The Devil’s Delusion

[koshergrl]

No, they certainly don't need me to tell them, your obnoxious poofery is up there for everyone to see.

 

[FurthurBB]

I wish I could somehow communicate to you how incredibly idiotic you come across.

But since it's impossible to break through your bubble of pseudo-intellectualism, I'll just enjoy the laugh.

Considering how I've proven you to be an unambiguously stupid and intellectually dishonest retard; and since I have exposed your impenetrable bubble of anti-reason, none of your judgments on any subject have any meaning to any rational person.

Really, no one cares about your disingenuous opinion, informed by your broken self-esteem, regarding how I come across.

I actually wonder if profile pictures with attractive women are a good indicator for the low level of understanding that you can expect from a post. I actually feel for koshergirl, but think the OP might be worse because they actually think they have some kind of superior intelligence.

 

[koshergrl]

Lol.

I say we get Loki to dish on how many newspapers have rejected unsolicited ramblings from him. C'mon Loki. I guess the rejection stack is about 2 feet high. And I'll bet you believe every one of those indicates a lack of intelligence on THEIR part.

 

[LOki]

You've summed it up succinctly...many are afraid to admit to belief, as they see that attitude as harder to defend than puffing out their chests and claiming to stand with 'science'...

...even though, when pressed, they can't show why is it 'superior.'
Even though so many scientists are believers.

According to Loki, Einstein must have believed that 'step on a crack, break your mother's back.'
It is the fad of the age in which we live.

What we have here folks is yet another example of the intellectual dishonesty of superstitious retards; predictably applying misinforming rationalized non-sequiturs in the vain hope of refuting the intellectually and morally superior points that establish the intellectual and moral invalidity of faith.

This is what I wrote to Koshergrl: "... afraid to admit to belief, as they see that attitude as harder to defend than puffing out their chests and claiming to stand with 'science'..."

And right on cue...here you come to prove it!

1. Note how you cover up insecurity with this fake angry tone: "...superstitious retards..."

Nothing "fake" or "angry about my tone. There is no insecurity at all in my use of precise and accurate terminology.

2. And how you inject the term 'intellectual,' as often as you can...to pretend that this is the mountain top on which you stand...
...from post #72: "...intellectual dishonesty..."

...and here it is again, same source: "the intellectually and morally superior points..."

...OMG...again! Same post: "...the intellectual and moral invalidity of faith..."

...and in your next post: "...lack of intellectual integrity..."

An intellectual would probably be more articulate, no?

If by "articulate" you mean express, formulate, or present with clarity and effectiveness; or make clear, distinct, and precise in relation to other parts, then I'd say no, I probably could not be more articulate.

3. I believe that Shakespeare had you pegged: 'The lady doth protest too much, methinks.' Seems you have a lot in common with that lady, eh?

4. Here is the meaning of 'intellectual:' Given to activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect.

It seems that you are deathly afraid that folks may think you are less than an intellectual...so you feel the need to conspicuously inscribe and display it on your chest over and over...in the hope, I suppose, that it sticks to you.
Pathetic.

Nope. But considering that faith is belief that is not based on any pursuit that requires any exercise of the intellect, it is clear that just like so many of your superstitious fellows, you suffer from pathological projection.

5. Now, I'm not certain whether or not you are an intellectual...but you haven't shown that characteristic as yet...although your writing isn't bad.

I'll give you a chance to mull that over...and show you an actual intellectual discussing the question at hand.

Loki has delusions of intellectualism. He's NOT an intellectual and his writing is garbage. He needs a BRUTAL editor. Maybe then he'd be forced to inject some substance into his tripe.

Let me point out to you and all your fellows are the ones introducing the label of intellectual to me and my posting. If your certainties about my intellectuality do not require the application of valid logic to verifiable evidence, or if they require the denial of valid logic and verifiable evidence to validate them, then your certainty whether or not I am an "intellectual" is just meaningless.

In any case, the manner of your use of term is entirely pointless, as it fails to refute or affirm any point made.

 

[PoliticalChic]

What we have here folks is yet another example of the intellectual dishonesty of superstitious retards; predictably applying misinforming rationalized non-sequiturs in the vain hope of refuting the intellectually and morally superior points that establish the intellectual and moral invalidity of faith.

This is what I wrote to Koshergrl: "... afraid to admit to belief, as they see that attitude as harder to defend than puffing out their chests and claiming to stand with 'science'..."

And right on cue...here you come to prove it!

1. Note how you cover up insecurity with this fake angry tone: "...superstitious retards..."

Nothing "fake" or "angry about my tone. There is no insecurity at all in my use of precise and accurate terminology.

If by "articulate" you mean express, formulate, or present with clarity and effectiveness; or make clear, distinct, and precise in relation to other parts, then I'd say no,
Nope. But considering that faith is belief that is not based on any pursuit that requires any exercise of the intellect, it is clear that just like so many of your superstitious fellows, you suffer from pathological projection.

5. Now, I'm not certain whether or not you are an intellectual...but you haven't shown that characteristic as yet...although your writing isn't bad.

I'll give you a chance to mull that over...and show you an actual intellectual discussing the question at hand.

Loki has delusions of intellectualism. He's NOT an intellectual and his writing is garbage. He needs a BRUTAL editor. Maybe then he'd be forced to inject some substance into his tripe.

Let me point out to you and all your fellows are the ones introducing the label of intellectual to me and my posting. If your certainties about my intellectuality do not require the application of valid logic to verifiable evidence, or if they require the denial of valid logic and verifiable evidence to validate them, then your certainty whether or not I am an "intellectual" is just meaningless.

In any case, the manner of your use of term is entirely pointless, as it fails to refute or affirm any point made.

1. "But considering that faith is belief that is not based on any pursuit that requires any exercise of the intellect,..."
Post # 78 certainly destroys that assertion.

2. "If by "articulate" you mean..."
I mean the transparent repetition of the term 'intellectual.'
I guess you were afraid folks would miss your claim to same.
But...your posts obviate any such claim.

3. " I probably could not be more articulate."
Yup...that seems to be the case.

4. "...you and all your fellows are the ones introducing the label of intellectual to me and my posting."
Not true.

5. With reference to 'retards'..."my use of precise and accurate terminology."
There is no one on this board who is retarded, so you evince by that usage some fear of your opponents by mislabelling them so.

6. In this thread I have shown a number of statements by scientists who are religious...which defeats any point you may have thought you made, and, also, the flaccid attacks by atheists scientists.

You, on the other hand, have posted sophomoric 'is not, is not' posts.
Now, as for the assumed insults of your opponents, an insult is effective only if it comes from one who is respected....
....that flattens your.

I was hoping for a higher level rebuttal...but that will have to wait for a higher level of opponent.

7. The point of the thread remains, there is no reason for the scientific and the theological to be at odds.

 

[LOki]

And Loki again obfuscates using a long string of words that, per usual, mean nothing.

And koshergrl once again asserts her own stupidity and lack of intellectual integrity as the inadequacy of others.

OK-ey, Loki...
...I couldn't resist.

Here is a real intellectual, Thomas Aquinas, considering the question of the existence of God.

1. In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.” http://www.braungardt.com/Theology/Proofs of God/thomas_aquinas.htm

a. He then goes on to counter the argument. In question 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.

Had note that you exhibit some lack of desire for activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect, otherwise you might have brought your understanding of Aquinas' argument in your words.

Maybe you can fix your link:

Not Found
The requested URL /Theology/Proofs of God/thomas_aquinas.htm was not found on this server.

Additionally, a 404 Not Found error was encountered while trying to use an ErrorDocument to handle the request.

Until the specific point you are actually making using Aquinas is clear, I'll just give you one critique: One logical fallacy in Aquinas' arguments is Special Pleading. If he can say that God has no efficient cause, I can say that the Universe has no efficient cause; and I will enjoy the benefit of not having to fabricate the universe and all of its attributes from imagination, the way Aquinas is obligated to fabricate from imagination God and all of His attributes.

2. Both Evolutionary Scientist Richard Dawkins and physicist Victor Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
Would you care to?

Perhaps if I had to, I would.

BTW...neither men call their opponents 'retards.'
But, they are intellectuals.

That's probably because their opponents aren't retards, and you're not Aquinas. But there is no argument regarding the faith that you and Aquinas share results in superstition, and superstition only.

Unless you'd care to argue this is not so.

 

[LOki]

Lol.

I say we get Loki to dish on how many newspapers have rejected unsolicited ramblings from him. C'mon Loki. I guess the rejection stack is about 2 feet high. And I'll bet you believe every one of those indicates a lack of intelligence on THEIR part.

Literally everything I've submitted for publication in newspapers and periodicals has been accepted for its obvious value and happily published. Nothing I've ever submitted has been rejected.

How about them apples?

 

[LOki]

This is what I wrote to Koshergrl: "... afraid to admit to belief, as they see that attitude as harder to defend than puffing out their chests and claiming to stand with 'science'..."

And right on cue...here you come to prove it!

1. Note how you cover up insecurity with this fake angry tone: "...superstitious retards..."

Nothing "fake" or "angry about my tone. There is no insecurity at all in my use of precise and accurate terminology.

If by "articulate" you mean express, formulate, or present with clarity and effectiveness; or make clear, distinct, and precise in relation to other parts, then I'd say no,
Nope. But considering that faith is belief that is not based on any pursuit that requires any exercise of the intellect, it is clear that just like so many of your superstitious fellows, you suffer from pathological projection.

Loki has delusions of intellectualism. He's NOT an intellectual and his writing is garbage. He needs a BRUTAL editor. Maybe then he'd be forced to inject some substance into his tripe.

Let me point out to you and all your fellows are the ones introducing the label of intellectual to me and my posting. If your certainties about my intellectuality do not require the application of valid logic to verifiable evidence, or if they require the denial of valid logic and verifiable evidence to validate them, then your certainty whether or not I am an "intellectual" is just meaningless.

In any case, the manner of your use of term is entirely pointless, as it fails to refute or affirm any point made.

1. "But considering that faith is belief that is not based on any pursuit that requires any exercise of the intellect,..."
Post # 78 certainly destroys that assertion.

Post #78 does no such thing.

I note you made no effort at all to demonstrate how "Post # 78 certainly destroys" the assertion that "faith is belief that is not based on any pursuit that requires any exercise of the intellect."

Faith is simply claiming the conviction of certainty in the of the reality of some thing for which no support in evidence, or valid logic, has been established, and then validating that conviction of certainty through the denial of contrary evidence and valid logic; the obtuse strength of such denial is the "validating" quality of faith.

The pretense of defending faith for the purposes of supporting the illusion of its intellectual validity may require the exercise of the intellect, but having and holding to faith does not, and never has.

2. "If by "articulate" you mean..."
I mean the transparent repetition of the term 'intellectual.'
I guess you were afraid folks would miss your claim to same.
But...your posts obviate any such claim.

Perhaps then you should invest in a dictionary ... or just refer to the very adequate ones available on the internet.

3. " I probably could not be more articulate."
Yup...that seems to be the case.

I'm glad we agree.

Now perhaps you can explain the problem you have with how I express, formulate, or present my points with clarity and effectiveness; or making them clear, distinct, and precise in relation to other parts of my posts.

4. "...you and all your fellows are the ones introducing the label of intellectual to me and my posting."
Not true.

This is entirely true. You and koshergrl are the ones who are desperately trying discredit my arguments from a claim to being an intellectual; but first you have to assert that I consider myself an intellectual making such arguments.

Your retarded tactics are transparent.

5. With reference to 'retards'..."my use of precise and accurate terminology."
There is no one on this board who is retarded, so you evince by that usage some fear of your opponents by mislabelling them so.

Oh, you're certainly wrong there. There are plenty of retards on this board. They may not be retarded in every aspect and facet of their lives, but they're retarded none-the-less. Anyone on this board who asserts the validity of superstition over valid reasoning is certainly retarded--superstitious retards, if you will--and deserving of the label.

6. In this thread I have shown a number of statements by scientists who are religious...which defeats any point you may have thought you made, and, also, the flaccid attacks by atheists scientists.

No. you have failed to post any statements by any scientists that defends the validity of superstition over science and/or valid reasoning. Not even one.

You, on the other hand, have posted sophomoric 'is not, is not' posts.
Now, as for the assumed insults of your opponents, an insult is effective only if it comes from one who is respected....
....that flattens your.

I was hoping for a higher level rebuttal...but that will have to wait for a higher level of opponent.

Don't flatter yourself.

7. The point of the thread remains, there is no reason for the scientific and the theological to be at odds.

The reason for the scientific and the theological to be at odds is that the scientific community doesn't consider faith to be a valid source of conclusions, and as such doesn't concern itself with superstition.

 

[PoliticalChic]

And koshergrl once again asserts her own stupidity and lack of intellectual integrity as the inadequacy of others.

OK-ey, Loki...
...I couldn't resist.

Here is a real intellectual, Thomas Aquinas, considering the question of the existence of God.

1. In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.” http://www.braungardt.com/Theology/Proofs of God/thomas_aquinas.htm

a. He then goes on to counter the argument. In question 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.

Had note that you exhibit some lack of desire for activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect, otherwise you might have brought your understanding of Aquinas' argument in your words.

Maybe you can fix your link:Until the specific point you are actually making using Aquinas is clear, I'll just give you one critique: One logical fallacy in Aquinas' arguments is Special Pleading. If he can say that God has no efficient cause, I can say that the Universe has no efficient cause; and I will enjoy the benefit of not having to fabricate the universe and all of its attributes from imagination, the way Aquinas is obligated to fabricate from imagination God and all of His attributes.

2. Both Evolutionary Scientist Richard Dawkins and physicist Victor Stenger claim that Aquinas “makes the unwarranted assumption that God is immune to the regress.” But Aquinas doesn’t make this assumption…rather he claims that causes in nature cannot form an infinite series. None of our atheist friends have been able to argue that this is not so.
Would you care to?

Perhaps if I had to, I would.

BTW...neither men call their opponents 'retards.'
But, they are intellectuals.

That's probably because their opponents aren't retards, and you're not Aquinas. But there is no argument regarding the faith that you and Aquinas share results in superstition, and superstition only.

Unless you'd care to argue this is not so.

"But there is no argument regarding the faith that you and Aquinas share results in superstition, and superstition only.

Unless you'd care to argue this is not so."

You miss the point....the universe had a beginning...as everything does...and there is no scientific explanation for same outside of faith...or, as you call it, superstition.

Unless you'd care to argue this is not so.

 

[LOki]

You miss the point....the universe had a beginning...

So?

... as everything does...

Like this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing of yours?

... and there is no scientific explanation for same outside of faith...or, as you call it, superstition.

This is false. There may be no universally satisfying scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, but none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence as every single explanation that posits some "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing.

Unless you'd care to argue this is not so.

I am arguing it is not so.

The reason that the scientific and the theological explanation for the existence of the universeare at odds is that the scientific community doesn't consider faith to be a valid source of conclusions, and as such doesn't concern itself with superstition.

 

[edthecynic]

OK-ey, Loki...
...I couldn't resist.

Here is a real intellectual, Thomas Aquinas, considering the question of the existence of God.

1. In “Summa Theologica,” Thomas Aquinas addresses the question, and actually poses the atheist argument.: “There is no reason to suppose God’s existence.” http://www.braungardt.com/Theology/Proofs of God/thomas_aquinas.htm

a. He then goes on to counter the argument. In question 2, article 3, he gives five arguments for the existence of God, including the following: There is an order of efficient causes. Just as no man can be his own father, no effect can be its own cause. Follow any series of effects preceded by their causes and we have a luminous metaphysical trail backwards into the past. It is not possible to go on to infinity, so there must be a first cause. This first cause he identifies with God, based on “I AM THAT I AM,” Exodus 3:14.

Had note that you exhibit some lack of desire for activities or pursuits that require exercise of the intellect, otherwise you might have brought your understanding of Aquinas' argument in your words.

Maybe you can fix your link:Until the specific point you are actually making using Aquinas is clear, I'll just give you one critique: One logical fallacy in Aquinas' arguments is Special Pleading. If he can say that God has no efficient cause, I can say that the Universe has no efficient cause; and I will enjoy the benefit of not having to fabricate the universe and all of its attributes from imagination, the way Aquinas is obligated to fabricate from imagination God and all of His attributes.

Perhaps if I had to, I would.

BTW...neither men call their opponents 'retards.'
But, they are intellectuals.

That's probably because their opponents aren't retards, and you're not Aquinas. But there is no argument regarding the faith that you and Aquinas share results in superstition, and superstition only.

Unless you'd care to argue this is not so.

"But there is no argument regarding the faith that you and Aquinas share results in superstition, and superstition only.

Unless you'd care to argue this is not so."

You miss the point....the universe had a beginning...as everything does...and there is no scientific explanation for same outside of faith...or, as you call it, superstition.

Unless you'd care to argue this is not so.

You have just violated the First Law of Thermodynamics. Do not pass go, do not collect $200.

 

[PoliticalChic]

You miss the point....the universe had a beginning...

So?

... as everything does...

Like this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing of yours?

... and there is no scientific explanation for same outside of faith...or, as you call it, superstition.

This is false. There may be no universally satisfying scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, but none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence as every single explanation that posits some "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing.

Unless you'd care to argue this is not so.

I am arguing it is not so.

The reason that the scientific and the theological explanation for the existence of the universeare at odds is that the scientific community doesn't consider faith to be a valid source of conclusions, and as such doesn't concern itself with superstition.

"This is false. There may be no universally satisfying scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, but none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence as every single explanation that posits some "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing."

What an ignorant fellow you are.

Here, let me prove it:
"...none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence..."

Unless you can provide that evidence that you prattle about, you are guilty of fabrication, or superstition....

There is no such evidence.
In fact, even physicists have admitted so.

And as to "logic"...well:
Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang! So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics. Astrophysical journals report the failure of observations to confirm the grand design…

a. “The discrepancy is a factor of 2.4―4.3. and is considered a problem for the original models,[8] that have resulted in revised calculations of the standard BBN based on new nuclear data, and to various reevaluation proposals for primordial proton-proton nuclear reactions, especially the intensities of 7Be(n,p)7Li … inconsistencies between BBN predictions and observations…trying to change BBN resulted in abundances that were more inconsistent with observations rather than less….very different from observations.” Big Bang nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. “The evidence is accumulating that redshift is a shaky measuring rod.” Margaret Burbidge (former director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), as quoted by Govert Schilling, “Radical Theory Takes a Test,” Science, Vol. 291, 26 January 2001, p. 579.
c. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.

d. So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

I get a certain amount of amusement when folks like you attack faith, yet have beliefs based on just as much faith.


But I can live with you believing what you believe as you do, on faith, with no evidence, without calling you a "retard."

Now, why is that?
Class?

 

[edthecynic]

You miss the point....the universe had a beginning...

So?

Like this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing of yours?

This is false. There may be no universally satisfying scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, but none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence as every single explanation that posits some "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing.

Unless you'd care to argue this is not so.

I am arguing it is not so.

The reason that the scientific and the theological explanation for the existence of the universeare at odds is that the scientific community doesn't consider faith to be a valid source of conclusions, and as such doesn't concern itself with superstition.

"This is false. There may be no universally satisfying scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, but none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence as every single explanation that posits some "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing."

What an ignorant fellow you are.

Here, let me prove it:
"...none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence..."

Unless you can provide that evidence that you prattle about, you are guilty of fabrication, or superstition....

There is no such evidence.
In fact, even physicists have admitted so.

And as to "logic"...well:
Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang! So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics. Astrophysical journals report the failure of observations to confirm the grand design…

a. “The discrepancy is a factor of 2.4―4.3. and is considered a problem for the original models,[8] that have resulted in revised calculations of the standard BBN based on new nuclear data, and to various reevaluation proposals for primordial proton-proton nuclear reactions, especially the intensities of 7Be(n,p)7Li … inconsistencies between BBN predictions and observations…trying to change BBN resulted in abundances that were more inconsistent with observations rather than less….very different from observations.” Big Bang nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. “The evidence is accumulating that redshift is a shaky measuring rod.” Margaret Burbidge (former director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), as quoted by Govert Schilling, “Radical Theory Takes a Test,” Science, Vol. 291, 26 January 2001, p. 579.
c. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.

d. So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

I get a certain amount of amusement when folks like you attack faith, yet have beliefs based on just as much faith.


But I can live with you believing what you believe as you do, on faith, with no evidence, without calling you a "retard."

Now, why is that?
Class?

I always love it when dishonest CON$ and Christians take quotes from scientists out of context. The Full quote says something entirely different.

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]

 

[LOki]

You miss the point....the universe had a beginning...

So?

Like this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing of yours?

This is false. There may be no universally satisfying scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, but none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence as every single explanation that posits some "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing.

Unless you'd care to argue this is not so.

I am arguing it is not so.

The reason that the scientific and the theological explanation for the existence of the universeare at odds is that the scientific community doesn't consider faith to be a valid source of conclusions, and as such doesn't concern itself with superstition.

"This is false. There may be no universally satisfying scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, but none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence as every single explanation that posits some "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing."

What an ignorant fellow you are.

Really? What do you think the word "ignorant" means?

Here, let me prove it:
"...none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence..."

Oh? You're going to "prove" what "... an ignorant fellow [I am?]

This will prove to be rich.

Unless you can provide that evidence that you prattle about, you are guilty of fabrication, or superstition....

I don't have to provide the evidence; you will.

There is no such evidence.

Oh but there is. You provide it below.

In fact, even physicists have admitted so.

Except in so far as they say that there is evidence, as they clearly assert in your quotes below.

a. “The discrepancy is a factor of 2.4―4.3. and is considered a problem for the original models,[8] that have resulted in revised calculations of the standard BBN based on new nuclear data, and to various reevaluation proposals for primordial proton-proton nuclear reactions, especially the intensities of 7Be(n,p)7Li … inconsistencies between BBN predictions and observations…trying to change BBN resulted in abundances that were more inconsistent with observations rather than less….very different from observations.” Big Bang nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. “The evidence is accumulating that redshift is a shaky measuring rod.” Margaret Burbidge (former director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), as quoted by Govert Schilling, “Radical Theory Takes a Test,” Science, Vol. 291, 26 January 2001, p. 579.

Thanks for the evidence.

And as to "logic"...well: Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang! So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics. Astrophysical journals report the failure of observations to confirm the grand design…

Despite the erroneous assertion that there's some "exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics", thank you for the validly logical conclusion as well.

c. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.

You see PoliticalChic, despite your intellectually dishonest quote-mining, there's nothing about the Big Bang Theory that necessarily excludes the existence of this Creator, or Designer or God of yours, there's just nothing in it that requires one--and that's the problem that superstitious retards have with it.

Christian Creationists, without any basis in verifiable evidence and/or valid logic, simply refuse to accept ANY theory that does not include the superstitious requirement of the existence of this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing" of theirs, and that's just retarded.

d. So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

No. It just allows for such a suggestion to still be made by the superstitious, but the evidence does not suggest any such thing.

I get a certain amount of amusement when folks like you attack faith, yet have beliefs based on just as much faith.

Except you fail to demonstrate ANY of my beliefs are faith.

These assertions are what makes you intellectually dishonest. You just project your intellectual paradigm, in which verifiable evidence and valid logic are irrelevant, on other people. That's retarded.

But I can live with you believing what you believe as you do, on faith, with no evidence, without calling you a "retard."

Now, why is that?
Class?

No. It's because my beliefs (where founded upon evidence and valid logic) aren't retarded, and trying to demonstrate they are will only serve to expose you for a retard.

 

[G.T.]

Loki is up 100-0 in the 4th Quarter with ten seconds to go.

 

[koshergrl]

Lol.

I say we get Loki to dish on how many newspapers have rejected unsolicited ramblings from him. C'mon Loki. I guess the rejection stack is about 2 feet high. And I'll bet you believe every one of those indicates a lack of intelligence on THEIR part.

Literally everything I've submitted for publication in newspapers and periodicals has been accepted for its obvious value and happily published. Nothing I've ever submitted has been rejected.

How about them apples?

Yeah right.

I can hear the newsroom laughter from here. Though they all have their pet lunatics.

 

[LOki]

Lol.

I say we get Loki to dish on how many newspapers have rejected unsolicited ramblings from him. C'mon Loki. I guess the rejection stack is about 2 feet high. And I'll bet you believe every one of those indicates a lack of intelligence on THEIR part.

Literally everything I've submitted for publication in newspapers and periodicals has been accepted for its obvious value and happily published. Nothing I've ever submitted has been rejected.

How about them apples?

Yeah right.

Yes. Actually right in fact of reality.

I can hear the newsroom laughter from here. Though they all have their pet lunatics.

Laughing at your baseless assertions perhaps, your hopeful but transparently retarded attempts at character assassination certainly.

 

[PoliticalChic]

So?

Like this "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing of yours?

This is false. There may be no universally satisfying scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, but none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence as every single explanation that posits some "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing.

I am arguing it is not so.

The reason that the scientific and the theological explanation for the existence of the universeare at odds is that the scientific community doesn't consider faith to be a valid source of conclusions, and as such doesn't concern itself with superstition.

"This is false. There may be no universally satisfying scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, but none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence as every single explanation that posits some "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing."

What an ignorant fellow you are.

Here, let me prove it:
"...none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence..."

Unless you can provide that evidence that you prattle about, you are guilty of fabrication, or superstition....

There is no such evidence.
In fact, even physicists have admitted so.

And as to "logic"...well:
Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang! So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics. Astrophysical journals report the failure of observations to confirm the grand design…

a. “The discrepancy is a factor of 2.4―4.3. and is considered a problem for the original models,[8] that have resulted in revised calculations of the standard BBN based on new nuclear data, and to various reevaluation proposals for primordial proton-proton nuclear reactions, especially the intensities of 7Be(n,p)7Li … inconsistencies between BBN predictions and observations…trying to change BBN resulted in abundances that were more inconsistent with observations rather than less….very different from observations.” Big Bang nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. “The evidence is accumulating that redshift is a shaky measuring rod.” Margaret Burbidge (former director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), as quoted by Govert Schilling, “Radical Theory Takes a Test,” Science, Vol. 291, 26 January 2001, p. 579.
c. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.

d. So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

I get a certain amount of amusement when folks like you attack faith, yet have beliefs based on just as much faith.


But I can live with you believing what you believe as you do, on faith, with no evidence, without calling you a "retard."

Now, why is that?
Class?

I always love it when dishonest CON$ and Christians take quotes from scientists out of context. The Full quote says something entirely different.

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]

"I always love it when dishonest CON$ and Christians take quotes from scientists out of context. The Full quote says something entirely different."

1. Sorry, Beets...but you are wrong.

Hawking, provided as an expert in the area, lays out both halves of the question.
The key part of the quote is exactly what I want shown:
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator."

2. Now, focus like a laser: anyone who agrees with, or has quoted the 'Big Bang' is supposing a beginning...and that supposes that something or someone initiated that explosion.

Unless you can give examples of similar episodes that have no cause.
Can you?
No? You accept it based on your faith, huh?

3. BTW, I was familiar with the entire paragraph that you provided.
Do you understand it?
It is simply the kind of nonsense that
a) atheist-scientists must mouth, or be faced with the existence of God, or
b) the kind of prattle that folks like you are willing to accept or face the dire posibility of actually thinking.

4.Here it is, again: "... neither beginning nor end..."

Now, you and the other poor souls who have a need to subscribe to your mythical 'science'...
...how about some examples, evidence, that there is anything outside of faith, that has "neither beginning nor end."

Careful...if you say that 'you suppose God was always there, I'll suppose that the universe was always there...' then you are handing the argument over to me...as I have said that science and religion have this kind of faith in common: I win- in nature there is nothing with no beginning nor end.

5. Now, if you cannot come up with said evidence, yet maintain that science is not based on faith, then it is you, not I, who is foolish.
I'd rather call you foolish than 'dishonest,' as it appears clear that you didn't
understand the Hawking quote.

 

[koshergrl]

"This is false. There may be no universally satisfying scientific explanation for the existence of the universe, but none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence as every single explanation that posits some "Creator" or "Designer" or "God" thing."

What an ignorant fellow you are.

Here, let me prove it:
"...none of those explanations are baseless in valid logic applied to verifiable evidence..."

Unless you can provide that evidence that you prattle about, you are guilty of fabrication, or superstition....

There is no such evidence.
In fact, even physicists have admitted so.

And as to "logic"...well:
Science answers the question with “The Big Bang,” a gigantic explosion. But upon reflection…one realizes that it could not take place at any given place or time…because space and time themselves were created by the Big Bang! So, an exercise in faith at the at the genesis of modern physics. Astrophysical journals report the failure of observations to confirm the grand design…

a. “The discrepancy is a factor of 2.4―4.3. and is considered a problem for the original models,[8] that have resulted in revised calculations of the standard BBN based on new nuclear data, and to various reevaluation proposals for primordial proton-proton nuclear reactions, especially the intensities of 7Be(n,p)7Li … inconsistencies between BBN predictions and observations…trying to change BBN resulted in abundances that were more inconsistent with observations rather than less….very different from observations.” Big Bang nucleosynthesis - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

b. “The evidence is accumulating that redshift is a shaky measuring rod.” Margaret Burbidge (former director of the Royal Greenwich Observatory and past president of the American Association for the Advancement of Science), as quoted by Govert Schilling, “Radical Theory Takes a Test,” Science, Vol. 291, 26 January 2001, p. 579.
c. “So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator.” Steven Hawking, “A Brief History of Time,” p. 140-41.

d. So…the new idea in physics, the Big Bang, suggests an old idea in thought: "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

I get a certain amount of amusement when folks like you attack faith, yet have beliefs based on just as much faith.


But I can live with you believing what you believe as you do, on faith, with no evidence, without calling you a "retard."

Now, why is that?
Class?

I always love it when dishonest CON$ and Christians take quotes from scientists out of context. The Full quote says something entirely different.

The idea that space and time may form a closed surface without boundary also has profound implications for the role of God in the affairs of the universe. With the success of scientific theories in describing events, most people have come to believe that God allows the universe to evolve according to a set of laws and does not intervene in the universe to break these laws. However, the laws do not tell us what the universe should have looked like when it started -- it would still be up to God to wind up the clockwork and choose how to start it off. So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator. But if the universe is really completely self-contained, having no boundary or edge, it would have neither beginning nor end: it would simply be. What place, then, for a creator? [Stephen Hawking, A Brief History of Time (New York: Bantam, 1988), p. 140-41.]

"I always love it when dishonest CON$ and Christians take quotes from scientists out of context. The Full quote says something entirely different."

1. Sorry, Beets...but you are wrong.

Hawking, provided as an expert in the area, lays out both halves of the question.
The key part of the quote is exactly what I want shown:
"So long as the universe had a beginning, we could suppose it had a creator."

2. Now, focus like a laser: anyone who agrees with, or has quoted the 'Big Bang' is supposing a beginning...and that supposes that something or someone initiated that explosion.

Unless you can give examples of similar episodes that have no cause.
Can you?
No? You accept it based on your faith, huh?

3. BTW, I was familiar with the entire paragraph that you provided.
Do you understand it?
It is simply the kind of nonsense that
a) atheist-scientists must mouth, or be faced with the existence of God, or
b) the kind of prattle that folks like you are willing to accept or face the dire posibility of actually thinking.

4.Here it is, again: "... neither beginning nor end..."

Now, you and the other poor souls who have a need to subscribe to your mythical 'science'...
...how about some examples, evidence, that there is anything outside of faith, that has "neither beginning nor end."

Careful...if you say that 'you suppose God was always there, I'll suppose that the universe was always there...' then you are handing the argument over to me...as I have said that science and religion have this kind of faith in common: I win- in nature there is nothing with no beginning nor end.

5. Now, if you cannot come up with said evidence, yet maintain that science is not based on faith, then it is you, not I, who is foolish.
I'd rather call you foolish than 'dishonest,' as it appears clear that you didn't
understand the Hawking quote.

That's a killer post.

Sadly, it will be completely lost upon the ignorami. Who are not only ignorant and horrendous writers, but who have evinced time and again their adamant refusal to learn. Because they have no interest in learning. Their entire purpose in posting these painfully vapid posts is to stoke their egos. Not with anything real or concrete, but just via their use of the same trite phrases and vague references to bad science that impresses grade schoolers but that, sadly, real scholars recognize as the egocentric puffery of psyedo intellectuals.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Loki is up 100-0 in the 4th Quarter with ten seconds to go.

You're really not a very good judge of reality, are you.

Bet the younger version turns out better.