is nearly 0. Almost all poker hands are won with hands other than a Royal Flush. On the other hand, it is equally clear that P(B|A) is nearly 1. If you have a Royal Flush, you are virtually certain to win the poker hand.

I'm sure to fellow scientists who are accustomed to speaking in such jargon this makes a big splash. If you and I were debating the existence of God before a audience of average people, and you presented this as an argument most folks wouldn't have a clue as to why this leads them to conclude the fine-tuning argument is invalid (not to mention we'd have to revive them from an induced coma). Moreover, with a simple web search, I could find an equally impressive (if not obscure and incomprehensible) article that refutes this one but few if any in the audience would comprehend why the article I cite refutes it.

Lastly, these are theoretical  arguments from deduction and induction. Its not as if either Ross or Michael Ikeda produced repeatable verifiable experiments that prove their point of view.

Lets discuss the term personal incredulity. At some point like clock work atheists always accuse me of personal incredulity.

in•cre•du•li•ty
[in-kri-doo-li-tee, -dyoo-] Show IPA
noun
the quality or state of being incredulous; inability or unwillingness to believe.

Synonyms
disbelief, skepticism, doubt.

Antonyms
faith.


It's interesting to note that most atheists freely use the words disbelief (or lack of belief) skepticism and doubt to voice their opinion about theism. Apparently its only personal incredulity when a theist questions whether we owe our existence to mindless forces that fortuitously coughed a universe into existence with the characteristics to produce sentient life that could question how its existence came about. Notice the antonym; Faith. What you're saying when you accuse me of personal incredulity is that I lack faith.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 01:02:38 PM
Evidence in a court of law are simply facts that comport with a belief. 

No it isn't.

In a court of law, evidence is fact that ARE THE BASIS FOR A FUCKING BELIEF.

This has already been explained to you and why they are not, NOT the same thing, but you still get it wrong, you stupid fucking cunt.

QuoteIt's interesting to note that most atheists freely use the words disbelief (or lack of belief) skepticism and doubt to voice their opinion about theism. Apparently its only personal incredulity when a theist questions whether we owe our existence to mindless forces that fortuitously coughed a universe into existence with the characteristics to produce sentient life that could question how its existence came about. Notice the antonym; Faith. What you're saying when you accuse me of personal incredulity is that I lack faith.

Part of this is correct in that it is not god we disbelieve. God isn't here to be disbelieved. Only fucktards like you. You say bullshit and we say we don't believe your bullshit. Atheism in a nutshell. Not believing idiots.

Faith, on the other hand, is not the opposite of disbelief. Faith is pride. Faith says "I don't care what the evidence is, I cannot possibly be wrong and will never change." Don't bother displacing this pride by saying you have faith in god. Your god is not here, so who decided that was your god speaking? You did. Your faith is ultimately in yourself and when you refuse correction, that's just your stupidity and pride talking. Not god. Just you and your pride. Faith is pride.

QuoteThis has already been explained to you and why they are not, NOT the same thing, but you still get it wrong, you stupid fucking cunt.

Am I really supposed to take what a guy in a ridiculous looking outfit says seriously? Are you supposed to be some kind of superhero? You look like a buffoon..

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 10:44:01 AM
I am skeptical that in the case of evolution, or star and planet development or any other process that appears to have created greater complexity from something less complex

How do you explain snow flakes and sunflowers?

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 10:44:01 AM
The amount of information and available complexity remain the same.

Define information and complexity and describe how you would measure each to determine if an increase occurred

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 10:44:01 AM
No one would postulate that mindless lifeless forces would create life and mind.

Again, science is literately full of people who do. Claiming no one does doesn't silence them.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 01:02:38 PM

Evidence in a court of law are simply facts that comport with a belief. 

To the exclusion of others. I couldn't say "gravity exists, therefore you clubbed your sister to death". Gravity comports with you clubbing your sister to death (perhaps is even necessary for you clubbing your sister to death)  but is also compatible with you not having done so. You haven't shown why the existence of sentient life supports god over not god. You have merely asserted that it does and stated, wrongly, that no one claims otherwise.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 01:51:49 PM
Am I really supposed to take what a guy in a ridiculous looking outfit says seriously? Are you supposed to be some kind of superhero? You look like a buffoon..

What's the matter, boy? Run out of worthwhile arguments and have to try to pick on my avatar which was obviously chosen because it looks stupid? You're even terrible at insulting people. And I wasn't the only one here who'd pointed out how you don't understand how evidence works, especially in a court of law. So your witty rejoinder has no balls. You fail at life so hard.

It's because of that pride that you fail. It's funny because even your bible says that he who hates correction is stupid. Probably should have said that continuing to make the same mistakes after you'd been corrected is even more stupid. But that's because you are no good at thinking, but you think you are. It's the Dunning-Kruger effect.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XyOHJa5Vj5Y

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 01:51:49 PM
Am I really supposed to take what a guy in a ridiculous looking outfit says seriously? Are you supposed to be some kind of superhero? You look like a buffoon..

I'll take someone who looks like a buffoon over someone who acts like one any day.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 01:51:49 PM
I'm  a idiot theist asshole and I want to troll the site. I don't give a shit about reality and logic. I don't understand  science a bit. I want to convert you to my bullshit fairly tales.
I want to shit your carpet. I'm also a dishonest cunt.                                       

Finally the truth is out ! Thanks drewm! :clap: :clap: :clap: :clap:

*mod hat on*
DrewM, we are sick and tired of your bullshit. Your so-called "evidence" is exactly the same pile of nonsensical mental masturbation we've heard hundred of times from other cretinous theists. Change your tune or I'll ban your sorry ass.

Respected members of the forum, I officially declare chew toy on this one. Have fun!

Quote from: DunkleSeele on June 30, 2014, 03:42:07 PM
Respected members of the forum, I officially declare chew toy on this one. Have fun!

So, now we can be mean to him?

Oh, wait. "Respected members."

You weren't talking to me.

Sorry.

Quote from: the_antithesis on June 30, 2014, 03:53:14 PM
So, now we can be mean to him?

Oh, wait. "Respected members."

You weren't talking to me.

Sorry.

OK, OK, I'll make an exception and include you in the "respected" group. But only this time. :wink2: :flowers: :pai:

Quote from: DunkleSeele on June 30, 2014, 03:42:07 PM
*mod hat on*
DrewM, we are sick and tired of your bullshit. Your so-called "evidence" is exactly the same pile of nonsensical mental masturbation we've heard hundred of times from other cretinous theists. Change your tune or I'll ban your sorry ass.

Respected members of the forum, I officially declare chew toy on this one. Have fun!

Sooooo just to be clear, I no longer have to be nice?

Quote from: Moralnihilist on June 30, 2014, 04:09:47 PM
Sooooo just to be clear, I no longer have to be nice?

Yes, you don't have to hold it back any more ;)

Quote from: Moralnihilist on June 30, 2014, 04:09:47 PM
Sooooo just to be clear, I no longer have to be nice?

Were you being nice? (Backs slowly away from keyboard)

Quote from: DunkleSeele on June 30, 2014, 04:14:47 PM
Yes, you don't have to hold it back any more ;)

Excellent

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pVY1-v97Mic

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 10:44:01 AM
Hakurei Reimu,

If you wish to dispute my case then do your own legwork.

Again, I'm not here to be your fucking classroom. The things I call upon you to learn are prerequisites to entering into the discussion. Your refusal to do so shows just how seriously you want to learn: that is, you don't want to learn. You just want to reherse your tired drivel.

The only thing you're doing now is trying to score philosophical brownie points. Trying to reverse the burden of proof as you have done is a classic creationist and religiotard move. You're the one who wants to prove their god-thing, thus you have the burden of proof. You cannot dismiss your burden of proof by calling upon me to present evidence for disproof.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 10:44:01 AM
If you're arguing evolution, I have already stated I don't have any qualms with it. However, I am skeptical that in the case of evolution, or star and planet development or any other process that appears to have created greater complexity from something less complex. I won't deny its possible...lets just say I lack that belief. I believe its the laws of nature and their complexity and processes borrow from that complexity. The amount of information and available complexity remain the same.

Why should your uneducated skepticism hold any value for us? The notion that things cannot grow more complex by way of natural action is wrong. The creationtards who feed you the canard that complexity cannot arise except by way of the intervetion of an intelligence are wrong, and they have lied to you.

QuoteIrrelevant. Each of those simulated universes is simulated on hardware made in a universe that actually exists. If you're assuming this god thing, then you are assuming that there is a higher order universe that actually exists for god to act in. Once again, you have not solved the puzzle of existence. You have merely pushed it back and complicated it.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 10:44:01 AM
Who said its not complicated?

Past tense of "complicate," idiot. (Notice that I was using it as verb and not an adjective.) Instead of doing anything to solve the issue, you have made the issue worse.

You need to brush up on your 1337 3ng1!$# $K1LLz.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 10:44:01 AM
I'm not assuming a higher order universe I'm hypothesizing a transcendent cause to the universe and our existence.

A trancendent cause requires a higher order universe to create a universe within whether you like it or not.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 10:44:01 AM
Even if the universe came into the existence from a singularity, that itself is transcendent to the universe.

A singularity at the beginning of the universe is not a cause, per se. It is a description of what the universe would be like at its earliest moment. The singularity would be a "cause" to everything that would happen in the universe after, as well as the dynamics of that universe, but the universe already exists at the moment of the singularity.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 10:44:01 AM
No, I merely cited the existence of sentience as a fact that comports with the belief in theism.

This is a lie, as your next sentence reveals.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 10:44:01 AM
No one would postulate that mindless lifeless forces would create life and mind. That's not an expectation of such, its an aberration.

And here's the lie. You have said elsewhere that you think that perhaps evolution was God's tool to create sentience. I replied that evolution happens whether God likes it or not. Here, you say that "no one" would postulate that mindless, lifeless forces would create life and mind â€" even though this is exactly what we've been claiming and science has been showing. This is not just "comporting" with theism, this is saying that Homo sapiens and its sentience could not develop without your God's intervention without outright saying it.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 01:02:38 PM
Ha, if I wanted to be taken seriously, all I'd have to do is agree with atheism. I went to the link you posted. Here is an excerpt.

<snip except>

I'm sure to fellow scientists who are accustomed to speaking in such jargon this makes a big splash. If you and I were debating the existence of God before a audience of average people, and you presented this as an argument most folks wouldn't have a clue as to why this leads them to conclude the fine-tuning argument is invalid (not to mention we'd have to revive them from an induced coma). Moreover, with a simple web search, I could find an equally impressive (if not obscure and incomprehensible) article that refutes this one but few if any in the audience would comprehend why the article I cite refutes it.

And I find it interesting and indicative that, instead of replying with a link to an article that you feel best refutes the Jefferys-Ikeda argument, you instead choose to posture yourself into victory. Do you have argument with any of the equations or assertions presented in the paper I cited, even if you have to be promted by what you read in your refuting paper? If not, why should I or anyone be willing to accept your argument over someone who is willing to put their neck out and show how the fine-tuning argument is wrong?

Your argument is a fine tuning argument, and all fine tuning arguments are wrong. Deal with it.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 01:02:38 PM
Lastly, these are theoretical  arguments from deduction and induction. Its not as if either Ross or Michael Ikeda produced repeatable verifiable experiments that prove their point of view.

Like we are in a position of creating universes and seeing if sentience develops. The arguments presented are based upon readily observable evidence. They have weight, regardless of your empty posturing otherwise.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 01:02:38 PM
Lets discuss the term personal incredulity. At some point like clock work atheists always accuse me of personal incredulity.

in•cre•du•li•ty
[in-kri-doo-li-tee, -dyoo-] Show IPA
noun
the quality or state of being incredulous; inability or unwillingness to believe.

Synonyms
disbelief, skepticism, doubt.

Antonyms
faith.


It's interesting to note that most atheists freely use the words disbelief (or lack of belief) skepticism and doubt to voice their opinion about theism. Apparently its only personal incredulity when a theist questions whether we owe our existence to mindless forces that fortuitously coughed a universe into existence with the characteristics to produce sentient life that could question how its existence came about. Notice the antonym; Faith. What you're saying when you accuse me of personal incredulity is that I lack faith.

You are not just expressing disbelief, you blithering moron; you are making an argument from that disbelief. This is the argument from incredulity, (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity) and it is a fallacy â€" an example of improper reasoning. It goes like this: you can't imagine how it could be the case otherwise, therefore it must be because there is some truth to it instead of simply being your own lack of imagination.

You can't imagine how the universe could be created without a guiding intelligence or trancendental mind or whatever, therefore Goddidit. You can't imagine how life or sentience could be created without a guiding intelligence or trancendental mind or whatever, therefore Goddidit. It's the same fallacy no matter how you cut it. The reasoning is wrong, period. The fact that you cannot imagine these cases indicates ONLY that you cannot imagine these cases, nothing more. But instead of being humble and simply acknowledging your lack of imagination, you are arrogant and figure you can fight toe to toe with people who can imagine these things thanks to their broader exposure to facts and scientific thinking.

So, yeah. Another theist tries to accuse athiests of faith and fails. Go home.

Quote from: DunkleSeele on June 30, 2014, 04:14:47 PM
Yes, you don't have to hold it back any more ;)

So we can let it go (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=moSFlvxnbgk)?

Glad you are willing to admit you could be wrong. But watch, I can make a very short argument against any type of god without a giant wall of text.

Ocham's razor is part of the cornerstone of scientific method. It stipulates that out of many postulated guesses that might fill in a gap of knowledge, the one with the least baggage is going to be your most likely answer.

So which makes more sense to you? A god actually exists? Or humans make up gods?

"god/s" as a concept have too much baggage because they very from believer to believer on top of causing "infinite regress". Meaning, if that god had a creator then what created that god, and if that god was created then it would have to be even more complicated than the one it created, and so on and so on and so on.

Whereas where you accept some god claims as being false, say Thor or Apollo, atheists reject all past and present god claims because it makes more sense that humans make them up as a mental placebo.

Not to mention we see no scientific evidence of a thinking cognition outside biological evolution.

Short and simple and can apply to any and all god claims.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 10:44:01 AM
If you wish to dispute my case then do your own legwork.

It is not the responsibility of anyone here to provide you with the education you should have had the common sense to provide for yourself before you decided where you stand on the god/no god issue. Educate yourself or go fuck yourself.

QuoteI'll offer you another reason why it's very plausible this universe was caused and designed by a personal agent commonly referred to as God. Because we (humans) as personal intelligent agents do the same thing (on a much smaller scale) that I allege God did. Have you ever played in any of the popular virtual world simulation games like World of Warcraft, Second life or Everquest? Granted those 'universes' are simulated but nevertheless humans are the transcendent gods who caused those universes to exist. We simulate playing God all the time.

You have just provided a very good argument for the theory that people created god, not the other way around. Nicely done.

Algae,

QuoteTo the exclusion of others. I couldn't say "gravity exists, therefore you clubbed your sister to death". Gravity comports with you clubbing your sister to death (perhaps is even necessary for you clubbing your sister to death)  but is also compatible with you not having done so. You haven't shown why the existence of sentient life supports god over not god. You have merely asserted that it does and stated, wrongly, that no one claims otherwise.

I've already covered this (in anticipation) in the original post.

From free dictionary.com

One important benchmark of admissibility is relevance. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states, in part, "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided." The goal of this rule is to allow parties to present all of the evidence that bears on the issue to be decided, and to keep out all evidence that is immaterial or that lacks Probative value. Evidence that is offered to help prove something that is not at issue is immaterial. For example, the fact that a defendant attends church every week is immaterial, and thus irrelevant, to a charge of running a red light. Probative value is a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. For instance, evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder would normally be irrelevant because people who eat spaghetti are not more or less likely to commit murder, as compared with other people. However, if spaghetti sauce were found at the murder scene, the fact that the defendant ate spaghetti that day would have probative value and thus would be relevant evidence.

Whether or not the three lines of evidence I presented are of probative value is in the eyes of the triers of fact that would be impartial folks, not the people arguing a case. To think a judge wouldn't allow me to cite the existence of the universe when I am alleging the universe was caused to exist by God would be the same as suggesting a dead body isn't evidence in a murder case.

I know you and others will always maintain there is no evidence but you're just talking to yourself.

QuoteAgain, I'm not here to be your fucking classroom.

Good.

QuoteThe only thing you're doing now is trying to score philosophical brownie points. Trying to reverse the burden of proof as you have done is a classic creationist and religiotard move. You're the one who wants to prove their god-thing, thus you have the burden of proof. You cannot dismiss your burden of proof by calling upon me to present evidence for disproof.

I never asked you to do anything.

QuoteA trancendent cause requires a higher order universe to create a universe within whether you like it or not.

Hmmm just moments ago you argued more complex things can arise from less complex things. Did you change your mind?

QuoteA singularity at the beginning of the universe is not a cause, per se. It is a description of what the universe would be like at its earliest moment. The singularity would be a "cause" to everything that would happen in the universe after, as well as the dynamics of that universe, but the universe already exists at the moment of the singularity.

Possibly...in either event the laws of nature we are familiar with wouldn't apply.

QuoteAnd here's the lie. You have said elsewhere that you think that perhaps evolution was God's tool to create sentience. I replied that evolution happens whether God likes it or not. Here, you say that "no one" would postulate that mindless, lifeless forces would create life and mind â€" even though this is exactly what we've been claiming and science has been showing. This is not just "comporting" with theism, this is saying that Homo sapiens and its sentience could not develop without your God's intervention without outright saying it.

First off, if you want to accuse me of lying...you need to get in back of a long line and wait your turn.

What I am referring to is if only mindless lifeless forces existed...not a universe, no stars, no planets no one would predict that from such forces a universe would come into existence with laws of nature that would subsequently cause stars, solar systems and planets, then life then sentient life.

QuoteAnd I find it interesting and indicative that, instead of replying with a link to an article that you feel best refutes the Jefferys-Ikeda argument, you instead choose to posture yourself into victory

I find it interesting that rather than explaining in your own words why the argument in the paper invalidates the fine tuning argument you just post the link. If you firmly understand the paper you cited, you should be able to put it into lay terms so anyone on this board can understand it and agree or disagree with it.

QuoteYou are not just expressing disbelief, you blithering moron; you are making an argument from that disbelief. This is the argument from incredulity, and it is a fallacy â€" an example of improper reasoning. It goes like this: you can't imagine how it could be the case otherwise, therefore it must be because there is some truth to it instead of simply being your own lack of imagination.

More accurately it goes like this. I can't imagine how a transcendent Creator could cause a universe to come into existence therefore I'll accept some other cause.

QuoteYou can't imagine how the universe could be created without a guiding intelligence or trancendental mind or whatever, therefore Goddidit. You can't imagine how life or sentience could be created without a guiding intelligence or trancendental mind or whatever, therefore Goddidit.

You can't imagine how a universe could be designed and engineered to exist by a transcendent agent of enormous power there for naturedidit. You can't imagine how a transcendent agent of enormous power could design the universe to cause galaxies, stars, planets, life and sentient life to exist...therefore mindless lifeless forces without plan or intent caused it to happen by a stroke of incredible luck. But only because you can't imagine it was planned and designed to happen.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 08:01:18 PMYou can't imagine how a universe could be designed and engineered to exist by a transcendent agent of enormous power there for naturedidit. You can't imagine how a transcendent agent of enormous power could design the universe to cause galaxies, stars, planets, life and sentient life to exist...therefore mindless lifeless forces without plan or intent caused it to happen by a stroke of incredible luck. But only because you can't imagine it was planned and designed to happen.

Oh I can imagine it, don't get me wrong. I can imagine vampires as well. I've never seen any evidence suggesting they exist, though.

What the fuck does transcendent mean?

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 08:01:18 PM
Algae,

I've already admitted to repeat sexual encounters with my chihuahua, its a mini but fortunately I have a minuscule penis and I didn't harm little Boyd. Yes my chihuahua is a male but again due to the minuscule size of my penis he didn't feel a thing.

I thought you guys would be impressed by my abilities to count to potato. I thunk to myself surely these guys can't argue with thinkin like that. I mean I counted to potato. Surely that has to be proof that my skydaddy exists. Come on guys potato is a hard number to count to.

Also if you could Algae, the next time you are banging my mom could you keep the pillow over her face. Her screams about how big you are and that she loves it when you throw her an atomic donkey punch are scaring me. Also if you could could you no longer leave broken beer bottles in front of my bedroom door. I know it must take a lot of beer for a stud like you to want to bang an old used up crack whore like my mom, by the way my father said that he would leave the money in the usual place. Oddly enough my mother said the same thing....


Surely the size of your third leg(and guys I looked that guy is HUGE) has to be a reason for you to believe in my skydaddy. I mean its literally a third leg. I mean I could fuck a cheerio and not touch the sides. Where as you couldn't fit in a truck tire. How my mom fits it in her ass I will never know. And PLEASE don't tell me, I saw it once. I literally thought she was going to split in half.

Where was I...

Oh yea my skydaddy...


Ummmmmm

Stuff exists so he must.

They said that I didn't have to be nice...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSGkBWYDmrM

Moralnihilist,

You think this post makes you look intelligent? It makes you look psychotic. Its not me who should be embarrassed for you, its your fellow atheists who should be embarrassed. You are the poster child for the kind of atheist that sets atheism back 3 steps. I can honestly say I'm happy you're on the atheist side of this debate.

Just curious what would happen if I quoted an atheist on the board with some made up dialog?

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 09:20:26 PM
You think this post makes you look intelligent?

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 09:20:26 PM
Moralnihilist,

You think this post makes you look intelligent? It makes you look psychotic. Its not me who should be embarrassed for you, its your fellow atheists who should be embarrassed. You are the poster child for the kind of atheist that sets atheism back 3 steps. I can honestly say I'm happy you're on the atheist side of this debate.

Just curious what would happen if I quoted an atheist on the board with some made up dialog?

Actually dick for brains. It makes me look exactly like what I have always claimed to be, an asshole. You see needle dick, frankly I am a nasty individual with a complete lack of fucks given for what people think of me.

Also I am entirely too educated and intelligent of an individual to do anything but mock your retarded ass since you have seen fit to bring this "argument" here. You do realize that this is OUR little home right? Not some theotard safe haven. You present bullshit you get called on said bullshit and continue to spout off said bullshit you get mocked. And if said mocking is done by me, it tends to be rather personal and vile.

In regards to intelligence lets do a poll, do you have a PhD?
Guess what I(and several others here) do.

The only person who should be embarrassed here is your retarded ass. You bring bullshit arguments to a place where people capable of coherent thought congregate. Then when called out for it you then proceed to attempt to tell those same people what constitutes evidence, you then make bullshit claim after bullshit claim and expect us to sit by and allow this to occur in OUR FUCKING HOUSE without reprisal or rebuttal.

As to what would happen if you posted the same level of vitriol directed at one of us, if your argument had one ounce of evidence to back it and somebody refused to acknowledge said valid argument you might have a leg to stand on and could get away with it. We quite often bash each other for dumb shit all the time. But as all you have posted is bullshit, baseless, evidence lacking claims, well your mocking would be handled by that person however they feel like.

SO why don't you grab one of these:


And insert it into your:


Then make it look like this:


Fucktard

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 08:01:18 PM
I know you and others will always maintain there is no evidence but you're just talking to yourself.

Courtroom evidence ≠ scientific evidence.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 08:01:18 PM
I never asked you to do anything.

While this is strictly speaking correct, you are fishing for me to provide you "evidence." You don't need evidence. You need an education. Education is a full-time job and I'm not going to get paid one dime for educating you, so forget it. Get educated, then come back and we can have a productive discussion, because then you'll have sufficient background such that you won't be talking out of your ass.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 08:01:18 PM
Hmmm just moments ago you argued more complex things can arise from less complex things. Did you change your mind?

No, you're just uneducated. "Higher order" in this context does not mean "more complex."

Now stop being a smarmy asshole.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 08:01:18 PM
Possibly...in either event the laws of nature we are familiar with wouldn't apply.

If you want there to be a cause that changes a condition of no universe to a condition with a universe, there'd better at least be cause and effect.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 08:01:18 PM
First off, if you want to accuse me of lying...you need to get in back of a long line and wait your turn.

What I am referring to is if only mindless lifeless forces existed...not a universe, no stars, no planets no one would predict that from such forces a universe would come into existence with laws of nature that would subsequently cause stars, solar systems and planets, then life then sentient life.

There are plenty of things we would not predict form the forces of nature, but happen anyway. Like I said before, you're being unable to imagine a scenario happening in a certain way only indicates that you lack the imagination able to grasp it, not that you have any insight on the truth of the matter. I'm waiting for a specific line of reasoning why "mindless, lifeless forces" could not create life and mind.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 08:01:18 PM
I find it interesting that rather than explaining in your own words why the argument in the paper invalidates the fine tuning argument you just post the link. If you firmly understand the paper you cited, you should be able to put it into lay terms so anyone on this board can understand it and agree or disagree with it.

Lay terms? Okay, here it is: a God can create a universe where no life can naturally exist, yet exists anyway. Such a universe would be a dead giveaway supernatural-governed universe. Observing that life exists and the universe is governed by laws that do not allow its existence is a huge support to supernaturalism, and as such observing the contrary data â€"that life exists in the universe and that universe allows for its existenceâ€" cannot support supernaturalism in any form and may serve to undermine it.

Creationists want observing that the universe is fine-tuned to support life to support supernaturalism. They also want observing that the universe is not fine-tuned to support life to support supernaturalism. Ie, they want ANY observation to support supernaturalism, but the rules of evaluating evidence don't work that way. They can have one prong of their argument, but not both.

Now stop being a smarmy asshole.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 08:01:18 PM
More accurately it goes like this. I can't imagine how a transcendent Creator could cause a universe to come into existence therefore I'll accept some other cause.

Is this a personal statement, or just you using "I" as a dummy variable?

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 08:01:18 PM
You can't imagine how a universe could be designed and engineered to exist by a transcendent agent of enormous power there for naturedidit.

Nonsense. I can imagine it just fine. Just no fucking evidence for it.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 08:01:18 PM
You can't imagine how a transcendent agent of enormous power could design the universe to cause galaxies, stars, planets, life and sentient life to exist...therefore mindless lifeless forces without plan or intent caused it to happen by a stroke of incredible luck.

Again, nonsense. I can imagine it just fine. Just no fucking evidence for it.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 08:01:18 PM
But only because you can't imagine it was planned and designed to happen.

Again, imagination is not the problem. It's the evidence that's the problem.

Moralnihilist

QuoteActually dick for brains. It makes me look exactly like what I have always claimed to be, an asshole. You see needle dick, frankly I am a nasty individual with a complete lack of fucks given for what people think of me.

Can't argue with you there. If I were an atheist I'd distance myself from you.

QuoteThe only person who should be embarrassed here is your retarded ass. You bring bullshit arguments to a place where people capable of coherent thought congregate. Then when called out for it you then proceed to attempt to tell those same people what constitutes evidence, you then make bullshit claim after bullshit claim and expect us to sit by and allow this to occur in OUR FUCKING HOUSE without reprisal or rebuttal.

Considering you have a PHD you should be able to send my ass packing down the road with evidence and reasoned argumentation and even a sense of humor. It can only make one wonder why you need to resort to such tactics if your so much more intelligent. I suppose that leads us back to your first argument.

QuoteThen when called out for it you then proceed to attempt to tell those same people what constitutes evidence, you then make bullshit claim after bullshit claim and expect us to sit by and allow this to occur in OUR FUCKING HOUSE without reprisal or rebuttal.

I started this post laying down a foundation for what qualifies for evidence knowing full well that atheists will claim with their dying breath...there's no evidence in favor of theism. Its a mantra, its a doctrine its core dogma, inviolable world without end...amen. It doesn't change the fact that what qualifies for evidence is a fact that comports with the hypothesis in question. 

If you want to soil yourself by making crude comments knock yourself out, Ive been insulted by better than you. I still think even for a lowlife like yourself, its over the line to falsely quote someone. 

The only reason your ass ain't packing is because you are so fucking dense you don't understand that your argument is not only not valid but fails at every point.

You are a fool making a bigger fool of himself. Go home. Go tell your mommy the bad men were mean and suckle some nipple, or maybe let mommy give you a candy bar. You are in so over your head they could dock a fleet of ships above you. You are nothing but a waste of space here.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 10:19:33 PM
Moralnihilist

Can't argue with you there. If I were an atheist I'd distance myself from you.

Considering you have a PHD you should be able to send my ass packing down the road with evidence and reasoned argumentation and even a sense of humor. It can only make one wonder why you need to resort to such tactics if your so much more intelligent. I suppose that leads us back to your first argument.

I started this post laying down a foundation for what qualifies for evidence knowing full well that atheists will claim with their dying breath...there's no evidence in favor of theism. Its a mantra, its a doctrine its core dogma, inviolable world without end...amen. It doesn't change the fact that what qualifies for evidence is a fact that comports with the hypothesis in question. 

If you want to soil yourself by making crude comments knock yourself out, Ive been insulted by better than you. I still think even for a lowlife like yourself, its over the line to falsely quote someone. 

Well shit for brains Im not going anywhere, so why don't you take your needle dick and get your retarded ass down the road.

And as I have said before, and I shall repeat yet again. When you come to an atheist forum intent to convince atheists that your imaginary friend is real YOU don't set the standard of what is or is not evidence. The standard of evidence HERE is scientifically valid evidence. You making a claim and proclaiming it as evidence don't worker here cocksucker.

As to me being a "lowlife", yea about that. Wasn't too much of a lowlife when I was balls deep in your mother.

Whats the matter bitch? Don't like it when people say that they fucked your ugly crackhead of a mother? Then I tell you what, why don't you just fuck off and go play in traffic. As I stated before I am an asshole. But your mother... That bitch likes it in hers.

I know I am very late to the party and unfortunately haven't had time other than the first 3 and last 2 pages, but I have a very simple question for you DrewM. If you have strong evidence for theism, where's your Nobel and why are you here?
And I'll add further.

You said:
"To think a judge wouldn't allow me to cite the existence of the universe when I am alleging the universe was caused to exist by God would be the same as suggesting a dead body isn't evidence in a murder case."

The problem is you are, in your own words, ALLEGING. And you are doing so without good reasons that someone or something you haven't properly framed, explained, defined but gave it a label (God), that is responsible possibly, maybe, perhaps, plausible, creator for unknown reasons of the reality we exist in. Your proposition has absolutely no explanatory power and you are putting forth an incomprehensible argument.
So yours is not an apt analogy at all.

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 09:20:26 PM
Moralnihilist,

You think this post makes you look intelligent? It makes you look psychotic. Its not me who should be embarrassed for you, its your fellow atheists who should be embarrassed. You are the poster child for the kind of atheist that sets atheism back 3 steps. I can honestly say I'm happy you're on the atheist side of this debate.

Just curious what would happen if I quoted an atheist on the board with some made up dialog?

You're quoting made up dialogue from your stupid fucking bible and other stupid fucking theists you dipshit, stop being a hypocritical asshole!

Quote from: DrewM on June 30, 2014, 10:19:33 PM
I started this post laying down a foundation for what qualifies for evidence knowing full well that atheists will claim with their dying breath...there's no evidence in favor of theism.

That's your problem. See, a logical person (atheist or theist or anyone else) would conclude that evidence is defined as:

the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

A fact is defined as:

A thing that is indisputably the case.

Indisputably is defined as:

Incontestable: not open to question; obviously true.

Are you honestly saying you have provided such evidence? Or, are you providing evidence solely based upon what you believe is true which is based on a book or ideas most of which is unverifiable?

I think the latter, definitely not the former.

(def. by google)

-Nam

well this guy is saying that he is not here to prove that god exist. He is here to tell us his opinion which is he believes in God. He proceed further to introduce three facts, then he says that is why god exist.
First of all, you mentioned that you are an ex-athiest...I wonder if you were a theist that turned to an atheist and then again to a theist! if that is the case, you seem to be fluctuating in that area. I wonder why? the fact that you are here making a tremendous effort to defend your opinion is a cry for attention, I believe.
let us get to your points, you don't seem to be following a particular religion. It will be great if you tell us what religion you follow if any. It will be way easier to rip you a part that way.
debating fundamental facts such as universe and life is like the debate between republican and democrat you can choose any side,facts are obscure.

Good for you if you believe in a creator that you don't know anything about because you don't have any means to examine. good for you and your fellow thiests on your amazing blind faith, keep god in your heart. He/she/it will save you.
Don't fuckin dare to put your filthy shit in evolution and claim it to your god. the only reason you believe in evolution is because it is a fact. guess what, it wasn't always a fact it was a theory and human proved it. and then you came along to say that god is supervising it or whatever.
You should be proud of yourself to be able to solve the mystery of the universe, at least in your opinion, who nobody in this place gives a shit about.

I don't want to believe in god because of my brain. The only reason we created gods, in the first place, was because of our revolutionary intelligence. It is the price we pay for being this damn clever.

I never believe a Christian who says, "I used to be an atheist." In my opinion, 99% of Christians who say that are just attempting to actually say, "You can change like I did." But if they were an atheist like us then you'd think they'd know the game beforehand. None of them ever seem to.

-Nam

Welcome, DrewM. The case you've made thus far rests on affirming the consequent.

If God, then the universe.
The universe, therefore God.

This syllogism suffers from the same flaw as this one:

If I am Bill Gates, I am rich.
I am rich, therefore I am Bill Gates.

Quote from: the_antithesis on June 30, 2014, 08:46:25 PM
What the fuck does transcendent mean?

Something incomprehensible, but very important.  If you question a transcendent principle, you lose the argument, for lack of spiritualness.

Hakurei Reimu

I know you and others will always maintain there is no evidence but you're just talking to yourself.

QuoteCourtroom evidence ≠ scientific evidence.

No it doesn't. I stated in the original post in no uncertain terms the type of evidence I'm presenting qualifies as evidence under the legal system. Did you read the OP?

QuoteWhile this is strictly speaking correct, you are fishing for me to provide you "evidence." You don't need evidence. You need an education. Education is a full-time job and I'm not going to get paid one dime for educating you, so forget it. Get educated, then come back and we can have a productive discussion, because then you'll have sufficient background such that you won't be talking out of your ass.

It's completely up to you whether you wish to respond, how you're suggesting I lured you into it is beyond me. Can I lure you into sending me some money?

QuoteA trancendent cause requires a higher order universe to create a universe within whether you like it or not....because then you'll have sufficient background such that you won't be talking out of your ass.

I think you're talking out your ass. How would you know (or anyone know) that a higher order universe is required to create a universe? Secondly is a alleged higher order universe anything more than a theoretical concept?

QuoteIf you want there to be a cause that changes a condition of no universe to a condition with a universe, there'd better at least be cause and effect.

I would think so but there are still a few atheists who opt for the uncaused out of nothing universe.

QuoteThere are plenty of things we would not predict form the forces of nature, but happen anyway. Like I said before, you're being unable to imagine a scenario happening in a certain way only indicates that you lack the imagination able to grasp it, not that you have any insight on the truth of the matter. I'm waiting for a specific line of reasoning why "mindless, lifeless forces" could not create life and mind.

I do find it difficult to believe (or for that matter to imagine) mindless lifeless forces congealing into a universe chock full of evidently inviolable laws of physics that minus plan, intent design or desire wind up producing something utterly unlike itself, life and sentience. Let's put it another way, as difficult as it might be to imagine a personal agent having the power and intelligence to create what we observe how much more difficult is it to imagine mindless forces did so without plan or intent? Which on the face of it is more miraculous?

This is the point I was making earlier. No information content has been added to the universe. Whatever subsequently happened in the universe was because the laws of physics allowed it to occur. Helium turned into the more complex forms of matter because of the laws of physics compelled (or allowed it) to occur. The complexity to do so was written in the laws of physics.

The second barrier isn't lack of imagination. Its our hands on daily experience with how things interact without a plan or design behind them.

QuoteThere are plenty of things we would not predict form the forces of nature, but happen anyway. Like I said before, you're being unable to imagine a scenario happening in a certain way only indicates that you lack the imagination able to grasp it, not that you have any insight on the truth of the matter. I'm waiting for a specific line of reasoning why "mindless, lifeless forces" could not create life and mind.

Think about it for a moment, is your belief that the universe and our existence was unintentionally caused by mindless forces due to your ability to imagine that's how it happened? Isn't it supposed to be predicated on available facts and data? I grant you a great deal of unexpected things happen from the forces of nature like galaxies, stars, planets and ultimately life and sentience but only because the laws of physics we observe cause such things to happen. It begs the question why are the laws of physics that couldn't care less about our existence, or whether galaxies, stars and planets formed nevertheless wound up in what appears to be a very exacting configuration to not only allow our existence but to cause our existence as well.

I find it interesting that rather than explaining in your own words why the argument in the paper invalidates the fine tuning argument you just post the link. If you firmly understand the paper you cited, you should be able to put it into lay terms so anyone on this board can understand it and agree or disagree with it.

QuoteLay terms? Okay, here it is: a God can create a universe where no life can naturally exist, yet exists anyway. Such a universe would be a dead giveaway supernatural-governed universe. Observing that life exists and the universe is governed by laws that do not allow its existence is a huge support to supernaturalism, and as such observing the contrary data â€"that life exists in the universe and that universe allows for its existenceâ€" cannot support supernaturalism in any form and may serve to undermine it.

I appreciate your effort and this is something I asked you to do. Let me think about it and I will respond in another post.

You can't imagine how a universe could be designed and engineered to exist by a transcendent agent of enormous power there for naturedidit.

Quote
Nonsense. I can imagine it just fine. Just no fucking evidence for it.

The reason you can imagine it just fine is because intelligent designing and engineering is a known observed repeatable process for complex mechanisms to occur. As thinking sentient human beings we are able to create things of phenomenal complexity. We don't have to leave it to our imagination we observe it all the time. As I pointed out before, as thinking sentient beings we can also produce 'virtual' universes where we can write the laws of physics and observe what happens (or doesn't happen) under such conditions.

Been away for the last three days. Didn't think this thread would go so far.  What's wrong with you guys? Why is this chew toy still around? Oh well...

Quote from: DrewM on June 28, 2014, 04:11:06 PM
Hello josephpalazzo

The proposed singularity in which the universe is alleged to have spawned from isn't subject to any laws of nature we are familiar with...is it supernatural then?

A singularity at Planck scale means that our present theory is not valid in that regime. It certainly doesn't mean that the supernatural exists. There are dozens of cosmological models that deal with pre-Bang activities. It remains for new observations to come by and filtered which  model will prevail. This is another difference between atheists and theists - atheists are not afraid to say that they don't know, instead of fabricating like theists wild speculations to prop up their beliefs.

QuoteMoreover quantum mechanics appear to defy our notions of cause and effect also. Prior to the discovery of quantum mechanics such would have been described as supernatural. But since such phenomena has been observed to occur its considered natural (even if inexplicable).

Unless you are a physicist, I would strongly suggest to not use the word "quantum" as you are totally clueless of what that theory means. And those observations made in the years of the early 20th century are NOT inexplicable, they have been explained very successfully. Moreover those explanations have absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural.

QuoteBeen away for the last three days. Didn't think this thread would go so far.  What's wrong with you guys? Why is this chew toy still around? Oh well...

I'm having a fairly reasonable debate with a few of the members on this board which claims to be 'a community website for freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and believers.  If all you wish to do is silence dissenting opinion I'll be happy to leave you to yourselves...

QuoteA singularity at Planck scale means that our present theory is not valid in that regime. It certainly doesn't mean that the supernatural exists. There are dozens of cosmological models that deal with pre-Bang activities. It remains for new observations to come by and filtered which  model will prevail. This is another difference between atheists and theists - atheists are not afraid to say that they don't know, instead of fabricating like theists wild speculations to prop up their beliefs.

My point was about a demarcation between what is labeled natural and what is labeled supernatural and what criteria establishes either. If phenomena exists that doesn't fall under the category of the laws of physics or time as we know them are classified as natural, then what can be classified as supernatural? The answer is nothing, the goal posts continue to move. The working definition of supernatural should be the supernatural is something that can't happen unless it turns out it can happen in which case its 'natural' whatever that means. 

QuoteUnless you are a physicist, I would strongly suggest to not use the word "quantum" as you are totally clueless of what that theory means. And those observations made in the years of the early 20th century are NOT inexplicable, they have been explained very successfully. Moreover those explanations have absolutely nothing to do with the supernatural.

There are some aspects of quantum mechanics that are understood to some degree. There are some aspects such as spooky interference which barring some breakthrough I hadn't heard of is still a mystery. The point is, 100 years ago such things might have fallen into the 'supernatural' category but now since they are known to happen they fall in the natural category because the goal posts demarcating what is natural vs supernatural were moved.

I do notice that Theists seem to use the 'goal post' factor quite a bit these days. Like they think it's some type of grave smackdown to Atheists and Skeptics everywhere.

However, this was not a comment against you, DrewM, as it seems you used it in a more appropriate manner. Carry on.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 03:55:54 PM
I'm having a fairly reasonable debate with a few of the members on this board which claims to be 'a community website for freethinkers, atheists, agnostics and believers.  If all you wish to do is silence dissenting opinion I'll be happy to leave you to yourselves...

It's not a question of silencing the dissenters but sliencing those who come here with the same dated arguments that we have debated and debunked literally a thousand times.

QuoteMy point was about a demarcation between what is labeled natural and what is labeled supernatural and what criteria establishes either. If phenomena exists that doesn't fall under the category of the laws of physics or time as we know them are classified as natural, then what can be classified as supernatural?

For instance pulling a real rabbit out of thin air, or moving mount Everest to Washington DC, IOW, phenomena that no known laws of physics could ever, ever, ever explain!

QuoteThe answer is nothing, the goal posts continue to move. The working definition of supernatural should be the supernatural is something that can't happen unless it turns out it can happen in which case its 'natural' whatever that means. 

Show me one instance when the goal post was moved.

QuoteThere are some aspects of quantum mechanics that are understood to some degree. There are some aspects such as spooky interference which barring some breakthrough I hadn't heard of is still a mystery. The point is, 100 years ago such things might have fallen into the 'supernatural' category but now since they are known to happen they fall in the natural category because the goal posts demarcating what is natural vs supernatural were moved.

You keep repeating the same thing over and over like a broken record. There is nothing that led to QM that could even barely qualified as "supernatural". The two-slit experiment? No way, QM has the equation to describe it adequately. So what it is you have in mind that you think could ever qualify as "supernatural"? So far, a lot of postering on your part but little in detail.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
Hakurei Reimu

I know you and others will always maintain there is no evidence but you're just talking to yourself.

No it doesn't. I stated in the original post in no uncertain terms the type of evidence I'm presenting qualifies as evidence under the legal system. Did you read the OP?

Yes, but I don't want legal evidence. I want scientific evidence, because what you want to settle is a scientific issue, not a legal one. I don't care if your evidence would meet a courtroom standard; I want it to meet a scientific standard.

Scientific evidence or GTFO.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
It's completely up to you whether you wish to respond, how you're suggesting I lured you into it is beyond me.

Check the title of this thread that you created. You are presenting a case for theism, only we deny you based on the lack of evidence for your case for your positive claim. Instead of providing additional evidence that meets our standards (or even an attempt to do so), you instead insist that your evidence is sufficient and challenge us to disprove your positive claim.

Don't think your tactics are in any way strange to us.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
I think you're talking out your ass. How would you know (or anyone know) that a higher order universe is required to create a universe?

Because you can tell the condition without a universe of our order from a condition with a universe of our order. You have a space empty of our universe, then you have a space filled with our universe â€" otherwise there's nothing to change. The change itself requires time, again because the space is empty of our universe, then it has our universe within it. This is a basic universe in and of itself. Perhaps not one as complicated as our own, but that's irrelevant.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
Secondly is a alleged higher order universe anything more than a theoretical concept?

It isn't. However, you don't seem to realize that a higher-order universe is what YOUR hypothesis requires. You don't need such a thing unless you are supposing that the universe is created. I don't suppose that the universe is created; you do. Ergo, I'm not the one who needs a higher-order universe; you do.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
I would think so but there are still a few atheists who opt for the uncaused out of nothing universe.

Perhaps there are, but I don't pretend that they know what their talking about.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
I do find it difficult to believe (or for that matter to imagine) mindless lifeless forces congealing into a universe chock full of evidently inviolable laws of physics that minus plan, intent design or desire wind up producing something utterly unlike itself, life and sentience.

Let me put this in simple terms.

You claim that everything else in the universe is "utterly unlike" life and sentience.

I do not believe you.

Explain why.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
Let's put it another way, as difficult as it might be to imagine a personal agent having the power and intelligence to create what we observe how much more difficult is it to imagine mindless forces did so without plan or intent? Which on the face of it is more miraculous?

Life has no plan or intent. It has a propensity for change and the process of evolution favors life able to reproduce itself. There was no plan for life to develop on this world; it simply a quirk of chemistry that there exists a spectrum of chemicals and mixtures of chemicals that are able to self-catalyze copies of themselves from raw materials. Over time, the first such process was refined and gained sophistication through the tinkering of evolution, until it seemed like there was this unbridgable divide between life and non-life. This gap is mere illusion.

Similarly with intelligence. Intelligence and sentience runs the gammut of things with barely plans or intent at all, like the parimecium and the wasp, up to us humans. We surround ourself with the trappings of civilization and think that there is this unbridgable gap between the animal world and us, but again it is an illusion of our circumstances. Strip us of our civilization, and we are nothing but sophisticated apes, and we behave accordingly.

On the face of it, our natural black-white thinking leads us to the illusion of a plan and intent for us to exist. Dig deeper, and the plan and intent disappear as the illusion it is, leaving no role for a personal agent to create us.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
This is the point I was making earlier. No information content has been added to the universe. Whatever subsequently happened in the universe was because the laws of physics allowed it to occur. Helium turned into the more complex forms of matter because of the laws of physics compelled (or allowed it) to occur. The complexity to do so was written in the laws of physics.

But not explicitly written into the laws of physics. If you have nuclear forces that allow nucleons to bind together into nuclei, you're going to get nuclei of varying species. That we have the periodic table is a consequence of nuclear physics, but that's a long way from saying that some agent explicitly laid it out.

If you have laws such that you have an atom like carbon that has a very rich chemistry, you're likely to end up with something that self-catalyzes copies of itself somewhere down the line. That we have life is a consequence of organic chemistry, but that's a long way from saying that some agent explicitly laid out organic chemistry for that purpose.

If you have laws such that it is possible for life forms that evolve to respond to their environment (and you can't really have life with staying power without that), you're going to end up with life that will respond to its changing environment (due to the fact that this is a very useful adaptation), perhaps with a sophistication that gives operational sentience.

After that, you just need to roll the dice a bunch of times, and the evolution of some kind of intelligence is nearly certain somewhere in the universe.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
The second barrier isn't lack of imagination. Its our hands on daily experience with how things interact without a plan or design behind them.

Most of the things that happen to you happens without a plan or design behind it. It's called, "Shit happens." The world is a noisy place, full of randomness and chance happenings beyond our designs or ken. Our civilization tries to get a handle on that, and to a certain extent does a pretty good job of managing our affairs. But outside civilization, and even sometimes within it, it's a jungle out there. Furthermore, we find that the people who are best able to make their way in this world are not the ones with meticulous plans, but the ones able to think on their feet and capitalize on opportunities.

To my eyes, the world has a derth of plan and intent.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
Think about it for a moment, is your belief that the universe and our existence was unintentionally caused by mindless forces due to your ability to imagine that's how it happened? Isn't it supposed to be predicated on available facts and data?

It's a product of both, although I can only imagine in broad strokes. I don't pretend to be an expert in cosmology, astrophysics, chemistry, biology, and cognative neuroscience, but thanks to my strong scientific background I am able to appreciate the conclusions of those fields, and in them we find no room for your God to act.

We can see the spectrum of sentience from amoeba to humans, so it is easy to imagine a complete spectrum dispite the gaps. We can see the spectrum of life-like behaviors in simple physical and chemical systems to modern life and imagine the complete spectrum dispite the gaps. And finally, the question of ultimate orgins are in many cases improperly asked from the get-go and are thus meaningless. No one has been able to demonstrate how there can be a time before the universe's earliest moments, a very necessary prerequisite for any sort of creation. Those few who may be able to demonstrate such are doing so in a way that, again, leaves no room for your God.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
It begs the question why are the laws of physics that couldn't care less about our existence, or whether galaxies, stars and planets formed nevertheless wound up in what appears to be a very exacting configuration to not only allow our existence but to cause our existence as well.

Regardless of how the laws of physics appears to be "a very exacting configuration to not only allow our existence," they do in fact very much allow our existence, albeit in very restricted pockets. There is no process in life or intelligence that is disallowed by the laws of physics to any extent we are able to verify.

In short, this is simply your uneducated opinion talking.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
I appreciate your effort and this is something I asked you to do. Let me think about it and I will respond in another post.

Okay, but much the same thing was said in the paper itself, had you read it. Sure, Jefferys and Ikeda might not have used my exact words, but their own layman's summary is very much parallels mine. Or my summary parallels theirs. (Hell, even the "prong of their argument" phrase is pretty much lifted directly from the paper.)

Admit it. Your eyes just glazed over when you read that paper, didn't they?

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 02:01:02 PM
You can't imagine how a universe could be designed and engineered to exist by a transcendent agent of enormous power there for naturedidit.

Nonsense. I can imagine it just fine. Just no fucking evidence for it.

The reason you can imagine it just fine is because intelligent designing and engineering is a known observed repeatable process for complex mechanisms to occur. As thinking sentient human beings we are able to create things of phenomenal complexity. We don't have to leave it to our imagination we observe it all the time. As I pointed out before, as thinking sentient beings we can also produce 'virtual' universes where we can write the laws of physics and observe what happens (or doesn't happen) under such conditions.

There's no evidence that it happened in the case of our universe, life, or the origin of our own sentience and intelligence, you pompous ass. I thought that was clear, but apparently I was wrong.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 03:55:54 PM
I am a drooling retard who can not tell the difference between real evidence and just shit I have pulled out of my ass. Even though it has been explained time and time again about what evidence actually is to my retarded ass, I will continue to attempt to tell you(my intellectual betters) what evidence is.

And now for the coup de gras, I will spout out a meaningless word salad. I shall use words that I believe to be large and impressive(remember I am a retard) and hope that I can somehow form a coherent sentence. Because of course if I in my infinite retardedness can't understand something it must mean that my skydaddy must exist.

And In a prime example of how I shall continue to move the goal posts, I shall now change my argument from stuff exists therefore god. To quantum physics spookiness=god.

Look you drooling piece of shit, as I have told you we favor intellectual honesty over your bullshit. Intellectual honesty allows us to admit when we don't know something. What you are doing is nothing more than a god of the gaps argument supplemented by a first cause fallacy and modified again with a irreducible complexity fallacy. You are doing nothing but making yourself look like a fucking drooling retard. You claimed in the unmodified quote to be willing to leave us. Then do yourself a favor(as well as us) and fuck off and go play in traffic. A moronic retard like yourself does not need to be in the gene pool.

QuoteThat's your problem. See, a logical person (atheist or theist or anyone else) would conclude that evidence is defined as:
the available body of facts or information indicating whether a belief or proposition is true or valid.

A fact is defined as:
A thing that is indisputably the case.
Indisputably is defined as:
Incontestable: not open to question; obviously true.
Are you honestly saying you have provided such evidence? Or, are you providing evidence solely based upon what you believe is true which is based on a book or ideas most of which is unverifiable?
I think the latter, definitely not the former.

A little philosophy (according to me)
The truth is something that is so whether some all or none believe it. In our attempts to determine the truth of a matter we have several degrees of certitude. Arguably the highest level of certitude is when something is established as a scientific fact. This is usually accomplished over a long period of time when several scientists assess it usually by experimental confirmation. In some instances scientific validation isn't possible. For example in the case of accusing someone of murder. Though many aspects of such a trial may have scientific facts submitted as evidence it would be rare if ever someones conviction is established as a scientific fact. In that case the standard of truth invoked is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is deemed innocent unless that criteria is met. In a civil dispute a mere preponderance of evidence (in the eyes of impartial folks) suffices. I don't think either side of our dispute can prove it scientifically or beyond a reasonable doubt at least not with the available information. There are no witnesses. When a judge or jury render a verdict, they render an opinion not a fact.

The problem with most theist/atheist debates is they submit theories in favor of their theory God doesn't or does exist. I wanted for the sake of this discussion limit evidence to accepted indisputable  facts, then argue from those facts. Facts aren't proof but if a fact tends to support a contention then it will be submitted as valid evidence. For many atheists the rock hard core foundation of their justification for claiming God doesn't exist is the claim there is no evidence in favor of God's existence. For many, this is not negotiable, its a dogmatic truth that there is no evidence that comports with the belief in the existence of God. Facts alone don't prove the truth of a matter. For example, a knife in the back of the deceased is unquestionably evidence of murder...but its not proof. Maybe someone stuck the knife in after the person was already dead. Even if it's discovered that in fact the knife was stuck in after death, the knife in the back is still valid evidence. A classic example is the Jon Bennet case (for those of us who remember). In that case there was very compelling evidence the parents committed the murder, but there was also compelling evidence an intruder committed the crime.

I've submitted three facts into evidence thus far.

1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. the fact sentient life exists

I have argued from those facts why they favor the existence of a Creator as opposed to the counter belief that we owe our existence to mindless forces that fortuitously caused our existence. Of course I don't have a snow balls chance in hell of winning the case for theism in an atheist court. The best I can hope for is that some will acknowledge there are valid reasons to subscribe to the belief. 

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 08:16:53 PM
A little philosophy (according to me)
The truth is something that is so whether some all or none believe it. In our attempts to determine the truth of a matter we have several degrees of certitude. Arguably the highest level of certitude is when something is established as a scientific fact. This is usually accomplished over a long period of time when several scientists assess it usually by experimental confirmation. In some instances scientific validation isn't possible. For example in the case of accusing someone of murder. Though many aspects of such a trial may have scientific facts submitted as evidence it would be rare if ever someones conviction is established as a scientific fact. In that case the standard of truth invoked is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is deemed innocent unless that criteria is met. In a civil dispute a mere preponderance of evidence (in the eyes of impartial folks) suffices. I don't think either side of our dispute can prove it scientifically or beyond a reasonable doubt at least not with the available information. There are no witnesses. When a judge or jury render a verdict, they render an opinion not a fact.

The problem with most theist/atheist debates is they submit theories in favor of their theory God doesn't or does exist. I wanted for the sake of this discussion limit evidence to accepted indisputable  facts, then argue from those facts. Facts aren't proof but if a fact tends to support a contention then it will be submitted as valid evidence. For many atheists the rock hard core foundation of their justification for claiming God doesn't exist is the claim there is no evidence in favor of God's existence. For many, this is not negotiable, its a dogmatic truth that there is no evidence that comports with the belief in the existence of God. Facts alone don't prove the truth of a matter. For example, a knife in the back of the deceased is unquestionably evidence of murder...but its not proof. Maybe someone stuck the knife in after the person was already dead. Even if it's discovered that in fact the knife was stuck in after death, the knife in the back is still valid evidence. A classic example is the Jon Bennet case (for those of us who remember). In that case there was very compelling evidence the parents committed the murder, but there was also compelling evidence an intruder committed the crime.

I've submitted three facts into evidence thus far.

1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. the fact sentient life exists

I have argued from those facts why they favor the existence of a Creator as opposed to the counter belief that we owe our existence to mindless forces that fortuitously caused our existence. Of course I don't have a snow balls chance in hell of winning the case for theism in an atheist court. The best I can hope for is that some will acknowledge there are valid reasons to subscribe to the belief. 

Wait so your argument is now back to stuff exists so therefore god?
And this is the argument that you expected someone here to "some will acknowledge there are valid reasons to subscribe to the belief."?


And you wonder why I keep calling you retarded.

Drew why the hell you are here shitting our carpet ?

DrewM, have you yet demonstrated that the existence of life and the universe categorically cannot come from natural, mindless processes?

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 08:16:53 PM
I have argued from those facts why they favor the existence of a Creator as opposed to the counter belief that we owe our existence to mindless forces that fortuitously caused our existence. Of course I don't have a snow balls chance in hell of winning the case for theism in an atheist court. The best I can hope for is that some will acknowledge there are valid reasons to subscribe to the belief. 

But you speak about opinions quite a bit. Would you be willing to accept that perhaps your ideas are just your own opinions and do not accurately portray reality as it is? The way you answer this question of mine will prove many things, in one direction or the other.

If there is something "supernatural" how can anyone that is in the "natural" world know anything about it?  This is what theism is, a supernatural world, just like the world of Casper the ghost. How does one know he isn't God? This is really a stupid thread, fit for a six year old child that believes in Santa. Solitary

The  veredict of this thread is that Yahveh or Alah and other creators gods  don't exists. Nice way  to present the case DrewM. This is  a failure of epic proportions.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 08:16:53 PM
I've submitted three facts into evidence thus far.

1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. the fact sentient life exists

I have argued from those facts why they favor the existence of a Creator as opposed to the counter belief that we owe our existence to mindless forces that fortuitously caused our existence.

You claim that you've argued from those facts. But so far  your only argument that these facts alone support the existence of a creator is because you think they do. Since you seem to be so in love with (incorrectly) using the standard of evidence in a hypothetical murder as your example, lets try this.

Lets say you're prosecuting this hypothetical murder case. You present evidence of a body to the jury and argue that because there is a body, there has been a murder (you've made this claim in this thread). Then you argue that because a knife was found in the body, there was definitely a murder (again, you've said this). Finally you argue that the murderer was the victims wife and the reason you believe it was victims wife is because you think so.

What are the odds the jury is going to convict the wife based only on your 'because I think so' argument?

QuoteIt's not a question of silencing the dissenters but sliencing those who come here with the same dated arguments that we have debated and debunked literally a thousand times.

What did you expect in this forum?

Religion General Discussion

Challenges to the general concept of deity. Would include deism, and the myriad of thousands of gods man has created throughout the years.

QuoteFor instance pulling a real rabbit out of thin air, or moving mount Everest to Washington DC, IOW, phenomena that no known laws of physics could ever, ever, ever explain!

Provided such things don't occur you'll say such is a supernatural feat...unless it were to occur in which case it would be a naturalistic mystery because by definition the supernatural can't happen (unless it does).

QuoteShow me one instance when the goal post was moved.

200 hundred years ago the notion of traveling in time was pure fantasy. It wasn't something that could happen because time was believed to be a constant everywhere. The notion a person could travel forward in time would be no different than the idea MT Everest could wind up in DC or a rabbit could materialize out of thin air. That was before it was discovered time could dilate, then it became 'natural'.

QuoteYou keep repeating the same thing over and over like a broken record. There is nothing that led to QM that could even barely qualified as "supernatural". The two-slit experiment? No way, QM has the equation to describe it adequately. So what it is you have in mind that you think could ever qualify as "supernatural"? So far, a lot of postering on your part but little in detail.

I keep repeating because you keep missing the point. No matter how bizarre or anti-intuitive a phenomena might be or whether it might be classified as supernatural if it in fact occurs...it then becomes natural. Remember it can only be supernatural if it doesn't happen. If it were to turn out that a Creator caused the universe to exist, it will be reclassified as natural. 

Quantum entanglement is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently â€" instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole.

Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, polarization, etc. performed on entangled particles are found to be appropriately correlated. For example, if a pair of particles is generated in such a way that their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to have clockwise spin on a certain axis, then the spin of the other particle, measured on the same axis, will be found to be counterclockwise. Because of the nature of quantum measurement, however, this behavior gives rise to effects that can appear paradoxical: any measurement of a property of a particle can be seen as acting on that particle (e.g. by collapsing a number of superimposed states); and in the case of entangled particles, such action must be on the entangled system as a whole. It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair "knows" what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.

QuoteOkay, but much the same thing was said in the paper itself, had you read it. Sure, Jefferys and Ikeda might not have used my exact words, but their own layman's summary is very much parallels mine. Or my summary parallels theirs. (Hell, even the "prong of their argument" phrase is pretty much lifted directly from the paper.)

Admit it. Your eyes just glazed over when you read that paper, didn't they?

My degree is in computer technology. I've taught computer technology and witnessed my students eyes glazing over when I discuss programming or network segmentation. I admit I don't have the training to read papers like that and understand what they are getting at.

Time travel for a sentient being is not possible period! Time is just a way of measuring change. At the speed of light the measure of time stops. Also, the world of mathematics is not the world of reality, it just is an abstract way of understanding the change of events. Feynman himself said that if one says they understand quantum mechanics they are wrong. When we don't understand something it is not knowledge but ignorance. And to replace that ignorance with something supernatural is even more ignorant. Solitary

Hi Johan,

Welcome back into the fray.

QuoteYou claim that you've argued from those facts. But so far  your only argument that these facts alone support the existence of a creator is because you think they do. Since you seem to be so in love with (incorrectly) using the standard of evidence in a hypothetical murder as your example, lets try this.

Lets say you're prosecuting this hypothetical murder case. You present evidence of a body to the jury and argue that because there is a body, there has been a murder (you've made this claim in this thread). Then you argue that because a knife was found in the body, there was definitely a murder (again, you've said this). Finally you argue that the murderer was the victims wife and the reason you believe it was victims wife is because you think so.

What are the odds the jury is going to convict the wife based only on your 'because I think so' argument?

Odds would be extremely poor but you never know. I thought OJ would be convicted and to this day I still can't believe that bitch Casey Anthony wasn't convicted. How the jury came back with not guilty is beyond me. In contrast I have seen cases where there seemed to be a great deal of reasonable doubt but to no avail.

Theism vs atheism isn't a criminal case it would be a civil case (not that the participants are very civil) thus a simple preponderance of evidence is all that's required. You may feel the case I have made thus far isn't very strong but considering most atheists themselves no longer deny God exists (they just lack that belief) how strong does it need to be? BTW I haven't seen a very strong case in favor of the belief that mindless forces could or did without plan intent or a degree in physics caused a universe that caused and maintained sentient life.

Hello Solitary

Quote from: Solitary on July 01, 2014, 09:25:26 PM
Time travel for a sentient being is not possible period! Time is just a way of measuring change. At the speed of light the measure of time stops. Also, the world of mathematics is not the world of reality, it just is an abstract way of understanding the change of events. Feynman himself said that if one says they understand quantum mechanics they are wrong. When we don't understand something it is not knowledge but ignorance. And to replace that ignorance with something supernatural is even more ignorant. Solitary

It is possible. If someone traveled close to the speed of light (assuming that's possible), they would no longer be traveling in time they'd be traveling in space. If they came back to earth time would advance much faster on earth relative to the space traveler.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 08:16:53 PM
I've submitted three facts into evidence thus far.

1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. the fact sentient life exists

I have argued from those facts why they favor the existence of a Creator as opposed to the counter belief that we owe our existence to mindless forces that fortuitously caused our existence.

And it's no wonder you fail. The only thing those three facts tell us is:

1. The universe exists.
2. Life exists.
3. Sentient life exists.

That is it. This is all these three facts, out on their own, tell you. You cannot go further than this using just these facts. You need additional facts in order for you to conclude a Creator exists, like the following:

1. If the universe exists, then it requires a creation event.
2. A creation event requires an agent.
3. The creative agent must have existence prior to and not dependent on the created object.

And maybe some others I haven't thought of yet. You need these premises to be likely true to even conclude a Creator from your first fact. This is what's called a non sequitor (it does not follow) fallacy. None of these facts has been demonstrated to be true or even likely true. You have no math or logical chain of reasoning to show this is the case. Each of these additional premises require additional evidence to establish. Without them, your hypothesis cannot move forward from what I have stated above.

In the end, nobody disputes that the universe exists, that life exists, and that sentient life exists. The only thing we dispute is your analysis of these facts, an analysis that depends on unstated premises that we absolutely do not subscribe to. It is very, very wanting.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 09:33:56 PM


Odds would be extremely poor but you never know.

So you admit your argument is piss poor. Well I'll give you credit for that at least.

QuoteTheism vs atheism isn't a criminal case it would be a civil case (not that the participants are very civil) thus a simple preponderance of evidence is all that's required.

It wouldn't be a civil case either. If you want to argue that bigfoot exists, you don't go to civil court to do it. You do it by going out and finding bigfoot or lacking that, you do it by going out and finding scientifically sound verifiable evidence that bigfoot exists.

You don't do it by going into civil court and arguing that bigfoot is hairy and hair exists, bigfoot lives in the forest and the forest exists and bigfoot has feet and feet exist therefore bigfoot exists because you think so. But I do encourage you to try just you might finally realize just how lame your argument is.

QuoteYou may feel the case I have made thus far isn't very strong but considering most atheists themselves no longer deny God exists (they just lack that belief) how strong does it need to be?

Pretty fucking strong. Most athiests will cite the complete lack of any scientific verifiable evidence of the existence of god as the reason they are athiest. If you want to argue otherwise to athiests, the burden of proof is yours. So either you've got a pretty fucking strong case, or you've got nothing. By your own admission, your case is not strong. So by your own admission, you've got nothing.

QuoteBTW I haven't seen a very strong case in favor of the belief that mindless forces could or did without plan intent or a degree in physics caused a universe that caused and maintained sentient life.

The fact that you choose to be blind to existing readily available scientific evidence is neither my fault nor my problem.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 08:16:53 PM
A little philosophy (according to me)

We'll see if it's actual "philosophy".

QuoteThe truth is something that is so whether some all or none believe it. In our attempts to determine the truth of a matter we have several degrees of certitude. Arguably the highest level of certitude is when something is established as a scientific fact. This is usually accomplished over a long period of time when several scientists assess it usually by experimental confirmation. In some instances scientific validation isn't possible. For example in the case of accusing someone of murder. Though many aspects of such a trial may have scientific facts submitted as evidence it would be rare if ever someones conviction is established as a scientific fact. In that case the standard of truth invoked is evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. The accused is deemed innocent unless that criteria is met. In a civil dispute a mere preponderance of evidence (in the eyes of impartial folks) suffices. I don't think either side of our dispute can prove it scientifically or beyond a reasonable doubt at least not with the available information. There are no witnesses. When a judge or jury render a verdict, they render an opinion not a fact.

So far no philosophy.

QuoteThe problem with most theist/atheist debates is they submit theories in favor of their theory God doesn't or does exist. I wanted for the sake of this discussion limit evidence to accepted indisputable  facts, then argue from those facts. Facts aren't proof but if a fact tends to support a contention then it will be submitted as valid evidence. For many atheists the rock hard core foundation of their justification for claiming God doesn't exist is the claim there is no evidence in favor of God's existence. For many, this is not negotiable, its a dogmatic truth that there is no evidence that comports with the belief in the existence of God. Facts alone don't prove the truth of a matter. For example, a knife in the back of the deceased is unquestionably evidence of murder...but its not proof. Maybe someone stuck the knife in after the person was already dead. Even if it's discovered that in fact the knife was stuck in after death, the knife in the back is still valid evidence. A classic example is the Jon Bennet case (for those of us who remember). In that case there was very compelling evidence the parents committed the murder, but there was also compelling evidence an intruder committed the crime.

Where's this philosophy?

QuoteI've submitted three facts into evidence thus far.

1. The fact the universe exists
2. The fact life exists
3. the fact sentient life exists

I have argued from those facts why they favor the existence of a Creator as opposed to the counter belief that we owe our existence to mindless forces that fortuitously caused our existence. Of course I don't have a snow balls chance in hell of winning the case for theism in an atheist court.

That's because the three facts you list is all the facts you have the rest is just your opinion based on those facts. Just because those are facts does not mean that your opinions based on those facts therefore are facts.

You have provided no evidence. Your opinions are not evidence.

QuoteThe best I can hope for is that some will acknowledge there are valid reasons to subscribe to the belief. 

That is not a philosophy. Do you make up definitions for all your words?

I'm fed up with this courtroom/circumstantial-evidence analogy. It was piss-poor when Casparov used it. It is piss-poor now.
Your murder metaphor is highly biased and thus, to us, wrongly interpreted.

You suggest something allong the lines of; we have a universe, so we have a dead body in the metaphor. We have (sentient) life; therefore it is obvious that this entire state of being was intentional. In the metaphor this would mean we clearly have a murder. From this it is obvious that an outer agent has forcibly willed and formed the universe and life into the way (s)he wanted to. This would be the murderer in the analogy.
From this you seem to think that you've presented a clear case that it is very likely that God exists.

But your basic metaphor is flawed.

All you've presented so far is three dead bodies. One in each of the three claims.
We find a dead body. We know there are natural processes in the world that allow for death to occur 'naturally'. It is also possible that death is instigated by an outer agent, i.e. a murderer. (Let aside the fact that death through natural processes is much more common than through murder.) What do scientists, i.e. coroners do? They examine the body (of evidence) into the cause of death. In all three claims the coroner is still examining the body and has yet found no knife, no strangulation marks, nothing obvious. Every sign on the bodies, for now, are in accordance to natural processes terminating the body. It is still possible that there is a murder(er); perhaps through a poison that is very hard to detect; and further examination of the bodies will clearify this, hopefully. But as of yet, we have no reason to think there is 'ill-intent' regarding this dead body. And even after that; there are ways of killing someone without it being noticable at all by the coroner. But if that's the case; we also have no reason to think this murder has actually happened. And there would be no courtroom because there would be no scientific evidence to warrant such a thing.

It's not that the universe is a dead body and that (sentient) life is a dead-give-away of it being a murder. They are in a proper analogy; all three dead bodies. And all three have natural causes. It isn't untill we find scientific evidence indicating they are murders that we start finding 'murder' a likely cause; not if we have all these natural processes. But in any case, you don't get to lump these three 'facts' together in the way you are doing.

Quote from: DrewM on July 01, 2014, 09:00:19 PM
What did you expect in this forum?

Religion General Discussion

Challenges to the general concept of deity. Would include deism, and the myriad of thousands of gods man has created throughout the years.

As a newbie, you should have the courtesy to find out what has been already discussed instead of barging in with the same idiotic arguments. So don't be surprised if members here don't treat you respecfully. Any insult, you probably deserve it.

QuoteProvided such things don't occur you'll say such is a supernatural feat...unless it were to occur in which case it would be a naturalistic mystery because by definition the supernatural can't happen (unless it does).

If there is a natural explanation for any phenomenon then it wouldn't be supernatural. But if God would appear at the UN in front of 100+ countries, he should be able to show who he is, since he knows everything, he surely knows how to convince each and every one of us that he is God. Otherwise, he isn't God.

Quote200 hundred years ago the notion of traveling in time was pure fantasy. It wasn't something that could happen because time was believed to be a constant everywhere. The notion a person could travel forward in time would be no different than the idea MT Everest could wind up in DC or a rabbit could materialize out of thin air. That was before it was discovered time could dilate, then it became 'natural'.

Time dilation has nothing to do with time travel.

QuoteQuantum entanglement  is a physical phenomenon that occurs when pairs or groups of particles are generated or interact in ways such that the quantum state of each particle cannot be described independently â€" instead, a quantum state may be given for the system as a whole.

Measurements of physical properties such as position, momentum, spin, polarization, etc. performed on entangled particles are found to be appropriately correlated. For example, if a pair of particles is generated in such a way that their total spin is known to be zero, and one particle is found to have clockwise spin on a certain axis, then the spin of the other particle, measured on the same axis, will be found to be counterclockwise. Because of the nature of quantum measurement, however, this behavior gives rise to effects that can appear paradoxical: any measurement of a property of a particle can be seen as acting on that particle (e.g. by collapsing a number of superimposed states); and in the case of entangled particles, such action must be on the entangled system as a whole. It thus appears that one particle of an entangled pair "knows" what measurement has been performed on the other, and with what outcome, even though there is no known means for such information to be communicated between the particles, which at the time of measurement may be separated by arbitrarily large distances.

Quantum entanglement has nothing to do with the supernatural. Try again.

I presume Drew is still here because he is following the forum rules.

Drew, I see you've added Argument from Incredulity to Affirming the Consequent to your Case for Theism. The fact that theists can't construct an argument for God that isn't based on a logical fallacy or absurd premises is one of the reasons I believe the Case for God fails. When someone like yourself comes along, I'm always rooting for you. If there is a God, I want to know. You might want to study up on objections to arguments for God before you bring your next argument, I'd really like to see something new.

Quote from: Mister Agenda on July 02, 2014, 09:35:15 AM
Drew, I see you've added Argument from Incredulity to Affirming the Consequent to your Case for Theism.

The problem with Drew and many of the other theists that bring this argument to the table is they refuse to address the logical fallacies in their argument when they are pointed out. 

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 02, 2014, 03:58:21 AM
I'm fed up with this courtroom/circumstantial-evidence analogy. It was piss-poor when Casparov used it. It is piss-poor now.
Your murder metaphor is highly biased and thus, to us, wrongly interpreted.

You suggest something allong the lines of; we have a universe, so we have a dead body in the metaphor. We have (sentient) life; therefore it is obvious that this entire state of being was intentional. In the metaphor this would mean we clearly have a murder. From this it is obvious that an outer agent has forcibly willed and formed the universe and life into the way (s)he wanted to. This would be the murderer in the analogy.
From this you seem to think that you've presented a clear case that it is very likely that God exists.

But your basic metaphor is flawed.

All you've presented so far is three dead bodies. One in each of the three claims.
We find a dead body. We know there are natural processes in the world that allow for death to occur 'naturally'. It is also possible that death is instigated by an outer agent, i.e. a murderer. (Let aside the fact that death through natural processes is much more common than through murder.) What do scientists, i.e. coroners do? They examine the body (of evidence) into the cause of death. In all three claims the coroner is still examining the body and has yet found no knife, no strangulation marks, nothing obvious. Every sign on the bodies, for now, are in accordance to natural processes terminating the body. It is still possible that there is a murder(er); perhaps through a poison that is very hard to detect; and further examination of the bodies will clearify this, hopefully. But as of yet, we have no reason to think there is 'ill-intent' regarding this dead body. And even after that; there are ways of killing someone without it being noticable at all by the coroner. But if that's the case; we also have no reason to think this murder has actually happened. And there would be no courtroom because there would be no scientific evidence to warrant such a thing.

It's not that the universe is a dead body and that (sentient) life is a dead-give-away of it being a murder. They are in a proper analogy; all three dead bodies. And all three have natural causes. It isn't untill we find scientific evidence indicating they are murders that we start finding 'murder' a likely cause; not if we have all these natural processes. But in any case, you don't get to lump these three 'facts' together in the way you are doing.

You phrased it much better than I could have. A body is a body. Please present us with evidence that the body was murdered.

Greetings all,

Thanks for all your responses and what seemed to be a lively debate among some of you. However I've been told by management to come up with something new or be banned. I intended to present a few more lines of evidence and then summarize with a closing argument however I assumed that would be deemed nothing new. I'm not leaving of my own accord and would be happy to continue in the debate if management changes its collective mind.

I realize none of the lines of evidence or arguments would persuade the majority of atheists who are firmly convinced of their belief. This question, whether theist or atheist is an opinion, an opinion is what you think is true minus conclusive evidence to prove it. I never claimed to have proof we are the result of a Creator, only lines of evidence that leads me to that opinion. Atheists don't have conclusive proof either but they also have lines of evidence that can be used to make their case. Its not theists or atheists who decide the merits of our respective cases since we are the decided only the undecided can say whose arguments proved more persuasive.

Ciao

Quote from: Mr.Obvious on July 02, 2014, 03:58:21 AM
I'm fed up with this courtroom/circumstantial-evidence analogy. It was piss-poor when Casparov used it. It is piss-poor now.
Your murder metaphor is highly biased and thus, to us, wrongly interpreted.

You suggest something allong the lines of; we have a universe, so we have a dead body in the metaphor. We have (sentient) life; therefore it is obvious that this entire state of being was intentional. In the metaphor this would mean we clearly have a murder. From this it is obvious that an outer agent has forcibly willed and formed the universe and life into the way (s)he wanted to. This would be the murderer in the analogy.
From this you seem to think that you've presented a clear case that it is very likely that God exists.

But your basic metaphor is flawed.

All you've presented so far is three dead bodies. One in each of the three claims.
We find a dead body. We know there are natural processes in the world that allow for death to occur 'naturally'. It is also possible that death is instigated by an outer agent, i.e. a murderer. (Let aside the fact that death through natural processes is much more common than through murder.) What do scientists, i.e. coroners do? They examine the body (of evidence) into the cause of death. In all three claims the coroner is still examining the body and has yet found no knife, no strangulation marks, nothing obvious. Every sign on the bodies, for now, are in accordance to natural processes terminating the body. It is still possible that there is a murder(er); perhaps through a poison that is very hard to detect; and further examination of the bodies will clearify this, hopefully. But as of yet, we have no reason to think there is 'ill-intent' regarding this dead body. And even after that; there are ways of killing someone without it being noticable at all by the coroner. But if that's the case; we also have no reason to think this murder has actually happened. And there would be no courtroom because there would be no scientific evidence to warrant such a thing.

It's not that the universe is a dead body and that (sentient) life is a dead-give-away of it being a murder. They are in a proper analogy; all three dead bodies. And all three have natural causes. It isn't untill we find scientific evidence indicating they are murders that we start finding 'murder' a likely cause; not if we have all these natural processes. But in any case, you don't get to lump these three 'facts' together in the way you are doing.

And to add to your already great post destroying this false analogy , the 3 dead bodies are being examined by someone that already presupposes they were murdered.

I'm absolutely convinced that Drew does not understand logical fallacies.  I don't think even knows what they are.

Quote from: DrewM on July 02, 2014, 11:51:57 AM
Greetings all,

Thanks for all your responses and what seemed to be a lively debate among some of you. However I've been told by management to come up with something new or be banned. I intended to present a few more lines of evidence and then summarize with a closing argument however I assumed that would be deemed nothing new. I'm not leaving of my own accord and would be happy to continue in the debate if management changes its collective mind.

I realize none of the lines of evidence or arguments would persuade the majority of atheists who are firmly convinced of their belief. This question, whether theist or atheist is an opinion, an opinion is what you think is true minus conclusive evidence to prove it. I never claimed to have proof we are the result of a Creator, only lines of evidence that leads me to that opinion. Atheists don't have conclusive proof either but they also have lines of evidence that can be used to make their case. Its not theists or atheists who decide the merits of our respective cases since we are the decided only the undecided can say whose arguments proved more persuasive.

Ciao

Management can be pretty harsh.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cye-1RP5jso

But so is the truth.

Don't let the virtual door hit you on the way out.

Quote from: Mister Agenda on July 02, 2014, 09:35:15 AM
I presume Drew is still here because he is following the forum rules.

Drew, I see you've added Argument from Incredulity to Affirming the Consequent to your Case for Theism. The fact that theists can't construct an argument for God that isn't based on a logical fallacy or absurd premises is one of the reasons I believe the Case for God fails. When someone like yourself comes along, I'm always rooting for you. If there is a God, I want to know. You might want to study up on objections to arguments for God before you bring your next argument, I'd really like to see something new.

Just like every movie or book has been done before so has arguments for the existence of a god or gods.

-Nam

Quote from: DrewM on July 02, 2014, 11:51:57 AM
Greetings all,

Thanks for all your responses and what seemed to be a lively debate among some of you. However I've been told by management to come up with something new or be banned. I intended to present a few more lines of evidence and then summarize with a closing argument however I assumed that would be deemed nothing new. I'm not leaving of my own accord and would be happy to continue in the debate if management changes its collective mind.

What evidence have you presented? Opinions are not evidence. Your philosophy that isn't a philosophy is not evidence. Your analogy is not evidence. Where is your evidence?

QuoteI realize none of the lines of evidence or arguments would persuade the majority of atheists who are firmly convinced of their belief. This question, whether theist or atheist is an opinion, an opinion is what you think is true minus conclusive evidence to prove it. I never claimed to have proof we are the result of a Creator, only lines of evidence that leads me to that opinion. Atheists don't have conclusive proof either but they also have lines of evidence that can be used to make their case. Its not theists or atheists who decide the merits of our respective cases since we are the decided only the undecided can say whose arguments proved more persuasive.

You're an idiot. Realize it, and move on.

-Nam

Quote from: DrewM on July 02, 2014, 11:51:57 AM
Greetings all,

Thanks for all your responses and what seemed to be a lively debate among some of you. However I've been told by management to come up with something new or be banned. I intended to present a few more lines of evidence and then summarize with a closing argument however I assumed that would be deemed nothing new. I'm not leaving of my own accord and would be happy to continue in the debate if management changes its collective mind.

I realize none of the lines of evidence or arguments would persuade the majority of atheists who are firmly convinced of their belief. This question, whether theist or atheist is an opinion, an opinion is what you think is true minus conclusive evidence to prove it. I never claimed to have proof we are the result of a Creator, only lines of evidence that leads me to that opinion. Atheists don't have conclusive proof either but they also have lines of evidence that can be used to make their case. Its not theists or atheists who decide the merits of our respective cases since we are the decided only the undecided can say whose arguments proved more persuasive.

Ciao

Arrogant to the end. You have presented nothing but fallacious arguments, as has been pointed out numerous times. Nothing you have said has ever been, nor will ever be accepted by the standards of scientific debate. We do not reject your "evidence" as atheists, but as scientific thinkers. It does not matter what unqualified, "undecided" individuals think of your arguments.

As Neil deGrasse Tyson once said: “The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it.”

Quote from: DrewM on July 02, 2014, 11:51:57 AM
Greetings all,

Thanks for all your responses and what seemed to be a lively debate among some of you. However I've been told by management to come up with something new or be banned. I intended to present a few more lines of evidence and then summarize with a closing argument however I assumed that would be deemed nothing new. I'm not leaving of my own accord and would be happy to continue in the debate if management changes its collective mind.

I realize none of the lines of evidence or arguments would persuade the majority of atheists who are firmly convinced of their belief. This question, whether theist or atheist is an opinion, an opinion is what you think is true minus conclusive evidence to prove it. I never claimed to have proof we are the result of a Creator, only lines of evidence that leads me to that opinion. Atheists don't have conclusive proof either but they also have lines of evidence that can be used to make their case. Its not theists or atheists who decide the merits of our respective cases since we are the decided only the undecided can say whose arguments proved more persuasive.

Ciao

*mod hat on*
AAwwww, a theotard playing martyr. What a surprise...
We've given you too many chances, enough is enough

Thanks, DunkleSeele! (For some reason I always read it as "DrunkleSeelie.")

Bring on the next chew toy!

Quote from: Hakurei Reimu on July 02, 2014, 04:19:39 PM
Thanks, DunkleSeele! (For some reason I always read it as "DrunkleSeelie.")

Bring on the next chew toy!

DrunkleSeelie? LOL that sounds funny! No, my screen name it's just the German for "dark soul".

The next chew toy is in the political section, by the way... ;)

Quote from: DunkleSeele on July 02, 2014, 03:51:51 PM
*mod hat on*
AAwwww, a theotard playing martyr. What a surprise...
We've given you too many chances, enough is enough

You forgot the:


part

The problem with using the existence of the universe, life and sentience as evidence(???) for possible existence of a deity or deities is that these 3 can equally count as evidence AGAINST deities.
One would have to know what traits or properties the proposed deity or deities have. Putting aside the issue of knowing these properties to begin with, if a deity is proposed to be the maximal existence of perfection as well as benevolence, then this universe, life and sentience would NOT exist and they would be evidence AGAINST such a deity. One cannot be the absolute benevolence and at the same time create an existence that is inherently both flawed and full of suffering. It is a violation of the property itself. Such deity would at best be a kid with a magnifying glass playing with an ant farm.

Quote from: Moralnihilist on July 02, 2014, 06:04:45 PM
You forgot the:


part

Every time I see this meme I wonder where the hammer winds up.

Every theist comes on here to educate us in one way or another. They come on with the attitude of moral superiority and are talking down to us from the beginning. I like these people less every time they come on here, and frankly I'm losing any desire to be polite to them.

Here's how I typically am tempted to treat deism/theism. Okay, I accept that it's possible a god or gods exist. Cool, can I go back to eating my sandwich now?
That is exactly how much value that proposal has. None. Atheism isn't about proclaiming that no gods exist. Atheism is at the point where, you know, theists/deists present evidence that gods DO exist and that we're supposed to do something with that notion. I guess I am writing this just in case he is still reading the thread.

I kind of skipped a few pages here, so sorry if this has been addressed already, but hold on;

You're claiming that based on your observations of our universe and life on our planet, you find it most likely that a deity of some sort created it all? You're extremely vague in your explanations of your belief, so I find it logical that you are a deist as apposed to a typical theist, probably not adhering to a religion like Christianity or Islam.

You make it clear that you believe some sort of deity created everything, but your beliefs appear to stop there, which make your argument short sighted and at the same time hard to argue with. For all we know, your "deity" might be the universe itself, which obviously as previously stated would make it silly to call it god in the first place.

Back to my point... you find it most likely that the universe was created by something we've never seen, leaves no evidence behind on our world, by definition has no value in the reality we exist in, and falls into the category of thousands of other "creatures" we know for a fact were made up by ancient people who didn't understand the world?

Ever heard of a zebra? It's a medical term for when you diagnosis an extremely uncommon disease when the symptoms are most likely that of a much more common one. "When you hear hoof beats, you think horse, not zebra."

As an atheist, I do not actively believe that god does not exist; that would be ridiculous. In turn that would qualify titles for entire groups of people that believe unicorns, elves, dragons, and leprechauns don't exist. Why is it offensive for me to compare those things? I do not actively believe in an form of god, so why do I need a title for that?

We don't need an alternative answer. Some day maybe we will get there, and as a whole the scientific community is moving towards that answer. For now, it's fine to say "I don't know." To actively believe in a being that we know for a fact our ancestors created; made up; fictionized; drew upon, is just idiocy. If you find it most likely that a god creature created everything, you have to show to us how that is a better answer than "I don't know."

Dafuq?  Ohhhhhh so this is what y'all were talking about on his other post.

I can not imagine what I would have come across, but it was good.

Oh great, another lecturing theist.  Just what we needed...

Quote from: Onniyakuza on September 14, 2017, 03:33:18 AM
I can not imagine what I would have come across, but it was good.

Welcome, new guy. Please introduce yourself in the Introductions sub-forum. (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?board=2.0)

Quote from: Onniyakuza on September 14, 2017, 03:33:18 AM
I can not imagine what I would have come across, but it was good.

Quote from: Unbeliever on September 14, 2017, 04:42:08 PM

Makes me almost want to look back at my first posts and hope to not cringe.  Almost...

Quote from: DrewM on June 27, 2014, 11:53:22 PM
First I will make an opening statement. As I stated in my introduction my belief in theism is a belief, an opinion, what I think is true. I don’t claim it’s a fact it’s true that God exists, I admit I could be wrong. Therefore I don’t need to ‘prove’ God exists, I only need to provide a reasonable case from facts in favor of my opinion. I will provide several lines of evidence (facts) that support my contention and are the reason I believe in theism as opposed to atheism (real atheism by the way the belief (opinion) God doesn’t exist not the disingenuous lack of belief in God some promote).

The answer God is to the most basic philosophical questions that have been asked through the ages. Why is there a universe? Why is there something rather than nothing? How did our existence come about? And perhaps the most puzzling question is our existence the result of planning and design or was it the result of happenstance? There are two primary reasons I am a theist. First because there are facts (evidence) that supports that belief, secondly if I were to reject the belief that God created the universe and humans I would have to be persuaded that mindless lifeless forces somehow coughed a universe into existence and without plan or intent caused the right conditions for sentient life to exist. I'd have to believe that life and mind without plan or intent emerged from something totally unlike itself, mindless lifeless forces. I know most atheists prefer we just reject God first and then take it on faith that that our existence was caused by naturalistic forces that didn't intend our existence and that the universe also just came into existence for no particular reason. We should just assume that natural forces did it somehow. I'll leave it to atheists to persuade me such did happen or such could happen. After all we're not supposed to just take things on faith.

One of the chief objections to theism cited by atheists is they claim there is no evidence in favor of theism. I am often re-assured that they are very open minded and would be happy to evaluate any such evidence if only there was any. I agree that if indeed there is no evidence in favor of a claim that is a valid reason to reject such a claim (although it by no means disproves such a claim). There is often confusion about what evidence is and what proof is. Evidence is facts or objects that support a conclusion. For example, a knife in the back of the deceased is evidence that supports the conclusion the deceased was murdered. Typically the knife and pictures of the knife in the back of the deceased would be entered into evidence. A lot of evidence is circumstantial evidence.

From Wikipedia

Circumstantial evidence is evidence in which an inference is required to connect it to a conclusion of fact, like a fingerprint at the scene of a crime. By contrast, direct evidence supports the truth of an assertion directlyâ€"i.e., without need for any additional evidence or the intervening inference.

On its own, it is the nature of circumstantial evidence for more than one explanation to still be possible. Inference from one piece of circumstantial evidence may not guarantee accuracy. Circumstantial evidence usually accumulates into a collection, so that the pieces then become corroborating evidence. Together, they may more strongly support one particular inference over another. An explanation involving circumstantial evidence becomes more valid as proof of a fact when the alternative explanations have been ruled out.

Circumstantial evidence allows a trier of fact to deduce a fact exists.[1] In criminal law, the inference is made by the trier of facts in order to support the truth of assertion (of guilt or absence of guilt).

From free dictionary.com

One important benchmark of admissibility is relevance. Federal Rule of Evidence 402 states, in part, "All relevant evidence is admissible, except as otherwise provided." The goal of this rule is to allow parties to present all of the evidence that bears on the issue to be decided, and to keep out all evidence that is immaterial or that lacks Probative value. Evidence that is offered to help prove something that is not at issue is immaterial. For example, the fact that a defendant attends church every week is immaterial, and thus irrelevant, to a charge of running a red light. Probative value is a tendency to make the existence of any material fact more or less probable. For instance, evidence that a murder defendant ate spaghetti on the day of the murder would normally be irrelevant because people who eat spaghetti are not more or less likely to commit murder, as compared with other people. However, if spaghetti sauce were found at the murder scene, the fact that the defendant ate spaghetti that day would have probative value and thus would be relevant evidence.

I will present several lines of evidence that support the belief in theism. They don't prove theism is true, they merely provide good reason to think it's true. I'm not going to be making any 'God of the gaps' arguments nor am I going to offer any hypothetical scenarios or cite the mere possibility of something being true as evidence theism is true.

Before I present my first line of evidence let me state what is not evidence. Theories (whether scientific or not) are not facts and so are not evidence. The only theory allowed in this discussion is the theory we’re attempting to offer evidence in favor of, in my case the theory of theism that a personal agent commonly referred to as God was responsible for the existence of the universe and sentient life. I won’t bother refuting theories offered in support of the theory God doesn’t exist.

1. The fact the universe exists

that might seem like a paltry fact in support of theism. Suppose I was trying a case for murder, the first line of evidence I would produce is a dead body. After all, I couldn't accuse anyone of murder if there was no one deceased. If the universe didn't exist there would be no reason to invoke the existence of God. Moreover if a universe didn't exist there would be as atheists often claim no evidence God exists. In order for anyone to even think God exists a place for humans to exist must exist. There are certain facts that must be true for anyone to opine God exists. For humans to have any reason to think God might exist, we must have a place that allows us to live. There are several facts and conditions that must be true in order for there to be any reason to think the existence of a Creator is true. No facts need to be true for atheism to be true. Atheism doesn't require the existence of a universe to believe atheism is true. If the universe didn't exist atheism might still be false (God might exist but not have created the universe) but there would be no evidentiary reason to raise the existence of God. Additional lines of evidence soon to follow...

That's a lot of very nice writing without any evidence.  I'm sorry, you're just not making a real case for theism.

Quote from: phetaroi on September 15, 2017, 12:15:19 AM
That's a lot of very nice writing without any evidence.  I'm sorry, you're just not making a real case for theism.

Quote from: phetaroi on September 15, 2017, 12:15:19 AM
That's a lot of very nice writing without any evidence.  I'm sorry, you're just not making a real case for theism.

Congrats, you are much like Ibn.  Long rambling post going no where in support of a belief you cannot defend.

I strongly suspect DrewM (the banned OP of this thread) is current member Drew_2017.

Quote from: sdelsolray on September 30, 2017, 02:15:02 PM
I strongly suspect DrewM (the banned OP of this thread) is current member Drew_2017.

That was me several years ago. I didn't recall being banned from this board, if I was being deceptive I would have used a completely different name. If management elects to ban me again so be it but I don't recall breaking any rules then or now...

Quote from: Drew_2017 on September 30, 2017, 03:40:17 PM
That was me several years ago. I didn't recall being banned from this board, if I was being deceptive I would have used a completely different name. If management elects to ban me again so be it but I don't recall breaking any rules then or now...

You know we have a rule against sock accounts (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=5589.0), right?  You most certainly have broken at least one rule here.

Quote from: Hydra009 on September 30, 2017, 03:52:01 PM
You know we have a rule against sock accounts (http://atheistforums.com/index.php?topic=5589.0), right?  You most certainly have broken at least one rule here.

I don't think either qualify as sock accounts. And it's been years. I think a second chance is reasonable.

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 30, 2017, 11:51:08 PM
I don't think either qualify as sock accounts. And it's been years. I think a second chance is reasonable.

He is the the same as before.  Second chances count only when the person changes.

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 30, 2017, 11:51:08 PM
I don't think either qualify as sock accounts. And it's been years. I think a second chance is reasonable.

If anything, Drew should be banned for ignoring arguments that he can't address. I have shown in another thread why he's totally wrong in his arguments but he just ignores what I say and continue to peddle his falsehood in favour of theism. I am now in two minds as to what Drew really is - a moronic dumbbell who cannot understand simple arguments or a dishonest liar who is hellbent on defending his god of the gaps. I have shown him why he is doing precisely that.

In one post, he argues that thunder is evidence for Thor, the thunder God. Now, he is arguing that the existence of the universe is evidence for God's existence. Conversely, he tries to show that atheists claim that natural forces brought the universe to existence  Atheists can't prove it's natural forces that caused the universe, neither can he prove that God created the universe. Hence the onus of proof should not be on the theist since atheists claim the universe is formed by natural forces.

I have answered him that this is rubbish. Atheists do not say that the universe is formed by natural forces. The Big Bang theory if it is to be accepted states that there is nothing beyond the Big Bang. It's a singularity that has nothing before it. You can't even speak of a time 'before' the Big Bang because there was nothing, not even time. So, the atheist really doesn't know if there is a cause for the Big Bang in the first place.

What Drew is doing is precisely what cavemen did when they said Thor was the cause of thunder. It is the god of the gaps argument again.

Because atheists are not saying that natural forces caused the Big Bang and theists are saying that God caused the Big Bang, you can't say that the onus of proof is on the atheist to show that natural forces didn't cause the Big Bang. Atheists do not say that in the first place. If you don't assert something, it's not for you to prove the existence of that which you have not asserted. But theists are asserting that God created the universe. In fact, for Drew and other theists like him, the existence of the universe is evidence for God. Because he asserts that God created the universe, he must prove the existence of God, following the simple rule that the person who asserts the existence of something has to show that it exists.

But Drew ignores all this and continues to peddle his theistic wares. I think he is a theistic troll. He has tried to lubricate his God with KY Gel in order to insert God into the gaps of human knowledge and i have called him out on that one. And yet he just goes to another post and repeats his imbecile garbage all over again.

I think if he does not want to address my points, he should be banned. Is AF a place for theists to ignore arguments and continue trumpeting their theistic garbage? He is a coward and a fool and a liar. It's obvious he is a banned person and I suggest that we get him and his lubricated God out. I don't see a need for a liar, a fool and a coward to remain in a forum that should not waste its time on theistic loonies. I don't want to see another CF in AF and it's imbeciles like Drew who when defeated in one post, ignores the post and repeats his flawed argument in another post or another thread. This is the kind of theistic cancer an enlightened intelligent crowd should have nothing to do with. Of course he is the dishonest person who was banned but sneaks it again with his lubricated God.

Ban the dishonest moron!

Quote from: Cavebear on October 01, 2017, 01:12:56 AM
He is the the same as before.  Second chances count only when the person changes.

He has not changed one bit. He ignores cogent argument and he lies that I have lost when he refused to address my points. He is no different from a peddling preacher. He is dishonest, lies about not being the banned person when he obviously is and all he wants is to spread theistic nonsense in the hope of converting intelligent people to his dumb belief. Ban the fool, I say.

One solution is to ban him from all forums in AF but allow him to be in only one place. He has to address points raised against him. If he does not address arguments and goes on to talk about something else, he should be banned. But I say he should not be allowed to post elsewhere because as I see it, he is using AF as his mission field. He keeps posting in other places the same chewed-up and spat-out arguments that generations of atheists have debunked and he does it on different threads. So, it's very hard to put out his fire of lies and nonsense.  And it's very frustrating for me. After I have spent time to address his arguments and why he is wrong, he ignores what I have written and merely says I was wrong and I feel compelled to repeat myself but then he will reply again and again he ignores everything I have said. It's the kind of thing that theists are protected in Christian Forums but I expect AF to be more intelligent and fair than that.

Because Drew blatantly ignores what people have said before, and continues to repeat his flawed and discredited views in new threads, most atheists just ignore him. But new people who join AF do wonder why nobody addresses his weak points. That's what I thought when I first encountered Drew's arguments. I was wondering why nobody else countered his obvious mistakes. Now, I know. He regurgitates his nonsense notwithstanding what others have shown him to be wrong. He simply ignores what others say and repeats his preaching in the hope that some may be converted.  I know theists who have this kind of cowardly mission and if AF allows this dishonest, unintelligent coward to do the same thing on AF, we might as well join dumb CF.

For the integrity of AF, dishonest slimy people like Drew who have been banned before should be banned again.

Quote from: St Truth on October 01, 2017, 01:22:19 AM
If anything, Drew should be banned for ignoring arguments that he can't address. I have shown in another thread why he's totally wrong in his arguments but he just ignores what I say and continue to peddle his falsehood in favour of theism. I am now in two minds as to what Drew really is - a moronic dumbbell who cannot understand simple arguments or a dishonest liar who is hellbent on defending his god of the gaps. I have shown him why he is doing precisely that.

In one post, he argues that thunder is evidence for Thor, the thunder God. Now, he is arguing that the existence of the universe is evidence for God's existence. Conversely, he tries to show that atheists claim that natural forces brought the universe to existence  Atheists can't prove it's natural forces that caused the universe, neither can he prove that God created the universe. Hence the onus of proof should not be on the theist since atheists claim the universe is formed by natural forces.

I have answered him that this is rubbish. Atheists do not say that the universe is formed by natural forces. The Big Bang theory if it is to be accepted states that there is nothing beyond the Big Bang. It's a singularity that has nothing before it. You can't even speak of a time 'before' the Big Bang because there was nothing, not even time. So, the atheist really doesn't know if there is a cause for the Big Bang in the first place.

What Drew is doing is precisely what cavemen did when they said Thor was the cause of thunder. It is the god of the gaps argument again.

Because atheists are not saying that natural forces caused the Big Bang and theists are saying that God caused the Big Bang, you can't say that the onus of proof is on the atheist to show that natural forces didn't cause the Big Bang. Atheists do not say that in the first place. If you don't assert something, it's not for you to prove the existence of that which you have not asserted. But theists are asserting that God created the universe. In fact, for Drew and other theists like him, the existence of the universe is evidence for God. Because he asserts that God created the universe, he must prove the existence of God, following the simple rule that the person who asserts the existence of something has to show that it exists.

But Drew ignores all this and continues to peddle his theistic wares. I think he is a theistic troll. He has tried to lubricate his God with KY Gel in order to insert God into the gaps of human knowledge and i have called him out on that one. And yet he just goes to another post and repeats his imbecile garbage all over again.

I think if he does not want to address my points, he should be banned. Is AF a place for theists to ignore arguments and continue trumpeting their theistic garbage? He is a coward and a fool and a liar. It's obvious he is a banned person and I suggest that we get him and his lubricated God out. I don't see a need for a liar, a fool and a coward to remain in a forum that should not waste its time on theistic loonies. I don't want to see another CF in AF and it's imbeciles like Drew who when defeated in one post, ignores the post and repeats his flawed argument in another post or another thread. This is the kind of theistic cancer an enlightened intelligent crowd should have nothing to do with. Of course he is the dishonest person who was banned but sneaks it again with his lubricated God.

Ban the dishonest moron!

My impression was that you were rather theist.  I will read you further, to see.

Quote from: St Truth on October 01, 2017, 01:24:08 AM
He has not changed one bit. He ignores cogent argument and he lies that I have lost when he refused to address my points. He is no different from a peddling preacher. He is dishonest, lies about not being the banned person when he obviously is and all he wants is to spread theistic nonsense in the hope of converting intelligent people to his dumb belief. Ban the fool, I say.

He might be annoying, but as far as I can tell, he hasn't broken any rules. He hasn't lied about being the same person as the OP either. He outright said that he was the same person, and that he chose a similar name because he had no intention of hiding it.

Quote from: Blackleaf on October 01, 2017, 01:59:32 AM
He might be annoying, but as far as I can tell, he hasn't broken any rules. He hasn't lied about being the same person as the OP either. He outright said that he was the same person, and that he chose a similar name because he had no intention of hiding it.

Then hasn't he stated he is going around a ban?

Quote from: Blackleaf on October 01, 2017, 01:59:32 AM
He might be annoying, but as far as I can tell, he hasn't broken any rules. He hasn't lied about being the same person as the OP either. He outright said that he was the same person, and that he chose a similar name because he had no intention of hiding it.

No, he lied. He said he was never banned.

Besides, does that mean that a person who is banned can always come back by altering the name slightly?

Quote from: Cavebear on October 01, 2017, 01:41:57 AM
My impression was that you were rather theist.  I will read you further, to see.

I'm a cultural Christian and an altar boy. I've made that very clear. I was born in a Christian family and I go to church with my parents. But that doesn't mean I'm a theist. Please don't insult me. A theist is either an idiot, a madman or an ignoramus. I am none of these nor a combination of them. I'm certainly not a theist. Theism is a disease of the mind. I'm quite sane, thank you very much.

Quote from: St Truth on October 01, 2017, 03:11:36 AM
No, he lied. He said he was never banned.

Besides, does that mean that a person who is banned can always come back by altering the name slightly?

I agree, once banned, forever banned.  Unless the person makes a contrite case for having changed.  I accept that people can change.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 01, 2017, 03:15:44 AM
I agree, once banned, forever banned.  Unless the person makes a contrite case for having changed.  I accept that people can change.

He is neither contrite nor has he changed. He even lies and denies that he has ever been banned. And he continues to do his preaching and evangelism while ignoring cogent arguments against his theistic nonsense. The problem with some atheists is the inherent cowardice that's in them. There is this subservience of some Americans to religious person - it's as if the harsh treatment of atheists in America has made them diffident to all other people, even on their own forum, the Atheist Forum. In Christian Forums, an atheist who has been banned and who has the temerity to go round the ban and come back with a new name and has the cheek to deny that he was ever banned would be given a good kick and banned amidst the jeering of laughing Christians.

It's obvious that Drew has a religious mission to provide a platform (albeit based on false, dishonest and easily debunked arguments) for people to believe in his religious garbage. He does not think twice about circumventing a ban. After all, what respect has he for atheists?

What effect has a ban when a lying theist can come back when he pleases? He's no different from the lying William Lane Craig. They are all the same, these theists. Drew has not defined his God. He has persistently refused to do so. I suspect he's a Christian. His arguments sound suspiciously like a rehash of the dumb and chewed-up and spat-out vomit of other past apologists I've read.  If he says he's not a Christian, simply ask him to blaspheme the dumb Trinity. I can think of many ways to do that that no believing Christian ever dares to do. Usually, a theist who will go all out to tell lies for the faith is one of the dumb Abrahamic faiths. These are the ones that need converts.

But whatever theistic nonsense he believes in is immaterial. The fact is he tells lies, he ignores arguments and all he wants to do is to preach his religious filth. And he has got round a ban imposed on him.  Ban the moron!!!

cavebear its rascally of you talking about me behind my back.

If there  is a issue  here its is you. You deliberately falsified that Wikipedia  account about surat al fatiha in my introduction post .I asked you time and again to retract that shit but you refused. Its on record ..

you falsify shit and you  talk trash all the  time and you don’t add anything to the discussion. Its all about this and that person and about your nobody self. Then you talk  ban this and ban that . that’s what you do. you bring that shit from home .  you got low self esteem issue go see a shrink.

Why don’t you leave these people alone. I’m talking about writing style.I can tell. They can’t , but I can.  Take your product of shame  backward  culture based clamping  of speech camel jockey  self  shit some place else

I looked at this guy drew shit . this is a  western mind set as opposed to your backward dragged in the mud with my people  religion mind set .. . he is right on the money . He is talking William James . His OP starts with warrants of belief . that’s how it is supposed to go.  You want to counter you got Hume and even if you do you won’t get far . his shit leads to pragmatism as the grading shit .shit is western. then he got scientific  inference  . its all fucking standard academic shit .  its not his fault you are clueless and lack the education and intellectual wherewithal to pick up on his shit .shit is complex and requires brains and education .you don’t have  brain or education.  . you have no idea how stupid you sound. Quack quack quack.   repeating machines . you memorized khara but you’re oblivious to a whole world of knowledge

talking Tony Blair and oh oh I knew from grandma. Who the hell  do you think you’re kidding? You didn’t have to go all the way  back to him. Stop lying to people about your age.

Stop this fucking shit . these westerners assume  there is native inclination to speak the truth and to accept what others say as though they mean it . that’s the basis of that sort of co operative tendencies among them  that propelled them while you rotted away. They don’t not know about you. I know.

get the fuck outta here and let these people work it out. Or if you want to stay go get an education first and then come back. .  .

Ya laki min lookaa galilat al adab  la taarafi lil hiat shian  wala lil woojood amra. Alla ya laanat allah sobi ala kusik al afin.

Carry on as pr would say . I  like that English shit . steady . steady . 

Quote from: Ibn Khaldun on October 01, 2017, 05:00:01 AM
Ya laki min lookaa galilat al adab  la taarafi lil hiat shian  wala lil woojood amra. Alla ya laanat allah sobi ala kusik al afin.

Google translation:  "Oh, that of a great Luke, the literature, I shall not seek the night of the life of Shen, nor the night, and the existence of an order. O God, a boy on the cliff of Aven."

Wow that sure puts ME in my place.  Well, if I can figure out what even THAT means...

Baruch, you know a lot about languages and the bible.   Is that a poor Google translation of something actually making biblical or quranic sense?

Quote from: Ibn Khaldun on October 01, 2017, 05:00:01 AM
cavebear its rascally of you talking about me behind my back.

If there  is a issue  here its is you. You deliberately falsified that Wikipedia  account about surat al fatiha in my introduction post .I asked you time and again to retract that shit but you refused. Its on record ..

you falsify shit and you  talk trash all the  time and you don’t add anything to the discussion. Its all about this and that person and about your nobody self. Then you talk  ban this and ban that . that’s what you do. you bring that shit from home .  you got low self esteem issue go see a shrink.

Why don’t you leave these people alone. I’m talking about writing style.I can tell. They can’t , but I can.  Take your product of shame  backward  culture based clamping  of speech camel jockey  self  shit some place else

I looked at this guy drew shit . this is a  western mind set as opposed to your backward dragged in the mud with my people  religion mind set .. . he is right on the money . He is talking William James . His OP starts with warrants of belief . that’s how it is supposed to go.  You want to counter you got Hume and even if you do you won’t get far . his shit leads to pragmatism as the grading shit .shit is western. then he got scientific  inference  . its all fucking standard academic shit .  its not his fault you are clueless and lack the education and intellectual wherewithal to pick up on his shit .shit is complex and requires brains and education .you don’t have  brain or education.  . you have no idea how stupid you sound. Quack quack quack.   repeating machines . you memorized khara but you’re oblivious to a whole world of knowledge

talking Tony Blair and oh oh I knew from grandma. Who the hell  do you think you’re kidding? You didn’t have to go all the way  back to him. Stop lying to people about your age.

Stop this fucking shit . these westerners assume  there is native inclination to speak the truth and to accept what others say as though they mean it . that’s the basis of that sort of co operative tendencies among them  that propelled them while you rotted away. They don’t not know about you. I know.

get the fuck outta here and let these people work it out. Or if you want to stay go get an education first and then come back. .  .

Ya laki min lookaa galilat al adab  la taarafi lil hiat shian  wala lil woojood amra. Alla ya laanat allah sobi ala kusik al afin.

Carry on as pr would say . I  like that English shit . steady . steady .

Did that damned insane blood-thirsty pork-eating madman Muhammad teach you manners? Does bloody Allah aka the pink polka-dotted pig ever tell you to behave yourself when you are in an atheist forum? This is not a bloody mosque where you can scream foul language like they always do from your minaret.

Quote from: Blackleaf on September 30, 2017, 11:51:08 PM
I don't think either qualify as sock accounts. And it's been years. I think a second chance is reasonable.

A sock account is a second account created by the same user, which Drew admitted to.  So yes, it does qualify as a sock account.  And afaik, there's no timeframe where a permanent ban expires, so the second argument is irrelevant.

Up until now, I've been under the impression that I've been arguing with someone who was semi-genuine albeit horribly misguided.  This revelation makes it clear that I'm dealing with a chronic liar ("I don't know if I was banned" when of course he did, "Neither of my accounts broke any rules" which is patently untrue) who is still every bit the broken-record proselytizer.

Now, let's talk about second chances.  Previously, people who have made a sock account to circumvent a ban are swiftly rebanned.  I don't think it is wise to change this policy.  If we make an exception for Drew, we'd have to make an exception for others and the end result would inevitably be Too Dumb to Live godspammers sticking around who would otherwise be gone.  I dunno about you, but that's not a future I desire.

Quote from: Hydra009 on October 01, 2017, 11:17:46 AM
A sock account is a second account created by the same user, which Drew admitted to.  So yes, it does qualify as a sock account.  And afaik, there's no timeframe where a permanent ban expires, so the second argument is irrelevant.

Up until now, I've been under the impression that I've been arguing with someone who was semi-genuine albeit horribly misguided.  This revelation makes it clear that I'm dealing with a chronic liar ("I don't know if I was banned" when of course he did, "Neither of my accounts broke any rules" which is patently untrue) who is still every bit the broken-record proselytizer.

Now, let's talk about second chances.  Previously, people who have made a sock account to circumvent a ban are swiftly rebanned.  I don't think it is wise to change this policy.  If we make an exception for Drew, we'd have to make an exception for others and the end result would inevitably be Too Dumb to Live godspammers sticking around who would otherwise be gone.  I dunno about you, but that's not a future I desire.

I'm with Hydra here.  Banned is banned and I expect a ban to be enforced.  Unless the banished proves some reason to be allowed to return.  There CAN be misunderstandings and changes of character.  Not that I see one here.

Quote from: Hydra009 on October 01, 2017, 11:17:46 AM
A sock account is a second account created by the same user, which Drew admitted to.  So yes, it does qualify as a sock account.  And afaik, there's no timeframe where a permanent ban expires, so the second argument is irrelevant.

Up until now, I've been under the impression that I've been arguing with someone who was semi-genuine albeit horribly misguided.  This revelation makes it clear that I'm dealing with a chronic liar ("I don't know if I was banned" when of course he did, "Neither of my accounts broke any rules" which is patently untrue) who is still every bit the broken-record proselytizer.

Now, let's talk about second chances.  Previously, people who have made a sock account to circumvent a ban are swiftly rebanned.  I don't think it is wise to change this policy.  If we make an exception for Drew, we'd have to make an exception for others and the end result would inevitably be Too Dumb to Live godspammers sticking around who would otherwise be gone.  I dunno about you, but that's not a future I desire.

So what are we waiting for? Can someone ban him NOW? He has been preaching and refusing to argue. It took me a long time to explain to him that he was wrong to call thunder 'evidence' for Thor and wrong to say the universe is evidence for God. But he ignored what I said and went on preaching. He said others could read for themselves. It's so obvious that he is using AF as a platform to preach God without addressing the points other people have raised.

He is a blatant liar even though he is clearly an imbecile. He must have thought atheists are all dumb because he used the same 'Drew' in his name and nobody realised he was the same person. And then he became bold and he resuscitated his own thread. When I looked at the thread I didn't see the difference in names and I thought it was a thread he started.  He must have been chuckling to himself.

Now that I have seen his brand of stupidity and flawed arguments, I think I should be able to smell this rat a mile away if he comes back  and calls himself DrewAgain or something like that. He's making a mockery of the rules and probably he's laughing at the moderators to his own Christian forums. Please ban him and ban his lubricated God which he has repeatedly tried to insert into the gaps of knowledge.

Can someone please report him to the moderators?

Also, this revelation taints any future discussion we might have because now I know for a fact that he's not here to genuinely discuss the issues, he's here to preach at us just like his last incarnation.

Quote from: St Truth on October 01, 2017, 11:31:25 AMCan someone please report him to the moderators?

Someone already has.  Give it time.

Quote from: Hydra009 on October 01, 2017, 11:32:37 AM
Also, this revelation taints any future discussion we might have because now I know for a fact that he's not here to genuinely discuss the issues, he's here to preach at us just like his last incarnation.

I have not met his former self. But preachy he certainly is. And he is good at ignoring other people's arguments and just continues preaching. He probably sees it as his God-given mission to preach to the 'poor godless atheists'. You can ban him but he will return. He has a mission from his invisible God.

Who are the moderators? How does one report him to the moderators?

Is he a Christian? I've asked him to define his 'God' but he has stoutly refused to do so. But his arguments appear to me to be the usual vomit that comes from the mouths of Christian apologists eg that loony Ravi Zacharias and that slimy serpentine dishonest William Lane Craig who would have made a mean used car salesman if he hadn't found his pot of gold in Christian apologetics. As Jesus says, 'You can detect a Christian by his filthy odour'. From Drew's foul smell, I suspect his God which he refuses to describe is none other than the Christian God - the three in one - as in a shampoo ad.

After Drew has been given a kick to his rump before he is tossed out of AF where he will wail and gnash his teeth, let's pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that the next theist or Christian who comes will have slightly more intelligence than that imbecile Drew. It's very hard to deal with imbeciles and when I was in CF, I was practically swimming in a sea of imbeciles.

Quote from: Hydra009 on October 01, 2017, 11:32:37 AM
Also, this revelation taints any future discussion we might have because now I know for a fact that he's not here to genuinely discuss the issues, he's here to preach at us just like his last incarnation.

A little story here.  I almost lived and died at one forum in the 90s about some books.  As discussions went on, a forum was created for "heated discussions".  *I* did not raise the subject of atheism, but I got drawn into it to a degree where I was asked to leave.  I tried to return under a completely different name months later, but I was immediately recognized and attacked.  I had the sense to recognize I was no longer welcome and I left more or less voluntarily.

I give Drew less respect than that.  He is not wanted but won't leave.  So Admin action is required.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 01, 2017, 11:52:18 AM
A little story here.  I almost lived and died at one forum in the 90s about some books.  As discussions went on, a forum was created for "heated discussions".  *I* did not raise the subject of atheism, but I got drawn into it to a degree where I was asked to leave.  I tried to return under a completely different name months later, but I was immediately recognized and attacked.  I had the sense to recognize I was no longer welcome and I left more or less voluntarily.

I give Drew less respect than that.  He is not wanted but won't leave.  So Admin action is required.

Drew has no basic dignity. He is dishonest and cowardly and he'd do anything to promote his impotent God. He's too stupid to argue but all he wants is to preach his dumb religion.

Quote from: St Truth on October 01, 2017, 11:45:51 AM
let's pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster that the next theist or Christian who comes will have slightly more intelligence than that imbecile Drew.

Well, don't get your hopes up too much on that score, most of the theists that come here are no better than Drew. They can be entertaining for a while, but then they just become tiresome.

Quote from: Unbeliever on October 01, 2017, 12:18:33 PM
Well, don't get your hopes up too much on that score, most of the theists that come here are no better than Drew. They can be entertaining for a while, but then they just become tiresome.

Yeah, but most aren't so PERSISTENT and LENGTHY about it.  Well OK, IBN is worse...

Quote from: St Truth on October 01, 2017, 12:10:49 PM
Drew has no basic dignity. He is dishonest and cowardly and he'd do anything to promote his impotent God. He's too stupid to argue but all he wants is to preach his dumb religion.

You take things too personally, and are rude (so unlike Anglicans) ... but you will grow out of it.  I would report you to the Admins, but they know what you post, and you are too young for the "death penalty" ... you are just suited for "juvi" along with the other young punks ;-))  You need to wear a black leather jacket, and put greasy kid stuff in your hair, and comb it into a DA (1950s American slang) ... like a mullet, only shorter.

Quote from: Cavebear on October 01, 2017, 11:52:18 AM
A little story here.  I almost lived and died at one forum in the 90s about some books.  As discussions went on, a forum was created for "heated discussions".  *I* did not raise the subject of atheism, but I got drawn into it to a degree where I was asked to leave.  I tried to return under a completely different name months later, but I was immediately recognized and attacked.  I had the sense to recognize I was no longer welcome and I left more or less voluntarily.

I give Drew less respect than that.  He is not wanted but won't leave.  So Admin action is required.

I fear your DMV dictatorship oh DMV functionary from Hell ;-)  Yes, the former forum recognized you had previously been stoned ... for whatever error you did ... it is hard to LARP as someone else.  Just like being a liar is too much work, because you have to remember which lie you told to which person, and how to harmonize all that mess.  Not saying you are a liar .. or anyone else.  I am completely truthful, if not factual.  I am too lazy not to be.

Quote from: St Truth on October 01, 2017, 03:14:01 AM
I'm a cultural Christian and an altar boy. I've made that very clear. I was born in a Christian family and I go to church with my parents. But that doesn't mean I'm a theist. Please don't insult me. A theist is either an idiot, a madman or an ignoramus. I am none of these nor a combination of them. I'm certainly not a theist. Theism is a disease of the mind. I'm quite sane, thank you very much.

I agree that Anglicans are "not a true Scotsman" .. a true Scotsman would be Presbyterian ;-)  But lets not get into the whole "my false Christianity is better than your false Christianity".  You won't like going there ... you Anglican, you ;-))

Quote from: Cavebear on October 01, 2017, 06:56:29 AM
Google translation:  "Oh, that of a great Luke, the literature, I shall not seek the night of the life of Shen, nor the night, and the existence of an order. O God, a boy on the cliff of Aven."

Wow that sure puts ME in my place.  Well, if I can figure out what even THAT means...

Baruch, you know a lot about languages and the bible.   Is that a poor Google translation of something actually making biblical or quranic sense?

Sorry, total Google Translate failure.  I have shown this in a post earlier this year.  There is no AI, and Google is Evil.  Probably Egyptian dialect.  And probably not complementary ;-)  Sorry, I can only catch a word or two.

Quote from: St Truth on October 01, 2017, 08:38:11 AM
Did that damned insane blood-thirsty pork-eating madman Muhammad teach you manners? Does bloody Allah aka the pink polka-dotted pig ever tell you to behave yourself when you are in an atheist forum? This is not a bloody mosque where you can scream foul language like they always do from your minaret.

Actually, he professes to be Catholic.  He does act like a theist, so his label does not mean much.  He is a brain dead idiot, in either case. Or every case.

If this Drew is exiled to the Purgatory, I will still find it occasionally interesting to talk to him there.  Apparently St Truth doesn't know about that Purgatory ... don't they have that in Anglican theology?

Quote from: Baruch on October 01, 2017, 02:45:22 PM
If this Drew is exiled to the Purgatory, I will still find it occasionally interesting to talk to him there.  Apparently St Truth doesn't know about that Purgatory ... don't they have that in Anglican theology?

Good suggestion.  Perhaps Drew and Randy can get into it in the Purgatory subforum.  That would be entertaining.

Quote from: sdelsolray on October 01, 2017, 02:55:42 PM
Good suggestion.  Perhaps Drew and Randy can get into it in the Purgatory subforum.  That would be entertaining.

If they are both Catholic ... and I have my doubts, then yes, it should be much like a conclave of cardinals arguing over who will be the next Pope ;-)

Quote from: Baruch on October 01, 2017, 02:45:22 PM
If this Drew is exiled to the Purgatory, I will still find it occasionally interesting to talk to him there.  Apparently St Truth doesn't know about that Purgatory ... don't they have that in Anglican theology?

The 39 Articles dismiss purgatory as a papist superstition or words to that effect. Maybe it's transubstantiation which is a papist superstition - I don't remember. But it's the idiocy of Roman Catholicism. As if it wasn't bad enough that Christianity invented heaven and hell, the dumb papists had to cook up one more place. If only humans were blessed with a higher intelligence than what we see in dumb theists. Most of them like that Drew sock puppet have an IQ no higher than that of a gibbon with a head injury.

Speak the truth I must, for I am...

St Truth

I think if Drew is exiled to the Purgatory on AF, it will be fun to visit him as one would visit a prisoner. But I think he won't stay there. He will just create a new account and call himself DrewAgain or some such name and he will resuscitate his old posts one more time. That guy is not just an idiot. He is a brazen idiot.

AF should force him to declare details about his God so that we can blaspheme the little devil whenever we're irritated with his obtuse refusal to address our arguments. If he's Muslim this is my most effective antidote to an irritating Muslim (but I suspect he's a Christian):

اÙ,,Ù,,Ù‡ خنزير

This should be hung at the doorway of every mosque.

I can Google Translate too.  But I have studied Arabic and the culture and religion and history that go along with it.

Don't be a swine-hundt ... that is Pr126's job ;-)

Quote from: St Truth on October 02, 2017, 04:26:13 AM
a gibbon with a head injury.

I'll have to remember that.....................

Quote from: St Truth on October 02, 2017, 04:26:13 AM
The 39 Articles dismiss purgatory as a papist superstition or words to that effect. Maybe it's transubstantiation which is a papist superstition - I don't remember. But it's the idiocy of Roman Catholicism. As if it wasn't bad enough that Christianity invented heaven and hell, the dumb papists had to cook up one more place. If only humans were blessed with a higher intelligence than what we see in dumb theists. Most of them like that Drew sock puppet have an IQ no higher than that of a gibbon with a head injury.

Speak the truth I must, for I am...

St Truth

I care as little about your apparent protestant views as I care for catholic ones, hindu ones, norse ones, mithraist ones, or islamist ones.