Total Posts:32|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Changing the question:

izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 9:09:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The question is always does god exist. This question tends to put theists on 50/50 ground. God is a supposed explanation for existence and the universe. At, some point we need to change the question back to where it should be. Where did the universe come from? This is the question we should be asking,the god hypothesis has been given 2000 years it has proven improbable to a majority of the top scientists and philosophers.

When we discuss a crime, we don't spend time asking the ridiculous question: Did Bigfoot do it? We don't let a doctor to the table who thinks robitussin cures cancer with no evidence. This is not the way we answer questions. We demand evidence. It is time we tell religious people to step away from the table and don't come back until they have done their due diligence and have evidence for god.

At some point we need to put the sky fairies to bed, and get serious about answering the big questions as a society. Our world has improved more and more just by increasing our knowledge of the way things actually work. To continue getting stuck at questions like does god exist, rather then finding a probable explanation for things by asking the right question: What caused the universe and what can we actually know about it? Worse yet we not only don't get those questions we are busy discussing which god did it. Really, the god did it hypothesis is not supported by evidence, why should we bother discussing which favorite sky daddy did it?
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
CosmicAlfonzo
Posts: 5,955
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 9:15:20 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
It was The Unending Fart.
Official "High Priest of Secular Affairs and Transient Distributor of Sonic Apple Seeds relating to the Reptilian Division of Paperwork Immoliation" of The FREEDO Bureaucracy, a DDO branch of the Erisian Front, a subdivision of the Discordian Back, a Limb of the Illuminatian Cosmic Utensil Corp
Just1Voice
Posts: 155
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 9:15:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 9:09:30 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The question is always does god exist. This question tends to put theists on 50/50 ground. God is a supposed explanation for existence and the universe. At, some point we need to change the question back to where it should be. Where did the universe come from?

Who's going to answer that question? We don't know where it came from. Our physics currently is unable to work out anything prior to the existence of the universe. We think we know how old it is, but since there isn't really any such thing as time (it is the consequence of our perception of the universe in a linear fashion - a result of how our brains work, not how the universe works), there isn't any "before".
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 9:15:37 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
I actually agree, izbo. Good point. Why should we be hung up on a question that will most likely never be universally answered one way or another (at least in our lifetimes), while our world falls to utter sh!t?
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Tiel
Posts: 1,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 9:32:26 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 9:09:30 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The question is always does god exist. This question tends to put theists on 50/50 ground. God is a supposed explanation for existence and the universe. At, some point we need to change the question back to where it should be. Where did the universe come from? This is the question we should be asking,the god hypothesis has been given 2000 years it has proven improbable to a majority of the top scientists and philosophers.

When we discuss a crime, we don't spend time asking the ridiculous question: Did Bigfoot do it? We don't let a doctor to the table who thinks robitussin cures cancer with no evidence. This is not the way we answer questions. We demand evidence. It is time we tell religious people to step away from the table and don't come back until they have done their due diligence and have evidence for god.

At some point we need to put the sky fairies to bed, and get serious about answering the big questions as a society. Our world has improved more and more just by increasing our knowledge of the way things actually work. To continue getting stuck at questions like does god exist, rather then finding a probable explanation for things by asking the right question: What caused the universe and what can we actually know about it? Worse yet we not only don't get those questions we are busy discussing which god did it. Really, the god did it hypothesis is not supported by evidence, why should we bother discussing which favorite sky daddy did it?

It might be better to ask what was the original cause, not where did the universe come from. Even if you had an answer to where the universe came from, you would still end up needing to question where that cause came from and so on and so on. Eventually you will come to a point of trying to understand infinite within a finite mind of comprehension. There must always be something before the something. A cause before the cause. Till you reach infinite.

That concept of the eternal everything is what some people call God. Not all people believe God is some powerful entity sitting on a throne waiting to judge you for not worshiping him and obeying his authority. Some people believe God is much bigger than that.

The question shouldn't be is there God, a God, or multiple Gods. The question is how do you personally define the word God?
"Only the inner force of curiosity and wonder about the unknown, or an outer force upon your free will, can brake the shackles of your current perception."
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/7/2011 9:35:39 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 9:32:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:09:30 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The question is always does god exist. This question tends to put theists on 50/50 ground. God is a supposed explanation for existence and the universe. At, some point we need to change the question back to where it should be. Where did the universe come from? This is the question we should be asking,the god hypothesis has been given 2000 years it has proven improbable to a majority of the top scientists and philosophers.

When we discuss a crime, we don't spend time asking the ridiculous question: Did Bigfoot do it? We don't let a doctor to the table who thinks robitussin cures cancer with no evidence. This is not the way we answer questions. We demand evidence. It is time we tell religious people to step away from the table and don't come back until they have done their due diligence and have evidence for god.

At some point we need to put the sky fairies to bed, and get serious about answering the big questions as a society. Our world has improved more and more just by increasing our knowledge of the way things actually work. To continue getting stuck at questions like does god exist, rather then finding a probable explanation for things by asking the right question: What caused the universe and what can we actually know about it? Worse yet we not only don't get those questions we are busy discussing which god did it. Really, the god did it hypothesis is not supported by evidence, why should we bother discussing which favorite sky daddy did it?

It might be better to ask what was the original cause, not where did the universe come from. Even if you had an answer to where the universe came from, you would still end up needing to question where that cause came from and so on and so on. Eventually you will come to a point of trying to understand infinite within a finite mind of comprehension. There must always be something before the something. A cause before the cause. Till you reach infinite.

That concept of the eternal everything is what some people call God. Not all people believe God is some powerful entity sitting on a throne waiting to judge you for not worshiping him and obeying his authority. Some people believe God is much bigger than that.

The question shouldn't be is there God, a God, or multiple Gods. The question is how do you personally define the word God?

This shows a bias that the universe had to come from a single cause that is the final cause, that is far from the only possibilities. There is no reason to even put the word god into this conversation, it is so unlikely that we should not really talk about it until one of the god hypothesis presenters comes up with good solid evidence, unitl then they should be laughed out of the conversation so the rest of us can deal with the question.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 5:22:23 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 9:09:30 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The question is always does god exist. This question tends to put theists on 50/50 ground. God is a supposed explanation for existence and the universe. At, some point we need to change the question back to where it should be. Where did the universe come from? This is the question we should be asking,the god hypothesis has been given 2000 years it has proven improbable to a majority of the top scientists and philosophers.

When we discuss a crime, we don't spend time asking the ridiculous question: Did Bigfoot do it? We don't let a doctor to the table who thinks robitussin cures cancer with no evidence. This is not the way we answer questions. We demand evidence. It is time we tell religious people to step away from the table and don't come back until they have done their due diligence and have evidence for god.

At some point we need to put the sky fairies to bed, and get serious about answering the big questions as a society. Our world has improved more and more just by increasing our knowledge of the way things actually work. To continue getting stuck at questions like does god exist, rather then finding a probable explanation for things by asking the right question: What caused the universe and what can we actually know about it? Worse yet we not only don't get those questions we are busy discussing which god did it. Really, the god did it hypothesis is not supported by evidence, why should we bother discussing which favorite sky daddy did it?

Is it probable that NOTHING exploded and arranged ITSELF into compelxity?

Never mind creation; THE CREATOR!
The Cross.. the Cross.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/8/2011 7:08:08 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 5:22:23 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:09:30 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The question is always does god exist. This question tends to put theists on 50/50 ground. God is a supposed explanation for existence and the universe. At, some point we need to change the question back to where it should be. Where did the universe come from? This is the question we should be asking,the god hypothesis has been given 2000 years it has proven improbable to a majority of the top scientists and philosophers.

When we discuss a crime, we don't spend time asking the ridiculous question: Did Bigfoot do it? We don't let a doctor to the table who thinks robitussin cures cancer with no evidence. This is not the way we answer questions. We demand evidence. It is time we tell religious people to step away from the table and don't come back until they have done their due diligence and have evidence for god.

At some point we need to put the sky fairies to bed, and get serious about answering the big questions as a society. Our world has improved more and more just by increasing our knowledge of the way things actually work. To continue getting stuck at questions like does god exist, rather then finding a probable explanation for things by asking the right question: What caused the universe and what can we actually know about it? Worse yet we not only don't get those questions we are busy discussing which god did it. Really, the god did it hypothesis is not supported by evidence, why should we bother discussing which favorite sky daddy did it?

Is it probable that NOTHING exploded and arranged ITSELF into compelxity?

Never mind creation; THE CREATOR!

That is nobodies position, I don't know does not mean nothing exploded and arranged itself into complexity.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
DATCMOTO
Posts: 6,160
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 5:33:55 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/8/2011 7:08:08 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/8/2011 5:22:23 AM, DATCMOTO wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:09:30 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The question is always does god exist. This question tends to put theists on 50/50 ground. God is a supposed explanation for existence and the universe. At, some point we need to change the question back to where it should be. Where did the universe come from? This is the question we should be asking,the god hypothesis has been given 2000 years it has proven improbable to a majority of the top scientists and philosophers.

When we discuss a crime, we don't spend time asking the ridiculous question: Did Bigfoot do it? We don't let a doctor to the table who thinks robitussin cures cancer with no evidence. This is not the way we answer questions. We demand evidence. It is time we tell religious people to step away from the table and don't come back until they have done their due diligence and have evidence for god.

At some point we need to put the sky fairies to bed, and get serious about answering the big questions as a society. Our world has improved more and more just by increasing our knowledge of the way things actually work. To continue getting stuck at questions like does god exist, rather then finding a probable explanation for things by asking the right question: What caused the universe and what can we actually know about it? Worse yet we not only don't get those questions we are busy discussing which god did it. Really, the god did it hypothesis is not supported by evidence, why should we bother discussing which favorite sky daddy did it?

Is it probable that NOTHING exploded and arranged ITSELF into compelxity?

Never mind creation; THE CREATOR!

That is nobodies position, I don't know does not mean nothing exploded and arranged itself into complexity.

It's taught in MOST text books in schools. (see Hovind's 'lies in the text books' seminar)
The Cross.. the Cross.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 8:00:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/7/2011 9:35:39 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:32:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:09:30 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The question is always does god exist. This question tends to put theists on 50/50 ground. God is a supposed explanation for existence and the universe. At, some point we need to change the question back to where it should be. Where did the universe come from? This is the question we should be asking,the god hypothesis has been given 2000 years it has proven improbable to a majority of the top scientists and philosophers.

When we discuss a crime, we don't spend time asking the ridiculous question: Did Bigfoot do it? We don't let a doctor to the table who thinks robitussin cures cancer with no evidence. This is not the way we answer questions. We demand evidence. It is time we tell religious people to step away from the table and don't come back until they have done their due diligence and have evidence for god.

At some point we need to put the sky fairies to bed, and get serious about answering the big questions as a society. Our world has improved more and more just by increasing our knowledge of the way things actually work. To continue getting stuck at questions like does god exist, rather then finding a probable explanation for things by asking the right question: What caused the universe and what can we actually know about it? Worse yet we not only don't get those questions we are busy discussing which god did it. Really, the god did it hypothesis is not supported by evidence, why should we bother discussing which favorite sky daddy did it?

It might be better to ask what was the original cause, not where did the universe come from. Even if you had an answer to where the universe came from, you would still end up needing to question where that cause came from and so on and so on. Eventually you will come to a point of trying to understand infinite within a finite mind of comprehension. There must always be something before the something. A cause before the cause. Till you reach infinite.

That concept of the eternal everything is what some people call God. Not all people believe God is some powerful entity sitting on a throne waiting to judge you for not worshiping him and obeying his authority. Some people believe God is much bigger than that.

The question shouldn't be is there God, a God, or multiple Gods. The question is how do you personally define the word God?

This shows a bias that the universe had to come from a single cause that is the final cause, that is far from the only possibilities. There is no reason to even put the word god into this conversation, it is so unlikely that we should not really talk about it until one of the god hypothesis presenters comes up with good solid evidence, unitl then they should be laughed out of the conversation so the rest of us can deal with the question.

Should we discount a possible explanation without having anything that rules it out, as a possibility?? Is that how science should work?? I think we should follow the empirical evidence, and when that evidence can rule out an explanation, then we can laugh those people away from the table. Until then we should see this kind of attitude for what it is. The ramblings of an angry homosexual man who fights what he sees as intolerance, with intolerance.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 8:23:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 8:00:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:35:39 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:32:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:09:30 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The question is always does god exist. This question tends to put theists on 50/50 ground. God is a supposed explanation for existence and the universe. At, some point we need to change the question back to where it should be. Where did the universe come from? This is the question we should be asking,the god hypothesis has been given 2000 years it has proven improbable to a majority of the top scientists and philosophers.

When we discuss a crime, we don't spend time asking the ridiculous question: Did Bigfoot do it? We don't let a doctor to the table who thinks robitussin cures cancer with no evidence. This is not the way we answer questions. We demand evidence. It is time we tell religious people to step away from the table and don't come back until they have done their due diligence and have evidence for god.

At some point we need to put the sky fairies to bed, and get serious about answering the big questions as a society. Our world has improved more and more just by increasing our knowledge of the way things actually work. To continue getting stuck at questions like does god exist, rather then finding a probable explanation for things by asking the right question: What caused the universe and what can we actually know about it? Worse yet we not only don't get those questions we are busy discussing which god did it. Really, the god did it hypothesis is not supported by evidence, why should we bother discussing which favorite sky daddy did it?

It might be better to ask what was the original cause, not where did the universe come from. Even if you had an answer to where the universe came from, you would still end up needing to question where that cause came from and so on and so on. Eventually you will come to a point of trying to understand infinite within a finite mind of comprehension. There must always be something before the something. A cause before the cause. Till you reach infinite.

That concept of the eternal everything is what some people call God. Not all people believe God is some powerful entity sitting on a throne waiting to judge you for not worshiping him and obeying his authority. Some people believe God is much bigger than that.

The question shouldn't be is there God, a God, or multiple Gods. The question is how do you personally define the word God?

This shows a bias that the universe had to come from a single cause that is the final cause, that is far from the only possibilities. There is no reason to even put the word god into this conversation, it is so unlikely that we should not really talk about it until one of the god hypothesis presenters comes up with good solid evidence, unitl then they should be laughed out of the conversation so the rest of us can deal with the question.

Should we discount a possible explanation without having anything that rules it out, as a possibility?? Is that how science should work?? I think we should follow the empirical evidence, and when that evidence can rule out an explanation, then we can laugh those people away from the table. Until then we should see this kind of attitude for what it is. The ramblings of an angry homosexual man who fights what he sees as intolerance, with intolerance.

When that explanation has been the subject of this many failed proofs, it becomes time to work on another lead and lay that one to the side, so yes.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 8:39:02 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 8:23:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:00:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:35:39 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:32:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:09:30 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The question is always does god exist. This question tends to put theists on 50/50 ground. God is a supposed explanation for existence and the universe. At, some point we need to change the question back to where it should be. Where did the universe come from? This is the question we should be asking,the god hypothesis has been given 2000 years it has proven improbable to a majority of the top scientists and philosophers.

When we discuss a crime, we don't spend time asking the ridiculous question: Did Bigfoot do it? We don't let a doctor to the table who thinks robitussin cures cancer with no evidence. This is not the way we answer questions. We demand evidence. It is time we tell religious people to step away from the table and don't come back until they have done their due diligence and have evidence for god.

At some point we need to put the sky fairies to bed, and get serious about answering the big questions as a society. Our world has improved more and more just by increasing our knowledge of the way things actually work. To continue getting stuck at questions like does god exist, rather then finding a probable explanation for things by asking the right question: What caused the universe and what can we actually know about it? Worse yet we not only don't get those questions we are busy discussing which god did it. Really, the god did it hypothesis is not supported by evidence, why should we bother discussing which favorite sky daddy did it?

It might be better to ask what was the original cause, not where did the universe come from. Even if you had an answer to where the universe came from, you would still end up needing to question where that cause came from and so on and so on. Eventually you will come to a point of trying to understand infinite within a finite mind of comprehension. There must always be something before the something. A cause before the cause. Till you reach infinite.

That concept of the eternal everything is what some people call God. Not all people believe God is some powerful entity sitting on a throne waiting to judge you for not worshiping him and obeying his authority. Some people believe God is much bigger than that.

The question shouldn't be is there God, a God, or multiple Gods. The question is how do you personally define the word God?

This shows a bias that the universe had to come from a single cause that is the final cause, that is far from the only possibilities. There is no reason to even put the word god into this conversation, it is so unlikely that we should not really talk about it until one of the god hypothesis presenters comes up with good solid evidence, unitl then they should be laughed out of the conversation so the rest of us can deal with the question.

Should we discount a possible explanation without having anything that rules it out, as a possibility?? Is that how science should work?? I think we should follow the empirical evidence, and when that evidence can rule out an explanation, then we can laugh those people away from the table. Until then we should see this kind of attitude for what it is. The ramblings of an angry homosexual man who fights what he sees as intolerance, with intolerance.

When that explanation has been the subject of this many failed proofs, it becomes time to work on another lead and lay that one to the side, so yes.

What lead are they following?? Are they spending time trying to prove God, or are they trying to answer questions that the evidence raises?? God really has little to do with the direction of scientific research, so your complaint is misleading. It has nothing to do with actual reasearch, you simply want to change people's way of thinking because you don't like it.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 8:40:34 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 8:39:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:23:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:00:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:35:39 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:32:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:09:30 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The question is always does god exist. This question tends to put theists on 50/50 ground. God is a supposed explanation for existence and the universe. At, some point we need to change the question back to where it should be. Where did the universe come from? This is the question we should be asking,the god hypothesis has been given 2000 years it has proven improbable to a majority of the top scientists and philosophers.

When we discuss a crime, we don't spend time asking the ridiculous question: Did Bigfoot do it? We don't let a doctor to the table who thinks robitussin cures cancer with no evidence. This is not the way we answer questions. We demand evidence. It is time we tell religious people to step away from the table and don't come back until they have done their due diligence and have evidence for god.

At some point we need to put the sky fairies to bed, and get serious about answering the big questions as a society. Our world has improved more and more just by increasing our knowledge of the way things actually work. To continue getting stuck at questions like does god exist, rather then finding a probable explanation for things by asking the right question: What caused the universe and what can we actually know about it? Worse yet we not only don't get those questions we are busy discussing which god did it. Really, the god did it hypothesis is not supported by evidence, why should we bother discussing which favorite sky daddy did it?

It might be better to ask what was the original cause, not where did the universe come from. Even if you had an answer to where the universe came from, you would still end up needing to question where that cause came from and so on and so on. Eventually you will come to a point of trying to understand infinite within a finite mind of comprehension. There must always be something before the something. A cause before the cause. Till you reach infinite.

That concept of the eternal everything is what some people call God. Not all people believe God is some powerful entity sitting on a throne waiting to judge you for not worshiping him and obeying his authority. Some people believe God is much bigger than that.

The question shouldn't be is there God, a God, or multiple Gods. The question is how do you personally define the word God?

This shows a bias that the universe had to come from a single cause that is the final cause, that is far from the only possibilities. There is no reason to even put the word god into this conversation, it is so unlikely that we should not really talk about it until one of the god hypothesis presenters comes up with good solid evidence, unitl then they should be laughed out of the conversation so the rest of us can deal with the question.

Should we discount a possible explanation without having anything that rules it out, as a possibility?? Is that how science should work?? I think we should follow the empirical evidence, and when that evidence can rule out an explanation, then we can laugh those people away from the table. Until then we should see this kind of attitude for what it is. The ramblings of an angry homosexual man who fights what he sees as intolerance, with intolerance.

When that explanation has been the subject of this many failed proofs, it becomes time to work on another lead and lay that one to the side, so yes.

What lead are they following?? Are they spending time trying to prove God, or are they trying to answer questions that the evidence raises?? God really has little to do with the direction of scientific research, so your complaint is misleading. It has nothing to do with actual reasearch, you simply want to change people's way of thinking because you don't like it.

No, there is tons of money that people do to discover things like noahs arc and things, to try to prove god, that money could go to finding out the truth and not wasting time.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 9:04:30 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 8:40:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:39:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:23:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:00:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:35:39 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:32:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:09:30 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The question is always does god exist. This question tends to put theists on 50/50 ground. God is a supposed explanation for existence and the universe. At, some point we need to change the question back to where it should be. Where did the universe come from? This is the question we should be asking,the god hypothesis has been given 2000 years it has proven improbable to a majority of the top scientists and philosophers.

When we discuss a crime, we don't spend time asking the ridiculous question: Did Bigfoot do it? We don't let a doctor to the table who thinks robitussin cures cancer with no evidence. This is not the way we answer questions. We demand evidence. It is time we tell religious people to step away from the table and don't come back until they have done their due diligence and have evidence for god.

At some point we need to put the sky fairies to bed, and get serious about answering the big questions as a society. Our world has improved more and more just by increasing our knowledge of the way things actually work. To continue getting stuck at questions like does god exist, rather then finding a probable explanation for things by asking the right question: What caused the universe and what can we actually know about it? Worse yet we not only don't get those questions we are busy discussing which god did it. Really, the god did it hypothesis is not supported by evidence, why should we bother discussing which favorite sky daddy did it?

It might be better to ask what was the original cause, not where did the universe come from. Even if you had an answer to where the universe came from, you would still end up needing to question where that cause came from and so on and so on. Eventually you will come to a point of trying to understand infinite within a finite mind of comprehension. There must always be something before the something. A cause before the cause. Till you reach infinite.

That concept of the eternal everything is what some people call God. Not all people believe God is some powerful entity sitting on a throne waiting to judge you for not worshiping him and obeying his authority. Some people believe God is much bigger than that.

The question shouldn't be is there God, a God, or multiple Gods. The question is how do you personally define the word God?

This shows a bias that the universe had to come from a single cause that is the final cause, that is far from the only possibilities. There is no reason to even put the word god into this conversation, it is so unlikely that we should not really talk about it until one of the god hypothesis presenters comes up with good solid evidence, unitl then they should be laughed out of the conversation so the rest of us can deal with the question.

Should we discount a possible explanation without having anything that rules it out, as a possibility?? Is that how science should work?? I think we should follow the empirical evidence, and when that evidence can rule out an explanation, then we can laugh those people away from the table. Until then we should see this kind of attitude for what it is. The ramblings of an angry homosexual man who fights what he sees as intolerance, with intolerance.

When that explanation has been the subject of this many failed proofs, it becomes time to work on another lead and lay that one to the side, so yes.

What lead are they following?? Are they spending time trying to prove God, or are they trying to answer questions that the evidence raises?? God really has little to do with the direction of scientific research, so your complaint is misleading. It has nothing to do with actual reasearch, you simply want to change people's way of thinking because you don't like it.

No, there is tons of money that people do to discover things like noahs arc and things, to try to prove god, that money could go to finding out the truth and not wasting time.

So we should spend money researching other things because you're afraid that something might be found that validates God?? I have no problem with science researching causes other than God, if you want to know the truth, why wouldn't you want them to find proof that supports your side?? There are many scientists who actually believe that the evidence supports intelligent design, but we're suppose to take your word, as a non-scientist(at least you haven't claimed that expertise yet), that there's enough evidence to laugh others away from the table?? How can you actually find the truth if you exclude all possibilities that you don't like, even though you can't prove your own theory?? That isn't a search for "truth", it's an attempt to validate an agenda.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 9:07:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 9:04:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:40:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:39:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:23:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:00:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:35:39 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:32:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:09:30 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The question is always does god exist. This question tends to put theists on 50/50 ground. God is a supposed explanation for existence and the universe. At, some point we need to change the question back to where it should be. Where did the universe come from? This is the question we should be asking,the god hypothesis has been given 2000 years it has proven improbable to a majority of the top scientists and philosophers.

When we discuss a crime, we don't spend time asking the ridiculous question: Did Bigfoot do it? We don't let a doctor to the table who thinks robitussin cures cancer with no evidence. This is not the way we answer questions. We demand evidence. It is time we tell religious people to step away from the table and don't come back until they have done their due diligence and have evidence for god.

At some point we need to put the sky fairies to bed, and get serious about answering the big questions as a society. Our world has improved more and more just by increasing our knowledge of the way things actually work. To continue getting stuck at questions like does god exist, rather then finding a probable explanation for things by asking the right question: What caused the universe and what can we actually know about it? Worse yet we not only don't get those questions we are busy discussing which god did it. Really, the god did it hypothesis is not supported by evidence, why should we bother discussing which favorite sky daddy did it?

It might be better to ask what was the original cause, not where did the universe come from. Even if you had an answer to where the universe came from, you would still end up needing to question where that cause came from and so on and so on. Eventually you will come to a point of trying to understand infinite within a finite mind of comprehension. There must always be something before the something. A cause before the cause. Till you reach infinite.

That concept of the eternal everything is what some people call God. Not all people believe God is some powerful entity sitting on a throne waiting to judge you for not worshiping him and obeying his authority. Some people believe God is much bigger than that.

The question shouldn't be is there God, a God, or multiple Gods. The question is how do you personally define the word God?

This shows a bias that the universe had to come from a single cause that is the final cause, that is far from the only possibilities. There is no reason to even put the word god into this conversation, it is so unlikely that we should not really talk about it until one of the god hypothesis presenters comes up with good solid evidence, unitl then they should be laughed out of the conversation so the rest of us can deal with the question.

Should we discount a possible explanation without having anything that rules it out, as a possibility?? Is that how science should work?? I think we should follow the empirical evidence, and when that evidence can rule out an explanation, then we can laugh those people away from the table. Until then we should see this kind of attitude for what it is. The ramblings of an angry homosexual man who fights what he sees as intolerance, with intolerance.

When that explanation has been the subject of this many failed proofs, it becomes time to work on another lead and lay that one to the side, so yes.

What lead are they following?? Are they spending time trying to prove God, or are they trying to answer questions that the evidence raises?? God really has little to do with the direction of scientific research, so your complaint is misleading. It has nothing to do with actual reasearch, you simply want to change people's way of thinking because you don't like it.

No, there is tons of money that people do to discover things like noahs arc and things, to try to prove god, that money could go to finding out the truth and not wasting time.

So we should spend money researching other things because you're afraid that something might be found that validates God?? I have no problem with science researching causes other than God, if you want to know the truth, why wouldn't you want them to find proof that supports your side?? There are many scientists who actually believe that the evidence supports intelligent design, but we're suppose to take your word, as a non-scientist(at least you haven't claimed that expertise yet), that there's enough evidence to laugh others away from the table?? How can you actually find the truth if you exclude all possibilities that you don't like, even though you can't prove your own theory?? That isn't a search for "truth", it's an attempt to validate an agenda.

Intelligent design is not supported by a majority of biologists or physicists, as a matter of fact the numbers are quite high against it. The ark story is fiction, there is no need to seek evidence or it anymore, it is scientifically invalidated and historically inaccurate. We have no reason to believe that the god hypothesis is even a remotely possible answer to this question.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 9:12:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 9:04:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:40:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:39:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:23:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:00:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:35:39 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:32:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:09:30 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The question is always does god exist. This question tends to put theists on 50/50 ground. God is a supposed explanation for existence and the universe. At, some point we need to change the question back to where it should be. Where did the universe come from? This is the question we should be asking,the god hypothesis has been given 2000 years it has proven improbable to a majority of the top scientists and philosophers.

When we discuss a crime, we don't spend time asking the ridiculous question: Did Bigfoot do it? We don't let a doctor to the table who thinks robitussin cures cancer with no evidence. This is not the way we answer questions. We demand evidence. It is time we tell religious people to step away from the table and don't come back until they have done their due diligence and have evidence for god.

At some point we need to put the sky fairies to bed, and get serious about answering the big questions as a society. Our world has improved more and more just by increasing our knowledge of the way things actually work. To continue getting stuck at questions like does god exist, rather then finding a probable explanation for things by asking the right question: What caused the universe and what can we actually know about it? Worse yet we not only don't get those questions we are busy discussing which god did it. Really, the god did it hypothesis is not supported by evidence, why should we bother discussing which favorite sky daddy did it?

It might be better to ask what was the original cause, not where did the universe come from. Even if you had an answer to where the universe came from, you would still end up needing to question where that cause came from and so on and so on. Eventually you will come to a point of trying to understand infinite within a finite mind of comprehension. There must always be something before the something. A cause before the cause. Till you reach infinite.

That concept of the eternal everything is what some people call God. Not all people believe God is some powerful entity sitting on a throne waiting to judge you for not worshiping him and obeying his authority. Some people believe God is much bigger than that.

The question shouldn't be is there God, a God, or multiple Gods. The question is how do you personally define the word God?

This shows a bias that the universe had to come from a single cause that is the final cause, that is far from the only possibilities. There is no reason to even put the word god into this conversation, it is so unlikely that we should not really talk about it until one of the god hypothesis presenters comes up with good solid evidence, unitl then they should be laughed out of the conversation so the rest of us can deal with the question.

Should we discount a possible explanation without having anything that rules it out, as a possibility?? Is that how science should work?? I think we should follow the empirical evidence, and when that evidence can rule out an explanation, then we can laugh those people away from the table. Until then we should see this kind of attitude for what it is. The ramblings of an angry homosexual man who fights what he sees as intolerance, with intolerance.

When that explanation has been the subject of this many failed proofs, it becomes time to work on another lead and lay that one to the side, so yes.

What lead are they following?? Are they spending time trying to prove God, or are they trying to answer questions that the evidence raises?? God really has little to do with the direction of scientific research, so your complaint is misleading. It has nothing to do with actual reasearch, you simply want to change people's way of thinking because you don't like it.

No, there is tons of money that people do to discover things like noahs arc and things, to try to prove god, that money could go to finding out the truth and not wasting time.

So we should spend money researching other things because you're afraid that something might be found that validates God?? I have no problem with science researching causes other than God, if you want to know the truth, why wouldn't you want them to find proof that supports your side?? There are many scientists who actually believe that the evidence supports intelligent design, but we're suppose to take your word, as a non-scientist(at least you haven't claimed that expertise yet), that there's enough evidence to laugh others away from the table?? How can you actually find the truth if you exclude all possibilities that you don't like, even though you can't prove your own theory?? That isn't a search for "truth", it's an attempt to validate an agenda.

People asserting god in this discussion should not be allowed in the discussion,in the same sense that people claiming the cure to cancer is gummy bear juice shouldn't be allowed in the cancer research spectrum.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
tkubok
Posts: 5,044
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 9:16:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 9:04:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
So we should spend money researching other things because you're afraid that something might be found that validates God?? I have no problem with science researching causes other than God, if you want to know the truth, why wouldn't you want them to find proof that supports your side?? There are many scientists who actually believe that the evidence supports intelligent design, but we're suppose to take your word, as a non-scientist(at least you haven't claimed that expertise yet), that there's enough evidence to laugh others away from the table?? How can you actually find the truth if you exclude all possibilities that you don't like, even though you can't prove your own theory?? That isn't a search for "truth", it's an attempt to validate an agenda.

I dont understand why you dont get this, Medic.

We automatically exclude, for example, Invisible faeries as an explanation for why flowers bloom. Theres nothing wrong with this exclusion, because there is no evidence of anything supernatural, at all. How is this any different than excluding the possibility that God did anything?
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 9:21:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 9:16:36 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:04:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
So we should spend money researching other things because you're afraid that something might be found that validates God?? I have no problem with science researching causes other than God, if you want to know the truth, why wouldn't you want them to find proof that supports your side?? There are many scientists who actually believe that the evidence supports intelligent design, but we're suppose to take your word, as a non-scientist(at least you haven't claimed that expertise yet), that there's enough evidence to laugh others away from the table?? How can you actually find the truth if you exclude all possibilities that you don't like, even though you can't prove your own theory?? That isn't a search for "truth", it's an attempt to validate an agenda.

I dont understand why you dont get this, Medic.

We automatically exclude, for example, Invisible faeries as an explanation for why flowers bloom. Theres nothing wrong with this exclusion, because there is no evidence of anything supernatural, at all. How is this any different than excluding the possibility that God did anything?

watch the convo at the beginning of this video wynona ryder being medic it makes sense.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 11:40:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 9:07:32 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:04:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:40:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:39:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:23:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:00:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:35:39 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:32:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:09:30 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The question is always does god exist. This question tends to put theists on 50/50 ground. God is a supposed explanation for existence and the universe. At, some point we need to change the question back to where it should be. Where did the universe come from? This is the question we should be asking,the god hypothesis has been given 2000 years it has proven improbable to a majority of the top scientists and philosophers.

When we discuss a crime, we don't spend time asking the ridiculous question: Did Bigfoot do it? We don't let a doctor to the table who thinks robitussin cures cancer with no evidence. This is not the way we answer questions. We demand evidence. It is time we tell religious people to step away from the table and don't come back until they have done their due diligence and have evidence for god.

At some point we need to put the sky fairies to bed, and get serious about answering the big questions as a society. Our world has improved more and more just by increasing our knowledge of the way things actually work. To continue getting stuck at questions like does god exist, rather then finding a probable explanation for things by asking the right question: What caused the universe and what can we actually know about it? Worse yet we not only don't get those questions we are busy discussing which god did it. Really, the god did it hypothesis is not supported by evidence, why should we bother discussing which favorite sky daddy did it?

It might be better to ask what was the original cause, not where did the universe come from. Even if you had an answer to where the universe came from, you would still end up needing to question where that cause came from and so on and so on. Eventually you will come to a point of trying to understand infinite within a finite mind of comprehension. There must always be something before the something. A cause before the cause. Till you reach infinite.

That concept of the eternal everything is what some people call God. Not all people believe God is some powerful entity sitting on a throne waiting to judge you for not worshiping him and obeying his authority. Some people believe God is much bigger than that.

The question shouldn't be is there God, a God, or multiple Gods. The question is how do you personally define the word God?

This shows a bias that the universe had to come from a single cause that is the final cause, that is far from the only possibilities. There is no reason to even put the word god into this conversation, it is so unlikely that we should not really talk about it until one of the god hypothesis presenters comes up with good solid evidence, unitl then they should be laughed out of the conversation so the rest of us can deal with the question.

Should we discount a possible explanation without having anything that rules it out, as a possibility?? Is that how science should work?? I think we should follow the empirical evidence, and when that evidence can rule out an explanation, then we can laugh those people away from the table. Until then we should see this kind of attitude for what it is. The ramblings of an angry homosexual man who fights what he sees as intolerance, with intolerance.

When that explanation has been the subject of this many failed proofs, it becomes time to work on another lead and lay that one to the side, so yes.

What lead are they following?? Are they spending time trying to prove God, or are they trying to answer questions that the evidence raises?? God really has little to do with the direction of scientific research, so your complaint is misleading. It has nothing to do with actual reasearch, you simply want to change people's way of thinking because you don't like it.

No, there is tons of money that people do to discover things like noahs arc and things, to try to prove god, that money could go to finding out the truth and not wasting time.

So we should spend money researching other things because you're afraid that something might be found that validates God?? I have no problem with science researching causes other than God, if you want to know the truth, why wouldn't you want them to find proof that supports your side?? There are many scientists who actually believe that the evidence supports intelligent design, but we're suppose to take your word, as a non-scientist(at least you haven't claimed that expertise yet), that there's enough evidence to laugh others away from the table?? How can you actually find the truth if you exclude all possibilities that you don't like, even though you can't prove your own theory?? That isn't a search for "truth", it's an attempt to validate an agenda.


Intelligent design is not supported by a majority of biologists or physicists, as a matter of fact the numbers are quite high against it. The ark story is fiction, there is no need to seek evidence or it anymore, it is scientifically invalidated and historically inaccurate. We have no reason to believe that the god hypothesis is even a remotely possible answer to this question.

If the evidence were so convincing, there wouldn't be any in the scientific community who would support ID. Even if I were to accept your unprofessional opinion of Noah's flood, that still doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 11:46:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 11:40:21 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:07:32 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:04:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:40:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:39:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:23:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:00:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:35:39 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:32:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:09:30 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The question is always does god exist. This question tends to put theists on 50/50 ground. God is a supposed explanation for existence and the universe. At, some point we need to change the question back to where it should be. Where did the universe come from? This is the question we should be asking,the god hypothesis has been given 2000 years it has proven improbable to a majority of the top scientists and philosophers.

When we discuss a crime, we don't spend time asking the ridiculous question: Did Bigfoot do it? We don't let a doctor to the table who thinks robitussin cures cancer with no evidence. This is not the way we answer questions. We demand evidence. It is time we tell religious people to step away from the table and don't come back until they have done their due diligence and have evidence for god.

At some point we need to put the sky fairies to bed, and get serious about answering the big questions as a society. Our world has improved more and more just by increasing our knowledge of the way things actually work. To continue getting stuck at questions like does god exist, rather then finding a probable explanation for things by asking the right question: What caused the universe and what can we actually know about it? Worse yet we not only don't get those questions we are busy discussing which god did it. Really, the god did it hypothesis is not supported by evidence, why should we bother discussing which favorite sky daddy did it?

It might be better to ask what was the original cause, not where did the universe come from. Even if you had an answer to where the universe came from, you would still end up needing to question where that cause came from and so on and so on. Eventually you will come to a point of trying to understand infinite within a finite mind of comprehension. There must always be something before the something. A cause before the cause. Till you reach infinite.

That concept of the eternal everything is what some people call God. Not all people believe God is some powerful entity sitting on a throne waiting to judge you for not worshiping him and obeying his authority. Some people believe God is much bigger than that.

The question shouldn't be is there God, a God, or multiple Gods. The question is how do you personally define the word God?

This shows a bias that the universe had to come from a single cause that is the final cause, that is far from the only possibilities. There is no reason to even put the word god into this conversation, it is so unlikely that we should not really talk about it until one of the god hypothesis presenters comes up with good solid evidence, unitl then they should be laughed out of the conversation so the rest of us can deal with the question.

Should we discount a possible explanation without having anything that rules it out, as a possibility?? Is that how science should work?? I think we should follow the empirical evidence, and when that evidence can rule out an explanation, then we can laugh those people away from the table. Until then we should see this kind of attitude for what it is. The ramblings of an angry homosexual man who fights what he sees as intolerance, with intolerance.

When that explanation has been the subject of this many failed proofs, it becomes time to work on another lead and lay that one to the side, so yes.

What lead are they following?? Are they spending time trying to prove God, or are they trying to answer questions that the evidence raises?? God really has little to do with the direction of scientific research, so your complaint is misleading. It has nothing to do with actual reasearch, you simply want to change people's way of thinking because you don't like it.

No, there is tons of money that people do to discover things like noahs arc and things, to try to prove god, that money could go to finding out the truth and not wasting time.

So we should spend money researching other things because you're afraid that something might be found that validates God?? I have no problem with science researching causes other than God, if you want to know the truth, why wouldn't you want them to find proof that supports your side?? There are many scientists who actually believe that the evidence supports intelligent design, but we're suppose to take your word, as a non-scientist(at least you haven't claimed that expertise yet), that there's enough evidence to laugh others away from the table?? How can you actually find the truth if you exclude all possibilities that you don't like, even though you can't prove your own theory?? That isn't a search for "truth", it's an attempt to validate an agenda.


Intelligent design is not supported by a majority of biologists or physicists, as a matter of fact the numbers are quite high against it. The ark story is fiction, there is no need to seek evidence or it anymore, it is scientifically invalidated and historically inaccurate. We have no reason to believe that the god hypothesis is even a remotely possible answer to this question.

If the evidence were so convincing, there wouldn't be any in the scientific community who would support ID. Even if I were to accept your unprofessional opinion of Noah's flood, that still doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

Medic you intentional stupidity is getting old. Why do you believe god created the universe and not that a unicorn did?
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 11:49:36 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 9:12:04 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:04:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:40:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:39:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:23:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:00:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:35:39 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:32:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:09:30 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The question is always does god exist. This question tends to put theists on 50/50 ground. God is a supposed explanation for existence and the universe. At, some point we need to change the question back to where it should be. Where did the universe come from? This is the question we should be asking,the god hypothesis has been given 2000 years it has proven improbable to a majority of the top scientists and philosophers.

When we discuss a crime, we don't spend time asking the ridiculous question: Did Bigfoot do it? We don't let a doctor to the table who thinks robitussin cures cancer with no evidence. This is not the way we answer questions. We demand evidence. It is time we tell religious people to step away from the table and don't come back until they have done their due diligence and have evidence for god.

At some point we need to put the sky fairies to bed, and get serious about answering the big questions as a society. Our world has improved more and more just by increasing our knowledge of the way things actually work. To continue getting stuck at questions like does god exist, rather then finding a probable explanation for things by asking the right question: What caused the universe and what can we actually know about it? Worse yet we not only don't get those questions we are busy discussing which god did it. Really, the god did it hypothesis is not supported by evidence, why should we bother discussing which favorite sky daddy did it?

It might be better to ask what was the original cause, not where did the universe come from. Even if you had an answer to where the universe came from, you would still end up needing to question where that cause came from and so on and so on. Eventually you will come to a point of trying to understand infinite within a finite mind of comprehension. There must always be something before the something. A cause before the cause. Till you reach infinite.

That concept of the eternal everything is what some people call God. Not all people believe God is some powerful entity sitting on a throne waiting to judge you for not worshiping him and obeying his authority. Some people believe God is much bigger than that.

The question shouldn't be is there God, a God, or multiple Gods. The question is how do you personally define the word God?

This shows a bias that the universe had to come from a single cause that is the final cause, that is far from the only possibilities. There is no reason to even put the word god into this conversation, it is so unlikely that we should not really talk about it until one of the god hypothesis presenters comes up with good solid evidence, unitl then they should be laughed out of the conversation so the rest of us can deal with the question.

Should we discount a possible explanation without having anything that rules it out, as a possibility?? Is that how science should work?? I think we should follow the empirical evidence, and when that evidence can rule out an explanation, then we can laugh those people away from the table. Until then we should see this kind of attitude for what it is. The ramblings of an angry homosexual man who fights what he sees as intolerance, with intolerance.

When that explanation has been the subject of this many failed proofs, it becomes time to work on another lead and lay that one to the side, so yes.

What lead are they following?? Are they spending time trying to prove God, or are they trying to answer questions that the evidence raises?? God really has little to do with the direction of scientific research, so your complaint is misleading. It has nothing to do with actual reasearch, you simply want to change people's way of thinking because you don't like it.

No, there is tons of money that people do to discover things like noahs arc and things, to try to prove god, that money could go to finding out the truth and not wasting time.

So we should spend money researching other things because you're afraid that something might be found that validates God?? I have no problem with science researching causes other than God, if you want to know the truth, why wouldn't you want them to find proof that supports your side?? There are many scientists who actually believe that the evidence supports intelligent design, but we're suppose to take your word, as a non-scientist(at least you haven't claimed that expertise yet), that there's enough evidence to laugh others away from the table?? How can you actually find the truth if you exclude all possibilities that you don't like, even though you can't prove your own theory?? That isn't a search for "truth", it's an attempt to validate an agenda.

People asserting god in this discussion should not be allowed in the discussion,in the same sense that people claiming the cure to cancer is gummy bear juice shouldn't be allowed in the cancer research spectrum.

When you can rule out God with the same standard you want from us, empirical evidence, then I'll agree with you. Until then, you're just another person who hates religion because it isn't accepting of your personal agenda.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/9/2011 11:51:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 11:49:36 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:12:04 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:04:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:40:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:39:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:23:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:00:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:35:39 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:32:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:09:30 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The question is always does god exist. This question tends to put theists on 50/50 ground. God is a supposed explanation for existence and the universe. At, some point we need to change the question back to where it should be. Where did the universe come from? This is the question we should be asking,the god hypothesis has been given 2000 years it has proven improbable to a majority of the top scientists and philosophers.

When we discuss a crime, we don't spend time asking the ridiculous question: Did Bigfoot do it? We don't let a doctor to the table who thinks robitussin cures cancer with no evidence. This is not the way we answer questions. We demand evidence. It is time we tell religious people to step away from the table and don't come back until they have done their due diligence and have evidence for god.

At some point we need to put the sky fairies to bed, and get serious about answering the big questions as a society. Our world has improved more and more just by increasing our knowledge of the way things actually work. To continue getting stuck at questions like does god exist, rather then finding a probable explanation for things by asking the right question: What caused the universe and what can we actually know about it? Worse yet we not only don't get those questions we are busy discussing which god did it. Really, the god did it hypothesis is not supported by evidence, why should we bother discussing which favorite sky daddy did it?

It might be better to ask what was the original cause, not where did the universe come from. Even if you had an answer to where the universe came from, you would still end up needing to question where that cause came from and so on and so on. Eventually you will come to a point of trying to understand infinite within a finite mind of comprehension. There must always be something before the something. A cause before the cause. Till you reach infinite.

That concept of the eternal everything is what some people call God. Not all people believe God is some powerful entity sitting on a throne waiting to judge you for not worshiping him and obeying his authority. Some people believe God is much bigger than that.

The question shouldn't be is there God, a God, or multiple Gods. The question is how do you personally define the word God?

This shows a bias that the universe had to come from a single cause that is the final cause, that is far from the only possibilities. There is no reason to even put the word god into this conversation, it is so unlikely that we should not really talk about it until one of the god hypothesis presenters comes up with good solid evidence, unitl then they should be laughed out of the conversation so the rest of us can deal with the question.

Should we discount a possible explanation without having anything that rules it out, as a possibility?? Is that how science should work?? I think we should follow the empirical evidence, and when that evidence can rule out an explanation, then we can laugh those people away from the table. Until then we should see this kind of attitude for what it is. The ramblings of an angry homosexual man who fights what he sees as intolerance, with intolerance.

When that explanation has been the subject of this many failed proofs, it becomes time to work on another lead and lay that one to the side, so yes.

What lead are they following?? Are they spending time trying to prove God, or are they trying to answer questions that the evidence raises?? God really has little to do with the direction of scientific research, so your complaint is misleading. It has nothing to do with actual reasearch, you simply want to change people's way of thinking because you don't like it.

No, there is tons of money that people do to discover things like noahs arc and things, to try to prove god, that money could go to finding out the truth and not wasting time.

So we should spend money researching other things because you're afraid that something might be found that validates God?? I have no problem with science researching causes other than God, if you want to know the truth, why wouldn't you want them to find proof that supports your side?? There are many scientists who actually believe that the evidence supports intelligent design, but we're suppose to take your word, as a non-scientist(at least you haven't claimed that expertise yet), that there's enough evidence to laugh others away from the table?? How can you actually find the truth if you exclude all possibilities that you don't like, even though you can't prove your own theory?? That isn't a search for "truth", it's an attempt to validate an agenda.

People asserting god in this discussion should not be allowed in the discussion,in the same sense that people claiming the cure to cancer is gummy bear juice shouldn't be allowed in the cancer research spectrum.

When you can rule out God with the same standard you want from us, empirical evidence, then I'll agree with you. Until then, you're just another person who hates religion because it isn't accepting of your personal agenda.

NO need to rule out god, lack of belief is the base position as it doesn't create contradictory beliefs.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 12:42:31 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 9:16:36 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:04:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
So we should spend money researching other things because you're afraid that something might be found that validates God?? I have no problem with science researching causes other than God, if you want to know the truth, why wouldn't you want them to find proof that supports your side?? There are many scientists who actually believe that the evidence supports intelligent design, but we're suppose to take your word, as a non-scientist(at least you haven't claimed that expertise yet), that there's enough evidence to laugh others away from the table?? How can you actually find the truth if you exclude all possibilities that you don't like, even though you can't prove your own theory?? That isn't a search for "truth", it's an attempt to validate an agenda.

I dont understand why you dont get this, Medic.

We automatically exclude, for example, Invisible faeries as an explanation for why flowers bloom.

I do get it T. God is Holy, atheism is holey. You can trot out as many absurd comparisons as you like, but this one isn't the least bit more convincing than the first.

Theres nothing wrong with this exclusion, because there is no evidence of anything supernatural, at all. How is this any different than excluding the possibility that God did anything?

You DENY that there is any evidence, that's it, that's all you have is unsupported denials. You have theories, but no solid evidence of a natural explanation for everything. You can't even point to another instance of it happening. You can't answer anything, you simply deny possibilities that you don't wish to be true. Prove to me that the universe brought itself into existence, or has always existed, and organized itself into enough order to allow for intelligent life, on just this one planet, and I'll change my view.

How do you know that there is no evidence of anything supernatural?? Do you have a way of testing to see if something is of a supernatural origin?? Can you prove how and why the universe is here, using a natural explanation, thus ruling out supernatural explanations?? So you can't prove anything, you can't disprove anything, yet you're confident that certain things should be ruled out?? That doesn't sound like good science, or a search for the truth.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 12:50:16 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 12:42:31 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:16:36 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:04:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
So we should spend money researching other things because you're afraid that something might be found that validates God?? I have no problem with science researching causes other than God, if you want to know the truth, why wouldn't you want them to find proof that supports your side?? There are many scientists who actually believe that the evidence supports intelligent design, but we're suppose to take your word, as a non-scientist(at least you haven't claimed that expertise yet), that there's enough evidence to laugh others away from the table?? How can you actually find the truth if you exclude all possibilities that you don't like, even though you can't prove your own theory?? That isn't a search for "truth", it's an attempt to validate an agenda.

I dont understand why you dont get this, Medic.

We automatically exclude, for example, Invisible faeries as an explanation for why flowers bloom.

I do get it T. God is Holy, atheism is holey. You can trot out as many absurd comparisons as you like, but this one isn't the least bit more convincing than the first.

Theres nothing wrong with this exclusion, because there is no evidence of anything supernatural, at all. How is this any different than excluding the possibility that God did anything?

You DENY that there is any evidence, that's it, that's all you have is unsupported denials. You have theories, but no solid evidence of a natural explanation for everything. You can't even point to another instance of it happening. You can't answer anything, you simply deny possibilities that you don't wish to be true. Prove to me that the universe brought itself into existence, or has always existed, and organized itself into enough order to allow for intelligent life, on just this one planet, and I'll change my view.

How do you know that there is no evidence of anything supernatural?? Do you have a way of testing to see if something is of a supernatural origin?? Can you prove how and why the universe is here, using a natural explanation, thus ruling out supernatural explanations?? So you can't prove anything, you can't disprove anything, yet you're confident that certain things should be ruled out?? That doesn't sound like good science, or a search for the truth.

You do realize that your very beginning was the very definition of a god of the gaps fallacy.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 1:04:19 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 12:42:31 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:16:36 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:04:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
So we should spend money researching other things because you're afraid that something might be found that validates God?? I have no problem with science researching causes other than God, if you want to know the truth, why wouldn't you want them to find proof that supports your side?? There are many scientists who actually believe that the evidence supports intelligent design, but we're suppose to take your word, as a non-scientist(at least you haven't claimed that expertise yet), that there's enough evidence to laugh others away from the table?? How can you actually find the truth if you exclude all possibilities that you don't like, even though you can't prove your own theory?? That isn't a search for "truth", it's an attempt to validate an agenda.

I dont understand why you dont get this, Medic.

We automatically exclude, for example, Invisible faeries as an explanation for why flowers bloom.

I do get it T. God is Holy, atheism is holey. You can trot out as many absurd comparisons as you like, but this one isn't the least bit more convincing than the first.

Theres nothing wrong with this exclusion, because there is no evidence of anything supernatural, at all. How is this any different than excluding the possibility that God did anything?

You DENY that there is any evidence, that's it, that's all you have is unsupported denials. You have theories, but no solid evidence of a natural explanation for everything. You can't even point to another instance of it happening. You can't answer anything, you simply deny possibilities that you don't wish to be true. Prove to me that the universe brought itself into existence, or has always existed, and organized itself into enough order to allow for intelligent life, on just this one planet, and I'll change my view.

How do you know that there is no evidence of anything supernatural?? Do you have a way of testing to see if something is of a supernatural origin?? Can you prove how and why the universe is here, using a natural explanation, thus ruling out supernatural explanations?? So you can't prove anything, you can't disprove anything, yet you're confident that certain things should be ruled out?? That doesn't sound like good science, or a search for the truth.

If you can't rule out supernatural then it is possible leprechauns, unicorns, or fairies created the universe, why do you only grant belief based on this to your particular favorite god? Oh thats right because in every other fuckin situation you get it. You just refuse to get it with god.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 1:33:02 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 11:51:28 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 11:49:36 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:12:04 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:04:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:40:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:39:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:23:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:00:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:35:39 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:32:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:09:30 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The question is always does god exist. This question tends to put theists on 50/50 ground. God is a supposed explanation for existence and the universe. At, some point we need to change the question back to where it should be. Where did the universe come from? This is the question we should be asking,the god hypothesis has been given 2000 years it has proven improbable to a majority of the top scientists and philosophers.

When we discuss a crime, we don't spend time asking the ridiculous question: Did Bigfoot do it? We don't let a doctor to the table who thinks robitussin cures cancer with no evidence. This is not the way we answer questions. We demand evidence. It is time we tell religious people to step away from the table and don't come back until they have done their due diligence and have evidence for god.

At some point we need to put the sky fairies to bed, and get serious about answering the big questions as a society. Our world has improved more and more just by increasing our knowledge of the way things actually work. To continue getting stuck at questions like does god exist, rather then finding a probable explanation for things by asking the right question: What caused the universe and what can we actually know about it? Worse yet we not only don't get those questions we are busy discussing which god did it. Really, the god did it hypothesis is not supported by evidence, why should we bother discussing which favorite sky daddy did it?

It might be better to ask what was the original cause, not where did the universe come from. Even if you had an answer to where the universe came from, you would still end up needing to question where that cause came from and so on and so on. Eventually you will come to a point of trying to understand infinite within a finite mind of comprehension. There must always be something before the something. A cause before the cause. Till you reach infinite.

That concept of the eternal everything is what some people call God. Not all people believe God is some powerful entity sitting on a throne waiting to judge you for not worshiping him and obeying his authority. Some people believe God is much bigger than that.

The question shouldn't be is there God, a God, or multiple Gods. The question is how do you personally define the word God?

This shows a bias that the universe had to come from a single cause that is the final cause, that is far from the only possibilities. There is no reason to even put the word god into this conversation, it is so unlikely that we should not really talk about it until one of the god hypothesis presenters comes up with good solid evidence, unitl then they should be laughed out of the conversation so the rest of us can deal with the question.

Should we discount a possible explanation without having anything that rules it out, as a possibility?? Is that how science should work?? I think we should follow the empirical evidence, and when that evidence can rule out an explanation, then we can laugh those people away from the table. Until then we should see this kind of attitude for what it is. The ramblings of an angry homosexual man who fights what he sees as intolerance, with intolerance.

When that explanation has been the subject of this many failed proofs, it becomes time to work on another lead and lay that one to the side, so yes.

What lead are they following?? Are they spending time trying to prove God, or are they trying to answer questions that the evidence raises?? God really has little to do with the direction of scientific research, so your complaint is misleading. It has nothing to do with actual reasearch, you simply want to change people's way of thinking because you don't like it.

No, there is tons of money that people do to discover things like noahs arc and things, to try to prove god, that money could go to finding out the truth and not wasting time.

So we should spend money researching other things because you're afraid that something might be found that validates God?? I have no problem with science researching causes other than God, if you want to know the truth, why wouldn't you want them to find proof that supports your side?? There are many scientists who actually believe that the evidence supports intelligent design, but we're suppose to take your word, as a non-scientist(at least you haven't claimed that expertise yet), that there's enough evidence to laugh others away from the table?? How can you actually find the truth if you exclude all possibilities that you don't like, even though you can't prove your own theory?? That isn't a search for "truth", it's an attempt to validate an agenda.

People asserting god in this discussion should not be allowed in the discussion,in the same sense that people claiming the cure to cancer is gummy bear juice shouldn't be allowed in the cancer research spectrum.

When you can rule out God with the same standard you want from us, empirical evidence, then I'll agree with you. Until then, you're just another person who hates religion because it isn't accepting of your personal agenda.

NO need to rule out god, lack of belief is the base position as it doesn't create contradictory beliefs. You f'n follow this rule in every other situation then god, the n all of a sudden you act like a bumbling fuckin more who can't figure it out.

Whether He exists, or not, God is a fact of life, and He's not going to go away just because you stamp yer widdle feetsies. You shouldn't call people names that you can't even spell yet.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 1:45:05 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 12:50:16 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/10/2011 12:42:31 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:16:36 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:04:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
So we should spend money researching other things because you're afraid that something might be found that validates God?? I have no problem with science researching causes other than God, if you want to know the truth, why wouldn't you want them to find proof that supports your side?? There are many scientists who actually believe that the evidence supports intelligent design, but we're suppose to take your word, as a non-scientist(at least you haven't claimed that expertise yet), that there's enough evidence to laugh others away from the table?? How can you actually find the truth if you exclude all possibilities that you don't like, even though you can't prove your own theory?? That isn't a search for "truth", it's an attempt to validate an agenda.

I dont understand why you dont get this, Medic.

We automatically exclude, for example, Invisible faeries as an explanation for why flowers bloom.

I do get it T. God is Holy, atheism is holey. You can trot out as many absurd comparisons as you like, but this one isn't the least bit more convincing than the first.

Theres nothing wrong with this exclusion, because there is no evidence of anything supernatural, at all. How is this any different than excluding the possibility that God did anything?

You DENY that there is any evidence, that's it, that's all you have is unsupported denials. You have theories, but no solid evidence of a natural explanation for everything. You can't even point to another instance of it happening. You can't answer anything, you simply deny possibilities that you don't wish to be true. Prove to me that the universe brought itself into existence, or has always existed, and organized itself into enough order to allow for intelligent life, on just this one planet, and I'll change my view.

How do you know that there is no evidence of anything supernatural?? Do you have a way of testing to see if something is of a supernatural origin?? Can you prove how and why the universe is here, using a natural explanation, thus ruling out supernatural explanations?? So you can't prove anything, you can't disprove anything, yet you're confident that certain things should be ruled out?? That doesn't sound like good science, or a search for the truth.

You do realize that your very beginning was the very definition of a god of the gaps fallacy.

What's the fallacy where you presuppose something to be true or false without having proof of that being the case??
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 1:48:14 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 1:04:19 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/10/2011 12:42:31 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:16:36 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:04:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
So we should spend money researching other things because you're afraid that something might be found that validates God?? I have no problem with science researching causes other than God, if you want to know the truth, why wouldn't you want them to find proof that supports your side?? There are many scientists who actually believe that the evidence supports intelligent design, but we're suppose to take your word, as a non-scientist(at least you haven't claimed that expertise yet), that there's enough evidence to laugh others away from the table?? How can you actually find the truth if you exclude all possibilities that you don't like, even though you can't prove your own theory?? That isn't a search for "truth", it's an attempt to validate an agenda.

I dont understand why you dont get this, Medic.

We automatically exclude, for example, Invisible faeries as an explanation for why flowers bloom.

I do get it T. God is Holy, atheism is holey. You can trot out as many absurd comparisons as you like, but this one isn't the least bit more convincing than the first.

Theres nothing wrong with this exclusion, because there is no evidence of anything supernatural, at all. How is this any different than excluding the possibility that God did anything?

You DENY that there is any evidence, that's it, that's all you have is unsupported denials. You have theories, but no solid evidence of a natural explanation for everything. You can't even point to another instance of it happening. You can't answer anything, you simply deny possibilities that you don't wish to be true. Prove to me that the universe brought itself into existence, or has always existed, and organized itself into enough order to allow for intelligent life, on just this one planet, and I'll change my view.

How do you know that there is no evidence of anything supernatural?? Do you have a way of testing to see if something is of a supernatural origin?? Can you prove how and why the universe is here, using a natural explanation, thus ruling out supernatural explanations?? So you can't prove anything, you can't disprove anything, yet you're confident that certain things should be ruled out?? That doesn't sound like good science, or a search for the truth.


If you can't rule out supernatural then it is possible leprechauns, unicorns, or fairies created the universe, why do you only grant belief based on this to your particular favorite god? Oh thats right because in every other fuckin situation you get it. You just refuse to get it with god.

Surprise!! More comparisons.
izbo10
Posts: 2,995
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 8:15:59 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/10/2011 1:48:14 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/10/2011 1:04:19 AM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/10/2011 12:42:31 AM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:16:36 PM, tkubok wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:04:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
So we should spend money researching other things because you're afraid that something might be found that validates God?? I have no problem with science researching causes other than God, if you want to know the truth, why wouldn't you want them to find proof that supports your side?? There are many scientists who actually believe that the evidence supports intelligent design, but we're suppose to take your word, as a non-scientist(at least you haven't claimed that expertise yet), that there's enough evidence to laugh others away from the table?? How can you actually find the truth if you exclude all possibilities that you don't like, even though you can't prove your own theory?? That isn't a search for "truth", it's an attempt to validate an agenda.

I dont understand why you dont get this, Medic.

We automatically exclude, for example, Invisible faeries as an explanation for why flowers bloom.

I do get it T. God is Holy, atheism is holey. You can trot out as many absurd comparisons as you like, but this one isn't the least bit more convincing than the first.

Theres nothing wrong with this exclusion, because there is no evidence of anything supernatural, at all. How is this any different than excluding the possibility that God did anything?

You DENY that there is any evidence, that's it, that's all you have is unsupported denials. You have theories, but no solid evidence of a natural explanation for everything. You can't even point to another instance of it happening. You can't answer anything, you simply deny possibilities that you don't wish to be true. Prove to me that the universe brought itself into existence, or has always existed, and organized itself into enough order to allow for intelligent life, on just this one planet, and I'll change my view.

How do you know that there is no evidence of anything supernatural?? Do you have a way of testing to see if something is of a supernatural origin?? Can you prove how and why the universe is here, using a natural explanation, thus ruling out supernatural explanations?? So you can't prove anything, you can't disprove anything, yet you're confident that certain things should be ruled out?? That doesn't sound like good science, or a search for the truth.


If you can't rule out supernatural then it is possible leprechauns, unicorns, or fairies created the universe, why do you only grant belief based on this to your particular favorite god? Oh thats right because in every other fuckin situation you get it. You just refuse to get it with god.

Surprise!! More comparisons.

Medic this shows a lack of understanding of logic. It is showing you are special pleading, look it up. Now, you can't just laugh that off.
DDO's marketing strategy has certainly paid off just not sure I agree with the target market: http://tinypic.com...
It's amazing to me that you still have yet to grasp the difference between believing something, not believing something, and having no belief at all -JCMT
To respect religion, is to disrespect the Truth!

If this board was a room and you all were the light bulbs, I'm bringing a flashlight.
medic0506
Posts: 13,450
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/10/2011 7:29:14 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 9/9/2011 11:46:07 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 11:40:21 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:07:32 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 9:04:30 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:40:34 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:39:02 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:23:05 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/9/2011 8:00:00 PM, medic0506 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:35:39 PM, izbo10 wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:32:26 PM, Tiel wrote:
At 9/7/2011 9:09:30 PM, izbo10 wrote:
The question is always does god exist. This question tends to put theists on 50/50 ground. God is a supposed explanation for existence and the universe. At, some point we need to change the question back to where it should be. Where did the universe come from? This is the question we should be asking,the god hypothesis has been given 2000 years it has proven improbable to a majority of the top scientists and philosophers.

When we discuss a crime, we don't spend time asking the ridiculous question: Did Bigfoot do it? We don't let a doctor to the table who thinks robitussin cures cancer with no evidence. This is not the way we answer questions. We demand evidence. It is time we tell religious people to step away from the table and don't come back until they have done their due diligence and have evidence for god.

At some point we need to put the sky fairies to bed, and get serious about answering the big questions as a society. Our world has improved more and more just by increasing our knowledge of the way things actually work. To continue getting stuck at questions like does god exist, rather then finding a probable explanation for things by asking the right question: What caused the universe and what can we actually know about it? Worse yet we not only don't get those questions we are busy discussing which god did it. Really, the god did it hypothesis is not supported by evidence, why should we bother discussing which favorite sky daddy did it?

It might be better to ask what was the original cause, not where did the universe come from. Even if you had an answer to where the universe came from, you would still end up needing to question where that cause came from and so on and so on. Eventually you will come to a point of trying to understand infinite within a finite mind of comprehension. There must always be something before the something. A cause before the cause. Till you reach infinite.

That concept of the eternal everything is what some people call God. Not all people believe God is some powerful entity sitting on a throne waiting to judge you for not worshiping him and obeying his authority. Some people believe God is much bigger than that.

The question shouldn't be is there God, a God, or multiple Gods. The question is how do you personally define the word God?

This shows a bias that the universe had to come from a single cause that is the final cause, that is far from the only possibilities. There is no reason to even put the word god into this conversation, it is so unlikely that we should not really talk about it until one of the god hypothesis presenters comes up with good solid evidence, unitl then they should be laughed out of the conversation so the rest of us can deal with the question.

Should we discount a possible explanation without having anything that rules it out, as a possibility?? Is that how science should work?? I think we should follow the empirical evidence, and when that evidence can rule out an explanation, then we can laugh those people away from the table. Until then we should see this kind of attitude for what it is. The ramblings of an angry homosexual man who fights what he sees as intolerance, with intolerance.

When that explanation has been the subject of this many failed proofs, it becomes time to work on another lead and lay that one to the side, so yes.

What lead are they following?? Are they spending time trying to prove God, or are they trying to answer questions that the evidence raises?? God really has little to do with the direction of scientific research, so your complaint is misleading. It has nothing to do with actual reasearch, you simply want to change people's way of thinking because you don't like it.

No, there is tons of money that people do to discover things like noahs arc and things, to try to prove god, that money could go to finding out the truth and not wasting time.

So we should spend money researching other things because you're afraid that something might be found that validates God?? I have no problem with science researching causes other than God, if you want to know the truth, why wouldn't you want them to find proof that supports your side?? There are many scientists who actually believe that the evidence supports intelligent design, but we're suppose to take your word, as a non-scientist(at least you haven't claimed that expertise yet), that there's enough evidence to laugh others away from the table?? How can you actually find the truth if you exclude all possibilities that you don't like, even though you can't prove your own theory?? That isn't a search for "truth", it's an attempt to validate an agenda.


Intelligent design is not supported by a majority of biologists or physicists, as a matter of fact the numbers are quite high against it. The ark story is fiction, there is no need to seek evidence or it anymore, it is scientifically invalidated and historically inaccurate. We have no reason to believe that the god hypothesis is even a remotely possible answer to this question.

If the evidence were so convincing, there wouldn't be any in the scientific community who would support ID. Even if I were to accept your unprofessional opinion of Noah's flood, that still doesn't mean that God doesn't exist.

Medic you intentional stupidity is getting old. Why do you believe god created the universe and not that a unicorn did?

Because the Bible doesn't mention a unicorn.