does cosmic imperfection prove god doesnt exist?

So what’s the point then?
Of what? Why does the universe owe you a "purpose"?


Why would the universe owe me anything?
Thats what I asked you! So why are you looking for a "point"?


Just asking if there is one. So sub atomic particles blast around and we are made of stardust. What’s the point of debating that or even caring ? It’s spring. Weather is mostly nice.
Haha, gotcha.


Okay.
 
You are talking about religion, not a creator. You reject other people’s perception of God.

I’m not lashing out. I am telling you that you are making a ridiculous argument. To argue there is the same level of evidence for unicorns and a creator is illogical.
You'll have to point out how it's fallacious in order to call it illogical - but it's internally consistent. I've not seen anyone meet the burden of proof of their preferred deity, and I've not seen anyone meet the burden of proof of a Unicorn, and so I consider the propositions, in terms of their truth value, the same.

You can lash out and throw tantrums and call it illogical all you'd like, but you're not going to JUSTIFY those conclusions because you'd be attempting to appeal to what ANOTHER agent considers adequate proof to believe a proposition, which is absurd unless you're omniscient.
What is your standard for burden of proof for a multi-dimensional being which exists outside of space and time?

Why can't we use what he created as evidence?
You can use whatever you want as evidence - you merely can't force that it compels anyone of anything. It merely informs you that your standards are vastly different than some other folks' standards.
So in other words you can’t even state what your standard is for the burden of proof you will accept.
There is no "in other words," because you're always wrong when you try to interpret anything.

There's no "standard," singular, there are "standards," plural - and that's because different propositions require different levels of evidence. Is that not evident, to you?
You can’t even say what evidence you would accept.
 
Still waiting for that compelling argument for unicorns. Anyone?
I've seen compelling arguments for neither -

And personally, I've always thought you were the biggest, not maybe second/maybe third, dipshit on the Religion forum. That's including danielpalos, who only posts about boobyfarts...and mindful, who only makes drive-by dumb-blonde commentary and neener-neener crap like a teeny-bopper...

& That analysis not due to anything shy of reading your dumbass arguments full of fallacies, lack of critical thought, mis-understanding of nuance and then arrogance to boot - - - previously addressing how each idea is inept, addressing how much of what you say has been formally debunked lo0o0o0ong ago and you're using aged philosophical arguments, pointing out that since they've been adequately debunked in a formal, academic setting and you continue using them...like the moral argument, like the cosmological argument, etc.....& you pretend as though they've not been addressed... is just more evidence for you that you've got a terrible confirmation bias....all this - and the fact that many, many posters that have an i.q. above the air temperature have addressed them adequately as well --

You are the LAST person that could compel me, with an argument.

If you post more then 4 sentences, I don't even read your posts...it's too chock fulla dumb shit.
I just showed you an argument for the existence of God. You can’t make any argument for unicorns, compelling or otherwise.
No, you posted a wall of text that I didn't look at because you're, in my evaluation, not smart enough to engage in walls of text any longer.

You already knew/know that I thought that - so it shouldn't be news.
Cool story.
 
Or it could be that God is seeking certain outcomes under certain conditions.

So he'll only eliminate suffering when it suits him? Then he's not omnibenevolent.

There’s not much virtue in being forced to be virtuous.

So he can't achieve virtuous humans without forcing them? Then he's not omnipotent.

Yeah, I think you missed the point on that last one. Pretty sure ding was saying He wants us to choose to be virtuous, not that we won't be virtuous without being forced. The actual point of this entire exercise (human history) is to "achieve virtuous humans without force".

Actually, you missed the point. If god is omnipotent then he would be 100% capable of making humans choose to be virtuous, all without violating our free will. Ding is attempting to explain away the tri-omni problem, but all he's doing is affirming it.
And pray tell, why would God do that? Why would God force you to be virtuous? Why would God make it so that your existence was devoid of suffering?

Is it because that is what you would do?

Atheists always leap to the conclusion that when the universe fails to conform to their expectations, that means there's a flaw in the universe, rather than a flaw in their expectations.
Not all of them. There are plenty of atheists who have no need to validate their beliefs by criticizing the beliefs of others.
 
You'll have to point out how it's fallacious in order to call it illogical - but it's internally consistent. I've not seen anyone meet the burden of proof of their preferred deity, and I've not seen anyone meet the burden of proof of a Unicorn, and so I consider the propositions, in terms of their truth value, the same.

You can lash out and throw tantrums and call it illogical all you'd like, but you're not going to JUSTIFY those conclusions because you'd be attempting to appeal to what ANOTHER agent considers adequate proof to believe a proposition, which is absurd unless you're omniscient.
What is your standard for burden of proof for a multi-dimensional being which exists outside of space and time?

Why can't we use what he created as evidence?
You can use whatever you want as evidence - you merely can't force that it compels anyone of anything. It merely informs you that your standards are vastly different than some other folks' standards.
So in other words you can’t even state what your standard is for the burden of proof you will accept.
There is no "in other words," because you're always wrong when you try to interpret anything.

There's no "standard," singular, there are "standards," plural - and that's because different propositions require different levels of evidence. Is that not evident, to you?
You can’t even say what evidence you would accept.
Of course I could! And have. Guess youll have to google it if you care that much because I treat you how you deserve, ding.
 
I don’t believe happiness would have any meaning without sadness.

So you don't believe god has the power to give happiness meaning in a way that requires sadness? Fair enough. But that means that god isn't omnipotent.
I would say willing space and time into existence from nothing is a pretty good sign of being all powerful.

Exactly what is your perception of God?
 
What is your standard for burden of proof for a multi-dimensional being which exists outside of space and time?

Why can't we use what he created as evidence?
You can use whatever you want as evidence - you merely can't force that it compels anyone of anything. It merely informs you that your standards are vastly different than some other folks' standards.
So in other words you can’t even state what your standard is for the burden of proof you will accept.
There is no "in other words," because you're always wrong when you try to interpret anything.

There's no "standard," singular, there are "standards," plural - and that's because different propositions require different levels of evidence. Is that not evident, to you?
You can’t even say what evidence you would accept.
Of course I could! And have. Guess youll have to google it if you care that much because I treat you how you deserve, ding.
Who are you trying to convince, GT?
 
You can use whatever you want as evidence - you merely can't force that it compels anyone of anything. It merely informs you that your standards are vastly different than some other folks' standards.
So in other words you can’t even state what your standard is for the burden of proof you will accept.
There is no "in other words," because you're always wrong when you try to interpret anything.

There's no "standard," singular, there are "standards," plural - and that's because different propositions require different levels of evidence. Is that not evident, to you?
You can’t even say what evidence you would accept.
Of course I could! And have. Guess youll have to google it if you care that much because I treat you how you deserve, ding.
Who are you trying to convince, GT?
I'm merely informing you - I couldnt give 5 fucks to convince you of anything because I think you're insufferably incapable, you have an axe to grind, you have confirmation bias, you make horrifically inept arguments and overall you act like a twat.

Just now you mocked atheists for "attacking beliefs," meanwhile you sit your ass on the very same internet in the very same arguments over whose beliefs are correct.

Picture someone with that level of short-sighted, short bussed hypocrisy and times it by 45 and that is you. Thats my opinion anyhoo. It explains that I dont consider you in any position to ask me any questions ~ thats out of politeness.

LOL!
 
And pray tell, why would God do that? Why would God force you to be virtuous? Why would God make it so that your existence was devoid of suffering?

If god is omnibenevolent, then he would tolerate neither evil nor suffering that is in his ability to change.
So you want God to perform some magic for you?

Or is it that you believe God should have created a world with no suffering or disappointments?

You want everyone to behave and think the same things? To be drones so to speak? Is that your idea of utopia? No disagreements? No sadness? No suffering? And unless those conditions are met there can be no creator or the creator can’t be benevolent?
 
So in other words you can’t even state what your standard is for the burden of proof you will accept.
There is no "in other words," because you're always wrong when you try to interpret anything.

There's no "standard," singular, there are "standards," plural - and that's because different propositions require different levels of evidence. Is that not evident, to you?
You can’t even say what evidence you would accept.
Of course I could! And have. Guess youll have to google it if you care that much because I treat you how you deserve, ding.
Who are you trying to convince, GT?
I'm merely informing you - I couldnt give 5 fucks to convince you of anything because I think you're insufferably incapable, you have an axe to grind, you have confirmation bias, you make horrifically inept arguments and overall you act like a twat.

Just now you mocked atheists for "attacking beliefs," meanwhile you sit your ass on the very same internet in the very same arguments over whose beliefs are correct.

Picture someone with that level of short-sighted, short bussed hypocrisy and times it by 45 and that is you. Thats my opinion anyhoo. It explains that I dont consider you in any position to ask me any questions ~ thats out of politeness.

LOL!
I didn’t ask you to convince me of anything. I only asked you what evidence you would accept.
 
There is no "in other words," because you're always wrong when you try to interpret anything.

There's no "standard," singular, there are "standards," plural - and that's because different propositions require different levels of evidence. Is that not evident, to you?
You can’t even say what evidence you would accept.
Of course I could! And have. Guess youll have to google it if you care that much because I treat you how you deserve, ding.
Who are you trying to convince, GT?
I'm merely informing you - I couldnt give 5 fucks to convince you of anything because I think you're insufferably incapable, you have an axe to grind, you have confirmation bias, you make horrifically inept arguments and overall you act like a twat.

Just now you mocked atheists for "attacking beliefs," meanwhile you sit your ass on the very same internet in the very same arguments over whose beliefs are correct.

Picture someone with that level of short-sighted, short bussed hypocrisy and times it by 45 and that is you. Thats my opinion anyhoo. It explains that I dont consider you in any position to ask me any questions ~ thats out of politeness.

LOL!
I didn’t ask you to convince me of anything. I only asked you what evidence you would accept.
Correct - and I didn't oblige you. Perhaps the 876th time I tell you this and then for whatever the fuck reason you again engage me in discussions later down the road - you might catch the drift.

I dont like ya. Your internet persona, anyhow, and also think youre dumb. Skipping niceties was to save you time in the future - but fuck!
 
You can’t even say what evidence you would accept.
Of course I could! And have. Guess youll have to google it if you care that much because I treat you how you deserve, ding.
Who are you trying to convince, GT?
I'm merely informing you - I couldnt give 5 fucks to convince you of anything because I think you're insufferably incapable, you have an axe to grind, you have confirmation bias, you make horrifically inept arguments and overall you act like a twat.

Just now you mocked atheists for "attacking beliefs," meanwhile you sit your ass on the very same internet in the very same arguments over whose beliefs are correct.

Picture someone with that level of short-sighted, short bussed hypocrisy and times it by 45 and that is you. Thats my opinion anyhoo. It explains that I dont consider you in any position to ask me any questions ~ thats out of politeness.

LOL!
I didn’t ask you to convince me of anything. I only asked you what evidence you would accept.
Correct - and I didn't oblige you. Perhaps the 876th time I tell you this and then for whatever the fuck reason you again engage me in discussions later down the road - you might catch the drift.

I dont like ya. Your internet persona, anyhow, and also think youre dumb. Skipping niceties was to save you time in the future - but fuck!
And yet here you are conversing with me.
 
Of course I could! And have. Guess youll have to google it if you care that much because I treat you how you deserve, ding.
Who are you trying to convince, GT?
I'm merely informing you - I couldnt give 5 fucks to convince you of anything because I think you're insufferably incapable, you have an axe to grind, you have confirmation bias, you make horrifically inept arguments and overall you act like a twat.

Just now you mocked atheists for "attacking beliefs," meanwhile you sit your ass on the very same internet in the very same arguments over whose beliefs are correct.

Picture someone with that level of short-sighted, short bussed hypocrisy and times it by 45 and that is you. Thats my opinion anyhoo. It explains that I dont consider you in any position to ask me any questions ~ thats out of politeness.

LOL!
I didn’t ask you to convince me of anything. I only asked you what evidence you would accept.
Correct - and I didn't oblige you. Perhaps the 876th time I tell you this and then for whatever the fuck reason you again engage me in discussions later down the road - you might catch the drift.

I dont like ya. Your internet persona, anyhow, and also think youre dumb. Skipping niceties was to save you time in the future - but fuck!
And yet here you are conversing with me.
I respond to posts that are directed towards me. if you dictated when I did and didn't do that, youd be the 1st.
 
Last edited:
Who are you trying to convince, GT?
I'm merely informing you - I couldnt give 5 fucks to convince you of anything because I think you're insufferably incapable, you have an axe to grind, you have confirmation bias, you make horrifically inept arguments and overall you act like a twat.

Just now you mocked atheists for "attacking beliefs," meanwhile you sit your ass on the very same internet in the very same arguments over whose beliefs are correct.

Picture someone with that level of short-sighted, short bussed hypocrisy and times it by 45 and that is you. Thats my opinion anyhoo. It explains that I dont consider you in any position to ask me any questions ~ thats out of politeness.

LOL!
I didn’t ask you to convince me of anything. I only asked you what evidence you would accept.
Correct - and I didn't oblige you. Perhaps the 876th time I tell you this and then for whatever the fuck reason you again engage me in discussions later down the road - you might catch the drift.

I dont like ya. Your internet persona, anyhow, and also think youre dumb. Skipping niceties was to save you time in the future - but fuck!
And yet here you are conversing with me.
I respond to posts that are directed towards me. Of you dictated when I did and didn't do that, youd be the 1st.
Uh huh. Cool story.
 
I don’t believe happiness would have any meaning without sadness.

So you don't believe god has the power to give happiness meaning in a way that requires sadness? Fair enough. But that means that god isn't omnipotent.
I would say willing space and time into existence from nothing is a pretty good sign of being all powerful.

Exactly what is your perception of God?

What a ridiculous red herring! :lol:
 
I don’t believe happiness would have any meaning without sadness.

So you don't believe god has the power to give happiness meaning in a way that requires sadness? Fair enough. But that means that god isn't omnipotent.
I would say willing space and time into existence from nothing is a pretty good sign of being all powerful.

Exactly what is your perception of God?

What a ridiculous red herring! :lol:
Nope. Your lack of a rational perception of God is a red herring. Your red herring.
 
We were made in the image of thy Father, so there is your answer...

Wondered when you'd show up. lol.

It is about the word that people sometimes describe me...

Oh, wait this is not about Lucifer but the other guy...

Is God Perfect?

No, and to say he, she or gender confused is all I need to point to it children and how we are in it image and do not blame me for what dad did...

lol.

I don't know what it's about any more. I blame TN.

He thinks he's Zeus.
Not the first time i been called that hehe

Oh? So it was you in that Danae painting?

I might have known.

Well God, damn and TN have been used in the sentence many times since his creation which is how I know thy father is not perfect but has one hell of a sense of a humor...
 
Wondered when you'd show up. lol.

It is about the word that people sometimes describe me...

Oh, wait this is not about Lucifer but the other guy...

Is God Perfect?

No, and to say he, she or gender confused is all I need to point to it children and how we are in it image and do not blame me for what dad did...

lol.

I don't know what it's about any more. I blame TN.

He thinks he's Zeus.
Not the first time i been called that hehe

Oh? So it was you in that Danae painting?

I might have known.

Well God, damn and TN have been used in the sentence many times since his creation which is how I know thy father is not perfect but has one hell of a sense of a humor...

He certainly has.:badgrin:
 
So he'll only eliminate suffering when it suits him? Then he's not omnibenevolent.

So he can't achieve virtuous humans without forcing them? Then he's not omnipotent.

Yeah, I think you missed the point on that last one. Pretty sure ding was saying He wants us to choose to be virtuous, not that we won't be virtuous without being forced. The actual point of this entire exercise (human history) is to "achieve virtuous humans without force".

Actually, you missed the point. If god is omnipotent then he would be 100% capable of making humans choose to be virtuous, all without violating our free will. Ding is attempting to explain away the tri-omni problem, but all he's doing is affirming it.
And pray tell, why would God do that? Why would God force you to be virtuous? Why would God make it so that your existence was devoid of suffering?

Is it because that is what you would do?

Atheists always leap to the conclusion that when the universe fails to conform to their expectations, that means there's a flaw in the universe, rather than a flaw in their expectations.
Not all of them. There are plenty of atheists who have no need to validate their beliefs by criticizing the beliefs of others.

Which isn't the same as saying they don't all make the same logical fallacy of assuming that their personal preferences define good and evil, perfect and imperfect. It just means that some of them don't feel the need to get into other people's faces with that assumption.

Honestly, it's not just atheists. It seems to be a common human reaction. Stepping outside of yourself and looking at the bigger picture tends to be hard for most people.
 

Forum List

Back
Top