A message to Theists

[Irreligious]

Nice, zdave.

[lostsheep]

Kate wrote

LOL, and thanks for the warning Kate...but too late I realized the warning was post not pre...I shrieked a little but have recovered!

[Single Serving Jack]

Irreligious wrote

Nice, zdave.

Seconded. How you guys have the patience is beyond me

[erich von stalhein]

zdave wrote

And I've previously stated, that even if we accept that (c) is the case, we have a long way to go showing that that (c) can be God. Then, even further to go showing how that God could do all the other stuff you're attributing to him.

Mate, I find it hard to believe that you think you are offering me some logical reasons to abandon what I have offered sound reasons for.

Take this case. Option (c) can be God because to create such a carefully designed universe requires a powerful and clever being that exists outside of time and space. That fits the definition of God very well. But you offer me as alternatives: The flying spaghetti monster (previous post) and now farting space penguins! I am supposed to take this seriously? Or wait, you offer me other alternatives: "we're digital creations of a larger and smarter race, copy pasted from a celestial hard-drive. Another one is that the universe, everything in it including memories came into existence 1 millisecond ago. Or, or! Perhaps a time-traveler from the future goes back in time and his mere existence in a time where not even quantum foam existed set everything into motion."

This is just nonsense, and merely confirms to me that my answer is the most logical.

Sadly, I don't think it makes much sense to presume an imaginary friend in the place of nothing.

I understand that. But I thought you are supposed to be convincing me, not just playing silly games to avoid logic!

If you can't meet me half-way on the discussion then yes... I agree that we'll have to leave it there.

zdave, how can I come halfway to such nonsense? I have offered an honest and logical argument, why don't you come halfway and offer a sensible hypothesis and a logical argument to support it? I don't want this to be an argument or a putdown, but you need to take it all a bit more seriously, please.

[Kate]

[Smellyoldgit]

[Kinich Ahau]

erich von stalhein wrote

Mate, I find it hard to believe that you think you are offering me some logical reasons to abandon what I have offered sound reasons for.

Take this case. Option (c) can be God because to create such a carefully designed universe requires a powerful and clever being that exists outside of time and space. That fits the definition of God very well. But you offer me as alternatives: The flying spaghetti monster (previous post) and now farting space penguins! I am supposed to take this seriously? Or wait, you offer me other alternatives: "we're digital creations of a larger and smarter race, copy pasted from a celestial hard-drive. Another one is that the universe, everything in it including memories came into existence 1 millisecond ago. Or, or! Perhaps a time-traveler from the future goes back in time and his mere existence in a time where not even quantum foam existed set everything into motion."

This is just nonsense, and merely confirms to me that my answer is the most logical.


I understand that. But I thought you are supposed to be convincing me, not just playing silly games to avoid logic!


zdave, how can I come halfway to such nonsense? I have offered an honest and logical argument, why don't you come halfway and offer a sensible hypothesis and a logical argument to support it? I don't want this to be an argument or a putdown, but you need to take it all a bit more seriously, please.

This merely confirms to me that you don't get it do you weasel? Your god hypothesis is exactly as nonsensical as the Flying Spaghetti Monster, Star Shitting Penguins etc. Your god is no more logical than any decent imagination can come up with. After all that's how your white bearded man in the sky came into existence. Unfortunately bronze age desert people had pretty dull imaginations it seems.

[zdave]

erich von stalhein wrote

Mate, I find it hard to believe that you think you are offering me some logical reasons to abandon what I have offered sound reasons for.

As I said, you're taking the probability of a first cause and then extending it to a telepathic, self-sacrificing jewish carpenter that works in mysterious ways. Why not factor in the existence of something which cannot be verified into the probability calculations. Pretty sure they would fuck it up.

Also, I'm not asking you to abandon your beliefs. Go ahead and believe what you want. As previously stated my motive is to show you how your reasoning is stupid.

Take this case. Option (c) can be God because to create such a carefully designed universe requires a powerful and clever being that exists outside of time and space. That fits the definition of God very well. But you offer me as alternatives: The flying spaghetti monster (previous post) and now farting space penguins! I am supposed to take this seriously? Or wait, you offer me other alternatives: "we're digital creations of a larger and smarter race, copy pasted from a celestial hard-drive. Another one is that the universe, everything in it including memories came into existence 1 millisecond ago. Or, or! Perhaps a time-traveler from the future goes back in time and his mere existence in a time where not even quantum foam existed set everything into motion."

This is just nonsense, and merely confirms to me that my answer is the most logical.

Hahaha, I know you say it's nonsense, but can you demonstrate how it's nonsense? How is your sky fairy more probable than my time traveler?

I understand that. But I thought you are supposed to be convincing me, not just playing silly games to avoid logic!

Oh, an exclamation mark. I hope i'm not frustrating you Erich. When it comes to what I think, what I feel, what I believe... these things have no bearing on the discussion. We're discussing how you're placing your God within a gap which could be filled with any of the nonsense stuff I posted previously without disrupting the universe in the slightest bit.

By saying that this statement of mine is an avoidance of logic is to ignore all of the logic of the time traveler, or the penguins. Why don't you believe in my time traveler hypothesis?

zdave, how can I come halfway to such nonsense? I have offered an honest and logical argument, why don't you come halfway and offer a sensible hypothesis and a logical argument to support it? I don't want this to be an argument or a putdown, but you need to take it all a bit more seriously, please.

If you see the above as nonsense, then I'm afraid your grasp of 'sense' may only be a bit better than your defense against the God of the Gaps argument.

Also, once again... why don't you believe in my time traveler hypothesis? And note: Just saying that it's nonsense doesn't make it so. I'll even let you off on your own rule of "You must present a better alternative.". Just tell me how it's flawed.

I'm really bored of repeating myself Erich, try not to make me do it again.

[Sternwallow]

erich von stalheim wrote
I'm not sure where you are coming from, but this is one of several things you have said that was demonstrably not accurate.
You said I was Roman Catholic when I am not.

Just carious, how do you demonstrate that you are not Roman Catholic?

[nkb]

I'm curious, Erich: Where did God come from?

[nkb]

erich von stalhein wrote

Take this case. Option (c) can be God because to create such a carefully designed universe requires a powerful and clever being that exists outside of time and space. That fits the definition of God very well. But you offer me as alternatives: The flying spaghetti monster (previous post) and now farting space penguins! I am supposed to take this seriously? Or wait, you offer me other alternatives: "we're digital creations of a larger and smarter race, copy pasted from a celestial hard-drive. Another one is that the universe, everything in it including memories came into existence 1 millisecond ago. Or, or! Perhaps a time-traveler from the future goes back in time and his mere existence in a time where not even quantum foam existed set everything into motion."

This is just nonsense, and merely confirms to me that my answer is the most logical.

Yes, zdave, that's just nonsense! Not something perfectly sensible like a nebulous magic man, existing outside of space and time (yet, interacts with it), who creates the entire universe out of literally nothing, then waits 14 billion years to create humans, then gets pissed at them and drowns all but 8 of them, then gets pissed again, but instead sends his only son (who is really Him), then lets him get killed (but not really), so that he can forgive them for something they can't help doing, instead of just forgiving them in the first place.

Yep, now that is logical, and makes sense!

[Smellyoldgit]

[Kate]

Fuck you, Penguin!

[Irreligious]

nkb wrote

I'm curious, Erich: Where did God come from?

He can't even tell you what a god is, and you're expecting him to tell you where this alleged thing allegedly comes from?

[Kate]