how can we best explain our existence ?

[Kate]

Irre, I think you are using the term "thinking" way too loosely here.

[Irreligious]

Kate wrote

Irre, I think you are using the term "thinking" way too loosely here.

Indeed.

[Victus]

Kate wrote

Irre, I think you are using the term "thinking" way too loosely here.

Given GLY's performance so far, I'm not sure even the use of a verb is appropriate.

[Kate]

[Smellyoldgit]

Kate wrote

That is the most pathetic thing I've heard in a very long time.

GodSucksYou has been around for almost two years now, but he's only recently upped the ante in the the cuntishness stakes. Idiot troll is now obvious.

[Kate]

[Smellyoldgit]

[Demigod79]

Irreligious wrote

Sternwallow has gone out of his way to correct your mischaracterization of his position. Obviously, it was a waste of his time, since you are heavily invested in magical thinking.

By your reckoning, either the universe blinked itself into existence or an invisible magic man blinked it into existence. Either way, it demonstrates the shallowness of your thinking on this topic.

Like I said before, I don't think GLY is at the intellectual level to understand most of these things. He's typical of those Christians who do not lift a finger to do any real research, instead relying on convenient Christian propaganda. I see him as a victim in some ways; one rarely finds such people in those countries that are not influenced by the Christian right.

GLY, since you're so keen on probabilities let me ask you: have you ever considered the probability that an infinitely powerful and complex god exists? A god that can bring about this incredibly complex universe through speech alone and can interact with every single part of it, including the ability to have a personal relationship with billions of human beings? What are the odds of such a massively complex being existing? If the odds of the universe forming spontaneously is one in a billion then the odds of an infinitely complex self-existing god bringing about a complex universe would be one in a trillion-billion (as an example). The former is far more likely than the latter, since the latter involves something infinitely more complex and unlikely than anything in existence. Now, you can go on believing in this infinitely less-plausible scenario if you want but anyone seriously considering the odds would obviously go for the first scenario. Why believe in a less likely scenario over a more likely one?

[Philboid Studge]

Sky Bastard Cuts Two

[Philboid Studge]

Demigod79 wrote

I see him as a victim in some ways; one rarely finds such people in those countries that are not influenced by the Christian right.

1.5 billion people (from 47 countries) disagree.

[psychodiva]

I used to think that there were no Wookies on Earth, but Goulslime's description of some of his dates has convinced me differently.

I'm still in love

you make the day cheery

[Godlovesyou]

Irreligious wrote

Sternwallow has gone out of his way to correct your mischaracterization of his position. Obviously, it was a waste of his time, since you are heavily invested in magical thinking.

I have gone out as well to correct your mischaracterization of my position. Obviously, it was a waste of my time as well. Hold on. Actually, it was not. Since you cannot claim you did not know the presented facts anymore, and claim ignorance.

By your reckoning, either the universe blinked itself into existence or an invisible magic man blinked it into existence. Either way, it demonstrates the shallowness of your thinking on this topic.

the third hypotheses, a eternal universe, is not possible , for scientific, and philosofical reasons, which have been presented here as well.....

[Godlovesyou]

Demigod79 wrote

Like I said before, I don't think GLY is at the intellectual level to understand most of these things. He's typical of those Christians who do not lift a finger to do any real research, instead relying on convenient Christian propaganda. I see him as a victim in some ways; one rarely finds such people in those countries that are not influenced by the Christian right.

GLY, since you're so keen on probabilities let me ask you: have you ever considered the probability that an infinitely powerful and complex god exists? A god that can bring about this incredibly complex universe through speech alone and can interact with every single part of it, including the ability to have a personal relationship with billions of human beings? What are the odds of such a massively complex being existing? If the odds of the universe forming spontaneously is one in a billion then the odds of an infinitely complex self-existing god bringing about a complex universe would be one in a trillion-billion (as an example). The former is far more likely than the latter, since the latter involves something infinitely more complex and unlikely than anything in existence. Now, you can go on believing in this infinitely less-plausible scenario if you want but anyone seriously considering the odds would obviously go for the first scenario. Why believe in a less likely scenario over a more likely one?

http://elshamah.heavenforum.com/does...god-t79-15.htm

As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas, which may, indeed, be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity, for whatever that is worth.

[Smellyoldgit]

Godlovesyou wrote

God is a remarkably simple entity.

Just like the cringeworthy dolts who keep cuttin' 'n pastin' heaps of crap from other simple fucktards onto a forum that doesn't buy into or give a shit about their particular brand of cow crap.

[Davin]

Godlovesyou wrote

Stupid douche link

As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity. As a non-physical entity, a mind is not composed of parts, and its salient properties, like self-consciousness, rationality, and volition, are essential to it. In contrast to the contingent and variegated universe with all its inexplicable quantities and constants, a divine mind is startlingly simple. Certainly such a mind may have complex ideas—it may be thinking, for example, of the infinitesimal calculus—, but the mind itself is a remarkably simple entity. Dawkins has evidently confused a mind's ideas, which may, indeed, be complex, with a mind itself, which is an incredibly simple entity. Therefore, postulating a divine mind behind the universe most definitely does represent an advance in simplicity, for whatever that is worth.

And you have evidence for this?

You're just speculating unfounded bullshit then claim that someone else is confused based on your baseless assumptions?

You're an idiot.