I Know That God Does Not Exist

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. A God is not necessary. That’s what he wrote in a later book. Why did you ignore that? Are you trying to mislead people?

Again, you forgot to mention that "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.

quote:

---

Either it was pure chance or it was intelligent design. Do you see other possibilities?
  —Eliyahu

---

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.
  —Catholic scientist

---

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.

Oh, and I forgot to reply to this one: 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.

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

Again, you forgot to mention that

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.

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. 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

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.

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.

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.

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 one is funny. 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.

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.

So, you mean you had unreliable "evidence". That's the same as having no evidence at all.Edited by Pressie, : No reason given.