Total Posts:21|Showing Posts:1-21
Jump to topic:

The Non-Randomness Argument

Perussi
Posts: 782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/30/2016 5:39:37 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
It should be obvious this needs touching up but although it may contain extranious information it is 100% valid.

It deduces that only something not random can be the cause of something but can be used in any way you feel like using it. Of course i use it as support for creationism but this could be used for literally anything from debunking extensive hollow earth to a harmful illuminati.

Enjoy.

1). If something isn't perfect it is random.
2). If something is random it can't exist because the universe is logically definable. In other words if it isn't possible to deduce a logical explanation for something then that thing shouldn't exist.
3). If at some point the universe was a 100% blank slate then there would be no cause for anything and othing would happen. Ever.
4). If something always existed then there must be a reason for it to be existent. Or at least it should not be random.
5). There is no difference in Pastafarianism or Evolutionism being the truth to the universe's existense because both are random. Pastafarianism has a "flying spaghetti monster" as a supreme being, spaghetti is a manmade invention and thus it would be completely random for the "god" to be in such a form. Evolutionism would assume finite forces such as the quantity of mass and the force of the blast of the Big Bang. These forces are random and undefined as well as pre-existent mass or quantum fluctuations would be so.
6). With this reasoning it can be asserted that only something of absolute perfection can be the cause of the universe because it is an absolute and is perfect therefore only possibly having one form and set of variables. Wording aside you should get my point with it. It is meant to be general.
7). Perfection is different from randomness, not being a random possibility because it makes more sence. Say you had a metal cube. You can't disprove that it was say hallow and had a troll doll in this area. It would be much more reasonable to guess that it was all a singularity, a complete metal cube.
8). Assertions 5 and 7 both are the same argument but with different examples. There is no difference with Pastafarianism, Evolutionism, and the troll doll example being the truth in the proposed situations because they are all random.
Forum Record: 6/0

Funny Quotes:

"i worship satan and allahu akbar and hispanic muslims i am an illigal immigrant"
-communist_snake-

"What fuking dates are you talking about child. the and ridiculous and stay out of mummies drugs, you're fuked."
-I'll keep this anonymous...-

"fuk off bog, no one even reads your crap, what price is you hooker now?"
-same dude as above....-
A1tre
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 12:08:09 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 5:39:37 PM, Perussi wrote:

2). If something is random it can't exist because the universe is logically definable. In other words if it isn't possible to deduce a logical explanation for something then that thing shouldn't exist.

How do you know that every existing thing has a complete logical explanation?
Perussi
Posts: 782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 2:13:28 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 12:08:09 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:39:37 PM, Perussi wrote:

2). If something is random it can't exist because the universe is logically definable. In other words if it isn't possible to deduce a logical explanation for something then that thing shouldn't exist.

How do you know that every existing thing has a complete logical explanation?

Because if it didn't, according to this, it wouldn't exist. But does and therefore has one such.
Forum Record: 6/0

Funny Quotes:

"i worship satan and allahu akbar and hispanic muslims i am an illigal immigrant"
-communist_snake-

"What fuking dates are you talking about child. the and ridiculous and stay out of mummies drugs, you're fuked."
-I'll keep this anonymous...-

"fuk off bog, no one even reads your crap, what price is you hooker now?"
-same dude as above....-
Perussi
Posts: 782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 2:13:58 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 6:18:52 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Falls flat on its face at the first premise.

How so? I don't see how this premise is untrue.
Forum Record: 6/0

Funny Quotes:

"i worship satan and allahu akbar and hispanic muslims i am an illigal immigrant"
-communist_snake-

"What fuking dates are you talking about child. the and ridiculous and stay out of mummies drugs, you're fuked."
-I'll keep this anonymous...-

"fuk off bog, no one even reads your crap, what price is you hooker now?"
-same dude as above....-
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 7:13:50 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 2:13:58 AM, Perussi wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:18:52 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Falls flat on its face at the first premise.

How so? I don't see how this premise is untrue.

Perfect is a somewhat subjective judgement. What is a perfect chair? Perfect partner?

Or how about geometry; do circles not exist?

Don't get me wrong, there are other pretty substantial issues further into your argument, but it fails before reaching them.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 7:16:44 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 2:13:58 AM, Perussi wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:18:52 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Falls flat on its face at the first premise.

How so? I don't see how this premise is untrue.

Oh, and as according to your argument they can't exist, do you deny the reality of imperfect circles, slightly subpar meals, not quite right relationships etc?
A1tre
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 7:32:09 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 2:13:28 AM, Perussi wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:08:09 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:39:37 PM, Perussi wrote:

2). If something is random it can't exist because the universe is logically definable. In other words if it isn't possible to deduce a logical explanation for something then that thing shouldn't exist.

How do you know that every existing thing has a complete logical explanation?

Because if it didn't, according to this, it wouldn't exist. But does and therefore has one such.

According to what?

Assumption: If something is random it can't exist
Justification for Assumption: because the universe is logically definable

How do you know the universe is logically definable to the extent you can exclude randomness?

I am questioning the justification for the assumption. Answering this question by repeating the assumption is an attempt at using cirular logic.
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 7:39:22 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 7:32:09 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:13:28 AM, Perussi wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:08:09 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:39:37 PM, Perussi wrote:

2). If something is random it can't exist because the universe is logically definable. In other words if it isn't possible to deduce a logical explanation for something then that thing shouldn't exist.

How do you know that every existing thing has a complete logical explanation?

Because if it didn't, according to this, it wouldn't exist. But does and therefore has one such.

According to what?

Assumption: If something is random it can't exist
Justification for Assumption: because the universe is logically definable

How do you know the universe is logically definable to the extent you can exclude randomness?

I am questioning the justification for the assumption. Answering this question by repeating the assumption is an attempt at using cirular logic.

And to further your point, there is a huuuuuge gulf between "perfectly ordered" and "infinitely random". Not only that, but the former is distinct from merely 'perfect' and the latter would include huge amounts of describable substructure.
Perussi
Posts: 782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 8:08:49 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 7:13:50 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:13:58 AM, Perussi wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:18:52 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Falls flat on its face at the first premise.

How so? I don't see how this premise is untrue.

Perfect is a somewhat subjective judgement. What is a perfect chair? Perfect partner?

Or how about geometry; do circles not exist?

Don't get me wrong, there are other pretty substantial issues further into your argument, but it fails before reaching them.

As i said, version 1.0
Forum Record: 6/0

Funny Quotes:

"i worship satan and allahu akbar and hispanic muslims i am an illigal immigrant"
-communist_snake-

"What fuking dates are you talking about child. the and ridiculous and stay out of mummies drugs, you're fuked."
-I'll keep this anonymous...-

"fuk off bog, no one even reads your crap, what price is you hooker now?"
-same dude as above....-
Perussi
Posts: 782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 8:10:03 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 7:16:44 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:13:58 AM, Perussi wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:18:52 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Falls flat on its face at the first premise.

How so? I don't see how this premise is untrue.

Oh, and as according to your argument they can't exist, do you deny the reality of imperfect circles, slightly subpar meals, not quite right relationships etc?

Those all happen and therefore there is a logical explanation.
Forum Record: 6/0

Funny Quotes:

"i worship satan and allahu akbar and hispanic muslims i am an illigal immigrant"
-communist_snake-

"What fuking dates are you talking about child. the and ridiculous and stay out of mummies drugs, you're fuked."
-I'll keep this anonymous...-

"fuk off bog, no one even reads your crap, what price is you hooker now?"
-same dude as above....-
Perussi
Posts: 782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 8:12:00 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 7:32:09 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:13:28 AM, Perussi wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:08:09 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:39:37 PM, Perussi wrote:

2). If something is random it can't exist because the universe is logically definable. In other words if it isn't possible to deduce a logical explanation for something then that thing shouldn't exist.

How do you know that every existing thing has a complete logical explanation?

Because if it didn't, according to this, it wouldn't exist. But does and therefore has one such.

According to what?

Assumption: If something is random it can't exist
Justification for Assumption: because the universe is logically definable

How do you know the universe is logically definable to the extent you can exclude randomness?

Because true randomness actually doesn't exist. Things do not happen for no reason.

I am questioning the justification for the assumption. Answering this question by repeating the assumption is an attempt at using cirular logic.
Forum Record: 6/0

Funny Quotes:

"i worship satan and allahu akbar and hispanic muslims i am an illigal immigrant"
-communist_snake-

"What fuking dates are you talking about child. the and ridiculous and stay out of mummies drugs, you're fuked."
-I'll keep this anonymous...-

"fuk off bog, no one even reads your crap, what price is you hooker now?"
-same dude as above....-
A1tre
Posts: 223
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 8:18:29 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 8:12:00 AM, Perussi wrote:
At 10/31/2016 7:32:09 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:13:28 AM, Perussi wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:08:09 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:39:37 PM, Perussi wrote:

2). If something is random it can't exist because the universe is logically definable. In other words if it isn't possible to deduce a logical explanation for something then that thing shouldn't exist.

How do you know that every existing thing has a complete logical explanation?

Because if it didn't, according to this, it wouldn't exist. But does and therefore has one such.

According to what?

Assumption: If something is random it can't exist
Justification for Assumption: because the universe is logically definable

How do you know the universe is logically definable to the extent you can exclude randomness?

Because true randomness actually doesn't exist. Things do not happen for no reason.

I am questioning the justification for the assumption. Answering this question by repeating the assumption is an attempt at using cirular logic.

How do you know things do not happen for no reason? What about quantum mechanics?
Perussi
Posts: 782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/31/2016 11:05:59 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 8:18:29 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 10/31/2016 8:12:00 AM, Perussi wrote:
At 10/31/2016 7:32:09 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:13:28 AM, Perussi wrote:
At 10/31/2016 12:08:09 AM, A1tre wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:39:37 PM, Perussi wrote:

2). If something is random it can't exist because the universe is logically definable. In other words if it isn't possible to deduce a logical explanation for something then that thing shouldn't exist.

How do you know that every existing thing has a complete logical explanation?

Because if it didn't, according to this, it wouldn't exist. But does and therefore has one such.

According to what?

Assumption: If something is random it can't exist
Justification for Assumption: because the universe is logically definable

How do you know the universe is logically definable to the extent you can exclude randomness?

Because true randomness actually doesn't exist. Things do not happen for no reason.

I am questioning the justification for the assumption. Answering this question by repeating the assumption is an attempt at using cirular logic.

How do you know things do not happen for no reason? What about quantum mechanics?

There would be a reaosn for that t happen too, even if that reason is quantum mechanics. My one point should have cleared that up perfectly.
Forum Record: 6/0

Funny Quotes:

"i worship satan and allahu akbar and hispanic muslims i am an illigal immigrant"
-communist_snake-

"What fuking dates are you talking about child. the and ridiculous and stay out of mummies drugs, you're fuked."
-I'll keep this anonymous...-

"fuk off bog, no one even reads your crap, what price is you hooker now?"
-same dude as above....-
Philosophy101
Posts: 144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 1:51:49 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 5:39:37 PM, Perussi wrote:
It should be obvious this needs touching up but although it may contain extranious information it is 100% valid.

It deduces that only something not random can be the cause of something but can be used in any way you feel like using it. Of course i use it as support for creationism but this could be used for literally anything from debunking extensive hollow earth to a harmful illuminati.

Enjoy.

1). If something isn't perfect it is random.

I don't follow how this is the case; how does nonperferection entail randomness. In other words why is it logically necessary for something nonperfect to be random. I also think you entail a corrolary that if something is perfect it is nonrandom; yet this would require at least some extra work.

2). If something is random it can't exist because the universe is logically definable. In other words if it isn't possible to deduce a logical explanation for something then that thing shouldn't exist.

Perhaps randomness is truly unimaginable on this scheme, but quantum mechanics exists, although it is typically seen as random. It seems as though logic might not be absolute, in fact may even be scarce. For example, I run into Mary at the store; I can believe that the universe is perfectly orderly and assume there is a reason for this; or I can look at it that we are both out shopping and happened to run into each other. Unless she is stocking me or we were to meet there, the second scheme seems to be more functionary. So what appears to be a random encounter to all good eyes, seems to show the world is random.

3). If at some point the universe was a 100% blank slate then there would be no cause for anything and othing would happen. Ever

4). If something always existed then there must be a reason for it to be existent. Or at least it should not be random.

Perhaps there is something that perdures all time; what the reason for this is I do not know, but you are right that it would most likely not be random.

5). There is no difference in Pastafarianism or Evolutionism being the truth to the universe's existense because both are random. Pastafarianism has a "flying spaghetti monster" as a supreme being, spaghetti is a manmade invention and thus it would be completely random for the "god" to be in such a form. Evolutionism would assume finite forces such as the quantity of mass and the force of the blast of the Big Bang. These forces are random and undefined as well as pre-existent mass or quantum fluctuations would be so.
6). With this reasoning it can be asserted that only something of absolute perfection can be the cause of the universe because it is an absolute and is perfect therefore only possibly having one form and set of variables. Wording aside you should get my point with it. It is meant to be general.

7). Perfection is different from randomness, not being a random possibility because it makes more sence. Say you had a metal cube. You can't disprove that it was say hallow and had a troll doll in this area. It would be much more reasonable to guess that it was all a singularity, a complete metal cube.

Yet who is to say the universe is perfect? There are bombs, murderers, earthquakes and a slew of things it would be hard to headline under the title perfection. Not to mention a unimaginably small percentage of the cosmos is even inhabited by life and the only known case of life in the cosmos is us. Compare the surface of the earth to the entire universe and the result is daunting.

8). Assertions 5 and 7 both are the same argument but with different examples. There is no difference with Pastafarianism, Evolutionism, and the troll doll example being the truth in the proposed situations because they are all random.

Experience seems to show the universe may have logical rules, but that the rules start in the bullpen of indeterminism. Things may happen for a reason, but the reason is generally consigned to the happenstance of a person. In a way we generate our own luck, yet it is hard for me to see the perfection in the universe, but rather see that perfection is a grace not often granted.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 3:07:11 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/30/2016 5:39:37 PM, Perussi wrote:
It should be obvious this needs touching up but although it may contain extranious information it is 100% valid.

It deduces that only something not random can be the cause of something but can be used in any way you feel like using it. Of course i use it as support for creationism but this could be used for literally anything from debunking extensive hollow earth to a harmful illuminati.

Enjoy.

1). If something isn't perfect it is random.
2). If something is random it can't exist because the universe is logically definable. In other words if it isn't possible to deduce a logical explanation for something then that thing shouldn't exist.
3). If at some point the universe was a 100% blank slate then there would be no cause for anything and othing would happen. Ever.
4). If something always existed then there must be a reason for it to be existent. Or at least it should not be random.
5). There is no difference in Pastafarianism or Evolutionism being the truth to the universe's existense because both are random. Pastafarianism has a "flying spaghetti monster" as a supreme being, spaghetti is a manmade invention and thus it would be completely random for the "god" to be in such a form. Evolutionism would assume finite forces such as the quantity of mass and the force of the blast of the Big Bang. These forces are random and undefined as well as pre-existent mass or quantum fluctuations would be so.
6). With this reasoning it can be asserted that only something of absolute perfection can be the cause of the universe because it is an absolute and is perfect therefore only possibly having one form and set of variables. Wording aside you should get my point with it. It is meant to be general.
7). Perfection is different from randomness, not being a random possibility because it makes more sence. Say you had a metal cube. You can't disprove that it was say hallow and had a troll doll in this area. It would be much more reasonable to guess that it was all a singularity, a complete metal cube.
8). Assertions 5 and 7 both are the same argument but with different examples. There is no difference with Pastafarianism, Evolutionism, and the troll doll example being the truth in the proposed situations because they are all random.

You know that your arguments make no sense and you are doing this because you are a troll:
"Just troll the freakin' bejesus out of them [atheists] by creating stupid and ignorant threads that have an obvious fallacy and make as many assertions as possible with a thick enough argument so it requires more than little to no thought to put down but thin enough to be an easy target to keep them in a trap. Also make it with a degree of nonsensicallity."
- Perussi
http://www.debate.org...
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 3:34:12 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
ARGUMENT FROM INCOMPREHENSIBILITY
(1) Flabble glurk zoom boink blubba snurgleschnortz ping!
(2) No one has ever refuted (1).
(3) Therefore, God exists.

(1) Do you agree with the utterly trivial proposition X?
(2) Atheist: of course.
(3) How about the slightly modified proposition X'?
(4) Atheist: Um, no, not really.
(5) Good. Since we agree, how about Y? Is that true?
(6) Atheist: No! And I didn't agree with X'!
(7) With the truths of these clearly established, surely you agree that Z is true as well?
(8) Atheist: No. So far I have only agreed with X! Where is this going, anyway?
(9) I'm glad we all agree.....
....
(37) So now we have used propositions X, X', Y, Y', Z, Z', P, P', Q and Q' to arrive at the obviously valid point R. Agreed?
(38) Atheist: Like I said, so far I've only agreed with X. Where is this going?
....
(81) So we now conclude from this that propositions L', L' and J' are true. Agreed?
(82) I HAVEN'T AGREED WITH ANYTHING YOU'VE SAID SINCE X! WHERE IS THIS GOING?
....
(177) ...and it follows that proposition HRV, SHQ' and BTU' are all obviously valid. Agreed?
(178) [Atheist either faints from overwork or leaves in disgust.]
(179) Therefore, God exists.

(1) Behold, foolish atheists, I present you with an incontrovertible proof of the existence of God.
(2) [Christian posts 10,000 word document without a single paragraph break.]
(3) [Atheist's eyes implode.]
(4) I see that nobody can refute (2).
(5) Therefore, God exists.
Perussi
Posts: 782
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 7:13:17 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 3:07:11 AM, distraff wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:39:37 PM, Perussi wrote:
It should be obvious this needs touching up but although it may contain extranious information it is 100% valid.

It deduces that only something not random can be the cause of something but can be used in any way you feel like using it. Of course i use it as support for creationism but this could be used for literally anything from debunking extensive hollow earth to a harmful illuminati.

Enjoy.

1). If something isn't perfect it is random.
2). If something is random it can't exist because the universe is logically definable. In other words if it isn't possible to deduce a logical explanation for something then that thing shouldn't exist.
3). If at some point the universe was a 100% blank slate then there would be no cause for anything and othing would happen. Ever.
4). If something always existed then there must be a reason for it to be existent. Or at least it should not be random.
5). There is no difference in Pastafarianism or Evolutionism being the truth to the universe's existense because both are random. Pastafarianism has a "flying spaghetti monster" as a supreme being, spaghetti is a manmade invention and thus it would be completely random for the "god" to be in such a form. Evolutionism would assume finite forces such as the quantity of mass and the force of the blast of the Big Bang. These forces are random and undefined as well as pre-existent mass or quantum fluctuations would be so.
6). With this reasoning it can be asserted that only something of absolute perfection can be the cause of the universe because it is an absolute and is perfect therefore only possibly having one form and set of variables. Wording aside you should get my point with it. It is meant to be general.
7). Perfection is different from randomness, not being a random possibility because it makes more sence. Say you had a metal cube. You can't disprove that it was say hallow and had a troll doll in this area. It would be much more reasonable to guess that it was all a singularity, a complete metal cube.
8). Assertions 5 and 7 both are the same argument but with different examples. There is no difference with Pastafarianism, Evolutionism, and the troll doll example being the truth in the proposed situations because they are all random.

You know that your arguments make no sense and you are doing this because you are a troll:
"Just troll the freakin' bejesus out of them [atheists] by creating stupid and ignorant threads that have an obvious fallacy and make as many assertions as possible with a thick enough argument so it requires more than little to no thought to put down but thin enough to be an easy target to keep them in a trap. Also make it with a degree of nonsensicallity."
- Perussi
http://www.debate.org...

I posted that because i was exasperated with replies like the one i am replying to now.
Forum Record: 6/0

Funny Quotes:

"i worship satan and allahu akbar and hispanic muslims i am an illigal immigrant"
-communist_snake-

"What fuking dates are you talking about child. the and ridiculous and stay out of mummies drugs, you're fuked."
-I'll keep this anonymous...-

"fuk off bog, no one even reads your crap, what price is you hooker now?"
-same dude as above....-
Graincruncher
Posts: 2,799
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 7:53:58 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 10/31/2016 8:10:03 AM, Perussi wrote:
At 10/31/2016 7:16:44 AM, Graincruncher wrote:
At 10/31/2016 2:13:58 AM, Perussi wrote:
At 10/30/2016 6:18:52 PM, Graincruncher wrote:
Falls flat on its face at the first premise.

How so? I don't see how this premise is untrue.

Oh, and as according to your argument they can't exist, do you deny the reality of imperfect circles, slightly subpar meals, not quite right relationships etc?

Those all happen and therefore there is a logical explanation.

And there's the circular reasoning you're relying on.
Furyan5
Posts: 1,228
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 10:31:19 AM
Posted: 1 month ago
The fine tuning of the universe is beyond argument. This leaves only two conclusions. Either it was designed or there are multiple universes. Obviously the Spaghetti Monster is preposterous, therefore multiple universes must exist.
distraff
Posts: 1,005
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/2/2016 5:58:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/2/2016 7:13:17 AM, Perussi wrote:
At 11/2/2016 3:07:11 AM, distraff wrote:
At 10/30/2016 5:39:37 PM, Perussi wrote:
It should be obvious this needs touching up but although it may contain extranious information it is 100% valid.

It deduces that only something not random can be the cause of something but can be used in any way you feel like using it. Of course i use it as support for creationism but this could be used for literally anything from debunking extensive hollow earth to a harmful illuminati.

Enjoy.

1). If something isn't perfect it is random.
2). If something is random it can't exist because the universe is logically definable. In other words if it isn't possible to deduce a logical explanation for something then that thing shouldn't exist.
3). If at some point the universe was a 100% blank slate then there would be no cause for anything and othing would happen. Ever.
4). If something always existed then there must be a reason for it to be existent. Or at least it should not be random.
5). There is no difference in Pastafarianism or Evolutionism being the truth to the universe's existense because both are random. Pastafarianism has a "flying spaghetti monster" as a supreme being, spaghetti is a manmade invention and thus it would be completely random for the "god" to be in such a form. Evolutionism would assume finite forces such as the quantity of mass and the force of the blast of the Big Bang. These forces are random and undefined as well as pre-existent mass or quantum fluctuations would be so.
6). With this reasoning it can be asserted that only something of absolute perfection can be the cause of the universe because it is an absolute and is perfect therefore only possibly having one form and set of variables. Wording aside you should get my point with it. It is meant to be general.
7). Perfection is different from randomness, not being a random possibility because it makes more sence. Say you had a metal cube. You can't disprove that it was say hallow and had a troll doll in this area. It would be much more reasonable to guess that it was all a singularity, a complete metal cube.
8). Assertions 5 and 7 both are the same argument but with different examples. There is no difference with Pastafarianism, Evolutionism, and the troll doll example being the truth in the proposed situations because they are all random.

You know that your arguments make no sense and you are doing this because you are a troll:
"Just troll the freakin' bejesus out of them [atheists] by creating stupid and ignorant threads that have an obvious fallacy and make as many assertions as possible with a thick enough argument so it requires more than little to no thought to put down but thin enough to be an easy target to keep them in a trap. Also make it with a degree of nonsensicallity."
- Perussi
http://www.debate.org...

I posted that because i was exasperated with replies like the one i am replying to now.

Ok then. Lets see if you are serious. Lets start with the first premise.

Can you provide me with a meaningful definition of "random?" People define it in so many different ways. Please do not be afraid to go into detail.