Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 67 (9030 total)
60 online now:
AZPaul3, dwise1, PaulK, Tangle, Tanypteryx (5 members, 55 visitors)
Newest Member: BodhitSLAVa
Post Volume: Total: 884,389 Year: 2,035/14,102 Month: 403/624 Week: 124/163 Day: 17/27 Hour: 0/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   I Know That God Does Not Exist
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2087
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 314 of 2747 (721138)
03-04-2014 2:18 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Eliyahu
03-03-2014 11:59 PM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
Eliyahuh writes:

The laws of nature which govern the universe, and the set up of the universe, in order to enable the possibility of life, must be so extremely critically fine tuned, that it is impossible to say that the universe came into existence by pure chance.


Luckily nobody claims that the Universe came about by pure chance. You set up a strawman. You told untruths about what people say. So, everything else you wrote is of no value at all. Just nonsense.

Eliyahuh writes:

About this anthropic principle Stephen Hawking, arguably the greatest scientist now alive, said…


A God is not necessary.

Hawking writes:

God no longer has any place in theories on the creation of the Universe due to a series of developments in physics.


That’s what he wrote in a later book. Why did you ignore that? Are you trying to mislead people?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Eliyahu, posted 03-03-2014 11:59 PM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 315 by Eliyahu, posted 03-04-2014 6:48 AM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2087
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 321 of 2747 (721204)
03-05-2014 12:17 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by Eliyahu
03-04-2014 6:48 AM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
Again, you forgot to mention that

About this anthropic principle Stephen Hawking, arguably the greatest scientist now alive, said…

"God is no longer necessary."

Why did you not mention this about Hawking? Why do you try to mislead people about Hawking?

Let's give you a hint or two:

1. Using a logical fallacy such as an argument from authority tends to give others the idea that you can't think locically and also that you are either uneducated or not very intelligent.
2. When trying to use an argument from authority, make sure that the authority you use actually agrees with what you claim. If you don't do that it makes you look rather dishonest or unintelligent.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Eliyahu, posted 03-04-2014 6:48 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 330 by Eliyahu, posted 03-11-2014 1:14 AM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2087
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 322 of 2747 (721205)
03-05-2014 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 315 by Eliyahu
03-04-2014 6:48 AM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
quote:
Either it was pure chance or it was intelligent design. Do you see other possibilities?
You’re providing a false dilemma. An informal logical fallacy.

Catholic Scientist provided you with a few other possibilities:

quote:
Impure chance, unintelligent design, or some combination of these four.

Another possibility:
Brahma sat on a lotus arising from the navel of Vishnu, who was resting on the cosmic serpent, Ananta (Shesha). The cosmic sepent died in the meantime.

Another one it that it was naturally formed the way because it can’t be any different. Another one is that it could have happened through a currently unknown process.

What nobody claims is that it was formed by ‘pure chance’ alone. That’s where you were dishonest and where the rest of your post is of no value.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 315 by Eliyahu, posted 03-04-2014 6:48 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2087
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 323 of 2747 (721206)
03-05-2014 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 313 by Eliyahu
03-03-2014 11:59 PM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist
Oh, and I forgot to reply to this one:

Nowadays there is strong irrefutable scientific proof that God exist, in the form of the anthropic principle, the fine tuning of the universe.

Nope. That is an argument for a deist God existing more than 14 billion years ago. That's it.

It's defiitely not an argument for a personal God existing today.

If such a personal God existed then, it seems as if it has disappeared somewhere between 14.5 billion years ago and today.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 313 by Eliyahu, posted 03-03-2014 11:59 PM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 332 by Eliyahu, posted 03-11-2014 1:27 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2087
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 331 of 2747 (721665)
03-11-2014 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 329 by Eliyahu
03-11-2014 12:57 AM


Re: Borel
Really? You do know that Dr Adequate has a PhD in mathematics, don't you?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 329 by Eliyahu, posted 03-11-2014 12:57 AM Eliyahu has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 333 by Eliyahu, posted 03-11-2014 2:52 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2087
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 334 of 2747 (721670)
03-11-2014 3:02 AM
Reply to: Message 330 by Eliyahu
03-11-2014 1:14 AM


Re: Evidence that God does not Exist doesn't exist
Again, you forgot to mention that

About this anthropic principle Stephen Hawking, arguably the greatest scientist now alive, said…

Pressie writes:

"God is no longer necessary."

Why did you not mention this about Hawking? Why do you try to mislead people about Hawking?


This message is a reply to:
 Message 330 by Eliyahu, posted 03-11-2014 1:14 AM Eliyahu has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2087
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 356 of 2747 (721757)
03-12-2014 12:36 AM
Reply to: Message 355 by Raphael
03-11-2014 8:42 PM


Raphael writes:

So, in conclusion, the argument is really actually fruitless, for when debating on such an over-debated topic, especially over the internet, no ground can be gained on either side.


Raphael, I respectfully disagree with that conclusion.

I can present myself as an example where debates such as these played a huge part in changing my mind completely from being a Protestant to becoming non-religious.

What we usually see in debates such as these are completely illogical, and dare I say functionally illiterate, religious people such as Eliyahu and Faith on the religious side up against rational and well-educated people on the other side. People who obviously thought long and hard about religion.

There are exceptions to the rule, I immediately think of CS and RAZD and some others on this forum. I’ve learned a tremendous amount from them. Sometimes I think that religious people such as them just can’t live on the same planet as those fundamentalists.

I don't have any repect for the rest of your conclusions. Just wishful thinking and preaching with absolutely no empirical evidence or merit to it.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 355 by Raphael, posted 03-11-2014 8:42 PM Raphael has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 357 by Phat, posted 03-12-2014 12:58 AM Pressie has not yet responded
 Message 359 by Faith, posted 03-12-2014 3:32 AM Pressie has not yet responded
 Message 361 by Raphael, posted 03-12-2014 12:18 PM Pressie has responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2087
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 368 of 2747 (721870)
03-13-2014 12:29 AM
Reply to: Message 361 by Raphael
03-12-2014 12:18 PM


Raphael writes:

If, by "debates like these," you mean debates like this one on the internet, then I am genuinely surprised.


Don’t be too surprised. It sure started on the net. Real, real crazy creationists against educated people. That’s when I started doubting my faith.

Raphael writes:

I truly believe that it is because religious people go about the argument the wrong way.

Some religious people do (not the majority). Arguing for an earth less than 10 000 years old and for a a global flood a few thousand years ago is always wrong. Illogical. Illiterate. Craziness. No matter how you approach it.

Edited by Pressie, : Added last part


This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Raphael, posted 03-12-2014 12:18 PM Raphael has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 369 by Faith, posted 03-13-2014 12:53 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2087
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 370 of 2747 (721873)
03-13-2014 1:08 AM
Reply to: Message 361 by Raphael
03-12-2014 12:18 PM


I.D. is not id
Forgive me, I'm going to lecture you here

Whe you write I.D., it refers to a mottley crew of people who formed a political/religious organisation pretending to be 'scientific'. Nothing to do with science, though. Formed to shoe-horn religion into science classes after 'scientific' creationism has been banned from educational facilities. They range from YEC's to OEC's, to all kinds of creationists who want to deny scientific findings because those findings don't agree with their interpretations of their holy books.

When you write id, it refers to religious scientists who not only accept scientific findings, but contribute tremendously to it. They accept the findings of science. From the BB theory, to the earth is very old, to the theory of evolution. The overwhelming majority of religious scientists do this.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 361 by Raphael, posted 03-12-2014 12:18 PM Raphael has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2087
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 380 of 2747 (827342)
01-23-2018 6:09 AM
Reply to: Message 379 by Tangle
01-23-2018 3:29 AM


Re: Rrhaining On This Parade
Tangle writes:

People are complex. They are quite capable of holding contradictory ideas and beliefs without breaking their minds. Belief in god(s) is bounded irrationality, it doesn't have to corrupt the rest of a persons thinking but you don't have to look very far on these boards to see that it often does.

I completely agree. One example I found on this board was a person who tried to convince people that slavery was not really slavery in Biblical times. And the same person called anti-slavery people uneducated.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 379 by Tangle, posted 01-23-2018 3:29 AM Tangle has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2087
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 383 of 2747 (827428)
01-24-2018 6:20 AM
Reply to: Message 382 by frako
01-24-2018 5:04 AM


To me heaven would consist of a beer volcano and a stripper factory. My wife would be quite upset in such a heaven, though. It certainly won't be peachy to sleep alone on the couch forever and ever and ever...

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 382 by frako, posted 01-24-2018 5:04 AM frako has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2087
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 539 of 2747 (854147)
06-05-2019 6:24 AM
Reply to: Message 538 by Tangle
06-05-2019 3:19 AM


Tangle writes:

Where are we then Life 1.0? Are we waiting for the next minor upgrade?

I was thinking about that too. According to some holy books, the few people who survived the magic fluddie were not upgraded at all. They pulled off the same cr*p as before the magic fluddie. Got legless, did incest, etc. Maybe a better idea would have been for Spookie to just poof away all chemical reactions producing ethanol and all sex organs instead of trying the magic fluddie. That must have been too exhausting for Spookie to be able to do, seeing that He/She/It had to rest after poofing all of that into existence in the first place.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 538 by Tangle, posted 06-05-2019 3:19 AM Tangle has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 540 by Phat, posted 06-05-2019 11:44 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2087
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 903 of 2747 (856477)
07-01-2019 8:56 AM
Reply to: Message 898 by Dredge
06-30-2019 11:12 PM


Re: Topic Summary According to Thugzy
This one is funny.
Dredge writes:

His employer reflects the zeitgeist of Western civilization, which is cultural Marxism, and all the degenerate madness that goes with it.

Nope. He reflects the zeitgeist of modern capitalism. He loved taking the money for years and years. Reaganism and Thatchertism and all that. Thats the modern zeitgeist. Rake in undeserved money.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 898 by Dredge, posted 06-30-2019 11:12 PM Dredge has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2087
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


Message 943 of 2747 (856683)
07-02-2019 8:59 AM
Reply to: Message 942 by Phat
07-02-2019 8:46 AM


Re: Topic Summary According to Thugzy
Thugpreacha writes:

Do they even have hillbillies in Australia? I know you atheists get all bent out of shape when I label you all together, so why do you do it to Christians? #FoodForThought

Maybe. The percentages of Hillies like you are relatively uniform, it doesn't matter where you go. In Amcan the number of people like you can seem like lots and lots. In Aussie not really. But, then again, you are not an average Christian. You represent the equivalent of Isis in Christianity.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 942 by Phat, posted 07-02-2019 8:46 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 946 by Phat, posted 07-02-2019 9:31 AM Pressie has not yet responded

  
Pressie
Member
Posts: 2087
From: Pretoria, SA
Joined: 06-18-2010


(1)
Message 1063 of 2747 (857042)
07-05-2019 5:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1062 by Phat
07-05-2019 4:47 AM


Re: AZ GDR and ringo.
Thugpreaca writes:

I had evidence. It was simply subjective. I alone experienced it. Experience can never be objective.

So, you mean you had unreliable "evidence". That's the same as having no evidence at all.

Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 1062 by Phat, posted 07-05-2019 4:47 AM Phat has responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 1064 by Phat, posted 07-05-2019 6:35 AM Pressie has responded

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2021