There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[Skwim]

I gotta be honest, I do not give a flying frigget what you believe in. I most certainly am not trying to convince you of anything. We do not need people like yourself within our ranks. People cannot be convince, they have to be converted by the Holy Ghost who will testify to their souls that God is real. I get the feeling that you will never reach a point where the Holy Ghost would want to converse with you.

Let's see here. Mestemia has been around RF since July of 2005 and has made over 30,000 posts, whereas you've been here since October of 2011 and have only made 871 posts. Yet you speak as if you represent some kind of oversight committee of gray-bearded majority stock holders: "We do not need people like yourself within our ranks."

You funny guy. :slap:

 

[outhouse]

People cannot be convince, they have to be converted by the Holy Ghost who will testify to their souls that God is real. .

OH!!!!

So they have to imagine god is real


No wonder you have no evidence at all

 

[Serenity7855]

Let's see here. Mestemia has been around RF since July of 2005 and has made over 30,000 posts, whereas you've been here since October of 2011 and have only made 871 posts. Yet you speak as if you represent some kind of oversight committee of gray-bearded majority stock holders: "We do not need people like yourself within our ranks."

You funny guy. :slap:

Gotcha. Longevity - equals - Superiority. Not!! My committee group is theists everywhere. It does not surprise me that I have to explain that for you. Who is" We"? I have absolutely no desire to be in a group where one of it members believes that intellect is governed by the number of posts you have made. I have been doing this since 2000 and have made 100,000 posts does that make me special?

 

[outhouse]

My committee group is theists everywhere.

No. Your group wants nothing to do with your personal opinion.

They want you "following" due to your ignorance of your own religion. Not teaching with no education on it at all.

Its why they have schools for people who REALLY have a passion for this.

 

[TheGunShoj]

Gotcha. Longevity - equals - Superiority. Not!! My committee group is theists everywhere. It does not surprise me that I have to explain that for you. Who is" We"? I have absolutely no desire to be in a group where one of it members believes that intellect is governed by the number of posts you have made. I have been doing this since 2000 and have made 100,000 posts does that make me special?

Wrong. His point is that you don't speak for theists everywhere, so why are you making blanket statements about the types of people that all theists would include in their groups? I know plenty who would take anyone they can get and are happy to bring the lowest of the low into their religion.

 

[Skwim]

Gotcha. Longevity - equals - Superiority. Not!! My committee group is theists everywhere.

So, your theistic ranks includes Apathetic Agnostics (Mestemia's religion)? Nah, I'm not buying this lame excuse of yours. You took it upon yourself to tell him he was persona non grata on RF. Period. End of sentence. Finito!

I have been doing this since 2000 and have made 100,000 posts does that make me special?

Well it certainly seems to have made you think so. "We do not need people like yourself within our ranks," he said graciously. :149:

 

[outhouse]

What OP is really saying is, we dont need education and knowledge and high intellects, that show the mythological nature of my faith!!!!

As he stated in his OP, I need people who fell off a turnip truck, so I can trick them into my beliefs.

 

[Serenity7855]

So, your theistic ranks includes Apathetic Agnostics (Mestemia's religion)? Nah, I'm not buying this lame excuse of yours. You took it upon yourself to tell him he was persona non grata on RF. Period. End of sentence. Finito!

Well it certainly seems to have made you think so. "We do not need people like yourself within our ranks," he said graciously. :149:

Your child like rebuttal bores me. In order for you to insult me I would first have to value your opinion, I don't

 

[outhouse]

In order for your opinion to matter to me I would have to care about what you say and what you think, I really don't

You dont care about education, or knowledge, or truth, or morals.

So we do not expect you to care about much of anything.

 

[Revoltingest]

Time to change the subject from personal inadequacies to probability.
Do you have a probabilistic argument for any of these:
- For a supreme being
- Against abiogenesis
- Against evolution

 

[Skwim]

Your child like rebuttal bores me. In order for your opinion to matter to me I would have to care about what you say and what you think, I really don't

Ah yes, when all else fails pull out an . . . . . .

​

In any case, I don't think anyone reading our brief exchange here is buying your claim of boredom any more than I do. But hey, if saying it gets you through your day go ahead and believe what you must . . . . . . . . . . . . . . kind of like your faith ain't it.

 

[SkepticThinker]

But I have already told you that I forgot to do it so why are you saying I do not seem to be able to do it. Are you suggesting that a am a liar. If so why would I lie.

You forget almost every single time you take quotes from outside sources. For someone who is constantly claiming that everyone else is dishonest, I find it quite bizarre and hypocritical. Also, I work in academia and plagiarism really chaps my hide. Of course people forget to cite their source from time to time, but not as consistently as you seem to do, which again is weird coming from someone with your particular attitude toward others.

None of the article was a lie, it followed the topic of debate, …

It was far out in left field from the post being responded to, as someone else already pointed out.

something you rarely do, so why would I try to deceive by purposely failing to source it.

Something I rarely do? I wrote big long posts in direct response to your assertions and arguments only to have you completely ignore them.

But what others here should ask is why were you checking it and how was it constructively progressing the debate by checking it.

Like I said, I’m involved in academia – I can smell plagiarism. I suspected that’s what it was and checked it out.

Is it something you do yourself which makes you suspicious of others, is it done in hope that you can use it to discredit the poster thus bring the debate to a halt just as God was seeming more and more likely. It really interests me to try and understand the desperation of people who stoop to such low acts to insure they win the debate. Now I am going to put you on my ignore list on the grounds that your motives are highly suspicious and your interest in debating is non-existent. Have a nice day.

Don’t bother trying to psychoanalyze me. You’re not even remotely qualified to do so.

Stoop to such low acts? You’re the one trying to pass off other people’s words as your own while constantly whining about the supposed inherent dishonesty of basically anyone you disagree with. You're the one who refers to Wikipedia as "spurious" when others use it but feel free to use it yourself. You're the one insulting and denigrating large groups of people. Nice attempt to turn the tables on me though. Good grief.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Your 'debating' tactics are very consistent;

1. Make unsubstantiatable claim.
2. Insult anyone who challenges it and dismiss their challenge whilst whining about 'militant atheist'.
3. Then ignore them.

So much for debate,

Exactly.

Hmmm, I wonder who is the actual person here not interested in debate ....

 

[Magic Man]

The more likely an event is to happen, then the odds are short, short odds or odds on. The less likely, then the odds are long. The chances that 1 in a 600 billion, billion planets, being a life supporting planet, is odds against. It is unlikely, long odds. The chances of a earth type planet, being found in double that figure, is odds on because you have increased the numbers of chances. The greater number of planets that you use the greater chance that one will eventually be life sustaining, odd on, or, short odds.

So if you find 1planet in 100 quadrillion planets the that is life permitting then the probability is 1 in 100 quadrillion. Assuming that the repeatability is a constant then you will not get another life sustaining planet until you reach 200 quadrillion planets. That is long odds, 2 in 200 quadrillion planets, that is one huge long odds. It is not likely to repeat itself. If the odds were 1 trillion in 100 quadrillion then there is a good chance that it will repeat itself. That is short odd, likely to happen. God said, world's without number have I created. That means that we should expect to find a great many more planets like ours. The odds are short that we will.

So, in order for all of these planets to be connected together, via phenomenon that we do not yet understand, life permitting or not, there must exist a grid, array, of planets all interconnected, a bit like an array in quantum physics, so that when one planet is tweaked it will effect another living planet a trillion light years away, therefore, they had to be framed in the most complex of manners to allow for them all to sustain life. The complexity is mind numbing. I cannot conceive it. You change the energy level on just one electron on an atom and another atom, somewhere in the universe, has to fill that gap from the same level as the one that has moved came from, according to quantum physics, and Professor Brian Cox, in his Christmas lecture. It makes sense that if it can happen at a quantum level then it can happen within Universes. The conclusion is that it takes a great deal of tweaking to set one planet up to sustain life. It takes twice as much tweaking to set two planets that are happy to coexist in a matrix of planets. A trillion planets means a trillion time more complex. That has to follow that a by chance theorem is very improbable

Hmm...maybe take another read of what I wrote. If the odds of there being a woman at a particular concert are 1 in 20,000, that sounds pretty unlikely. however, if there are 50,000 people at the concert, it becomes likely that a woman will be there.

The whole point is the "everything has to be so perfect, that the odds preclude an earthlike situation happening without a guiding hand" doesn't work. Whatever the odds are you want to assign to it, they are less than the number of planets in the universe.

 

[serp777]

Right, so because you can't understand it, that means you know all the properties of all physical objects. Give me a break. That would require you to know all physical objects. How can you know what you cannot know? Why would having mass and energy mean it cannot be eternal? That's ridiculous logic and a huge assumption. And all existing in time? Do you know anything about the theory of relativity, or did you spend more time making your own incorrect interpretations of the bible? Read up on time dilation.

This is absurd. You call me thick and then announce that there is no reason why a physical object cannot be eternal. What do you know about physics or cosmology. Not a lot, by the sounds of it. I am not about to give you a lecture on why a physical object cannot remain in that condition for eternity. It is all down to pre-big bang conditions and the singularity. Educate yourself on it the try to debate it. Whilst you are doing it remember that elements are eternal. The configuration of those elements is not. A brick can become heat but it then ceases to be the brick.



Yes, I knew that. It is how God travels everywhere in no time or distance. You are explaining God science.



What about matter and anti-matter. Goes over your head perhaps.[/QUOTE]

"You call me thick and then announce that there is no reason why a physical object cannot be eternal. What do you know about physics or cosmology. Not a lot, by the sounds of it."

This is not an argument, just a brainless red herring. I probably know significantly more about quantum physics, relativity, and chemistry than you even realize; not that that has any effect on the debate at all.

"I am not about to give you a lecture on why a physical object cannot remain in that condition for eternity."

Because you can't obviously. You cannot know what you cannot know. Unless you can prove that space won't exist forever (a physical entity with fields and quantum particles), or that singularities won't last forever, or that expansion will cease at some point, or that there cannot an object in a different universe that is eternal, or that a physical object cannot be outside of time (in which case the concept of eternal is relevant).

Are you also saying that God cannot create a physical object that is eternal and that he hasn't? How could you know what God has or hasn't done? How do you know what he can and cannot do? Where are you getting all of this special magic knowledge? Perhaps you're getting it beamed into your head directly from Jesus? Anyways You consistently undermine and question the power of God. God, assuming he exists, is probably very disappointed with you.

Unless you're the next stephen hawking you couldn't possibly answer these questions; it's funny that you hide behind false bravado and denials though.

"Educate yourself on it the try to debate it. "
Educate yourself on argumentative fallacies; particularly red herrings.

"Yes, I knew that. It is how God travels everywhere in no time or distance. You are explaining God science. "

Yeah? Prove that. I'd like to know how you have all this special knowledge on how God travels. If you think you know how God does stuff, you must be delusional.

"What about matter and anti-matter. Goes over your head perhaps."
Red herring. A truly idiotic and pointless comment.

 

[Serenity7855]

Time to change the subject from personal inadequacies to probability.
Do you have a probabilistic argument for any of these:
- For a supreme being
- Against abiogenesis
- Against evolution

For a Supreme being, no, I do not think there is any mathematical model that could handle that many variables. My personal feelings are that God exists. That given all of the variables that all of us know points to the supernatural I would have to conclude that it is more probable then not. What would the percentage be? I don't really know but my gut feeling is at least 90%

Against abiogenesis, good question. My belief is that God breathed the life of mankind into him, biogenesis. So, if I am honest my answer would have to be absolutely no probability that we will ever be able to replicate a process that I believe never happened.

Against evolution, once again, a non-starter. All the evidence points towards the evolution of species by natural selection. The probability that evolution exists is 99.99% certian

 

[Revoltingest]

For a Supreme being, no, I do not think there is any mathematical model that could handle that many variables. My personal feelings are that God exists. That given all of the variables that all of us know points to the supernatural I would have to conclude that it is more probable then not. What would the percentage be? I don't really know but my gut feeling is at least 90%

Against abiogenesis, good question. My belief is that God breathed the life of mankind into him, biogenesis. So, if I am honest my answer would have to be absolutely no probability that we will ever be able to replicate a process that I believe never happened.

Against evolution, once again, a non-starter. All the evidence points towards the evolution of species by natural selection. The probability that evolution exists is 99.99% certian

That helps to understand.
Seems reasonable to me.
I hope we do replicate abiogenesis though....it would be cool.

 

[Serenity7855]

You forget almost every single time you take quotes from outside sources.

That is not true, my posts are full of links. I claim no special knowledge or academic superiority. I have said that I am a messenger and not the author of the message. I do use links because invariably they say what I want to say, better then I could say them, but your assertion is not only inaccurate it is a blatant lie intended to through the thread and question my integrity in order to discredit me. If I present an article that demonstrates that abiogenesis is a very unlikely hypothesis and I fail to source it. How will that effect the topic of debate. If the reader thinks the words are mine then where is the publification of those words, as my words, or as professor Phils words, change the veracity of the words being published. Not one iota. What is wrong is not what is being said by the post but if it is apparent that the poster is seeking to deceive others into believing that the words are theirs

For someone who is constantly claiming that everyone else is dishonest, I find it quite bizarre and hypocritical.

If, as you are claiming, the plagiarism was intentional the I would be dishonest, however, when we see the evidence of your accusation of my dishonesty I am sure we will see that there was no blatant act of perpetrated by me.

Secondly, you misrepresent me. I do not call the individual dishonest I call their actions and intent dishonest.

Also, I work in academia and plagiarism really chaps my hide. Of course people forget to cite their source from time to time, but not as consistently as you seem to do, which again is weird coming from someone with your particular attitude toward others.

It is far easier to forget to source in a forum then in academia. Here you spend a lot of time writing post which could all disappear in an instant by a blip in the internet, so, eagerness to get it out there causes one to forget to cut and paste the source, an action that has caused me to lose everything I had written. This is the problem when you judge others by the way you are yourself.

It was far out in left field from the post being responded to, as someone else already pointed out.

Yes, but not a reliably impartial poster is he. I thought that it was befitting as a response.

Something I rarely do? I wrote big long posts in direct response to your assertions and arguments only to have you completely ignore them.

There was a bunch of post I refused to answer on the grounds that they were insulting and rude having a purpose to aggregate rather then to induce constructive debate. You were laying traps, saying misleading things and attacking the poster rather the the post. Trolling.

Like I said, I’m involved in academia – I can smell plagiarism. I suspected that’s what it was and checked it out.

Are you saying that there is a physical odour that comes from the act of plagiarism. Is it stronger when it is intentional as opposed to unintentional. You were doing what all good anti-theists do. They look for dirt.

Don’t bother trying to psychoanalyze me. You’re not even remotely qualified to do so.

How do you know that?

Stoop to such low acts? You’re the one trying to pass off other people’s words as your own while constantly whining about the supposed inherent dishonesty of basically anyone you disagree with.

That is a lie. Unless you can provide evidence to substantiate your spurious assertions. Your responses are intended to out do mine in severity. It is very puerile.

You're the one who refers to Wikipedia as "spurious" when others use it but feel free to use it yourself. You're the one insulting and denigrating large groups of people. Nice attempt to turn the tables on me though. Good grief.

I said that it is alright provided you know who writes it. You are lying again. I have not tried to turn the tables on you, you have done that all on your own.

 

[TheGunShoj]

For a Supreme being, no, I do not think there is any mathematical model that could handle that many variables. My personal feelings are that God exists. That given all of the variables that all of us know points to the supernatural I would have to conclude that it is more probable then not. What would the percentage be? I don't really know but my gut feeling is at least 90%

How do you determine that a supernatural explanation is most probable? Out of all of our current knowledge, the supernatural does not appear to exist. I'm not saying that it doesn't or that we know everything about the universe, of course that is not the case. At the present time with our current knowledge, how can you make a statement about something which currently appears to be non existent and posit it as the more probable explanation than a natural cause?

 

[Serenity7855]

That helps to understand.
Seems reasonable to me.
I hope we do replicate abiogenesis though....it would be cool.

I wouldn't be too sure. Can you imagine the potential problems. The need for conception and childbirth would eventually come under the control of big brother. Population would gradually reduce and we would end up having a master race of blue eyed blondes. Where have I heard all that before. Humans have a habit of taking the positive and then use it for negatives.