Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 09-07-2015, 09:26 AM   #1
ahoba
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 90
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,
ahoba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2015, 09:55 AM   #2
Sinfidel
Obsessed Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 2,395
Quote:
ahoba wrote View Post
Someone here is angry because I said "Existing creator is also possible theoretically and more logical!"

Regards,
"More logical" than what????????????????


Use foolproof airtight logic on a mind that's closed and you're dead. - William J. Reilly, Opening Closed Minds
Sinfidel is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2015, 10:24 AM   #3
Hobotronic2037
Senior Member
 
Hobotronic2037's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 756
Quote:
ahoba wrote View Post
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 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2015, 10:36 AM   #4
Hobotronic2037
Senior Member
 
Hobotronic2037's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 756
Quote:
ahoba wrote View Post
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.
Hobotronic2037 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2015, 10:48 AM   #5
ahoba
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 90
Quote:
Sinfidel wrote View Post
"More logical" than what????????????????

You again
ahoba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2015, 10:55 AM   #6
Hobotronic2037
Senior Member
 
Hobotronic2037's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 756
Quote:
ahoba wrote View Post
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."
Hobotronic2037 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2015, 11:08 AM   #7
ahoba
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 90
Creator: a person or thing that brings something into existence.
ahoba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2015, 01:30 PM   #8
Hobotronic2037
Senior Member
 
Hobotronic2037's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 756
Quote:
ahoba wrote View Post
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.
Hobotronic2037 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-07-2015, 03:36 PM   #9
Smellyoldgit
Stinkin' Mod
 
Smellyoldgit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Britland
Posts: 13,568
Now we know beyond doubt that we have a dense, probably christian cretin in our midst.
Feed this troll at your peril.

Stop the Holy See men!
Smellyoldgit is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 05:45 AM   #10
ahoba
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 90
Quote:
Hobotronic2037 wrote View Post
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?
ahoba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 06:32 AM   #11
Davin
Obsessed Member
 
Davin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: One the armpits of the U.S. of A.
Posts: 2,856
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.

Always question all authorities because the authority you don't question is the most dangerous... except me, never question me.
Davin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 08:14 AM   #12
Hobotronic2037
Senior Member
 
Hobotronic2037's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 756
Quote:
ahoba wrote View Post
Then?
For?
Hobotronic2037 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 10:22 AM   #13
ahoba
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 90
Quote:
Hobotronic2037 wrote View Post
For?
By your definition, you agree with me, don't you?
ahoba is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 02:35 PM   #14
Hobotronic2037
Senior Member
 
Hobotronic2037's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2015
Posts: 756
Quote:
ahoba wrote View Post
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.
Hobotronic2037 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-08-2015, 08:31 PM   #15
ahoba
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 90
So why did you reply and for what??? just talking anything?!!!!!!

Quote:
Hobotronic2037 wrote View Post
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!!!
ahoba is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 07:20 PM.


Powered by: vBulletin - Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 2000 - , Raving Atheists [dot] com frequency-supranational frequency-supranational