Are Trolling Fuckwits Worth The Trouble?

[JerryJohn]

Kinich Ahau wrote

I know it's tough in the christian world for a woman but you should just come clean. Myself, I respect women, it's just the dishonesty and all your other shit I don't respect.

Sometimes it's hard to be a woman
Giving all your love to just one man
You'll have bad times, and he'll have good times
Doin' things that you don't understand
But if you love him, you'll forgive him
Even though he's hard to understand
And if you love him, oh be proud of him
'Cause after all he's just a man.
Stand by your man, give him two arms to cling to
And something warm to come to
When nights are cold and lonely.
Stand by your man, and show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can.
Stand by your man.
Stand by your man, and show the world you love him
Keep giving all the love you can.
Stand by your man.

Here's to all the little women like Mary!

Like I give a shit what you think.

JJ

[JerryJohn]

hertz vanrental wrote

Bitter and twisted old hag mary

android IQ 66 is trailer trash with a matching IQ, ffs.

Anyways, I'm going into one of the local towns later today to see if I can bag me a brace of christards, tie them in psychological knots and get them back in their hive where they can pontificate 'til their hearts are content. Just as long as they don't do it in public, I'm fine. We have to keep vermin off the streets and the air pollutant free. It's what public spirited people should do and I'm very public spirited.

I'll be sure to let you know how I get on later.

Toodle pip.

I could give a fuck less how it goes; you're probably making a complete ass out of yourself while they laugh their asses off at you.

JJ

[Kinich Ahau]

JerryJohn wrote

Like I give a shit what you think.

JJ

That time of month?

[Smellyoldgit]

Andrew66 wrote

I'll take that as a concession.

Take it as my recognition that you are a deceitful liar, a fraud and unteachable oaf, destined to live in your own sad little world of make believe,

[hertz vanrental]

JerryJohn wrote

I could give a fuck less how it goes; you're probably making a complete ass out of yourself while they laugh their asses off at you.

JJ

Old hag mary

I'm so glad that you were eager to know all about my christardorial escapades.

Sorry to have to say that there were no christards to be seen.

I think that they've finally realised that if they continue to spread their christard shit in public, I will continue to confront them, legally, of course.

Pity, because I was going to remove their balls today, have them rattle canned (black, I thought) and then dipped in glitter and made into ear rings. I thought they'd go nicely with my LBD. I think that I'd have looked quite fetching, even though I say so myself.

Tien.

Anyways, I'm going up to the lake district soon for the weekend. Maybe there's some christards up there that I can turn over and trash. I do hope so. You and trailer trash, well, you really, are good for a laugh but I need the real thing to get the buzz that I need. It's watching real live christards squirming in front of me as I turn the screws, and keep on turning, that gets my blood gushing. Oh, I'm such a bloody cow sometimes, she chuckled.

Be sure to get well and truly topped up with christard shit from the prick in the pulpit on Sunday. You are just so much better when you are full of shit.

You take care, y'hear.

Talk more Monday.

[hertz vanrental]

JerryJohn wrote

I could give a fuck less how it goes; you're probably making a complete ass out of yourself while they laugh their asses off at you.

JJ

I'm sensing a little anger here, old hag mary. I could be wrong but I sense life is getting to you a little. You're using those rude words that I've heard those naughty people use like cunt and fuck. You must refrain dear. It's not good for your heart nor your high blood pressure.

Now, make a cup of camomile tea, sit down, and tell me all about it.

I won't tell a soul. Promise. I'll just be the two of us.

Honestly dear, just let it all out. You'll feel much better.

[Andrew66]

Je suis Charly!
Je suis Mary!

Who the fuck cares - so many of you Atheists have used different Avatar names.

Je suis Mary!

I am Mary !!! We Christians are Mary!

By the way, I think it is a grose miscarriage of justice that Smelly has indicated that JJ is "?BANNED" from posting on other threads.

JJ has only shown decency and compassion in his writing, (sure once in a while he gets a bit miffed, even Jesus gets miffed sometimes) - to try to silence him is just a partisan effort to block his right to freedom of speech.

God bless JJ. His writings are the most interesting and without him this forum would have nothing to discuss. That's why the JJ thread is by far the most popular - it is where I certainly like to hang out.

Je suis Mary!!!!

[Andrew66]

Summary f of Fine Tuning

1) There are like 50 physical constants in the universe, that if any were just a hair off the universe would not have expanded and cooled in a way to yield any potential life form that we know of. The odds of this combination has been calculated to 1 in a zillion zillion zillion. This has yielded a hypothesis that the universe has been designed by an intelligence, a Creator
2) Atheists attempt to refute that the Universe is fine tuned, despite the 1 in a zillion zillion odds, by pointing out that the universe is , in their opinion only, not perfect enough! Waste of un liveable space for example (but all the stars are so beautiful and provide navigation). Just because a Swiss watch found in a mountain is not a Rolex, does not mean that therefore the Swiss watch was not designed. This line of refutation is vacous - in fact a red herring because the arguments are so poor.
3) The only good refutation of fine tuning is speculation that there may be a multiverse.
4) Their is little to no empircal, verifiable evidence of a multiverse, but it could be there of course - it is a valid speculation because it, like a Creator, provides explanatory power to the fine tuning of universe enabling intelligent life.
5) So the debate is multiverse vs. Creator - but as Dawkins points out, if one chooses Creator one is left with the awkward continuing problem of how did the Creator get created or evolve or whatever?
6) It is also possible that there is a multiverse where a Creator evolved, to create our universe. This is highly speculative, but consistent with religious dogma.
7) Therefore God exists !!!!

[Kinich Ahau]

What a load of vomit.

[dogpet]

Kinich Ahau wrote

That time of month?

Oh! That's a bit harsh Kinich Ahau!
Couldn't you have been a bit subtle & offered evening primrose, for her bad week? 20 years ago maybe.

[Andrew66]

Kinich Ahau wrote

What a load of vomit

Thanks K.

[Simon Moon]

Andrew66 wrote

Summary f of Fine Tuning

1) There are like 50 physical constants in the universe, that if any were just a hair off the universe would not have expanded and cooled in a way to yield any potential life form that we know of.

Wrong from your first claim. There are 26 cosmological constants responsible for the current presentation of our universe.

And there are other combinations of these constants, that if they were different than those of this universe, could still yield a universe that was stable, and possibly sustain life.

The odds of this combination has been calculated to 1 in a zillion zillion zillion. This has yielded a hypothesis that the universe has been designed by an intelligence, a Creator

First of all, it would be nice if you could even quote the correct odds that creationists use. Behe and other creationists usually use the figure, 10 to the 37th power as the odds for the constants being what they are.

But more importantly, this entire way of thinking is flawed from the get go.

Here's why. We only have one universe to examine, there is no way to calculate probabilities with only one data point. How many non-god created universe have we been able to compare ours to, in order to calculate the odds?

But here's a simple example of why those extreme odds for the constants being what they are, is meaningless in the first place.

If you take a standard deck of cards, and deal out hands of bridge, the odds of getting a perfect hand of 13 cards, is 10 to the 222 power. That dwarfs the the odds given by creationists for the constants of the universe. So, does that mean if someone is dealt a perfect hand of bridge, a god must have been responsible for it?

But here's the real kicker, the odds for any random set of cards, more typical of random deals, is the exact same odds as the perfect hand. The reason why we put emphasis on the perfect hand, is because it has significance to the game. But every time you deal out 4 hands of 13 cards, no matter what the cards are in each hand, the odds of getting those exact cards is 10 to the 222 power.

The reason why you put significance on the cosmological constants being exactly what they are, is because it lead to this universe capable of bringing forth and sustaining life. If the constants were different, and the universe had different parameters, there would probably be some other form of life commenting on how amazing it is that the universe was created just to fit that life form.

2) Atheists attempt to refute that the Universe is fine tuned, despite the 1 in a zillion zillion odds, by pointing out that the universe is , in their opinion only, not perfect enough! Waste of un liveable space for example (but all the stars are so beautiful and provide navigation). Just because a Swiss watch found in a mountain is not a Rolex, does not mean that therefore the Swiss watch was not designed. This line of refutation is vacous - in fact a red herring because the arguments are so poor.

The problem with your argument here is, it argues against a god that is omnipotent.

An omnipotent god could have created the universe and life with any arbitrary physical conditions. Why did it have to choose physical properties that look exactly like those that would need to exist in order to sustain life?

I wonder why physicists and cosmologists, those that have dedicated their lives, and decades of study, and actually understand the science (far better than you or I could ever hope to) don't agree with you? It makes me wonder why you are not posting your arguments on physics forums?

76% of scientists are atheists. And those that do believe in a god, tend to be deists or pantheists.

3) The only good refutation of fine tuning is speculation that there may be a multiverse.

Nope.

There is no need to refute something, that is not supported by demonstrable evidence and valid and sound logic in the first place.

You are the one with the burden of proof, until you support your claim, there is no reason to refute anything.

4) Their is little to no empircal, verifiable evidence of a multiverse, but it could be there of course - it is a valid speculation because it, like a Creator, provides explanatory power to the fine tuning of universe enabling intelligent life.

Doesn't matter if the multiverse is supported yet by evidence or not.

Your explanation of a universe creating god does not gain any traction as an explanation, just because natural explanations have not been proven yet.

What method did you use to rule out all possible natural explanations, in order to get to your belief that a god is most likely responsible?

5) So the debate is multiverse vs. Creator - but as Dawkins points out, if one chooses Creator one is left with the awkward continuing problem of how did the Creator get created or evolve or whatever?

No, the argument is creator vs lack demonstrable evidence to supported a creator.

Or, the argument is, undemonstrated creator vs some natural explanation yet to be demonstrated.

Your contention that creator is responsible has no explanatory power.

Gaps in our knowledge do not add any credence to your claim that a god is responsible.

6) It is also possible that there is a multiverse where a Creator evolved, to create our universe. This is highly speculative, but consistent with religious dogma.

How do you know this is possible?

Who cares what is consistent with religious dogma? Slavery is consistent with religious dogma.

7) Therefore God exists !!!!

Flawed arguments, drastic misunderstanding of the science, does not get you to 'a god exists'. And it certainly doesn't get you to any specific god or gods.

[Andrew66]

Simon Moon wrote

Wrong from your first claim. There are 26 cosmological constants responsible for the current presentation of our universe.

And there are other combinations of these constants, that if they were different than those of this universe, could still yield a universe that was stable, and possibly sustain life.




First of all, it would be nice if you could even quote the correct odds that creationists use. Behe and other creationists usually use the figure, 10 to the 37th power as the odds for the constants being what they are.

But more importantly, this entire way of thinking is flawed from the get go.

Here's why. We only have one universe to examine, there is no way to calculate probabilities with only one data point. How many non-god created universe have we been able to compare ours to, in order to calculate the odds?

But here's a simple example of why those extreme odds for the constants being what they are, is meaningless in the first place.

If you take a standard deck of cards, and deal out hands of bridge, the odds of getting a perfect hand of 13 cards, is 10 to the 222 power. That dwarfs the the odds given by creationists for the constants of the universe. So, does that mean if someone is dealt a perfect hand of bridge, a god must have been responsible for it?

But here's the real kicker, the odds for any random set of cards, more typical of random deals, is the exact same odds as the perfect hand. The reason why we put emphasis on the perfect hand, is because it has significance to the game. But every time you deal out 4 hands of 13 cards, no matter what the cards are in each hand, the odds of getting those exact cards is 10 to the 222 power.

The reason why you put significance on the cosmological constants being exactly what they are, is because it lead to this universe capable of bringing forth and sustaining life. If the constants were different, and the universe had different parameters, there would probably be some other form of life commenting on how amazing it is that the universe was created just to fit that life form.




The problem with your argument here is, it argues against a god that is omnipotent.

An omnipotent god could have created the universe and life with any arbitrary physical conditions. Why did it have to choose physical properties that look exactly like those that would need to exist in order to sustain life?

I wonder why physicists and cosmologists, those that have dedicated their lives, and decades of study, and actually understand the science (far better than you or I could ever hope to) don't agree with you? It makes me wonder why you are not posting your arguments on physics forums?

76% of scientists are atheists. And those that do believe in a god, tend to be deists or pantheists.



Nope.

There is no need to refute something, that is not supported by demonstrable evidence and valid and sound logic in the first place.

You are the one with the burden of proof, until you support your claim, there is no reason to refute anything.




Doesn't matter if the multiverse is supported yet by evidence or not.

Your explanation of a universe creating god does not gain any traction as an explanation, just because natural explanations have not been proven yet.

What method did you use to rule out all possible natural explanations, in order to get to your belief that a god is most likely responsible?




No, the argument is creator vs lack demonstrable evidence to supported a creator.

Or, the argument is, undemonstrated creator vs some natural explanation yet to be demonstrated.

Your contention that creator is responsible has no explanatory power.

Gaps in our knowledge do not add any credence to your claim that a god is responsible.




How do you know this is possible?

Who cares what is consistent with religious dogma? Slavery is consistent with religious dogma.





Flawed arguments, drastic misunderstanding of the science, does not get you to 'a god exists'. And it certainly doesn't get you to any specific god or gods.

Simon,
thank you for this meaningful dialogue!

I will answer in pieces, so much to talk about.

Firstly, I object to your analogy about the bridge hand. You are of course correct that the odds of any pre defined arrangement of 13 cards would be a miracle - but the odds of a pre-defined perfect hand on a single deal is astronomical.

The Fine tuning argument assumes there is no multiverse. Hence, the analogy for fine tuning is that a perfect hand of bridge is dealt on only one try. A life begetting universe represents a "perfect hand" in the analagy. Any imperfect hand would provide a universe which cools and expands in a way that no life would be expected.

So one can see, in view of these limitations, that a single hand of bridge dealt to a perfect hand would be, if just random, a miracle. I think you would agree if that if a magician said he would deal you a perfect hand, and HE DID, you would assume he cheated. This is the God analogy for fine tuning, on a single try a manipulation is required.

Also I reject your assertion that many different combination of the 26 parameters would also give life, of different form. May or may not even be true (is speculative), but I'm sure you'll agree the arrangements which would not give life are far far far far greater - hence any arrangement which gives life would still be remarkable - maybe not 1 to the 37th power, but still astronomcally high.

[Andrew66]

Simon Moon wrote

.

The problem with your argument here is, it argues against a god that is omnipotent.

An omnipotent god could have created the universe and life with any arbitrary physical conditions. Why did it have to choose physical properties that look exactly like those that would need to exist in order to sustain life?

I wonder why physicists and cosmologists, those that have dedicated their lives, and decades of study, and actually understand the science (far better than you or I could ever hope to) don't agree with you? It makes me wonder why you are not posting your arguments on physics forums?

76% of scientists are atheists. And those that do believe in a god, tend to be deists or pantheists.

I'm sorry , I don't see any point here which refutes the fine tuning argument.

What am I missing?

An alleged God created a universe which would beget life - he/she did not "have" to do it any certain way - it is a creation. That the universe appears to "have" to be a certain way from our perspective after the fact has no bearing on the merits of the fine tuning argument.

You admitted earlier that other combinations and values for the physical constants may also give life.

Also, just because the majority of scientists are not Theists does not mean there is no God. You've I'm sure heard of the fallacy argumentum populatum. Scientists used to think the world was flat too.

[dogpet]

Andrew66 wrote

Firstly, I object to your analogy about the bridge hand. You are of course correct that the odds of any pre defined arrangement of 13 cards would be a miracle - but the odds of a pre-defined perfect hand on a single deal is astronomical.

The problem here is you are pre-defining it. You need it to be just that hand.

Andrew66 wrote

Any imperfect hand would provide a universe which cools and expands in a way that no life would be expected.

Life wasn't expected, it just happened.

Andrew66 wrote

on a single try a manipulation is required.

Not to deal a random hand.

Andrew66 wrote

but I'm sure you'll agree the arrangements which would not give life are far far far far greater - hence any arrangement which gives life would still be remarkable - maybe not 1 to the 37th power, but still astronomcally high.

It happened, live with it.