View Single Post
Old 04-09-2007, 03:02 PM   #102
Mike Doolittle
Telling people how it is
Mike Doolittle's Avatar
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In a shoe with my old lady
Posts: 3,758
Rep Power: 21 Mike Doolittle is on a distinguished road
Send a message via AIM to Mike Doolittle
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism

Originally Posted by Nicato View Post
If indeed it is ever found to be your god, it would have--at that point--became a part of science.
It would be constrained to the boundaries of the natural world, not supernatural, and thus not God.

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.
Well then, you need to brush up on your physics. Maybe studying string theory and/or M theory wouldn't be a bad idea. There is strong, logical evidence for other realities.

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.
Nice pointless dig. I'm sorry, I'll clear that up: I've read much (not all, I admit) of The God Delusion, excerpts from The Selfish Gene, as well as watched numerous debates and read numerous articles by Dawkins. I've studied numerous major world religions including Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, Shinto, and Islam in addition to my upbringing as a Christian. I'm a regular reader of and I've read countless books on theology, both religious and secular. So yeah, I think I am doing my part. It wouldn't kill you to watch a freakin' DVD. But whatever, it's your mind. Keep it as closed as you want.

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.
That doesn't make any sense. How could we see that there's evidence for divine intelligence without understanding the universe?

Yes, Mike, the god of which you are speaking is not the god which the majority of theists believe. Please realize this.
I'm not arguing for a different God than one that answers prayers, keeps tabs on Earthly affairs, yada yada yada. In fact, I haven't even gotten to that kind of subject matter. Right now I'm simply discussing evidence for the mere existence of a Creator God using tenants that are virtually ubiquitous in religions.

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.
I haven't redefined God at all. God as Creator is a fundamental tenant of virtually all religions. I'm suggesting that science has allowed us a better understanding of the reality of God.

You have redefined god for the better, but ultimately you've presented only fallacious arguments for its existence. Realize that too.
I suppose I'll have to take your word for that O Wise Nicato, since you haven't been able to concoct a rebuttal for any of the core tenants of my argument.

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.
Maybe this will sound familiar: How do you know that dinosaurs are extinct? In order for scientists to prove that dinosaurs are extinct, they'd have to find every animal on the planet, then prove that it's not a dinosaur. Obviously that's impossible. Scientists use logical inference based upon observable evidence to conclude that dinosaurs are extinct. They assume dinosaurs are extinct because we don't see them walking around these days.

The same concept applies in theology. We're talking about things that are fundamentally beyond our ability to completely know or understand, thus why I've continued to correct you that I am not, as you incessantly accuse me of doing, "concluding" God's existence. Based upon the observable world around me, I am logically inferring that a Creative God exists. I can't know that for certain, of course. God may not exist. I am an agnostic theist. But I can observe many things which point to God's existence being a very logical, and quite probable, reality.

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.
You're continually missing the point here Nic. See above. Yes, faith in God is logical, because there is much evidence that makes God's existence logical. Yet, as I've said, this same logic points us to its own limitations; it shows that there are some things intrinsically beyond our full understanding.

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.
No, you f'in assbutt, it is not the truth. I've spent every damn post correcting this idiocy of yours. If the only way you can conduct a debate is to misrepresent your opponent's arguments, you should probably find something else to do.

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.
You will never know. We will never know. In all likelihood, it cannot be known. But much can be logically inferred from our understanding of the world around us. That is the point. That faith isn't something that billions of people pulled out of their asses. They looked at the world around them and inferred God's existence. It's quite amazing that as science has advanced, it's only brought us closer to God's reality.

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.
It IS faith Nic. Jeez, don't you get it? There are things that are ultimately unknowable like "does God exist?" But that doesn't mean there aren't things that may give us indications one way or another. For example, if science had proved that the universe was totally enclosed and infinitely self-perpetuating as many physicists have attempted to do, it would mean there was no moment of "birth" or creation, and no need for a Creator.

You just can't seem to wrap your mind around the most basic concept here: that faith uses reason as a tool to further itself, but it is not ultimately reducible to reason because reason itself leads us to things that are beyond our capacity of understanding.

Yeah, ideas are like virus in that they rely on people to replicate themselves.
So, ideas are entities?

Because you brought it up, you twat.
Nice try douchecock, but your foot is squarely in your mouth and you know it.

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.
What blows my mind is that I immediately addressed this when I pointed out that I was explaining my understanding of something as you had phrased it hence the "seem" and the "I could be wrong here" not that I was making assumptions. I freaking left a football-field-sized door open for you to make clarifications. Instead you accused me of a making straw man arguments. What a load of idiocy. I explained this right off the bat and you just looked right past it. Typical.

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.
Nice dodge.

Seriously, you make logically fallacious like there going out of style and you can't even be consistent when you're wrong.
Wow, the only thing bigger than this universe is your delusional ego. You don't know how to argue. If you did, I wouldn't have to correct you on basic points on virtually every single post. Argument involves listening and responding, not just sounding off.

I want you to think hard, Mike. What does the multiverse hypothesis, string hypothesis, and your god hypothesis all have in common?
They are all based upon logical inference of observable evidence.

Also, you continually making statements such as "your God hypothesis" simply proves that you are constructing your own argument for God and rebutting it, not responding directly to mine.

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.
You're expanding on your original statement, but you're still not answering the basic question of how you can quantitatively know that the world is not designed. You're assuming that the process of evolution itself has no purpose or design.

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.
Do show me where you think I agreed with that so I can clear up your misunderstanding.
RIP "littledoc"!

My MySpace Page
My Gaming PC Blog
Mike Doolittle is offline   Reply With Quote