Board index › Topical Discussion › Politics, Philosophy, and Religion

God doesn't seem to exist!

Page 30 of 33 [ 517 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1 ... 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33  Next

Previous topic | Next topic

Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

08 Jul 2015, 10:46 pm

Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
I know the finetuning arguments are nonsense because I understand science, you've clearly no idea and yet you're pretending otherwise. ugh


You don't know jack s**t, and the evidence for this claim of mine are your infantile, clueless, and sophomoric comments about fine tuning.
you've yet to provide any reliable evidence, fling mud all you like, it won't change this.


In your opinion the evidence isn't reliable. Many would disagree with your assessment of it. You could be wrong about the evidence you know, or had you never even considered that possibility?
I could be, yes. you've not demonstrated sufficiently that I am, just thrown spurious sources in my direction.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

08 Jul 2015, 10:48 pm

Fugu wrote:
hello again mr strawman. the Anthropic principle is a philosphical one, not a scientific one.


...and so you automatically assume that because it is a philosophical point, it therefore has no validity and cannot teach us anything at all about the universe we live in. You subscribe to the dogma of scientism, an ugly philosophical creed if ever there was one (yes, that's my opinion of it, I don't claim it to be an absolute truth, like "God doesn't exist").

Do you even comprehend the fact that atheism itself doesn't have anything at all to do with the practice of science, but is instead a philosphical position?



DailyPoutine1
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 14 Mar 2015
Age: 23
Posts: 2,278
Location: Province of Québec, Canada

08 Jul 2015, 10:50 pm

I agree with the title. All we can say is our world exists. Christians saying that "god created everything" are delusioning. They miss this point: What created "god"? Therefore, we must assume that things exist because they do. Laws of the universe apply to everything. If something was created by something else, this thing must exist, wich creates an endless paradox.


_________________
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9CY2XtuxoEI


Last edited by DailyPoutine1 on 08 Jul 2015, 11:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

08 Jul 2015, 10:51 pm

Fugu wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Can you read the thread title? is this a thread about god or not.

genesis 26-27
26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.


So what? Do you seriously think that a person can only ever be either a Christian (and a fundamentalist, at that) or an atheist? I am neither. Do you understand what I mean by that? Do I have to spell it out, or use baby talk?
you're not a christian, but you're presenting arguments that directly relate to young earth creationism(hi it's me, christianity) and it's associated talking heads because _?


No, I'm doing nothing of the kind. Y.E.C. is nonsense, it has nothing going for it, and, what's more, it isn't even biblical (not that I care about that, but it's true, the Bible does NOT claim the Earth to be 6,000 years old).



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

08 Jul 2015, 10:56 pm

DailyPoutine1 wrote:
I agree with the title. All we can say is our world exists. Christians saying that "god created everything" are delusioning. They miss this point: What created "god"? Therefore, we must assume is that things exist because they do. Laws of the universe apply to everything. If something was created by something else, this thing must exist, wich creates an endless paradox.


Well, I'm glad someone else is here. I was getting a bit too frustrated with Fugu, he just doesn't understand what theologians and philosophers even mean by the term "God". He thinks it's a spaghetti-monster or something. He is out of his depth.

As for the question, "What created God?", the simple answer to this is that nothing did, because nothing could have. If you are going to speculate about what created God, you then have to ask "What created that which created God?", and before you know it you are on the downward spiral of infinite regression. God, in order to even qualify as such, must be the necessary and self-explanatory source of all there is. That, like omnipotence, is an aspect of what God is.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

08 Jul 2015, 11:01 pm

Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
hello again mr strawman. the Anthropic principle is a philosphical one, not a scientific one.


...and so you automatically assume that because it is a philosophical point, it therefore has no validity and cannot teach us anything at all about the universe we live in. You subscribe to the dogma of scientism, an ugly philosophical creed if ever there was one (yes, that's my opinion of it, I don't claim it to be an absolute truth, like "God doesn't exist").

Do you even comprehend the fact that atheism itself doesn't have anything at all to do with the practice of science, but is instead a philosphical position?
when it's being stretched as far as you're stretching it, yes, it's invalid.
I've understood science all my life, I have no need to believe in science, I can see where it will take us, and it's taking us away from superstition, away from nonsense fairies that live in the clouds.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

08 Jul 2015, 11:04 pm

Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Can you read the thread title? is this a thread about god or not.

genesis 26-27
26Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth." 27God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.


So what? Do you seriously think that a person can only ever be either a Christian (and a fundamentalist, at that) or an atheist? I am neither. Do you understand what I mean by that? Do I have to spell it out, or use baby talk?
you're not a christian, but you're presenting arguments that directly relate to young earth creationism(hi it's me, christianity) and it's associated talking heads because _?


No, I'm doing nothing of the kind. Y.E.C. is nonsense, it has nothing going for it, and, what's more, it isn't even biblical (not that I care about that, but it's true, the Bible does NOT claim the Earth to be 6,000 years old).
uh yes you are, you've posted multiple links about fine-tuning, an argument for YEC viewpoints. you don't get to turn around and say "no sorry those are really something else, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

08 Jul 2015, 11:14 pm

Fugu wrote:
I've understood science all my life


I seriously doubt this. Even if true, you clearly don't understand either the history of science, nor philosophy.

heavenlyabyss wrote:
I have no need to believe in science, I can see where it will take us


Really? Where?

heavenlyabyss wrote:
and it's taking us away from superstition, away from nonsense fairies that live in the clouds.


Oh, you mean into the superstition of spontaneous universes from literally nothing, philosophy being "dead" (according to Hawking and Mlodinow in their infamously bad book "The Grand Design") and free will being nonexistent because we don't even have minds to begin with (according to S. Blackmore, a notorious meme-believer). Sure, right, there's no superstitious nonsense here :roll:



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

08 Jul 2015, 11:18 pm

Fugu wrote:
uh yes you are, you've posted multiple links about fine-tuning, an argument for YEC viewpoints. you don't get to turn around and say "no sorry those are really something else, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"


The fact that there may be Y.E.C. supporters who use this argument does not therefore invalidate it. New Agers like to go on about Quantum Mechanics, but does the fact they do mean that Q.M. is therefore wrong?

Where is the logic here? Apparently missing in action.



Lintar
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 22 Nov 2012
Age: 56
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,777
Location: Victoria, Australia

08 Jul 2015, 11:20 pm

I have to go now, I've been sitting here for hours, and I have other things to do, but I am sure I will be back.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

08 Jul 2015, 11:40 pm

Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
uh yes you are, you've posted multiple links about fine-tuning, an argument for YEC viewpoints. you don't get to turn around and say "no sorry those are really something else, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain"


The fact that there may be Y.E.C. supporters who use this argument does not therefore invalidate it. New Agers like to go on about Quantum Mechanics, but does the fact they do mean that Q.M. is therefore wrong?

Where is the logic here? Apparently missing in action.
no, it doesn't invalidate it, the fine-tuning argument has it backwards. it's life that tailored itself to the universe's constraints, not the other way around.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

08 Jul 2015, 11:45 pm

Lintar wrote:
Fugu wrote:
I've understood science all my life


I seriously doubt this. Even if true, you clearly don't understand either the history of science, nor philosophy.

heavenlyabyss wrote:
I have no need to believe in science, I can see where it will take us


Really? Where?
I said where in the other part of the sentence you're quoting out of context.
Quote:
heavenlyabyss wrote:
and it's taking us away from superstition, away from nonsense fairies that live in the clouds.


Oh, you mean into the superstition of spontaneous universes from literally nothing, philosophy being "dead" (according to Hawking and Mlodinow in their infamously bad book "The Grand Design") and free will being nonexistent because we don't even have minds to begin with (according to S. Blackmore, a notorious meme-believer). Sure, right, there's no superstitious nonsense here :roll:
no, I mean actual superstition, not actual scientific concepts, despite your attempt to put words in my mouth.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

09 Jul 2015, 4:52 am

cathylynn wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
cathylynn wrote:

okay, i'll try different phrasing. i have no belief in god because existence of such a being is highly unlikely.
Quote:
Uh huh. You arbitrarily declare that the "existence of such a being is highly unlikely" and on the strength of that supposition you assume that an imaginary process called "evolution" (which is demonstrably impossible) is, therefore, "true".

Atheism is a dogmatic requirement of the more general religion called Materialism. That is the religion that Atheism subsists in... much as the Russian Orthodox religious persuasion subsists in Christianity.

Getting back to the thread title... God doesn't "seem" to exist only if one ignores any logical and observational evidence that says that He must.
Quote:
if you can disprove evolution, you should write a paper on it and collect your nobel.
There is no need for me to write such a paper as there are already hundreds of them written by people who are much more highly and formally qualified than me who have explained in great detail how and why "evolution" is an impossible superstition.

There is no chance at all of me getting a Nobel Prize for simply redoing what has already been done by a litany of good scholars and scientists.

The fact is that the "Establishment" is completely dominated by career politicians posing as "scientists" who's sole aim is to sell a perverse ideology to an unsuspecting and gullible public; for rewards no more laudible than publicity, status, and money.

You will, of course, not have noticed that the proponents of this proven false ideology only resort to sophistic rhetoric and irrational ridicule... ordinary, old fashioned, heckling that is only indicative of a narcissistic personality that paralyses the intellect.

The censorship machine around here has logged me off again. Perhaps if I am quick and cunning enough I can dump this prepared post in before the censors give me the "spam" treatment and vanish the page and the post... as has been done before. They must consider me a threat to an indefensible ideology, eh?



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

09 Jul 2015, 11:18 am

Oldavid wrote:
They must consider me a threat to an indefensible ideology, eh?
more like a aimless waffler who constantly retreads the same arguments without accepting refutations of said arguments.



Oldavid
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 15 May 2010
Age: 71
Gender: Male
Posts: 704
Location: Western Australia

09 Jul 2015, 3:44 pm

Fugu wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
They must consider me a threat to an indefensible ideology, eh?
more like a aimless waffler who constantly retreads the same arguments without accepting refutations of said arguments.
A glib contrary assertion does not constitute a "refutation".

Religious bigotry is most irksome to a modest man, particularly if the bigot is an undisguised egomaniac.

I do not apologise for failing to be intimidated by specious sophistry. Some of us autistic types are not much impressed by irrational fads... no matter how popular they might be.



Fugu
Veteran
Veteran

User avatar

Joined: 2 Dec 2013
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,074
Location: Dallas

09 Jul 2015, 3:56 pm

Oldavid wrote:
Fugu wrote:
Oldavid wrote:
They must consider me a threat to an indefensible ideology, eh?
more like a aimless waffler who constantly retreads the same arguments without accepting refutations of said arguments.
A glib contrary assertion does not constitute a "refutation".

Religious bigotry is most irksome to a modest man, particularly if the bigot is an undisguised egomaniac.

I do not apologise for failing to be intimidated by specious sophistry. Some of us autistic types are not much impressed by irrational fads... no matter how popular they might be.
whatever, hide behind big words if you like, you're still just wandering in conversational circles which is why you get posts removed