News:

Welcome to our site!

Main Menu

The Case for Theism

Started by DrewM, June 27, 2014, 11:53:22 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

DunkleSeele

*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!

the_antithesis

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.

DunkleSeele

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:

Moralnihilist

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?
Science doesn't give a damn about religions, because "damns" are not measurable units and therefore have no place in research. As soon as it's possible to detect damns, we'll quantize perdition and number all the levels of hell. Until then, science doesn't care.

DunkleSeele

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 ;)

stromboli

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)

Moralnihilist

Science doesn't give a damn about religions, because "damns" are not measurable units and therefore have no place in research. As soon as it's possible to detect damns, we'll quantize perdition and number all the levels of hell. Until then, science doesn't care.

Hakurei Reimu

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, 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.
Warning: Don't Tease The Miko!
(she bites!)
Spinny Miko Avatar shamelessly ripped off from Iosys' Neko Miko Reimu

Hijiri Byakuren

Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

Brian37

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.
"We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and nonbelievers." Obama
Poetry By Brian37 Like my poetry on Facebook Under BrianJames Rational Poet and also at twitter under Brianrrs37

Johan

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.

Religion is regarded by the common people as true, by the wise as false and by the rulers as useful

DrewM

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.


Hijiri Byakuren

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.
Speak when you have something to say, not when you have to say something.

Sargon The Grape - My Youtube Channel

the_antithesis

What the fuck does transcendent mean?

Moralnihilist

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
Science doesn't give a damn about religions, because "damns" are not measurable units and therefore have no place in research. As soon as it's possible to detect damns, we'll quantize perdition and number all the levels of hell. Until then, science doesn't care.