View Single Post
Old 04-09-2007, 10:39 AM   #100
Nicato
Next-Gen Poster
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3,575
Rep Power: 0 Nicato is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism

Quote:
That's not really an argument, just a weak attack that avoids addressing the point: that science itself acknowledges boundaries to the natural world.
I directly addressed the point, you just don't seem to get it. I'm saying that there should be no reason why the scientific method shouldn't, in principle, be applicable to your imaginary friend. If indeed it is ever found to be your god, it would have--at that point--became a part of science.

Quote:
However, there are also numerous realities that indicate the existence of a greater reality.
No, Mike, there is not. In fact, not only is there no evidence of numerous realities, but there isn't even evidence of two. All the ones which you've posited are either unknowable or on their face contradictory.

Quote:
Hawking doesn't presume to know what happened before the big bang. If you watched Rod Liddle's special, the physicists he interviews profess no knowledge of what happened prior to the big bang. Hawking only asserts that all things were at a point of infinite density, which is the simple result of calculations made to predict the expansion of the universe after the bang.
Ha! I like the "if you watched Rod Liddle's special" bit. I fucking posted it. You're the one going on at length about Dawkins having failed to acknowledge that you read his book, so save the book recommendations too.

With Hawking I was only saying that you shouldn't draw your conclusions from anything he has to say if you truly believed that science is intrinsically bound to the natural world.

Quote:
I've not redefined God
Yes, Mike, the god of which you are speaking is not the god which the majority of theists believe. Please realize this. You and another person can both say they believe in God be talking about two completely different things. Again, I bring it up because it doesn't seem to penetrate your thick skull: most people who believe in a god believe in a god that answers prayers, keeps tabs on their Earthly affairs, yada, yada, yada. To sit there and continue to present your vague abstraction as the mainstream ideal is just plain dishonest. If nothing else, you have redefined God in light of evidence of from science. No theologian from centuries ago could have appreciated the size and scope of our universe and the fact that we are in a position to better grasp its majesty should be nothing to deny. You have redefined god for the better, but ultimately you've presented only fallacious arguments for its existence. Realize that too.

Quote:
Science and logic do show us evidence of design, evidence of order, evidence of higher realities -- ultimately, evidence of creative intelligence.
Know this: You are saying that your God hypothesis is not able to be examined scientifically or logically, yet you are using SCIENCE and LOGIC to conclude it's existence. It is genuinely dumbfounding how you're able to continue this charade.

Quote:
You continue to miss the side of the barn.
I'm laughing because you were agreeing with me a second ago. I suppose it's easier to make snide comments than it is to contradict yourself, but seeing as you've been doing both so often, one would think the other was second nature. The fact remains that either something is logical or illogical, and if you are claiming faith in your god to be logical then you're going to have to prove it...logically. This merry-go-round of using logic to whenever it serves your point is intellectually dishonest.

Quote:
Please what? First cause is a necessity of physics. However, that cause, that trigger, though it need be supernatural, need not be a God. Perhaps we are part of the infinite string of spawning multiverses. The point is that our universe cannot create itself. Where did everything come from Nic? Where did space, time, matter and energy come from? Why did the universe come into existence at all? There's nothing, then POW!, there it is. Again, I ask you: If there is no creative intelligence, no God, how does an ordered system arise from nothing?
First of all, you are clearly talking about your god being the "logical necessity." I know, I know, it ruins your "Nicato is misrepresenting my arguments" jive but it's the truth.

Secondly, I don't fucking know. What I do know is that it is stunning how you've managed to mirror the exact same arguments life on Earth circa three-hundred years ago; providing no positive evidence, rather relying on a cosmic-scaled watchmaker argument.

Quote:
Well duh. That's not the point. The point is that faith is not an arbitrary construct.
Duh? If "faith in God" isn't faith in God then don't fucking say it's faith in God! Seriously, you act like I'm missing something when you can't even string together a coherent thought.

Quote:
How does an abstraction "replicate itself"?
Yeah, ideas are like virus in that they rely on people to replicate themselves.

Quote:
Right. Why is this even still being discussed?
Because you brought it up, you twat.

Quote:
That's not what I said. Again, you miss the point. God dammit, I have addressed this directly numerous times.
Yeah, and you didn't say that faith was reasonable or that your god was a "logical necessity" either. . Mike, seriously, stop pretending that I ever misrepresented your arguments. I know you like to play copycat (you accuse me of making circular arguments only after I did) but it's getting old. I quote: "You seem to hold the belief, and I could be wrong here, that all that exists should be completely knowable through naturalistic observation.." There it is, clear as day. Stop making me embarrass you.

Quote:
The very concept of logic is something that arises purely from our natural state and its inherent limitations.
Yeah, dude, and so does your understanding of the supernatural (and everything else). Seriously, this is ammeter hour. If this is the best you got then I'm done here.

Quote:
You need to learn that there is a difference between making an argument for something and "demonstrating" something. The only thing you demonstrated is your ignorance of the subject at hand.
Making an argument involves presenting evidence. I have gotten into many, many debates on these here forums and I seriously doubt that I would continue to do so if I din't know how to argue. I shouldn't need you to tell me what an argument is, seeing as how you've ended up on the losing side of many such encounters. Seriously, you make logically fallacious like there going out of style and you can't even be consistent when you're wrong.

Quote:
The entire point behind everything I've written is that natural phenomena show evidence of design, order, creation, and the supernatural. Is the universe spontaneously coming into existence out of nothing any more logical than a Creative God? And before you go accusing me of a false dichotomy, remember that while there is much evidence for God's reality, we have to first acknowledge the reality of the supernatural. There is still room for a supernatural reality that has nothing to do with God, such as the multiverses of String Theory.
I want you to think hard, Mike. What does the multiverse hypothesis, string hypothesis, and your god hypothesis all have in common?

Quote:
By what criterion do you assume our perception of design and order to be an illusion?
It's a simple fact of our evolution, Mike. Life on earth looks as if it were designed and our brains are inclined to think it has. It's why so many people believed so convincing that it was; why the theory of Evolution is patently counterintuitive.

Quote:
Again you are not "demonstrating" jack squat.
Pathetic. You would sooner lie than you would admit your own admission. The fact of the matter is that I did successfully demonstrate that the limits of the universe say nothing as to the existence of something else--and you agreed with that. The fact that you are now pretending like it never happened is astounding.
Nicato is offline   Reply With Quote