01-03-2013, 01:22 PM
|
#31
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,199
|
Quote:
Irreligious wrote
Jerry doesn't believe in "God?" That sounds like atheism to me.
|
Rinse and repeat...wahhooo.
Remember in that great thread which never existed, I said I don't base my position on what I believe. Unlike atheists which believe they....errr...hold a lack of belief, as they believe evidence is coming, despite evidence to the contrary..crazy huh?
I don't believe and I don't disbelieve. Remember I said I don't base my position on your definition?
|
|
|
01-03-2013, 01:27 PM
|
#32
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,199
|
Quote:
Simoon wrote
Tell me it ain't so!
The best thread, ever on the Internet?! Gone?
That's OK, I'm sure you will have more than enough chances to demonstrate your stupidity all over again.
See? It didn't take very long at all.
|
All you need to do is demonstrate why your position assumes that evidence is coming and this thread won't need to be longer than the other.
Deal?
|
|
|
01-03-2013, 01:34 PM
|
#33
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,199
|
Quote:
Irreligious wrote
It looks like gumby's gone. Maybe for good.
His/her ploy to put atheism on trial failed.
|
Well your honour, it's not that I disbelieve it's that I actively participate in lacking belief....
|
|
|
01-03-2013, 01:52 PM
|
#34
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 176
|
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
All you need to do is demonstrate why your position assumes that evidence is coming and this thread won't need to be longer than the other.
Deal?
|
I never claimed that evidence is coming. My position does not require it.
My only position is that without evidence, there is no justification to believe a god exists.
To go back to a very old point, the following 2 positions do not have equal merit, nor equal probability -
God -> Unknown magic god process -> singularity -> big bang expansion ->universe (or does the unknown magic god process belong after the existence of the singularity?).
Singularity -> natural process -> big bang expansion ->universe
The first has many more unknowns and requires many more explanations. The second uses what is already known.
Why do you give the first as much merit (50/50) as the second?
|
|
|
01-03-2013, 02:29 PM
|
#35
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,199
|
The second is not an explanation, it's where we're at.
And it's interesting that you omitted the natural process from the 1st, why? If a creator exists is it, and its processes, unnatural?
meh
|
|
|
01-03-2013, 02:45 PM
|
#36
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 176
|
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
The second is not an explanation, it's where we're at.
And it's interesting that you omitted the natural process from the 1st, why? If a creator exists is it, and its processes, unnatural?
|
You are correct. The second is the default position given the evidence currently available.
If a creator exists, it cannot possibly use natural processes, since natural processes have to behave according to the laws of nature.
If the creator exists, what natural processes created it?
|
|
|
01-03-2013, 03:31 PM
|
#37
|
Member
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 176
|
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
The second is not an explanation, it's where we're at.
And it's interesting that you omitted the natural process from the 1st, why? If a creator exists is it, and its processes, unnatural?
|
What is actually interesting is that you ignored my question.
Explain why you believe they have equal merit?
|
|
|
01-03-2013, 04:31 PM
|
#38
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,158
|
Your honour, Jerry is a fuckwit. I rest my case.
A theist is just an atheist with a space in it.
|
|
|
01-03-2013, 04:34 PM
|
#39
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,158
|
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
If you ask what I believe the probability is, and you then go over and over the same thing for a few years then there's no where else to go, unless you haven't pegged that this has been going on.
Sadly your poor rebuttals still leave the best guess anyone can have at 50/50.
Oh so evidence should be coming so we know it exists? So it's not coming if it doesn't exist?
Tell me, how do you know we can assess everything that exists?
|
You analyse it and draw conclusions from what results you see. Those results change as the evidence changes. If it cannot be known, and here's the clue, it doesn't exist. Just because you do not know something, it does not mean it is unknowable. I do not understand calculus. It exists I assure you. Humans do not understand so very much, but that does not make it impossible to understand. You are drifting from the idiotic to the absurd.
A theist is just an atheist with a space in it.
|
|
|
01-03-2013, 04:35 PM
|
#40
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 5,158
|
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
No wrong...again.
|
You should read your own posts.
A theist is just an atheist with a space in it.
|
|
|
01-03-2013, 08:10 PM
|
#41
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Great Ocean Road
Posts: 2,917
|
Quote:
selliedjoup wrote
The second is not an explanation, it's where we're at.
And it's interesting that you omitted the natural process from the 1st, why? If a creator exists is it, and its processes, unnatural?
|
Wow! Jerry's so called god is not a even a supernatural deity anymore. Never heard of that one. Looks like his god is diminishing little by little, even if it is a very slow process.
Maybe we should just call it "a cause" from now on.
I agree with others here, It looks like he is an atheist after all.
Once you are dead, you are nothing. Graffito, Pompeii
|
|
|
01-03-2013, 08:25 PM
|
#42
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Mar 2011
Location: Great Ocean Road
Posts: 2,917
|
Jerry, maybe you should forget your silly 50/50 proposition and just argue about what you really oppose, that is the culture of atheism/new atheism.
We have worked out that the real chip on your shoulder is not about the semantics of creation/existence but something much less ethereal.
You always harp on about our dislike of religion, (another generalisation, as not all atheists necessarily despise religion, yourself being a perfect example.) maybe you should be telling us how you think religion serves a useful purpose in our culture. Or why you find non-belief so threatening.
Once you are dead, you are nothing. Graffito, Pompeii
|
|
|
01-03-2013, 10:35 PM
|
#43
|
I Live Here
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Around the way
Posts: 12,641
|
I have an idea: Let's assist Jerry in replicating all 900 pages of his lost thread. The payoff will be awesome.
Of course, gratification will have to be delayed until 2017 when this one disappears, too.
"So many gods, so many creeds! So many paths that wind and wind, when just the art of being kind is all this sad world needs."
--Ella Wheeler Wilcox
|
|
|
01-04-2013, 12:47 AM
|
#44
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,199
|
Quote:
Simoon wrote
You are correct. The second is the default position given the evidence currently available.
If a creator exists, it cannot possibly use natural processes, since natural processes have to behave according to the laws of nature.
If the creator exists, what natural processes created it?
|
And I repeat the second is not an explanation.
If a creator exists, it would make sense to assume it defined the laws of nature.
Why do you assume that only our observation of natural processes (i.e. that which we can verify) is the only way to determine truth, and why are you so convinced that we must be able to observe everything? Therefore anything beyond what we can observe, becomes unnatural.
I'm more interested in what is true, despite the lack of evidence. You can say that evidence the only way we can find truth, but that doesn't mean it can find all truth, so until any form of truth is obtained your position is rendered irrelevant.
meh
|
|
|
01-04-2013, 12:51 AM
|
#45
|
Obsessed Member
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 1,199
|
Quote:
Simoon wrote
What is actually interesting is that you ignored my question.
Explain why you believe they have equal merit?
|
Simple, neither have evidence to account for an actual cause.
If you're proposing that the second fits into a random/uncased reason for existence, I would prefer that some form of catalyst was verified. Otherwise it's pure speculation that it was random or uncaused.
meh
|
|
|
Thread Tools |
|
Display Modes |
Linear Mode
|
Posting Rules
|
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
HTML code is Off
|
|
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 11:15 PM.
|