does cosmic imperfection prove god doesnt exist?

[ding]

It could very well be that ignorance of how evolution occurs leads one to believe in cosmic imperfections.

It could also very well be that some can’t believe in a creator who doesn’t perform magic tricks for them.

I just don’t understand why they would expect that. One would think that creating space and time from nothing and creating life from inanimate matter would be enough.

 

[ding]

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?

 

[ding]

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.

I’ve heard that argument before but the first four words of your argument were “we make our choices” so you have already acknowledged that choices were made.

 

[ding]

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".

I think that is certainly a big part of it. I also believe that God experiences the material world through us.

It seems very odd to me that people would want to experience the material world without trials and tribulations.

I don’t believe happiness would have any meaning without sadness. I don’t believe success would have any meaning without failure. And so on and so on.

My victories wouldn’t mean near as much to me if I didn’t have to overcome obstacles and adversities.

I can’t imagine life would be as sweet to me if everything were handed to me.

 

[G.T.]

I hold an affirmative position on the man-made religions - Ive been presented with enough information to determine a belief - that they're bullshit.

Thats able to be done empirically - claim A is true or false. Claim B is vacuous, claim C contradicts claim E. etc...etc.

But on the proposition that there is or is not a deity - I'm not convinced by any argument thats been presented for the affirmative or the negative...so Im left with a disposition - I believe neither, at this time.


What does that mean, well - categorically, belief in a deity ranks the same as any other unestablished claim like a unicorn, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

Actually the claim for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddy Kruger do not rank the same as the claim of a creator. To assert they do is ridiculous.

Duh... to YOU, youre a BELIEVER!

LOL

Nobody's proven Unicorns to me, and nobody's going to travel lightspeed(faster, actually) and disprove their existence on all worlds, either.

So...they rank exactly the same as any other human proposition from where I sit in unbelief. Unfortunately, you dont get to tell me what I believe.

 

[tyroneweaver]

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?

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

 

[ding]

I hold an affirmative position on the man-made religions - Ive been presented with enough information to determine a belief - that they're bullshit.

Thats able to be done empirically - claim A is true or false. Claim B is vacuous, claim C contradicts claim E. etc...etc.

But on the proposition that there is or is not a deity - I'm not convinced by any argument thats been presented for the affirmative or the negative...so Im left with a disposition - I believe neither, at this time.


What does that mean, well - categorically, belief in a deity ranks the same as any other unestablished claim like a unicorn, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

Actually the claim for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddy Kruger do not rank the same as the claim of a creator. To assert they do is ridiculous.

Duh... to YOU, youre a BELIEVER!

LOL

Nobody's proven Unicorns to me, and nobody's going to travel lightspeed(faster, actually) and disprove their existence on all worlds, either.

So...they rank exactly the same as any other human proposition from where I sit in unbelief. Unfortunately, you dont get to tell me what I believe.

But can YOU make a compelling argument for unicorns, boogy men and Freddie Kruger? No. You can’t.

The reality is that all throughout the history of mankind every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. That isn’t the case for unicorns, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

To argue they are the same is ridiculous, and in fact reveals that you are not agnostic at all.

I can make a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power than man. I can’t make a compelling argument for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddie Kruger.

 

[G.T.]

I hold an affirmative position on the man-made religions - Ive been presented with enough information to determine a belief - that they're bullshit.

Thats able to be done empirically - claim A is true or false. Claim B is vacuous, claim C contradicts claim E. etc...etc.

But on the proposition that there is or is not a deity - I'm not convinced by any argument thats been presented for the affirmative or the negative...so Im left with a disposition - I believe neither, at this time.


What does that mean, well - categorically, belief in a deity ranks the same as any other unestablished claim like a unicorn, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

Actually the claim for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddy Kruger do not rank the same as the claim of a creator. To assert they do is ridiculous.

Duh... to YOU, youre a BELIEVER!

LOL

Nobody's proven Unicorns to me, and nobody's going to travel lightspeed(faster, actually) and disprove their existence on all worlds, either.

So...they rank exactly the same as any other human proposition from where I sit in unbelief. Unfortunately, you dont get to tell me what I believe.

But can YOU make a compelling argument for unicorns, boogy men and Freddie Kruger? No. You can’t.

The reality is that all throughout the history of mankind every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. That isn’t the case for unicorns, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

To argue they are the same is ridiculous, and in fact reveals that you are not agnostic at all.

I can make a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power than man. I can’t make a compelling argument for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddie Kruger.

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns. That should be simple enough to understand, and I made it clear. You can stop engaging me now - too much of you is a waste of time...but time to time seems alright.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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.

 

[ding]

I hold an affirmative position on the man-made religions - Ive been presented with enough information to determine a belief - that they're bullshit.

Thats able to be done empirically - claim A is true or false. Claim B is vacuous, claim C contradicts claim E. etc...etc.

But on the proposition that there is or is not a deity - I'm not convinced by any argument thats been presented for the affirmative or the negative...so Im left with a disposition - I believe neither, at this time.


What does that mean, well - categorically, belief in a deity ranks the same as any other unestablished claim like a unicorn, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

Actually the claim for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddy Kruger do not rank the same as the claim of a creator. To assert they do is ridiculous.

Duh... to YOU, youre a BELIEVER!

LOL

Nobody's proven Unicorns to me, and nobody's going to travel lightspeed(faster, actually) and disprove their existence on all worlds, either.

So...they rank exactly the same as any other human proposition from where I sit in unbelief. Unfortunately, you dont get to tell me what I believe.

But can YOU make a compelling argument for unicorns, boogy men and Freddie Kruger? No. You can’t.

The reality is that all throughout the history of mankind every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. That isn’t the case for unicorns, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

To argue they are the same is ridiculous, and in fact reveals that you are not agnostic at all.

I can make a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power than man. I can’t make a compelling argument for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddie Kruger.

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

 

[G.T.]

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.

I think that certain folks, hobelim comes to mind, see some wisdom of an ethic hashed out via a parable - they think it's amazing...and perhaps it's a function of their level of creativity/imagination... and that the less artistic folks would have a harder time coming up with allegories on their own and so they find them to be special, or whatever. That line of psychological inquiry makes some sense, to me.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I hold an affirmative position on the man-made religions - Ive been presented with enough information to determine a belief - that they're bullshit.

Thats able to be done empirically - claim A is true or false. Claim B is vacuous, claim C contradicts claim E. etc...etc.

But on the proposition that there is or is not a deity - I'm not convinced by any argument thats been presented for the affirmative or the negative...so Im left with a disposition - I believe neither, at this time.


What does that mean, well - categorically, belief in a deity ranks the same as any other unestablished claim like a unicorn, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

Actually the claim for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddy Kruger do not rank the same as the claim of a creator. To assert they do is ridiculous.

Duh... to YOU, youre a BELIEVER!

LOL

Nobody's proven Unicorns to me, and nobody's going to travel lightspeed(faster, actually) and disprove their existence on all worlds, either.

So...they rank exactly the same as any other human proposition from where I sit in unbelief. Unfortunately, you dont get to tell me what I believe.

But can YOU make a compelling argument for unicorns, boogy men and Freddie Kruger? No. You can’t.

The reality is that all throughout the history of mankind every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. That isn’t the case for unicorns, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

To argue they are the same is ridiculous, and in fact reveals that you are not agnostic at all.

I can make a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power than man. I can’t make a compelling argument for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddie Kruger.

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

Haha, look at the mincing charlatan, tryingto paper over the fact that he has zero evidence. I wonder if you even fool yourself... I say no.

 

[G.T.]

I hold an affirmative position on the man-made religions - Ive been presented with enough information to determine a belief - that they're bullshit.

Thats able to be done empirically - claim A is true or false. Claim B is vacuous, claim C contradicts claim E. etc...etc.

But on the proposition that there is or is not a deity - I'm not convinced by any argument thats been presented for the affirmative or the negative...so Im left with a disposition - I believe neither, at this time.


What does that mean, well - categorically, belief in a deity ranks the same as any other unestablished claim like a unicorn, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

Actually the claim for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddy Kruger do not rank the same as the claim of a creator. To assert they do is ridiculous.

Duh... to YOU, youre a BELIEVER!

LOL

Nobody's proven Unicorns to me, and nobody's going to travel lightspeed(faster, actually) and disprove their existence on all worlds, either.

So...they rank exactly the same as any other human proposition from where I sit in unbelief. Unfortunately, you dont get to tell me what I believe.

But can YOU make a compelling argument for unicorns, boogy men and Freddie Kruger? No. You can’t.

The reality is that all throughout the history of mankind every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. That isn’t the case for unicorns, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

To argue they are the same is ridiculous, and in fact reveals that you are not agnostic at all.

I can make a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power than man. I can’t make a compelling argument for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddie Kruger.

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

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.

 

[ding]

Actually the claim for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddy Kruger do not rank the same as the claim of a creator. To assert they do is ridiculous.

Duh... to YOU, youre a BELIEVER!

LOL

Nobody's proven Unicorns to me, and nobody's going to travel lightspeed(faster, actually) and disprove their existence on all worlds, either.

So...they rank exactly the same as any other human proposition from where I sit in unbelief. Unfortunately, you dont get to tell me what I believe.

But can YOU make a compelling argument for unicorns, boogy men and Freddie Kruger? No. You can’t.

The reality is that all throughout the history of mankind every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. That isn’t the case for unicorns, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

To argue they are the same is ridiculous, and in fact reveals that you are not agnostic at all.

I can make a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power than man. I can’t make a compelling argument for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddie Kruger.

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

Haha, look at the mincing charlatan, tryingto paper over the fact that he has zero evidence. I wonder if you even fool yourself... I say no.

The evidence is all around you and in you. You just don’t want to see it.

 

[Mindful]

I hold an affirmative position on the man-made religions - Ive been presented with enough information to determine a belief - that they're bullshit.

Thats able to be done empirically - claim A is true or false. Claim B is vacuous, claim C contradicts claim E. etc...etc.

But on the proposition that there is or is not a deity - I'm not convinced by any argument thats been presented for the affirmative or the negative...so Im left with a disposition - I believe neither, at this time.


What does that mean, well - categorically, belief in a deity ranks the same as any other unestablished claim like a unicorn, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

Actually the claim for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddy Kruger do not rank the same as the claim of a creator. To assert they do is ridiculous.

Duh... to YOU, youre a BELIEVER!

LOL

Nobody's proven Unicorns to me, and nobody's going to travel lightspeed(faster, actually) and disprove their existence on all worlds, either.

So...they rank exactly the same as any other human proposition from where I sit in unbelief. Unfortunately, you dont get to tell me what I believe.

But can YOU make a compelling argument for unicorns, boogy men and Freddie Kruger? No. You can’t.

The reality is that all throughout the history of mankind every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. That isn’t the case for unicorns, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

To argue they are the same is ridiculous, and in fact reveals that you are not agnostic at all.

I can make a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power than man. I can’t make a compelling argument for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddie Kruger.

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

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

 

[ding]

Actually the claim for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddy Kruger do not rank the same as the claim of a creator. To assert they do is ridiculous.

Duh... to YOU, youre a BELIEVER!

LOL

Nobody's proven Unicorns to me, and nobody's going to travel lightspeed(faster, actually) and disprove their existence on all worlds, either.

So...they rank exactly the same as any other human proposition from where I sit in unbelief. Unfortunately, you dont get to tell me what I believe.

But can YOU make a compelling argument for unicorns, boogy men and Freddie Kruger? No. You can’t.

The reality is that all throughout the history of mankind every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. That isn’t the case for unicorns, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

To argue they are the same is ridiculous, and in fact reveals that you are not agnostic at all.

I can make a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power than man. I can’t make a compelling argument for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddie Kruger.

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

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.

 

[G.T.]

Actually the claim for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddy Kruger do not rank the same as the claim of a creator. To assert they do is ridiculous.

Duh... to YOU, youre a BELIEVER!

LOL

Nobody's proven Unicorns to me, and nobody's going to travel lightspeed(faster, actually) and disprove their existence on all worlds, either.

So...they rank exactly the same as any other human proposition from where I sit in unbelief. Unfortunately, you dont get to tell me what I believe.

But can YOU make a compelling argument for unicorns, boogy men and Freddie Kruger? No. You can’t.

The reality is that all throughout the history of mankind every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. That isn’t the case for unicorns, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

To argue they are the same is ridiculous, and in fact reveals that you are not agnostic at all.

I can make a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power than man. I can’t make a compelling argument for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddie Kruger.

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

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

You seriously need a new hobby than snitting at me each day - get a freakin life you creeper

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The evidence is all around you and in you.

And yet you couldn't produce a single shred of it, if your life depended on it. Hint: just because some charlatan claims there is evidence of a magical proposition does not mean there is.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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

What about the gods and baby jebus?

 

[ding]

Actually the claim for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddy Kruger do not rank the same as the claim of a creator. To assert they do is ridiculous.

Duh... to YOU, youre a BELIEVER!

LOL

Nobody's proven Unicorns to me, and nobody's going to travel lightspeed(faster, actually) and disprove their existence on all worlds, either.

So...they rank exactly the same as any other human proposition from where I sit in unbelief. Unfortunately, you dont get to tell me what I believe.

But can YOU make a compelling argument for unicorns, boogy men and Freddie Kruger? No. You can’t.

The reality is that all throughout the history of mankind every society has overwhelmingly believed in a higher power than man. That isn’t the case for unicorns, the boogy man or Freddy Kruger.

To argue they are the same is ridiculous, and in fact reveals that you are not agnostic at all.

I can make a compelling argument for the existence of a higher power than man. I can’t make a compelling argument for unicorns, the boogy man and Freddie Kruger.

You may be able to compel others - but not me, and it's not for you to decide what compels me to believe something.

Gods of any religions have not compelled me, and n'or have unicorns.

I really couldn’t care less to compel you.

My point is that your assertion is ridiculous and that it reveals your bias. There is no evidence you will accept because your mind is already made up. You don’t believe God exists which is why you don’t look for evidence of God’s existence.

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

I’m sure there will always be someone who will oblige his desire for a fight.