I don't want to alarm anyone, but....

[selliedjoup]

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?

[selliedjoup]

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?

[selliedjoup]

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....

[Simoon]

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?

[selliedjoup]

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?

[Simoon]

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?

[Simoon]

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?

[ILOVEJESUS]

Your honour, Jerry is a fuckwit. I rest my case.

[ILOVEJESUS]

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.

[ILOVEJESUS]

selliedjoup wrote

No wrong...again.

You should read your own posts.

[Kinich Ahau]

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.

[Kinich Ahau]

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.

[Irreligious]

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.

[selliedjoup]

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.

[selliedjoup]

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.