Discussion:
Why There is No Proof of God
(too old to reply)
Stargazer
2016-10-19 04:23:06 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit

There is no proof because there is nothing to prove.
You can not prove what does not exist.
But we have all the evidence.
I disagree. There is Faith and there is evidence, but religion is a
matter of Faith or Belief.
If it's only about faith and belief, then why are so many of you
trolling an atheist NG with no other apparent motive than to be
insulting, lying assholes?
Who, for example claims their religion is based on knowledge, proof or
evidence?
Duke, Asstroll7, Androol and Prince Michael(Michael Yost and several other
nyms).
I suspect it's your own POW which is projected to them.
Nope. They specifically claim to have evidence, but never provide it.
One might suspect that their "proof" is based upon the Bible, which is
all the proof they require, since the Bible, in their world, is the
infallible word of God. But this is NOT scientific empirical evidence
nor have I personally seen where they make any such claim. This is
a very important distinction.
m***@.
2016-11-09 04:45:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Stargazer
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
http://youtu.be/CBu_Jw61UZE
There is no proof because there is nothing to prove.
You can not prove what does not exist.
But we have all the evidence.
I disagree. There is Faith and there is evidence, but religion is a
matter of Faith or Belief.
If it's only about faith and belief, then why are so many of you
trolling an atheist NG with no other apparent motive than to be
insulting, lying assholes?
Who, for example claims their religion is based on knowledge, proof or
evidence?
I've seen atheists hilariously claim that their religious faith is based on
knowledge, though not a single one of them has ever been able to support the
"possibility".
Post by Stargazer
Duke, Asstroll7, Androol and Prince Michael(Michael Yost and several other
nyms).
I suspect it's your own POW which is projected to them.
Nope. They specifically claim to have evidence, but never provide it.
Life itself is evidence. All accepted miracles are evidence. All miracles
recorded in the Bible are evidence. All saints are evidence. Atheists lying
about it are evidence. All medical miracles are evidence. All prayers that seem
to have been answered are evidence. Death experiences people have and recover
from are evidence. The evidence we have of evolution is evidence. The success of
AA and NA programs is evidence.

Since humans haven't been able to produce life from lifeless material even
though they've been manipulating conditions and trying to do so deliberately for
about half a century or more, THAT is evidence life very well may not have been
able to just happen by accident in the naturally occuring conditions there have
been on Earth. Even IF humans are eventually able to produce life from lifeless
material at some point, life might STILL CONTINUE to be evidence of God's
existence.
Post by Stargazer
One might suspect that their "proof" is based upon the Bible, which is
all the proof they require, since the Bible, in their world, is the
infallible word of God. But this is NOT scientific empirical evidence
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
Smiler
2016-11-09 16:08:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.
Post by Stargazer
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
http://youtu.be/CBu_Jw61UZE
There is no proof because there is nothing to prove.
You can not prove what does not exist.
But we have all the evidence.
I disagree. There is Faith and there is evidence, but religion is a
matter of Faith or Belief.
If it's only about faith and belief, then why are so many of you
trolling an atheist NG with no other apparent motive than to be
insulting, lying assholes?
Who, for example claims their religion is based on knowledge, proof
or evidence?
I've seen atheists hilariously claim that their religious faith is based on
knowledge, though not a single one of them has ever been able to support
the "possibility".
Post by Stargazer
Duke, Asstroll7, Androol and Prince Michael(Michael Yost and several
other nyms).
I suspect it's your own POW which is projected to them.
Nope. They specifically claim to have evidence, but never provide it.
Life itself is evidence.
Merely your belief.
Post by m***@.
All accepted miracles are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by m***@.
All miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
Merely the unevidenced beliefs of the writers or the bible.
Post by m***@.
All saints are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by m***@.
Atheists lying about it are evidence.
Merely your stupid unevidenced belief.
Post by m***@.
All medical miracles are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by m***@.
All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
What about those that haven't been answered?
Post by m***@.
Death experiences people have and recover from are evidence.
If they recover, they were not dead, moron.
Post by m***@.
The evidence we have of evolution is evidence.
Evidence for evolution, not for any god(s).
Post by m***@.
The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Your personal experiences are not evidence.
Post by m***@.
Since humans haven't been able to produce life from lifeless material
Yet.
Post by m***@.
even though they've been manipulating conditions and trying to do so
deliberately for about half a century or more, THAT is evidence life
very well may not have been able to just happen by accident
What accident would that be? Chemistry and physics are not accidents.
Post by m***@.
in the naturally occuring conditions there have been on Earth.
What conditions were they?
Scientists are not certain what those conditions were, so how do you know?
Post by m***@.
Even IF humans
are eventually able to produce life from lifeless material at some
point, life might STILL CONTINUE to be evidence of God's existence.
It also might not, as it isn't evidence now.
Life is evidence for life and nothing else.
Post by m***@.
Post by Stargazer
One might suspect that their "proof" is based upon the Bible, which is
all the proof they require, since the Bible, in their world, is the
infallible word of God. But this is NOT scientific empirical evidence
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE
you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans,
and WHEN you think it should have been or should be made available, if
there truly is a God associated with this planet.
The evidence I ask for is the exact same objective evidence that persuaded
_you_ that your supposed god exists.
_You_ should, therefore, _know_ what type, where it is and why it was
available to you.
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.

Time for you to run away.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Jeanne Douglas
2016-11-10 01:02:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Stargazer
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
http://youtu.be/CBu_Jw61UZE
There is no proof because there is nothing to prove.
You can not prove what does not exist.
But we have all the evidence.
I disagree. There is Faith and there is evidence, but religion is a
matter of Faith or Belief.
If it's only about faith and belief, then why are so many of you
trolling an atheist NG with no other apparent motive than to be
insulting, lying assholes?
Who, for example claims their religion is based on knowledge, proof
or evidence?
I've seen atheists hilariously claim that their religious faith is based on
knowledge, though not a single one of them has ever been able to support
the "possibility".
Post by Stargazer
Duke, Asstroll7, Androol and Prince Michael(Michael Yost and several
other nyms).
I suspect it's your own POW which is projected to them.
Nope. They specifically claim to have evidence, but never provide it.
Life itself is evidence.
How, exactly, is life itself evidence?
Post by Smiler
Merely your belief.
Post by m***@.
All accepted miracles are evidence.
How are unevidenced events evidence?
Post by Smiler
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by m***@.
All miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
How are fictional tales evidence for anything?
Post by Smiler
Merely the unevidenced beliefs of the writers or the bible.
Post by m***@.
All saints are evidence.
How are saints evidence?
Post by Smiler
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by m***@.
Atheists lying about it are evidence.
Merely your stupid unevidenced belief.
Post by m***@.
All medical miracles are evidence.
How are they evidence?
Post by Smiler
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by m***@.
All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.
You think "seems" is evidence? Seriously?
Post by Smiler
Merely your unevidenced belief.
What about those that haven't been answered?
Post by m***@.
Death experiences people have and recover from are evidence.
If they recover, they were not dead, moron.
Exactly.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
The evidence we have of evolution is evidence.
How is evidence of evolution evidence for your god?
Post by Smiler
Evidence for evolution, not for any god(s).
Post by m***@.
The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
How, exactly, are they evidence?
Post by Smiler
Your personal experiences are not evidence.
Post by m***@.
Since humans haven't been able to produce life from lifeless material
Yet.
Post by m***@.
even though they've been manipulating conditions and trying to do so
deliberately for about half a century or more, THAT is evidence life
very well may not have been able to just happen by accident
What accident would that be? Chemistry and physics are not accidents.
Post by m***@.
in the naturally occuring conditions there have been on Earth.
What conditions were they?
Scientists are not certain what those conditions were, so how do you know?
Post by m***@.
Even IF humans
are eventually able to produce life from lifeless material at some
point, life might STILL CONTINUE to be evidence of God's existence.
Why? How?
Post by Smiler
It also might not, as it isn't evidence now.
Life is evidence for life and nothing else.
Post by m***@.
Post by Stargazer
One might suspect that their "proof" is based upon the Bible, which is
all the proof they require, since the Bible, in their world, is the
infallible word of God. But this is NOT scientific empirical evidence
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE
you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans,
and WHEN you think it should have been or should be made available, if
there truly is a God associated with this planet.
The evidence I ask for is the exact same objective evidence that persuaded
_you_ that your supposed god exists.
_You_ should, therefore, _know_ what type, where it is and why it was
available to you.
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
Time for you to run away.
--
JD


I'm a "nasty woman" and I vote.
m***@.
2016-11-21 04:00:41 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 09 Nov 2016 17:02:28 -0800, Jeanne Douglas <***@NOSPAMgmail.com>
wrote:
.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Stargazer
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
http://youtu.be/CBu_Jw61UZE
There is no proof because there is nothing to prove.
You can not prove what does not exist.
But we have all the evidence.
I disagree. There is Faith and there is evidence, but religion is a
matter of Faith or Belief.
If it's only about faith and belief, then why are so many of you
trolling an atheist NG with no other apparent motive than to be
insulting, lying assholes?
Who, for example claims their religion is based on knowledge, proof
or evidence?
I've seen atheists hilariously claim that their religious faith is based on
knowledge, though not a single one of them has ever been able to support
the "possibility".
Post by Stargazer
Duke, Asstroll7, Androol and Prince Michael(Michael Yost and several
other nyms).
I suspect it's your own POW which is projected to them.
Nope. They specifically claim to have evidence, but never provide it.
Life itself is evidence.
How, exactly, is life itself evidence?
Can't you think of a single way on your own?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Smiler
Merely your belief.
Post by m***@.
All accepted miracles are evidence.
How are unevidenced event
Like what?
Post by Jeanne Douglas
s evidence?
Post by Smiler
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by m***@.
All miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
How are fictional tales evidence for anything?
The same way reports of anything are evidence for it, even when the reports
are false evidence. But comprehending that there is false evidence is a basic
starting line you people can't get as "far" as.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Smiler
Merely the unevidenced beliefs of the writers or the bible.
Post by m***@.
All saints are evidence.
How are saints evidence?
By the unexplainable events associated with them.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Smiler
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by m***@.
Atheists lying about it are evidence.
Merely your stupid unevidenced belief.
Post by m***@.
All medical miracles are evidence.
How are they evidence?
By the unexplainable events associated with them.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Smiler
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by m***@.
All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.
You think "seems" is evidence? Seriously?
The fact that evidence "seems" to be evidence, whether it's true of false,
is apparently another basic starting line you can't get as "far" as.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Smiler
Merely your unevidenced belief.
What about those that haven't been answered?
Post by m***@.
Death experiences people have and recover from are evidence.
If they recover, they were not dead, moron.
Exactly.
Try proving that one.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
The evidence we have of evolution is evidence.
How is evidence of evolution evidence for your god?
The things we don't have is evidence that there could have been deliberate
influence, whether there was or not. That of course is yet another basic
starting line you can't get as "far" as.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Smiler
Evidence for evolution, not for any god(s).
Post by m***@.
The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
How, exactly, are they evidence?
You can't get as "far" as that one either? Are you honestly so stupid you
can't figure that out either? If so, say so. If not, try to provide evidence
that you're not. But then of course the question would be why you tried to
pretend to be too stupid to begin with. So if you are too stupid then say so,
and if you're not too stupid then explain why you pretended to be.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Smiler
Your personal experiences are not evidence.
Post by m***@.
Since humans haven't been able to produce life from lifeless material
Yet.
Post by m***@.
even though they've been manipulating conditions and trying to do so
deliberately for about half a century or more, THAT is evidence life
very well may not have been able to just happen by accident
What accident would that be? Chemistry and physics are not accidents.
Post by m***@.
in the naturally occuring conditions there have been on Earth.
What conditions were they?
Scientists are not certain what those conditions were, so how do you know?
Post by m***@.
Even IF humans
are eventually able to produce life from lifeless material at some
point, life might STILL CONTINUE to be evidence of God's existence.
Why? How?
Because IF humans are eventually able to produce it they might have to do
things that didn't occur on this planet before humans did them, in order to
produce it.

How can you be so convinced there's no sort of god associated with this
planet, or probably any other place(s) in the entire universe, when you can't
think open mindedly enough to get as "far" as the easy basic starting lines I
piont out for you? You can't even start down the path at all, yet you feel
you've already completed the journey. And that position you're in is yet another
basic starting line you can't get as "far" as. IF you ever could get as "far" as
that particular starting line I wonder if you could begin the journey. I doubt
that it matters whether you could or not though.
Post by Jeanne Douglas
Post by Smiler
It also might not, as it isn't evidence now.
Life is evidence for life and nothing else.
Post by m***@.
Post by Stargazer
One might suspect that their "proof" is based upon the Bible, which is
all the proof they require, since the Bible, in their world, is the
infallible word of God. But this is NOT scientific empirical evidence
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE
you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans,
and WHEN you think it should have been or should be made available, if
there truly is a God associated with this planet.
The evidence I ask for is the exact same objective evidence that persuaded
_you_ that your supposed god exists.
_You_ should, therefore, _know_ what type, where it is and why it was
available to you.
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
Time for you to run away.
Smiler
2016-11-13 20:42:03 UTC
Permalink
<snip>
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE
you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans,
and WHEN you think it should have been or should be made available, if
there truly is a God associated with this planet.
The evidence I ask for is the exact same objective evidence that
persuaded _you_ that your supposed god exists.
_You_ should, therefore, _know_ what type, where it is and why it was
available to you.
Beliefs, opinions and 'holy' books are NOT evidence.
Time for you to run away.
I must be a prophet as my prediction came true.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
m***@.
2016-11-21 04:09:41 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 9 Nov 2016 16:08:44 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Stargazer
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
http://youtu.be/CBu_Jw61UZE
There is no proof because there is nothing to prove.
You can not prove what does not exist.
But we have all the evidence.
I disagree. There is Faith and there is evidence, but religion is a
matter of Faith or Belief.
If it's only about faith and belief, then why are so many of you
trolling an atheist NG with no other apparent motive than to be
insulting, lying assholes?
Who, for example claims their religion is based on knowledge, proof
or evidence?
I've seen atheists hilariously claim that their religious faith is based on
knowledge, though not a single one of them has ever been able to support
the "possibility".
Post by Stargazer
Duke, Asstroll7, Androol and Prince Michael(Michael Yost and several
other nyms).
I suspect it's your own POW which is projected to them.
Nope. They specifically claim to have evidence, but never provide it.
Life itself is evidence.
Merely your belief.
Merely your belief.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All accepted miracles are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
Merely the unevidenced beliefs of the writers or the bible.
Merely your belief.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All saints are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by m***@.
Atheists lying about it are evidence.
Merely your stupid unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All medical miracles are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Post by Smiler
What about those that haven't been answered?
What about them?
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Death experiences people have and recover from are evidence.
If they recover, they were not dead, moron.
Hilarious!!!!
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
The evidence we have of evolution is evidence.
Evidence for evolution, not for any god(s).
Merely your belief.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Your personal experiences
N/A
Post by Smiler
are not evidence.
Post by m***@.
Since humans haven't been able to produce life from lifeless material
Yet.
Post by m***@.
even though they've been manipulating conditions and trying to do so
deliberately for about half a century or more, THAT is evidence life
very well may not have been able to just happen by accident
What accident would that be?
This one is too far beyond you to comprehend at all apparently.
Post by Smiler
Chemistry and physics are not accidents.
Post by m***@.
in the naturally occuring conditions there have been on Earth.
What conditions were they?
Scientists are not certain what those conditions were, so how do you know?
How do you?
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Even IF humans
are eventually able to produce life from lifeless material at some
point, life might STILL CONTINUE to be evidence of God's existence.
It also might not,
By saying "might" you give yourself credit for being more open minded than
you deserve or are ever likely to.
Post by Smiler
as it isn't evidence now.
Life is evidence for life and nothing else.
Merely your belief.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Stargazer
One might suspect that their "proof" is based upon the Bible, which is
all the proof they require, since the Bible, in their world, is the
infallible word of God. But this is NOT scientific empirical evidence
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE
you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans,
and WHEN you think it should have been or should be made available, if
there truly is a God associated with this planet.
The evidence I ask for is the exact same objective evidence that persuaded
_you_ that your supposed god exists.
I'm not persuaded that there is a god anywhere in the universe, though I
certainly believe it's much more likely than not that there are beings who can
be considered gods in some places in the universe regardless of whether or not
there are any associated with this planet.
Post by Smiler
_You_ should, therefore, _know_ what type, where it is and why
So should you since you're the one being critical about what we have. But
you don't have any clue at all. None of you have any idea at all what you think
you think because you can't think, and can't even pretend you do. The challenge
continues to defeat you entirely, and always will.
Post by Smiler
Time for you to run away.
You flaunt your own stupidity by saying things like that. I don't "run away"
from idiots like you because I don't live here or spend much time here. I don't
often make a point of coming back here to see how you proved me correct again as
you did and always will, you moron. All you or any of you CAN do is prove me
correct. That fact has been proven to the point that there's no question about
it, so I don't make a point of coming back here to see who has proven it correct
AGAIN and how, as you did, very often because there's never anything at all
interesting about it.
Smiler
2016-11-21 20:01:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Stargazer
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
http://youtu.be/CBu_Jw61UZE
There is no proof because there is nothing to prove.
You can not prove what does not exist.
But we have all the evidence.
I disagree. There is Faith and there is evidence, but religion is
a matter of Faith or Belief.
If it's only about faith and belief, then why are so many of you
trolling an atheist NG with no other apparent motive than to be
insulting, lying assholes?
Who, for example claims their religion is based on knowledge, proof
or evidence?
I've seen atheists hilariously claim that their religious faith is based on
knowledge, though not a single one of them has ever been able to
support the "possibility".
Post by Stargazer
Duke, Asstroll7, Androol and Prince Michael(Michael Yost and several
other nyms).
I suspect it's your own POW which is projected to them.
Nope. They specifically claim to have evidence, but never provide it.
Life itself is evidence.
Merely your belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All accepted miracles are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
Merely the unevidenced beliefs of the writers or the bible.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All saints are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by m***@.
Atheists lying about it are evidence.
Merely your stupid unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All medical miracles are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
What about those that haven't been answered?
What about them?
They are evidence that there is no god.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Death experiences people have and recover from are evidence.
If they recover, they were not dead, moron.
Hilarious!!!!
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
The evidence we have of evolution is evidence.
Evidence for evolution, not for any god(s).
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Your personal experiences
N/A
Post by Smiler
are not evidence.
Post by m***@.
Since humans haven't been able to produce life from lifeless material
Yet.
No answer, Skippy?
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
even though they've been manipulating conditions and trying to do so
deliberately for about half a century or more, THAT is evidence life
very well may not have been able to just happen by accident
What accident would that be?
This one is too far beyond you to comprehend at all apparently.
Post by Smiler
Chemistry and physics are not accidents.
No answer, Skippy?
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
in the naturally occuring conditions there have been on Earth.
What conditions were they?
Scientists are not certain what those conditions were, so how do you know?
How do you?
I don't, but how do you know?
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Even IF humans are eventually able to produce life from lifeless
material at some point, life might STILL CONTINUE to be evidence of
God's existence.
It also might not,
By saying "might" you give yourself credit for being more open minded than
you deserve or are ever likely to.
Post by Smiler
as it isn't evidence now.
Life is evidence for life and nothing else.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Stargazer
One might suspect that their "proof" is based upon the Bible, which is
all the proof they require, since the Bible, in their world, is the
infallible word of God. But this is NOT scientific empirical evidence
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE
you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available to
humans, and WHEN you think it should have been or should be made
available, if there truly is a God associated with this planet.
The evidence I ask for is the exact same objective evidence that
persuaded _you_ that your supposed god exists.
I'm not persuaded that there is a god anywhere in the universe, though I
certainly believe it's much more likely than not that there are beings
who can be considered gods in some places in the universe regardless of
whether or not there are any associated with this planet.
Thanks for the admission that you have no evidence that your supposed god
character exists.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
_You_ should, therefore, _know_ what type, where it is and why
So should you since you're the one being critical about what we
have.
Why should I know what's in your demented excuse for a mind?
Post by Smiler
But you don't have any clue at all. None of you have any idea at all what
you think you think because you can't think, and can't even pretend you
do. The challenge continues to defeat you entirely, and always will.
Post by Smiler
Time for you to run away.
Bye, moron.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
m***@.
2016-11-27 06:48:30 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 21 Nov 2016 20:01:15 +0000 (UTC), Smil wrote:
.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Stargazer
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
http://youtu.be/CBu_Jw61UZE
There is no proof because there is nothing to prove.
You can not prove what does not exist.
But we have all the evidence.
I disagree. There is Faith and there is evidence, but religion is
a matter of Faith or Belief.
If it's only about faith and belief, then why are so many of you
trolling an atheist NG with no other apparent motive than to be
insulting, lying assholes?
Who, for example claims their religion is based on knowledge, proof
or evidence?
I've seen atheists hilariously claim that their religious faith is based on
knowledge, though not a single one of them has ever been able to
support the "possibility".
Post by Stargazer
Duke, Asstroll7, Androol and Prince Michael(Michael Yost and several
other nyms).
I suspect it's your own POW which is projected to them.
Nope. They specifically claim to have evidence, but never provide it.
Life itself is evidence.
Merely your belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All accepted miracles are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
Merely the unevidenced beliefs of the writers or the bible.
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All saints are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by m***@.
Atheists lying about it are evidence.
Merely your stupid unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All medical miracles are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
What about those that haven't been answered?
What about them?
They are evidence that there is no god.
How?
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Death experiences people have and recover from are evidence.
If they recover, they were not dead, moron.
Hilarious!!!!
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
The evidence we have of evolution is evidence.
Evidence for evolution, not for any god(s).
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Your personal experiences
N/A
Post by Smiler
are not evidence.
Post by m***@.
Since humans haven't been able to produce life from lifeless material
Yet.
No answer, Skippy?
You only said what I just told you you stupid ass.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
even though they've been manipulating conditions and trying to do so
deliberately for about half a century or more, THAT is evidence life
very well may not have been able to just happen by accident
What accident would that be?
This one is too far beyond you to comprehend at all apparently.
Post by Smiler
Chemistry and physics are not accidents.
No answer, Skippy?
Sometimes chemical and physical reactions are accidents you stupid ass.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
in the naturally occuring conditions there have been on Earth.
What conditions were they?
Scientists are not certain what those conditions were, so how do you know?
How do you?
I don't,
You still have faith that they did produce all life on this planet though.
Post by Smiler
but how do you know?
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Even IF humans are eventually able to produce life from lifeless
material at some point, life might STILL CONTINUE to be evidence of
God's existence.
It also might not,
By saying "might" you give yourself credit for being more open minded than
you deserve or are ever likely to.
Post by Smiler
as it isn't evidence now.
Life is evidence for life and nothing else.
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Stargazer
One might suspect that their "proof" is based upon the Bible, which is
all the proof they require, since the Bible, in their world, is the
infallible word of God. But this is NOT scientific empirical evidence
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE
you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available to
humans, and WHEN you think it should have been or should be made
available, if there truly is a God associated with this planet.
The evidence I ask for is the exact same objective evidence that
persuaded _you_ that your supposed god exists.
I'm not persuaded that there is a god anywhere in the universe, though I
certainly believe it's much more likely than not that there are beings
who can be considered gods in some places in the universe regardless of
whether or not there are any associated with this planet.
Thanks
You are still totally defeated by the challenge.
Smiler
2016-11-27 19:25:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.
.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Stargazer
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
http://youtu.be/CBu_Jw61UZE
There is no proof because there is nothing to prove.
You can not prove what does not exist.
But we have all the evidence.
I disagree. There is Faith and there is evidence, but religion
is a matter of Faith or Belief.
If it's only about faith and belief, then why are so many of you
trolling an atheist NG with no other apparent motive than to be
insulting, lying assholes?
Who, for example claims their religion is based on knowledge,
proof or evidence?
I've seen atheists hilariously claim that their religious faith is based on
knowledge, though not a single one of them has ever been able to
support the "possibility".
Post by Stargazer
Duke, Asstroll7, Androol and Prince Michael(Michael Yost and
several other nyms).
I suspect it's your own POW which is projected to them.
Nope. They specifically claim to have evidence, but never provide it.
Life itself is evidence.
Merely your belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All accepted miracles are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
Merely the unevidenced beliefs of the writers or the bible.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All saints are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by m***@.
Atheists lying about it are evidence.
Merely your stupid unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All medical miracles are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
What about those that haven't been answered?
What about them?
They are evidence that there is no god.
How?
Exactly as for your claim that answered ones are evidence.
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Death experiences people have and recover from are evidence.
If they recover, they were not dead, moron.
Hilarious!!!!
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
The evidence we have of evolution is evidence.
Evidence for evolution, not for any god(s).
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Your personal experiences
N/A
Post by Smiler
are not evidence.
Post by m***@.
Since humans haven't been able to produce life from lifeless material
Yet.
No answer, Skippy?
You only said what I just told you you stupid ass.
I forgot the Fox experiments where life _HAS_ been produced from lifeless
material.
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
even though they've been manipulating conditions and trying to do so
deliberately for about half a century or more, THAT is evidence life
very well may not have been able to just happen by accident
What accident would that be?
This one is too far beyond you to comprehend at all apparently.
Post by Smiler
Chemistry and physics are not accidents.
No answer, Skippy?
Sometimes chemical and physical reactions are accidents you stupid ass.
When you get Argon to react with anything, you can claim that as an
accident.
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
in the naturally occuring conditions there have been on Earth.
What conditions were they?
Scientists are not certain what those conditions were, so how do you know?
How do you?
I don't,
You still have faith that they did produce all life on this planet though.
Nope. No faith needed.
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
but how do you know?
No answer, Skippy?
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Even IF humans are eventually able to produce life from lifeless
material at some point, life might STILL CONTINUE to be evidence of
God's existence.
It also might not,
By saying "might" you give yourself credit for being more open minded than
you deserve or are ever likely to.
Post by Smiler
as it isn't evidence now.
Life is evidence for life and nothing else.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
I have NO beliefs about gods.
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Stargazer
One might suspect that their "proof" is based upon the Bible, which
is all the proof they require, since the Bible, in their world, is
the infallible word of God. But this is NOT scientific empirical
evidence
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be,
WHERE you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available
to humans, and WHEN you think it should have been or should be made
available, if there truly is a God associated with this planet.
The evidence I ask for is the exact same objective evidence that
persuaded _you_ that your supposed god exists.
I'm not persuaded that there is a god anywhere in the universe, though I
certainly believe it's much more likely than not that there are beings
who can be considered gods in some places in the universe regardless
of whether or not there are any associated with this planet.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
You are still totally defeated by the challenge.
What challenge is that?
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
m***@.
2016-12-12 06:35:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Stargazer
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
http://youtu.be/CBu_Jw61UZE
There is no proof because there is nothing to prove.
You can not prove what does not exist.
But we have all the evidence.
I disagree. There is Faith and there is evidence, but religion is
a matter of Faith or Belief.
If it's only about faith and belief, then why are so many of you
trolling an atheist NG with no other apparent motive than to be
insulting, lying assholes?
Who, for example claims their religion is based on knowledge, proof
or evidence?
I've seen atheists hilariously claim that their religious faith is
based on
knowledge, though not a single one of them has ever been able to
support the "possibility".
Post by Stargazer
Duke, Asstroll7, Androol and Prince Michael(Michael Yost and several
other nyms).
I suspect it's your own POW which is projected to them.
Nope. They specifically claim to have evidence, but never provide it.
Life itself is evidence.
Merely your belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All accepted miracles are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
Merely the unevidenced beliefs of the writers or the bible.
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All saints are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by m***@.
Atheists lying about it are evidence.
Merely your stupid unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All medical miracles are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
What about those that haven't been answered?
What about them?
They are evidence that there is no god.
How?
Exactly as for your claim that answered ones are evidence.
Nope. Not even similar in fact.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Death experiences people have and recover from are evidence.
If they recover, they were not dead, moron.
Hilarious!!!!
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
The evidence we have of evolution is evidence.
Evidence for evolution, not for any god(s).
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Your personal experiences
N/A
Post by Smiler
are not evidence.
Post by m***@.
Since humans haven't been able to produce life from lifeless material
Yet.
No answer, Skippy?
You only said what I just told you you stupid ass.
I forgot the Fox experiments where life _HAS_ been produced from lifeless
material.
Try providing evidence of that.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
even though they've been manipulating conditions and trying to do so
deliberately for about half a century or more, THAT is evidence life
very well may not have been able to just happen by accident
What accident would that be?
This one is too far beyond you to comprehend at all apparently.
Post by Smiler
Chemistry and physics are not accidents.
No answer, Skippy?
Sometimes chemical and physical reactions are accidents you stupid ass.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
in the naturally occuring conditions there have been on Earth.
What conditions were they?
Scientists are not certain what those conditions were, so how do you know?
How do you?
I don't,
You still have faith that they did produce all life on this planet though.
Nope. No faith needed.
Your faith is all you have, Smil. I told you you're too stupid for this.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
but how do you know?
No answer, Skippy?
How do I know what, Smil?
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Even IF humans are eventually able to produce life from lifeless
material at some point, life might STILL CONTINUE to be evidence of
God's existence.
It also might not,
By saying "might" you give yourself credit for being more open minded than
you deserve or are ever likely to.
Post by Smiler
as it isn't evidence now.
Life is evidence for life and nothing else.
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
I have NO beliefs about gods.
You would have to be incredibly stupid to honestly have NO beliefs about
gods at all even IF you didn't behave like you have some strong beliefs about
gods, which you DO. For example you act like you believe there's no evidence of
there being any God or gods associated with this planet, but now you claim that
you don't believe that.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Stargazer
One might suspect that their "proof" is based upon the Bible, which is
all the proof they require, since the Bible, in their world, is the
infallible word of God. But this is NOT scientific empirical evidence
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE
you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available to
humans, and WHEN you think it should have been or should be made
available, if there truly is a God associated with this planet.
The evidence I ask for is the exact same objective evidence that
persuaded _you_ that your supposed god exists.
I'm not persuaded that there is a god anywhere in the universe, though I
certainly believe it's much more likely than not that there are beings
who can be considered gods in some places in the universe regardless of
whether or not there are any associated with this planet.
Thanks
You are still totally defeated by the challenge.
What challenge is that?
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE
you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available to
humans, and WHEN you think it should have been or should be made
available, if there truly is a God associated with this planet.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
The evidence I ask for is the exact same objective evidence that
persuaded _you_ that your supposed god exists.
I'm not persuaded that there is a god anywhere in the universe, though I
certainly believe it's much more likely than not that there are beings
who can be considered gods in some places in the universe regardless of
whether or not there are any associated with this planet.
Thanks
Smiler
2016-12-13 20:05:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
.
Post by Smiler
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:23:06 -0400, Stargazer
Post by Stargazer
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
http://youtu.be/CBu_Jw61UZE
There is no proof because there is nothing to prove.
You can not prove what does not exist.
But we have all the evidence.
I disagree. There is Faith and there is evidence, but
religion is a matter of Faith or Belief.
If it's only about faith and belief, then why are so many of
you trolling an atheist NG with no other apparent motive than
to be insulting, lying assholes?
Who, for example claims their religion is based on knowledge,
proof or evidence?
I've seen atheists hilariously claim that their religious
faith is based on
knowledge, though not a single one of them has ever been able to
support the "possibility".
Post by Stargazer
Duke, Asstroll7, Androol and Prince Michael(Michael Yost and
several other nyms).
I suspect it's your own POW which is projected to them.
Nope. They specifically claim to have evidence, but never provide it.
Life itself is evidence.
Merely your belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't
get as "far" as that basic starting line.
Why would I need to do that?
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
All accepted miracles are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't
get as "far" as that basic starting line.
Why would I need to do that?
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
All miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
Merely the unevidenced beliefs of the writers or the bible.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't
get as "far" as that basic starting line.
Why would I need to do that?
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
All saints are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Atheists lying about it are evidence.
Merely your stupid unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't
get as "far" as that basic starting line.
Why would I need to do that?
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
All medical miracles are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't
get as "far" as that basic starting line.
Why would I need to do that?
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't
get as "far" as that basic starting line.
Why would I need to do that?
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
What about those that haven't been answered?
What about them?
They are evidence that there is no god.
How?
Exactly as for your claim that answered ones are evidence.
Nope. Not even similar in fact.
Exactly the same, liar.
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Death experiences people have and recover from are evidence.
If they recover, they were not dead, moron.
Hilarious!!!!
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't
get as "far" as that basic starting line.
Why would I need to do that?
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
The evidence we have of evolution is evidence.
Evidence for evolution, not for any god(s).
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't
get as "far" as that basic starting line.
Why would I need to do that?
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Your personal experiences
N/A
Post by Smiler
are not evidence.
Since humans haven't been able to produce life from lifeless material
Yet.
No answer, Skippy?
You only said what I just told you you stupid ass.
I forgot the Fox experiments where life _HAS_ been produced from
lifeless material.
Try providing evidence of that.
Try reading some science books.
Sidney Fox wrote or co-wrote about 380 published works, nine of which are
books.[3]

Fox, Sidney W. (1965). The origins of prebiological systems and of their
molecular matrices. New York: Acad. Pr.
Fox, Sidney W., Klaus Dose ; with a foreword by A. Oparin (1977).
Molecular evolution and the origin of life (Rev. ed. ed.). New York: M.
Dekker.
Ho, edited by Mae-Wan; Fox, Sidney W. (1988). Evolutionary processes and
metaphors. Chichester: Wiley. pp. 333. ISBN 0-471-91801-6.
Fox, Sidney W. (1988). The emergence of life: Darwinian evolution from the
inside. Basic Books.
Fox, Sidney W. (1957). Introduction to protein chemistry. New York: Wiley.
Fox, Sidney W.; Duane L Rohlfing, Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin (1972).
Molecular evolution: prebiological and biological. New York: Plenum Press.
Fox, Sidney W. (1984). Individuality and determinism: chemical and
biological bases. New York: Plenum Press.
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
even though they've been manipulating conditions and trying to do
so deliberately for about half a century or more, THAT is evidence
life very well may not have been able to just happen by accident
What accident would that be?
This one is too far beyond you to comprehend at all apparently.
Post by Smiler
Chemistry and physics are not accidents.
No answer, Skippy?
Sometimes chemical and physical reactions are accidents you stupid ass.
When you get Argon to react with anything, you can claim that as an
accident.
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
in the naturally occuring conditions there have been on Earth.
What conditions were they?
Scientists are not certain what those conditions were, so how do you know?
How do you?
I don't,
You still have faith that they did produce all life on this planet though.
Nope. No faith needed.
Your faith is all you have, Smil. I told you you're too stupid for this.
Faith is belief without evidence. There is evidence for evolution and none
for creationism.
Despite your lies, I have no faith, liar.
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
but how do you know?
No answer, Skippy?
How do I know what, Smil?
Learn to read the attributions. It's up there^^^^.
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Even IF humans are eventually able to produce life from lifeless
material at some point, life might STILL CONTINUE to be evidence
of God's existence.
It also might not,
By saying "might" you give yourself credit for being more open minded than
you deserve or are ever likely to.
Post by Smiler
as it isn't evidence now.
Life is evidence for life and nothing else.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
I have NO beliefs about gods.
You would have to be incredibly stupid to honestly have NO beliefs about
gods at all even IF you didn't behave like you have some strong beliefs
about gods, which you DO. For example you act like you believe there's
no evidence of there being any God
That's not a belief, it's a fact until you provide some.
Post by m***@.
or gods associated with this planet,
Like HRH, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh or the Pharaohs?
Post by m***@.
but now you claim that you don't believe that.
Do you believe they are gods?
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Stargazer
One might suspect that their "proof" is based upon the Bible,
which is all the proof they require, since the Bible, in their
world, is the infallible word of God. But this is NOT scientific
empirical evidence
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be,
WHERE you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available
to humans, and WHEN you think it should have been or should be
made available, if there truly is a God associated with this
planet.
The evidence I ask for is the exact same objective evidence that
persuaded _you_ that your supposed god exists.
I'm not persuaded that there is a god anywhere in the universe, though I
certainly believe it's much more likely than not that there are
beings who can be considered gods in some places in the universe
regardless of whether or not there are any associated with this
planet.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
You are still totally defeated by the challenge.
What challenge is that?
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE
you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans,
and WHEN you think it should have been or should be made available, if
there truly is a God associated with this planet.
Your supposed god would, if it existed, know exactly what evidence I need
to believe in it. As it hasn't yet supplied that evidence to me, I can
only assume that it doesn't want me to know.
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
The evidence I ask for is the exact same objective evidence that
persuaded _you_ that your supposed god exists.
I'm not persuaded that there is a god anywhere in the universe, though I
certainly believe it's much more likely than not that there are beings
who can be considered gods in some places in the universe regardless
of whether or not there are any associated with this planet.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Post by m***@.
You are still totally defeated by the challenge.
What challenge is that?
No answer, Skippy?

Your ignorant snippage reinstated.
--
Smiler, The godless one.
aa #2279
Gods are all tailored to order. They are made
to exactly fit the prejudices of the believer.
Ted
2016-12-14 01:11:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
.
Post by Smiler
On Wed, 19 Oct 2016 00:23:06 -0400, Stargazer
Post by Stargazer
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
http://youtu.be/CBu_Jw61UZE
There is no proof because there is nothing to prove.
You can not prove what does not exist.
But we have all the evidence.
I disagree. There is Faith and there is evidence, but
religion is a matter of Faith or Belief.
If it's only about faith and belief, then why are so many of
you trolling an atheist NG with no other apparent motive than
to be insulting, lying assholes?
Who, for example claims their religion is based on knowledge,
proof or evidence?
I've seen atheists hilariously claim that their religious
faith is based on
knowledge, though not a single one of them has ever been able to
support the "possibility".
Post by Stargazer
Duke, Asstroll7, Androol and Prince Michael(Michael Yost and
several other nyms).
I suspect it's your own POW which is projected to them.
Nope. They specifically claim to have evidence, but never provide it.
Life itself is evidence.
Merely your belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't
get as "far" as that basic starting line.
Why would I need to do that?
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
All accepted miracles are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't
get as "far" as that basic starting line.
Why would I need to do that?
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
All miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
Merely the unevidenced beliefs of the writers or the bible.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't
get as "far" as that basic starting line.
Why would I need to do that?
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
All saints are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Atheists lying about it are evidence.
Merely your stupid unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't
get as "far" as that basic starting line.
Why would I need to do that?
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
All medical miracles are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't
get as "far" as that basic starting line.
Why would I need to do that?
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't
get as "far" as that basic starting line.
Why would I need to do that?
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
What about those that haven't been answered?
What about them?
They are evidence that there is no god.
How?
Exactly as for your claim that answered ones are evidence.
Nope. Not even similar in fact.
Exactly the same, liar.
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Death experiences people have and recover from are evidence.
If they recover, they were not dead, moron.
Hilarious!!!!
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't
get as "far" as that basic starting line.
Why would I need to do that?
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
The evidence we have of evolution is evidence.
Evidence for evolution, not for any god(s).
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't
get as "far" as that basic starting line.
Why would I need to do that?
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
The success of AA and NA programs is evidence.
Your personal experiences
N/A
Post by Smiler
are not evidence.
Since humans haven't been able to produce life from lifeless material
Yet.
No answer, Skippy?
You only said what I just told you you stupid ass.
I forgot the Fox experiments where life _HAS_ been produced from
lifeless material.
Try providing evidence of that.
Try reading some science books.
Sidney Fox wrote or co-wrote about 380 published works, nine of which are
books.[3]
Fox, Sidney W. (1965). The origins of prebiological systems and of their
molecular matrices. New York: Acad. Pr.
Fox, Sidney W., Klaus Dose ; with a foreword by A. Oparin (1977).
Molecular evolution and the origin of life (Rev. ed. ed.). New York: M.
Dekker.
Ho, edited by Mae-Wan; Fox, Sidney W. (1988). Evolutionary processes and
metaphors. Chichester: Wiley. pp. 333. ISBN 0-471-91801-6.
Fox, Sidney W. (1988). The emergence of life: Darwinian evolution from the
inside. Basic Books.
Fox, Sidney W. (1957). Introduction to protein chemistry. New York: Wiley.
Fox, Sidney W.; Duane L Rohlfing, Aleksandr Ivanovich Oparin (1972).
Molecular evolution: prebiological and biological. New York: Plenum Press.
Fox, Sidney W. (1984). Individuality and determinism: chemical and
biological bases. New York: Plenum Press.
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
even though they've been manipulating conditions and trying to do
so deliberately for about half a century or more, THAT is evidence
life very well may not have been able to just happen by accident
What accident would that be?
This one is too far beyond you to comprehend at all apparently.
Post by Smiler
Chemistry and physics are not accidents.
No answer, Skippy?
Sometimes chemical and physical reactions are accidents you stupid ass.
When you get Argon to react with anything, you can claim that as an
accident.
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
in the naturally occuring conditions there have been on Earth.
What conditions were they?
Scientists are not certain what those conditions were, so how do you know?
How do you?
I don't,
You still have faith that they did produce all life on this planet though.
Nope. No faith needed.
Your faith is all you have, Smil. I told you you're too stupid for this.
Faith is belief without evidence. There is evidence for evolution and none
for creationism.
Despite your lies, I have no faith, liar.
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
but how do you know?
No answer, Skippy?
How do I know what, Smil?
Learn to read the attributions. It's up there^^^^.
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Even IF humans are eventually able to produce life from lifeless
material at some point, life might STILL CONTINUE to be evidence
of God's existence.
It also might not,
By saying "might" you give yourself credit for being more open
minded than
you deserve or are ever likely to.
Post by Smiler
as it isn't evidence now.
Life is evidence for life and nothing else.
Merely your belief.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
I have NO beliefs about gods.
You would have to be incredibly stupid to honestly have NO beliefs about
gods at all even IF you didn't behave like you have some strong beliefs
about gods, which you DO. For example you act like you believe there's
no evidence of there being any God
That's not a belief, it's a fact until you provide some.
Post by m***@.
or gods associated with this planet,
Like HRH, Prince Philip, the Duke of Edinburgh or the Pharaohs?
Post by m***@.
but now you claim that you don't believe that.
Do you believe they are gods?
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Stargazer
One might suspect that their "proof" is based upon the Bible,
which is all the proof they require, since the Bible, in their
world, is the infallible word of God. But this is NOT scientific
empirical evidence
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be,
WHERE you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available
to humans, and WHEN you think it should have been or should be
made available, if there truly is a God associated with this
planet.
The evidence I ask for is the exact same objective evidence that
persuaded _you_ that your supposed god exists.
I'm not persuaded that there is a god anywhere in the universe, though I
certainly believe it's much more likely than not that there are
beings who can be considered gods in some places in the universe
regardless of whether or not there are any associated with this
planet.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
You are still totally defeated by the challenge.
What challenge is that?
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE
you think it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans,
and WHEN you think it should have been or should be made available, if
there truly is a God associated with this planet.
Your supposed god would, if it existed, know exactly what evidence I need
to believe in it. As it hasn't yet supplied that evidence to me, I can
only assume that it doesn't want me to know.
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
The evidence I ask for is the exact same objective evidence that
persuaded _you_ that your supposed god exists.
I'm not persuaded that there is a god anywhere in the universe, though I
certainly believe it's much more likely than not that there are beings
who can be considered gods in some places in the universe regardless
of whether or not there are any associated with this planet.
Thanks for the admission that you lied.
Post by m***@.
You are still totally defeated by the challenge.
What challenge is that?
No answer, Skippy?
Your ignorant snippage reinstated.
mur's a muron.
--
http://kingofwallpapers.com/ted/ted-005.jpg "This troll is one of the
dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and also the most arrogant septic
idiots one can come across."
m***@.
2017-02-07 04:03:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
On Mon, 17 Oct 2016 12:37:52 -0700 (PDT), Cloud Hobbit
http://youtu.be/CBu_Jw61UZE
There is no proof because there is nothing to prove.
You can not prove what does not exist.
But we have all the evidence.
I disagree. There is Faith and there is evidence, but religion is
a matter of Faith or Belief.
If it's only about faith and belief, then why are so many of you
trolling an atheist NG with no other apparent motive than to be
insulting, lying assholes?
Who, for example claims their religion is based on knowledge, proof
or evidence?
I've seen atheists hilariously claim that their religious faith is
based on
knowledge, though not a single one of them has ever been able to
support the "possibility".
Duke, Asstroll7, Androol and Prince Michael(Michael Yost and several
other nyms).
I suspect it's your own POW which is projected to them.
Nope. They specifically claim to have evidence, but never provide it.
Life itself is evidence.
Merely your belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All accepted miracles are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All miracles recorded in the Bible are evidence.
Merely the unevidenced beliefs of the writers or the bible.
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All saints are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Post by m***@.
Atheists lying about it are evidence.
Merely your stupid unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All medical miracles are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
All prayers that seem to have been answered are evidence.
Merely your unevidenced belief.
Merely your belief.
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
What about those that haven't been answered?
What about them?
They are evidence that there is no god.
How?
Exactly as for your claim that answered ones are evidence.
Nope. Not even similar in fact.
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by Smiler
Post by m***@.
Death experiences people have and recover from are evidence.
If they recover, they were not dead, moron.
Hilarious!!!!
Thanks
Everyone's belief is merely their belief, even though you can't get as
"far" as that basic starting line.
Why would I need to do that?
Obviously you don't "need to" get as "far" as that basic starting line,
since you can't.

R. Dean
2016-11-13 07:40:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
There are many objections to this. One of the most persistent
is "if the universe wasn't tuned for our existence we wouldn't
be here. But that explains nothing. Had your parents never
met you wouldn't be here. But you are. A variation of this is
Adam's mud puddle.
Another very persistent objection; it's tautological (circular
reasoning). But, whether it is or not, depends on how it's
stated. Another objection is the hypothesis of a multiverse
that is: huge numbers of other universes, this is a major
point that many scientist adapt. But these other universes
can never be observed, studied or proven.

There are some 2 dozen finely balanced physical constants,
said to be balanced on a knife's edge, that if any one
had slightly different values the universe could not exist.




http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
THESE SCIENTIST SUPPORT THE MULTIVERSE
HYPOTHESIS:




http://youtu.be/oa8QqQ9KH5E
There are some scientist who maintain that
there is no fine tuning, and that once the
"theory of everything" will explain why these
cosmological constants have the values they
do. Both Einstein and Hawking spent their
lifetimes trying to find the TOE.

This is not proof, but it indicates that design
_better_ explains the fine tuning of the
universe Vs random natural events, or a series
of accidental physical occurrences.
Lucifer Morningstar
2016-11-13 07:41:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-13 13:36:38 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 18:41:59 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.
This idiot cites things like the strong interpretation of the
anthropic principle, which rests on the theist's presumption of a
designer/creator/etc.

Coupled with non-sequiturs like his leap from the values of physical
constants to "therefore life was intended", and false ad hominem
accusations that scientists who are atheists say that it
_only_appears_ that there was design because their atheism motivates
them to deny it, even when they go on to explain why there is no way
to determine it. He's made the same accusations about us, too.
R. Dean
2016-11-13 14:35:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 18:41:59 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.
This idiot cites things like the strong interpretation of the
anthropic principle, which rests on the theist's presumption of a
designer/creator/etc.
Coupled with non-sequiturs like his leap from the values of physical
constants to "therefore life was intended", and false ad hominem
accusations that scientists who are atheists say that it
_only_appears_ that there was design because their atheism motivates
them to deny it, even when they go on to explain why there is no way
to determine it. He's made the same accusations about us, too.
That's you spin on what I wrote! Since you failed to go to any of
the sources I provided, you are not entitled to an opinion.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-13 14:54:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 18:41:59 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.
This idiot cites things like the strong interpretation of the
anthropic principle, which rests on the theist's presumption of a
designer/creator/etc.
Coupled with non-sequiturs like his leap from the values of physical
constants to "therefore life was intended", and false ad hominem
accusations that scientists who are atheists say that it
_only_appears_ that there was design because their atheism motivates
them to deny it, even when they go on to explain why there is no way
to determine it. He's made the same accusations about us, too.
That's you spin on what I wrote! Since you failed to go to any of
the sources I provided, you are not entitled to an opinion.
No, liar.

In spite of what you keep insisting but cannot justify, there is no
way to determine design

And that's not just the "opinion" you lie about.

This has been explained to you over and over again, both by those in
the group where you cross-post your bullshit, and by the authors of
the popular science books you misrepresent.
R. Dean
2016-11-13 14:26:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.
Ok, but there must first be a universe! Without a fine balance
between the force of gravity and the expansion rate of the
universe, after the big bang there would be no universe.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-13 15:06:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.
Ok, but there must first be a universe! Without a fine balance
between the force of gravity and the expansion rate of the
universe, after the big bang there would be no universe.
There might not have been one that survived.

In which case there would be nobody commenting on it.

But this still doesn't mean it was created with any intention for
there to be life.
R. Dean
2016-11-13 23:58:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.
Ok, but there must first be a universe! Without a fine balance
between the force of gravity and the expansion rate of the
universe, after the big bang there would be no universe.
There might not have been one that survived.
Is this the multiverse argument? In either case there would be
no stars, hence, not heavier elements, no carbon, not oxygen.
But if gravity was slightly too strong, the universe would have
ended before stars could form in a big crunch, if gravity was
slightly weaker, then the universe would have expanded too fast
and just disappear over the bounders.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
In which case there would be nobody commenting on it.
But there is some to comment on it - we are here.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this still doesn't mean it was created with any intention for
there to be life.
That remains to be seen.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-14 00:01:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.
Ok, but there must first be a universe! Without a fine balance
between the force of gravity and the expansion rate of the
universe, after the big bang there would be no universe.
There might not have been one that survived.
Is this the multiverse argument? In either case there would be
No.
Post by R. Dean
no stars, hence, not heavier elements, no carbon, not oxygen.
But if gravity was slightly too strong, the universe would have
ended before stars could form in a big crunch, if gravity was
slightly weaker, then the universe would have expanded too fast
and just disappear over the bounders.
So?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
In which case there would be nobody commenting on it.
But there is some to comment on it - we are here.
So?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this still doesn't mean it was created with any intention for
there to be life.
That remains to be seen.
There is still no way to determine that.

Why do you keep repeating the same old contentious nonsense that has
been debunked both here and on talk.origins?
R. Dean
2016-11-14 22:32:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.
Ok, but there must first be a universe! Without a fine balance
between the force of gravity and the expansion rate of the
universe, after the big bang there would be no universe.
There might not have been one that survived.
Is this the multiverse argument? In either case there would be
No.
Post by R. Dean
no stars, hence, no heavier elements, no carbon, no oxygen.
But if gravity was slightly too strong, the universe would have
ended before stars could form in a big crunch, if gravity was
slightly weaker, then the universe would have expanded too fast
and just disappear over the bounders.
So?
So, these 2 forces are are precisely balanced which ]permitted
the universe to come into existence. This is the strength of gravity
finely balanced with the force of
the expansion of the universe.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
In which case there would be nobody commenting on it.
But there is some to comment on it - we are here.
So?
So, we are here thus the constants were exactly right.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this still doesn't mean it was created with any intention for
there to be life.
That remains to be seen.
There is still no way to determine that.
Why do you keep repeating the same old contentious nonsense that has
been debunked both here and on talk.origins?
This is just your unsupported claim.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-15 09:27:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.
Ok, but there must first be a universe! Without a fine balance
between the force of gravity and the expansion rate of the
universe, after the big bang there would be no universe.
There might not have been one that survived.
Is this the multiverse argument? In either case there would be
No.
Post by R. Dean
no stars, hence, no heavier elements, no carbon, no oxygen.
But if gravity was slightly too strong, the universe would have
ended before stars could form in a big crunch, if gravity was
slightly weaker, then the universe would have expanded too fast
and just disappear over the bounders.
So?
So, these 2 forces are are precisely balanced which ]permitted
the universe to come into existence. This is the strength of gravity
finely balanced with the force of
the expansion of the universe.
So, without presupposing it, how does this imply any intent for there
to be life?

Do you even know what a non-sequitur is?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
In which case there would be nobody commenting on it.
But there is some to comment on it - we are here.
So?
So, we are here thus the constants were exactly right.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But this still doesn't mean it was created with any intention for
there to be life.
That remains to be seen.
So prove it instead of presupposing it.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
There is still no way to determine that.
Why do you keep repeating the same old contentious nonsense that has
been debunked both here and on talk.origins?
This is just your unsupported claim.
You know perfectly well that it isn't. so why not show some honesty
and intelligence for a change?

Which means addressing the logic behind the reasons you have been
given instead of pretending they are mere opinions.

But then we know that logic isn't one of your strong points, otherwise
you wouldn't keep using so many fallacies like non-sequiturs, the
argument from ignorance, argument from authorities whose reasoning you
don't give why the reach the conclusions you think they do, etc.

Not to mention your ad hominems like....

"Which is the point, recognition of design is anathema, because design
implies a designer. Face it Chris, you as an atheist, has (sic) a
vested interest in the absence of design."

and, describing Francis Crick,

"As an atheist, he was committed to a naturalistic explanation, even
though he had no specific or detailed explanation as to how life
happened in the distant past."

All these falsehoods (polite word for lies, because they have been
corrected over and over again) do, is demonstrate just how ignorant
you are of atheists and atheism, as well as science and scientists.

Until you are prepared to discuss what you started, as an adult, you
have nothing to say.
R. Dean
2016-11-15 03:36:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.
I will acknowledge the distinct possibility that life was not the end
game nor the purpose of the universe.
But why is there a universe given the number of very precise parameter
that 2 dozen constants have? On person can win the lottery one
time, and someone does, but suppose the same player won the lottery
2 dozen times - Would you say this is an accident, just good luck
or what. That is exactly what happened with the the universe. It
was just luck that the right values for the dozen of fundamental
cosmological constants needed and somehow arrived at, which were exactly
the values needed for there to be a universe.
Lucifer Morningstar
2016-11-15 04:12:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.
I will acknowledge the distinct possibility that life was not the end
game nor the purpose of the universe.
But why is there a universe given the number of very precise parameter
that 2 dozen constants have? On person can win the lottery one
time, and someone does, but suppose the same player won the lottery
2 dozen times - Would you say this is an accident, just good luck
or what. That is exactly what happened with the the universe. It
was just luck that the right values for the dozen of fundamental
cosmological constants needed and somehow arrived at, which were exactly
the values needed for there to be a universe.
I don't know the answer and neither do you.
However life evolved to suit the conditions.
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-15 11:57:08 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:12:57 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.
I will acknowledge the distinct possibility that life was not the end
game nor the purpose of the universe.
There is no reason to assume anything else.
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
But why is there a universe given the number of very precise parameter
that 2 dozen constants have? On person can win the lottery one
time, and someone does, but suppose the same player won the lottery
2 dozen times - Would you say this is an accident, just good luck
One of Thunderf00t's videos goes into this. He cites some creationist
video (I don't know whose) which applies that argument to protein
formation.



Even though it has been demonstrated in the lab by duplication simple
natural processes
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
or what. That is exactly what happened with the the universe. It
was just luck that the right values for the dozen of fundamental
cosmological constants needed and somehow arrived at, which were exactly
the values needed for there to be a universe.
And?

We're looking at things after the event, not in advance.

It's like his lottery player saying that because he won, it was
intended that he did from the moment of the big bang, 13.5 billion
years ago.

It confuses probability before and after the event - but once
something has already happened, its probability is now 1 and the
calculations start again.

We're simply the result of 13.5 billion years of unpredictable events,
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
I don't know the answer and neither do you.
Which is no reason to make unjustified explanations involving
maximally defined, omnipotent, magical superbeings for which there is
no evidence.

And someone just saying they think there is, doesn't make it so.

Imagine somebody saying that in court under cross-examination - they'd
get trounced.

Or saying it when they are defending their PhD thesis or dissertation.
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
However life evolved to suit the conditions.
And in the one case we know, it took something like ten billion years
to appear.

Which is pretty much all that can be said about it.
R. Dean
2016-11-15 15:40:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:12:57 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.
I will acknowledge the distinct possibility that life was not the end
game nor the purpose of the universe.
There is no reason to assume anything else.
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
But why is there a universe given the number of very precise parameter
that 2 dozen constants have? On person can win the lottery one
time, and someone does, but suppose the same player won the lottery
2 dozen times - Would you say this is an accident, just good luck
One of Thunderf00t's videos goes into this. He cites some creationist
video (I don't know whose) which applies that argument to protein
formation.
http://youtu.be/p3nvH6gfrTc
Even though it has been demonstrated in the lab by duplication simple
natural processes
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
or what. That is exactly what happened with the the universe. It
was just luck that the right values for the dozen of fundamental
cosmological constants needed and somehow arrived at, which were exactly
the values needed for there to be a universe.
And?
We're looking at things after the event, not in advance.
If science had looked at it the same way, the big bang would
have never been uncovered. The origin of matter in stars would
be of no interest. How stars created carbon and oxygen would
be hidden. The origin of life would be of no interest. We
are here, who cares how.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's like his lottery player saying that because he won, it was
intended that he did from the moment of the big bang, 13.5 billion
years ago.
I don't think this addresses the argument that he would have to
have won dozen of times.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It confuses probability before and after the event - but once
something has already happened, its probability is now 1 and the
calculations start again.
IOW we are here so who cares.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
We're simply the result of 13.5 billion years of unpredictable events,
According to Martin Rees scientist, by employing the laws of physicist
have been able to rewind the unfolding of the universe back to what is
called Planck time 10^43 seconds after the bin bang with almost 100%
certainty, but at Planck time the laws of physics as we know them
break down.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
I don't know the answer and neither do you.
Which is no reason to make unjustified explanations involving
maximally defined, omnipotent, magical superbeings for which there is
no evidence.
Given that people are unwilling to look into the past and try to find
explanations for, why and how the fundamental constants have the values
they do, we can never have any real explanation. An intelligent designer
may _not_ be the explanation. I know that Einstein and Hawking spent
their lifetimes searching for a " theory of everything (TOE). IF found
then the values may be clearly understood. Others have attempted to
explain our universe as only one of countless billions of other
universes, so we should expect that a few would be favorable for the
appearance of intelligent life. It's a simple matter of statistics. We
are fortunate to live in one of the few that has these conditions
favorable for life.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And someone just saying they think there is, doesn't make it so.
Not without what he thinks is evidence pointing to a certain possibility
as the _better_ option. This has always been my view. I cannot say
anything for an absolute certainty, only that I personally have reasons
for my conclusion. And I have tried to explain just a few of these reasons.
And this was in response to request as seen above.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Imagine somebody saying that in court under cross-examination - they'd
get trounced.
Or saying it when they are defending their PhD thesis or dissertation.
But this is expecting a certain outcome beforehand. I'm sure some
attorneys looking at how weak their case is might arrive at such
a conclusion. Or a PhD whose dissertation was not well planned or
researched might expect to be unsuccessful in his presentation.

I personally know something about this.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
However life evolved to suit the conditions.
And in the one case we know, it took something like ten billion years
to appear.
Which is pretty much all that can be said about it.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-15 15:54:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
On Tue, 15 Nov 2016 15:12:57 +1100, Lucifer Morningstar
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.
I will acknowledge the distinct possibility that life was not the end
game nor the purpose of the universe.
There is no reason to assume anything else.
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
But why is there a universe given the number of very precise parameter
that 2 dozen constants have? On person can win the lottery one
time, and someone does, but suppose the same player won the lottery
2 dozen times - Would you say this is an accident, just good luck
One of Thunderf00t's videos goes into this. He cites some creationist
video (I don't know whose) which applies that argument to protein
formation.
http://youtu.be/p3nvH6gfrTc
Even though it has been demonstrated in the lab by duplication simple
natural processes
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
or what. That is exactly what happened with the the universe. It
was just luck that the right values for the dozen of fundamental
cosmological constants needed and somehow arrived at, which were exactly
the values needed for there to be a universe.
And?
We're looking at things after the event, not in advance.
If science had looked at it the same way, the big bang would
have never been uncovered. The origin of matter in stars would
be of no interest. How stars created carbon and oxygen would
be hidden. The origin of life would be of no interest. We
are here, who cares how.
Another distortion - because people were interested, they
investigated, they didn't pluck nonsense out of thin air.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It's like his lottery player saying that because he won, it was
intended that he did from the moment of the big bang, 13.5 billion
years ago.
I don't think this addresses the argument that he would have to
have won dozen of times.
What "argument"?

Once again, you assume that there is only one possible outcome.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It confuses probability before and after the event - but once
something has already happened, its probability is now 1 and the
calculations start again.
IOW we are here so who cares.
Grow up.

Of course we care - we just don't make up unjustifiable bullshit.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
We're simply the result of 13.5 billion years of unpredictable events,
According to Martin Rees scientist, by employing the laws of physicist
have been able to rewind the unfolding of the universe back to what is
called Planck time 10^43 seconds after the bin bang with almost 100%
certainty, but at Planck time the laws of physics as we know them
break down.
So?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
I don't know the answer and neither do you.
Which is no reason to make unjustified explanations involving
maximally defined, omnipotent, magical superbeings for which there is
no evidence.
Given that people are unwilling to look into the past and try to find
explanations for, why and how the fundamental constants have the values
they do, we can never have any real explanation. An intelligent designer
may _not_ be the explanation. I know that Einstein and Hawking spent
their lifetimes searching for a " theory of everything (TOE). IF found
then the values may be clearly understood. Others have attempted to
explain our universe as only one of countless billions of other
universes, so we should expect that a few would be favorable for the
appearance of intelligent life. It's a simple matter of statistics. We
are fortunate to live in one of the few that has these conditions
favorable for life.
Which is a red herring because that still doesn't imply any intention
for there to be life.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And someone just saying they think there is, doesn't make it so.
Not without what he thinks is evidence pointing to a certain possibility
as the _better_ option. This has always been my view. I cannot say
anything for an absolute certainty, only that I personally have reasons
for my conclusion. And I have tried to explain just a few of these reasons.
And this was in response to request as seen above.
You haven't shown that any evidence leads to your "conclusion", So
it's not a conclusion.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Imagine somebody saying that in court under cross-examination - they'd
get trounced.
Or saying it when they are defending their PhD thesis or dissertation.
But this is expecting a certain outcome beforehand. I'm sure some
Just like your lottery ticket argument.

Just like you do when you try to rationalise your presumption of
design - because nothing you have provided actually points to it.
Post by R. Dean
attorneys looking at how weak their case is might arrive at such
a conclusion. Or a PhD whose dissertation was not well planned or
researched might expect to be unsuccessful in his presentation.
I personally know something about this.
All you need to do, is justify the reasoning which you say led to your
conclusion.

Just saying "different interpretations of the evidence" doesn't cut
it.

You have to defend your interpretation without using fallacies like
the argument from authority, non-sequiturs and ad hominems - none of
which are any more than red herrings.

Eg, it does not matter what you think somebody else's conclusion is -
unless you give _their_ reasoning and can defend it yourself. Or what
you say they believe, because science isn't about beliefs.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
However life evolved to suit the conditions.
And in the one case we know, it took something like ten billion years
to appear.
Which is pretty much all that can be said about it.
R. Dean
2016-11-15 13:46:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.
I will acknowledge the distinct possibility that life was not the end
game nor the purpose of the universe.
But why is there a universe given the number of very precise parameter
that 2 dozen constants have? On person can win the lottery one
time, and someone does, but suppose the same player won the lottery
2 dozen times - Would you say this is an accident, just good luck
or what. That is exactly what happened with the the universe. It
was just luck that the right values for the dozen of fundamental
cosmological constants needed and somehow arrived at, which were exactly
the values needed for there to be a universe.
I don't know the answer and neither do you.
However life evolved to suit the conditions.
This is a truism assuming the universe is eternal. But it explains
nothing regarding the universe itself and how it actually came about.
Lucifer Morningstar
2016-11-15 13:50:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.
I will acknowledge the distinct possibility that life was not the end
game nor the purpose of the universe.
But why is there a universe given the number of very precise parameter
that 2 dozen constants have? On person can win the lottery one
time, and someone does, but suppose the same player won the lottery
2 dozen times - Would you say this is an accident, just good luck
or what. That is exactly what happened with the the universe. It
was just luck that the right values for the dozen of fundamental
cosmological constants needed and somehow arrived at, which were exactly
the values needed for there to be a universe.
I don't know the answer and neither do you.
However life evolved to suit the conditions.
This is a truism assuming the universe is eternal. But it explains
nothing regarding the universe itself and how it actually came about.
It assumes nothing but does note our lack of knowedge.
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
R. Dean
2016-11-15 15:50:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.
I will acknowledge the distinct possibility that life was not the end
game nor the purpose of the universe.
But why is there a universe given the number of very precise parameter
that 2 dozen constants have? On person can win the lottery one
time, and someone does, but suppose the same player won the lottery
2 dozen times - Would you say this is an accident, just good luck
or what. That is exactly what happened with the the universe. It
was just luck that the right values for the dozen of fundamental
cosmological constants needed and somehow arrived at, which were exactly
the values needed for there to be a universe.
I don't know the answer and neither do you.
However life evolved to suit the conditions.
This is a truism assuming the universe is eternal. But it explains
nothing regarding the universe itself and how it actually came about.
It assumes nothing but does note our lack of knowedge.
Of course there is no one who knows everything (one exception), but
there is quite a lot that is known by studying the past using the
know laws of physics. Given your mindset about the past history of the
universe, how do you say the universe is 13.5 billion years since
its big bang? How can you know? It's not that I'm challenging the date.
.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-15 13:54:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.
I will acknowledge the distinct possibility that life was not the end
game nor the purpose of the universe.
But why is there a universe given the number of very precise parameter
that 2 dozen constants have? On person can win the lottery one
time, and someone does, but suppose the same player won the lottery
2 dozen times - Would you say this is an accident, just good luck
or what. That is exactly what happened with the the universe. It
was just luck that the right values for the dozen of fundamental
cosmological constants needed and somehow arrived at, which were exactly
the values needed for there to be a universe.
I don't know the answer and neither do you.
However life evolved to suit the conditions.
This is a truism assuming the universe is eternal. But it explains
nothing regarding the universe itself and how it actually came about.
So what?

It is still no reason to invent a maximally defined, omnipotent,
magical superbeing with no justification whatever, let alone its even
more ubjustified attributes.

At least the cosmologists' scenarios are both parsimonious and fit
what is already known objectively - even though nobody insists they
are fact.
R. Dean
2016-11-15 16:01:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.
I will acknowledge the distinct possibility that life was not the end
game nor the purpose of the universe.
But why is there a universe given the number of very precise parameter
that 2 dozen constants have? On person can win the lottery one
time, and someone does, but suppose the same player won the lottery
2 dozen times - Would you say this is an accident, just good luck
or what. That is exactly what happened with the the universe. It
was just luck that the right values for the dozen of fundamental
cosmological constants needed and somehow arrived at, which were exactly
the values needed for there to be a universe.
I don't know the answer and neither do you.
However life evolved to suit the conditions.
This is a truism assuming the universe is eternal. But it explains
nothing regarding the universe itself and how it actually came about.
So what?
So, you are justifying the absence of curiosity about the history of
the universe and how the cosmological constants got their values.
The truth is, I agree with Lucifer Morningstar, we do not know,
but that doesn't justify the absence of curiosity.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It is still no reason to invent a maximally defined, omnipotent,
magical superbeing with no justification whatever, let alone its even
more ubjustified attributes.
I am not hard wired favoring the absolute certainty of anything. I
have repeatedly stated that I believe that "Q" is the "_BETTER_"
explanation.
But I am not without doubts.
____.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
At least the cosmologists' scenarios are both parsimonious and fit
what is already known objectively - even though nobody insists they
are fact.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-15 16:19:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations. But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
Our existence is finely tuned for the universe.
I will acknowledge the distinct possibility that life was not the end
game nor the purpose of the universe.
But why is there a universe given the number of very precise parameter
that 2 dozen constants have? On person can win the lottery one
time, and someone does, but suppose the same player won the lottery
2 dozen times - Would you say this is an accident, just good luck
or what. That is exactly what happened with the the universe. It
was just luck that the right values for the dozen of fundamental
cosmological constants needed and somehow arrived at, which were exactly
the values needed for there to be a universe.
I don't know the answer and neither do you.
However life evolved to suit the conditions.
This is a truism assuming the universe is eternal. But it explains
nothing regarding the universe itself and how it actually came about.
So what?
So, you are justifying the absence of curiosity about the history of
the universe and how the cosmological constants got their values.
The truth is, I agree with Lucifer Morningstar, we do not know,
but that doesn't justify the absence of curiosity.
Once again, you are either going to have to learn to read for
comprehension, or to stop lying.

Because you know perfectly well that I neither said that nor meant it,

The only absence of curiously is the theist's, who cannot be bothered
to investigate and instead makes things up that have no basis in
reality.

Cosmologists and physicists are interested, and they investigate.
Interested and educated lay people accept their explanations because
they are objective and fit within the global knowledge base,

Not to mention that when they speculate, their scenarios are
parsimonious and don't introduce anything new (wherever possible) -
see Ockham's razor.

It is not unusual, at the frontiers of knowledge, to have several
different scenarios, all of which fit what is currently known - but
nobody arbitrarily insists on one over the others. The actual answer
might not be any of these, if future research throws up new data.

But what they don't do, is introduce an unjustified, magical
superbeing with a whole slew of even more unjustified attributes.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
It is still no reason to invent a maximally defined, omnipotent,
magical superbeing with no justification whatever, let alone its even
more ubjustified attributes.
I am not hard wired favoring the absolute certainty of anything. I
have repeatedly stated that I believe that "Q" is the "_BETTER_"
explanation.
Which you have been able to defend.
Post by R. Dean
But I am not without doubts.
____.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
At least the cosmologists' scenarios are both parsimonious and fit
what is already known objectively - even though nobody insists they
are fact.
Well?
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-13 13:31:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
Why do you keep repeating this lie which has been repeatedly debunked?

Just saying something is evidence, doesn't make it so. You have to
defend it as such - which you have only been able to do in your own
mind.
R. Dean
2016-11-13 14:33:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
Why do you keep repeating this lie which has been repeatedly debunked?
It's been challenged by several scenarios: including denial, ignoring
the evidence, the multiverse hypothesis, Adan's thiking mud puddle
bubble universes etc, but never debunked.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Just saying something is evidence, doesn't make it so. You have to
defend it as such - which you have only been able to do in your own
mind.
Whether the universe was fine tuned by some intelligient agency or
by random natural events, the universe is fine tuned for life, if
it were not we would not be here.

BTW did you check the references I provided? If so what is your
criticism, if not, why are you entitled to an opinion?
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-13 15:04:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
Why do you keep repeating this lie which has been repeatedly debunked?
It's been challenged by several scenarios: including denial, ignoring
the evidence, the multiverse hypothesis, Adan's thiking mud puddle
bubble universes etc, but never debunked.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Just saying something is evidence, doesn't make it so. You have to
defend it as such - which you have only been able to do in your own
mind.
Whether the universe was fine tuned by some intelligient agency or
by random natural events, the universe is fine tuned for life, if
it were not we would not be here.
False dichotomy between your pre-existing belief and an emotionally
prejudicial caricature.

You keep getting it bass-ackwards.

The universe is not "finely tuned for life".

In fact, it is remarkably inhospitable.

Life emerged on this particular planet as a result of chemistry,
something like ten billion years after the formation of the universe.

But you make the unjustified leap from that, to "therefore the
universe was designed for life".

Which is not a valid conclusion but a pre-existing religious belief,
no matter how much you pretend otherwise by weaseling that you don't
identify this hypothetical designer for which there is no evidence.
Post by R. Dean
BTW did you check the references I provided? If so what is your
criticism, if not, why are you entitled to an opinion?
Why do you assume everybody else is as ignorant as you are, and needs
to get their education from your "references"?

You need to understand them well enough to explain and defend their
arguments in your own words.
R. Dean
2016-11-13 23:48:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
Why do you keep repeating this lie which has been repeatedly debunked?
It's been challenged by several scenarios: including denial, ignoring
the evidence, the multiverse hypothesis, Adan's thiking mud puddle
bubble universes etc, but never debunked.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Just saying something is evidence, doesn't make it so. You have to
defend it as such - which you have only been able to do in your own
mind.
Whether the universe was fine tuned by some intelligent agency or
by random natural events, the universe is fine tuned for life, if
it were not we would not be here.
False dichotomy between your pre-existing belief and an emotionally
prejudicial caricature.
It matters not what my pre-existing beliefs may have been. Life
could not exist where no universe exist. Is it granted that the
constants could _not_ have had different values? That the strength
of gravity was "set in stone", and could not been slightly stronger
or weaker? Or that the rate of expansion and the strength of
gravity didn't have to balance?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You keep getting it bass-ackwards.
No, I don't think so! As some have stated "life was finely-tuned
to exist in the universe - not the other way around".
This argument is predicated on an _already_ existing universe. If
the universe were eternal, this argument would have merit. But it
is not - the universe had a beginning. And from the Big Bang to
the present formation of the universe is what the anthropic principle
wrestles with.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
The universe is not "finely tuned for life".
In fact, it is remarkably inhospitable.
This is true, there is vast "empty" space suns that give off
gamma rays, x-rays, UV rays etc. But so do other stars, so
if life is to exist, there has to be protections from such
harmful rays. And distance is necessary for protection:
along with the Van Allen belt and another newly discovered
belt provides additional protection.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Life emerged on this particular planet as a result of chemistry,
something like ten billion years after the formation of the universe.
Yes, but why is this mentioned?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But you make the unjustified leap from that, to "therefore the
universe was designed for life".
Not at all, had you read my references, you would understand where
I am coming from. I don't know it's significance, but the speed of
light at 186K mi/sec is a fine tuned constant. E=mc^2, then
m=c^2/E. Is mass then dependent upon the speed of light? I don't
know. But at least the algebraic works.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Which is not a valid conclusion but a pre-existing religious belief,
Again Chris, it isn't my upbringing that leads me to the conclusions
I have, but rather from what I have read written by scientist,
physicist, astronomers and astrophysicist.

Many scientist acknowledge the fine tuning, but turn to _multiverses_
to deal with it. Example: Richard Dawkins, Leonard Susskind, Paul
Davies, the late Freedman Dyson, Sir Martin Rees, Laura Danly.

Just one example By Leonard Susskind, he points out that one
constant had to be so fine tuned that it was impossible to
ignore the Cosmological had to be fine tuned to 1 part in
10 followed by 120 zeroes. starting at 5 minutes and 20 seconds
into the video.
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
Explain to me why this scientist is wrong.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
no matter how much you pretend otherwise by weaseling that you don't
identify this hypothetical designer for which there is no evidence.
When you refuse to read my references, what do we have to discuss?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
BTW did you check the references I provided? If so what is your
criticism, if not, why are you entitled to an opinion?
Why do you assume everybody else is as ignorant as you are, and needs
to get their education from your "references"?
Like it or not Chris, I'm not ignorant, simply because you don't
understand my arguments does not mean I'm ignorant.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need to understand them well enough to explain and defend their
arguments in your own words.
Actually I have.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-14 00:44:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
Why do you keep repeating this lie which has been repeatedly debunked?
It's been challenged by several scenarios: including denial, ignoring
the evidence, the multiverse hypothesis, Adan's thiking mud puddle
bubble universes etc, but never debunked.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Just saying something is evidence, doesn't make it so. You have to
defend it as such - which you have only been able to do in your own
mind.
Whether the universe was fine tuned by some intelligent agency or
by random natural events, the universe is fine tuned for life, if
it were not we would not be here.
False dichotomy between your pre-existing belief and an emotionally
prejudicial caricature.
It matters not what my pre-existing beliefs may have been. Life
Even though they're the only reason to posit design.
Post by R. Dean
could not exist where no universe exist.
So?
Post by R. Dean
Is it granted that the
constants could _not_ have had different values?
Irrelevant.
Post by R. Dean
That the strength
of gravity was "set in stone", and could not been slightly stronger
or weaker?
Also irrelevant.
Post by R. Dean
Or that the rate of expansion and the strength of
gravity didn't have to balance?
Again, irrelevant.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You keep getting it bass-ackwards.
No, I don't think so! As some have stated "life was finely-tuned
to exist in the universe - not the other way around".
Like evolved in the universe. That's all that can be said about it.
Post by R. Dean
This argument is predicated on an _already_ existing universe. If
So?
Post by R. Dean
the universe were eternal, this argument would have merit. But it
Why?
Post by R. Dean
is not - the universe had a beginning. And from the Big Bang to
It depends what you mean by the universe.
Post by R. Dean
the present formation of the universe is what the anthropic principle
wrestles with.
No. It doesn't wrestle with anything.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
The universe is not "finely tuned for life".
In fact, it is remarkably inhospitable.
This is true, there is vast "empty" space suns that give off
gamma rays, x-rays, UV rays etc. But so do other stars, so
if life is to exist, there has to be protections from such
along with the Van Allen belt and another newly discovered
belt provides additional protection.
So?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Life emerged on this particular planet as a result of chemistry,
something like ten billion years after the formation of the universe.
Yes, but why is this mentioned?
I'm not the one who insists the universe was designed for life, for no
other reason than his pre-existing religious belief that it was, which
he tries and fails to rationalise.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But you make the unjustified leap from that, to "therefore the
universe was designed for life".
Not at all, had you read my references, you would understand where
I am coming from. I don't know it's significance, but the speed of
light at 186K mi/sec is a fine tuned constant. E=mc^2, then
m=c^2/E. Is mass then dependent upon the speed of light? I don't
know. But at least the algebraic works.
Look up "non sequitur".
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Which is not a valid conclusion but a pre-existing religious belief,
Again Chris, it isn't my upbringing that leads me to the conclusions
I have, but rather from what I have read written by scientist,
physicist, astronomers and astrophysicist.
Then you need to learn to read for comprehension.
Post by R. Dean
Many scientist acknowledge the fine tuning,
An outright lie.
Post by R. Dean
but turn to _multiverses_
to deal with it.
And another.
Post by R. Dean
Example: Richard Dawkins, Leonard Susskind, Paul
Davies, the late Freedman Dyson, Sir Martin Rees, Laura Danly.
They describe a common lay misconception, and then go on to explain
why it's a misconception.

Which has been explained over and over again.

But you invent reasons they don't have, for saying that it only
_seems_ designed.

Including the lie that they have a vested interest in there being no
design.
Post by R. Dean
Just one example By Leonard Susskind, he points out that one
constant had to be so fine tuned that it was impossible to
ignore the Cosmological had to be fine tuned to 1 part in
10 followed by 120 zeroes. starting at 5 minutes and 20 seconds
into the video.
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
So?

Where is his scientific evidence that the universe was specifically
designed for life.

You need to provide that instead of hiding behind what you imagine the
experts said.
Post by R. Dean
Explain to me why this scientist is wrong.
We've only got your interpretation. And I'm not a mind reader to know
how you got there.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
no matter how much you pretend otherwise by weaseling that you don't
identify this hypothetical designer for which there is no evidence.
When you refuse to read my references, what do we have to discuss?
You have nothing to discuss.

Your references are worthless because you read things into them that
aren't there.

And if you had the slightest understanding of what science is, and how
it is practiced, you would understand why claims of design aren't
scientific.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
BTW did you check the references I provided? If so what is your
criticism, if not, why are you entitled to an opinion?
Why do you assume everybody else is as ignorant as you are, and needs
to get their education from your "references"?
Like it or not Chris, I'm not ignorant, simply because you don't
understand my arguments does not mean I'm ignorant.
I understand them perfectly, liar - enough to see where they fail.

Like your use of the Anthropic Principle, your non-sequitur from the
existence of life to "therefore it was designed specifically for life"
and your other non-sequitur from the values of the physical constants
to "therefore it was designed specifically for life", and your
transparent lies about why scientists who are atheists "won't admit
design" when there is no way to determine it.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need to understand them well enough to explain and defend their
arguments in your own words.
Actually I have.
Only in your own "mind".
R. Dean
2016-11-14 03:31:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
Why do you keep repeating this lie which has been repeatedly debunked?
It's been challenged by several scenarios: including denial, ignoring
the evidence, the multiverse hypothesis, Adan's thiking mud puddle
bubble universes etc, but never debunked.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Just saying something is evidence, doesn't make it so. You have to
defend it as such - which you have only been able to do in your own
mind.
Whether the universe was fine tuned by some intelligent agency or
by random natural events, the universe is fine tuned for life, if
it were not we would not be here.
False dichotomy between your pre-existing belief and an emotionally
prejudicial caricature.
It matters not what my pre-existing beliefs may have been. Life
Even though they're the only reason to posit design.
Post by R. Dean
could not exist where no universe exist.
So?
Post by R. Dean
Is it granted that the
constants could _not_ have had different values?
Irrelevant.
Post by R. Dean
That the strength
of gravity was "set in stone", and could not been slightly stronger
or weaker?
Also irrelevant.
Post by R. Dean
Or that the rate of expansion and the strength of
gravity didn't have to balance?
Again, irrelevant.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You keep getting it bass-ackwards.
No, I don't think so! As some have stated "life was finely-tuned
to exist in the universe - not the other way around".
Like evolved in the universe. That's all that can be said about it.
Post by R. Dean
This argument is predicated on an _already_ existing universe. If
So?
Post by R. Dean
the universe were eternal, this argument would have merit. But it
Why?
Post by R. Dean
is not - the universe had a beginning. And from the Big Bang to
It depends what you mean by the universe.
Post by R. Dean
the present formation of the universe is what the anthropic principle
wrestles with.
No. It doesn't wrestle with anything.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
The universe is not "finely tuned for life".
In fact, it is remarkably inhospitable.
This is true, there is vast "empty" space suns that give off
gamma rays, x-rays, UV rays etc. But so do other stars, so
if life is to exist, there has to be protections from such
along with the Van Allen belt and another newly discovered
belt provides additional protection.
So?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Life emerged on this particular planet as a result of chemistry,
something like ten billion years after the formation of the universe.
Yes, but why is this mentioned?
I'm not the one who insists the universe was designed for life, for no
other reason than his pre-existing religious belief that it was, which
he tries and fails to rationalise.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But you make the unjustified leap from that, to "therefore the
universe was designed for life".
Not at all, had you read my references, you would understand where
I am coming from. I don't know it's significance, but the speed of
light at 186K mi/sec is a fine tuned constant. E=mc^2, then
m=c^2/E. Is mass then dependent upon the speed of light? I don't
know. But at least the algebraic works.
Look up "non sequitur".
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Which is not a valid conclusion but a pre-existing religious belief,
Again Chris, it isn't my upbringing that leads me to the conclusions
I have, but rather from what I have read written by scientist,
physicist, astronomers and astrophysicist.
Then you need to learn to read for comprehension.
Post by R. Dean
Many scientist acknowledge the fine tuning,
An outright lie.
Post by R. Dean
but turn to _multiverses_
to deal with it.
And another.
Post by R. Dean
Example: Richard Dawkins, Leonard Susskind, Paul
Davies, the late Freedman Dyson, Sir Martin Rees, Laura Danly.
They describe a common lay misconception, and then go on to explain
why it's a misconception.
Which has been explained over and over again.
But you invent reasons they don't have, for saying that it only
_seems_ designed.
Including the lie that they have a vested interest in there being no
design.
Post by R. Dean
Just one example By Leonard Susskind, he points out that one
constant had to be so fine tuned that it was impossible to
ignore the Cosmological had to be fine tuned to 1 part in
10 followed by 120 zeroes. starting at 5 minutes and 20 seconds
into the video.
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
So?
Where is his scientific evidence that the universe was specifically
designed for life.
You need to provide that instead of hiding behind what you imagine the
experts said.
Post by R. Dean
Explain to me why this scientist is wrong.
We've only got your interpretation. And I'm not a mind reader to know
how you got there.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
no matter how much you pretend otherwise by weaseling that you don't
identify this hypothetical designer for which there is no evidence.
When you refuse to read my references, what do we have to discuss?
You have nothing to discuss.
Your references are worthless because you read things into them that
aren't there.
And if you had the slightest understanding of what science is, and how
it is practiced, you would understand why claims of design aren't
scientific.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
BTW did you check the references I provided? If so what is your
criticism, if not, why are you entitled to an opinion?
Why do you assume everybody else is as ignorant as you are, and needs
to get their education from your "references"?
Like it or not Chris, I'm not ignorant, simply because you don't
understand my arguments does not mean I'm ignorant.
I understand them perfectly, liar - enough to see where they fail.
Like your use of the Anthropic Principle, your non-sequitur from the
existence of life to "therefore it was designed specifically for life"
and your other non-sequitur from the values of the physical constants
to "therefore it was designed specifically for life", and your
transparent lies about why scientists who are atheists "won't admit
design" when there is no way to determine it.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need to understand them well enough to explain and defend their
arguments in your own words.
Actually I have.
Only in your own "mind".
What's the point in trying to discuss anything with you? You don't
know everything, yet you refuse to read anything I referenced.
I have no interest in converting to my way of thinking. But
it seems that's what you think it's all about. But it's not
about you.
Lucifer Morningstar
2016-11-14 04:48:40 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
Why do you keep repeating this lie which has been repeatedly debunked?
It's been challenged by several scenarios: including denial, ignoring
the evidence, the multiverse hypothesis, Adan's thiking mud puddle
bubble universes etc, but never debunked.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Just saying something is evidence, doesn't make it so. You have to
defend it as such - which you have only been able to do in your own
mind.
Whether the universe was fine tuned by some intelligent agency or
by random natural events, the universe is fine tuned for life, if
it were not we would not be here.
False dichotomy between your pre-existing belief and an emotionally
prejudicial caricature.
It matters not what my pre-existing beliefs may have been. Life
Even though they're the only reason to posit design.
Post by R. Dean
could not exist where no universe exist.
So?
Post by R. Dean
Is it granted that the
constants could _not_ have had different values?
Irrelevant.
Post by R. Dean
That the strength
of gravity was "set in stone", and could not been slightly stronger
or weaker?
Also irrelevant.
Post by R. Dean
Or that the rate of expansion and the strength of
gravity didn't have to balance?
Again, irrelevant.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You keep getting it bass-ackwards.
No, I don't think so! As some have stated "life was finely-tuned
to exist in the universe - not the other way around".
Like evolved in the universe. That's all that can be said about it.
Post by R. Dean
This argument is predicated on an _already_ existing universe. If
So?
Post by R. Dean
the universe were eternal, this argument would have merit. But it
Why?
Post by R. Dean
is not - the universe had a beginning. And from the Big Bang to
It depends what you mean by the universe.
Post by R. Dean
the present formation of the universe is what the anthropic principle
wrestles with.
No. It doesn't wrestle with anything.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
The universe is not "finely tuned for life".
In fact, it is remarkably inhospitable.
This is true, there is vast "empty" space suns that give off
gamma rays, x-rays, UV rays etc. But so do other stars, so
if life is to exist, there has to be protections from such
along with the Van Allen belt and another newly discovered
belt provides additional protection.
So?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Life emerged on this particular planet as a result of chemistry,
something like ten billion years after the formation of the universe.
Yes, but why is this mentioned?
I'm not the one who insists the universe was designed for life, for no
other reason than his pre-existing religious belief that it was, which
he tries and fails to rationalise.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But you make the unjustified leap from that, to "therefore the
universe was designed for life".
Not at all, had you read my references, you would understand where
I am coming from. I don't know it's significance, but the speed of
light at 186K mi/sec is a fine tuned constant. E=mc^2, then
m=c^2/E. Is mass then dependent upon the speed of light? I don't
know. But at least the algebraic works.
Look up "non sequitur".
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Which is not a valid conclusion but a pre-existing religious belief,
Again Chris, it isn't my upbringing that leads me to the conclusions
I have, but rather from what I have read written by scientist,
physicist, astronomers and astrophysicist.
Then you need to learn to read for comprehension.
Post by R. Dean
Many scientist acknowledge the fine tuning,
An outright lie.
Post by R. Dean
but turn to _multiverses_
to deal with it.
And another.
Post by R. Dean
Example: Richard Dawkins, Leonard Susskind, Paul
Davies, the late Freedman Dyson, Sir Martin Rees, Laura Danly.
They describe a common lay misconception, and then go on to explain
why it's a misconception.
Which has been explained over and over again.
But you invent reasons they don't have, for saying that it only
_seems_ designed.
Including the lie that they have a vested interest in there being no
design.
Post by R. Dean
Just one example By Leonard Susskind, he points out that one
constant had to be so fine tuned that it was impossible to
ignore the Cosmological had to be fine tuned to 1 part in
10 followed by 120 zeroes. starting at 5 minutes and 20 seconds
into the video.
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
So?
Where is his scientific evidence that the universe was specifically
designed for life.
You need to provide that instead of hiding behind what you imagine the
experts said.
Post by R. Dean
Explain to me why this scientist is wrong.
We've only got your interpretation. And I'm not a mind reader to know
how you got there.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
no matter how much you pretend otherwise by weaseling that you don't
identify this hypothetical designer for which there is no evidence.
When you refuse to read my references, what do we have to discuss?
You have nothing to discuss.
Your references are worthless because you read things into them that
aren't there.
And if you had the slightest understanding of what science is, and how
it is practiced, you would understand why claims of design aren't
scientific.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
BTW did you check the references I provided? If so what is your
criticism, if not, why are you entitled to an opinion?
Why do you assume everybody else is as ignorant as you are, and needs
to get their education from your "references"?
Like it or not Chris, I'm not ignorant, simply because you don't
understand my arguments does not mean I'm ignorant.
I understand them perfectly, liar - enough to see where they fail.
Like your use of the Anthropic Principle, your non-sequitur from the
existence of life to "therefore it was designed specifically for life"
and your other non-sequitur from the values of the physical constants
to "therefore it was designed specifically for life", and your
transparent lies about why scientists who are atheists "won't admit
design" when there is no way to determine it.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need to understand them well enough to explain and defend their
arguments in your own words.
Actually I have.
Only in your own "mind".
What's the point in trying to discuss anything with you? You don't
know everything, yet you refuse to read anything I referenced.
I have no interest in converting to my way of thinking. But
it seems that's what you think it's all about. But it's not
about you.
The proper answer is we don't know.
--
I call shenanigans on all theistic religions
R. Dean
2016-11-14 04:57:58 UTC
Permalink
[snip]
Post by Lucifer Morningstar
Post by R. Dean
What's the point in trying to discuss anything with you? You don't
know everything, yet you refuse to read anything I referenced.
I have no interest in converting to my way of thinking. But
it seems that's what you think it's all about. But it's not
about you.
The proper answer is we don't know.
Does that exclude trying to learn?
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-14 04:50:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
Why do you keep repeating this lie which has been repeatedly debunked?
It's been challenged by several scenarios: including denial, ignoring
the evidence, the multiverse hypothesis, Adan's thiking mud puddle
bubble universes etc, but never debunked.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Just saying something is evidence, doesn't make it so. You have to
defend it as such - which you have only been able to do in your own
mind.
Whether the universe was fine tuned by some intelligent agency or
by random natural events, the universe is fine tuned for life, if
it were not we would not be here.
False dichotomy between your pre-existing belief and an emotionally
prejudicial caricature.
It matters not what my pre-existing beliefs may have been. Life
Even though they're the only reason to posit design.
Post by R. Dean
could not exist where no universe exist.
So?
Post by R. Dean
Is it granted that the
constants could _not_ have had different values?
Irrelevant.
Post by R. Dean
That the strength
of gravity was "set in stone", and could not been slightly stronger
or weaker?
Also irrelevant.
Post by R. Dean
Or that the rate of expansion and the strength of
gravity didn't have to balance?
Again, irrelevant.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You keep getting it bass-ackwards.
No, I don't think so! As some have stated "life was finely-tuned
to exist in the universe - not the other way around".
Like evolved in the universe. That's all that can be said about it.
Post by R. Dean
This argument is predicated on an _already_ existing universe. If
So?
Post by R. Dean
the universe were eternal, this argument would have merit. But it
Why?
Post by R. Dean
is not - the universe had a beginning. And from the Big Bang to
It depends what you mean by the universe.
Post by R. Dean
the present formation of the universe is what the anthropic principle
wrestles with.
No. It doesn't wrestle with anything.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
The universe is not "finely tuned for life".
In fact, it is remarkably inhospitable.
This is true, there is vast "empty" space suns that give off
gamma rays, x-rays, UV rays etc. But so do other stars, so
if life is to exist, there has to be protections from such
along with the Van Allen belt and another newly discovered
belt provides additional protection.
So?
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Life emerged on this particular planet as a result of chemistry,
something like ten billion years after the formation of the universe.
Yes, but why is this mentioned?
I'm not the one who insists the universe was designed for life, for no
other reason than his pre-existing religious belief that it was, which
he tries and fails to rationalise.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But you make the unjustified leap from that, to "therefore the
universe was designed for life".
Not at all, had you read my references, you would understand where
I am coming from. I don't know it's significance, but the speed of
light at 186K mi/sec is a fine tuned constant. E=mc^2, then
m=c^2/E. Is mass then dependent upon the speed of light? I don't
know. But at least the algebraic works.
Look up "non sequitur".
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Which is not a valid conclusion but a pre-existing religious belief,
Again Chris, it isn't my upbringing that leads me to the conclusions
I have, but rather from what I have read written by scientist,
physicist, astronomers and astrophysicist.
Then you need to learn to read for comprehension.
Post by R. Dean
Many scientist acknowledge the fine tuning,
An outright lie.
Post by R. Dean
but turn to _multiverses_
to deal with it.
And another.
Post by R. Dean
Example: Richard Dawkins, Leonard Susskind, Paul
Davies, the late Freedman Dyson, Sir Martin Rees, Laura Danly.
They describe a common lay misconception, and then go on to explain
why it's a misconception.
Which has been explained over and over again.
But you invent reasons they don't have, for saying that it only
_seems_ designed.
Including the lie that they have a vested interest in there being no
design.
Post by R. Dean
Just one example By Leonard Susskind, he points out that one
constant had to be so fine tuned that it was impossible to
ignore the Cosmological had to be fine tuned to 1 part in
10 followed by 120 zeroes. starting at 5 minutes and 20 seconds
into the video.
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
So?
Where is his scientific evidence that the universe was specifically
designed for life.
You need to provide that instead of hiding behind what you imagine the
experts said.
Post by R. Dean
Explain to me why this scientist is wrong.
We've only got your interpretation. And I'm not a mind reader to know
how you got there.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
no matter how much you pretend otherwise by weaseling that you don't
identify this hypothetical designer for which there is no evidence.
When you refuse to read my references, what do we have to discuss?
You have nothing to discuss.
Your references are worthless because you read things into them that
aren't there.
And if you had the slightest understanding of what science is, and how
it is practiced, you would understand why claims of design aren't
scientific.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
BTW did you check the references I provided? If so what is your
criticism, if not, why are you entitled to an opinion?
Why do you assume everybody else is as ignorant as you are, and needs
to get their education from your "references"?
Like it or not Chris, I'm not ignorant, simply because you don't
understand my arguments does not mean I'm ignorant.
I understand them perfectly, liar - enough to see where they fail.
Like your use of the Anthropic Principle, your non-sequitur from the
existence of life to "therefore it was designed specifically for life"
and your other non-sequitur from the values of the physical constants
to "therefore it was designed specifically for life", and your
transparent lies about why scientists who are atheists "won't admit
design" when there is no way to determine it.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need to understand them well enough to explain and defend their
arguments in your own words.
Actually I have.
Only in your own "mind".
What's the point in trying to discuss anything with you?
You don't "discuss" anything. You come to the atheist group and spew
the same old contentious nonsense, taking no notice of rebuttal and
refutation.

You "back it up" with transparent lies like your "As an atheist, he
was committed to a naturalistic explanation, even though he had no
specific or detailed explanation as to how life happened in the
distant past.".

Which shows you know nothing about atheists, atheism, science or
scientists.

No scientist even thinks about the so-called "supernatural" when they
practice their science - whether they are theist or atheist.

Not to mention that nothing supernatural has ever been demonstrated,
which means that as far as science is concerned, there's nothing about
it, to incorporate into their work.
Post by R. Dean
You don't
know everything,
I never said I did.
Post by R. Dean
yet you refuse to read anything I referenced.
Why should I? What you are trying to defend is complete and utter
nonsense that has been debunked here as well as in popular science
books by the scientists you misrepresent.
Post by R. Dean
I have no interest in converting to my way of thinking. But
it seems that's what you think it's all about.
No, proven serial liar - it is about some loonie calling himself Ron
Dean (or Penny Nickels, or Steve Wolfe, or Dan Wood or any of a
hundred or more other nyms) who comes here making ridiculous claims.
Post by R. Dean
But it's not
about you.
Nobody ever said it was, liar.
R. Dean
2016-11-15 03:14:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
Why do you keep repeating this lie which has been repeatedly debunked?
It's been challenged by several scenarios: including denial, ignoring
the evidence, the multiverse hypothesis, Adan's thiking mud puddle
bubble universes etc, but never debunked.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Just saying something is evidence, doesn't make it so. You have to
defend it as such - which you have only been able to do in your own
mind.
Whether the universe was fine tuned by some intelligent agency or
by random natural events, the universe is fine tuned for life, if
it were not we would not be here.
False dichotomy between your pre-existing belief and an emotionally
prejudicial caricature.
It matters not what my pre-existing beliefs may have been. Life
Even though they're the only reason to posit design.
The _only_ reason you claim this for me is because this is what you
strongly want it to be, so you don't have to deal with it.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
could not exist where no universe exist.
So?
You chop up my post to a degree, I don't know what it was befor.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Is it granted that the
constants could _not_ have had different values?
Irrelevant.
Did you read what Dr Leonard Susskind Physics professor of Harvard said
about the cosmological constants and their values?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
That the strength
of gravity was "set in stone", and could not been slightly stronger
or weaker?
Also irrelevant.
Why?
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Or that the rate of expansion and the strength of
gravity didn't have to balance?
Again, irrelevant.
Why
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You keep getting it bass-ackwards.
No, I don't think so! As some have stated "life was finely-tuned
to exist in the universe - not the other way around".
Like evolved in the universe. That's all that can be said about it.
Post by R. Dean
This argument is predicated on an _already_ existing universe. If
So?
Post by R. Dean
the universe were eternal, this argument would have merit. But it
Why?
You are not reading anything. If you did your responses wouldn't be
so nonsensical.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
is not - the universe had a beginning. And from the Big Bang to
It depends what you mean by the universe.
Stop playing games!
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
the present formation of the universe is what the anthropic principle
wrestles with.
No. It doesn't wrestle with anything.
No, but physicist are. If you bothered to read about the fine tuning
you would be able to discuss it.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
The universe is not "finely tuned for life".
In fact, it is remarkably inhospitable.
This is true, there is vast "empty" space suns that give off
gamma rays, x-rays, UV rays etc. But so do other stars, so
if life is to exist, there has to be protections from such
along with the Van Allen belt and another newly discovered
belt provides additional protection.
So?
So, it's evidence. Evidence of design.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Life emerged on this particular planet as a result of chemistry,
something like ten billion years after the formation of the universe.
Yes, but why is this mentioned?
I'm not the one who insists the universe was designed for life, for no
other reason than his pre-existing religious belief that it was, which
he tries and fails to rationalise.
What ever my religious beliefs might be, I do not appeal to religion
for evidence.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But you make the unjustified leap from that, to "therefore the
universe was designed for life".
Not at all, had you read my references, you would understand where
I am coming from. I don't know it's significance, but the speed of
light at 186K mi/sec is a fine tuned constant. E=mc^2, then
m=c^2/E. Is mass then dependent upon the speed of light? I don't
know. But at least the algebraic works.
Look up "non sequitur".
I know what it means, but do you. If you do then explain why the speed
of light and it's relation with mass (m) is a non sequitur.
Did you understand the inversion? If so, explain it.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Which is not a valid conclusion but a pre-existing religious belief,
Again Chris, it isn't my upbringing that leads me to the conclusions
I have, but rather from what I have read written by scientist,
physicist, astronomers and astrophysicist.
Then you need to learn to read for comprehension.
You don't read anything, so who are you to talk about reading
for comprehension? Point is you are so closed minded that you
cannot consider the possibility that you don't know it all.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Many scientist acknowledge the fine tuning,
An outright lie.
I gave you references which you refused to read - it's not
that you are closed minded, you know it all already, So, you
you don't have to read anything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
but turn to _multiverses_
to deal with it.
And another.
Post by R. Dean
Example: Richard Dawkins, Leonard Susskind, Paul
Davies, the late Freedman Dyson, Sir Martin Rees, Laura Danly.
They describe a common lay misconception, and then go on to explain
why it's a misconception.
This is just an assumption, an unsupported pretense for you own
self serving purposes.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Which has been explained over and over again.
Perhaps, but your words mean nothing since you haven't read
anything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
But you invent reasons they don't have, for saying that it only
_seems_ designed.
Including the lie that they have a vested interest in there being no
design.
They have invested interest in random, haphazardous naturalism -
not design.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Just one example By Leonard Susskind, he points out that one
constant had to be so fine tuned that it was impossible to
ignore the Cosmological had to be fine tuned to 1 part in
10 followed by 120 zeroes. starting at 5 minutes and 20 seconds
into the video.
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
So?
Where is his scientific evidence that the universe was specifically
designed for life.
Why would anyone expect scientists to come forward and proclaim that the
universe was intentionally designed with the intent for bringing
about the evolution of life on at least one planet in the universe.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need to provide that instead of hiding behind what you imagine the
experts said.
All I can do is take the word of reputable professional scientist
who provide the evidence. It isn't my fault when they refuse to
follow the evidence where is would lead.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Explain to me why this scientist is wrong.
We've only got your interpretation. And I'm not a mind reader to know
how you got there.
I provided the reference. I interpreted nothing.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
no matter how much you pretend otherwise by weaseling that you don't
identify this hypothetical designer for which there is no evidence.
When you refuse to read my references, what do we have to discuss?
You have nothing to discuss.
Your references are worthless because you read things into them that
aren't there.
How would you know, you refuse to go there and see for yourself.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
And if you had the slightest understanding of what science is, and how
it is practiced, you would understand why claims of design aren't
scientific.
The evidence points to design.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
BTW did you check the references I provided? If so what is your
criticism, if not, why are you entitled to an opinion?
Why do you assume everybody else is as ignorant as you are, and needs
to get their education from your "references"?
Like it or not Chris, I'm not ignorant, simply because you don't
understand my arguments does not mean I'm ignorant.
I understand them perfectly, liar - enough to see where they fail.
No, you don't - you cannot because you refuse to the sites and read.
These people I reference are reputable scientist who speak for
themselves. So, it isn't necessary to "interpret" anything.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Like your use of the Anthropic Principle, your non-sequitur from the
existence of life to "therefore it was designed specifically for life"
and your other non-sequitur from the values of the physical constants
to "therefore it was designed specifically for life", and your
transparent lies about why scientists who are atheists "won't admit
design" when there is no way to determine it.
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
You need to understand them well enough to explain and defend their
arguments in your own words.
Actually I have.
Only in your own "mind".
I'm not trying to "convert" you, so your mind don't count.
And since you refuse to go to my references, you have no basis
to form any opinion about what i write. You can respond only
from ignorance of the actual sources that provide the scientific
evidence which I turn to in forming my conclusions. I'm willing
to change my mind if there is serious and supported evidence
which is contrary. But calling me a liar, idiot moron etc is
not evidence, and does not count as supported evidence.

If you refuse to go to my sources and discuss actual comments by
these scientist, rather assume what they said, I see no point in
continuing further conversations with you.
Christopher A. Lee
2016-11-15 09:46:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
Why do you keep repeating this lie which has been repeatedly debunked?
It's been challenged by several scenarios: including denial, ignoring
the evidence, the multiverse hypothesis, Adan's thiking mud puddle
bubble universes etc, but never debunked.
Post by Christopher A. Lee
Just saying something is evidence, doesn't make it so. You have to
defend it as such - which you have only been able to do in your own
mind.
Whether the universe was fine tuned by some intelligent agency or
by random natural events, the universe is fine tuned for life, if
it were not we would not be here.
False dichotomy between your pre-existing belief and an emotionally
prejudicial caricature.
It matters not what my pre-existing beliefs may have been. Life
Even though they're the only reason to posit design.
The _only_ reason you claim this for me is because this is what you
strongly want it to be, so you don't have to deal with it.
And you pretend you don't understand why you get treated as the
personally nasty liar that makes you.

You have been given the same reasons why there is no way to determine
design, over and over again, but never addressed them - so in the
absence of anything else, that is the only reason left to posit
design.

Your "arguments" for it are fallacious rationalisations - non
sequitur, argument from ignorance and ad hominem, which last one shows
you have nothing otherwise you would have used that instead.

If design actually is a genuine conclusion on your part, then you have
to defend every step of the way instead of resorting to these.

Just talking about "different interpretations of the evidence", is
hand-waving that shows you have nothing.

And saying that the values of physical constants leads you to conclude
that life was intended, is worthless without justifying why.
m***@.
2016-11-21 04:09:48 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 02:40:53 -0500, "R. Dean" <"R. Dean"@gmail.com> wrote:
.
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations.
That's about as basic and easy a starting line as any of the starting lines
associated with the question of whether or not any intelligent being(s) not
native to this particular planet could have had deliberate influence on the way
things developed here. It's also one of the basic and easy starting lines strong
atheists and strong agnostics can't get as "far" as. I'm a weak agnostic and can
easily get as far as this particular starting line and also others that are
apparently beyond the mental ability of a number of people.
Post by R. Dean
But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
There are many objections to this. One of the most persistent
is "if the universe wasn't tuned for our existence we wouldn't
be here. But that explains nothing. Had your parents never
met you wouldn't be here. But you are. A variation of this is
Adam's mud puddle.
Another very persistent objection; it's tautological (circular
reasoning). But, whether it is or not, depends on how it's
stated.
Do you think that if possibilities were stated in some way(s) people who are
incapable of considering them would somehow be able to consider them if they
were stated diffently? If so, can you share any example(s)?
Post by R. Dean
Another objection is the hypothesis of a multiverse
that is: huge numbers of other universes, this is a major
point that many scientist adapt. But these other universes
can never be observed, studied or proven.
There are some 2 dozen finely balanced physical constants,
said to be balanced on a knife's edge, that if any one
had slightly different values the universe could not exist.
http://youtu.be/BljrAME1LLw
http://youtu.be/cgmFgb51ifw
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
http://youtu.be/6PXIYmcdKoY
http://youtu.be/VDMpWcf4ee0
THESE SCIENTIST SUPPORT THE MULTIVERSE
http://youtu.be/a5O--OSa9mg
http://youtu.be/bf7BXwVeyWw
http://youtu.be/aUW7patpm9s
http://youtu.be/oa8QqQ9KH5E
http://youtu.be/oa8QqQ9KH5E
There are some scientist who maintain that
there is no fine tuning, and that once the
"theory of everything" will explain why these
cosmological constants have the values they
do. Both Einstein and Hawking spent their
lifetimes trying to find the TOE.
This is not proof, but it indicates that design
_better_ explains the fine tuning of the
universe Vs random natural events, or a series
of accidental physical occurrences.
Ted
2016-11-23 23:08:32 UTC
Permalink
.
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations.
That's abou<BITCHSLAP>
STFU, Harrison.
--
Loading Image... "This troll is one of the
dumbest, most opinionated, most blinkered and also the most arrogant septic
idiots one can come across."
%
2016-11-23 23:33:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ted
Post by m***@.
On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 02:40:53 -0500, "R. Dean"
wrote: .
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you
think there should be,
WHERE you think it should be, WHY you think
it should be available
to humans, and WHEN you think it should have
been or should be
made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this
planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence
is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations.
That's abou<BITCHSLAP>
STFU, Harrison.
now that's scientific
m***@.
2016-11-27 06:48:23 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 16:33:37 -0700, "%" <***@gmail.com> wrote:
.
Post by %
Post by Ted
Post by m***@.
On Sun, 13 Nov 2016 02:40:53 -0500, "R. Dean"
wrote: .
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you
think there should be,
WHERE you think it should be, WHY you think
it should be available
to humans, and WHEN you think it should have
been or should be
made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this
planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence
is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations.
That's abou<BITCHSLAP>
STFU, Harrison.
now that's scientific
Here are some more of Goo's claims you may or may not agree with:

"It is morally wrong, in an absolute sense - unjust, in other
words - if humans kill animals they don't need to kill, i.e. not
in self defense. There's your answer. " - Goo

"Life "justifying" death is the stupidest goddamned thing you ever wrote." - Goo

"NO livestock benefit from being farmed." - Goo

"No farm animals benefit from farming." - Goo

"There is nothing to "appreciate" about the livestock "getting
to experience life" - Goo

"Shut the fuck up about "consideration" for "their lives"" - Goo

"the moral harm caused by killing them is greater in magnitude than ANY benefit
they might derive from "decent lives"" - Goo

"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

"the nutritionally unnecessary choice deliberately to kill an
animal ALWAYS causes a moral harm greater in magnitude
than . . . the moral "benefit" realized by the animal in existing
at all" - Goo

"logically one MUST conclude that not raising them in the first place is the
ethically superior choice." - Goo

"you MUST believe that it makes moral sense not to raise the animals as the only
way to prevent the harm that results from killing them." - Goo

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo

"the "getting to experience life" deserves NO moral
consideration, and is given none; the deliberate killing
of animals for use by humans DOES deserve moral
consideration, and gets it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

"The meaningless fact-lette that farm animals "get to
experience life" deserves no consideration when asking
whether or not it is moral to kill them. Zero." - Goo
m***@.
2016-11-27 06:48:18 UTC
Permalink
On Wed, 23 Nov 2016 23:08:32 GMT, Goo wrote:
.
Post by m***@.
.
Post by R. Dean
Post by m***@.
Try to explain WHAT type of evidence you think there should be, WHERE you think
it should be, WHY you think it should be available to humans, and WHEN you think
it should have been or should be made available, if there truly is a God
associated with this planet.
There is evidence available, how this evidence is interpreted
depends upon prior considerations.
That's about as basic and easy a starting line as any of the starting lines
associated with the question of whether or not any intelligent being(s) not
native to this particular planet could have had deliberate influence on the way
things developed here. It's also one of the basic and easy starting lines strong
atheists and strong agnostics can't get as "far" as. I'm a weak agnostic and can
easily get as far as this particular starting line and also others that are
apparently beyond the mental ability of a number of people.
Post by R. Dean
But one certainty is the
fact that the universe is _fine_tuned_ for our existence.
There are many objections to this. One of the most persistent
is "if the universe wasn't tuned for our existence we wouldn't
be here. But that explains nothing. Had your parents never
met you wouldn't be here. But you are. A variation of this is
Adam's mud puddle.
Another very persistent objection; it's tautological (circular
reasoning). But, whether it is or not, depends on how it's
stated.
Do you think that if possibilities were stated in some way(s) people who are
incapable of considering them would somehow be able to consider them if they
were stated diffently? If so, can you share any example(s)?
S
You have to try to support your claims instead of just stating them
differently you stupid Goober. But you've proven that you can't make any attempt
to Goob. Even though you can't attempt to support your idiotic seeming claims
there might be a number of people in these ngs that believe you Goober and maybe
they can help you support them even though you can't attempt to do it yourself.
We'll see if anyone tries to help you support the stupid seeming claims you
can't try to support yourself Goo, like:

"No zygotes, animals, people, or any other living thing
benefits from coming into existence. No farm animals
benefit from farming." - Goo

"Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit or advantage
to an entity, compared with never existing." - Goo

"Animals do not "benefit" in any way from coming into existence, versus
never existing." - Goo

"...existence, or "getting to experience life", is not a benefit compared
with never existing." - Goo

"it is not "better" that the animal exist, no matter
its quality of live" - Goo

"Existence - "getting to experience life" - is not a benefit to livestock
animals (or any other living entity) and deserves no moral consideration
at all, and gets none from rational people." - Goo

"It is not a "benefit" to come into existence and "get to experience life"
instead of
never existing" - Goo

"A life - *any* life of *any* quality - is not a "benefit" to an animal versus
never existing" - Goo

"Coming into existence is not a benefit compared with never existing - proved."
- Goo

"It is not to my son's advantage to have been born versus never existing" - Goo
T
"no matter how "decent" the conditions are, the deliberate killing
of the animals erases all of it." - Goo

""giving them life" does NOT mitigate the wrongness of
their deaths" - Goo

"It is not "better" for the animals to experience a good life than
never to live at all." - Goo

""Getting to experience life" has no significance." - Goo

"It is not "good" for the animals that they exist, no matter
how pleasant the condition of their existence." - Goo

"It is not "good for them" to exist, no matter how pleasant
the existence." - Goo
F
"The only way that the concept "benefit from existence"
can begin to make sense semantically is if one assumes
a pre-existent state" - Goo

"When the entity moves from "pre-existence" into the
existence we know, we don't know if that move improves
its welfare, degrades it, or leaves it unchanged.
Unless we know with certainty that the entity's welfare
improves when it moves from "pre-existence" into the
life we can detect, we cannot conclude that life is a
benefit to it." - Goo

"EVEN WITH the very best animal welfare conditions one
might provide: they STILL might not be as good as the
"pre-existence" state was for the animals; one simply
cannot know." - Goo

"When considering your food choices ethically, assign
ZERO weight to the morally empty fact that choosing to
eat meat causes animals to be bred into existence." - Goo

"I have examined the question at length, and feel
there is only one reasonable conclusion: life, per se,
is not a benefit." - Goo
U
"Animals do not have a sense of insult." - Goo

"No non-human animals experience the emotion of anticipation" - Goo

"Dogs NEVER anticipate, nor do cats, or cattle, or
any other animal you've ever encountered." - Goo

"Animals do not experience frustration." - Goo

"Animals do not "understand" things." - Goo

"apprehension or dread. Animals don't experience those either" - Goo

"Being born is not a benefit in any way. It can't be." - Goo

"Animals cannot be or feel disappointed." - Goo

"Non human animals experience neither pride nor
disappointment. They don't have the mental ability
to feel either." - Goo

"Darwin, a sentimental person, was projecting. He
saw something that wasn't there. He was, in a way,
hallucinating." - Goo

"The dog didn't do what Darwin said. His statement of
the "changes in behavior" is not reliable." - Goo

"Anticipation requires language." - Goo

"No animals anticipate." - Goo

"Animals do not anticipate, Fuckwit. That requires language-dependent
thought." - Goo

"Dogs, cats, cattle, almost all animals "lower" than
the great apes have no sense of self." - Goo

"They are not aware that they can see. " - Goo

"They are *not* aware that they can smell." - Goo

"Cattle are specifically bred into existence to be
pet food. " - Goo
Loading...