Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
No. Nobody has to organize their posts in the way that pleases you. People are free to express themselves as they wish.
Hahaa.
Looks like I caught you in a bad mood, or you are always like this?
Sorry, but you chimed in a little late.
Perhaps your frustration was directed to the underlined part of post # 12?
Quote:
Originally Posted by fishbrains
GoC,
Let's assume for the sake of argument that we accept the very specific definitions you highlighted, and the forum adopts those particular usages, banning all other alternate definitions.
Does that help us, as a group, in any real way? Or does it simply help you specifically? You can than claim that you have faith in god, and everybody who reads the sticky, and understands the nuances, will understand that you have really said:
GoC asserts without any evidence (claims) a firm belief in something for which there is no proof (faith) in god.
Everybody else who does not read the sticky or remember those particular phrases will think you mean something much stronger.
I have an alternate suggestion, which might make things clearer for everybody. Why don't you stop using the words claim and faith , and use the phrases "assert without evidence" and "firm belief in something for which there is no proof" instead? That way we are all completely clear as to what you mean.
What exactly would you consider credible evidence of God? What are the minimal attributes you would need to see? Is it Godlike to be responsible for everything that exists? Is it Godlike to establish the physical and chemical laws under which everything operates? Is it Godlike to be responsible for the existence of Life or the existence of a survival drive that responds to environmental consequences or the existence of consciousness that is able to contemplate the existence of consequences or anything else?
No, no, and no. But well done for begging the question.
No, no, and no. But well done for begging the question.
Exactly. Evolution demonstrably produced increased complexity of life and that without any need to postulate a god. So, say that fills the bill for a creator and then claim that a "Creator" (Aka "God") is validated.
It only makes sense if you believe in an intelligent creator to start with.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
you claiming that doesn't make it so ... what does matter is what they did.
fish basically said "I don't know what i am talking about and I don't have to change my faith statement."
so you can deny it all you want. he did exactly what GoC was trying to claim. i wouldn't have believed it myself until fish walked right into it.
And you and he can deny it all you want. Those looking in can see who is talking sense and who is talking illogic while the other talks waffle.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 01-28-2019 at 04:59 AM..
I can believe that because it resembles my belief about God establishing our reality in His consciousness. My question for you is who is the Dreamer???
I'll be amazed if he answers this in any meaningful way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Arach Angle
You deny it all you want trans. you watch the actions of the biosphere over time and it fits every property we assign to life.
And yes, complexity versus volume is exactly what causes life to do the things life does.
Your really going to have to learn stuff or own the fact that you not understanding the material doesn't matter to your faith in no-god. you don't need evidence to support your faith.
just like goC say faith followers do.
Self replication? Show that and you may have a point. But it would be a futile one as saying that humans and Nematodes are both living makes nematodes equal to humans, and that is where your quasi -god (oh yes, that's what it is) belief is flawed. And that is the case despite all your Trumpery 'what I say is true and you know it, too' nonsense. Nobody is fooled.
Hahaa.
Looks like I caught you in a bad mood, or you are always like this?
Sorry, but you chimed in a little late.
Perhaps your frustration was directed to the underlined part of post # 12?
Quote:
Originally Posted by GoCardinals
Hahaa.
Looks like I caught you in a bad mood, or you are always like this?
Sorry, but you chimed in a little late.
Perhaps your frustration was directed to the underlined part of post # 12?
Doesn't look like that at all. He caught you trying to force a false position on him so as to give you some material. He didn't fall for it and exposed you. You may Lol, but the laugh is on you. You may recall that I pointed out your other attempts to wish conditions on atheists (having to define God - saying what would convince us) failed and this is yet another.
you claiming that doesn't make it so ... what does matter is what they did.
fish basically said "I don't know what i am talking about and I don't have to change my faith statement."
so you can deny it all you want. he did exactly what GoC was trying to claim. i wouldn't have believed it myself until fish walked right into it.
Please, just stop. You have some interesting ideas, and I try to follow what you are saying, but now you are just coming across as dishonest. Here is the actual exchange (assuming this is the one in question)...
Arach Angle:"answer me this. how is the universe not quantum computing you?"
fishbrains:"I am not even sure what this question means, nor do I know anything about quantum computing, so I very much doubt I could offer an informed opinion."
Now you are misquoting, twisting that around to put words in fish's mouth, and crowing that they walked into some sort of clever trap.
FWIW, fish answered exactly as I would have... I have no idea what that question means, or what "the universe quantum computing" me would look like. It doesn't strike me as particularly religious (per another of your posts), but it appears to be a made-up term/concept, with no basis for common understanding. If you expect anyone to respond, it would require more context.
Last edited by HeelaMonster; 01-28-2019 at 09:12 AM..
It's the old 'brain in a vat' argument, with an Intelligent Universe' twist. "How do you know the Universe isn't intelligent and has created all this on celestial computer -screen". We don't but so what? The universe is what it is and the Intelligent design aspect has to explain why it really doesn't look designed, if one doesn't fall into the trap of confusing what works and survives with was was Planned to work.
There is no reason to even bother about such speculations, intriguing though they are. And they don't concern atheists anyway (apart from - if the concept was validated, we'd have to be irreligious rather than atheist) since organised religion, no possible non - religion - specific creators is our concern.
Validating a creator (not that they are making ground with that - rather they are losing ground) helps religious apologists not at all, though they think it does: they start from the other end and argue that the Bible tells us about this 'Creator'. Which is why I say Bible - and specifically NT - is what is the crux of the debate. Not morality, not ID and not the great atrocity debate. Christianity stands and falls on the resurrection, in fact, and it Falls. Like a detonated chimney -stack.
Now Arach is rather different; he is not pressing the case for religion, but for a living universe and intelligent, from what he posted. Nobody seems to have anything more than speculations and wonky analogies from him and he prefers to try on 'atheist stumpers' like 'How do you know the Universe isn't all on a computer screen (Alien or God, take your pick)'?
This hasn't worked in a long while. What if it was?
Now you are misquoting, twisting that around to put words in fish's mouth, and crowing that they walked into some sort of clever trap.
FWIW, fish answered exactly as I would have... I have no idea what that question means, or what "the universe quantum computing" me would look like. It doesn't strike me as particularly religious (per another of your posts), but it appears to be a made-up term/concept, with no basis for common understanding. If you expect anyone to respond, it would require more context.
Which is why I cannot be bothered to respond. A poster uses garbled English and made-up phrases, then declares some sort of victory by completely making up some nonsense, throwing quotes around it, and representing it as my statement.
That is insanity, and you cannot have a reasonable discussion with the insane. Welcome to the ignore list.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
