Allergies and Other Proofs Against God

[McBell]

Most BELIEFS by the religious do not hold up to scrutiny, your apparent belief in Peter pan certainly does not hold up to scrutiny.

I was talking about YOUR beliefs.

You know, YOUR belief that you have proven God does not exist.
Funny how you are unable to stay on topic....

To busy playing with your Peter pan strawman I guess.

 

[richardlowellt]

I was talking about YOUR beliefs.

You know, YOUR belief that you have proven God does not exist.
Funny how you are unable to stay on topic....

To busy playing with your Peter pan strawman I guess.

I think it is you who suggested that a Peter Pan and pixie dust could well exist, you obviously do not get the comparison between Peter pan and the god thing.

 

[Falvlun]

No you haven't, go back to post 146, observe the list and point out to me which ones display ABYSMAL logic.

Clarify: Do you want me to respond to post 146, or the list, which is post 167?

If it is the list, I can not respond to it since you actually didn't argue for anything on that list: you simply just wrote down your reasons, without supporting them.

The two arguments I have addressed are your "natural mechanisms could have created everything, therefore God doesn't exist" argument, and "God is imaginary, therefore he doesn't exist" argument.

For the record, just because you have a whole slew of reasons to support your "God doesn't exist" conclusion, it doesn't mean that the reasons in and of themselves are allowed be sloppy. A whole bunch of bad arguments doesn't somehow magically turn into one great big awesome argument.


PS:
Please see post 198. I think you missed it.

 

[McBell]

I think it is you who suggested that a Peter Pan and pixie dust could well exist, you obviously do not get the comparison between Peter pan and the god thing.

No, I get the comparison.

The problem is that you cannot accept the fact that your flow of logic does not work even with peter pan.

Though I do find it rather comical how you completely miss how asinine you appear every time you bring Mr. Pan up. Especially given that you think Peter Pan helped your argument.

 

[richardlowellt]

Prove # 3, please.

Since no evidence of the god thing exists, and therefore have no idea about it's attributes, we have to default to what those who believe in the Abrahamic god tell us, they somehow seem to have the inside track of things from another realm. Based on what they tell us, that he is involved in their everyday activities answering prayers, appearing on pizza,s and dirty windows, actually speaking to the devote, healing, making physical appearances to perform miracles, sigh----the list is endless it seems, with all that interaction in the physical realm this god would leave "footprints" some kind of evidence, it doesn't. Everything in the physical realm leaves a trail of some kind, something science can examine and or test, but nothing!!

For further information go to my post "scientific God Model"

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Ok, on the kindergarden level, I have a can with infinitesimal amount of sand, I pore out the sand and now I have ZERO sand in my can. Hey look, I went from infinitesimal to zero!

Indeed it is kindergarden level.
We were not talking about an empty can. We are talking about the sand.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Nothing can exist outside of this realm because any other realm is non-existent.

Says who ?

You know you really need to start THINKING.
Who are you to think you KNOW that "any" other realm is non-existent?

You think the multiuniverse theory is a prooven nonsense? WOW. Please do publish a paper on that idea. I am sure i will have my fun reading the comments you will get.

Is there another realm besides the supernatural realm? Do you have any information about other realms or the supernatural realm? If so I would love to hear about either.

You remind me of young earth creationists again. You know how their reasoning often goes?
"It is beyond my comprehension how all this should have happend by chance or natural laws. Therefore it didnt".
You do the same thing. "I (richardlowellt) simply cant grasp the idea that there might be some other universe. So it CANT be"
Indeed.... kindergarden level.

Lot's of things can exist, as part of the naturalistic realm, But God being from a realm that does not exist,cannot.

Again .. no conclusive reasoning here. Just two statements without any evidence.

You may tell me I'm wrong with my conclusion all day if you like, thats what sites like this are for.

I didnt know that these sites were meant to have people telling you that you are wrong. Actually i thought such sites were existent in order to learn something.
Sadly at least You dont seem very eager to do so. I wonder if it makes sense talking to you at all since now numerous people have stated one and the same thing about your reasoning, people that even AGREE with you in that they do not believe in a god. And instead of thinking about it you seem to repeat the same old nonsense like a stubborn child not willing to see its error (which is a rather obvious one).

1.) There is one and only one naturalistic realm.
2.) All things in that realm exist, even things we may not know about or can imagine.
3.) The Abrahamic God is not from the naturalistic realm.
4.) If not from the naturalistic realm then there is no other place he could exist.
5.) Conclusion, no God exists.

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

Now you will tell me, How do you know another realm does not exist. Then I will ask you, How do you know that pixie dust does not exist?

You havent answered the question. You just posed a different one which is not even on the same level. If you state it is on the same level, then you would have to show that first. See? You do not provide answers my friend. You only appeal to what you think is common sense, jumping from one thing to the next.

Do you think it is possible for this dust to exist and perform as we have seen?

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.

And remember I am talking about the Abrahamic God, Gods, gods, gods, were did they all come from, some many gods, they can't all be real can they?

Again... this is missing the point. Of course not all ods can be true at the same time and of course chances that Gods (even all) were invented are rather huge. That however doesnt constitute a proof for a gods nonexistence.

 

[Vile Atheist]

You jebronis are still on about the faulty logic?

 

[McBell]

You jebronis are still on about the faulty logic?

Yeppers.
But then, the forum has been rather slow lately....

 

[Falvlun]

Since no evidence of the god thing exists, and therefore have no idea about it's attributes, we have to default to what those who believe in the Abrahamic god tell us, they somehow seem to have the inside track of things from another realm. Based on what they tell us, that he is involved in their everyday activities answering prayers, appearing on pizza,s and dirty windows, actually speaking to the devote, healing, making physical appearances to perform miracles, sigh----the list is endless it seems, with all that interaction in the physical realm this god would leave "footprints" some kind of evidence, it doesn't. Everything in the physical realm leaves a trail of some kind, something science can examine and or test, but nothing!!

For further information go to my post "scientific God Model"

1. I agree in so far that we currently have no compelling, objective evidence to prove the existence of god. This does not mean, however, that no evidence will ever be found. Can you predict the future?
2. Precisely. Yet, you seem confident that you know exactly how God should manifest him/it/herself. Perhaps God could care less whether we believe in him or not; or perhaps he actually does not want people to know he exists. Would that not be consistent with a lack of evidence?
3. Yeah. Because the Abrahamic God is the only God-concept out there. There isn't even a consensus within this group about what God is actually like (ie, the Trinity vs the One, etc)
4. For one, not all people who believe in a God also believe that he manifests himself in the way you are describing. That is stereotypical and unfair. Furthermore, how would you actually go about proving that God didn't answer that prayer, or that God didn't reach down and imprint his face in the pizza? How do you know that God doesn't speak to some people?

 

[The Neo Nerd]

4. For one, not all people who believe in a God also believe that he manifests himself in the way you are describing. That is stereotypical and unfair. Furthermore, how would you actually go about proving that God didn't answer that prayer, or that God didn't reach down and imprint his face in the pizza? How do you know that God doesn't speak to some people?

Has anyone actually seen god?

Because it would be hard to see her in a pizza if no one has ever seen her face.

-Q

 

[Falvlun]

Has anyone actually seen god?

Because it would be hard to see her in a pizza if no one has ever seen her face.

-Q

Which only means you don't know whether the face in the pizza was her real face, the mask she decided to put on that day for fun (I mean, maybe it's Halloween in Olympia), or truly just tomato sauce and cheese.

 

[richardlowellt]

Clarify: Do you want me to respond to post 146, or the list, which is post 167?

If it is the list, I can not respond to it since you actually didn't argue for anything on that list: you simply just wrote down your reasons, without supporting them.

The two arguments I have addressed are your "natural mechanisms could have created everything, therefore God doesn't exist" argument, and "God is imaginary, therefore he doesn't exist" argument.

For the record, just because you have a whole slew of reasons to support your "God doesn't exist" conclusion, it doesn't mean that the reasons in and of themselves are allowed be sloppy. A whole bunch of bad arguments doesn't somehow magically turn into one great big awesome argument.


PS:
Please see post 198. I think you missed it.

Post #167 is the partial list that addresses a non-existing god. At some point i believe you stated that some or all of these displayed abysmal logic, I have asked you which ones.

 

[richardlowellt]

Indeed it is kindergarden level.
We were not talking about an empty can. We are talking about the sand.

On to pre-k, after getting rid of the sand in the CAN I now have zero sand in the Can.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

On to pre-k, after getting rid of the sand in the CAN I now have zero sand in the Can.

I think now its already toddler level.
We are not talking about the can!

 

[McBell]

I think now its already toddler level.
We are not talking about the can!

Rate he is going I bet he hits sperm cell by Wednesday....

 

[richardlowellt]

No, I get the comparison.

The problem is that you cannot accept the fact that your flow of logic does not work even with peter pan.



Oh, so you do believe in Peter pan!!!! In your mind, it is entirely possible for peter to exist. My logic tells me Peter pan is something imagined, your says, no, there is a possibility that he does exist, very interesting, I think I'll take my logic any day.

 

[richardlowellt]

Indeed it is kindergarden level.
We were not talking about an empty can. We are talking about the sand.

And it becomes painfully obvious to me that you have no idea what your talking about, either sand or can's.

 

[McBell]

Oh, so you do believe in Peter pan!!!! In your mind, it is entirely possible for peter to exist. My logic tells me Peter pan is something imagined, your says, no, there is a possibility that he does exist, very interesting, I think I'll take my logic any day.

Yes, I know you prefer your logic over the real thing.
Sad thing to.
Especially with you claiming to better than that.

I find it extremely amusing how you are no better than the theists you claim to be better than.
And the real kicker is that you are to arrogant and to sure of yourself to see anything beyond what you want to see.

So you go ahead and flat out lie about what I stated.
You are only hurting your own credibility.

 

[richardlowellt]

[

You remind me of young earth creationists again. You know how their reasoning often goes?
"It is beyond my comprehension how all this should have happend by chance or natural laws. Therefore it didnt".
You do the same thing. "I (richardlowellt) simply cant grasp the idea that there might be some other universe. So it CANT be"
Indeed.... kindergarden level.



Of course the difference here is that Creationist can't understand something that has happened within the naturalistic realm, like the origins of life, or evolution, here we are talking about a realm that doesn't exist. How do I know? The same way I know that teapots do not orbit the sun.


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)
You havent answered the question. You just posed a different one which is not even on the same level. If you state it is on the same level, then you would have to show that first. See? You do not provide answers my friend. You only appeal to what you think is common sense, jumping from one thing to the next.


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.


Again... this is missing the point. Of course not all ods can be true at the same time and of course chances that Gods (even all) were invented are rather huge. That however doesnt constitute a proof for a gods nonexistence.[/QUOTE]