Battle Talk ~ Battle Royale VII

[PureX]

Bob's third post was excellent, until it sort of petered out half way through. I was very excited as I began reading it because it appeared that Bob was introducing the second of the two traditional rationalizations for the existence of God, and I have never been completely clear on that second one's rational. And Bob was doing a great job at inroducing it with a kind of story that I was easily able to follow. So I was really dissapointed when he just sort of quit the story half way through and never actually stated it's rational conclusion.

The two traditional arguments for the existence of God are the "first cause" argument (which has been discussed, here, to death), and an argument based somehow on man's ability to spontaneously conceive of God. But I can't remember exactly how that second one works. Does anyone out there remember this second argument from their Philosophy 101 class? I'm sure Bob was illuding to it somehow in his last post, through his story about multiple points of view.

 

[bob b]

Re: Re: Re: Re: A Response to Zakath...

Re: Re: Re: Re: A Response to Zakath...

Originally posted by Zakath
Enyart's cheering section seems really intent that I closely follow his line of questioning so that I can be led into his pre-scripted monologue... I feel if would be more entertaining if we took the discussion down some alternate paths, and since I'm the one in the arena...

"When the going gets tough the tough get going", but Zakath simply wants to change the subject instead of answering simple questions.

Bob B said in response to Zakath's comment that two human beings can create a life:

Life comes only from life (or a Creator who created the first life).

This begs the question of where did the Creator's life come from...

And again you change the subject because you can not defend your assertion that two human beings "create" life.

The question being debated is "Does God Exist". Pastor Enyart chose to define deity as his limited unorthodox Open View God. I have found that tools useful for examining the claims of one religion's view of deity are sometimes useful for examining others. Examining the reality of Pastor Enyart's God can be accomplished using tools similar to those used to examine the reality of Vishnu, Odin, or Horus.

Again you dodge your original equivocation when you said that you want to debate the existence of the Christian God, but then use as examples views that pagans had about their gods.

Bob B said

No theory of the creation of the universe can be tested by material means for this is a logical contradiction. Creation of the universe could only be accomplished by mechanisms or means which are not part of the physical universe. This has been known for thousands of years, but some today want to imagine that somehow the universe can come into existence by first assuming that the universe already exists. This is logical nonsense.

To which Zakath replied:

So why does the Christian deity get a waiver of the laws of thermodynamics? Does your belief indicate that he created matter and energy from nothing? Aren't you merely appealing to "God of the Gaps" here?

Again you wish to change the subject about "the universe not being able to create itself".

The Laws of Thermodynamics apply to the Universe. They say nothing about things outside of the only universe science knows. If the universe could not have created itself it is a logical necessity that something outside the universe was responsible for the universe coming into existence. You yourself admitted this by appealing to the "Force".

Existence of a sentient creator is not a "logical necessity". It is merely another theory. Unfortunately one that is not subject to test...

Again you attempt to dodge the question of whether the universe could have created itself even though you have effectively admitted this already by postulating the "Force".

I am unfamiliar with your background, Bob, but it appears that you do not believe in the existence of singularities in black holes? Or perhaps you do not believe in black holes at all?

I used to moderate the creation/evolution forum here if you recall some of your postings there as I do.

You are dodging again by attempting to avoid the issue of whether singularities can occur in the universe.

You perhaps have a reference for Hawking recanting on his singularity theory?

Once again a dodge because it was only with regard to singularities in black holes where he has changed his mind.

People should stop their worship of other human beings by recognizing that all human beings make mistakes from time to time. Hawking seems to relish the fact that he is not like many other scientists who refuse to back down on any of their ideas, for he does this frequently, leaving in the lurch his horde of worshipers who defend him and his ideas to the death.

 

[Flake]

Originally posted by novice
Bob's post #3 is AWESOME!

You may not care about BR VII but do yourself a favor and read Bob's post #3 very carefully! Its incredible!

Thanks to TOL for putting on this debate its fantastic!

I love this small paragraph:

I read it, put simply "If you cannot explain the world and how it works in every miniscule detail, then god must have made it, after all, millions of people cant be totaly wong, can they?".

Yes, truley...erm...thing.

 

[ZroKewl]

PureX - do a search for "Ontological Argument God" -- I believe that is what you are looking for.

I just finished reading the debate and the 1st 10 (of 70) pages of this thread (maybe I'll finish it later?)...

I wanted to comment on the question Bob asked in the debate:

"Does truth exist?" and "Truth is a statement of reality…"

I would have asked what Bob means by "exist", because it sounds as if he thinks "truth" is some sort of entity in and of itself. But, I digress. Does "reality" exist? If reality is defined as that which exists, then yes, it does. But, I'd guess that most people think of "reality" as something different. If by "reality" Bob means mass and energy in our space-time continuum, and if by "exists" he means "an entity that has mass or energy in our space-time continuum", then yes, "reality" and "truth" (as defined by Bob) exists.

But, I don't think that's what Bob is getting at - or at least not what he's assuming. He is assuming an "Ultimate Reality". He then is asking if we can know this "Ultimate Reality" -- not something that is relative or subjective, but something that exists in and of itself, that is not dependent upon time, space, or anything in our universe. That is what I think is at the heart of his question.

Is there an "Ultimate Reality".... maybe. I'm not sure. There is "our reality"... our "space-time continuum made up of matter and energy". We can make statements about this reality. Therfore, by Bob's definition, truth exists. Are these statements "as real" as the reality they describe? No. And are these truths absolute? No.

From what I can see so far, this is no different than any other theological debate that I've seen... it comes down to people having different presuppositions, and different definitions.

I will enjoy watching this debate... mostly just to see what sort of "tactics" are employed to try to win the argument. I enjoy Bob's underhanded ad-hominems... He obviously is not trying to "win Zak for the Lord"... more than likely he's just trying to boost his ego and show his congregation and others that he is a learned man.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by PureX
So I was really dissapointed when he just sort of quit the story half way through and never actually stated it's rational conclusion.

There are still 7 rounds to go! Give him time! I think he was just giving primer.

Not to mention there are limits to the length of individual posts.

But me personally, I thought his point was very well made and cant wait to see it develop further.

 

[novice]

Originally posted by Flake
I read it, put simply "If you cannot explain the world and how it works in every miniscule detail, then god must have made it, after all, millions of people cant be totaly wong, can they?".

Yes, truley...erm...thing.

I guess we can assume you really read it, but certainly you didn't comprehend it.

Too bad, its good stuff!

 

[ZroKewl]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Response to Zakath...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Response to Zakath...

Originally posted by bob b
The Laws of Thermodynamics apply to the Universe. They say nothing about things outside of the only universe science knows. If the universe could not have created itself it is a logical necessity that something outside the universe was responsible for the universe coming into existence. You yourself admitted this by appealing to the "Force".

Hawking's "brane theory" allows for an external "force" to have started our universe. These branes exist outside of time. They are like "God" if you will... only they don't have the characteristics of the Christian deity. Those are unnecessary.

 

[Hank]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicator

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indicator

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack
What does your dictionary say?

“evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)”
I consider species formation as macroevolution. From our conversation I’d say you don’t.

I'll accept the comparison, regardless of what I believe. Some people are going to automatically read a relationship into it somewhere, regardless of what the actual comparison reveals.

Well if you see the comparisons are 98%, 96%, 94%, 92% and so on, where do you draw the line between animals that have a relationship and those that don’t?

Give me a break, Hank. You're not trying to have an intelligent discussion -- you're looking for excuses to twist my words.

Absolutely not. I’m trying to tie you down to something you believe about creationism so we can discuss whether it is reasonable or not. But trying to tie you down to something is like trying to nail jello to a wall.

No. Most of them could probably fish for themselves. All Noah had to do was keep them away from the livestock.

He would also have to keep them away from each other. If you think he was busy on the ark when he had everybody separated by cages, how about how he was running around now with everyone on the loose. I can see it now.

Noah: Hey wolf-kind, I saw some fish over by the river, go check it out.

Wolf-kind wades into the water to try and catch a cooperative fish.

Noah hollering: LOOK OUT FOR THE CROCODILE! Rats……… there goes the wolf-kind species. LOL

Few animals are true carnivores, in that they only eat meat. Some of the most ferocious predators out there are omnivores -- like bears (which are very good at catching fish, by the way).

Polar bears are only meat-eaters. I guess they evolved from the bear-kind right quick after they headed up north. But you are basically saying the cat-kind, wolf-kind, and the others went fishing instead of running down the local aardvark. Is that the jest of your theory? BTW how did Noah keep from getting eaten while he was keeping all these carnivores in line?

You can leave anytime you'd like.

Not a chance. This is too much fun. However you obviously have more time to spend here than me.

Why do you keep coming here then?

I have a good sense of humor and your comments are very entertaining.

I've never really sat and watched one. According to this website some sloths move "rather long distances in one night." It doesn't get specific as to what it means by 'long distances,' but presumably it's more than the 101 feet per day your 2,000 year projection allows for.

Okay I was thinking more of animals that expand there range gradually which is typical. I was actually thinking you would protest it as being not enough time. I think I now see what you are thinking. So lets take say 10 years. I think that would be a reasonable number for the reproductive length of a sloth. That way the pair could expend all their energy traveling. Then when they reached South America they could have sex, reproduce a few baby sloths, get them raised and kick the bucket.

That’s about 4 miles a day. Would you agree that’s a pretty good pace for a sloth being they have claws made for traveling in the trees and not very good at walking on ice. Of course that would be an average as I would think they would have to take a little time crossing rivers, gorges, etc. And that little gap of water between Siberia and Alaska might take a little time also. LOL

Not much more ludicrous than that...

Okay Jack I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume you are more intelligent than the average sloth. That being the case, how would YOU go about heading somewhere? It’s not like you even knew what direction South America was.

Animals go extinct all the time. Especially if people hunt them.

What people are hunting them? There are only 8 people left on the planet and they’re busy keeping the lions off the pigs.

I'd hardly call that 'right after,' but if you want to go with that time, that's ok with me. I have little doubt that there were foxes and wolves 1,000 years later.

Instead of me picking a number and you criticizing it, why don’t you give me a number to work with? I’ll agree to whatever number you want to use. That way we can avoid the time of me making a point and you saying it’s not valid because you didn’t agree with the number to begin with.

You could have fooled me.

Well for someone who thinks the carnivores survived by fishing for a few years after the flood, that’s not a real big challenge.

There was more time after the flood than before. Plus conditions had changed somewhat.

Well with the kind of evolution you’re talking about, we would certainly see it today. So that kind of rapid evolution had to stop sometime in the distant past. I was assuming the time of Jesus. That would put about 2000 years before and about 2000 years after. Are you saying that kind of rapid evolution has been going on for the last 2000 years?

Yes it does fit what we observe.
quote:

We don’t observe the earth revolving around the sun.

That doesn't matter -- it fits the model. We couldn't do parallax measurements on nearby stars if the Earth weren't revolving around the sun.

Was that just an example of you saying one thing then turning right around and saying never mind or what? “We do observe: that doesn’t matter”

If we observe the earth going around the sun, then why did it take 6000 years (according to you) for mankind to figure out that the earth rotates around the sun? This is my whole point. We don’t observe the earth REVOLVING around the sun, we infer from the evidence that the earth REVOLVES around the sun because it fits the model. Like creationism doesn't fit any model.

The sun couldn't possibly 'rotate' around the Earth, unless the Earth were inside the sun. I don't think you know what the word 'rotate' means.

I know what the word means and I know it is used all the time like I used it. But if it will make you feel macho then I will give it to you and I’ll try to remember not to use it that way when I am talking to you. Now can we talk about something besides the difference between rotate and revolve?

 

[novice]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Response to Zakath...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Response to Zakath...

Originally posted by ZroKewl
Hawking's "brane theory" allows for an external "force" to have started our universe. These branes exist outside of time. They are like "God" if you will... only they don't have the characteristics of the Christian deity. Those are unnecessary.

Please summarize this "theory" for us.

 

[RogerB]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Response to Zakath...

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: A Response to Zakath...

Originally posted by ZroKewl
Hawking's "brane theory" allows for an external "force" to have started our universe. These branes exist outside of time. They are like "God" if you will... only they don't have the characteristics of the Christian deity. Those are unnecessary.

I've heard of this. Doesn't it also state that atheists are merely figments of God's imagination?

 

[RogerB]

Originally posted by Flake
I read it, put simply "If you cannot explain the world and how it works in every miniscule detail, then god must have made it, after all, millions of people cant be totaly wong, can they?".

Yes, truley...erm...thing.

Are you a plain flake or frosted? Or maybe toasted is more like it.

 

[JanowJ]

Exactly!!

Exactly!!

Originally posted by PureX
Yes, the very claims they make for God they deny for all the non-God assertions. God can be eternal, but the universe can't. God can exist yet exist beyond our perception and comprehension so that we don't know God's there, but no part of the natural universe can have ever existed or exists now that is unknown to us. God can have all sorts of powers that are completely unexplanable by any natural means, but the natural universe has no power yet hidden from us at all, and so can have had no effect outside of what we see. There is definately a double standard being applied.

It's not a double standard. Evolutionists claim that they know and can prove evolution scientifically, when they can do no such thing. Their dating methods are suspect at best and voliate the laws of science. The average grade school student knows that for something to be proven as a scientific fact, it must be both observable and repeatable. Evolution has never been observed (some have infered, which is completely different) and can not be repeated (since no scientist can know what the original conditions were).
Yes, Creationists do have this problem as well. So, how can one decide which is correct? By weighing the available evidence. The Creationist position is that God has always existed and that he created everything ex nihilo (from nothing). Evolutionists believe one of 2 things: that the universe has always existed, or that it came from nothing. If one looks at the order in the universe (planet rotation, perfect distance of the earth from the sun and the moon from the earth, for example); the Creationist position is a more logical explanation. After all, Nietsche may believe that order can come from chaos, but it doesn't happen in the physical realm (don't believe me: place a pile of bricks on a construction site and leave them there. Come back in a year and see if a building has formed. It won't happen).
The one thing that remains is this: neither the creation position nor the evolution position can have 100% proof. Both positions require faith. The only thing: both can not be true. One is a lie and the other is true. Which has more evidence? The Creationist position.

 

[trom]

Since when are being a theist and evolutionist mutually exclusive? By weighing evidence for evolution and creationism, I have come to the conclusion that evolution is THE WAY THAT GOD created us. Stop trying to paint evolution under a broad brush stroke that includes abiogenesis and the creation of the universe ex nihilo.

 

[Stratnerd]

> Their dating methods are suspect at best and voliate the laws of science.

how so and how so?

 

[novice]

Re: Exactly!!

Re: Exactly!!

Originally posted by JanowJ
It's not a double standard. Evolutionists....

JanowJ I like your post and inspired me to create the following new thread.

I would like your feedback...

click here

 

[Charismata]

Insane in the M-brane

Insane in the M-brane

Originally posted by ZroKewl
Hawking's "brane theory" allows for an external "force" to have started our universe. These branes exist outside of time. They are like "God" if you will... only they don't have the characteristics of the Christian deity. Those are unnecessary.

Hawkings really drops the ball on this one because to support his argument for the "Superstring/M-brane theory" he argues for an actual infinite to exist in reality.

For if an actually infinite number of things could exist, this would spawn all sorts of absurdities.

Perhaps the best way to bring home the truth of the fact is by means of an illustration.

Hilbert's Hotel, a product of the mind of the great German mathematician, David Hilbert.

Let us imagine a hotel with a finite number of rooms. Suppose, furthermore, that all the rooms are full. When a new guest arrives asking for a room, the proprietor apologizes, "Sorry, all the rooms are full." But now let us imagine a hotel with an infinite number of rooms and suppose once more that all the rooms are full. There is not a single vacant room throughout the entire infinite hotel. Now suppose a new guest shows up, asking for a room. "But of course!" says the proprietor, and he immediately shifts the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #3, the person in room #3 into room #4 and so on, out to infinity. As a result of these room changes, room #1 now becomes vacant and the new guest gratefully checks in. But remember, before he arrived, all the rooms were full! Equally curious, according to the mathematicians, there are now no more persons in the hotel than there were before: the number is just infinite. But how can this be? The proprietor just added the new guest's name to the register and gave him his keys-how can there not be one more person in the hotel than before? But the situation becomes even stranger. For suppose an infinity of new guests show up the desk, asking for a room. "Of course, of course!" says the proprietor, and he proceeds to shift the person in room #1 into room #2, the person in room #2 into room #4, the person in room #3 into room #6, and so on out to infinity, always putting each former occupant into the room number twice his own. As a result, all the odd numbered rooms become vacant, and the infinity of new guests is easily accommodated. And yet, before they came, all the rooms were full! And again, strangely enough, the number of guests in the hotel is the same after the infinity of new guests check in as before, even though there were as many new guests as old guests. In fact, the proprietor could repeat this process infinitely many times and yet there would never be one single person more in the hotel than before.
:kookoo:

But Hilbert's Hotel is even stranger than the German mathematician gave it out to be. For suppose some of the guests start to check out. Suppose the guest in room #1 departs. Is there not now one less person in the hotel? Not according to the mathematicians-but just ask the woman who makes the beds! Suppose the guests in room numbers 1, 3, 5, . . . check out. In this case an infinite number of people have left the hotel, but according to the mathematicians there are no less people in the hotel-but don't talk to that laundry woman! In fact, we could have every other guest check out of the hotel and repeat this process infinitely many times, and yet there would never be any less people in the hotel. But suppose instead the persons in room number 4, 5, 6, . . . checked out. At a single stroke the hotel would be virtually emptied, the guest register reduced to three names, and the infinite converted to finitude. And yet it would remain true that the same number of guests checked out this time as when the guests in room numbers 1, 3, 5, . . . checked out. Can anyone sincerely believe that such a hotel could exist in reality?
:nono:

These sorts of absurdities illustrate the impossibility of the existence of an actually infinite number of things.


The Existence of God and the Beginning of the Universe

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indic

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: The vast majority of chronological indic

Originally posted by Hank
“evolution that results in relatively large and complex changes (as in species formation)”
I consider species formation as macroevolution. From our conversation I’d say you don’t.

Not if the species formed is still the same kind of animal.

Well if you see the comparisons are 98%, 96%, 94%, 92% and so on, where do you draw the line between animals that have a relationship and those that don’t?

First of all, we don't have all these comparisons yet, so you're appealing to the unknown here. Secondly, only animals that are of the same kind are related.

Absolutely not. I’m trying to tie you down to something you believe about creationism so we can discuss whether it is reasonable or not. But trying to tie you down to something is like trying to nail jello to a wall.

That's because you keep asking loaded questions in an effort to steer my answers. If you ask me what I think, I'll tell you. If you try to tell me what I think, I'll simply point out whether you're right or wrong.

He would also have to keep them away from each other.

Why couldn't they take care of themselves?

Polar bears are only meat-eaters.

And panda bears only eat plants. But then again, I never said Noah took polar bears on the ark -- just two of the bear kind.

I guess they evolved from the bear-kind right quick after they headed up north. But you are basically saying the cat-kind, wolf-kind, and the others went fishing instead of running down the local aardvark.

I'm saying they could have. There were certainly more fish around at the time than there were aardvarks.

Is that the jest of your theory? BTW how did Noah keep from getting eaten while he was keeping all these carnivores in line?

Who said he had to keep them in line? All he had to do was fence in the livestock animals, or better yet -- keep them in the ark until they became numerous enough to let go into the wild.

Okay I was thinking more of animals that expand there range gradually which is typical. I was actually thinking you would protest it as being not enough time. I think I now see what you are thinking. So lets take say 10 years. I think that would be a reasonable number for the reproductive length of a sloth.

Based on what?

That way the pair could expend all their energy traveling. Then when they reached South America they could have sex, reproduce a few baby sloths, get them raised and kick the bucket.

What if they didn't get here by the route you suggested?

That’s about 4 miles a day. Would you agree that’s a pretty good pace for a sloth being they have claws made for traveling in the trees and not very good at walking on ice.

I seriously doubt that tree sloths wandered across the ice.

Of course that would be an average as I would think they would have to take a little time crossing rivers, gorges, etc. And that little gap of water between Siberia and Alaska might take a little time also. LOL

There used to not be a gap there, but then I don't think that's the route the sloths used to get here.

Okay Jack I’m going to go out on a limb here and assume you are more intelligent than the average sloth. That being the case, how would YOU go about heading somewhere? It’s not like you even knew what direction South America was.

It's not like they did either.

What people are hunting them? There are only 8 people left on the planet and they’re busy keeping the lions off the pigs.

Uh... Noah didn't land in South America. We're talking about some time afterwards.

Instead of me picking a number and you criticizing it, why don’t you give me a number to work with? I’ll agree to whatever number you want to use.

Your number was fine with me -- 1,000 years.

That way we can avoid the time of me making a point and you saying it’s not valid because you didn’t agree with the number to begin with.

Make your point.

Well for someone who thinks the carnivores survived by fishing for a few years after the flood, that’s not a real big challenge.

I'm sure quite a few of them were eating plants too.

Well with the kind of evolution you’re talking about, we would certainly see it today.

So are you saying we don't observe micro-evolution?

So that kind of rapid evolution had to stop sometime in the distant past. I was assuming the time of Jesus. That would put about 2000 years before and about 2000 years after. Are you saying that kind of rapid evolution has been going on for the last 2000 years?

I'm not talking about 'rapid evolution.' I'm talking about speciation. That's micro-evolution, and it happens all the time under the right conditions.

Was that just an example of you saying one thing then turning right around and saying never mind or what? “We do observe: that doesn’t matter”

Here you try to twist my words in what seems to be an attempt to hijack my point.

If we observe the earth going around the sun, then why did it take 6000 years (according to you) for mankind to figure out that the earth rotates around the sun?

Where did I say it took 6,000 years to figure that out? See, that's your problem, Hank. You don't listen to what I say, and you keep trying to put words in my mouth. You also haven't answered any of the questions I've asked you.

This is my whole point. We don’t observe the earth REVOLVING around the sun, we infer from the evidence that the earth REVOLVES around the sun because it fits the model.

I believe that was my point -- you had yet to make one.

Like creationism doesn't fit any model.

Sure it does.

I know what the word means and I know it is used all the time like I used it.

I can't help it if you're surrounded by illiterates. That's not the correct definition. Rotating means spinning, which requires an axis.

But if it will make you feel macho then I will give it to you and I’ll try to remember not to use it that way when I am talking to you. Now can we talk about something besides the difference between rotate and revolve?

Hank, if you want to have an intelligent conversation, you're going to have to get your terms right.

 

[ZroKewl]

Re: Exactly!!

Re: Exactly!!

Originally posted by JanowJ The Creationist position is that God has always existed and that he created everything ex nihilo (from nothing). Evolutionists believe one of 2 things: that the universe has always existed, or that it came from nothing.

As pointed out, Evolutionists can believe that God created the Universe. Regardless, you are making the same assumption that Bob did in the debate - that the ONLY options are that 1) the universe has always existed or 2) it was created from nothing. (Bob adds some other options, but the basic argument is outlined in this dichotomy.) IMO, this is a FUNDAMENTAL different between atheists and theists. Theists tend to see the world in black or white... "this" or "that"... "true" or "false". Atheists tend to realize that reality is gray. It is not "this" or "that". This is one of the major problems in having these types of debates. The more diametrically opposed the atheist and theist are, the more futile the discussion becomes.

Before we can talk about the nature of the universe, we need to define the universe. (Funny, huh?) I find most theists tend to mean "all of the matter and energy in our 4-dimensional space-time continuum" (well, the smart ones think that). They define God as that thing that exists outside of this universe (and created this one). What makes you think there can't be some other dimensions or universes outside of our own? Want proof? Me too. That's the purpose of science. Hawking and others have some theories. That is, some testable hypotheses that are in the process of being tested. As technology advances, we are able to more accurately test theories and come up with new ones to test. We are learning about the true nature of the universe. That's what science does. Theism says it does the same thing... but in a completely different way. Science has come a long way... how far has theism come?

 

[Charismata]

Originally posted by ZroKewl
Theists tend to see the world in black or white... "this" or "that"... "true" or "false". Atheists tend to realize that reality is gray(sic).

Just a few quick questions.

1) Does your bank see your account balance in terms of "black and white" or in shades of grey? "Hey as long as I have checks I have money! Woohoo!":ha:

2) Does your mortgage company care if you pay your bill on time or do they see things in shades of grey?:nono:

3) Do architects fudge on the math when designing a building understanding the laws of physics really don't apply to them on that particular job because they "feel" like it shouldn't?:kookoo:

Postmodernism is the disease. Logic is the cure.:up:

 

[Flake]

Originally posted by RogerB
Are you a plain flake or frosted? Or maybe toasted is more like it.

lol, kudos!

Originally posted by novice
I guess we can assume you really read it, but certainly you didn't comprehend it.

Of course I read it. It is a very thought provocing eloquent piece of writing and a pleasure to read, however, I didnt take the time to read it for the artistry or insight, I read it to find evidence of existence of god, any god. The crux of the argument in the piece is as I have said. If I have missed something then maybe I am too dumb to be a theist. If there is any other argument in there, solid and profound, for proof of god, not merely disproof or rejection of any other possibility other than god, or arguments of semantics, rhetorical wrangling and clever one-upmanship, why obfuscate, elongate and waffle? Evidence! Where the h*** is it?
I cannot disprove that in a galaxy far far away Darth Vader fought Luke Skywalker, but that doesnt automatically mean it happened! TBH there is more evidence of that than your god.