Simplified argument for a God's existence

[hertz vanrental]

Andrew66 wrote

Announcement!
Taking into account all's suggestions I'm rewording the ?argument, ?hypothesis - whatever you want to call it - on a new thread. Stay tuned.

android

You are getting bitch slapped every which way now. This is embarrassing.

Your poor grasp of grammar indicated that you had a poor education. It is now letting you down badly. You cannot imagine how stupid you look right now because you are just too thick.

Give it up boy.

This is just too painful to watch.

The Judge is having you for breakfast. You just aren't up to it.

And stop doing that weird shit

[Andrew66]

hertz vanrental wrote

Isn't that called 'Truth by association' and is a typical ploy which many fall for and which is much used by christards?

X is true.

Y may or not be true.

If Y is mentioned in a passage containing X, then by associating Y with X, there is the intent of making Y true.

Another epic fail, android.

It would be nice, android, if you could get just one thing right, but, I don't think we will ever see this.

Oh, and stop the weird shit.

Blessing Hertz, hope you are well!

Thanks for your input on this matter!

I see your point, but I don't think its quite that simple.

X is true (i.e. evolution occurs - by natural selection)

Y may be true (i.e. a God like being may have evolved somewhere in the vastness of the cosmos, over the vastness of time). By the way thank you!!! for saying Y "may" be true!!!

Lets use both in a sentence...

I would go on to say..

Y is true by mechanism X, assuming X has occurred over an very long (if not infinite) time, and within a very large (if not infinitely large) continuum of space, matter and energy.

An infinite number of "chemistry sets" at work providing infinite types of varying replicating (evolving) life, and an infinite number of progressive evolution pathways to follow, at work over a vary long, if not infinite time leading to beings of vast intelligence, power and accomplishment!

It is within the limits of imagination to hypothesize that if a single being or species evolved to a certain threshold - could it not be possible that such being could essentially conquer and rule the cosmos in its entirety - even for the rest of eternity? Then you have a God!

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

X is true (i.e. evolution occurs - by natural selection)

Y may be true (i.e. a God like being may have evolved somewhere in the vastness of the cosmos, over the vastness of time).

.... Then you have a God!

Ooo look, Androol is accepting the truth of evolution and once again bolting on his unfalsifiable 'god-thing' conjecture horseshit. How surprised should we be?
Fucking twat.

[Andrew66]

Smellyoldgit wrote

Ooo look, Androol is accepting the truth of evolution and once again bolting on his unfalsifiable 'god-thing' conjecture horseshit. How surprised should we be?
Fucking twat.

God evening Smelly (Ha Ha, please excuse the playful pun!).

Hope you are great.

I have always accepted evolution. It is the basis of one of my theories how a God may exist - by evolution over infinite time and space.

Just because a hypothesis is not falsifiable, doesn't mean its not true. It's just tough to prove. By the way, the argument is philosophical - not empirically scientific.

God Bless, have a wonderful evening!!!!

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

Just because a hypothesis is not falsifiable, doesn't mean its not true. It's just tough to prove.

So you finally accept the truth of the Galactic Star-Shitting Penguins?!
There's hope for ewe yet (he says sheepishly)

**noted that you added the 'philosophical' cop-out after I commented**
Just makes The Penguins all the more acceptable!

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

Just because a hypothesis is not falsifiable, doesn't mean its not true.

Neither an hypothesis nor a null hypothesis is true until they are tested. Unfalsifiability means an hypothesis / null hypothesis is not a valid thing to test.

It would most certainly be foolish to assume that something is true when it cannot be proven.

[hertz vanrental]

Andrew66 wrote

I have always accepted evolution.

That's real big of you.

Andrew66 wrote

It is the basis of one of my theories

android's definition of "theory" - something he came up with whilst having a shit.

Hey, fuckwit, here's the definition of theory:

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world.

Oh, and cut out that weird shit

[The Judge]

Andrew66 wrote

By the way, the argument is philosophical - not empirically scientific.

Then I suggest you do not confuse the two. To try and first defend an hypothesis despite its unfalsifiability and then secondarily to claim it's all philosophical anyway without explaining why could very easily be taken for alack of knowledge of both.

[hertz vanrental]

Andrew66 wrote

Blessing Hertz, hope you are well!

Thanks for your input on this matter!

Fuck off.

Andrew66 wrote

I don't think its quite that simple.

Yes, fuckwit, it is

Andrew66 wrote

Y is true by mechanism X,

X and Y are independent variables. That's why I wrote X and Y NOT X is dependent on Y or vice versa.

Did you even read the phrase: "Truth by association"?

Do you even know what this means, or it's implications?

android, just fuck off, you are a useless, unintelligent twat with pretensions of mediocrity - which you fail to achieve by the way.

Oh, and stop doing that weird shit

[Davin]

Andrew66 wrote

assuming X has occurred over an very long (if not infinite) time, and within a very large (if not infinitely large) continuum of space, matter and energy.[...]

Is anyone surprised that Looser66 is still wrong about how evolution works? No one? Me neither, what an idiot.

[hertz vanrental]

So, let me see if I have this correct ...

android 'thinks' that there's this infinite time, infinite continuum of space (I'm sure android means space-time continuum) and infinite matter and energy ..

Bloody hell, this will come as a shock to Professor Stephen Hawking, whose birthday was yesterday, by the way, and his colleagues because I'm sure that he thinks that all these, although large, are not infinite.

Perhaps in android's world they are?

[Andrew66]

hertz vanrental wrote

So, let me see if I have this correct ...

android 'thinks' that there's this infinite time, infinite continuum of space (I'm sure android means space-time continuum) and infinite matter and energy ..

Bloody hell, this will come as a shock to Professor Stephen Hawking, whose birthday was yesterday, by the way, and his colleagues because I'm sure that he thinks that all these, although large, are not infinite.

Perhaps in android's world they are?

Lots of cosmologists who are comfortable in hypothesizing philosophically (which Hawkins isn't) have conjectured that there could be a multiverse, and the possibility for an actualized infinity (space, time, matter, energy) cannot be ruled out. Evidence for multiverse was recently discovered - where another universe supposedly collided with ours.

Hawkings tends to limit his discussion only to our own known universe - he is reluctant to speak of what may or may not be beyond. Common mistake Hurtz - you have to really understand the nuances of language (science vs. philosophy) to follow the discussion - with you're grade 10 education this would be tough.

Go back to school, learn critical thinking, philosophy and cosmology - then come back to me for a good conversation.

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

...... you have to really understand the nuances of language (science vs. philosophy) to follow the discussion ....

Make your fucking mind up.
Is the shite you post here science or mental masturbation?
.... surely you're not still trying to bolt your brain wanks onto reality?


Hint - look up 'rhetorical' before you answer.

[hertz vanrental]

Andrew66 wrote

Lots of cosmologists who are comfortable in hypothesizing philosophically (which Hawkins isn't) have conjectured that there could be a multiverse, and the possibility for an actualized infinity (space, time, matter, energy) cannot be ruled out. Evidence for multiverse was recently discovered - where another universe supposedly collided with ours.

Hawkings tends to limit his discussion only to our own known universe - he is reluctant to speak of what may or may not be beyond. Common mistake Hurtz - you have to really understand the nuances of language (science vs. philosophy) to follow the discussion - with you're grade 10 education this would be tough.

Go back to school, learn critical thinking, philosophy and cosmology - then come back to me for a good conversation.

fuck me - you are egor aren't you!

You are, weirdo, aren't you?

Oh, stop doing that shit - gonna get caught.