|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 9, 2019 9:31:55 GMT
So, you want to erradicate believers? No I don't. And I never said so on this thread. If you lie about other posters, don't be surprised if you receive hostility. Or just those who try to convince non believers they should believe? I don't want to eradicate them. But I don't want them to force their beliefs on others, whether through indoctrination or law. I never said you said you wanted to eradicate believers. Wow, you sure are touchy !!! Everybody has free speech rights to talk about what they believe. Whether it is their religion, or what they think others should do. But I agree, there is a limit to how pushy one should be. |
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2019 9:40:34 GMT
Can't we all just get along...  |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 9, 2019 9:50:47 GMT
So, you want to erradicate believers. No I don't. And I never said so on this thread. If you lie about other posters, don't be surprised if you receive hostility. Or just those who try to convince non believers they should believe? I don't want to eradicate them. But I don't want them to force their beliefs on others, whether through indoctrination or law. If you don't like the way things are done in your country, you can move to Iran. Or North Korea.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 9, 2019 10:23:33 GMT
Nobody can prove God exist. And nobody can prove He doesn't. So that means non believers are no better or worse than believers. Not quite. Have you heard of Occam's Razor? The principle that you use as few unproven assumptions as possible when formulating a hypothesis? And when you have two concurring hypotheses, the simpler one is usually correct; simpler meaning: Using less unproven assumptions? God is an unproven assumption. Therefore, assuming nonexistance is the default position. Conclusion: According to Occam's Razor, it's not up to nonbelievers to prove that God does not exist; it's up to believers to prove that he/she/it does. Wait a tic... You are only citing one principle as you evoke Occam's Razor. There are others: There's the basic principle that "NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING"... therefore the simplest answer is that everything had to be created... or put more eloquently: " In order for life to have appeared spontaneously on earth, there first had to be hundreds of millions of protein molecules of the ninth configuration. But given the size of the planet Earth, do you know how long it would have taken for just one of these protein molecules to appear entirely by chance? Roughly ten to the two hundred and forty-third power billions of years. And I find that far, far more fantastic than simply believing in God."
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 9, 2019 10:26:22 GMT
Toasted Cheese keeps asking the same stupid questions over and over again. I have answered him. I don't believe he is interested in a genuine conversation. I am tired of repeating myself. And what's the use? He either can't get it. Or refuses to. The problem is, you don't get it, so avoid answering the questions, due to your steadfast, inflexible and ludicrous belief. Dude... He's answered you. The problem is that you're a retard. 
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 9, 2019 10:30:16 GMT
If you don't like the way things are done in your country, you can move to Iran. Or North Korea. Both countries where believers force their beliefs on other people, and where nonbelievers are persecuted. In other words: Exactly the opposite of what I want, and what I expressed on this thread. Have you been drinking again?
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 9, 2019 10:36:42 GMT
What is knowing everything though? Is that why you believe in God and JC, who is represented as a savior, because you want to know things?
He probably does.  Somebody this retarded ain't getting laid by anybody. He seems more of a creepy raping small dead animals type.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Mar 9, 2019 11:01:16 GMT
If you don't like the way things are done in your country, you can move to Iran. Or North Korea. Both countries where believers force their beliefs on other people, and where nonbelievers are persecuted. In other words: Exactly the opposite of what I want, and what I expressed on this thread. Have you been drinking again? Well that rather leaves you shit-out-of-luck, doesn't it? Yes, I've been drinking again. It's a legal substance, purchased legally, and I'm of legal age to buy it with the legal money that I earned from my legal employment.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 9, 2019 11:02:21 GMT
Why don't you go fuck yourself TC?
He probably does. Somebody this retarded ain't getting laid by anybody. He seems more of a creepy raping small dead animals type. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 9, 2019 12:42:21 GMT
He probably does. Somebody this retarded ain't getting laid by anybody. He seems more of a creepy raping small dead animals type.  Ya gotta love a good Community reference.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 9, 2019 14:20:41 GMT
Both countries where believers force their beliefs on other people, and where nonbelievers are persecuted. In other words: Exactly the opposite of what I want, and what I expressed on this thread. Have you been drinking again? Well that rather leaves you shit-out-of-luck, doesn't it? Not really, since I have no plans to move to Iran or North Korea. Yes, I've been drinking again. It's a legal substance, purchased legally, and I'm of legal age to buy it with the legal money that I earned from my legal employment. Yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 9, 2019 15:14:28 GMT
You are only citing one principle as you evoke Occam's Razor. There are others: There's the basic principle that "NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING"... Quantum physicists disagree. And I believe they know more about the natural world than Parmenides did. therefore the simplest answer is that everything had to be created... Including the creator. So who created the creator? Because of this endless recursion, the answer "everything had to be created" is not more simple. or put more eloquently: " In order for life to have appeared spontaneously on earth, there first had to be hundreds of millions of protein molecules of the ninth configuration. But given the size of the planet Earth, do you know how long it would have taken for just one of these protein molecules to appear entirely by chance? Roughly ten to the two hundred and forty-third power billions of years. And I find that far, far more fantastic than simply believing in God."
This quote contains plenty of unproven assumptions and strawmen. Of course, I am not expecting a military officer of questionable mental health to know much about physics.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 9, 2019 15:36:19 GMT
You are only citing one principle as you evoke Occam's Razor. There are others: There's the basic principle that "NOTHING COMES FROM NOTHING"... Quantum physicists disagree. And I believe they know more about the natural world than Parmenides did. therefore the simplest answer is that everything had to be created... Including the creator. So who created the creator? Because of this endless recursion, the answer "everything had to be created" is not more simple. I'm not saying that there is a Creator... just that it's the simplest answer. There's a reason why when the monkeys came out of their caves, they assumed that the rocks were made by somebody. You can't just say "Occam's Razor" and then start citing quantum physics and then breaking down the simplest of idioms. It's either Occam or advanced physics and theorems... You can't have both.
SPOILER ALERT!
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 9, 2019 16:22:47 GMT
phludowin And just as a follow up... 1) You can't really cite what quantum physicists "know" in reference to something being spontaneously created from nothing ... It's what they "speculate"... 2) We know that the physical universe is physical.. 3-dimensional space... therefore time.. Therefore it had to have a beginning. A Supreme Being said to be outside of the physical universe doesn't have the same laws of time that apply to the universe. He might not need to have a beginning... Therefore, wouldn't need to have a creation. Of course... I'm just speculating.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 9, 2019 18:34:55 GMT
phludowin And just as a follow up... 1) You can't really cite what quantum physicists "know" in reference to something being spontaneously created from nothing ... It's what they "speculate"... 2) We know that the physical universe is physical.. 3-dimensional space... therefore time.. Therefore it had to have a beginning. A Supreme Being said to be outside of the physical universe doesn't have the same laws of time that apply to the universe. He might not need to have a beginning... Therefore, wouldn't need to have a creation. Of course... I'm just speculating. Looks like he thought, "I know, I can dazzle and intimidate movieliker with physics." And then you (Vegas) came around and called him on his bullshit --- checkmate. Oh well, too bad for phludowin. |
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 9, 2019 19:30:42 GMT
1) You can't really cite what quantum physicists "know" in reference to something being spontaneously created from nothing ... It's what they "speculate"... Or more accurately, it depends on the definition of "nothing". Creationist and other anti-science snake-oil vendors like to twist the definition of words. "Nothing" in the physical sense is not the same as "nothing" in the philosophical sense. 2) We know that the physical universe is physical.. 3-dimensional space... therefore time.. So far, so good... Therefore it had to have a beginning. STOP! That is speculation. For all we know, the Universe could be eternal; and the current physical manifestation could be to the Universe what the Alps are to planet Earth. Of course, this is also speculation; but the Universe is known to exist. A Supreme Being said to be outside of the physical universe doesn't have the same laws of time that apply to the universe. He might not need to have a beginning... Therefore, wouldn't need to have a creation. And there's not a shred of evidence for it. Unlike for the Universe. Of course... I'm just speculating. Exactly. Scientists, when they speculate, speculate about existing stuff.
|
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Mar 9, 2019 19:34:52 GMT
I'm not saying that there is a Creator... just that it's the simplest answer. There's a reason why when the monkeys came out of their caves, they assumed that the rocks were made by somebody. You can't just say "Occam's Razor" and then start citing quantum physics and then breaking down the simplest of idioms. It's either Occam or advanced physics and theorems... You can't have both. Of course we can. "Simpler" in the sense of Occam's Razor means: Using less unproven assumptions. Therefore, a theory using explanations that only relies on stuff that has evidence for it, will always be "simpler" than a theory which uses some unknown "creator" for whose existence there is no evidence at all. So no, a "Creator" is not the simplest answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Mar 9, 2019 22:05:37 GMT
The problem is, you don't get it, so avoid answering the questions, due to your steadfast, inflexible and ludicrous belief. Dude... He's answered you. The problem is that you're a retard. The problem is, that the answers are retarded, just like you...... 
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 9, 2019 22:28:06 GMT
Dude... He's answered you. The problem is that you're a retard. The problem is, that the answers are retarded, just like you...... What? . . . Are you laughing at yourself? |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Mar 9, 2019 22:29:54 GMT
Not quite. Have you heard of Occam's Razor? The principle that you use as few unproven assumptions as possible when formulating a hypothesis? And when you have two concurring hypotheses, the simpler one is usually correct; simpler meaning: Using less unproven assumptions? God is an unproven assumption. Therefore, assuming nonexistance is the default position. Conclusion: According to Occam's Razor, it's not up to nonbelievers to prove that God does not exist; it's up to believers to prove that he/she/it does. As I said above: Saying that the burden of proof lies with believers, not nonbelievers, is not being hostile to believers. It's applying Occam's Razor. By the way, Occam was a Christian. That theory you quoted said, "the simpler one is USUALLY correct." Not always. Besides that has nothing to do with why believers choose to believe. I was using that comparison to show the illogicality of those who are hostile to believers. Not to show why either choice is equally logical. If you are going to believe in something that has no factual evidence or proof, of course others are going to deride you if you can't come up with some evidence that backs up the claim. It happens in court all the time, and due to logic, not illogicality.
|
|
