|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Mar 9, 2019 22:31:27 GMT
What? . . . Are you laughing at yourself? You have been laughed at and mocked throughout this entire thread. Vegas's input doesn't count, because he is just as much as a clown as you are and can't be taken seriously. 
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Mar 9, 2019 22:33:55 GMT
Can't we all just get along...  So is this an Irish Bar, a Colored Bar, a Jewish Bar or a Gay Bar? 
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 9, 2019 22:36:34 GMT
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.
Neither side of the argument has any factual proof or evidence moron. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Mar 9, 2019 22:37:53 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. It is for a simpleton like Vegas.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 9, 2019 22:38:21 GMT
What? . . . Are you laughing at yourself? You have been laughed at and mocked throughout this entire thread. Vegas's input doesn't count, because he is just as much as a clown as you are and can't be taken seriously. It would be best if you changed your name from Toasted Cheese to Braying Jackass. That would be more realistic and descriptive. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Mar 9, 2019 22:39:57 GMT
You have been laughed at and mocked throughout this entire thread. Vegas's input doesn't count, because he is just as much as a clown as you are and can't be taken seriously. It would be best if you changed your name from Toasted Cheese to Braying Jackass. That would be more realistic and descriptive. Don't you like being brayed at? Must be because you have been owned.
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 9, 2019 22:42:15 GMT
It would be best if you changed your name from Toasted Cheese to Braying Jackass. That would be more realistic and descriptive. Don't you like being brayed at? Must be because you have been owned.
Thanks for your picture. That should be your avatar. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Mar 9, 2019 22:44:23 GMT
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.
Neither side of the argument has any factual proof of evidence moron. If you wish to cite a belief as being factual, you MUST come up with evidence to prove that belief\assumption, unless you want to be a seen as a moron. Or perhaps your belief doesn't really exist then, and that is my whole point.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Mar 9, 2019 22:45:09 GMT
Don't you like being brayed at? Must be because you have been owned.
Thanks for your picture. That should be your avatar. It might intimidate you too much, due to you seeing yourself getting laughed at all the time.
Talking about avatars, is there a reason why you haven't chosen one?
|
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 9, 2019 23:24:13 GMT
Neither side of the argument has any factual proof of evidence moron. If you wish to cite a belief as being factual, you MUST come up with evidence to prove that belief\assumption, unless you want to be a seen as a moron. Or perhaps your belief doesn't really exist then, and that is my whole point. Believers don't have to prove anything to anybody. It's a personal choice. |
|
|
|
Post by movieliker on Mar 9, 2019 23:25:00 GMT
Thanks for your picture. That should be your avatar. It might intimidate you too much, due to you seeing yourself getting laughed at all the time.
Talking about avatars, is there a reason why you haven't chosen one?
I'm 60 years old. I don't have time for that foolishness. |
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Mar 10, 2019 0:22:31 GMT
It might intimidate you too much, due to you seeing yourself getting laughed at all the time.
Talking about avatars, is there a reason why you haven't chosen one?
I'm 60 years old. I don't have time for that foolishness. An avatar can give other posters an instant recognition and also express something about themselves, as in Vegas and his monkey ass stink finger. As for you, you are just a bitter curmudgeon by the sound of it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Toasted Cheese on Mar 10, 2019 0:24:29 GMT
If you wish to cite a belief as being factual, you MUST come up with evidence to prove that belief\assumption, unless you want to be a seen as a moron. Or perhaps your belief doesn't really exist then, and that is my whole point. Believers don't have to prove anything to anybody. It's a personal choice. But don't expect others to acknowledge your belief, when you express it on a RFS board and then go into denial when you get called out upon it.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 10, 2019 1:18:02 GMT
Then... Stop saying that he didn't answer you, stupid... And, once again... again... You're comeback is just restating my insult to you. You really do suck at this.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 10, 2019 1:21:10 GMT
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.It is for a simpleton like Vegas. Once again... I don't believe in a Creator... You really are just a dipshit.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 10, 2019 1:38:03 GMT
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. Do you not see how you're twisting your own meaning to suit your own belief system? " Using less unproven assumptions" relates more to " using some unknown 'creator' for whose existence there is no evidence for" a helluva lot more than " a theory only relies on stuff that has evidence for it". Saying that there is more evidence for an accidental universe is different that saying that it's the simplest of answers... Once again, there's a reason that the first thing people did was to assume that the universe had a Creator... It's the simplest of answers. And, as others have already pointed out: There really isn't that much more "stuff that has evidence for it" that actually applies to a self-creating universe than simply saying "God did it".
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 10, 2019 1:48:46 GMT
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.Do you not see how you're twisting your own meaning to suit your own belief system? " Using less unproven assumptions" relates more to " using some unknown 'creator' for whose existence there is no evidence for" a helluva lot more than " a theory only relies on stuff that has evidence for it". Saying that there is more evidence for an accidental universe is different that saying that it's the simplest of answers... Once again, there's a reason that the first thing people did was to assume that the universe had a Creator... It's the simplest of answers. And, as others have already pointed out: There really isn't that much more "stuff that has evidence for it" that actually applies to a self-creating universe than simply saying "God did it". With respect, you are missing the whole point of Occam's Razor here about the simplicity of a question and an answer. The proposition, that there was a Creator is NOT the simplest BECAUSE it raises more questions than it answers ie who created the Creator, when why who how etc etc etc. The simplest answer to the question is the negative one of no creator due to lack of evidence. Since there is no evidence to refute then it is the simplest answer.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 10, 2019 2:06:54 GMT
Do you not see how you're twisting your own meaning to suit your own belief system? " Using less unproven assumptions" relates more to " using some unknown 'creator' for whose existence there is no evidence for" a helluva lot more than " a theory only relies on stuff that has evidence for it". Saying that there is more evidence for an accidental universe is different that saying that it's the simplest of answers... Once again, there's a reason that the first thing people did was to assume that the universe had a Creator... It's the simplest of answers. And, as others have already pointed out: There really isn't that much more "stuff that has evidence for it" that actually applies to a self-creating universe than simply saying "God did it". With respect, you are missing the whole point of Occam's Razor here about the simplicity of a question and an answer. The proposition, that there was a Creator is NOT the simplest BECAUSE it raises more questions than it answers ie who created the Creator, when why who how etc etc etc. The simplest answer to the question is the negative one of no creator due to lack of evidence. Since there is no evidence to refute then it is the simplest answer. I get saying "It's easier to believe something that there is more evidence for"... that's how most things work. But, in all honesty belief in God doesn't raise more questions than not... It's the not that has to be answered. "God did it" is it's own answer. And, just to be clear that you actually know what you're talking about: What is the evidence that the universe came into existence by accident?  And: What is your evidence to refute God?
|
|
|
|
Post by goz on Mar 10, 2019 3:06:19 GMT
With respect, you are missing the whole point of Occam's Razor here about the simplicity of a question and an answer. The proposition, that there was a Creator is NOT the simplest BECAUSE it raises more questions than it answers ie who created the Creator, when why who how etc etc etc. The simplest answer to the question is the negative one of no creator due to lack of evidence. Since there is no evidence to refute then it is the simplest answer. I get saying "It's easier to believe something that there is more evidence for"... that's how most things work. But, in all honesty belief in God doesn't raise more questions than not... It's the not that has to be answered. "God did it" is it's own answer. And, just to be clear that you actually know what you're talking about: What is the evidence that the universe came into existence by accident? And: What is your evidence to refute God?
Exactly and there is ABSOLUTELY none for either God or a Creator. Yes, it does. The ones I raised in my last post. AGAIN no, the answer 'God did it' raises more question than the opposite, again the ones pointed out in my last post (who created God, who or what is God how why and when did he create etc etc etc. In terms of the exquisite simplicity of the nonbelief Occam's Razor proposition None. No-one (least of all me)ever claimed it was an 'accident' However the fact is that it is in existence. It came about due to natural forces and these (now called evolutionary forces in the terms of newly emerging biological life forms), has been happening ever since and continues. I don't think you have thought this through and are understanding the concepts. No evidence is required, hence it is the simplest proposition rather than formulating all that other shit around the concept of God and its problematic corollaries
|
|
|
|
Post by Vegas on Mar 10, 2019 3:34:56 GMT
Exactly and there is ABSOLUTELY none for either God or a Creator.
I agree.. There is none... At least, none that I see. Asking "Who created God?" is no more of a question than "How the hell did this universe get here?"... It's just the same question with a different target. I hate having to explain shit that you should already know what is meant. "Accident" and "natural forces" pretty much has the same intent... Not actually having a Creator. And those "evolutionary forces" don't explain or prove how a Creatorless universe came to be in existence. Technically... You're not thinking this through: If "there is no evidence to refute then it's the simplest answer"... Then you not having evidence to refute God then by the same virtue: His existence is the simplest answer. Saying "The universe obviously exists therefore it obviously exists without being created" isn't any simpler than saying that since it exists it obviously must have been created... It's just a different take that has the same amount of evidence: Practically none. It's the Creationist side that claims that you don't need evidence...while you claim the lack of evidence as proof of yours. You just saying "I AM RIGHT: We don't need evidence for the one... and the lack of evidence for the other disproves it" is just you picking which ever side that you want to be the one that doesn't require evidence.
|
|
