Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-03-2016, 03:09 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(04-03-2016 05:54 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  
(04-03-2016 05:48 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Obviously, no sane person would take their chances with that kind of probability if they didn't like the idea of a cosmic engineer being behind the process.

Facepalm
No one is "taking a chance" on anything.
Highly improbable events happen all the time.
The universe with life exists. The probability for that is 100 %




#sigh
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes GirlyMan's post
05-03-2016, 03:18 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(05-03-2016 11:13 AM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  Well, I'm saying it now...and what I said applied to both "life" and "man".
I only said man because man is the most complex form of life..and if it probability applies to man, then it applies to any other form of life.

Totally false. Penrose said neither, so both are wrong.
He has not established by what criteria he determined "man is the most complex form of life", and how that is any different from other life forms. And his retrospective application of his false standard BACK to simpler forms of life is PRECISELY backwards. The probability of SIMPLER life forms would be HIGHER, not lower, so his probability is EXACTLY backwards.

COTW is hopelessly ignorant.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2016, 03:36 PM (This post was last modified: 05-03-2016 03:54 PM by Unbeliever.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(05-03-2016 03:18 PM)Bucky Ball Wrote:  COTW is hopelessly ignorant.

Exceptionally so, yes. Whether or not he realizes it, he is a walking testament to the fact that apologetics as a field is completely intellectually bankrupt.

He doesn't understand probability, and so argues that a long shot coming up is evidence of an intelligent agency's intervention. He doesn't understand logical deduction or the relationship between theory and practice, and so argues that we can't conclude that evolution is true or that consciousness is brain activity. He doesn't understand what the difference between deductive and inductive reasoning is, and so argues that he requires an inductive proof to convince him of something that has already been deducted. He doesn't understand what the genetic algorithm is or how it applies to evolution, what evolution is, or what evidence there is for it, and so argues complete nonsense and actively refuses to listen to anyone attempting to educate him on the subject. He doesn't understand philosophy or semantics, and so rants about people not addressing his arguments directly when, in fact, they have been all along. He doesn't understand physics, and so presents nonsense about entropy that has nothing to do with the facts on the subject and pretends that it is evidence for anything.

He doesn't even understand what form evidence for his god would take, and so keeps bringing up things that not only fail as arguments in their own right but wouldn't necessarily be evidence even if they were true.

And, on top of all of that, he thinks that the Gish gallop is a legitimate form of argument, which results in huge, sprawling, incoherent messes of posts that make an actual discussion impossible.

Honestly, it's embarrassing.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Unbeliever's post
05-03-2016, 03:41 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(05-03-2016 12:50 PM)Call_of_the_Wild Wrote:  
(05-03-2016 11:30 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  You say man is the most complex form of life? So you think Man is more complex than God?

Obviously I was talking about life on this planet. Man, you've been hanging around Chas to long, Clyde.

(05-03-2016 11:30 AM)ClydeLee Wrote:  So whatever unless you think you misspoke or are now viewing things differently than say a month or two ago. I guess whatever applies to man & other form of life applies to God.

I also said/implied that God is the only Uncaused Cause, Clyde.

You made no real indications of these supposed "obvious." That's simply reworking one's claim, but besides that, so now God is not on this planet? Another strangely contrasting concept.

The only obvious thing is you don't actually understand what it is you're saying when it comes down to details. You just throw shit out your head and think you have some profound knowledge beyond it. But it's so flawed beyond every idea that you think.

And as I've said, what fears or mysteries do you think that are real that prevents you from being able to see simply just 1 more step beyond this false barrier of "god" being "the" uncaused cause if you think there MUST be an uncaused cause?

"Allow there to be a spectrum in all that you see" - Neil Degrasse Tyson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2016, 03:51 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Why are you guys still interacting at all with this buffoon? He clearly is insanely stupid or a blatant lier. Most probably both. Is it because of the "lurkers" as i have read a couple of times?

Just wondering, cuz he is a complete waste of time.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-03-2016, 03:55 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(05-03-2016 03:51 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Why are you guys still interacting at all with this buffoon?

Because I am both a masochist and a megalomaniac.

"Owl," said Rabbit shortly, "you and I have brains. The others have fluff. If there is any thinking to be done in this Forest - and when I say thinking I mean thinking - you and I must do it."
- A. A. Milne, The House at Pooh Corner
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Unbeliever's post
05-03-2016, 06:39 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(05-03-2016 03:55 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(05-03-2016 03:51 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Why are you guys still interacting at all with this buffoon?

Because I am both a masochist and a megalomaniac.

You are keeping him busy in one little corner of the forum and for that I thank you. Your sacrifice has not gone unnoticed.

Atheism: it's not just for communists any more!
America July 4 1776 - November 8 2016 RIP
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like unfogged's post
05-03-2016, 11:35 PM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
well im entertained, if that counts for anything.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2016, 01:44 AM
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
(05-03-2016 03:55 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  
(05-03-2016 03:51 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Why are you guys still interacting at all with this buffoon?

Because I am both a masochist and a megalomaniac.

I have to admit, i do like your replies. Thumbsup
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-03-2016, 09:37 AM (This post was last modified: 06-03-2016 09:47 AM by Call_of_the_Wild.)
RE: Who Created The Supernatual Realm.
Ahh yes, just what I like to see. Your posts are getting smaller and smaller and before you know it, you won't be saying anything at all Thumbsup

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  If time does not exist, there was also no moment in which you could be said to be sitting in the chair. If there is no time, then, by definition, you cannot have an eternity of it.

Jesus Christ, this is a stupid argument.

Getting a little emotional there, are we? Save some of that built up energy and apply it to what I actually said.

First off, I didn't say that there was a "moment" in which you could be said to be sitting in the chair..and not only DIDN'T I say it, but I explicitly said ["Time doesn't exist, does it? No, because there was no moment preceding your sitting...therefore, there can be no moment AFTER your sitting.'

If there were no moments BEFORE your sitting, then there can't be any moments DURING, or AFTER your sitting. Time just simply doesn't exist.

More straw man?

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  If there is no time, you cannot stand after sitting.

If you are using "after" in the sense of "after you BEGAN to sit, you began to stand", then you are correct. But if you were sitting in the chair for eternity, there is no "after" you began sitting.

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  If you stand, you have by definition not been in the chair for eternity.

Based on what?? I can conceive of a man that has been sitting PERFECTLY still in a chair for eternity...never moving. Having NEVER moving an inch, the man BEGINS to stand up from his perfectly still sitting position.

This concept is totally conceivable, and these minuscule objections you are raising is bullshit.

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And then you get to less purely logical considerations, such as the fact that anything lasting for an infinite amount of time is nonsensical

Yeah, it would be nonsensical if that was the argument. But it isn't the argument...it is another straw man attack on your part. No one is arguing that God existed throughout everlasting time (actual infinite time). Even in the "sitting man" analogy, the man isn't even "in time" until he begins to stand from his sitting position.

As the man was sitting, he wasn't in time, yet, he existed. You can set up as many straw man as you like, meanwhile, the actual culprit (argument) remains untouched.

Second, you said "anything lasting for an infinite amount of time is nonsensical", but if the universe never began to exist, doesn't that meant that it existed for an infinite amount of time?? Consider

Of course, you can always appeal to that equally absurd idea of the universe popping out of nothing...but I already dismantled that idea in my last post.

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  , as "infinity" is an abstract concept, not a number.

And?

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  There is also the fact that time is a dimension, not some sort of magical, nebulous "thing" that comes into existence to differentiate between static and dynamic universes.

It may not be something "magical or nebulous", but it is something that came into existence, and something that cannot logically have existed forever.

You can call it whatever you like, the point is, it began to exist..and if you think otherwise, then I will just open my bag of tricks and pull out the infinite regress problem that you will unavoidantly (new word) run in to.

And there is no escaping those implications, my friend No

Big Grin

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Your entire scenario is nonsensical and incoherent on every level.

Say this after you've shown that you understand the scenario.

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  False dichotomy. I have never stated that the universe is infinite.

Or that it popped into being uncaused out of nothing. You said that, didn't you?

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  False comparison. You are attempting to equivocate between coming into existence ex materia from coming into existence ex nihilo.

This is incredibly basic stuff, Call.

Nonsense. If a horse popped into your living room right now, it would be coming into existence ex nihilo, which is the same thing the universe would be coming into existence out of. The point is simple; if a whole universe can come into existence ex nihilo, then why in the hell can't anything else?

The material stuff has nothing to do with either one popping into existence and was completely unwarranted because the point remains unscathed.

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  No, there isn't. Ultimately, the best answer you are going to get is "why not?"

That is the price of atheism right there. You would rather believe that the universe popped into being, uncaused, out of nothing before you believe that a God did it.

Anything NOT to believe in God. It is actually sad.

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  The universe is under no obligation to satisfy whatever fantasies you have regarding it existing for a purpose.

Um, you are the one with the fantasy because what you believe is worse than magic. When a magician pulls a rabbit out of the hat, at least we can say that the magician caused the rabbit to appear. On your view, the rabbit just popped into being uncaused, out of nothing. No magician, no hat whatsoever. The rabbit just popped into existence.

Wow.

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  If you want to stretch the definition of "supernatural" that far, that is your business. It changes nothing and poses no actual problem for naturalism.

Yeah, this is sad. This is as sad as I've ever really seen in any forum or from anyone. I've been doing this apologetic stuff for the past 15-16 years, and this is the worse of seen by far.

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And around and around and around she goes...

Denying the existence of logical deduction only makes you look exceptionally silly.

Who is smarter, the human beings with vision and intelligence, or a process (nature) with no vision, or intelligence?

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Sensory organs began their evolution into the more sophisticated forms that we see today as simple stimulus-response reactions - a patch of pseudo-skin that caused its wearer to recoil from heat by automatically contracting, or suchlike.

So what were the sensory organs "before" they began their evolution to more sophisticate forms?

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Brains - organs responsible for coordinating and controlling these stimulus-response actions - came later.

So, basically...a mindless and blind process is the one that created minds, and vision??

Laugh out loadLaugh out load A non-thinking process creating thinking processes?? A blind process created vision??

Atheism has just gotten more expensive. The price of atheism is rising!!

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Only in the sense that bits within a computer are forming into an image of an apple to produce a .jpg of one.

Computers were designed, sir. Faulty comparison fallacy.

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  This has been dealt with multiple times. Aside from the fact that this is actively being done, and making progress despite your scoffing, this is comparable to someone telling the Wright brothers that, because they haven't produced a functional airplane yet, the fact that all the math works out and they have one half-built in their garage is worthless.

None of the irrelevant links you posted had anything to do with inanimate material producing or being the origin of thoughts.

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Simplification, not alteration. Plantinga's version of the argument - all versions of the ontological argument - are based on taking those basic precepts and then substituting different equivalents in an effort to draw it out and make it look more complicated.

Instead of the mumbo jumbo generalities, how about some specifics?

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  It's exactly as stupid as it sounds.

It seems fine to me.

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  There is a reason you don't see anyone other than apologists pulling this shit.

Who else would pull it?

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  "Our verdict on these reformulated versions of St. Anselm's argument must be as follows. They cannot, perhaps, be said to prove or establish their conclusion."
- Plantinga, "The Nature of Necessity"

Plantinga is explicitly and plainly addressing his own formulation of the argument.

I don't know which "reformulated visions" he is talking about. I'd need to get the entire context.

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  In apologetics.

Um, no..in philosophy. He is a research professor of Philosophy. You get that? "Professor". He teaches the stuff.

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  And apologetics, as we have established quite firmly in this thread, do not require even a basic understanding of logic.

Laugh out load

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Once again, you substitute "SMH" for an actual elaboration. This is not a compelling form of argument.

Sometimes "smh" is all one can do.

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Present your evidence or get out.

I asked you a question, sir. What will it take for you to BELIEVE that you saw Big Foot?

Please answer the question.

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  What? This question does not parse. Do you understand what entropy is and how it functions in an open system?

I will answer my own question, since you didn't. According to Penrose's calculations and also the independent values of the physical constants (on their own merit), the entropy had to be low.

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  Yes. The Texas sharpshooter fallacy.

What does Bret Hart have to do with anything? Laugh out load

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You have literally just re-presented the same evidence that I just did, but claimed that it supports your side.

Mines was better, and it more accurately depicted what actually would have had to happen. Now, those odds are not favorable for the naturalist side, but when you believe that the universe could have popped into being out of nothing...typically, all logic and reasoning goes out of the window at that point anyway.

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  You do not understand probability

Right, I do not understand the probability of a universe popping into existence, uncaused, out of nothing. I do not understand that nonsense.

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  , what "Texas sharpshooter fallacy" means

I also don't give a damn, either.

(05-03-2016 03:00 PM)Unbeliever Wrote:  or how you would even begin to go about formulating support for the idea of intelligent intervention in the universe.

Laughable. Again, when you don't have an answer to what I say, you do the typical "you don't understand" stuff. You've shown that you don't have an answer for the "man in the lab/brain" scenario, all you've done was provide piss-poor weak links that doesn't even address what I'd like addressed...you've shown that you don't understand the "man in the chair" scenario, thus offering very weak objections to it.

You've shown that you are so closed-minded about the God hypothesis that you would rather believe that the universe popped into being out of nothing before you believe in God, thus adopting a "God didn't create the universe, because the universe popped into being out of nothing", which is sad. Not to mention the fact that you cannot logically OR scientifically prove such a notion, you just believe because of the "anything but God" approach that most closed-minded individuals have.

You've shown your ignorance regarding entropy and the low entropy needed for the universe to have living inhabitants.

You've shown that either you don't understand Plantiga's argument, or that you do understand it, you just can't refute it...

And you've also failed to answer a direct question regarding the disciples belief in the Resurrection when you were asked the simple question of "What would make you believe that you saw Big Foot", because you are obviously aware of the implications of answering such a question.

I will give you one more response after this because I'd like to move on, sir. No one that believes the universe popped into being out of nothing is worthy of continuous conversation. But I will give you one more.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: