Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
12-02-2013, 11:47 PM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(12-02-2013 11:32 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(12-02-2013 10:45 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...Sorry Pussycat IRC, you would be wrong again. Every uninhabitable planet, every extra needless star in the sky, is a piece of evidence against belief in a god or any fine tuning. For God to create the world as it is, he only needed one star and one planet....


Nope. God didnt ''need'' anything. He is omnipotent.

I argue that God made the universe to such a Grand Design in order that we would appreciate our existence all the more.
Prove one word of it. Also tell that to the parents of, and child dying from the "grand design" of innocent children getting cancer. Great design work that. Yes indeed. Just wonderful. Also god is not a "he". Sex developed as a means for reproduction. Gods don't reproduce. Does your god have a dick ? If not, calling your god a "he" implies it has male hormones ? Does your god have a "Y" chromosome ? Oh, sorry, you don't know about chromosomes. Well, does your god take Viagra ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
12-02-2013, 11:53 PM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(12-02-2013 11:32 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  
(12-02-2013 10:45 PM)EvolutionKills Wrote:  ...Sorry Pussycat IRC, you would be wrong again. Every uninhabitable planet, every extra needless star in the sky, is a piece of evidence against belief in a god or any fine tuning. For God to create the world as it is, he only needed one star and one planet....

Nope. God didnt ''need'' anything. He is omnipotent.

I argue that God made the universe to such a Grand Design in order that we would appreciate our existence all the more.


The Taj Mahal was built because of the life of one single person.

[Image: 280px-Taj_Mahal_2012.jpg]

Contrast the enormous size and scale of the Taj Mahal (universe) with the seemingly insignificant life of Shah Jahan's wife, (a mote of dust.)

Perhaps He should have built a slightly less awesome, less beautiful structure to demonstrate a little bit less of His impressive, undying love.

[Image: Cardboard-shoe-box-blank-psd43359.png]

I wonder if Mr Sagan would have found God more believable if the universe was as boring as a shoe box wrapped in brown paper and if the people living inside it were dull and ignorant - refusing to believe there was anything beyond the shoe box - because empirical evidence is only good for when you are measuring stuff like cardboard.

[Image: 1271761064_carl-sagan-old-spice.gif]

You really are that goddamn retarded...

So your God created the entire universe, and then in his most important book ever written he lies about its creation? So you still have a deceitful God, that has done everything he can to not leave his mark on creation; and the best you can up with is an analogy to a human king and a memorial for his dead wife? For fuck's sake Pusyycat, that is just sad.

The problem is that we don't need a god to explain the universe. The universe appears just as we would expect had it formed from natural and deterministic processes. Now 'a god' could still have created everything, but 'that god' would not be compatible with the 'God' of the big three Abrahamic religions. If a god does exists, then he/she/they/it would be a scientist to end all scientists. Anger decreases with knowledge, and you God is very angry indeed.

You're God is out of a job, unemployed. Everything we do know, and can back with verifiable evidence, leads us to believe that no god was required. You God can only find shelter int he shadows of your own scientific ignorance, and on some level you have to know this, and it's why you refuse to learn. Because actually turning on the light of knowledge would leave even less shadows for your God to hide in, and you value your concept God more than the Truth.


Pusscat IRC is the dude on the right, with the shovel...

[Image: cartoon_380.jpg]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes EvolutionKills's post
13-02-2013, 12:00 AM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2013 12:21 AM by fstratzero.)
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(12-02-2013 11:32 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  Nope. God didn't ''need'' anything. He is omnipotent.

I argue that God made the universe to such a Grand Design in order that we would appreciate our existence all the more.
Why would god want us to appreciate our existence?

If god is perfect then he does not want, need, or desire. He'd simply exist in a state that is unchanging, but to create he'd have to change, and have to posses a need, desire, or want.
(12-02-2013 11:32 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  The Taj Mahal was built because of the life of one single person.

Contrast the enormous size and scale of the Taj Mahal (universe) with the seemingly insignificant life of Shah Jahan's wife, (a mote of dust.)

Perhaps He should have built a slightly less awesome, less beautiful structure to demonstrate a little bit less of His impressive, undying love.

I agree with you and this point. The rational approach is to acknowledge the needs of the people over your own selfish love, when your an emperor.

(12-02-2013 11:32 PM)Lion IRC Wrote:  I wonder if Mr Sagan would have found God more believable if the universe was as boring as a shoe box wrapped in brown paper and if the people living inside it were dull and ignorant - refusing to believe there was anything beyond the shoe box - because empirical evidence is only good for when you are measuring stuff like cardboard.

Actually cardboard is very interesting
The first commercial paperboard (not corrugated) box was produced in England in 1817.

The Scottish-born Robert Gair invented the pre-cut cardboard or paperboard box in 1890 – flat pieces manufactured in bulk that folded into boxes. Gair's invention came about as a result of an accident: he was a Brooklyn printer and paper-bag maker during the 1870s, and one day, while he was printing an order of seed bags, a metal ruler normally used to crease bags shifted in position and cut them. Gair discovered that by cutting and creasing in one operation he could make prefabricated paperboard boxes. Applying this idea to corrugated boxboard was a straightforward development when the material became available around the turn of the twentieth century.

The advent of flaked cereals increased the use of cardboard boxes. The first to use cardboard boxes as cereal cartons was the Kellogg Company.

Corrugated (also called pleated) paper was patented in England in 1856, and used as a liner for tall hats, but corrugated boxboard was not patented and used as a shipping material until December 20, 1871. The patent was issued to Albert Jones of New York City for single-sided (single-face) corrugated board. Jones used the corrugated board for wrapping bottles and glass lantern chimneys. The first machine for producing large quantities of corrugated board was built in 1874 by G. Smyth, and in the same year Oliver Long improved upon Jones's design by inventing corrugated board with liner sheets on both sides. This was corrugated cardboard as we know it today.

The first corrugated cardboard box manufactured in the USA was in 1895. By the early 1900s, wooden crates and boxes were being replaced by corrugated paper shipping cartons.

By 1908, the terms "corrugated paper-board" and "corrugated cardboard" were both in use in the paper trade

On the other hand, since the time of Galileo we've understood that the bible is inaccurate. Science has left god out of the equations, and progress has been made. Everything that god used to do, science has found a naturalistic explanation that is not only more consistent, but puts the world together in such a way that it all makes sense.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
13-02-2013, 12:32 AM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
I do believe Pussy Cat IRC's brain is made of cardboard.
As for "measurement" ONLY useful for cardboard .. I see that Pussy Cat is an older Puss, and suffers from Puss Alzheimer's. He fogot about that he goes to the MD when he is sick, where all sorts of things get mneasured, and the "measuring" of DNA would get him out of prison , were he to be incarcerated. Is there a program for "special needs" pusses ?

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 12:48 AM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2013 12:53 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(13-02-2013 12:32 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  I do believe Pussy Cat IRC's brain is made of cardboard.
As for "measurement" ONLY useful for cardboard .. I see that Pussy Cat is an older Puss, and suffers from Puss Alzheimer's. He fogot about that he goes to the MD when he is sick, where all sorts of things get mneasured, and the "measuring" of DNA would get him out of prison , were he to be incarcerated. Is there a program for "special needs" pusses ?


[Image: i-cannot-brain-today-i-has-the-dumb-cat-240x180.jpg]

[Image: stupid_cat.jpg]

[Image: images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSF_u1_3Slkd_zzeXtZIW1...CitQ-pRvK0]

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 01:29 AM
 
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(11-02-2013 04:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So we can look foreward to Easter then. I for one, will welcome the Rabbit, and the absence.
Of course we all know it won't last long, but even a short reprieve from the insults will be ok.
Oh the HOARDS, the HOARDS, I tell you that will be beating down the doors to get to the TRUTH of this new church. I hope they have extra powerful servers, so the HOARDS won't crash the site.


Oh wait.

Why do I have this feeling I'm going to be seeing you there?


(11-02-2013 05:34 PM)Starcrash Wrote:  You're just saying that order cannot come from chaos, but you have nothing to back that up.

WTF are you talking about? It's prima facie. Order can't come from chaos in the same way that something can't come out of nothing and black can't come out of white. It's common sense. To think order spontaneously arises is magical thinking.

Quote:Calling it absurd doesn't make it absurd, and we've given you examples to show that it is clearly not absurd and in fact something that actually happens. Structure and the appearance of design can come from non-designers. Just look at Bucky Ball's examples (or mine).

Oh, now you're introducing some new terms: design and "non-designers." I don't know what you're talking about--but I know you're not talking about order and complete randomness (chaos, as I define it) anymore. Now you're trying to back out. Hmmpf. Dodgy
Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 01:54 AM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2013 01:57 AM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(13-02-2013 01:29 AM)Egor Wrote:  
(11-02-2013 04:29 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  So we can look foreward to Easter then. I for one, will welcome the Rabbit, and the absence.
Of course we all know it won't last long, but even a short reprieve from the insults will be ok.
Oh the HOARDS, the HOARDS, I tell you that will be beating down the doors to get to the TRUTH of this new church. I hope they have extra powerful servers, so the HOARDS won't crash the site.


Oh wait.
Why do I have this feeling I'm going to be seeing you there?


[Image: 34768025.jpg]

I'll probably spend my night at work, and my day playing video games or reading. I don't pay much attention to holidays, especially explicitly religious ones. Drinking Beverage

[Image: GrumpyCat_01.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
13-02-2013, 01:59 AM (This post was last modified: 13-02-2013 07:20 AM by Bucky Ball.)
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(13-02-2013 01:29 AM)Egor Wrote:  Why do I have this feeling I'm going to be seeing you there?

Fat chance. Tongue

That fact that you do not know about spontaneous order, and the Mandelbrot Set, Chaos Theory and fractals is obviously part of your problem. Order has been demonstrated to arise spontaneously. You are just too uneducated to get it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Bucky Ball's post
13-02-2013, 04:22 AM
RE: Christians Shouldn't Use The Arguement Of Design
(13-02-2013 01:59 AM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(13-02-2013 01:29 AM)Egor Wrote:  Why do I have this feeling I'm going to be seeing you there?

Fat chance. Tongue

That fact that you do not know about spontaneous order, and the Mandelbrot Set, Chaos Theory and fractals is obviously part of your problem. Order has been demonstrated to aris spontaneously. You are just too uneducated to get it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chaos_theory

BTW, we've fully debunked ID here:
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ndent-dice
and here : a. 1 + -1 still = 0. (Krauss : "A Universe From Nothing ). Physics 101-1 The equation 0 + 0 = 0, while true, is not the appropriate/accurate equation, in this case. (They are not the same thing). It might be more accurate if he /she had said 0 + 0 -> 0, however, that also is not an accurate mathematical representation. Then there is the "->" problem. See next.
b. Your god would have had to begin creation "before" spacetime, (meaningless).
c. The universe is not logically intuitive. (Relativity, Heisenberg, Dirac). Therefore one cannot presume logic is applicable.
d. Intelligence requires time.
e. The Anthropic Principle is debunked.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YlAx0t9uW...re=related ,
http://www.thethinkingatheist.com/forum/...ndent-dice
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUawGws4T...re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mlD-CJPGt...re=related , see below, (Debzilla) "god of the gaps" .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rtmbcfb_rdc , http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYphAH2tK...re=related ,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-UIfkcg...re=related , http://www.youtube.com/user/cdk007 , http://evolutionofdna.com/Evolution-Of-DNA.html , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC148579/ , http://www.dnafiles.org/node/551 , http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Models_of_DNA_evolution , http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/probability-life , http://www.evolutionfaq.com/articles/fiv...-evolution , http://www.evolutionfaq.com/videos/carl-sagan-evolution ,
http://www.evolutionfaq.com/videos/evolution-eye , http://video.pbs.org/video/1300397304 , http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/faq/ ,
http://www.dhbailey.com/papers/dhb-probability.pdf , http://www.science20.com/philosophical_s...nd_fallacy ,
http://www.science20.com/stars_planets_l...gin_chance , http://www.science20.com/science_20/evolution_evolution .
f. The fact that there may be some historical references to Jeebus and Yahweh in no way confirms the claims, in fact historical analysis debunks every bit of it. (See any of Bart Ehrman's tapes, videos, books).
g. The definition of prophecy, is not fortune telling, (except in Hollywood). (Why don't theists know anything about scripture ?) See Bultmann and Gunkel, or any conservative Bible scholar.
h. Which god ? Certainly not this one :

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein Certified Ancient Astronaut Theorist and Levitating yogi, CAAT-LY.
Yeah, for verily I say unto thee, and this we know : Jebus no likey that which doth tickle thee unto thy nether regions.

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: