In the Absence of God; Human rights cannot exist.

[MichaelCollins]

ROFLMNAO... so you feel gravity do ya... well you must truly be special... and to see it... INCREDIBLE! It's amazing that you can see gravity and ya can't see God.


This is what cracks me up about these people: THEY'RE IDIOTS!

She can't feel gravity... and she sure as hell can't see it; yet she is perfectly willing to advance written testimony that she routinely does both.

ROFLMNAO... Leftists.

On a forum of uneducated american Jesus freaks... it takes something to write the worst ever post.

Congratulations.

 

[MichaelCollins]

Wanna bet?

YouTube - BLAIR ON RELIGION *I DIDN'T WANT TO BE LABELED A NUTTER*

its only in the US and third world countries that a politician would dare admit to being a religious nutjob.

Religion only exists in the minds of the weak and in the developing world. Where education exists...it is an embarassment and certainly something to keep to yourself if you dont want to be considered ...a raving lunatic.

 

[cjcord]

Clearly the member now needs to modify their position to one of feeling the 'effects' of gravity...

Consider it modified for all the literalists out there. For all the others, they seemed to understand my point without issue.

On what basis do you classify God as existing beyond the scope of the laws of the universe?

Well, You weren't speaking to me, but I have an opinion regardless. If God existed within the scope of the laws of the universe, we would be able to "feel his effects" and "detect" him without need of religion or faith.

isn't it possible that SOMEWHERE in that void of ignorance that a God force could exist without you being able to prove it? And the reason you couldn't prove it would be because you don't know enough about the laws of the universe to even begin to know what the questions are that would even lead you in the right direction.

Of course it is possible. But is it PROBABLE? Not really. It is entirely possible that dolphins can be taught to enter domestic service. Their intelligence is high enough. But is it probable? Not really.

Why, you ask? I'll tell you, gladly.

"God", like...morals eusa_angel, is relative. What you perceive as God may not be what Mr. Joe Schmoe perceives as God. The Hindu Gods are not exactly the Christian God in tradition or characteristics. Now even if we called god "Tomato soup", it still wouldn't change anything. Perhaps the OP should change the title of this thread: In the absence of faith, God cannot exist. .
Those with faith can attribute much in the physical world to Tomato soup. Those without it, can attribute it to scientific theory or random chance events (based on chaos theory mayhaps?)

Your argument is flawed for this reason alone. You maintain things happen and follow a path set and maintained by Tomato Soup. Because you believe in it. Others follow path set and maintained by known science. Neither is wrong. You falter in that you are attempting to impose your belief systems on those who do not share it. But you must remember that beliefs are just that. Not facts globally, but personal truths. How very Inquisitional of you!

Bottom line, just because you choose to attribute things you cannot claim to explain with science to God, does not make it "of" God. It could just be scientifically explained. It is your right to disagree. But you have No right to dictate what others should believe.

That is absolute BULLSHIT! You don't label, yet you establish, on absolutely NO BASIS, that God, IF he exists, must exist outside the scope of the universe and it's laws...

I agree with Vintij on this, as I just explained above. There is a very real basis for rationalizing that God , if he exists, must exist outside the scope of universal laws- you just disagree with it.

Atheism is today what it has always been... the anti-religion, religion.

Interesting. Atheists have never claimed it to be a religion. Rather it is a philosophical idea. And i know of no atheists who are against religion per se, but rather against the immediate suspension of belief in anything OTHER than religion. Very different indeed.

And there are few things on this earth that are sillier than a typical atheist.

I would have to nominate Fundamental Christians and Extremist Muslims, if we were taking a vote.

 

[LOki]

Yeah witless... I read it too. I read it the first time, than I read it again when you're comrade pointed it out and now I've read it yet again and it is still the same fallacious train-wreck it was the first time.

Let's go to the video tape:

Hey Pub - the explanation of gravity is a theory isn't it? We know its effect but we can only theorise about it.

Same for the idea of god creating the universe. We can see it but we can only theorise about its creation. Ergo, god is a theory.

Note the text which I've highlighted... Notice jackass, where the subject is 'the explanation of gravity' and his conclusion that such is a theory... He thens uses that conclusion that the explanation for gravity being a theory is a basis to conclude that God is a theory... NOT THE EXPLANATION OF GOD... But God...

Well, aren't you just the coziest bag of disengenously myoptic dumbfuck ever: game on retard.

Now I realize that you're a solid rock of intellect... so I'll carry ya slow here...

IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE THEORY WHUCH HUMANITY IS WORKING ON WHICH EXPLAINS GRAVITY IS A VALID LOGICAL BASIS ON WHICH TO CONCLUDE THAT THE EXISTANCE OF GOD IS A THEORY...

Not that is was asserted at all that the scientific theory of gravity explains your theory of everything, but in so far as you insist that God is your explanation for the existence of universe . . . GOD IS YOUR THEORY OF EXISTENCE OF THE UNIVERSE.

Can you follow that, Jasper?

And it's a bad theory as well; in fact the best description is "hypothesis". And being an untestable, unverifiable, and unsupported hypotheseis, it's a bad hypothesis too.

You see sis, God, like gravity is a self evident force in Nature...

You see retard, the existence of superstituos retards is far, FAR, more self-evident than the existence of their fatuous Gods.

. . . thus GOD's existance is not set into doubt, because a pack of half wits, not unlike yourself... irrationally need to reject the evidence of that force of nature and do so,. . .

Question-begging argument is not evidence.

. . . through the hysterical means of observing the minutia relevant to the physical sciences and declare from the observable or predictable cause and effect that they fully understand the full scope of universal time and space;. . .

Strawman.

. . . which would be fairly necessary for one to delcare with any level of credible certainty that God does not exist.

Yep, strawman--asserting that there is not reason to believe God exists, due to the lack of evidence or valid arguement that He exists, is not the same thing as saynig God does not exist.

Like gravity, God's existance does not rely upon your belief that God exists or not.

If God exists, this is certainly true. But the question remains, does God exist? It is evident, that His existence IS NOT SELF-EVIDENT as you fatuously demand.

It's time to take off your summer bonnet, and stop stamping your little pink booties--throwing a hissy fit until we all agree that your invisble father who lives in the sky is real.

And like gravity, your disbelief or ignorance will not spare you from accountability to its laws; again, this is DESPITE and wholly without regard to your position regarding God's existance.

Despite the anthropormorphic tradition of your superstition, gravity does not have, or make laws.

Now I can't dumb it down to any level below this one girls... If you can't handle the discussion, then walk around the campus and find someone that you REALLY FEEL.... isn't a complete ******* idiot and talk him into posting something approaching an argument.

Let's talk a little about dumbing it down; your faithful denial of evidence, and the way evidence works, in favor of baseless assertion and faithful adherence to it is what is clearly dumb. Demanding that the rest of the world get dumb with you has nothing to do with inability to "handle" the discussion, but rather more to do with politely trying to make sense out of your patently obvious senslessness.

(But don't get your feelings all setup for anything but more of the same rhetorical ass beating that you've experienced here, thus far. As its long been my experience that there isn't a truly bright humanist on the face of the earth. In fact, the first sign of a complete dumbass... They're a humanist... Anywho, work it out anyway ya feel ya need to. But don' trot out these dullwitted non sequiturs as reason... they really are a waste of time.)

Yes. Dullwitted. But not so dullwitted that they can't see the logical fallacy in your proof of the (LOL) "self-evidence" (/LOL) of God;

The universe exists;
God created the universe;
Therefore God exists.​

Can you see it?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Consider it modified for all the literalists out there. For all the others, they seemed to understand my point without issue.

It is absolutely wild how the positions advanced by the left are nearly impossible to accurately interpret? It's analogous to the Arabs who inevitably run to correct the misinterpretation of one of their idiots when they're caught demanding that Israel be destroyed... this based upon some idiosyncrasy within their language which doesn't translate to English.

I mean here the member demands that she can 'feel gravity' but did not respond to the simple question: What does Gravity feel like? And this is because she is NOT feeling GRAVITY she is feeling the effect of the change from the normalized constant inherent in the human brain. As a matter of fact, as noted above she herself, in the same breath in which she claimed she could feel gravity, modified her position to note that she feels it's 'effects...' and not gravity itself.

Beyond that the member overtly refuses to answer the simple question:

Of all of the knowledge, throughout the ages, across the scope of time and space throughout the universe... how much would you say that you presently possess?

<1%, 10%, 50%, 75%, 99.9999999%...?

and in so doing freely admits that she feels "the existence of God is possible, but not probable..." I suspect that she refused to answer the question because to answer the question would highlight that such a conclusion is absurd given the infinitesimal base of knowledge which the member feels she possesses, assuming she did not project that she was in possession of more than an infinitesimal amount of the scope of all knowledge through time and space.

It&#8217;s also odd how she and her humanist comrades are so quick to declare that the effect of the God force is not felt by human beings... when the simple fact is that those who practice the bedrock principles inherent in God's word and intrinsic to the human rights endowed by God, tend to excel towards a fulfilled and happy life, while those that reject them tend towards a life of misery and discontent...

In simple terms I and millions of others have openly declared our experience of the effects of the God force... and through the same species of reasoning which projects that simultaneously they can feel gravity and that they can only feel the effects of Gravity... they demand that our experience of the effects of the God force is an illusion... one which can be explained through their vast understanding of the physical sciences... which they're loathe to quantify, because to do so will expose what they claim to be a vast resource as something well south of 'teeny tiny...'

Which is sorta funny when the phrase 'over-compensating' is considered...

 

[Diuretic]

Pub do you realise that somewhere in this thread you left the arena? You are now commentating. In short you are now the John Madden of this thread.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Yes. Dullwitted. But not so dullwitted that they can't see the logical fallacy in your proof of the (LOL) "self-evidence" (/LOL) of God;
The universe exists;
God created the universe;
Therefore God exists.
Can you see it?

Yeah I see it... it's fairly simple and it doesn't serve your point well; and while this is cause to wonder why ya brought it up... I'll set that aside for the flame zone and another time... and focus on beating you rhetorically senseless with it.


As is typical of the sub-intellect, your above calculation is invalid and as such it is rendered unviable (unsound). Below you'll find the calculation corrected; rendering it wholly valid and utterly, incontestably sound.


The universe exists;
Something Created the Universe;
That something is called God;
Therefore God exists.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Pub do you realise that somewhere in this thread you left the arena? You are now commentating. In short you are now the John Madden of this thread.

Well Diur... I'm just having a little fun with the children. Inevitably this discussion will be engaged by the impotent little anarchists out to prove their independence from the universe, of which, the first order of business is to get up in God's grill and reject him.

The Opening Premise has been conclusively proven... think of this as a European Soccer Match and I'm the cop cracking heads after the losers tear down the fence and storm the field in impotent protest after the game. They're just flailing about absurdities in desperate search of a cogent thought.

But I think it's only courteous to respond, no matter how droll the submission.

 

[LOki]

Yeah I see it... it's fairly simple and it doesn't serve your point well; and while this is cause to wonder why ya brought it up... I'll set that aside for the flame zone and another time... and focus on beating you rhetorically senseless with it.


As is typical of the sub-intellect, your above calculation is invalid and as such it is rendered unviable (unsound). Below you'll find the calculation corrected; rendering it wholly valid and utterly, incontestably sound.


The universe exists;
Something Created the Universe;
That something is called God;
Therefore God exists.

Well you incredible dumbfuck, this:

The universe exists;
Something Created the Universe;
That something is called God;
Therefore God exists.​

is exactly as fallaceuos as this:

The universe exists;
God created the universe;
Therefore God exists.

Because logically, it is EXACTLY THE SAME STATEMENT!!!!!!

 

[Diuretic]

Well Diur... I'm just having a little fun with the children. Inevitably this discussion will be engaged by the impotent little anarchists out to prove their independence from the universe, of which, the first order of business is to get up in God's grill and reject him.

The Opening Premise has been conclusively proven... think of this as a European Soccer Match and I'm the cop cracking heads after the losers tear down the fence and storm the field in impotent protest after the game. They're just flailing about absurdities in desperate search of a cogent thought.

But I think it's only courteous to respond, no matter how droll the submission.

You're rationalising now. Go back and read. Somewhere you stopped addressing the points and you started commentating. I know that's compensatory behaviour.

Anyway, no matter.

 

[cjcord]

Actually Snarky, I didn't answer the question because you didn't ask it of ME. You asked someone else, based on someone else's post. Now if you HAD asked me, I probably would have answered See how that works. It's a discussion, not a free for all.


And to clarify the waters you insist on muddying, I never said that "the effect of the God force is not felt by human beings". Not once. You deliberately took my post and twisted it to suit your point. Which I am still trying to understand.

And if you MUST comment on my life, which you know nothing of, I COULD inform you that it is quite happy and fulfilled. As for that being because of the entity you choose to call God's words and generously given rights, I would have to object.

My life is what it is due to my own behaviors and actions. To say this is not true is to state that we are naught but puppets, speaking and being due to something else's will. That's a strong statement, one which I disagree with.

And in even simpler terms, I and many others have openly declared our experience of being alive as that alone. I feel no deep longing to connect with something greater than me to fill some unknown void. Those who feel the need to do so will, with my support-- but I have no need of it to be "happy and fulfilled". I do quite well with what I know to be true and have seen and felt-- without calling it a higher power.

It really is an interesting idea though. Please, do not take my next words personally, but perhaps those who ascribe their contentment to their unshakable faith in God, but become offended when others question this; do so because they hold a deep fear or anger or even envy that we do not share a crutch? SOME feel there cannot be purpose without God, it would seem natural that those who feel this way might detest those who are secure in their life and purpose without God.


As for : "they demand that our experience of the effects of the God force is an illusion... one which can be explained through their vast understanding of the physical sciences... which they're loathe to quantify,"

i have never maintained that YOU feeling the effects of that which you choose to believe is a higher power is an illusion. Again, I must insist you stop putting words where there were none like it.

I have stated over and over that your belief system is just that. YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM. Not mine. Just as YOUR OPINIONS on politics, finances or plumbing are YOUR opinions, and I have mine. Why is this so offensive to you? Are my beliefs an illusion? Are you reflecting that on to me? I have already said that I respect your beliefs, but I do not share them. Whenever I have said this, your response has been to state that I am attacking and tearing down your beliefs. But this is not the case. I think I have said that at least 5 times in this post, please, let me not have to repeat it again.

You are asking specific questions, to which I have given specific answers. I have not told you that you MUST agree with me. I have not insulted you for not agreeing, nor have I ignored your points.

It is true that my personal opinion is that what you have called "the effects of the God force", I can explain quite well with science. In the next breath, you go on to state that I cannot do so, and have refused to do so. This is the opposite of the truth, as you have yet to ask me to explain anything-- all you have done is repeat your points, and ignore all others. Do you HAVE something you would like me to explain? I will do so gladly. But not with insults, slander, or offensive language. Or would you like only to have a platform to bash others?

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Well you incredible dumbfuck, this:

The universe exists;
Something Created the Universe;
That something is called God;
Therefore God exists.​

is exactly as fallaceuos as this:Because logically, it is EXACTLY THE SAME STATEMENT!!!!!!

Is it? Well then... perhaps you'll define the specific fallacy that you're projecting is at the core of the flaw in my argument. I can't help but to notice that you shot right by a beautiful opportunity to do so and I usually find that thoe that know... will tell ya, because it stands as the basis of their position. The rest are just sorta shooting in the dark, their position hinging on a vague 'feeling' with no real basis in actual fact... But we'll see how ya do.

In the mean time I'd like to clean this up...

Now for it to be fallacious, the assumption must YOURS and the assumption needs to be that you are defining God; that your definition must be accepted and that my position that the something which created the Universe is God is a non sequitur, because it does not follow that just because the Universe was created by something, that, that something was God, as you've defined it.

But here's your problem Einstein; my position is that whatever it was that created the Universe... is GOD. Whatever that was... without regard to what it was... (now follow me here...) '...what ever forces were present in the creation of the universe, those forces are part and parcel of that which is otherwise known as God.'

At this point you can call BULLSHIT... you can flail objections, you can hysterically feign certain knowledge that such was not the case, you can do whatever you like and no matter what you do... you can not change my position that the force which created the Universe is God.

Now from here you're faced with few options... as it is a certainty that the Universe was created and that given that the universe is fairly evident to most folks it seems that 'self evident' applies... thus it is reasonable to conclude that since that which created the universe is GOD and the universe is self evident and the effects of the universal forces are commonly experienced, then we're looking at fairly hard evidence of the forces common to God and that's going ot be REALLY hard on the whole "God doesn't exist' thingy...

So you can disagree... or you can adhere. And there are your two options skippy.

Now take one... and don' feel like ya have to tell me... keep it to yourself if you prefer; because it doesn't matter which way you go... as God exists with or without your adherence; just as anything else that exists, does so irrespective of your BELIEF.

Now... IF at some point in the near future and you're able to advance positive data which confirms that everything that is assigned to being a function of God can be explained as being the typified by common physical cause and effect... I will tell you, THAT IS GOD! That what you're realizing, observing or otherwise trying to explain is a function of the universe thus is an element of God.

Now I realize that the greatest likelihood is that you're simply incapable of grasping my point... and that you'll be most unimpressed with my reasoning... But I want you to consider that space and time are from the perspective of humanity... infinite... endless, carrying on into somethign far beyond what we describe as FOREVER; which is NOTHING, immeasurable, infinitesimal in the scope of time that it will take you to figure this out in the vaccuous ingorance which exists outside of the light; AKA: your world.

But hey, I enjoy it and you seem to have absolutely NO self esteem so what's the harm?

 

[mattskramer]

Yeah I see it... it's fairly simple and it doesn't serve your point well; and while this is cause to wonder why ya brought it up... I'll set that aside for the flame zone and another time... and focus on beating you rhetorically senseless with it.


As is typical of the sub-intellect, your above calculation is invalid and as such it is rendered unviable (unsound). Below you'll find the calculation corrected; rendering it wholly valid and utterly, incontestably sound.


The universe exists;
Something Created the Universe;
That something is called God;
Therefore God exists.

Premise number 2 and 3 are not universally accepted.

 

[N4mddissent]

It is absolutely wild how the positions advanced by the left are nearly impossible to accurately interpret? It's analogous to the Arabs who inevitably run to correct the misinterpretation of one of their idiots when they're caught demanding that Israel be destroyed... this based upon some idiosyncrasy within their language which doesn't translate to English.

Personal Attack

I suspect that she refused to answer the question because to answer the question would highlight that such a conclusion is absurd given the infinitesimal base of knowledge which the member feels she possesses, assuming she did not project that she was in possession of more than an infinitesimal amount of the scope of all knowledge through time and space.

Strawman

It&#8217;s also odd how she and her humanist comrades are so quick to declare that the effect of the God force is not felt by human beings... when the simple fact is that those who practice the bedrock principles inherent in God's word and intrinsic to the human rights endowed by God, tend to excel towards a fulfilled and happy life, while those that reject them tend towards a life of misery and discontent...

Appeal to belief with Appeal to Consequences thrown in for good measure.

In simple terms I and millions of others have openly declared our experience of the effects of the God force...

Appeal to popularity

... and through the same species of reasoning which projects that simultaneously they can feel gravity and that they can only feel the effects of Gravity... they demand that our experience of the effects of the God force is an illusion... one which can be explained through their vast understanding of the physical sciences... which they're loathe to quantify, because to do so will expose what they claim to be a vast resource as something well south of 'teeny tiny...'

Appeal to Ignorance, Appeal to Ridicule, and Personal Attack.

Fun with Fallacies

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Actually Snarky, I didn't answer the question because you didn't ask it of ME. You asked someone else, based on someone else's post. Now if you HAD asked me, I probably would have answered See how that works. It's a discussion, not a free for all.

CJ, if you're going to address a position which hinges upon a question, do you not feel that it's fairly important to answer the question and rest your response upon the basis imparted in that answer?

To suggest that the question has to be answered only by the individual to which it was addressed is a fairly lame rationalization and classic avoidance.

And to clarify the waters you insist on muddying, I never said that "the effect of the God force is not felt by human beings". Not once. You deliberately took my post and twisted it to suit your point. Which I am still trying to understand.

Deliberately? No... Look, all humanists are the same... I place each of you in the same box as any distinctions which may exists are so small that they are irrelevant. SO I respond to all contesting posts as one, because they're all being advanced from the same source, which is evil.

And if you MUST comment on my life, which you know nothing of, I COULD inform you that it is quite happy and fulfilled.

Super... It’s nice to know that delusion is working out for someone... perhaps you'll be the historical exception that makes the rule and wouldn't that be nice...

As for that being because of the entity you choose to call God's words and generously given rights, I would have to object.

My life is what it is due to my own behaviors and actions.

I've never said anything to anyone that could possibly lead any reasonably intelligent person to conclude otherwise. My position is precisely that your life is what it is because of your own decisions... period. That God exists and endowed you with unalienable rights; each inherently comprised of sacred responsibilities does not change your life being what you've made it at ALL...

We clear on that?

To say this is not true is to state that we are naught but puppets, speaking and being due to something else's will. That's a strong statement, one which I disagree with.

I've never made any statement which could lead any reasonable person to such a conclusion. As far as I can see, the only potential alternative here is that you're making this conclusion up from ethereal whole cloth... because it is flat impossible for ANYONE of even minimal intelligence to conclude such from what I said.

Again... any questions here?

And in even simpler terms, I and many others have openly declared our experience of being alive as that alone. I feel no deep longing to connect with something greater than me to fill some unknown void. Those who feel the need to do so will, with my support-- but I have no need of it to be "happy and fulfilled". I do quite well with what I know to be true and have seen and felt-- without calling it a higher power.

Well that's evil for ya... It will set ya up for failure every time. I call that the big lie... and you seem to really be enjoying it. But hey... it's your life and I'm not here to sell ya on anything. I'm stating my position and that somewhere down the road when you may claim "I didn't know...." don't be surprised if this pulls up on the record... But again... YOUR LIFE IS A FUNCTION OF THE DECISION YOU MAKE!

It really is an interesting idea though. Please, do not take my next words personally, but perhaps those who ascribe their contentment to their unshakable faith in God, but become offended when others question this; do so because they hold a deep fear or anger or even envy that we do not share a crutch? SOME feel there cannot be purpose without God, it would seem natural that those who feel this way might detest those who are secure in their life and purpose without God.

The correlation to resentment of my potential resentment of humanist is a whopper of a non sequitur. What would be the source of this resentment? Do I understand that I should naturally resent you because you reject the notion that there exists in the universe a force which is vastly superior to you and that you are willfully ignorant of that force which can only result in your inability to fellowship with that force? That because of this that you're destined to languish throughout eternity in unspeakable torment? I truly can't see how you're getting there... but again, your life is precisely a result of YOUR decisions...

As for : "they demand that our experience of the effects of the God force is an illusion... one which can be explained through their vast understanding of the physical sciences... which they're loathe to quantify,"

i have never maintained that YOU feeling the effects of that which you choose to believe is a higher power is an illusion. Again, I must insist you stop putting words where there were none like it.

Actually it’s an unavoidable implication built on the very premise which you're advocating. That you're unable to see that is part and parcel of the aforementioned ignorance... but again... Your life is purely a function of YOUR decisions.

I have stated over and over that your belief system is just that. YOUR BELIEF SYSTEM. Not mine.

The phrase "Captain OBVIOUS" is screaming through my head right now...

Just as YOUR OPINIONS on politics, finances or plumbing are YOUR opinions, and I have mine. Why is this so offensive to you?

I don't see where I've made any statement which would indicate that I am offended by your opinion. I've merely contested your position which is rooted in your opinion and shown where that opinion is fatally flawed. How that correlates to 'offense' is known only to you.

Are my beliefs an illusion? Are you reflecting that on to me?

LOL... In a matter of speaking it could be argued that I am "REFLECTING" that upon you, as that is what you're sending... thus what you see in return is an effect of that which you sent. Your beliefs are absent a sound, logically valid basis; they reject that which is patently obvious and thus they are an illusion.

I have already said that I respect your beliefs, but I do not share them.

Well let me just say that I do not share your beliefs... although there is no means by which I could ever respect them as they are invalid and the reasoning on which they are comprised is not sound.

Whenever I have said this, your response has been to state that I am attacking and tearing down your beliefs.

Again... the whole 'illusion' thing popping up... You're free to attack anything ya like, just be prepared to defend it when that which you've chosen to attack is resting anywhere near me.

You are asking specific questions, to which I have given specific answers.

Actually you've avoided addressing the specific questions... If you're having trouble remembering that, just scroll ot the top of your last post, you'll find where you rationalized why you failed to respond to the specific questions...

It is true that my personal opinion is that what you have called "the effects of the God force", I can explain quite well with science. In the next breath, you go on to state that I cannot do so, and have refused to do so.

Never happened... I said, in effect, that it is an error in reasoning to look to the scientific explanations of physical minutia and conclude that because you understand the simple processes of the micro cause and effect that you understand the scope of the macro.

This is the opposite of the truth, as you have yet to ask me to explain anything-- all you have done is repeat your points, and ignore all others.

Would you care to hazard a guess why the prose "No one is so blind as he that will not see..." just shot through my head?

Do you HAVE something you would like me to explain? I will do so gladly.

Yeah as it happens I DO have something you might be able to explain...

First I'd like you to answer the question: Of the sum of all knowledge, throughout the scope of time and space, what percentage of that knowledge do you believe you personally possess?

(Again, for example you can use the following percentages, but feel free to quantify using your own if none of these work...)

<1%, 10%, 25%, 50%, 75% or 99.999999~%...?

Now assuming that you do not feel that you're working on 100% of all knowledge throughout the scope of infinite, universal time and space... is it possible that there exists within the Universe a God force, which you are at present unable to explain, or otherwise prove through the present scope of your knowledge... which FYI: would also tend to discredit your means to credibly determine the probability of the existence of such a force.

OH and one other thing: What does Gravity 'feel like'? Again this is not a query which seeks to learn of the brains reaction to a change in the bodies normalized state... which can be described as an awareness of the effects caused by a change the BODY makes relevant to the constant state of the force known as gravity... but is a question which seeks to gain knowledge of what gravity itself feels like. As it seems that you or one of the Comrades made the statement that you or they could 'feel gravity' and no one's bothered to answer that, at this point; preferring instead to obfuscate and avoid any judgment on their failure to support that statement.

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Premise number 2 and 3 are not universally accepted.

Super...

It should also be pointed out that my Z is on the edge of pulling into the 7s and I think that the next cold front could see that happen.

(Now for those that are wondering what the hell that means... I am responding to a point which was wholly irrelevant to the issue. That a position does not enjoy universal acceptance has absolutely no bearing on whether or not that position is logically valid and intellectually sound.

Thus the present status of my race car is as relevant to this issue as the notation that my respective position is not universally accepted.)

But I thank the member for their contribution...

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

You're rationalising now. Go back and read. Somewhere you stopped addressing the points and you started commentating. I know that's compensatory behaviour.

Anyway, no matter.

Diur, you'll need to be much more specific... it's hard to know what distinction you're trying to dig out of 'addressig the points and commenting'... I'm smellin' a rather poorly constructed exercise in sematics here. Which is fine at this point, because I love 'em...

 

[N4mddissent]

Now from here you're faced with few options... as it is a certainty that the Universe was created and that given that the universe is fairly evident to most folks it seems that 'self evident' applies...

The existence of the universe is sefl-evident. The creation of the universe is not sefl-evident unless you dismiss out of hand M-theory and brane cosmology, the Hartle-Hawking No Boundary Condition, among other hypotheses on the origin of the universe which may propose a universe of infinite existence. One cannot dismiss them out of hand unless one is claiming such complete knowledge of the universe that one can have absolute certainty that they cannot be true.

my position is that whatever it was that created the Universe... is GOD. Whatever that was... without regard to what it was... (now follow me here...) '...what ever forces were present in the creation of the universe, those forces are part and parcel of that which is otherwise known as God.'

That's interesting. Even if one accepts the premise that the universe was "created", this information should have been presented at the start of the thread. If you propose that a natural force that initiated the sequence of events leading to the current state of the universe is sufficient to define the term "God", then you would probably have very little debate since the result of that is just a semantic assertion. It is in no way recognizable as any generally accepted concept of "god" without adding a good deal more to the definition. At a minimum, I believe most any broad consensus on the definition of "God" would include conciousness or intent. Your definition of "God" would be more properly classified as agnosticism except relative to your own personal definition of "God" which is basically a relativist fallacy.

 

[N4mddissent]

One other question. If I accepted the god of your definition, how exactly would that make me stop being evil?

my position is that whatever it was that created the Universe... is GOD. Whatever that was... without regard to what it was... (now follow me here...) '...what ever forces were present in the creation of the universe, those forces are part and parcel of that which is otherwise known as God.'

 

[PubliusInfinitum]

Personal Attack



Strawman



Appeal to belief with Appeal to Consequences thrown in for good measure.



Appeal to popularity



Appeal to Ignorance, Appeal to Ridicule, and Personal Attack.

Fun with Fallacies

ROFLMNAO... So you're switching from simply declaring a position fallacious without citing the specific logical failure to simply stating a specific logical failure with no explanation explaining the basis of your reasoning.

Here's the problem... one is as good or bad as it were, to the next.

In considering all of your projections I can find no evidence of a valid basis for a single one of them... Perhaps you'll reconsider each and advance a well reasoned, logically valid, intellectually sound response that will perhaps speak to your perception of the existance of those specific logical failures...

If not then what stands in stead of argument here must be concluded as an abject failure.