Raving Atheists Forum

Raving Atheists Forum (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/index.php)
-   General Discussion (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/forumdisplay.php?f=27)
-   -   Existing creator is more logical (http://ravingatheists.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17330)

ahoba 09-07-2015 09:26 AM

Existing creator is more logical
 
Someone here is angry because I said "Existing creator is also possible theoretically and more logical!"

If anyone disagrees with me, please let me know but note that I said creator not God.


Regards,

Sinfidel 09-07-2015 09:55 AM

Quote:

ahoba wrote (Post 684774)
Someone here is angry because I said "Existing creator is also possible theoretically and more logical!"

Regards,

"More logical" than what????????????????

:eh:

Hobotronic2037 09-07-2015 10:24 AM

Quote:

ahoba wrote (Post 684774)
Someone here is angry because I said "Existing creator is also possible theoretically and more logical!"

If anyone disagrees with me, please let me know but note that I said creator not God.


Regards,

I can assure you with 100% certainly that nobody here is angry with you.

Bored? Yes. Irritated, sure. But not angry. Don't overinflate your own ego.

Hobotronic2037 09-07-2015 10:36 AM

Quote:

ahoba wrote (Post 684774)
Someone here is angry because I said "Existing creator is also possible theoretically and more logical!"

If anyone disagrees with me, please let me know but note that I said creator not God.


Regards,

Why did you move this to general discussion?

Is it because you're admitting that you have nothing scientific to discuss? Where is your more logical theory for "existing creator?" If existing creator is theoretically possible and also more logical, show us the theory and the superior logic. Chop chop.

ahoba 09-07-2015 10:48 AM

Quote:

Sinfidel wrote (Post 684776)
"More logical" than what????????????????

:eh:

You again :D

Hobotronic2037 09-07-2015 10:55 AM

Quote:

ahoba wrote (Post 684774)
Someone here is angry because I said "Existing creator is also possible theoretically and more logical!"

If anyone disagrees with me, please let me know but note that I said creator not God.


Regards,

Define "creator."

ahoba 09-07-2015 11:08 AM

Creator: a person or thing that brings something into existence.

Hobotronic2037 09-07-2015 01:30 PM

Quote:

ahoba wrote (Post 684785)
Creator: a person or thing that brings something into existence.

This definition is very imprecise.

Let's say a "person" is a creator. Was a painter like, say, Picasso a creator? Did he bring anything into existence? Well, it's probable that the same amount of matter exists in the universe before and after his death. He merely rearranged materials on a canvas, and sculpted some materials into different geometric forms and he transformed food he ate into feces, but did he bring anything into existence? On the other hand, his stupid paintings and poo wouldn't exist without him, right? So, yeah, I suppose he was a creator.

Now, let's say a "thing" is a creator. Can a thing create? Let's say it's an automatic bread machine. You dump in the ingredients, push a button, and bam, a couple of hours later, out pops a loaf of bread. Did the machine create it? By your definition, you could say it did. Would the bread exist without the machine? No. Therefore the bread machine is a creator, right? Or, you could say that you were the creator of the bread, because you combined the ingredients and pushed the button. Or, you could say the electricity was the creator, because without it powering the bread machine, no bread in existence.

Now, though, to my main point of this. All of those creators are observable. Picasso was observable (we have photographs as well as reliable eyewitness testimony and provenance). A bread machine is observable. Electricity is observable. You are observable.

Maybe here's a better working definition.

Creator: an observable person or thing that rearranges existing matter or language/ideas into new forms.

Probably still incomplete, but a lot more precise and reality based than yours.

So let's go with that definition, for now.

Smellyoldgit 09-07-2015 03:36 PM

Now we know beyond doubt that we have a dense, probably christian cretin in our midst.
Feed this troll at your peril.

ahoba 09-08-2015 05:45 AM

Quote:

Hobotronic2037 wrote (Post 684786)
This definition is very imprecise.

Let's say a "person" is a creator. Was a painter like, say, Picasso a creator? Did he bring anything into existence? Well, it's probable that the same amount of matter exists in the universe before and after his death. He merely rearranged materials on a canvas, and sculpted some materials into different geometric forms and he transformed food he ate into feces, but did he bring anything into existence? On the other hand, his stupid paintings and poo wouldn't exist without him, right? So, yeah, I suppose he was a creator.

Now, let's say a "thing" is a creator. Can a thing create? Let's say it's an automatic bread machine. You dump in the ingredients, push a button, and bam, a couple of hours later, out pops a loaf of bread. Did the machine create it? By your definition, you could say it did. Would the bread exist without the machine? No. Therefore the bread machine is a creator, right? Or, you could say that you were the creator of the bread, because you combined the ingredients and pushed the button. Or, you could say the electricity was the creator, because without it powering the bread machine, no bread in existence.

Now, though, to my main point of this. All of those creators are observable. Picasso was observable (we have photographs as well as reliable eyewitness testimony and provenance). A bread machine is observable. Electricity is observable. You are observable.

Maybe here's a better working definition.

Creator: an observable person or thing that rearranges existing matter or language/ideas into new forms.

Probably still incomplete, but a lot more precise and reality based than yours.

So let's go with that definition, for now.

Then?

Davin 09-08-2015 06:32 AM

One is required to support any claim they make. If you claim a god exists, then you're required to support that claim. If you say that the god you just so happened to believe in doesn't need to follow this rule because it is special, then you're committing a logical fallacy called "special pleading."

If I claim that ahoba is a dumb ass, I will point to its posts to support that claim.

Hobotronic2037 09-08-2015 08:14 AM

Quote:

ahoba wrote (Post 684793)
Then?

For?

ahoba 09-08-2015 10:22 AM

Quote:

Hobotronic2037 wrote (Post 684796)
For?

By your definition, you agree with me, don't you?

Hobotronic2037 09-08-2015 02:35 PM

Quote:

ahoba wrote (Post 684798)
By your definition, you agree with me, don't you?

I really doubt I agree with you on much of anything.

In fact, I have previously stated that we're going to have to agree to disagree.

That said, what exactly are you wanting me to agree with?

Sorry, the way your English is I have a hard time understanding exactly what you are asking me if I agree with. If you were actually sincere and not playing gotcha games I might better be able to understand u.

ahoba 09-08-2015 08:31 PM

So why did you reply and for what??? just talking anything?!!!!!!

Quote:

Hobotronic2037 wrote (Post 684786)
This definition is very imprecise.

Let's say a "person" is a creator. Was a painter like, say, Picasso a creator? Did he bring anything into existence? Well, it's probable that the same amount of matter exists in the universe before and after his death. He merely rearranged materials on a canvas, and sculpted some materials into different geometric forms and he transformed food he ate into feces, but did he bring anything into existence? On the other hand, his stupid paintings and poo wouldn't exist without him, right? So, yeah, I suppose he was a creator.

Now, let's say a "thing" is a creator. Can a thing create? Let's say it's an automatic bread machine. You dump in the ingredients, push a button, and bam, a couple of hours later, out pops a loaf of bread. Did the machine create it? By your definition, you could say it did. Would the bread exist without the machine? No. Therefore the bread machine is a creator, right? Or, you could say that you were the creator of the bread, because you combined the ingredients and pushed the button. Or, you could say the electricity was the creator, because without it powering the bread machine, no bread in existence.

Now, though, to my main point of this. All of those creators are observable. Picasso was observable (we have photographs as well as reliable eyewitness testimony and provenance). A bread machine is observable. Electricity is observable. You are observable.

Maybe here's a better working definition.

Creator: an observable person or thing that rearranges existing matter or language/ideas into new forms.

Probably still incomplete, but a lot more precise and reality based than yours.

So let's go with that definition, for now.

Easy!!!
by your definition is creator is theoretically possible or not?!!!!! easy!!!


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 10:03 PM.

Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2000-2013, Raving Atheists [dot] com. All rights reserved.