does cosmic imperfection prove god doesnt exist?

[ding]

Still waiting for that compelling argument for unicorns. Anyone?

I've seen compelling arguments for neither -

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

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

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

If you post more then 4 sentences, I don't even read your posts...it's too chock fulla dumb shit.

I just showed you an argument for the existence of God. You can’t make any argument for unicorns, compelling or otherwise.

 

[G.T.]

I am biased against any proposition that's been made that I reject - which for any Religious deity, is all of them...same as I reject any argument for Unicorns. Never been compelled to believe in either one, and so I consider them on the same playing field in my belief system and there's nothing you can do about that, so you lash out. It's fine, I'm used to it. Folks are triggered when others don't believe as they do, and you're inmate #1 in that regard.

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

I’m not lashing out. I am telling you that you are making a ridiculous argument. To argue there is the same level of evidence for unicorns and a creator is illogical.

You'll have to point out how it's fallacious in order to call it illogical - but it's internally consistent. I've not seen anyone meet the burden of proof of their preferred deity, and I've not seen anyone meet the burden of proof of a Unicorn, and so I consider the propositions, in terms of their truth value, the same.

You can lash out and throw tantrums and call it illogical all you'd like, but you're not going to JUSTIFY those conclusions because you'd be attempting to appeal to what ANOTHER agent considers adequate proof to believe a proposition, which is absurd unless you're omniscient.

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

Why can't we use what he created as evidence?

You can use whatever you want as evidence - you merely can't force that it compels anyone of anything. It merely informs you that your standards are vastly different than some other folks' standards.

So in other words you can’t even state what your standard is for the burden of proof you will accept.

There is no "in other words," because you're always wrong when you try to interpret anything.

There's no "standard," singular, there are "standards," plural - and that's because different propositions require different levels of evidence. Is that not evident, to you?

 

[G.T.]

Still waiting for that compelling argument for unicorns. Anyone?

I've seen compelling arguments for neither -

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

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

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

If you post more then 4 sentences, I don't even read your posts...it's too chock fulla dumb shit.

I just showed you an argument for the existence of God. You can’t make any argument for unicorns, compelling or otherwise.

No, you posted a wall of text that I didn't look at because you're, in my evaluation, not smart enough to engage in walls of text any longer.

You already knew/know that I thought that - so it shouldn't be news.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Or it could be that God is seeking certain outcomes under certain conditions.

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

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

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

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

Actually, you missed the point. If god is omnipotent then he would be 100% capable of making humans choose to be virtuous, all without violating our free will. Ding is attempting to explain away the tri-omni problem, but all he's doing is affirming it.

ACTUALLY, you are still missing the point. No one has ever denied that God, being omnipotent, has the ability to make humans into puppets with no free will who do exactly what God prefers at all times. So thank you SO much for repeatedly "correcting" us on something no one has ever said. Not a giant waste of time at all.

However, what you are suggesting is a logical absurdity, something that is itself while simultaneously being not itself. This is the sort of "paradox" that tiny minds who give all of five minutes thought to theology and then congratulate themselves on having "discovered" something new and brilliant that is actually basic and long-since-addressed to actual believers. Here, Matt Walsh just explained this very well yesterday in addressing the similar "unliftable stone" concept that twits also think is genius, and I see no reason why you deserve to have me spend time coming up with a new way to say it:

I can remember being stumped by this theological conundrum when I was in kindergarten. As an adult, I tend to find nonsense much more annoying than perplexing. The "unliftable stone" problem is only a problem because it makes no sense. If God is all-powerful, then all stones are by definition liftable. What's really being asked here is this: "Can God create a liftable unliftable stone." No, He cannot, just as He cannot make an elephant that is also a pine tree. God cannot do nonsensical things, precisely because He exists. Only non-existent things can be nonsense.

Understand it and learn, or continue to tell yourself how your ignorance is really brilliance. Whatever blows your skirt up.

 

[gfm7175]

It's tedious to address 15 paragraphs at once on a message-board, so try and focus on one thing at a time.

YOU'RE making numerous claims at once, so if YOU want the focus to be on one thing at a time, only make ONE claim at a time then...

I am NOT agnostic on a CHRISTIAN God, and I am NOT "not" agnostic based on an argument from ignorance, and I am NOT saying that my DISbelief in the CHRISTIAN god is due to faith, or due to the fact that I've not seen any arguments that prove it YET. (that would be an argument FROM ignorance).

You spend entire posts merely advising that things have gone over your head - things that were stated quite clearly already.

You're still all over the place because you can't just simply state what you believe, and keep trying to play to this "I lack belief" bullshit...

I am agnostic regarding there being a deity. That's because I have no compelling reasons to believe either way - this is a mere disposition of unbelief, and not an argument from ignorance and why you were incorrect in its usage.

You're agnostic with regard to deities, except when you are trying to justify your belief in the non-existence of the Christian God, except when you go back to claiming that you don't believe either way (which IS a BELIEF, by the way, that human reason is insufficient to determine either way)... You're all over the place; that is NOT my fault. You keep shifting between your views once I show you why your [view of the moment] doesn't make sense...

I am NOT agnostic in terms of a christian god,

Welcome to Paradox City, Home of Irrationality... The Christian God IS a deity, G.T... So, how can you be agnostic regarding deities but NOT agnostic regarding the Christian God?? You need to clear your paradox... This is what happens when you lose track of all your goalpost shifting and not being able to just admit that you are an atheist and believe that god(s) do not exist... You had a sensible route to take, to just admit that you are an atheist and that you believe that god(s) do not exist on a faith basis. Or even that you are an agnostic, and believe that human reason is insufficient to determine existence either way. Those would both be sensible positions... Yet, you instead choose to tangle yourself in fallacies and paradoxes by trying to justify your belief, and backpedaling from fallacies which led to paradoxes...

and my reason is NOT because of a lack of valid arguments - - - so not an argument from ignorance - but rather my position is the POSITIVE assertion that it's false because it has internal contradictions, and also made claims about reality that were later proven, by science, to be false. That's a positive argument, not an argument from ignorance (argument based on what I DONT know), but instead an argument based on what I DO know.

And now you're shifting to a completely new argument yet again... Now you're arguing that there are internal logical contradictions and that science proved particular claims about reality to be false.

Supposed internal contradictions can be argued (a lot of them actually aren't, or don't falsify the religion in any way), but science does not prove anything... Open functional systems such as science do NOT make use of proofs. Only closed functional systems such as logic and mathematics do.

 

[G.T.]

It's tedious to address 15 paragraphs at once on a message-board, so try and focus on one thing at a time.

YOU'RE making numerous claims at once, so if YOU want the focus to be on one thing at a time, only make ONE claim at a time then...

I am NOT agnostic on a CHRISTIAN God, and I am NOT "not" agnostic based on an argument from ignorance, and I am NOT saying that my DISbelief in the CHRISTIAN god is due to faith, or due to the fact that I've not seen any arguments that prove it YET. (that would be an argument FROM ignorance).

You spend entire posts merely advising that things have gone over your head - things that were stated quite clearly already.

You're still all over the place because you can't just simply state what you believe, and keep trying to play to this "I lack belief" bullshit...

I am agnostic regarding there being a deity. That's because I have no compelling reasons to believe either way - this is a mere disposition of unbelief, and not an argument from ignorance and why you were incorrect in its usage.

You're agnostic with regard to deities, except when you are trying to justify your belief in the non-existence of the Christian God, except when you go back to claiming that you don't believe either way (which IS a BELIEF, by the way, that human reason is insufficient to determine either way)... You're all over the place; that is NOT my fault. You keep shifting between your views once I show you why your [view of the moment] doesn't make sense...

I am NOT agnostic in terms of a christian god,

Welcome to Paradox City, Home of Irrationality... The Christian God IS a deity, G.T... So, how can you be agnostic regarding deities but NOT agnostic regarding the Christian God?? You need to clear your paradox... This is what happens when you lose track of all your goalpost shifting and not being able to just admit that you are an atheist and believe that god(s) do not exist... You had a sensible route to take, to just admit that you are an atheist and that you believe that god(s) do not exist on a faith basis. Or even that you are an agnostic, and believe that human reason is insufficient to determine existence either way. Those would both be sensible positions... Yet, you instead choose to tangle yourself in fallacies and paradoxes by trying to justify your belief, and backpedaling from fallacies which led to paradoxes...

and my reason is NOT because of a lack of valid arguments - - - so not an argument from ignorance - but rather my position is the POSITIVE assertion that it's false because it has internal contradictions, and also made claims about reality that were later proven, by science, to be false. That's a positive argument, not an argument from ignorance (argument based on what I DONT know), but instead an argument based on what I DO know.

And now you're shifting to a completely new argument yet again... Now you're arguing that there are internal logical contradictions and that science proved particular claims about reality to be false.

Supposed internal contradictions can be argued (a lot of them actually aren't, or don't falsify the religion in any way), but science does not prove anything... Open functional systems such as science do NOT make use of proofs. Only closed functional systems such as logic and mathematics do.

You really have this hard of a ******* time understanding not to conflate a PARTICULAR god, with the concept of Gods in general?

What the **** is seriously the matter with you? What is your major mal-*******-function?

Seriously!

If I believe paul bunyan doesnt exist, does that then mean i dont believe HUMANS exist?

If I believe that Jordan and Magic don't exist, does that mean I believe BASKETBALL PLAYERS dont exist?>


You are ffffffucking conflating.


c-o-n-f-l-a-t-i-n-g


You have a problem distinguishing between a well-defined God, and the Idea of a God in general. I can believe the former is NOT real, without any particular position on the latter. That's not bouncing all over the place, it's internally consistent. How many more posts are you going to be unable to even comprehend, before a discussion might be had? There's no paradox!! You can be agnostic on deities in general and disbelieve particular ones! Holy balls, dude

Holy ****! Sorry...it's just amazing to me!

 

[Cecilie1200]

Or it could be that God is seeking certain outcomes under certain conditions.

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

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

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

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

Actually, you missed the point. If god is omnipotent then he would be 100% capable of making humans choose to be virtuous, all without violating our free will. Ding is attempting to explain away the tri-omni problem, but all he's doing is affirming it.

And the irony here is that free will is an illusion anyway. We make our choices before we are aware that we have made them.

The sad thing is that you wander through life so clueless and lacking in self-knowledge and self-control, and you assume that's the way everyone is, and has to be. The irony is that you think your pitifulness is an argument against religion, when one of the primary points of religion is precisely to teach us how NOT to be an unevolved hapless loser like you.

 

[G.T.]

I'm kind of in shock with that - they don't teach simple logic via word problems in like... 1st grade and up???

Tom is a shoe salesman.
I don't believe that Tom exists.
Does that mean that I don't believe there are shoe salesmen?
NO

Christian God is a God.
I don't believe that this God exists.
Does that mean that I don't believe there are Gods?
NO

^ he actually called that a paradox. Simple modus ponens.

 

[Cecilie1200]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

I'm a little curious as to why you assume star explosions are "imperfections in the cosmos".

It collapsing on itself doesnt seem like perfection.

As defined by you. But where is it written that your perception that "perfection equals existing forever" is correct?

Collapse on yourself and call it perfection

Yes, because reality is totally dependent on and defined by individual perception and preference. What a brilliant argument. "It's not perfect because it's not what I think perfection is. You wouldn't like it, so that makes me right!"

Once again, we have someone arguing that Christianity can't be true because it doesn't agree with the very immature, selfish mindsets that it is designed to raise us above in the first place.

 

[Cecilie1200]

the only thing observable from a star is its color and nothing else

The only thing observable about your god is an ancient book put together by a select group of individuals that was written by ignorant desert savages that wiped their ass with their hands and fucked their relatives

No, that's all YOU can observe, possibly because it's the only thing you're TRYING to observe.

It is what it is, my dear.

Yup, and what it is is you mistaking your hostile bias as factual and meaningful.

So what was i wrong about?
I just worded it in a way that offended you. Thats what i always do
Or maybe its just offensive to you in general? Even though thats what happened?
Denial should be the 11th commandment.

You were wrong about everything. You were also offensive and snotty, but that's a separate matter. I'm accustomed to talking to people who take any challenge to their treasured ignorance as a call to attack.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Or it could be that God is seeking certain outcomes under certain conditions.

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

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

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

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

Actually, you missed the point. If god is omnipotent then he would be 100% capable of making humans choose to be virtuous, all without violating our free will. Ding is attempting to explain away the tri-omni problem, but all he's doing is affirming it.

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

Is it because that is what you would do?

Atheists always leap to the conclusion that when the universe fails to conform to their expectations, that means there's a flaw in the universe, rather than a flaw in their expectations.

 

[TNHarley]

The only thing observable about your god is an ancient book put together by a select group of individuals that was written by ignorant desert savages that wiped their ass with their hands and fucked their relatives

No, that's all YOU can observe, possibly because it's the only thing you're TRYING to observe.

It is what it is, my dear.

Yup, and what it is is you mistaking your hostile bias as factual and meaningful.

So what was i wrong about?
I just worded it in a way that offended you. Thats what i always do
Or maybe its just offensive to you in general? Even though thats what happened?
Denial should be the 11th commandment.

You were wrong about everything. You were also offensive and snotty, but that's a separate matter. I'm accustomed to talking to people who take any challenge to their treasured ignorance as a call to attack.

I wasnt wrong. And you know it. My language just must have triggered your sensibilities. Its ok. It happens to the best of us.

 

[Cecilie1200]

It's obvious you refuse to accept as scripture what your mind cannot grasp

Nothing about these iron aged myths is complicated. What is obvious is that you lack the language to articulate your own thoughts.

Actually, Christianity is quite complex. What's simplistic is the small amount of information you've cherrypicked to know about it, and the amount of thought you've given to it before declaring yourself some sort of expert on the subject who can issue pronouncements about it without expecting the obvious reaction, which is being laughed and derisively and dismissed.

Which is why that is, in fact, the reaction you get.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

But I still haven’t seen anything nice come from a big ass explosion

Did you track the trillions of atoms for billions of years to see where they ended up? And then repeat this observation trillions of times?

No?

Well then, your comment isn't relevant, is it?

 

[Cecilie1200]

At this rate, he'll have no one left to post to.

What about the gods and baby jebus?

Actually, sometimes I could get into the notion of Gods. A whole committee of them, looking down at us, arguing, debating amongst themselves. Deciding our destinies.

Nothing ever really gets done effectively by committee, though, so probably not.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

By claiming "I lack belief", THAT is ITSELF expressing a belief of yours

Wrong. Absurd. Go peddle that nonsenae somewhere else.

 

[Mindful]

At this rate, he'll have no one left to post to.

What about the gods and baby jebus?

Actually, sometimes I could get into the notion of Gods. A whole committee of them, looking down at us, arguing, debating amongst themselves. Deciding our destinies.

Nothing ever really gets done effectively by committee, though, so probably not.

It worked out in Jason and the Argonauts.

Consensus.

 

[Crixus]

But I still haven’t seen anything nice come from a big ass explosion

Did you track the trillions of atoms for billions of years to see where they ended up? And then repeat this observation trillions of times?

No?

Well then, your comment isn't relevant, is it?

What makes any of them relevant? These atoms can do what they do as they do and I nust have to deal with that. I’m sure the atoms will be fine.

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

The elements we are made of exist because of cosmic imperfection. Such as a star exploding creating carbon. In fact, most elements on earth were created from star explosions.
If the cosmos was perfect, would any of this (reality) even exist?
I bring this up because according to theologians, their god is perfect. Which, obviously, gets contradicted by what i posted above.
Is their god really not perfect? Was his story really just made up by desert savages who had to explain things they didnt understand? Or is science wrong?

We were made in the image of thy Father, so there is your answer...

 

[Mindful]

Have we mentioned black holes yet?