McBell
Unbound
Project much?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Allergies and Other Proofs Against God
- Thread starter slave2six
- Start date
richardlowellt
Well-Known Member
Your argument fails with point 1 already.
1) wrong depending on the definition of the term naturalistic and realm.
If you say that natural laws are what govern THIS universe (inside) then you are correct. There is only one naturalistic realm (namely ours) by definition. If you say natural laws are what govern universes then you might be incorrect. Even in the first case however you havent ruled out any "nonnaturalistic realm" which by definition means: a realm in which our natural laws are not valid.
2) formulation is idiotic. If by definition ALL things exist, then you would just have said that God exists.
3) I guess given the first definition of 1) this could be said using the scriptures.
4) Wrong conclusion. As stated there might exist other realms, whether we call them naturalistic or not.
5) See 4
If we HAD seen it then they would definetly exist.
And again... theoretically nearly everything is possible as long as it is not logically paradox. We simply dont believe in things that are as improbable as "pixie dust". But we dont rule it out per se.
I didn't realize I had to spoon feed you the obvious, the naturalistic realm is were everything can be observed, examined from al angles and tested. What gibberish are you trying to sell here, "natural laws that govern this universe (inside) then you are correct" So there is an outside to the universe, one you seem to know about? Your foolishness continues with not ruling out any "nonnaturalistic realms, a realm in which our natural laws are not valid. Of course I rule out things which do not exist, talk about a stupid premise, you speculate there is a nonnaturalistic realm were natural laws are not valid, why would our laws NOT be valid there? Explain you logic behind our laws not be valid, and how did you come by this information?
Your #2.) is idiotic, "if all things exist then God would have to exist" All things within the naturalistic realm exist, which to your disappointment does not include God.
Your #3.) Oh yes, I was just waiting for this shoe to drop, SCRIPTURES, of course how stupid of me to not realize that SCRIPTURES could tell me all I need to know about this god thing. Very poor logic displayed here friend.
Your #4.) "There might exist other realms" And snow white lives on Neptune, I suppose you think both are possible?
And you appear to be another who doesn't rule out the existence of pixie dust or the effects that it has when sprinkled on someone. I'm not sure I know how to reason with someone who thinks magic dust can make them fly, Oh well!!
1) wrong depending on the definition of the term naturalistic and realm.
If you say that natural laws are what govern THIS universe (inside) then you are correct. There is only one naturalistic realm (namely ours) by definition. If you say natural laws are what govern universes then you might be incorrect. Even in the first case however you havent ruled out any "nonnaturalistic realm" which by definition means: a realm in which our natural laws are not valid.
2) formulation is idiotic. If by definition ALL things exist, then you would just have said that God exists.
3) I guess given the first definition of 1) this could be said using the scriptures.
4) Wrong conclusion. As stated there might exist other realms, whether we call them naturalistic or not.
5) See 4
If we HAD seen it then they would definetly exist.
And again... theoretically nearly everything is possible as long as it is not logically paradox. We simply dont believe in things that are as improbable as "pixie dust". But we dont rule it out per se.
I didn't realize I had to spoon feed you the obvious, the naturalistic realm is were everything can be observed, examined from al angles and tested. What gibberish are you trying to sell here, "natural laws that govern this universe (inside) then you are correct" So there is an outside to the universe, one you seem to know about? Your foolishness continues with not ruling out any "nonnaturalistic realms, a realm in which our natural laws are not valid. Of course I rule out things which do not exist, talk about a stupid premise, you speculate there is a nonnaturalistic realm were natural laws are not valid, why would our laws NOT be valid there? Explain you logic behind our laws not be valid, and how did you come by this information?
Your #2.) is idiotic, "if all things exist then God would have to exist" All things within the naturalistic realm exist, which to your disappointment does not include God.
Your #3.) Oh yes, I was just waiting for this shoe to drop, SCRIPTURES, of course how stupid of me to not realize that SCRIPTURES could tell me all I need to know about this god thing. Very poor logic displayed here friend.
Your #4.) "There might exist other realms" And snow white lives on Neptune, I suppose you think both are possible?
And you appear to be another who doesn't rule out the existence of pixie dust or the effects that it has when sprinkled on someone. I'm not sure I know how to reason with someone who thinks magic dust can make them fly, Oh well!!
richardlowellt
Well-Known Member
Talk about hurting one's credibility, at what point did I specifically state that "I was BETTER than theists" It's important that you step up and show us all were I said such a thing. Lying is not one of the traits I had you pegged for.
McBell
Unbound
At what point did I make the claim that you stated it?
Why must it be pointed out where you "specifically" stated it?
Oh, I see.
Because you did not "specifically" state it.
You heavily implied it.
In fact, you heavily imply it every time you bring up peter pan.
The really funny thing is that every time you bring up peter pan and your magic dust, (why are you so obsessed with peter pan? people are starting to talk....) you only remind everyone who actually does understand how logic works, just how much you do not understand about logic.
however, I have figured out what discussing logic with you is like....playing chess with pigeons.
richardlowellt
Well-Known Member
Not only are you dishonest, you don't have the stones to apologize for lying. That I 'heavily implied it" is your opinion, not at all a fact. The only reason I keep bringing up Pan man, is your insistence that such a being could possibly exist, i just find that very weird. And BTW, you really never want to play chess with me, trust me on that!!
McBell
Unbound
so you are claiming that you did not imply it?
Fair enough.
PLease present where I insisted that peter pan could possibly exist?
I never once said any such thing.
and when you cannot produce I will flat out call you a bold faced liar.
:slap:
Geez dude, pay attention.
I already explain why I would not bother playing chess with you.
richardlowellt
Well-Known Member
No, I never implied that I was "better" than a theists, thats your interpretation.
Your post # 135-----"Again you have not proved that Peter Pan does not exist." With that statement you are "Implying" that Peter Pan could possibly exist.
Your post # 204-----"Even your logic does not work with Peter Pan." Once again implying that Pan man exists. You might have said, Yes I know Peter Pan does not exist, but your logic does not hold up. Nowhere have you ever said that you were aware that Peter pan did not exist, implying that you though the possibility existed.
McBell
Unbound
Again, fair enough.
so where exactly did I INSIST that peter pan could exist?
The fact is that I have not stated my opinion either way.
McBell
Unbound
only if you take the quote out of context.
Since the context of the quote is about logic...
only if you take the quote out of context.
Since the context of the quote is about logic...
richardlowellt
Well-Known Member
So, lets agree or disagree, do you agree or disagree that the possibility exists that peter pan is real, that somehow, somewhere he does exist?
McBell
Unbound
irrelevant to the discussion of you faulty logic.
However, for the record, I do not believe that peter pan exists.
Interestingly enough, my agreeing that peter pan does not exist in no way changes the fact that your logic is faulty.
Last edited by a moderator:
richardlowellt
Well-Known Member
Oh, but it is, now you are obliged to tell me exactly why you do not believe in Peter Pan.
McBell
Unbound
No it isn't and no I am not.
However...
The author of Peter Pan never once made any sort of claim that it was real.
It was written as fiction, published as fiction, advertised as fiction, etc.
richardlowellt
Well-Known Member
And why would he? do you believe everything that people claim?
20,000 leagues under the sea was published as fiction, it came to be, stories of travel in outer space were published as fiction, we know it came to be. There were many things published as fiction that are now reality, so it appears your conclusion on the non-existence of Peter pan is faulty.
McBell
Unbound
I never claimed to have "PROVEN" that peter pan does not exist.
I merely presented my opinion.
You, on the other hand, claim that you have used logic and reason to PROVE that god does not exist when you have done no such thing.
See the difference?
Tiapan
Grumpy Old Man
The sun might go out tomorrow, could we prove it wont?
I think the concept of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that sub atomic particles can turn up where you would not expect them, but applying this concept to the macrouniverse has its problems in both physics and logic.
With any problem where the binary solution can be it exists or it does not exist, surely depends on the relative probabilities. Schrodinger cat had a 50/50 chance of being dead. I would have thought the existence of a real flying Peter Pan was not exactly 50/50. Perhaps the process of observing interferes with the observation so he never exists when we look for him, same with god thingies. Also the argument, nothing is black or white everything is gray. Perhaps a biological form of Peter Pan does not exist, but in fact he is very real as an element of our mind and historical literature. so exists legitimately as a fictional character.
Napoleon existed once, but now he is just words in a book, did he ever really exist, can you prove it?
If we put some Peter Pan bait in a box, and look into the box every morning for infinite time and never find that Peter Pan arrives, we still could not prove he does not exist, yet I would happily live my life accepting Peter Pan is never going to affect my life, because in reality the odds are so low, therefore it is safe to say from the point of view of our day to day existence that in our approximation of our universe Peter Pan does not exist.
Reality is a perception, a finite set of probabilities we determine every second of the day. After much brain filtering the essence of our environment is distilled into the void we call our mind where a simile of our environment is assembled into a virtual world of only those things which are of importance are considered, calculated and acted upon. Much like a holo-deck of Star Trek fame. In approximating our mental image of the universe, as part of the filtering, our brain automatically dismisses items where the probability is 1/infinity because the Lim(1/infinity) = 0.
This has worked for 4.5 billion years and will continue into the foreseeable future.
There are gazzillions of possible combinations of things that may or may not exist. Since the universe is mostly empty space I would suggest there are things that actually do not exist even though we cannot logically disprove them. If they were all possible then the universe would be very crowded place, and this has not been observed scientifically.
Cheers
I think the concept of Heisenberg's uncertainty principle tells us that sub atomic particles can turn up where you would not expect them, but applying this concept to the macrouniverse has its problems in both physics and logic.
With any problem where the binary solution can be it exists or it does not exist, surely depends on the relative probabilities. Schrodinger cat had a 50/50 chance of being dead. I would have thought the existence of a real flying Peter Pan was not exactly 50/50. Perhaps the process of observing interferes with the observation so he never exists when we look for him, same with god thingies. Also the argument, nothing is black or white everything is gray. Perhaps a biological form of Peter Pan does not exist, but in fact he is very real as an element of our mind and historical literature. so exists legitimately as a fictional character.
Napoleon existed once, but now he is just words in a book, did he ever really exist, can you prove it?
If we put some Peter Pan bait in a box, and look into the box every morning for infinite time and never find that Peter Pan arrives, we still could not prove he does not exist, yet I would happily live my life accepting Peter Pan is never going to affect my life, because in reality the odds are so low, therefore it is safe to say from the point of view of our day to day existence that in our approximation of our universe Peter Pan does not exist.
Reality is a perception, a finite set of probabilities we determine every second of the day. After much brain filtering the essence of our environment is distilled into the void we call our mind where a simile of our environment is assembled into a virtual world of only those things which are of importance are considered, calculated and acted upon. Much like a holo-deck of Star Trek fame. In approximating our mental image of the universe, as part of the filtering, our brain automatically dismisses items where the probability is 1/infinity because the Lim(1/infinity) = 0.
This has worked for 4.5 billion years and will continue into the foreseeable future.
There are gazzillions of possible combinations of things that may or may not exist. Since the universe is mostly empty space I would suggest there are things that actually do not exist even though we cannot logically disprove them. If they were all possible then the universe would be very crowded place, and this has not been observed scientifically.
Cheers
Last edited:
Did you even read my post? It's number 203. I explained why I can't do anything with your list, since it is just a list, and you haven't argued for those. Also in post 203, which you obviously did not read, I mentioned the two arguments you have made that have indeed displayed abysmal logic.
spacejanitor
Member
You are defective.....please wait...the knock on the door is coming shortly. Do not panic. You will be assimilated.
Vile Atheist
Loud and Obnoxious
When you can't actually answer the question, ad hominems are always a good distraction. Nonetheless, judging by your post, you probably don't have much to contribute to this discussion anyway.
When we go to bed at night people are so sure the sun will be there that they make plans with confidence it will be.
Scripture assures us the earth abides forever as Ecclesiastes (1:4 B) says.
The Psalmist wrote (78:69 B) the earth is established forever.
Psalm (104:5,35) the foundations of the earth will not be removed forever.
Psalm (119:90) God established the earth and it abides.
Isaiah (45:18) God formed, established and created earth to be inhabited.
1st Chronicles (16:30) the earth is stable and not be moved.
In order for the earth to remain stable the sun needs to also remain.
Back in the 70's there was a lot of activity on the sun. The sun threw out lava so far out into space that by the time gravity pulled it back to the sun the lava had cooled enough that it added mass to the sun's surface. Our sun can renew itself and it will not go out tomorrow or ever.