Allergies and Other Proofs Against God

[Tiapan]

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.

Couple of things here
1. the sun does not spew out lava, it is ionised particles usually of lighter elements such as Hydrogen and helium.
2. the total mass of the system does not change except to decrease as matter > Energy.
3. The sun does not renew itself when its fuel is gone it will go out, but not for several billion years yet.
4. The bible has got it wrong.

Cheers

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

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

You see thats the problem with your thinking...

Many things are "becoming obvious" for you. You just don't happen to conclusively reason them.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

[

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.

Ah .. a wonderful example. The teapot by Richard Dawkins. And of course you SHOULD know that he himself pointed out already that it is impossible to disproove the teapots existence. You might know that there is also a challenge to disproove some invisible unicorn in the atheists camps. So far nobody has won the price and no wonder nobody did... its impossible.

You do NOT know that there is no realm outside this one. How could you even know. You BELIEVE it to be so.

The rest of the argument obviously was ignored by you?

 

[richardlowellt]

Ah .. a wonderful example. The teapot by Richard Dawkins. And of course you SHOULD know that he himself pointed out already that it is impossible to disproove the teapots existence. You might know that there is also a challenge to disproove some invisible unicorn in the atheists camps. So far nobody has won the price and no wonder nobody did... its impossible.

You do NOT know that there is no realm outside this one. How could you even know. You BELIEVE it to be so.

The rest of the argument obviously was ignored by you?

Ah, don't be foolish, of course I can prove that a teapot is NOT orbiting the sun.

1.) Teapots are only made on Earth.
2.) As of yet, we do not possess the technology to launch a teapot into the orbit of the sun.
3.) So-----no possibility of a teapot orbiting the sun.


Only a fool would assume such things as invisible unicorns exists.

You push your point to the ridiculous. We are equipped with logic and reason so we can avoid foolish premises like invisible unicorns, and unreasonable god things.

 

[richardlowellt]

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.

I do find it astonishing that in this day and age of information being so readily available that you could NOT know how the sun works. Is this what they mean by RELIGIOUS BLINDING? You really need to do yourself a huge favor and go the the library and get a book on the sun, there you will discover just how wrong your bible is. Good luck with your studies.

 

[Falvlun]

Ah, don't be foolish, of course I can prove that a teapot is NOT orbiting the sun.

1.) Teapots are only made on Earth.
2.) As of yet, we do not possess the technology to launch a teapot into the orbit of the sun.
3.) So-----no possibility of a teapot orbiting the sun.

Well, technically, Earth orbits the sun, and we can launch things into Earth's orbit. Seems like we've got the technology just fine...

 

[richardlowellt]

Well, technically, Earth orbits the sun, and we can launch things into Earth's orbit. Seems like we've got the technology just fine...

The premise is not that a teapot is orbiting the earth as the EARTH ORBITS THE SUN, but that a teapot orbits the sun. Technically our entire solar system including the sun, orbits around the center of the milky way galaxy.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Couple of things here
1. the sun does not spew out lava, it is ionised particles usually of lighter elements such as Hydrogen and helium.
2. the total mass of the system does not change except to decrease as matter > Energy.
3. The sun does not renew itself when its fuel is gone it will go out, but not for several billion years yet.
4. The bible has got it wrong.

Cheers

Back in the 70's that is the way the news media reported it that the sun added mass to itself. I recall there was much sun-spot activity at that time and they did show pictures of all the activity going on.

So it is not the Bible getting something wrong, but if you are right is was the news media. Nevertheless, since God has the dynamic energy to create the universe surely to keep the sun existing is a small task for Him.

 

[richardlowellt]

Back in the 70's that is the way the news media reported it that the sun added mass to itself. I recall there was much sun-spot activity at that time and they did show pictures of all the activity going on.

So it is not the Bible getting something wrong, but if you are right is was the news media. Nevertheless, since God has the dynamic energy to create the universe surely to keep the sun existing is a small task for Him.

I'm quite sure you misinterpreted what the news media said in the 70's, no responsible new agency would make such stupid mistake as saying the Sun was adding mass to itself. What has sunspots and the accompanying activity have to do with the sun adding mass to itself?

For your information, the sun is simply a giant nuclear furnace and when it has used up all its fuel it will explode taking the entire solar system with it. It has not be proven that anyone one or thing created the universe.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

Ah, don't be foolish, of course I can prove that a teapot is NOT orbiting the sun.

No you can't.
Your logic is as miserable as ever in this thread.

If I were you I would ask myself the question on why this example of the teapot is actually used throughout the atheistic community to show the impossibility of disprooving things and the need for a burdon of proof on the side of the one making a claim about the existence of something and not vice versa.
Already Bertrand Russel (who invented the teapot example) showed that it was impossible to disproove the teapot.
But we have richard here showing us all wrong... sadly nobody sees is brilliant intellect.

Now for your "arguments".

1.) Teapots are only made on Earth.

provided there are no aliens that drink tea or have stolen some which of course would have to be disprooved by you

2.) As of yet, we do not possess the technology to launch a teapot into the orbit of the sun.

You must be joking.
Actually forget all remarks about point 1 and 3. Alone this silly statement deserves a slapping. We dont possess the technology to bring a teapot into the orbit of the sun? Are you crazy? What do you think we do when we launch satelites?
Of course it is thinkable that (just ONE example) one silly guy placed a teapot on a satellite launched into space.

3.) So-----no possibility of a teapot orbiting the sun.

Of course possibilities beyond end.
Its rather that you think the idea soooo silly (which of course it is) that you make that small leap of faith to simply assume its impossible.

Only a fool would assume such things as invisible unicorns exists.

Again the same nonsense. The assumption that something exists is not the same as a proof that it does. The assumption it doesnt exist is not the same as a disproove of it.

You push your point to the ridiculous. We are equipped with logic and reason so we can avoid foolish premises like invisible unicorns, and unreasonable god things.

I obviously need to push my point to the ridiculous because as we can see in you all that supposed reason and logic which you supposedly have is not enough to see the most basic problem of conclusive reasoning. There is no conclusive way to disproove the existence of something cleverly made abstract and hidden if you are not omniscient.
You can only work in the dimensions of probabilities.

Actually that is already first or second semester formal logic.

 

[richardlowellt]

No you can't.
Your logic is as miserable as ever in this thread.

If I were you I would ask myself the question on why this example of the teapot is actually used throughout the atheistic community to show the impossibility of disprooving things and the need for a burdon of proof on the side of the one making a claim about the existence of something and not vice versa.
Already Bertrand Russel (who invented the teapot example) showed that it was impossible to disproove the teapot.
But we have richard here showing us all wrong... sadly nobody sees is brilliant intellect.

Now for your "arguments".
provided there are no aliens that drink tea or have stolen some which of course would have to be disprooved by you
You must be joking.
Actually forget all remarks about point 1 and 3. Alone this silly statement deserves a slapping. We dont possess the technology to bring a teapot into the orbit of the sun? Are you crazy? What do you think we do when we launch satelites?
Of course it is thinkable that (just ONE example) one silly guy placed a teapot on a satellite launched into space.
Of course possibilities beyond end.
Its rather that you think the idea soooo silly (which of course it is) that you make that small leap of faith to simply assume its impossible.

Again the same nonsense. The assumption that something exists is not the same as a proof that it does. The assumption it doesnt exist is not the same as a disproove of it.

I obviously need to push my point to the ridiculous because as we can see in you all that supposed reason and logic which you supposedly have is not enough to see the most basic problem of conclusive reasoning. There is no conclusive way to disproove the existence of something cleverly made abstract and hidden if you are not omniscient.
You can only work in the dimensions of probabilities.

Actually that is already first or second semester formal logic.

Tea drinking aliens and invisible unicorns speaks volumes for your sense of reality. And that you also admit to making your points ridiculous adds to your foolishness.

 

[McBell]

Tea drinking aliens and invisible unicorns speaks volumes for your sense of reality. And that you also admit to making your points ridiculous adds to your foolishness.

You can a lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think.

 

[richardlowellt]

You can a lead a horse to water, but you can't make it think.

Or you can try and believe most people have a small amount of intelligence until the try and justify flying teapots and invisible unicorns, and then question the intelligence of those who support such notions.

 

[richardlowellt]

Actually forget all remarks about point 1 and 3. Alone this silly statement deserves a slapping. We dont possess the technology to bring a teapot into the orbit of the sun? Are you crazy? What do you think we do when we launch satelites?

BTW satellites has two L'S, get ready to slap yourself-----An object orbiting the sun would have to be at a distance were it wouldn't melt from the intense heat generated by the sun, it would also have to be far enough away so the huge gravitational pull of the sun would not draw it into the sun, any object being this far from the sun would be effected by the gravitational pull of the other planets in the solar system namely Jupiter and Saturn, most likely Jupiter would exert the strongest pull as it is the fifth planet from the sun and only 778 million miles away from the sun. Sorry but it just won't work!!!

 

[McBell]

Or you can try and believe most people have a small amount of intelligence until the try and justify flying teapots and invisible unicorns, and then question the intelligence of those who support such notions.

No one in this thread has even tried to "justify" flying teapots or unicorns.
That is your lie.
The lie that prevents you from seeing anything beyond your agenda.

 

[richardlowellt]

No one in this thread has even tried to "justify" flying teapots or unicorns.
That is your lie.
The lie that prevents you from seeing anything beyond your agenda.

I thought you were done, many post ago, or so you said. One such as you, who have lied about things I was suppose to have said, really should not talk about others lying, just a suggestion.

 

[Vile Atheist]

If I have this straight...

Mestemia and Co. are saying that orbiting teapots and invisible unicorns are a ridiculous notion, but nonetheless impossible to disprove.

Richard is saying that orbiting teapots and invisible unicorns are a ridiculous notion, but the mere fact they are so farfetched means they definitely do not exist.

Personally, I don't think you can disprove the existence of invisible unicorns and orbiting teapots and magic pixies. Nonetheless, we cannot observe them readily, they do not have a noticeable effect on our existence, there is no evidence to suggest they may exist, and it's supposed existence is only supported by an unsubstantiated assertion. Therefore we can conclude that magic pixies and the like very probably do not exist and in the miniscule chance they do, they have no effect on our lives so they are irrelevant. They may as well not exist.

 

[Falvlun]

If I have this straight...

Mestemia and Co. are saying that orbiting teapots and invisible unicorns are a ridiculous notion, but nonetheless impossible to disprove.

Richard is saying that orbiting teapots and invisible unicorns are a ridiculous notion, but the mere fact they are so farfetched means they definitely do not exist.

Personally, I don't think you can disprove the existence of invisible unicorns and orbiting teapots and magic pixies. Nonetheless, we cannot observe them readily, they do not have a noticeable effect on our existence, there is no evidence to suggest they may exist, and it's supposed existence is only supported by an unsubstantiated assertion. Therefore we can conclude that magic pixies and the like very probably do not exist and in the miniscule chance they do, they have no effect on our lives so they are irrelevant. They may as well not exist.

Precisely. Well summed up! :clap

Unfortunately, rich believes that you can give the above argument a "little kick of logic" to push "miniscule probability" into "zero possibility". It is mostly his rape of logic to which I object.

 

[Vile Atheist]

Precisely. Well summed up! :clap

Unfortunately, rich believes that you can give the above argument a "little kick of logic" to push "miniscule probability" into "zero possibility". It is mostly his rape of logic to which I object.

I just think he's operating on the basis that if something is unreasonable, we might as well say it doesn't exist.

Does Robin Hood watch you undress? How do you know? How can you prove or disprove it? But it's such a ridiculous notion with not a shred of plausibility that we can safely conclude that Robin Hood does not watch you undress. I think that's more along the lines of what he's trying to get at.

 

[ThereIsNoSpoon]

get ready to slap yourself-----

Ahem,
i know what you wrote after this "intro". Just thought i wanted to emphasize it again

An object orbiting the sun would have to be at a distance were it wouldn't melt from the intense heat generated by the sun, it would also have to be far enough away so the huge gravitational pull of the sun would not draw it into the sun, any object being this far from the sun would be effected by the gravitational pull of the other planets in the solar system namely Jupiter and Saturn, most likely Jupiter would exert the strongest pull as it is the fifth planet from the sun and only 778 million miles away from the sun. Sorry but it just won't work!!!

Of course it doesnt work. Stupid me. You see THATS EXACTLY the reason why earth is going to crash with jupiter ...very soon..... isnt it ?