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

Quentin Smith - Who am I?

Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 12:03:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Some theist posted this video, and I thought it was awesome. Theists hate Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet....But they all like seem to like Quentin lol
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 12:46:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I found this video of him as well and was not blown away by it or anything. His answers seemed repetitive and predictable after about 3 minutes.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 12:52:29 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 12:46:48 PM, stubs wrote:
I found this video of him as well and was not blown away by it or anything.

I wasn't blown away by it either. As he says in that very video, people expect some grand answer when that assumption is not necessary.

His answers seemed repetitive and predictable after about 3 minutes.

Interesting, I say the same thing every time I watch a William Lane Craig video.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 12:58:07 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 12:46:48 PM, stubs wrote:
I found this video of him as well and was not blown away by it or anything. His answers seemed repetitive and predictable after about 3 minutes.



"Why something instead of nothing?" Instead of listen to the stuttering and rambling, realize that the reason there is something rather nothing is the same reason that there is possible instead of impossible.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 1:03:27 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 12:58:07 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/2/2013 12:46:48 PM, stubs wrote:
I found this video of him as well and was not blown away by it or anything. His answers seemed repetitive and predictable after about 3 minutes.



"Why something instead of nothing?" Instead of listen to the stuttering and rambling, realize that the reason there is something rather nothing is the same reason that there is possible instead of impossible.

You do know what attacking the presentation is not attacking the content right? He may not be a good speaker, but his philosophical work is top notch.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 1:25:57 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 12:52:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

His answers seemed repetitive and predictable after about 3 minutes.

Interesting, I say the same thing every time I watch a William Lane Craig video.

How many WLC videos have you watched just out of curiosity?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 1:30:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 1:25:57 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/2/2013 12:52:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

His answers seemed repetitive and predictable after about 3 minutes.

Interesting, I say the same thing every time I watch a William Lane Craig video.

How many WLC videos have you watched just out of curiosity?

I'd be pretty confident in saying that I have seen every single video from ReasonableFaithOrg and drcraigvideos.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 1:33:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 1:30:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/2/2013 1:25:57 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/2/2013 12:52:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

His answers seemed repetitive and predictable after about 3 minutes.

Interesting, I say the same thing every time I watch a William Lane Craig video.

How many WLC videos have you watched just out of curiosity?

I'd be pretty confident in saying that I have seen every single video from ReasonableFaithOrg and drcraigvideos.

Seriously? Have you watched the ten worst objections to the KCA, By WLC?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 1:33:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I find that William Lane Craig's arguments are some of the hardest hurdles for Atheism. Many Theists just brush Craig off, but I find his arguments rather good. Not good in a sense that they succeed, but good in a sense that they are challenging to defeat. I think every Atheist should feel confident that they have knocked his arguments down before being Atheists.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 1:33:50 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 1:33:01 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/2/2013 1:30:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/2/2013 1:25:57 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/2/2013 12:52:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

His answers seemed repetitive and predictable after about 3 minutes.

Interesting, I say the same thing every time I watch a William Lane Craig video.

How many WLC videos have you watched just out of curiosity?

I'd be pretty confident in saying that I have seen every single video from ReasonableFaithOrg and drcraigvideos.

Seriously? Have you watched the ten worst objections to the KCA, By WLC?

Of course.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 1:34:17 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 1:30:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/2/2013 1:25:57 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/2/2013 12:52:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

His answers seemed repetitive and predictable after about 3 minutes.

Interesting, I say the same thing every time I watch a William Lane Craig video.

How many WLC videos have you watched just out of curiosity?

I'd be pretty confident in saying that I have seen every single video from ReasonableFaithOrg and drcraigvideos.

So then I would be pretty confident in saying that it makes sense his answers would become pretty repetitive and predictable after the first few hundred you watched.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 1:35:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 1:34:17 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/2/2013 1:30:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/2/2013 1:25:57 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/2/2013 12:52:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

His answers seemed repetitive and predictable after about 3 minutes.

Interesting, I say the same thing every time I watch a William Lane Craig video.

How many WLC videos have you watched just out of curiosity?

I'd be pretty confident in saying that I have seen every single video from ReasonableFaithOrg and drcraigvideos.

So then I would be pretty confident in saying that it makes sense his answers would become pretty repetitive and predictable after the first few hundred you watched.

Actually, they become repetitive after just watching one of Craig's debates. I guess the fact that I have seen all of his videos is just overkill.
KeytarHero
Posts: 612
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 1:35:48 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 12:03:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Some theist posted this video, and I thought it was awesome. Theists hate Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet....But they all like seem to like Quentin lol

It's not that Theists "like him and not the others," per se. It's that Quentin is an academic Atheist philosopher who makes well-reasoned arguments, and the the others that you mentioned are not. They are marked by emotional rhetoric, not philosophical prowess, and they are completely full of themselves despite their inability to even understand the arguments that Theists make.

Quentin Smith, and certain others like Kai Nielsen and Graham Oppy, are the ones who can actually challenge Christianity at an academic level. The "Four Horsemen of the New Atheism," on the other hand, should stick to their various areas of expertise (e.g. Dawkins should stick to biology) rather than delve into philosophy, where they're obviously overstepping their bounds.
stubs
Posts: 1,887
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 1:36:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 1:35:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/2/2013 1:34:17 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/2/2013 1:30:06 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/2/2013 1:25:57 PM, stubs wrote:
At 7/2/2013 12:52:29 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:

His answers seemed repetitive and predictable after about 3 minutes.

Interesting, I say the same thing every time I watch a William Lane Craig video.

How many WLC videos have you watched just out of curiosity?

I'd be pretty confident in saying that I have seen every single video from ReasonableFaithOrg and drcraigvideos.

So then I would be pretty confident in saying that it makes sense his answers would become pretty repetitive and predictable after the first few hundred you watched.

Actually, they become repetitive after just watching one of Craig's debates. I guess the fact that I have seen all of his videos is just overkill.

Hahah alright. Thanks for answering
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 1:41:22 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 1:35:48 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/2/2013 12:03:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Some theist posted this video, and I thought it was awesome. Theists hate Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet....But they all like seem to like Quentin lol

It's not that Theists "like him and not the others," per se. It's that Quentin is an academic Atheist philosopher who makes well-reasoned arguments, and the the others that you mentioned are not. They are marked by emotional rhetoric, not philosophical prowess, and they are completely full of themselves despite their inability to even understand the arguments that Theists make.

Quentin Smith, and certain others like Kai Nielsen and Graham Oppy, are the ones who can actually challenge Christianity at an academic level. The "Four Horsemen of the New Atheism," on the other hand, should stick to their various areas of expertise (e.g. Dawkins should stick to biology) rather than delve into philosophy, where they're obviously overstepping their bounds.

I agree with you 100%.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 1:41:59 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 1:35:48 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/2/2013 12:03:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Some theist posted this video, and I thought it was awesome. Theists hate Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet....But they all like seem to like Quentin lol

It's not that Theists "like him and not the others," per se. It's that Quentin is an academic Atheist philosopher who makes well-reasoned arguments, and the the others that you mentioned are not. They are marked by emotional rhetoric, not philosophical prowess, and they are completely full of themselves despite their inability to even understand the arguments that Theists make.

Quentin Smith, and certain others like Kai Nielsen and Graham Oppy, are the ones who can actually challenge Christianity at an academic level. The "Four Horsemen of the New Atheism," on the other hand, should stick to their various areas of expertise (e.g. Dawkins should stick to biology) rather than delve into philosophy, where they're obviously overstepping their bounds.

I think the word I was looking for is "respect", not "like".
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 1:47:01 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 1:41:22 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/2/2013 1:35:48 PM, KeytarHero wrote:
At 7/2/2013 12:03:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Some theist posted this video, and I thought it was awesome. Theists hate Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet....But they all like seem to like Quentin lol

It's not that Theists "like him and not the others," per se. It's that Quentin is an academic Atheist philosopher who makes well-reasoned arguments, and the the others that you mentioned are not. They are marked by emotional rhetoric, not philosophical prowess, and they are completely full of themselves despite their inability to even understand the arguments that Theists make.

Quentin Smith, and certain others like Kai Nielsen and Graham Oppy, are the ones who can actually challenge Christianity at an academic level. The "Four Horsemen of the New Atheism," on the other hand, should stick to their various areas of expertise (e.g. Dawkins should stick to biology) rather than delve into philosophy, where they're obviously overstepping their bounds.

I agree with you 100%.

I don't. When we're making claims about science, it makes sense that the expert will have more basic knowledge, and more specific knowledge. Therefore, their arguments from authority are more accepted. However, technically, a talented amateur CAN still add value to the discussion.

For example, look at astronomy:
http://abcnews.go.com...

The point is whether their points are valid. Simply dismissing them for not being academics smacks of an elitist view of philosophy, where the "proles" can't possibly provide any value.

Now, you can think they're poor philosophers, sure, if you want. But you do that by pointing out their flaws in argument, not their flaws in credentials. Despite WLCs many credentials, I think he's an utter hack whose arguments fail scrutiny. Whether you agree or not is immaterial to the broader point.
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 5:45:14 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 12:03:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Some theist posted this video, and I thought it was awesome. Theists hate Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet....But they all like seem to like Quentin lol

Good video, he sounds cool, he knows his stuff, but you would think that after describing the birth of the universe as majestic as that, he would suspect some type of divine interaction...I mean we are still left with the question of why do we have an infinite awesome powerful exploding universe which inhabits billions of planets such as our own, We live on a grain of dust in comparison and it holds so much potential splendor, isn't everything just energy vibrating at a set frequency? Can we fathom what awesome power it exhibits. Oh that has nothing to do with a God because we have no empirical proof. Well I may be wrong, but the universe exhibits a wealth of information that exists independent to us. And that's enough for me to conclude a higher intelligence.

No matter how it's twisted, it seems chaotic or there is no order, life could arise in any condition or should or whatever, for me I know the most phenomenonal odds it really takes for us to be contingent beings, rather than floating specks of an explosive wave fluctuating cosmic burp.

But I like the man, I believe he believes himself and has good reason to view things simply from a scientists perspective, after all he is a scientist, and sounds like a very sincere one. Thanks for sharing.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 6:15:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 5:45:14 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/2/2013 12:03:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Some theist posted this video, and I thought it was awesome. Theists hate Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet....But they all like seem to like Quentin lol


Good video, he sounds cool, he knows his stuff, but you would think that after describing the birth of the universe as majestic as that, he would suspect some type of divine interaction...

I don't see how that follows. One can be in awe about how wonderful the universe is without anything divine being brought into the equation at all.

I mean we are still left with the question of why do we have an infinite awesome powerful exploding universe which inhabits billions of planets such as our own, We live on a grain of dust in comparison and it holds so much potential splendor, isn't everything just energy vibrating at a set frequency?

This all depends. Are you a String Theorist?

Can we fathom what awesome power it exhibits. Oh that has nothing to do with a God because we have no empirical proof.

It has nothing to do with experimental proof. It would have nothing to do with God anyway. You are building connections that don't appear to be there.

Well I may be wrong, but the universe exhibits a wealth of information that exists independent to us. And that's enough for me to conclude a higher intelligence.

That's a non-sequitur logical fallacy though, as your conclusion does not follow. How does "information" existing independent of us mean a high intelligence exists? That makes no sense at all I am afraid.


No matter how it's twisted, it seems chaotic or there is no order, life could arise in any condition or should or whatever, for me I know the most phenomenonal odds it really takes for us to be contingent beings, rather than floating specks of an explosive wave fluctuating cosmic burp.

What do you have to support the above assertions?


But I like the man, I believe he believes himself and has good reason to view things simply from a scientists perspective, after all he is a scientist, and sounds like a very sincere one. Thanks for sharing.

Quentin Smith does not believe in God, he believes there is no chance that God exists. I suggest reading into his work.
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 6:16:44 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 5:45:14 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/2/2013 12:03:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Some theist posted this video, and I thought it was awesome. Theists hate Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet....But they all like seem to like Quentin lol


Good video, he sounds cool, he knows his stuff, but you would think that after describing the birth of the universe as majestic as that, he would suspect some type of divine interaction...I mean we are still left with the question of why do we have an infinite awesome powerful exploding universe which inhabits billions of planets such as our own, We live on a grain of dust in comparison and it holds so much potential splendor, isn't everything just energy vibrating at a set frequency? Can we fathom what awesome power it exhibits. Oh that has nothing to do with a God because we have no empirical proof. Well I may be wrong, but the universe exhibits a wealth of information that exists independent to us. And that's enough for me to conclude a higher intelligence.

No matter how it's twisted, it seems chaotic or there is no order, life could arise in any condition or should or whatever, for me I know the most phenomenonal odds it really takes for us to be contingent beings, rather than floating specks of an explosive wave fluctuating cosmic burp.

But I like the man, I believe he believes himself and has good reason to view things simply from a scientists perspective, after all he is a scientist, and sounds like a very sincere one. Thanks for sharing.

If all you have are strings of non-sequiturs to back up our beliefs, I suggest finding a new belief that is more supported by logic.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/2/2013 7:11:21 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 6:16:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/2/2013 5:45:14 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/2/2013 12:03:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Some theist posted this video, and I thought it was awesome. Theists hate Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet....But they all like seem to like Quentin lol


Good video, he sounds cool, he knows his stuff, but you would think that after describing the birth of the universe as majestic as that, he would suspect some type of divine interaction...I mean we are still left with the question of why do we have an infinite awesome powerful exploding universe which inhabits billions of planets such as our own, We live on a grain of dust in comparison and it holds so much potential splendor, isn't everything just energy vibrating at a set frequency? Can we fathom what awesome power it exhibits. Oh that has nothing to do with a God because we have no empirical proof. Well I may be wrong, but the universe exhibits a wealth of information that exists independent to us. And that's enough for me to conclude a higher intelligence.

No matter how it's twisted, it seems chaotic or there is no order, life could arise in any condition or should or whatever, for me I know the most phenomenonal odds it really takes for us to be contingent beings, rather than floating specks of an explosive wave fluctuating cosmic burp.

But I like the man, I believe he believes himself and has good reason to view things simply from a scientists perspective, after all he is a scientist, and sounds like a very sincere one. Thanks for sharing.

If all you have are strings of non-sequiturs to back up our beliefs, I suggest finding a new belief that is more supported by logic.

Do you think I never knew he was an atheist, You might think they my conclusions are illogical, but I don't, and I do realize that the universe displays am awsome power which is more than likely infinite, I know there is potential beyond measure in this tiny speck of insignificant dust in the cosmos, I know that what the universe exhibits it's an immense source of energy akin to Godlike power,this isn't illogical, it's a fact.

So your backhanded swipe at my beliefs is nothing more than a cheap shot.... What's your logic, yeah I see how amazing the universe is and how awesome things are interacting, but I think that would all just happen automatically anyhow?
Rational_Thinker9119
Posts: 9,054
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 2:08:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/2/2013 7:11:21 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/2/2013 6:16:44 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:
At 7/2/2013 5:45:14 PM, johnlubba wrote:
At 7/2/2013 12:03:17 PM, Rational_Thinker9119 wrote:


Some theist posted this video, and I thought it was awesome. Theists hate Dawkins, Hitchens, Harris, Dennet....But they all like seem to like Quentin lol


Good video, he sounds cool, he knows his stuff, but you would think that after describing the birth of the universe as majestic as that, he would suspect some type of divine interaction...I mean we are still left with the question of why do we have an infinite awesome powerful exploding universe which inhabits billions of planets such as our own, We live on a grain of dust in comparison and it holds so much potential splendor, isn't everything just energy vibrating at a set frequency? Can we fathom what awesome power it exhibits. Oh that has nothing to do with a God because we have no empirical proof. Well I may be wrong, but the universe exhibits a wealth of information that exists independent to us. And that's enough for me to conclude a higher intelligence.

No matter how it's twisted, it seems chaotic or there is no order, life could arise in any condition or should or whatever, for me I know the most phenomenonal odds it really takes for us to be contingent beings, rather than floating specks of an explosive wave fluctuating cosmic burp.

But I like the man, I believe he believes himself and has good reason to view things simply from a scientists perspective, after all he is a scientist, and sounds like a very sincere one. Thanks for sharing.

If all you have are strings of non-sequiturs to back up our beliefs, I suggest finding a new belief that is more supported by logic.

Do you think I never knew he was an atheist, You might think they my conclusions are illogical, but I don't, and I do realize that the universe displays am awsome power which is more than likely infinite, I know there is potential beyond measure in this tiny speck of insignificant dust in the cosmos, I know that what the universe exhibits it's an immense source of energy akin to Godlike power,this isn't illogical, it's a fact.

You are just preaching, not actually presenting any sound arguments.


So your backhanded swipe at my beliefs is nothing more than a cheap shot.... What's your logic, yeah I see how amazing the universe is and how awesome things are interacting, but I think that would all just happen automatically anyhow?

What the hell does "awesome things are interacting" even really mean? lol
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 2:13:53 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
johnlubba, While I think Rational's deconstruction might have been unkind (you were, after all, not being unkind yourself), he does have a point.

When you're claiming something is "logical" (as opposed to, say, reasonable), you have to show your work. As in, show how it's logical. It is, indeed, a non-sequitur to say "There are amazing things. There's potential for lots of things. Therefore God". In order for it to be not a non-sequitur, there MUST be other premises (making it an enthymeme...words are fun!). If you provide the missing premises, you can make a claim to your belief being logical. But in the meantime, your conclusion (there is a god) does not follow from the presented premises (lots of cool stuff. Potential of stuff).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 2:22:13 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Preaching lol, Ok man, whatever.

I'm typing of my phone so can't fully reply, but I think I should refrain exchanging messages with you, as it's clear that you are not that interested. I'm sorry I bothered you with my opinions.
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 2:33:25 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Bladerunner,

It doesn't just begin and end there, by saying the universe is awesome so therefore God, you have to break everything down, saying the universe exhibits an immense source of power, is one thing, then we should address how everything is also interacting... How? Why ?

Nature or the appearance of nature is a combination of chemicals, why do these chemicals exist? Further more

Why do chemicals exist and why do they contain certain properties that become useful, only when they combine and interact, what is casing the chemicals to interact in such a fashion as to cause the display of nature as we perceive it, where does the ingriendients come from? Ok I forgot, just so happens this way... Nothing to be concerned about, everybody just carry on.

Also I can not say with a certainty, God did it, I will admit it's my belief that these interactions are directed, and it seems very God like to me.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 2:36:22 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 2:33:25 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Bladerunner,

It doesn't just begin and end there, by saying the universe is awesome so therefore God, you have to break everything down, saying the universe exhibits an immense source of power, is one thing, then we should address how everything is also interacting... How? Why ?

Nature or the appearance of nature is a combination of chemicals, why do these chemicals exist? Further more



Why do chemicals exist and why do they contain certain properties that become useful, only when they combine and interact, what is casing the chemicals to interact in such a fashion as to cause the display of nature as we perceive it, where does the ingriendients come from? Ok I forgot, just so happens this way... Nothing to be concerned about, everybody just carry on.

Also I can not say with a certainty, God did it, I will admit it's my belief that these interactions are directed, and it seems very God like to me.

Well, I don't think you made your original post to have your beliefs deconstructed, so I won't do so overmuch.

At the same time, I feel compelled to ask why you feel the need to have a specific (as non-specific as a generalized "God" concept might be) reason for the things you describe (and why you feel it's "directed")?

As in, why believe anything about it at all; why not be comfortable with "I don't know"?
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!
johnlubba
Posts: 2,892
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 2:54:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 2:36:22 AM, bladerunner060 wrote:
At 7/3/2013 2:33:25 AM, johnlubba wrote:
Bladerunner,

It doesn't just begin and end there, by saying the universe is awesome so therefore God, you have to break everything down, saying the universe exhibits an immense source of power, is one thing, then we should address how everything is also interacting... How? Why ?

Nature or the appearance of nature is a combination of chemicals, why do these chemicals exist? Further more



Why do chemicals exist and why do they contain certain properties that become useful, only when they combine and interact, what is casing the chemicals to interact in such a fashion as to cause the display of nature as we perceive it, where does the ingriendients come from? Ok I forgot, just so happens this way... Nothing to be concerned about, everybody just carry on.

Also I can not say with a certainty, God did it, I will admit it's my belief that these interactions are directed, and it seems very God like to me.

Well, I don't think you made your original post to have your beliefs deconstructed, so I won't do so overmuch.

At the same time, I feel compelled to ask why you feel the need to have a specific (as non-specific as a generalized "God" concept might be) reason for the things you describe (and why you feel it's "directed")?

As in, why believe anything about it at all; why not be comfortable with "I don't know"?

Because I am describing things I do know, God is an immensely powerful being, so the old folk tale goes, when I look at the universe I see an immensely powerful energy that is more than likely infinite, this attribute is shared with God, also God has infinite attributes where all things are possible, and what does an atheist argue? Well the universe is so big that by simply breaking down the odds, anything is possible, we are just a variation out of an almost infinite amount of possibilities, it does add up to me....

Also if chemicals are interactive and things become functionable when combined, what gave them the properties to react that way.... I see nature as a mechanical process and every machine needs an operator.

I'm sorry blade runner, I'm typing of my phone and cannot type as I would like to. Also feeling a bit tired, so maybe I'll try and pick this up with you again later.
bladerunner060
Posts: 7,126
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/3/2013 2:57:45 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/3/2013 2:54:56 AM, johnlubba wrote:
I'm sorry blade runner, I'm typing of my phone and cannot type as I would like to. Also feeling a bit tired, so maybe I'll try and pick this up with you again later.

I would like to respond, but don't want to get your dander up when you are limited to your phone. I know how frustrating that can get (have you ever used Swype? Blargh. Short things good, long things AWFUL, texts okay, websites TERRIBLE).
Assistant moderator to airmax1227. PM me with any questions or concerns!