The hypocrisy and arrogance of atheism

[rightwinger]

can you link to some evidence of abiogenesis occurring?......

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

Oh, yeah, right, of course, there's no evidence at all for the existence of or the necessity of an intelligent designer whatsoever. Not a shred of evidence. None at all. Nope. Never happened.

Abiogenesis is not supported by any coherently explanatory model of demonstration or empirical evidence whatsoever. Rational? In my opinion it's utter nonsense, a pipe dream, based on the scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism, the sheer metaphysics of materialism. In fact, the evidence overwhelming points to the necessity of an instantaneous simultaneity of composition well-above the mere infrastructural level of the self-ordering properties of chemistry. The only people who talk like you do about the prospects for abiogenesis are laymen who know next to nothing about the data of prebiotic research or materialistic biologists at the purely theoretical level. The others are laymen who confound the distinction between prebiotic chemistry and biochemical engineering. The foundational-level, hands-on, research scientists of prebiotic chemistry know better, and the leading lights thereof roll their eyes at the hype of materialistic laymen and theorists.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

There's just no proof of said designer whatsoever.

There is plenty of evidence of intelligent design
God did not make dogs.......they were intelligently designed by man
Same goes for cats, cows, chickens, sheep

 

[PratchettFan]

Of course not. Which means absolutely nothing in this discussion. I really am not trying to convince you of anything.

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

Oh, yeah, right, of course, there's no evidence at all for the existence of or the necessity of an intelligent designer whatsoever. Not a shred of evidence. None at all. Nope. Never happened.

Abiogenesis is not supported by any coherently explanatory model of demonstration or empirical evidence whatsoever. Rational? In my opinion it's utter nonsense, a pipe dream, based on the scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism, the sheer metaphysics of materialism. In fact, the evidence overwhelming points to the necessity of an instantaneous simultaneity of composition well-above the mere infrastructural level of the self-ordering properties of chemistry. The only people who talk like you do about the prospects for abiogenesis are laymen who know next to nothing about the data of prebiotic research or materialistic biologists at the purely theoretical level. The others are laymen who confound the distinction between prebiotic chemistry and biochemical engineering. The foundational-level, hands-on, research scientists of prebiotic chemistry know better, and the leading lights thereof roll their eyes at the hype of materialistic laymen and theorists.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

There's just no proof of said designer whatsoever.

There is plenty of evidence of intelligent design
God did not make dogs.......they were intelligently designed by man
Same goes for cats, cows, chickens, sheep

Which makes a bird's nest intelligent design.

 

[Hollie]

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

Oh, yeah, right, of course, there's no evidence at all for the existence of or the necessity of an intelligent designer whatsoever. Not a shred of evidence. None at all. Nope. Never happened.

Abiogenesis is not supported by any coherently explanatory model of demonstration or empirical evidence whatsoever. Rational? In my opinion it's utter nonsense, a pipe dream, based on the scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism, the sheer metaphysics of materialism. In fact, the evidence overwhelming points to the necessity of an instantaneous simultaneity of composition well-above the mere infrastructural level of the self-ordering properties of chemistry. The only people who talk like you do about the prospects for abiogenesis are laymen who know next to nothing about the data of prebiotic research or materialistic biologists at the purely theoretical level. The others are laymen who confound the distinction between prebiotic chemistry and biochemical engineering. The foundational-level, hands-on, research scientists of prebiotic chemistry know better, and the leading lights thereof roll their eyes at the hype of materialistic laymen and theorists.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

There's just no proof of said designer whatsoever.

There is plenty of evidence of intelligent design
God did not make dogs.......they were intelligently designed by man
Same goes for cats, cows, chickens, sheep

Which makes a bird's nest intelligent design.

Which makes the various human inventions / conceptions of gawds the result of (humankinds) intelligent design.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.

2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.


7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.


Everyone Escapes the five, no wait, it's now, Seven Fraudulent Things™

Puttin' Hollie Down for The Seven Things™



Well, looky here. Hollie put up a semblance of an argument.

The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.


1. Okay, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #1 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


2. She conflates cosmological (adjective) order with cosmology (noun) proper, which necessarily entails all the concerns of the cosmological order:

1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe

b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.​

I guess she's never heard of the multiverse, but she does acknowledge the existence of the discipline that deals with the existence of the cosmological order. Hence, we have Hollie down agreeing that #2 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.

Do you see how that works so far, Hollie?


3. Here Hollie claims that the idea of God is a mere figment of human culture, but concedes that the idea is universal. That's weird. So I guess a child brought up in an atheist home would be told that there's no actual substance behind the universal idea of divine origin. Yep. Looks like the potentiality of divinity's existence is a universally intrinsic apprehension of human cognition regarding origin and, therefore, cannot be logically ruled out. Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #3 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


4. Now, on this one, we have Hollie down for some rather interesting Freudian slips:

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't [be infinitely great].

. . . Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness".​

Hence, the first statement necessarily concedes that #4 would be true if God exists, but then it appears, at first blush, that she backslides a bit. But no worries because she necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how He would go about things. She's obviously aware of the fact that, by definition, the idea of God would necessarily entail the very highest order of divine attribution after all, including perfection, as no creature, of course, could be greater than the Creator. But apparently she's a bit disgruntled about how God went about things, thinking the cosmological order to be something less than perfect. That's weird because that's a teleological argument that, once again, necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how a perfect God would necessarily go about things.

Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #4 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


5. Of course the atheist could have no possible problem with #5, which is axiomatically true in any event, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #5 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


6. Now, though we have Hollie going off on some silly tangent about my supposed "polytheistic gods," we do have her necessarily conceding that it is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not. So we have Hollie down agreeing that #6 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, too. But then we have Hollie saying something . . . that's weird:

We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered.​

Wow! It would appear that Hollie knows something about reality that only divinity could know. Looks like Hollie's making an absolute claim about reality as if from on . . . higher than high. Do you suppose Hollie has a reputable source for this special knowledge of hers, a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source.

Got link, Hollie?

But what's really weird is that after agreeing that the first six of The Seven Things are factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, she suddenly finds the consideration of these realities of human cognition to be less than fruitful. Oh, well, as weird as that it is, we have Hollie down for the first six, which means. . . .


7. We have Hollie down for all seven of The Seven Things, as #7 merely summarizes the first six! Welcome to The Seven Things Club, Hollie. We're glad you could join the rest of humanity. Now have a glass of milk and some cookies, and chill out.


No one escapes The Seven Things.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

Oh, yeah, right, of course, there's no evidence at all for the existence of or the necessity of an intelligent designer whatsoever. Not a shred of evidence. None at all. Nope. Never happened.

Abiogenesis is not supported by any coherently explanatory model of demonstration or empirical evidence whatsoever. Rational? In my opinion it's utter nonsense, a pipe dream, based on the scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism, the sheer metaphysics of materialism. In fact, the evidence overwhelming points to the necessity of an instantaneous simultaneity of composition well-above the mere infrastructural level of the self-ordering properties of chemistry. The only people who talk like you do about the prospects for abiogenesis are laymen who know next to nothing about the data of prebiotic research or materialistic biologists at the purely theoretical level. The others are laymen who confound the distinction between prebiotic chemistry and biochemical engineering. The foundational-level, hands-on, research scientists of prebiotic chemistry know better, and the leading lights thereof roll their eyes at the hype of materialistic laymen and theorists.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

There's just no proof of said designer whatsoever.

There is plenty of evidence of intelligent design
God did not make dogs.......they were intelligently designed by man
Same goes for cats, cows, chickens, sheep

Which makes a bird's nest intelligent design.

Which makes the various human inventions / conceptions of gawds the result of (humankinds) intelligent design.

Yep. Like Fords, Chevys and Volvos.

 

[Derideo_Te]

Oh, yeah, right, of course, there's no evidence at all for the existence of or the necessity of an intelligent designer whatsoever. Not a shred of evidence. None at all. Nope. Never happened.

Abiogenesis is not supported by any coherently explanatory model of demonstration or empirical evidence whatsoever. Rational? In my opinion it's utter nonsense, a pipe dream, based on the scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism, the sheer metaphysics of materialism. In fact, the evidence overwhelming points to the necessity of an instantaneous simultaneity of composition well-above the mere infrastructural level of the self-ordering properties of chemistry. The only people who talk like you do about the prospects for abiogenesis are laymen who know next to nothing about the data of prebiotic research or materialistic biologists at the purely theoretical level. The others are laymen who confound the distinction between prebiotic chemistry and biochemical engineering. The foundational-level, hands-on, research scientists of prebiotic chemistry know better, and the leading lights thereof roll their eyes at the hype of materialistic laymen and theorists.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

There's just no proof of said designer whatsoever.

There is plenty of evidence of intelligent design
God did not make dogs.......they were intelligently designed by man
Same goes for cats, cows, chickens, sheep

Which makes a bird's nest intelligent design.

Which makes the various human inventions / conceptions of gawds the result of (humankinds) intelligent design.

Yep. Like Fords, Chevys and Volvos.

No one can seriously argue that the Pontiac Aztek was the result of "intelligent design".

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

I think its cute that you believe you've proven something and don't realize how silly that makes you look.....

You're reading skills are declining. What did I say that I've proven?

you've proven nothing.....but if you are atheist you claim that there is no God, despite your inability to prove it.....

Please try to keep up, I've said over and over again that I'm agnostic, as I see no proof one way or the other. The only rational position to hold.

then why, when I point out that atheists are irrational, do you continue to argue with me?.....

I said that they are less irrational than theists. Theists believe in superghosts without a shred of proof. Atheists only problem is that they close the door to the possibility of an external creator, something which has yet to be proven.

Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts

You're certainly free to believe whatever you please, whatever silly myth of an opinion/belief that tickles your fancy.

What are not subject to your mere opinions/beliefs, as if your religious musings had primacy over reality, are the objectively and empirically verifiable universals of human psychology, starting with the bioneurologically hardwired laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle), which yield the absolute, logical proof of the reductio ad absurdum of the irreducible mind and of the infinite regression of origin, which in turn yields the construct of a transcendent divinity as one of the legitimately rational alternatives of origin that cannot be logically ruled out by anyone: Consciousness is of the highest metaphysical order of being and from nothing, nothing comes!

Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A transcendent Creator of unparalleled greatness.

The recognition of that potentiality of origin is manifestly premised on incontrovertible axioms of human cognition relative to humanity's existence and the existence of the cosmological order! That is the evidence for God's existence. It's absurd, utter baby talk, to assert that there's no evidence for God's existence.

So when you make ridiculous claims that there's no evidence for God's existence, that the idea of God (in your head just like everybody else's) is based on nothing or that the idea of God is imaginary when in fact the construct is known to be a universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology, the potential substance of which, once again, cannot be logically ruled out, I'm going to falsify your ridiculous claims.

Are you implying that you have some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified resolution to the problems of existence and origin that has overthrown this universal, scientific fact of human cognition/psychology; some peer-reviewed and experimentally verified demonstration that the material realm of being is the exclusive alternative of origin, the eternally existent ground of origin? Or are you implying that you can explain how something arose from nothing?

If not, then I strongly suggest that you stop making the ridiculous claim that there's no evidence for God's existence or no logical proofs supporting the conclusion that God exists.

Okay?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

well there's the difference.....I am trying to educate you......you believe there is evidence of abiogenesis.....I want you to realize there is not......if you actually took the time to go look for some you would discover there is not.......in the meantime, at least don't pretend there is......

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

Oh, yeah, right, of course, there's no evidence at all for the existence of or the necessity of an intelligent designer whatsoever. Not a shred of evidence. None at all. Nope. Never happened.

Abiogenesis is not supported by any coherently explanatory model of demonstration or empirical evidence whatsoever. Rational? In my opinion it's utter nonsense, a pipe dream, based on the scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism, the sheer metaphysics of materialism. In fact, the evidence overwhelming points to the necessity of an instantaneous simultaneity of composition well-above the mere infrastructural level of the self-ordering properties of chemistry. The only people who talk like you do about the prospects for abiogenesis are laymen who know next to nothing about the data of prebiotic research or materialistic biologists at the purely theoretical level. The others are laymen who confound the distinction between prebiotic chemistry and biochemical engineering. The foundational-level, hands-on, research scientists of prebiotic chemistry know better, and the leading lights thereof roll their eyes at the hype of materialistic laymen and theorists.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

There's just no proof of said designer whatsoever.

There is plenty of evidence of intelligent design
God did not make dogs.......they were intelligently designed by man
Same goes for cats, cows, chickens, sheep

Which makes a bird's nest intelligent design.

And what's the evidence for abiogenesis again?

 

[Hollie]

The five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.

2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.


7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.


Everyone Escapes the five, no wait, it's now, Seven Fraudulent Things™

Puttin' Hollie Down for The Seven Things™



Well, looky here. Hollie put up a semblance of an argument.

The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10242861/.


1. Okay, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #1 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


2. She conflates cosmological (adjective) order with cosmology (noun) proper, which necessarily entails all the concerns of the cosmological order:

1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe

b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.​

I guess she's never heard of the multiverse, but she does acknowledge the existence of the discipline that deals with the existence of the cosmological order. Hence, we have Hollie down agreeing that #2 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.

Do you see how that works so far, Hollie?


3. Here Hollie claims that the idea of God is a mere figment of human culture, but concedes that the idea is universal. That's weird. So I guess a child brought up in an atheist home would be told that there's no actual substance behind the universal idea of divine origin. Yep. Looks like the potentiality of divinity's existence is a universally intrinsic apprehension of human cognition regarding origin and, therefore, cannot be logically ruled out. Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #3 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


4. Now, on this one, we have Hollie down for some rather interesting Freudian slips:

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't [be infinitely great].

. . . Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness".​

Hence, the first statement necessarily concedes that #4 would be true if God exists, but then it appears, at first blush, that she backslides a bit. But no worries because she necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how He would go about things. She's obviously aware of the fact that, by definition, the idea of God would necessarily entail the very highest order of divine attribution after all, including perfection, as no creature, of course, could be greater than the Creator. But apparently she's a bit disgruntled about how God went about things, thinking the cosmological order to be something less than perfect. That's weird because that's a teleological argument that, once again, necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how a perfect God would necessarily go about things.

Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #4 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


5. Of course the atheist could have no possible problem with #5, which is axiomatically true in any event, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #5 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


6. Now, though we have Hollie going off on some silly tangent about my supposed "polytheistic gods," we do have her necessarily conceding that it is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not. So we have Hollie down agreeing that #6 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, too. But then we have Hollie saying something . . . that's weird:

We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered.​

Wow! It would appear that Hollie knows something about reality that only divinity could know. Looks like Hollie's making an absolute claim about reality as if from on . . . higher than high. Do you suppose Hollie has a reputable source for this special knowledge of hers, a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source.

Got link, Hollie?

But what's really weird is that after agreeing that the first six of The Seven Things are factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, she suddenly finds the consideration of these realities of human cognition to be less than fruitful. Oh, well, as weird as that it is, we have Hollie down for the first six, which means. . . .


7. We have Hollie down for all seven of The Seven Things, as #7 merely summarizes the first six! Welcome to The Seven Things Club, Hollie. We're glad you could join the rest of humanity. Now have a glass of milk and some cookies, and chill out.


No one escapes The Seven Things.

Puttin' Hollie Down for The Seven Things™



Well, looky here. Hollie put up a semblance of an argument.

The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10242861/.


1. Okay, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #1 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


2. She conflates cosmological (adjective) order with cosmology (noun) proper, which necessarily entails all the concerns of the cosmological order:

1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe

b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.​

I guess she's never heard of the multiverse, but she does acknowledge the existence of the discipline that deals with the existence of the cosmological order. Hence, we have Hollie down agreeing that #2 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.

Do you see how that works so far, Hollie?


3. Here Hollie claims that the idea of God is a mere figment of human culture, but concedes that the idea is universal. That's weird. So I guess a child brought up in an atheist home would be told that there's no actual substance behind the universal idea of divine origin. Yep. Looks like the potentiality of divinity's existence is a universally intrinsic apprehension of human cognition regarding origin and, therefore, cannot be logically ruled out. Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #3 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


4. Now, on this one, we have Hollie down for some rather interesting Freudian slips:

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't [be infinitely great].

. . . Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness".​

Hence, the first statement necessarily concedes that #4 would be true if God exists, but then it appears, at first blush, that she backslides a bit. But no worries because she necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how He would go about things. She's obviously aware of the fact that, by definition, the idea of God would necessarily entail the very highest order of divine attribution after all, including perfection, as no creature, of course, could be greater than the Creator. But apparently she's a bit disgruntled about how God went about things, thinking the cosmological order to be something less than perfect. That's weird because that's a teleological argument that, once again, necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how a perfect God would necessarily go about things.

Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #4 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


5. Of course the atheist could have no possible problem with #5, which is axiomatically true in any event, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #5 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


6. Now, though we have Hollie going off on some silly tangent about my supposed "polytheistic gods," we do have her necessarily conceding that it is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not. So we have Hollie down agreeing that #6 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, too. But then we have Hollie saying something . . . that's weird:

We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered.​

Wow! It would appear that Hollie knows something about reality that only divinity could know. Looks like Hollie's making an absolute claim about reality as if from on . . . higher than high. Do you suppose Hollie has a reputable source for this special knowledge of hers, a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source.

Got link, Hollie?

But what's really weird is that after agreeing that the first six of The Seven Things are factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, she suddenly finds the consideration of these realities of human cognition to be less than fruitful. Oh, well, as weird as that it is, we have Hollie down for the first six, which means. . . .


7. We have Hollie down for all seven of The Seven Things, as #7 merely summarizes the first six! Welcome to The Seven Things Club, Hollie. We're glad you could join the rest of humanity. Now have a glass of milk and some cookies, and chill out.


No one escapes The Seven Things.

The five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.

2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.


7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.


Everyone Escapes the five, no wait, it's now, Seven Fraudulent Things™

Puttin' Hollie Down for The Seven Things™



Well, looky here. Hollie put up a semblance of an argument.

The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10242861/.


1. Okay, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #1 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


2. She conflates cosmological (adjective) order with cosmology (noun) proper, which necessarily entails all the concerns of the cosmological order:

1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe

b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe

2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.​

I guess she's never heard of the multiverse, but she does acknowledge the existence of the discipline that deals with the existence of the cosmological order. Hence, we have Hollie down agreeing that #2 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.

Do you see how that works so far, Hollie?


3. Here Hollie claims that the idea of God is a mere figment of human culture, but concedes that the idea is universal. That's weird. So I guess a child brought up in an atheist home would be told that there's no actual substance behind the universal idea of divine origin. Yep. Looks like the potentiality of divinity's existence is a universally intrinsic apprehension of human cognition regarding origin and, therefore, cannot be logically ruled out. Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #3 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


4. Now, on this one, we have Hollie down for some rather interesting Freudian slips:

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't [be infinitely great].

. . . Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness".​

Hence, the first statement necessarily concedes that #4 would be true if God exists, but then it appears, at first blush, that she backslides a bit. But no worries because she necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how He would go about things. She's obviously aware of the fact that, by definition, the idea of God would necessarily entail the very highest order of divine attribution after all, including perfection, as no creature, of course, could be greater than the Creator. But apparently she's a bit disgruntled about how God went about things, thinking the cosmological order to be something less than perfect. That's weird because that's a teleological argument that, once again, necessarily presupposes God's existence in order to imagine how a perfect God would necessarily go about things.

Yep! We have Hollie down agreeing that #4 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


5. Of course the atheist could have no possible problem with #5, which is axiomatically true in any event, so we have Hollie down agreeing that #5 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought.


6. Now, though we have Hollie going off on some silly tangent about my supposed "polytheistic gods," we do have her necessarily conceding that it is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not. So we have Hollie down agreeing that #6 of The Seven Things is factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, too. But then we have Hollie saying something . . . that's weird:

We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered.​

Wow! It would appear that Hollie knows something about reality that only divinity could know. Looks like Hollie's making an absolute claim about reality as if from on . . . higher than high. Do you suppose Hollie has a reputable source for this special knowledge of hers, a peer-reviewed and experimentally verified source.

Got link, Hollie?

But what's really weird is that after agreeing that the first six of The Seven Things are factually and logically true according to the laws of human thought, she suddenly finds the consideration of these realities of human cognition to be less than fruitful. Oh, well, as weird as that it is, we have Hollie down for the first six, which means. . . .


7. We have Hollie down for all seven of The Seven Things, as #7 merely summarizes the first six! Welcome to The Seven Things Club, Hollie. We're glad you could join the rest of humanity. Now have a glass of milk and some cookies, and chill out.


No one escapes The Seven Things.

We have M. Pompous Rawling agreeing to the failure of his invented:
The five, no wait, it's now Seven Fraudulent Things™

1. We exist!

Stating the obvious. Perhaps that would be a useful observation if we had some sort of general agreement on how this proves your various gawds. But since we don't, it's not. Therefore, we agree that you concede point 1 in your Seven Phony Things™ is useless as a means to prove your gawds.

2. The cosmological order exists!
Cosmology
1 a : a branch of metaphysics that deals with the nature of the universe
b : a theory or doctrine describing the natural order of the universe
2: a branch of astronomy that deals with the origin, structure, and space-time relationships of the universe; also : a theory dealing with these matters.

It is science that has given us a first, but incomplete understanding of the cosmos. As with so much of your ignorant and religiously based worldview that is corrupted by fear and superstition, you cant even define what you mean with slogans such as "cosmological order". You really need to look past harun Yahya for your science data. The cosmos contains many pockets and eddies of order in the midst of its more general violence and chaos. Most of human misperception on that issues is entirely one of scale. We happen to exist in one of those eddies... the localized order we experience is a precondition for our very existence. But it is not characteristic of the universe.

Lest you see a sign of "design" in our great good fortune, you have that exactly backwards. It is again the law of incredibly large numbers that requires that there must be such oases of order, and that some subset of them contain life, and some smaller subset of them contain intelligence. The universe is a very large place. Somebody, somewhere always wins the lottery eventually.


3. The idea that God exists as the Creator of everything else that exists, exists in our minds! So the possibility that God exists cannot be logically ruled out!

Your ideas of partisan gawds is entirely a function of happenstance. If you raise a baby in a Hindu culture, it will almost certainly embrace Hinduism; if in a Christian home, Christianity. All theistic beliefs are brought externally to human beings, none of them display inherent hardwiring as you falsely claimed in your earlier disaster of The Five Fraudulent Things™. If you raise a child devoid of god concepts in the middle of a remote jungle, the child will not arbitrarily and spontaneously generate theism.


4. If God does exist, He would necessarily be, logically, a Being of unparalleled greatness!

And if he does not exist, he wouldn't. If today was Friday, it wouldn't be Thursday. See how that works? The ultimate failure of your fraudulent Seven Phony Things™ is your precommittment to the polytheistic christian gawds. Your gawds are relative newcomers as human inventions of gawds go, so, to the back of the line you go with your hand-me-down gawds.

Secondly, I have to point out how spectacularly incompetent your gawds are relative to your claim of "unparalleled greatness". A tour de force of pointless. There is nothing in that paragraph worthy of intellectual allegiance. Especially as it contains such furious backpedaling from your earlier certainty regarding The Five Phony Things™

Did you just make up The Seven Phony Things™ off the cuff? Certainly you are not pretending that it is the result of any deep thinking.

You're not bright enough to ask why your gods would choose to deliver their message through the corruptible hand of man. What is more important: gods who clearly deliver their message upon which one's eternal salvation rests, or do they speak in riddles and poems, leaving open to interpretation what their intent is? What a risk they put their children at.


5. Currently, science cannot verify whether or not God exists!

Currently, science cannot verify whether or not the Easter Bunny exists!
You are now free to actually accept or reject it based on your own assessement. Now... that very well might be difficult for you, given your affection for "absolutes." You might possibly feel more comfortable being told exactly what to accept and what to reject via a long line of "absolute claims." There is certainly a personailty type that is most comfortable embedded in revealed dogma requiring no actual decision making or judgment on their part.

One of the profound difficulties religious zealots have with reality in general and science in particular is that they are more complex than “the gawds did it.” The universe does not consist of ideals and opposites, but instead of continua along dimensions with multiple (often infinite) possible options. Yes… it is one of the rude awakenings to the religious that we live in a Darwinian world, not a Platonic one.


6. It is not logically possible to say or think that God (the Creator) doesn't exist, whether He actually exists outside the logic of our minds or not (See Posts 2599 and 2600)!

It is not logically possible to say or think that your polytheistic gawds are the only gawds that don't exist.

Your polytheistic gawds are merely one conception of gawds. We are privileged to consider reality, but only the universe that actually exists can be fruitfully considered. How do we assign confidence to what is real and what is simply imaginary?

Evidence and reason. These are our only tools for that task. Thankfully, they appear to work pretty well, at least for those of us not bound to a precommittment to your dogma.


7. All six of the above things are objectively, universally and logically true for human knowers/thinkers!

No, they're not. Millennia of “philosophers and theologians” have constructed elaborate and ultimately futile models of reality and truth, with next to no positive impact on the human condition. Science in dramatic contrast is among the youngest of human of human endeavors, and yet has achieved things no previous discipline has approached. It has fed the hungry, cured disease, created technology that four generations ago would have been unimaginable. It has literally changed our world, while religions like Christianity and Islam have done little more than churn human misfortune in a static embrace of past error. Unlike all the philosophies and religions that came before it, science actually works.

This is why “scientific facts” deserve so much deference in comparison to the imaginary “absolute facts” delivered by philosophy and faith. They have evidence that affords them some qualification for our rational allegiance.

There is a reason why science has proven to be the single most influential and impactful human endeavor in history; that is because it formally recognizes the tentative nature of all human knowledge, and provides a method for incrementally approaching “absolute” truth without the arrogance of assuming it is ever actually achieved. It bears a humility regarding its own achievement that constantly inspires revision and review. It inspires thinking and iconoclasm rather than the intellectual rigor mortis of received dogma.

And in this way it accomplishes what most religious beliefs do not; progress.


Everyone Escapes the five, no wait, it's now, Seven Fraudulent Things™

 

[Hollie]

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

Oh, yeah, right, of course, there's no evidence at all for the existence of or the necessity of an intelligent designer whatsoever. Not a shred of evidence. None at all. Nope. Never happened.

Abiogenesis is not supported by any coherently explanatory model of demonstration or empirical evidence whatsoever. Rational? In my opinion it's utter nonsense, a pipe dream, based on the scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism, the sheer metaphysics of materialism. In fact, the evidence overwhelming points to the necessity of an instantaneous simultaneity of composition well-above the mere infrastructural level of the self-ordering properties of chemistry. The only people who talk like you do about the prospects for abiogenesis are laymen who know next to nothing about the data of prebiotic research or materialistic biologists at the purely theoretical level. The others are laymen who confound the distinction between prebiotic chemistry and biochemical engineering. The foundational-level, hands-on, research scientists of prebiotic chemistry know better, and the leading lights thereof roll their eyes at the hype of materialistic laymen and theorists.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

There's just no proof of said designer whatsoever.

There is plenty of evidence of intelligent design
God did not make dogs.......they were intelligently designed by man
Same goes for cats, cows, chickens, sheep

Which makes a bird's nest intelligent design.

And what's the evidence for abiogenesis again?

There are many viable hypotheses. You wont find them at your Harun Yahya madrassah, though.

And what's the evidence for any of your polytheistic gawds?

 

[Hollie]

Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts



Consciousness + from nothing, nothing comes = A transcendent Creator of unparalleled greatness.


Okay?

Another Hyper-religious Windbag Confusing His Dogma with Objective Reality


Vacuous, unsupported claims + from nothing, nothing comes = A totally unsupported claim of unparalleled pointlessness

 

[Taz]

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

Oh, yeah, right, of course, there's no evidence at all for the existence of or the necessity of an intelligent designer whatsoever. Not a shred of evidence. None at all. Nope. Never happened.

Abiogenesis is not supported by any coherently explanatory model of demonstration or empirical evidence whatsoever. Rational? In my opinion it's utter nonsense, a pipe dream, based on the scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism, the sheer metaphysics of materialism. In fact, the evidence overwhelming points to the necessity of an instantaneous simultaneity of composition well-above the mere infrastructural level of the self-ordering properties of chemistry. The only people who talk like you do about the prospects for abiogenesis are laymen who know next to nothing about the data of prebiotic research or materialistic biologists at the purely theoretical level. The others are laymen who confound the distinction between prebiotic chemistry and biochemical engineering. The foundational-level, hands-on, research scientists of prebiotic chemistry know better, and the leading lights thereof roll their eyes at the hype of materialistic laymen and theorists.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

There's just no proof of said designer whatsoever.

There is plenty of evidence of intelligent design
God did not make dogs.......they were intelligently designed by man
Same goes for cats, cows, chickens, sheep

Which makes a bird's nest intelligent design.

And what's the evidence for abiogenesis again?

The diff I would say is that creationists have stopped looking and have settled on "it's my invisible friend". Whereas others are still looking, such as at abiogenesis. A closed mind versus an open mind still asking questions and searching for the real truth.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Another Hyper-religious Windbag Confusing His Dogma with Objective Reality


Vacuous, unsupported claims + from nothing, nothing comes = A totally unsupported claim of unparalleled pointlessness

Refuting the Relativist, Materialist and/or Atheist's Utter Insanity


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/.


The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.



Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men! http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248427/



The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248474/



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248513/
Hollie's Stumper Questions for Creationists is a Mess of Pseudoscientific Blather, and Philosophical and Theological Illiteracy



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248527/
The Atheist Demonstrates Once Again that He's Got Nothin', and Nothin' from Nothin' = Nothin'!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10207407/
The Incontrovertible, Scientific Facts of Human Cognition/Psychology Versus the Make Believe World of Materialistic, Cross-My-Fingers Nuh-huh


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10210743/
The 25 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus: Or How the Proponents of Make Believe Aboigenesis Don't Really Have the First Clue about the Science. . . .



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248384/
Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248322/
Puttin' Hollie Down for The Seven Things™



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10196537/
The Betty Boop Chronicles



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10185098/
The Insanity that Science Precedes Logic



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10198442/
Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10174792/
The Laws of Human Thought are Bioneurologically Hardwired!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10178816/
The Four Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10165346/
The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10169294/
More on the Intellectual Gymnastics of Boss ≠ Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10155999/
The Irrationalists Mock Themselves



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10157487/
The Universal Principle of Human Relations: Most Atheists are Idiots


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10218381/
The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man I



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10218773/
The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man II



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10227044/
Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis




http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248818/
Summary Post - Part I



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248844/
Summary Post - Part II

 

[PratchettFan]

There is evidence, though not anything you would accept. There is, OTOH, absolutely no evidence to support ID. So abiogenesis is the most rational explanation at this point.

Oh, yeah, right, of course, there's no evidence at all for the existence of or the necessity of an intelligent designer whatsoever. Not a shred of evidence. None at all. Nope. Never happened.

Abiogenesis is not supported by any coherently explanatory model of demonstration or empirical evidence whatsoever. Rational? In my opinion it's utter nonsense, a pipe dream, based on the scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism, the sheer metaphysics of materialism. In fact, the evidence overwhelming points to the necessity of an instantaneous simultaneity of composition well-above the mere infrastructural level of the self-ordering properties of chemistry. The only people who talk like you do about the prospects for abiogenesis are laymen who know next to nothing about the data of prebiotic research or materialistic biologists at the purely theoretical level. The others are laymen who confound the distinction between prebiotic chemistry and biochemical engineering. The foundational-level, hands-on, research scientists of prebiotic chemistry know better, and the leading lights thereof roll their eyes at the hype of materialistic laymen and theorists.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

There's just no proof of said designer whatsoever.

There is plenty of evidence of intelligent design
God did not make dogs.......they were intelligently designed by man
Same goes for cats, cows, chickens, sheep

Which makes a bird's nest intelligent design.

Which makes the various human inventions / conceptions of gawds the result of (humankinds) intelligent design.

I would agree with that.

 

[Hollie]

Another Hyper-religious Windbag Confusing His Dogma with Objective Reality


Vacuous, unsupported claims + from nothing, nothing comes = A totally unsupported claim of unparalleled pointlessness

Refuting the Relativist, Materialist and/or Atheist's Utter Insanity


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/.


The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.



Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men! http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248427/



The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248474/



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248513/
Hollie's Stumper Questions for Creationists is a Mess of Pseudoscientific Blather, and Philosophical and Theological Illiteracy



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248527/
The Atheist Demonstrates Once Again that He's Got Nothin', and Nothin' from Nothin' = Nothin'!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10207407/
The Incontrovertible, Scientific Facts of Human Cognition/Psychology Versus the Make Believe World of Materialistic, Cross-My-Fingers Nuh-huh


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10210743/
The 25 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus: Or How the Proponents of Make Believe Aboigenesis Don't Really Have the First Clue about the Science. . . .



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248384/
Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248322/
Puttin' Hollie Down for The Seven Things™



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10196537/
The Betty Boop Chronicles



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10185098/
The Insanity that Science Precedes Logic



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10198442/
Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10174792/
The Laws of Human Thought are Bioneurologically Hardwired!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10178816/
The Four Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10165346/
The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10169294/
More on the Intellectual Gymnastics of Boss ≠ Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10155999/
The Irrationalists Mock Themselves



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10157487/
The Universal Principle of Human Relations: Most Atheists are Idiots


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10218381/
The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man I



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10218773/
The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man II



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10227044/
Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis




http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248818/
Summary Post - Part I



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248844/
Summary Post - Part II

Another Hyper-religious Windbag Confusing His Dogma with Objective Reality


Vacuous, unsupported claims + from nothing, nothing comes = A totally unsupported claim of unparalleled pointlessness

Refuting the Relativist, Materialist and/or Atheist's Utter Insanity


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/.


The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.



Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men! http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248427/



The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248474/



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248513/
Hollie's Stumper Questions for Creationists is a Mess of Pseudoscientific Blather, and Philosophical and Theological Illiteracy



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248527/
The Atheist Demonstrates Once Again that He's Got Nothin', and Nothin' from Nothin' = Nothin'!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10207407/
The Incontrovertible, Scientific Facts of Human Cognition/Psychology Versus the Make Believe World of Materialistic, Cross-My-Fingers Nuh-huh


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10210743/
The 25 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus: Or How the Proponents of Make Believe Aboigenesis Don't Really Have the First Clue about the Science. . . .



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248384/
Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248322/
Puttin' Hollie Down for The Seven Things™



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10196537/
The Betty Boop Chronicles



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10185098/
The Insanity that Science Precedes Logic



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10198442/
Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10174792/
The Laws of Human Thought are Bioneurologically Hardwired!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10178816/
The Four Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10165346/
The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10169294/
More on the Intellectual Gymnastics of Boss ≠ Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10155999/
The Irrationalists Mock Themselves



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10157487/
The Universal Principle of Human Relations: Most Atheists are Idiots


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10218381/
The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man I



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10218773/
The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man II



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10227044/
Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis




http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248818/
Summary Post - Part I



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248844/
Summary Post - Part II

Another Hyper-religious Windbag Confusing His Dogma with Objective Reality


Vacuous, unsupported claims + from nothing, nothing comes = A totally unsupported claim of unparalleled pointlessnessl

 

[Justin Davis]

Oh, yeah, right, of course, there's no evidence at all for the existence of or the necessity of an intelligent designer whatsoever. Not a shred of evidence. None at all. Nope. Never happened.

Abiogenesis is not supported by any coherently explanatory model of demonstration or empirical evidence whatsoever. Rational? In my opinion it's utter nonsense, a pipe dream, based on the scientifically unfalsifiable presupposition of ontological naturalism, the sheer metaphysics of materialism. In fact, the evidence overwhelming points to the necessity of an instantaneous simultaneity of composition well-above the mere infrastructural level of the self-ordering properties of chemistry. The only people who talk like you do about the prospects for abiogenesis are laymen who know next to nothing about the data of prebiotic research or materialistic biologists at the purely theoretical level. The others are laymen who confound the distinction between prebiotic chemistry and biochemical engineering. The foundational-level, hands-on, research scientists of prebiotic chemistry know better, and the leading lights thereof roll their eyes at the hype of materialistic laymen and theorists.

Prufrock s Lair Abiogenesis The Unholy Grail of Atheism

There's just no proof of said designer whatsoever.

There is plenty of evidence of intelligent design
God did not make dogs.......they were intelligently designed by man
Same goes for cats, cows, chickens, sheep

Which makes a bird's nest intelligent design.

And what's the evidence for abiogenesis again?

There are many viable hypotheses. You wont find them at your Harun Yahya madrassah, though.

And what's the evidence for any of your polytheistic gawds?

So, you're going tell us all about abiogenesis right?

 

[Hollie]

Another Hyper-religious Windbag Confusing His Dogma with Objective Reality


Vacuous, unsupported claims + from nothing, nothing comes = A totally unsupported claim of unparalleled pointlessness

Refuting the Relativist, Materialist and/or Atheist's Utter Insanity


The Seven Bindingly Incontrovertible Whether or Knots™: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248681/.


The Seven Things™ stand! They are objectively true for all regarding the problems of existence and origin due to the organic laws of human thought (the law of identity, the law of contradiction and the law of the excluded middle): http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248535/.



Hollie's Ten Incredibly Obtuse, Hermeneutically Dated Straw Men! http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248427/



The On-Going Saga of the Relativist's Irrationalism, Rank Stupidity, Pseudoscientific Claptrap, Mindless Chatter and Pathological Dishonesty: The Kool-Aid Drinkers of Duh: http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248474/



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248513/
Hollie's Stumper Questions for Creationists is a Mess of Pseudoscientific Blather, and Philosophical and Theological Illiteracy



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248527/
The Atheist Demonstrates Once Again that He's Got Nothin', and Nothin' from Nothin' = Nothin'!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10207407/
The Incontrovertible, Scientific Facts of Human Cognition/Psychology Versus the Make Believe World of Materialistic, Cross-My-Fingers Nuh-huh


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10210743/
The 25 Questions for the species Dropus Cranium Infans Orogenicmanicus de Basketus Weavicus: Or How the Proponents of Make Believe Aboigenesis Don't Really Have the First Clue about the Science. . . .



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248384/
Another Atheist Confusing His Personal Opinions with Scientific Facts



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248322/
Puttin' Hollie Down for The Seven Things™



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10196537/
The Betty Boop Chronicles



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10185098/
The Insanity that Science Precedes Logic



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10198442/
Magical Materialism - The Stuff of Straightjackets and Shock Therapy



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10174792/
The Laws of Human Thought are Bioneurologically Hardwired!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10178816/
The Four Refusals of Rationality that Would Render None of Our Beliefs Tenable, Including the Atheist's!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10165346/
The Three Laws of Divine Thought According to Boss ≠ Boss, but = a Tiny Little god (Boss) in the Gap!



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10169294/
More on the Intellectual Gymnastics of Boss ≠ Boss, but = a tiny little god (Boss) in the gap



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10155999/
The Irrationalists Mock Themselves



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10157487/
The Universal Principle of Human Relations: Most Atheists are Idiots


http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10218381/
The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man I



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10218773/
The Omnipotence Paradox is a Straw Man II



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10227044/
Orogenicman and the Magical Mythical Tour of Abiogenesis




http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248818/
Summary Post - Part I



http://www.usmessageboard.com/posts/10248844/
Summary Post - Part II

Another Hyper-religious Windbag Confusing His Dogma with Objective Reality


Vacuous, unsupported claims + from nothing, nothing comes = A totally unsupported claim of unparalleled pointlessness.


Cool. We have M. Pompous Rawling down for rejection of
The Seven Fraudulent a Things™ as a totally bogus, completely fabricated piece of meaningless drivel.

 

[Hollie]

There's just no proof of said designer whatsoever.

There is plenty of evidence of intelligent design
God did not make dogs.......they were intelligently designed by man
Same goes for cats, cows, chickens, sheep

Which makes a bird's nest intelligent design.

And what's the evidence for abiogenesis again?

There are many viable hypotheses. You wont find them at your Harun Yahya madrassah, though.

And what's the evidence for any of your polytheistic gawds?

So, you're going tell us all about abiogenesis right?

Already did.

So, you're going to tell us about one or more of your gawds did it, right?

 

[PostmodernProph]

Aww. Your YEC'ist feelings

aggressive irrelevancy......your forte.....

you've proven nothing.....but if you are atheist you claim that there is no God, despite your inability to prove it.....

Please try to keep up, I've said over and over again that I'm agnostic, as I see no proof one way or the other. The only rational position to hold.

then why, when I point out that atheists are irrational, do you continue to argue with me?.....

I said that they are less irrational than theists.

there's no reason to repeat your mistakes.....

You were embarrassed, right? Your "one judge" comment was ignorant and ill-informed.

You were too ignorant to acknowledge is that the Kitzmiller case was just one of many that resulted in ID'iot creationism being a false label for christian fundies attempting to force their dogma into the public schools.

at least you agree its a false label.....for a minute I thought you believed ID meant YE creationism.....

 

[PostmodernProph]

There is plenty of evidence of intelligent design
God did not make dogs.......they were intelligently designed by man
Same goes for cats, cows, chickens, sheep

Which makes a bird's nest intelligent design.

And what's the evidence for abiogenesis again?

There are many viable hypotheses. You wont find them at your Harun Yahya madrassah, though.

And what's the evidence for any of your polytheistic gawds?

So, you're going tell us all about abiogenesis right?

Already did.

So, you're going to tell us about one or more of your gawds did it, right?

Holly told us all there is to know about abiogenesis......mud puddle, lightning, zap, life.......she loves science......