Oh------ you're being facetious. Fool? Silly nave, mocking Christ (God) has spiritual implications.

The following is from Gazizza Net:
NEVER MOCK GOD

Make a personal reflection about this. Very interesting, read until the end...
It is written in the Bible (Galatians 6:7): "Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap."

Here are some FOOLS who mocked God:

JOHN LENNON:
Some years before, during his interview with an American Magazine, he said: "Christianity will end, it will disappear. I do not have to argue about that. I am certain. Jesus was ok, but his subjects were too simple, Today we are more famous than Him"
(1966). Lennon, after saying that the Beatles were more famous than Jesus Christ, was shot six times.

TANCREDO NEVES (President of Brazil):
During the Presidential campaign, he said if he got 500,000 votes from his party, not even God would remove him from Presidency. Sure he got the votes, but he got sick a day before being made President, then he died.

CAZUZA (Bi-sexual Brazilian composer, singer and poet):
During a show in Canecão ( Rio de Janeiro ), whilst smoking his cigarette, he puffed out some smoke into the air and said: "God, that's for you." He died at the age of 32 of AIDS in a horrible manner.

THE MAN WHO BUILT TITANIC:
After the construction of Titanic, a reporter asked him how safe he said: "Not even God can sink it" The result: I think you all know what happened to the Titanic.

MARILYN MONROE:
She was visited by Billy Graham during a present ation of a show. He said the Spirit of God had sent him to preach to her. After hearing what the Preacher had to say, she said: "I don't need your Jesus". A week later, she was found dead in her apartment.

BON SCOTT:
The ex-vocalist of the AC/DC. On one of his 1979 songs he sang: "Don't stop me, I'm going down all the way, down the highway to hell". On the 19th of February 1980, Bon Scott was found dead, he had been choked by his own vomit.

CAMPINAS/SP IN 2005:
In Campinas, Brazil a group of friends, drunk, went to pick up a friend. The mother accompanied her to the car and was so worried about the drunkenness of her friends and she said to the daughter - holding her hand, who was already seated in the car: "MY DAUGHTER, GO WITH GOD AND MAY HE PROTECT YOU."

She responded: "ONLY IF HE (GOD) TRAVELS IN THE BOOT, CAUSE INSIDE HERE IT'S ALREADY FULL"
Hours later, news came by that they had been involved in a fatal accident, everyone had died, the car could not be recognized what type of car it had been, but surprisingly, the boot was intact. The police said there was no way the boot could have remained intact. To their surprise, inside the boot was a crate of eggs, none were broken.....Boot means trunk.

Many more important people have forgotten that there is no other name that was given so much authority as the name of Jesus. Many have died, but only Jesus died and rose again, and he is still alive. JESUS!!!

Don't tempt God; He just might call your bluff. And He always holds the winning hand.

http://www.gazizza.net/2006/09/never_mock_god.htm

PROCEED AT YOUR OWN RISK.

You clearly are not aware of the Anthropic principle of physics and cosmology which shows that the entire universe is constructed to support human life on the planet earth. It is this very principle which compels scienctists into one of two camps. Either intelligent design, or else multiple parallel universes theory.



Last time you wanted to know who the shadowy scientists were who theorise that the speed of light is not constant. I gave you a list and got NOT A SINGLE RESPONSE from you. I daresay you were too embarrassed to respond. Not embarassed enough obviously because now you have repeated your "shadow scientists" retort. Clearly your retort is simply a vacuous statement to deflect attention away from the absurdities of science.
Therefore I am not going to waste my time coming up with another list.
You do some work for yourself for a change instead of stringing vacuous retorts together.
Just type in "parallel universe" "multi-verse" "Many-worlds interpretation - MWI" just to get you started.

In fact scientists have big barnies about which variation of MWI they believe. How much faith do you have to have in a scientists mumbo jumbo before you allow yourself to believe that there are parallel universes?

Okay, I'll use a parable. It's not logic but I pray it illustrates the point.

If I am inside a lighted room I can see everything there is in the room and find anything that is in it. But, put the light out and how I can find anything in the room? How much less would it be then it if I am not even in that room? I would not even be able to see or find anything in that room.

So how can anyone say "that thing is here or that thing is there" in that room if they never seen or been in the room? And if they were in the room before but would forget everything about the room when they walked out the door how can they even describe it? For it would be like they had never been in the room at all.

Okay? What does that have to do with the price of tea in China? Are we even talking about the same thing?



I agree, which means that I don't think that you and I have been arguing the same topic.



OH MY GODLESSNESS. PEOPLE DIE, EVEN ATHEISTS? I DID NOT KNOW THIS. Well, we'll just have to conceal this from the peasants, lest they rise up against us.



False dichotomy. There aren't "two camps" of believing in an absurdity, and believing in a relatively untestable theory. The Anthropic principle is an idiotic method of injecting creationism into honest science. To claim that this universe is the only one that can support life is fallacy by lack of imagination. To quote Dr. Gould's example, the Anthropic principle is the equivalent of claiming that ships were created to provide homes for barnacles.

Life was the incidental product of the natural machinery of the universe, and it could have formed even if the universe's natural laws were different. The only change would have been that life would have been different from what we know.



You're as glib as you are ignorant, I see. Well, I went back and got exactly what I said to you when you posted your list:

"The one article you provided is made by fundamentalist Christians. Presenting them as an accurate source is untrustworthy, due to bias."

"Congratulations. Light is a wave. And like any other wave, slowing it down isn't that amazing an accomplishment. It still doesn't change the fact that the speed of light in a vacuum is the 'speed limit' for the universe."

"And another article written under the auspices of fundamentalist Christianity. You have to remember that people are fallible. They can (willfully or otherwise) misconstrue evidence and observations to fit their beliefs-- which is bad science."



Of course. Why defend yourself when it's easier to run away, accusing your attacker of lies and deceptions?



A minority of scientists feel that the theories of multiple universes are valid, despite your rabid and uneducated belief that all scientists must believe in it. But time will tell as to their validity.

Humble Bob,

QUOTE

Okay, I'll use a parable. It's not logic but I pray it illustrates the point.

I was just kidding. I saw an opportunity to make a joke about multiverses, and I took it.

Where did I say that ALL scientists believe in parallel universes? I simply stated that science advances wild theories about the constancy of the speed of light and the existance of multiple universes? You were the one denying that? And now you are confirming it with your own words. So basically you accept scientist when it suits your atheistic beliefs calling it "the majority" and you reject it when it does not suit your atheistic beliefs calling it "the minority"

The anthropic principle is hardly pseudo-christian propoganda.
Stephen Hawkings himself reviewing Carters work did not deny the Anthropic principle. That should tell you enough that it is irrefutable. He said instead.
"there is not one universe but a whole infinite ensemble of universes with all possible initial conditions" Collins C. B., Hawking, S. W. (1973). "Why is the universe isotropic?". Astrophysical Journal 180: 317-334.

Wikipedia commenting on this statement of hawkings says as follow "If this is granted, the anthropic principle provides a plausible explanation for the fine tuning of our universe: typical universes are not fine-tuned, but, if there are enough universes, a small proportion will be capable of supporting intelligent life: ours must be one of these, and so the observed fine tuning should be no cause for wonder. In this sense it is in direct opposition to design arguments"

Which is to say that even though the universe appears to be fine tuned to mankind this is just a happy coincidence given that seeing that there is an infinite number of universes it is not suprising that one of them happens to exhibit by chance the appearance of fine tuning. The fact that it just happens to be our universe is simply a consequence or our own existence. In other words, "We see the universe the way it is because we exist" Now how wacked is that? Turning man into God. Look what Hawking says in "A brief history of Time".



Notice this last sentence.
"FEW PEOPLE WOULD QUARREL WITH THE VALIDITY OF THE WEAK ANTHROPIC PRINCIPLE"

Few people except for Satrian who considers it "idiotic".

What this discussion may have to do with the price of tea in China, sir, is that it comes down to what I believe in and in what you believe in are mutually exclusive, and that ultimately one of us is wrong.

In the mean time I may not be able to logically prove God exists, but you cannot prove logically the universe would continue to exist without the human race ever being.

Because, your assertion depends on your existence to make that observation in the first place, while you are in the universe.



There is nothing wrong with this statement if ships were made for barnacles in the first place, but I know that ships were not built for barnacles, though I know ships were built by someone. So, Dr. Gould's example is inaccurate as an argument against the Anthropic position since comparing a ship to the universe would suggest the universe was built by someone. He may say the universe was not built for humans and human habitation is a coincidence but his metaphor still suggest a creator. That pokes a hole in Dr. Gould statement, so you should perhaps think of another statement to argue against the Anthropic principle.

"In fact scientists have big barnies about which variation of MWI they believe. How much faith do you have to have in a scientists mumbo jumbo before you allow yourself to believe that there are parallel universes?"

By saying "scientists," rather than "some scientists," you implied that you were talking about all scientists.



There is no wild theories. The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, being 299,792,458 meters per second.



Science isn't a cut-and-dry endeavor. In lieu of a very accurate theory, such as the Darwinian Theory of Evolution explaining the phenomenon of evolution, scientists formulate multiple theories that aim for accuracy. These theories are tested, and if they conform to observations and make good predictions, are kept. Conversely, if said theories do not conform to observations and do not make good predictions, they are discarded. The multiple theories about MWI simply reflect a number of theories that are being tested, and will be made even more accurate with the development of new technologies.



Hawkings' comments aren't the same as your "the universe exists in a way that supports our life, therefore the universe exists because of us," gibberish. Hawking was trying to say that "perhaps there are an infinite number of universes. If this is the case, there must be a number of universes that support life such as ours. This wouldn't be the norm, but obviously our universe must have been inside of the proportion of universes that did support life like ours. And if this is the case, then it easily explains the 'perfection' of our universe without having to resort to benevolent design of our universe for us."

Hawking was using the MWI to denounce the idea of the Anthropic principle, you dishonest toad.



Notice the rest of Hawking's comment. He trounced the Anthropic principle. I would assert that his final sentence was a bit of sarcasm on his part. But then sarcasm is something that gets lost in the hustle-and-bustle of cherry picking.

Which means that your assertions of god are null and void.



Ah, okay, is this what you were trying to say? I understand now. Curse the fragility of human comprehension.

Of course I can't-- I don't know the future. But I can make a prediction based on past events-- namely, the universe existed for billions of years prior to our arrival. Why would its future existence be contingent on our being or not being?



I can only make the observation in the universe. It's the only place I can be. And I still make my assertion-- that the universe would go on without us-- for the same reasons that I can safely say "the sun will come up tomorrow," the sun has come up billions and billions of times. While it's possible for the sun to spontaneously vanish, it's not plausible. The universe had existed for billions of years prior to our existence, and based on that past evidence, it's safe to say that it will continue to exist after we're gone. Logic, paired with what we do know about the universe's stability, points towards that conclusion.



Incorrect analogy. A ship is built by a known shipmaker. A universe is claimed to have been built by an unknown universe-maker. You yourself said that you were logically incapable of producing god, but I can provide a shipmaker.

Besides, Gould's comment was meant to be taken in the sense that "claiming that something has a function, when that function is secondary to the actual function of the phenomenon, is illogical."



It's a metaphor. Gould was using simple-to-understand analogies to explain his idea.



Claiming that sausages were originally made tube-shaped to fit in modern hot-dog buns, if you must have another.

QUOTE

Humble Bob: In the mean time I may not be able to logically prove God exists.

Sartrian: Which means that your assertions of god are null and void.

Okay, Sartrian: Prove to me, logically, that you exist. If you can't, then why should I listen to someone who almost certainly doesn't exist, and why am I asking a question of someone who almost certainly, pending proof of existence, can't answer?

Cogito, ergo sum-- I think, therefore I am.

If I can make the assertion that I exist, then I exist. Descartes said it quite eloquently, don't you think?

Of course, but they are "null and void" by your standard of logic, and I do not possess the talent to logically make the case that God exists to you or anyone else. This suggest that my logic let alone your logic is faulty. I must therefor rely on a principle that most often eludes atheists and that is my faith. I say that I believe in God and even love God, I never said that I can prove God exists.

Furthermore, I even believe that I am a figment of God's imagination rather than God being a figment of mine, a proclamation that even many believers in God, let alone atheists, might find hard to accept, but nonetheless here I am saying it.

This is the issue that atheist are puzzled with most, how can someone believe in something that is not seen, heard, felt, tasted, touched, experienced as with anything one would encounter in life? Then science begins to explain the mysteries of life and suddenly it seems the world and everything else doesn't need the explanation of a creator. Mankind begins to explain away phenomena as random chance and statistical error, that the universe some how began with out an intelligent purpose and that the human race is incidental to the existence of the universe.

That, my friend, is just ridiculous to me. That the universe would spontaneously come into existence without being created (self created, I guess) and the human race is a by product of a self created universe simply by chance is just as much "null and void" by my standards of logic.

Oh yes, have a billion worlds and one is bound to hold life, or have a billion universes and one is bound to hold our insignificant existence, the statistical random chance argument that atheist rely upon, as one would put it, one is bound to find a suit that fits in a store having a billion suits.

But anyway back to the Anthropic position. Have you ever heard of the Cosmological constant before?

(BTW I'll come back later to post more if you wish to discuss; it's getting late, but I assure you this is leading to something)

If you cannot provide evidence to back up your positive assertions that god exists, then all you can use to back up your beliefs are the wholly-subjective assertions of faith.

And then, of course, I have to ask you why the Muslims aren't right if their faith claims their beliefs are correct?



Meaningless solipsism. That assertion is not falsifiable, and hence is no more valid than the claim of god.



The universe does not have the subjectivity of "meaning" and "values" attached to it.



Arguments to incredulity are just as invalid here as they are anywhere.



Deceptive. No scientists claim that.



A pity that you have no evidence to the contrary, other than your sputtering incredulity



What's so amazing about that? You said it yourself-- there are billions of planets. One of them was going to be capable of life eventually. And again, I would be surprised if there isn't more life in the universe, even if that life might not spring from what we recognize as life.



I find suits that fit me in stores that have only a hundred suits on the racks. Funny, that.



What of it?

Sartrian,

QUOTE

Cogito, ergo sum-- I think, therefore I am.

If I can make the assertion that I exist, then I exist.

Not necessarily. Maybe I'm just imagining that you made that assertion. Maybe you're just a figment of my imagination. Besides, I have yet to find direct evidence that you think.

QUOTE

Descartes said it quite eloquently, don't you think?

Not really. I never was very impressed with Descartes' philosophizing. (Blaise Pascal's is more impressive, actually.) Descartes came up with a nice little philosophical sound-bite, but it begs the question of whether one really "thinks". At best, all it does is prove to the individual making the assertion that they exist.

Please try again, oh so-far-non-existent-one.

Let me see if I understand you correctly. I asked you what is the origin of the laws of logic... after several attempts have failed your latest reply is that it comes from "the capacity for abstract thought"... so you are essentially saying that someone just thought it up one day... my question to you is, how do you know that it is correct? Isn't it possible that somebody else somewhere else in the world could have thought of a totally different set of laws of logic that work for them... so who is right? Isn't it possible that there are numerous sets of laws of logic that numerous people have dreamt up from their "capacity for abstract thought" and they believe their laws of logic are correct? Isn't it possible that there could be an infinite number of different sets of laws of logic, totally unrelated to one another, that are correct? How do you know your laws of logic are correct? Because you believe in them?

Caneman

That is fine with me because I do not depend on evidence to believe in God. I have no problem that others like you find my beliefs as assertions and subjective.



I do not judge people holding differing beliefs from me, but I do believe there is spirit of religion that clouds peoples hearts and mind and it is the same spirit that pervades many religious denominations. It is also a spirit that works towards the purpose of denying that there is a God by appealing to the ego and vanity of man.



Yes, it is a pity because, if I had evidence then you would believe in God rather than read my "sputtering incredulity."



I am glad you have said this because this leads me to my next statement: if one believes there is the possibly of life out there amongst the billions of other worlds or perhaps amongst the billion of other universes then one can believe that there is a greater intelligence than ours, a super intelligence if you will. Would you agree?



Then you know that its a value scientist have calculated to up to 120 decimal places so accurate that if in the slightest of error the universe would not exist at all, or at least we would not be here (which goes back to my statement that the universe might as well not exist if we were not here).

And because the cosmological constant is so refined once again the Anthropic position appears to favor the case that a creator has set this value by his purpose. This was an unsettling consideration for many scientists who believe the universe dose not need a notion of God to explain its existence yet the cosmological constant showed that its value is beyond the probability that it was founded by random chance in this universe.

That is why the notion of multi universes was entertained because have a billion universes and one is bound to get "lucky" and produce our universe with a specific value like the cosmological constant. But if one accepts that notion then one is to accept by the same premise there is another universe also having intelligent life and possibly a super intelligence greater than our own. Would you agree? If not please explain your self.

Aren’t you slick.

Solipsism is just as fundamentally flawed as theism. One makes a positive claim they cannot support. You cannot support the assertion that you are the linchpin of reality, and therefore cannot make the assertion without faith.



I assert that I exist. By thinking that I exist, I can justify my own existence. Your claims of me not existing are invalid because the simple thought “I exist” nullifies your assertion.



I don’t know what you want me to give you. I’ve given you the origins of our capacity for logic, the definition of logic itself, and the origins of the rules regarding that logic. I’m beginning to come to the conclusion that you’re just an ignorant thirteen-year old that wants to get a rise out of me.



No, logic is the result of abstract thinking. Abstract thinking was the result of the evolution of the complex neocortex.



My logic tells me that if I take one thing and another thing, I have two things. If I pick up a fork and knife, I have two things. If we can prove that logic functions at that fundamentally basic level, we can extrapolate that it will work on more complex functions.



No, because that’s the antithesis of objectivity. Objective truths are ones that are the same for everybody in the universe. Such truths would be one and one are two, for instance.



Objective truths.



People who have a faulty perception of logic or objective truths are mentally ill. Productive symptoms of schizophrenia, for instance, include the perception of sensory inputs that aren’t really there. In a healthy mind, perceptions and observations correspond with the phenomena of objective reality.



No.



My logic tells me that one and one always produce two. One and one always produce two. All systems functional, captain.



Well, it’s good to know that there’s someone who doesn’t try to justify their beliefs through objective truth. It’s refreshing.



So are you saying that Muslims’ beliefs are just as correct as yours?



I read this as you saying that you don’t have evidence and never will. Good show.



Let’s stick to just our universe for right now. And a greater alien intelligence? That depends, what do you mean by “greater?”



The universe would be *different.* Just because it would end up different doesn’t mean it wouldn’t exist. Don’t inject your anthropic bias into the universe.

Plus, I think you misunderstand what the Cosmological constant is. See my comment below.



No, actually, the Cosmological constant just means that there’s a massive, constant energy permeating the universe and pushing it out. The Cosmological constant is simply defined as “the cost of having space,” or that the volume of the universe produces energy. There’s nothing magical about it.



The MWI is just a hypothesis, I must remind you. And secondly, a universe in which a “super-intelligence” forms is *not our own.* In fact, our scientific knowledge is constrained to our own universe—any other universes may not have the same physical laws as our own, and are thus moot to our scientific process. Plus, even if the MWI was an accurate theory, and there was a universe with a "god-being," who's to say that its capacities would even work in the physical laws of our universe?

If, of course, multiple universes even exist at all.

Oh really? So now you are using logic to prove the origins of logic... come on now, even I know that's the fallacy of circular reasoning. You can do better than that! That would be like me trying to use the bible to prove God to you, you would never accept that, now would you...

Caneman

I've got a question for you then do you believe your logic involves a finite set of self-evident truths (axioms) that it is complete to deduce any statement as true or false?



Thank you



I do not know what Muslims believe nor do I know what Catholics believe or a Morman or a Buddhist, but I know what I believe and I can share that belief with another in conversation or a dialogue or in posted threads like these. So, I cannot ascertain if a Muslim's belief is correct let alone my own, but I live by my faith in Christ for it is my bread and that is good enough for me.



Not in this life time



I would conjecture that human beings are quite capable, intelligent beings however if evolution is the predominate force for advancing intelligence then there is scientific evidence to suggest that our biology has limitations and that any advancement in intelligence may require another medium. For example, larger brains (made out of human brain tissue) does not guarantee greater intelligence because studies suggest the brain begins to slow down in its ability to communicate with the other regions of the brain, a limitation to the chemical processes of neurons and neural transmittors. This suggest greater intelligence may rely upon another medium that can sustain awareness. So if intelligence can be based upon another medium, like silicon for example, then it should not matter what the medium is so long as self awareness is preserved, but what does matter is that one medium may prove far more superior over the other hence a superior intelligence.



Bias or not you still have not sufficently proven to me that the universe would exist without the human race let alone I prove to you that it exists soley to allow the human race to exist.



I was pointing out that the accuracy of the Cosmological constant cannot be sufficiently explained and that there are some scientist who are not as dismissive to say it means nothing, or in your words "there is nothing magical about it."



Yes, I agree, if they even exist at all. But the idea of a multi universe was only proposed to trivialize the significance of the Cosmological constant's precision and refute the Anthropic position. Without the multi universe idea there is currently no explanation for the precision of the Cosmological constant and simply dismissing its precision is hardly an explanation.

You wanted an example of logic being functional, and I showed you functional logic. I think I'm through talking to you. You've proven to me that you have the logical capacity of a thirteen year-old. I don't feel like repeating my arguments and splitting hairs with the likes of a teenager. Goodbye.



Logic is contingent on formulating conclusions and arguments on the basis of objective facts. Whether you think there are a finite set of them or not is really quite irrelevant.



So if you can't ascertain the validity of your beliefs, why believe them?



You only get one. Then the worms eat you.



Sounds valid. Plus, scientists theorize that if life were to form in a non-carbon manner, silicon would be the most reasonable second element to form the basis of life. So hey, anything's possible.



It existed for billions of years before us. It didn't spring into being the moment we came to be. Your assertion cannot be backed up with past observations.



You're right, it can't be sufficiently explained. That's why scientists still have jobs. It's science's responsibility to formulate hypotheses regarding relatively unknown phenomena and test them utilizing rational principles. To fall back on saying "goddidit" and washing your hands of the whole affair is dishonest and ignorant.



Explain to me how the Cosmological constant is precise? Precise in comparison with what standard? The only thing you've told me is that its mathematical properties extend into long decimals! So what? Pi extends into long decimals, and it isn't the result of a universe tailored to our presence.

Have only got 5 minutes so will only adress one pooit that stuck out to me



Prove it.

QUOTE

Me: Not necessarily. Maybe I'm just imagining that you made that assertion. Maybe you're just a figment of my imagination. Besides, I have yet to find direct evidence that you think.

Sartrian: Aren’t you slick.

I suppose. But was that a question or a negative assertion on your part? Anyway, methinks you misunderstand my point.

QUOTE

Sartrian: Solipsism is just as fundamentally flawed as theism. One makes a positive claim they cannot support. You cannot support the assertion that you are the linchpin of reality, and therefore cannot make the assertion without faith.

And you cannot support the assertion that you think, other than to yourself, if you exist. However, my argument/point has nothing to do with solipsism.

QUOTE

Me: Not really. I never was very impressed with Descartes' philosophizing. (Blaise Pascal's is more impressive, actually.) Descartes came up with a nice little philosophical sound-bite, but it begs the question of whether one really "thinks". At best, all it does is prove to the individual making the assertion that they exist.

Sartrian: I assert that I exist. By thinking that I exist, I can justify my own existence.

No, you can't. Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" inherently assumes that which he is trying to prove - and thus is a very famous, though unrecognized generally, example of circular logic. Besides, even if it was valid, all you could do is justify your own existence to yourself - it wouldn't have any bearing on others, or whether they would necessarily, logically, be required to agree that you exist. Maybe I'm just imagining you, as I said (and that's not a solipsistic view).

QUOTE

Sartrian: Your claims of me not existing are invalid because the simple thought “I exist” nullifies your assertion.

Not in the least. You are reasoning superficially. But, back to the whole point in all of this: you asserted that because Humble Bob (or someone) couldn't "prove" God's existence, faith was null and void. (Or something to this effect.)

So far, if I were to accept your "proof" of your existence, you would likewise be required to grant God's existence, because He has asserted in the Bible that He thinks (among other things), and therefore (according to Descartes' and your logic), "He is". (It's too bad I don't know Latin, or I could put this in the correct Latin form.)

Again, I beg to differ, it does makes a big difference at least it did to a logician named Kurt Godel, who had authored his infamous Theorem of Incompleteness



I believe in what I believe out of knowing who I am and understanding my relationship with God who I believe had made me: Cogito, ergo sum, because God made me.



You are correct. My body will decay if I die and I am buried, but my consciousness I pray will continue. That is a part of my faith in Christ.



I'll save this for later because this actually leads to quite the bombshell if you have come this far, Satrain.



Again, you or I would not even know the universe would exist if the human race never came into the universe. You can only make this claim because you are in the universe now, thus you still have not logically proven to me the universe would exist without the human race.



I beg to differ. I have shouldered quite the burden on my part to confess that I believe in something that I do not see, hear, feel, touch, smell etc. It is easier to simply sit back and accept the things of this world and as they are based on my sensory observations and dismiss the intangible. But I have taken the hard way, a narrow way, believing in God when I have no evidence to support my belief, nothing. For me to simply say "God did it" requires I lay my self down every time I am stricken with misfortune, I make no blame to God for the troubles that plague me, that I do not resort to the easy and tempting thought "God didn't answer me because he does not exist." My consciousness is excruciatingly stretched between my will to place myself in the center and my faith to believe it is God that is the center. This does not seem to me as taking the easy way out by "washing my hands" as you would put it.



It is accurate to one trillion, trillion, trillion...trillion decimal place or 120 decimal places that if the Cosmological constant were off by even a billionth the human race would not be here. Nasa engineers can launch space craft with much much lower tolerances in error and still accomplish their mission. There nothing that man has ever engineered or accomplished requiring such exact tolerances, and whenever we need to engineer something to a high precision it is something done intentionally and not left to chance. Also Pi is an irrational number.

Go to a graveyard and dig up a corpse. Avoid the police. Voila.



You claimed that I could simply be the product of your imagination. That's a form of solipsism. What stops me from turning around and saying that you aren't the product of my imagination? The argument degenerates into unfalsifiability because both sides make claims that can't be *disproven,* even if they can't be proven. And if an idea is unfalsifiable, it's no more valid than claiming that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole and invisibly brings good children presents every year.



Awareness of the contents of the mind precedes any awareness of external reality. Thoughts must arise from a thinker, so who is thinking these thoughts? They can't arise from nowhere, so by virtue of thinking, I can prove my own existence. I think, therefore I am.

I can prove my existence by disagreeing with your argument that I don't exist! Besides. I'm the one imagining you. You don't exist.



So where are god's claims of existence? Where are the objective physical phenomena that make up a god? Can you produce either? If not, why claim there is a god?



Why should I grant that the Tanakh and Gospels are the comments of a god? Why should I not grant that the Vedas and the Qu'ran are equally valid comments of a god? And if that's the case, considering that creates a paradox (claims of monotheism versus polytheism; as well as the writer of the Qu'ran claiming that the Tanakh is corrupted), why should your assertion be valid?



So explain how the Theorem of Incompleteness justifies your ideas.



You think, therefore you are. But you still haven't provided evidence to show that your thoughts derive from a god, or in fact, that any part of you arises from god. Your assertions are meaningless.



A very sad example of mauvaise foi.



I'm very curious.



I don't know the sun will come up tomorrow. Is it logical to assume that the sun will not come up tomorrow, anyway?



The fact that you turn to a magical, absurd fairy tale to make yourself feel better in the inevitable and encroaching face of death is ignorant and dishonest, not only towards yourself, but to the world. This is Bad Faith, mauvaise foi. You haven't shouldered anything, despite your sob-story. You, in fact, are suffering pangs because you know that your beliefs in fairy-tales and invisible sky-pixies don't even vaguely meet up with your impressive grasp of objective reality. You've admitted to yourself that god is not logical, but you know that logic is the only tool by which we can measure the universe. This self-imposed masochism isn't heroic, it's stupid and quite honestly, laughable.



Anthropic bias. The universe *does not care* whether we exist or not. The laws of physics are not contingent on us. The fact that we came to be in a universe that randomly appeared the way it did is simply a side effect of the workings of said universe.



Why are you trying to equate human actions and the functions of the universe? NASA sets goals. The universe does not. Therefore, accuracy to a standard is something that NASA aims for, whereas the universe does what physical law demands without any regards for the subjective notions of "goals" and "missions."



If the universe were working towards the formation of human beings as a "goal," then the Cosmological constant would be amazingly accurate towards that goal, but considering that the universe is *meaningless* then no, there's nothing amazing about a feature of the universe that we just happened to come to be in.



I was trying to make the point that long trails of decimals don't mean that something in nature is special.

I feel compelled to answer only one part here, then I'm going to bed



Sartrain, I'm hurt, just kidding. But seriously, I take no pleasure from pain or sexual stimulus from pain, so I do not understand why you had characterized me with this term "masochism."

I don't even know you and you don't know me.

We've never met.

I don't know what you look like, where you live, or what are you likes.

But, I know you don't believe in God, and that is about it.

Indeed, I find it quite laughable that you would perceive me as "masochism." I find it an odd characterization so I am not bothered by your judgments because I simply know myself better than I would know anyone else. I just believe that God knows me better.

I will tell you a simple truth about projections because they are very telling about the person who uses them (and many do), "you spot it, you got it," "it takes one to know one," "if the shoe fits wear it."

I have not once tipped my hand to you by characterizing you or judging you for what you said, because projecting deeply reveals a person's inner being without the person knowing he or she is revealing themselves to others.

I did not even recognize the word for the derivation of pleasure from self inflicting or the giving of pain. I had to look up that word and thanks to Wikipedia I said, "ohhh. If he (Sartrain) can spot that he's certainly got that."

I will simply say people who can see dragons where there are none do so only because dragons dwell within them, and I'll also add a quote from Nietzsche (an atheist like you) “The man who fights too long against dragons becomes a dragon himself”

Good night, Sartrain. I will pray for for you.

Regards
HB

Don't be like that, you don't have to be embarrassed that a great logician such as yourself enters into fallacy every once in a while... after all, if you were perfect you would be Jesus Christ, now wouldn't you.

What our little conversation really demonstrates is that you have no idea where logic comes from, and whether nor not it is correct. This is an insurmountable epistemological problem for you as an atheist, because your entire world view is founded upon the laws of logic, of which you have no clue whether it is correct or not, which means that your entire belief system is a house of cards easily toppled... It also means that you have "faith" that your laws of logic are correct, and as an atheist your belief system is founded on faith...

You have already admitted in this thread that you believe the laws of logic are universal. Meaning to me that they apply to everyone, everywhere, all the time. Now how could something that is abstract, universal, and transcendent come to be? There really is no other reasonable explanation other than God. The laws of logic are universal, immaterial, and transcendent. The only way to explain that would be that a universal, immaterial, transcendent and supreme being put them in place. God has made man in His image which means that mankind is given a nature (similar but not exactly to God's) that recognizes these immaterial laws of logic, because God is logical, it is part of His Nature. If God did not exist, where would universal, transcendent, immaterial laws of logic come from? If God did not exist, what would be your source of knowledge and how could you know it is accurate? I am not making an argument for proof of the existence of God here, I am merely stating my standard for being able to use the laws of logic and know that they are correct.

Blessings to you, Sartrian, in the love of Jesus Christ,

Caneman

QUOTE

Me: And you cannot support the assertion that you think, other than to yourself, if you exist. However, my argument/point has nothing to do with solipsism.

Sartrian: You claimed that I could simply be the product of your imagination. That's a form of solipsism.

Solipsism: a theory holding that the self can know nothing but its own modifications and that the self is the only existent thing; also : extreme egocentrism (Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary).

Well, my claim that you could simply be the product of my imagination did not, and does not, depend upon a "theory that the self can know nothing but its own modifications" nor "that the self is the only existent thing". I am completely convinced of the reality and existence of many others, and also of God's existence. My point, which has been eluding you so far, is simply that to me, you have yet to prove your existence, and that I am merely holding you to your own logic in rejecting faith simply because God has yet to be "proven" to you to exist.

QUOTE

What stops me from turning around and saying that you aren't the product of my imagination?

Hopefully, a giant, talking rabbit.

QUOTE

The argument degenerates into unfalsifiability because both sides make claims that can't be *disproven,* even if they can't be proven.

I believe you might be getting the idea, finally.

QUOTE

And if an idea is unfalsifiable, it's no more valid than claiming that Santa Claus lives at the North Pole and invisibly brings good children presents every year.

Not so. An idea might effectively be unfalsifiable, but it might also have evidentiary support. Actually, almost NO idea is absolutely falsifiable, because one can make up excuses and explanations for almost anything. Hey, no fossil record of common descent? Well, "Punctuated Equilibrium" would explain that, even though "Punctuated Equilibrium" is effectively unfalsifiable. (I've got other examples from "science", if you'd like. How about "String Theory"? Or "Multiverses"?)

QUOTE

Me: No, you can't. Descartes' "Cogito ergo sum" inherently assumes that which he is trying to prove - and thus is a very famous, though unrecognized generally, example of circular logic. Besides, even if it was valid, all you could do is justify your own existence to yourself - it wouldn't have any bearing on others, or whether they would necessarily, logically, be required to agree that you exist. Maybe I'm just imagining you, as I said (and that's not a solipsistic view).

Sartrian: Awareness of the contents of the mind precedes any awareness of external reality.

Absolutely not. Are fishies unaware of "external reality"? Are they aware of the "contents of the mind"? Do they exist?

QUOTE

Thoughts must arise from a thinker, so who is thinking these thoughts?

Ah, now you're dealing with thoughts rather than mere "awareness". However, didn't you know that "thought" is merely an illusion? All "thought" is really just chemical interactions in the brain - it's just an illusion that one is "thinking". What is really happening is that a bunch of physics and chemistry is affecting the biology in the brain. There is therefore no free will, and thus no real "thought". (At least, this is what I've heard from a number of atheists.)

Anyway, here's Descartes' logic, in simplified form:

Problem - Prove that I exist.
Descartes' Solution -

• P1: I think
• P2: Thinking requires existence
• P1 & P2 => Q: I exist.

Can't you see the circularity in that logic? Note that I am not arguing against P2. The problem is that Descartes has to assume that which he is attempting to prove - namely, that he exists. The proposition P1 has to assume the existence of "I" in order to even make sense, but the existence of "I" is what needs to be proved. Circularity, hidden in a Latin sound-bite.

QUOTE

Sartrian: They can't arise from nowhere, so by virtue of thinking, I can prove my own existence. I think, therefore I am.

See above.

QUOTE

Sartrian: I can prove my existence by disagreeing with your argument that I don't exist!

No you can't, because if I don't exist, I have no argument with which you can prove your existence by disagreeing with it. But if I do exist, then maybe I'm just imagining that you exist and are disagreeing with my argument that you don't exist. Isn't logic wonderful?

QUOTE

Sartrian: Besides. I'm the one imagining you. You don't exist.

I feel faint. However, I never thought of that - therefore, you still don't exist.

QUOTE

Me: Not in the least. You are reasoning superficially. But, back to the whole point in all of this: you asserted that because Humble Bob (or someone) couldn't "prove" God's existence, faith was null and void. (Or something to this effect.)

Sartrian: So where are god's claims of existence?

In the Bible. I thought that should have been obvious.

QUOTE

Sartrian: Where are the objective physical phenomena that make up a god?

Who said that God was made up of "objective physical phenomena"? And while we're on the subject, where's the "objective physical phenomena" that prove to me your own existence?

QUOTE

Sartrian: Can you produce either?

Yes, and I already "produced" one of them, by pointing you to the Bible.

QUOTE

Sartrian: If not, why claim there is a god?

I have been trying to get you to see that your requirement of "proof" is silly, and that "evidence" is all that is needed to justify faith.

QUOTE

Me: So far, if I were to accept your "proof" of your existence, you would likewise be required to grant God's existence, because He has asserted in the Bible that He thinks (among other things), and therefore (according to Descartes' and your logic), "He is". (It's too bad I don't know Latin, or I could put this in the correct Latin form.)

Sartrian: Why should I grant that the Tanakh and Gospels are the comments of a god?

This would involve some quite detailed discussion. If you have the time and the willingness, and are sincerely willing to look at the evidence, then I suggest you find the book, "Why I Am a Christian", either at a library, or at a bookstore, or on the Internet somehow, and read through at least portions of it. (I just took a copy back to my local library, so I can't quote anything from it for you.) Briefly, though, the Bible contains specific prophecies which have been fulfilled, and the New Testament is more historically authenticated as being accurate (that is, there is more ancient manuscript evidence for its existence and authorship) than any other ancient document, by far (something like 5000 manuscripts versus something like, I think, 5 or so for The Iliad, I believe, as an example). This means that the events of the Gospels, the acts and teachings of Jesus, can be trusted with a high degree of confidence as having actually occurred and been given just as they are recounted in the Gospels. And this means that Jesus claimed to be God (because He did, in the Gospels), and that He was physically resurrected, which is what several prophecies in the Old Testament said would happen for the Messiah, Who the Old Testament implied would be God.

QUOTE

Sartrian: Why should I not grant that the Vedas and the Qu'ran are equally valid comments of a god?

Many reasons. Primarily, no other "scripture" contains specific and fulfilled prophecies. Also, no other "scripture" is as historically validated (archaeologically, history, etc.) as the Bible. Furthermore, the Qu'ran is obviously filled with many unnecessary and childish redundancies in lieu of spiritual insight and teaching. And beyond this, all "scriptures" which claim at least partial authority from the Bible, in that they claim the Bible is the Word of God but needed or needs to be "corrected", imply a God Who has less integrity than the God of Judaism and Christianity. Such a God Who must "correct" His Word is either less competent or less loving than the Judeo-Christian God, Whose Scriptures have never needed "correction" (in their core teachings - the issue is not "typos" or a misplaced word here or there, but a fundamental change in teaching or doctrine). As far as the Vedas and the like are concerned - I am not as familiar with those as I should be, but you might benefit from the insights of Ravi Zacharias, who was raised in India with a great exposure to Hinduism and Buddhism, and I imagine to the Vedas. If I am not mistaken, don't they claim there are hundreds of "gods"?

QUOTE

And if that's the case, considering that creates a paradox (claims of monotheism versus polytheism; as well as the writer of the Qu'ran claiming that the Tanakh is corrupted), why should your assertion be valid?

Do a careful comparison of the various "scriptures", looking for overall "fluidity and precision of style" (my descriptions), and consider the historical detail contained only in the Bible, and consider the fact that only the Bible contains specific and fulfilled prophecies, and also bear in mind that only the Bible (among those "scriptures" which are claimed to be derived from the Old or New Testaments) maintains a God of perfect integrity (power and love, in maintaining His Word to mankind uncorrupted).

Outstanding!!! I have never seen that before, but it is a classic example of the fallacy of circular reasoning.

Caneman

Caneman,


Me neither. I saw it when I was responding to Sartrian's "Cogito, Ergo Sum" reference.