Surefire ways to prove God exists
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
30-10-2013, 03:41 PM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(30-10-2013 01:59 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  God is hidden because of human sin. You've read the BIBLE, yes?

Moses was open to finding evidence and counted his Jewish ancestry more precious as people who received the Word more than his Egyptian wealth.

As for the miraculous and metaphysic proof, I believe you personally have read testimonies of what? 200? Christians on this forum who've all told you the proof is there when YOU want it. PERIOD.

God is hidden because of human sin? That makes no sense. He created us with that sin, then punishes us for our very nature? Hmmm....nice guy.

That's the bully argument that goes something like this: a bully hits a kid on the playground. The kid falls down and starts crying. The teacher runs over and asks the bully, why did you hit that kid? He says, I hit him because he was crying? The teacher says, he is crying because you hit him. The bulky replies, right, and if he keeps crying I'll hit him again.

Justifying your actions based on the results that you caused is downright capricious and pernicious. But, nonetheless, why god hides is still not answered.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Cathym112's post
30-10-2013, 03:47 PM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(30-10-2013 12:12 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 11:55 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  Eew. Tongue

I think you just resent the fact that I prefer to worship Hugh Jackgodman.

Hardly. Dodgy

More likely, as has been demonstrated, we all need protection from you. Big Grin

[Image: klingon_zps7e68578a.jpg]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 04:00 PM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(30-10-2013 03:47 PM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 12:12 PM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I think you just resent the fact that I prefer to worship Hugh Jackgodman.

Hardly. Dodgy

More likely, as has been demonstrated, we all need protection from you. Big Grin

Protection from feeble minded, squalor scum like me? Nah
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 05:57 PM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(30-10-2013 01:59 PM)PleaseJesus Wrote:  ...
Moses was open to finding evidence and counted his Jewish ancestry more precious as people who received the Word more than his Egyptian wealth.
...

Consider Backward engineering, methinks.

Moses would have demised long before the 'Word' was invented.

Drinking Beverage

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 07:05 PM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2013 12:52 AM by Chippy.)
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(30-10-2013 07:13 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  however, When you increase the life expectancy, reduce overall mortality by the levels that were suggested, the replacement rate actually decreases. That doesn't stop people from fucking, though....not on any meaningful scale.

We aren't talking about stopping people from fucking we are concerned with their reproduction. Given the availability of birth control and abortion shortages and increasing costs of living will reduce the birthrate. In many parts of the world (including Australia) the birthrate is below replacement level because of cost of living pressures.

Quote:Thank you for making the argument from exception. While there are some ecosystems that maintain stability and do not require fire for destruction, these ecosystems are not the norm.

Actually they are the norm. If they were the norm then it is unlikely that we would be here now. Phyletic gradualism is inconsistent with extreme shocks that kill off large numbers of a population. The more members of a species that are killed the less likely a favourable variation is going to be selected.

Quote:Forests (spelled with one R by the way), require a periodic clearing in order to flourish. Particularly for parts of the forest floor to flourish, the trees need to be cleared.

No they don't.

Quote:I never said anything about mass death. I never said anything about ALL ecological systems either.

Yes you did.

Quote:Is wikipedia where you got your education in economics? I'm sorry, my friend, but you couldn't be more wrong. Economics does not exist in a vacuum. Part 1: If everyone (globally) has enough food, Shelter, and poverty is eliminated, no need for medical treatment since there is no more disease, as the assumption made, there would be no need for any substantial trade. Banana Republics would no longer have that one export to support their economy since the importing county would already have enough of their own and thus no need to import.

Why would there be no disease? Why would every country have all the goods and services that they need? If Indonesia doesn't currently have sufficient land to farm beef cattle how would it come to eventually not need to import it? You are just making stuff up in a vain attempt to salvage your idiotic argument.

Quote:Why do you work? You work so you can pay for food, shelter, and clothing for yourself and your family. In order to truly eliminate world hunger, Everyone would need to have free access to food in order for the assumption to work. Same with shelter, etc. When you have everything you need, there is no need to work to achieve those things.

How would overpopulation give everybody free food and shelter? Who said everyone would have everything that they need for free? Overpopulation would have the opposite effect. There would be more competition for few resources so the economic environment would be generally inflationary.

Quote:No one would clean up shit because the only way to get someone to do menial work if the incentive is no longer there. This is why socialism doesn't work - the incentive is removed.

There would still be a need to work in an overpopulated world and there would still be work to do.

Quote:
People can still trade for efficiency, however, if we outsource our labor to india because labor is cheaper, it frees up time, money and manpower to focus on innovation.

Every nation-state isn't going to magically develop the ability to produce everything they want and need because the world is overpopulated. Trade would continue for the same reasons it occurs to day.

Quote:What is the point of medical innovation, DNA sequencing? No point.
No need for medical innovation (you seem to have an incorrect assumption that medical advancements do not have a ripple effect into other areas of commerce - they very much do)
[quote]

How ould overpopulation cause medical innovation to become superfluous? How does overpopulation magically eliminate all disease?

[quote]
Now, while its true that the technological industry would not suffer as greatly as the agricultural industry, you cannot support the economy on 1 industry unless you are suggesting that every economy become a banana republic.

There is nothing instrinsic to overpopulation that it would necessarily cause any industry to "suffer". The demand for food and mnufactured goods would grow in an overpopulated world.

Quote:Now, as supply and demand meet each other, that is your sweet spot of equilibrium. However, innovation costs money. Now the price needs to be moved, effectively jiggling the equilibrium. Equilibrium can be reached, but it can never STAY there for a substantial time period if you also want innovation and change.

Who said anything about equilibirum having to be fixed at one point? The same incentives that exist for innovation today will still exist in an overpopulated world.

Quote:Why would anyone work? You have all the free food and shelter you need.

How would world overpopulation magically give everyone all the free food and shelter they need?

Quote:In order to truly end global world hunger, where NO ONE starves, you would need to have the assumption of free access to food. Same with shelter.

Who said anything about ending global world hunger?

The point you made is that in the absence of periodoc mass death from such things as natural disasters and wildfires there would be social and ecological collapse. That is a false and unsubstantied claim.

Then you jumped from the idea of overpopulation to there being some magical Utopian world in which there is somehow no more disease and everyone has all the goods and services they want and need. Overpopulation will not cause all disease to disappear or give everyone free food and shelter. An overpopulated world will be the same as the current world except there would be more competition and consequently increasing food and housing prices and a general trend towards decreased labour costs. The overpopulated world will continue in this way until food production capacity is destroyed by pollution.

You are a stupid person.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 07:32 PM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(30-10-2013 06:56 AM)Chas Wrote:  Maybe you could work on not being an arrogant dickhead. Consider

I am not seeking your approval so you haven't presented a compelling reason for me to alter my behaviour to a way that you deem more preferable. You have the option of not reading my posts if you don't like them. Why do you think that I would give any significance to your conception of virtue and how I sit in relation to that? I don't recall trying to change your behaviour to conform to my concept of virtue. From where I sit it appears to me that you are being "an arrogant dickhead" in assuming that I am in thrall to your approval. If you don't like my posts then fuck off and don't read them.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 07:33 PM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(30-10-2013 09:53 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I am not familiar with the complexities of molecular biology. Does that mean I'm stupid?

No you are stupid for different reasons.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 07:58 PM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(30-10-2013 10:41 AM)houseofcantor Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 09:53 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  All and all, there is no need for douchbaggery.

Why, yes. Yes there is. Big Grin

...although I'm thinking more of dearthair and his bs. I for one found Chippy's douchbaggery amusing. Tongue

Chas's white-knighting of someone who can take care of herself, not so much. Big Grin

It wasn't that. Dodgy

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 07:59 PM
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(30-10-2013 07:33 PM)Chippy Wrote:  
(30-10-2013 09:53 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I am not familiar with the complexities of molecular biology. Does that mean I'm stupid?

No you are stupid for different reasons.

You're an asshole. Drinking Beverage

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-10-2013, 08:30 PM (This post was last modified: 31-10-2013 12:52 AM by Chippy.)
RE: Surefire ways to prove God exists
(30-10-2013 07:44 AM)Cathym112 Wrote:  I'm not suggesting that chippy dumb down his arguments,

No you are suggesting that I don't make them because you don't understand them. That was the substance of your killer Matrix argument.

Quote:But the level of insipidly pernicious communication is only helpful if he wants to end the conversation.

"Insipldly pernicious" is not very good construction. If something is "insipid" it is lacking in force, anodyne, impotent, dull and ineffectual. It is incongruous to pair "insipid" with "pernicious". An insipid thing doesn't generally cause harm.

I am not particularly interested in conversing with you. And as I recall you have PMd me asking for an explanation of correlation versus causation (and I ignored you). I haven't PMd you. I'm not seeking your conversation or approval.

Quote:Richard Dawkins is brilliant. serious brainpower. But when Many read his book - They were rather turned off by his by verbiage...that if he somehow used uncommonly used adverbs, adjectives and nouns like "infelicity" it would prove how educated he was. My economics professors never once used infelicity. He would simply say "improprieties"

Why the random capitalisation?

What is the significance of your economics professors' vocabularies? I don't particularly care for Dawkins but that is an idiotic criticism. Why isn't Dawkins' vocabulary normative and your economics professors' deviant? Dawkins' vocabulary is typical for university educated members of the British upper-middle class. I'm guessing you are from North America. Why should the style and vocabulary of people from different cultures be the same? Since England is the origin of English there is reason to treat Dawkins' vocabulary as normative.

Also, "infelicity" isn't necessarily synonymous with "impropriety". In the context of norms and etiquette you can substitute "impropriety" for "infelicity" but "infelicity" has a use outside of that context which "impropriety" doesn't. When Dawkins writes:

Gendered pronouns notoriously are the front line of such consciousness-raising. He or she must ask himself or herself whether his or her sense of style could ever allow himself or herself to write like this. But if we can just get over the clunking infelicity of the language, it raises our consciousness to the sensitivities of half the human race. (p.115)

I believe he is invoking the original meaning of the word "infelicity". He is referring to unfortunate inappropriatness rather than impropriety per se.

Quote:It's worth noting that while he can dish out the criticism, the sand in his vagina prevents him from taking it.

It isn't an issue of me not "taking it", there is nothing to "take". You telling me I'm an "asshole" or a "douchebag" isn't criticism. I'm happy to be unlike you and I'm happy to alienate you with my posts.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: