Run The Gauntlet
Post Reply
Thread Rating:
  • 6 Votes - 2 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
21-02-2013, 05:44 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(21-02-2013 01:57 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  It was sarcasm, riding those positrons. Sarcasm, I tell you! You whole “time travel is a natural phenomena” was so gob-smackingly arrogant and passé in the same moment that PJ was speechless.
The prophecy I’d refer you to first was this one, “And PJ will come and will show you all truth.”
What kind of evidence would you accept again? And it has to be an answer, not “something that isn’t falsifiable.” I mean, no poop, evidence has to be verified. What do you need, a lightning bolt or…? Let me help you, my semi-existent brother.
Well since time travel on the quantum scale is a natural phenomena, I'm not sure why that is an arrogant thing to say.

What kind of evidence would I accept for God? Alrighty. I would accept video footage of God appearing and conducting a supernatural event that breaks some law of physics or another, perhaps moving Mount Everest into the middle of the Sahara desert in an instant or something.

I would also need to be at the site where Mount Everest previously was, and visit its new location in the Sahara desert to verify that it wasn't just a trick using some sort of video editing.

The trouble is supernatural events are so unlikely that if you leave any wiggle room for a natural explanation whatsoever, the natural explanation is automatically far more probable, regardless of what it is.

Now please answer Vosur's question about what kind of evidence you would accept for my existence.

Incidentally, with regards to Michael Behe, here is an incomplete list of things he admitted to federal court:

- No peer-reviewed journal has ever published research supporting ID
- Behe's book "Darwin's Black Box" was not peer-reviewed, despite him claiming it was
- ID's plausibility to people is in direct proportion to their faith
- The US National Academy of Sciences' definition of the term "theory" does not encompass ID, and that his own definition of "theory" would also include astrology.
- The basic arguments for the evidence of design in nature are essentially the same as those proposed by the Rev. William Paley (1743-1805)
- That he claimed evolution could not explain immunology without even bothering to investigate the subject.

Behe is a joke.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like hedgehog648's post
21-02-2013, 06:39 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Behe, (who is single handedly responsible for some of the most ignorant crap ever distributed to mankind), has been hiding since the trial, and refuses to be interviewed by his critics. Why is he hiding, and why won't he answer them. He is one of the most ignorant fools of all time. Almost all of science thinks he is a joke. No credible scientist thinks the Earth is 6,000 years old. It is so easy to disprove, it's like falling off a log.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein It is objectively immoral to kill innocent babies. Please stick to the guilty babies.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Bucky Ball's post
21-02-2013, 06:57 PM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2013 09:53 PM by fstratzero.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
I think it's time to write out my epic response.

God is a weird subject because we are talking about a mind with out time,space,matter,or energy(since matter and energy are the same thing)

I'm not going to explore the classical logical inconsistencies but try a new angle. God "created" everything makes the universe inconsistent.

That I have a problem with because in order to create everything he'd have to know certain things. He'd have to know what it means to have emotions, to see, hear, smell, touch, echo locate, etc.... All this sensory knowledge is useless to a being that wouldn't require it. The question seems to be unanswerable but how did god get this information if it isn't necessary to his existence? It would seem that in order to gain this knowledge, this god would have to have the ability to interact with the universe, experiment with it, and gain information from it via some sort of sensory organs.

Then if anything from this mind could become reality, then why does it' seem that reality is consistent. If reality were dependent on god then anything god would imagine would manifest it's self. There would be no reason why people shouldn't randomly disappear, or goats to turn into black holes that only eat sandwiches. Reality it would seem would be completely left to the whims and emotions of this mind. This absurdity stems from reality being the product of a mind, or many minds.

Now in the natural world minds fit in well with evolution and consistently makes sense.

We receive information about the external world through our senses. We use our memory, contrast the new information with the old and produce a prediction as to what is going to happen. In this way we avoid dangers, find food, reproduce, provide for one another, and the better we are at making accurate predictions the more able we are to survive. It is clearly a tool for survival, from survival, and has allowed us to colonize the entire earth.

A mind out side of this frame work is no longer coherent.

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-
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes fstratzero's post
21-02-2013, 09:42 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
When he puts forward any evidence or proof of God, somebody get me. I'll be at the bar.
I drink therefore I am.

There is no "I" in "team" but there is a broken and mixed up "me."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes TheMrBillShow's post
21-02-2013, 09:50 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(21-02-2013 09:42 PM)TheMrBillShow Wrote:  When he puts forward any evidence or proof of God, somebody get me. I'll be at the bar.
I drink therefore I am.

[Image: two_smileys_drinking_beer_together.gif]

By the way, anyone else like Sierra Nevada Pale Ale? I've recently really gotten into it, it's very good beer for the price. I tried their extra IPA tonight and it's excellent as well.

E 2 = (mc 2)2 + (pc )2
614C → 714N + e + ̅νe
2 K(s) + 2 H2O(l) → 2 KOH(aq) + H2 (g) + 196 kJ/mol
It works, bitches.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Phaedrus's post
21-02-2013, 10:19 PM (This post was last modified: 21-02-2013 10:32 PM by EvolutionKills.)
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(21-02-2013 03:49 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  
Quote:So you actually haven't read a book on evolution written by an evolutionary biologist after all, thanks for clearing that up.
Well, of course I have.
The EB book PJ read most recently had contradictions in it, plus the source was biased and unreliable, so I had to reject it. It contained "evidence" that was both falsifiable and not verifiable, especially since it conjectured about events not just mere thousands but millions of years ago.
Quote:Michael Behe and his book "Darwin's Black Box" have been entirely discredited in front of a US federal court. Have you never heard of the Kitzmiller v.Dover trial?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but ID being found to not be a science was the ruling. No one stated Dr. Behe who appeared as an expert witness for the ID side was being fraudulent, disingenuine or unscientific. Perhaps you have some court transcripts you'd like to present.

Still waiting on a response to Vosur and a clarification of what proof you require, so that you can't keep moving the goal post, you disingenuous turd.

[Image: E3WvRwZ.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like EvolutionKills's post
21-02-2013, 10:56 PM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
PleaseJesus, for someone who is extremely skeptical of the existence of your debate opponents, you're answering a lot of posts as if you actually believe that there's someone there to respond. None of us are stupid enough to think that you actually deny our existence, although denial is the tool that you're attempting to use and there's literally nothing that you can't deny if you want to badly enough.

Most of us understand evidence through the lens of experience. We know that other people exist because we interact with them on a daily basis, and although we can never be 100% certain that they aren't hallucinations or some other various products of our own mind, we wouldn't be able to navigate the world in any meaningful way if we acted like they were just illusions. We don't know that gods exist because we don't interact with them -- anything that is referred to as interaction with a god (such as prayer) doesn't look or feel any different than interaction with non-entities (such as prayer to a god that you don't believe in).

Make a fool of yourself if that is your heart's desire, but you're not going to convert anyone to your point-of-view by pretending that evidence is illusory and impossible to use to come to a conclusion (if for no other reason than our ability to use it towards your "evidence for God"). We're not that radically skeptical of evidence, and neither are you.

My girlfriend is mad at me. Perhaps I shouldn't have tried cooking a stick in her non-stick pan.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Starcrash's post
22-02-2013, 02:12 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(21-02-2013 01:57 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  Chujutsu: Well, you’re stuck, thanks to PJ’s Rule #1 – Just because God pisses you off doesn’t give you a loophole. I say the Bible has no contradictions. You say some. Let’s meet in the middle and say it has 100 Million contradictions…
How did you come to the conclusion that the Bible has to be contradiction-free to prove that there is a God?
Maybe He is a cruel one as you say who enjoys contradictions. Chujutsu doesn’t want to worship a cruel and unusual and contradictory God. Does that excuse your disobedience to God? Cops and judges make mistakes and contradict themselves at times. Is disobedience a pattern for you, a lifestyle? How did you come to the conclusion that you would perhaps trust in a God who fits inside your little box?

Hmm... I guess that god being abhorrent to me does not mean that I can simply dismiss him as nonexistent. However, I am not obligated to worship him. Given the atrocities that he commands in the Bible, such a god is malevolent and arbitrary. Seeing him as the source of my morals would mean that I have questionable morals, too.

Is god omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent? Does god want us to know more about him? Then it should only make sense that the Bible should be unambiguous and clear. It should not contain any contradictions. After all, god is omniscient. He could also stop any person from ever changing the Bible. After all, he is omnipotent. If the Bible is the way for us to live our lives best, then it should command us to do good things. After all, god is benevolent.

However, the Bible does contain contradictions and also commands atrocities (such as killing those who are not of the same faith; Exodus 22:20; Deuteronomy 13: 6-10; Jude 5). I would say that I am justified in saying that if god exists, then he does not have the properties of omniscience, omnipotence, and benevolence all together. With his commanding of atrocities, he does not have benevolence. From the contradictions, he is either not omniscient or not omnipotent.

If god tells me to kill an innocent new-born baby to please him, then I am not only excused, but very justified in disobeying him.

One thing that you forget regarding your analogy of cops and judges is that god is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent. Given that he can only be either omniscient or omnipotent at most (from my argument above), he could quickly punish the offender if he were omnipotent. However, we see many cases where killers go free (Jack the Ripper is one example). This can show that god is not omnipotent, or at least not benevolent. If he demanded worship, then why don't nonbelievers simply die? If he were omnipotent, he could simply kill off all nonbelievers. Perhaps god is simply omniscient? But what is left if god cannot act against evil and god is not all-good?

If god were omniscient, omnipotent, and benevolent, then I would expect him to act as such. If I am told that I am arrogant to expect him to act as such, then does this mean that god is arbitrary? Am I to expect nothing from god? If so, then what would be the point in putting faith in him? I mean, if I can't expect anything from him, then I can't certainly expect to trust him with my life.

So, if god were capable and benevolent, then I suppose that I could trust him, if he exists. If he were incapable and malevolent, then why should I trust him?

Unfortunately, the capable and benevolent god does not seem to exist. He promised to answer any prayer (Matthew 7:7; Matthew 17:20; Matthew 21:21; Mark 11:24; James 5:15-16; Mark 9:23; Luke 1:37), but he still allows suffering to happen, despite people praying to him to save them.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chujutsu's post
22-02-2013, 02:16 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
(22-02-2013 02:12 AM)Chujutsu Wrote:  Unfortunately, the capable and benevolent god does not seem to exist. He promised to answer any prayer (Matthew 7:7; Matthew 17:20; Matthew 21:21; Mark 11:24; James 5:15-16; Mark 9:23; Luke 1:37), but he still allows suffering to happen, despite people praying to him to save them.

God does answer every prayer, especially those that ask for world peace and such.

"Lol, fuck no, you dumb human shit. As a price for questioning me, have a famine or some shit.

Remember, I own you,


Either that or it just lets nature do it's thing and continues its life of total uselessness.

The people closely associated with the namesake of female canines are suffering from a nondescript form of lunacy.
"Anti-environmentalism is like standing in front of a forest and going 'quick kill them they're coming right for us!'" - Jake Farr-Wharton, The Imaginary Friend Show.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Free Thought's post
22-02-2013, 07:15 AM
RE: Run The Gauntlet
Quote:I have never asked any of my believer friends to PROVE to me that a God exists. I see no reason for believers to ask me to prove one DOES NOT exist either. I don't think there is any way to actually prove either statement is true. And if it's true that when I die and I find the so-called truth, then I'm ready to say, "Huh. So you DO exist. I regret nothing."
I find that highly unlikely. I will cease to exist. I would rather spend my life to the fullest and be happy knowing I stayed true to myself than worrying everyday that I sinned and I'm going to burn in Hell.
Well, keep it simple. We would need to be everywhere in the multiverse at all times and in all possible dimensions, besides being able to "resonate" with a being who might be the size of Jupiter or inside a black hole or whatever--LONG story short, it takes omniscience, some kind of godlike quality, to demonstrate conclusively and utterly there's no possible God. We can go further and say if we're space seed that there's someone above humans, but pride, like the future, is a devious thing.
The only other comment I have for you is this--a Christian life is a full life. Jesus spoke of an abundant life for His followers. I've pondered a non-Christian life a bunch these past weeks while here at the forum. My life would be much the same except that some time I now spend helping others I might spend on myself or helping others in a non-Christian context, and I'd be more prone to indulging myself in some non-healthy behavior. It's a full life with much laughter and love along the way.
Thanks for your post.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: