View Single Post
Old 04-09-2007, 06:16 PM   #29
Next-Gen Poster
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: United States
Posts: 3,575
Rep Power: 0 Nicato is an unknown quantity at this point
Re: The Root of all Evil/Trobule With Atheism

Originally Posted by Mike Doolittle View Post
It would be constrained to the boundaries of the natural world, not supernatural, and thus not God.
You are dense.

I am saying that if your conclusion is ever found to be true, then your god would have to be acknowledged by science. Further, if your god is a logical necessity, as you say it is, then science should have already endorsed your theory.

Well then, you need to brush up on your physics. Maybe studying string theory and/or M theory wouldn't be a bad idea. There is strong, logical evidence for other realities.
I had asked you if you could figure out the common thread between your god hypothesis, string hypothesis and the multiverse hypothesis but apparently you can't so I'll spell it out: they are all in principle unknowable.

Nice pointless dig. I'm sorry, I'll clear that up: I've read much (not all, I admit) of The God Delusion, excerpts from The Selfish Gene, as well as watched numerous debates and read numerous articles by Dawkins. I've studied numerous major world religions including Buddhism, Judaism, Hinduism, Taoism, Shinto, and Islam in addition to my upbringing as a Christian. I'm a regular reader of and I've read countless books on theology, both religious and secular. So yeah, I think I am doing my part. It wouldn't kill you to watch a freakin' DVD. But whatever, it's your mind. Keep it as closed as you want.
I have to say that the complete incoherency of your argument shows more evidence of illiteracy than it does the knowledge "countless" books. But yeah, I suppose I'd take the word of a guy who doesn't even know how to use a dictionary to answer a completely "pointless dig" that he started.

That doesn't make any sense. How could we see that there's evidence for divine intelligence without understanding the universe?
If your god can't be examined logically or scientifically, then how can we conclude from science and logic that it exists? This all goes back to the core fallacies in your god hypothesis. You invoke science and drop names whenever benefits you then turn around wipe your hands everytime I point out the core inconsistencies in your reasoning.

I'm not arguing for a different God than one that answers prayers, keeps tabs on Earthly affairs, yada yada yada. In fact, I haven't even gotten to that kind of subject matter. Right now I'm simply discussing evidence for the mere existence of a Creator God using tenants that are virtually ubiquitous in religions.
Ha! So your intelligent designer created a universe 13-15 billion years ago just to help little Johnny find his lost puppy?

Yeah, there have been numerous studies (double blind, the whole nine) which have indicated that there is zero effect for prayer. If, in fact, you do believe that prayer works then your more deluded than I thought.

I'm suggesting that science has allowed us a better understanding of the reality of God.
Now, how can that be seeing as science is the very thing which is, in principle, incapable of examining your god? Again, this get's back to the core fallacy in your claim, which is that you are using science and logic to conclude your god's existence, but not allowing science and logic to examine your god's existence. This line of reasoning would be on it's face flawed if we were talking about anything else.

I suppose I'll have to take your word for that O Wise Nicato, since you haven't been able to concoct a rebuttal for any of the core tenants of my argument.
What argument? They're all fundamentally fallacious and whenever I point that out you use the pathetic dodge of saying that your god is "beyond logic."

Here is the core tenant of your argument: God is inferred from the science and logic--a logical necissity, in fact--but science and logic can't, in principle, examine it. That you don't get dizzy every time you do that dance amazes me.

Maybe this will sound familiar: How do you know that dinosaurs are extinct? In order for scientists to prove that dinosaurs are extinct, they'd have to find every animal on the planet, then prove that it's not a dinosaur. Obviously that's impossible. Scientists use logical inference based upon observable evidence to conclude that dinosaurs are extinct. They assume dinosaurs are extinct because we don't see them walking around these days.
Wow. Just Wow.

The point is that--unlike your god--we have positive evidence for dinosaurs. That I can't prove that they aren't extinct is a complete non-sequitor--no one is talking about proving a negative. Do try and keep up.

The same concept applies in theology. We're talking about things that are fundamentally beyond our ability to completely know or understand, thus why I've continued to correct you that I am not, as you incessantly accuse me of doing, "concluding" God's existence. Based upon the observable world around me, I am logically inferring that a Creative God exists. I can't know that for certain, of course. God may not exist. I am an agnostic theist. But I can observe many things which point to God's existence being a very logical, and quite probable, reality...

....You're continually missing the point here Nic. See above. Yes, faith in God is logical, because there is much evidence that makes God's existence logical. Yet, as I've said, this same logic points us to its own limitations; it shows that there are some things intrinsically beyond our full understanding.
You want it both ways. If its fundamentally (or intrinsically) beyond our understanding then how are you using science to understand it? Clearly, there is a line in the spectrum which you are arbitrarly drawing.

I've said before that there may exist a supernatural, but if there is--and it is in principle beyond us--then you can't say two words about it and you certainly can't use logic and science to exhaust its existence.

No, you f'in assbutt, it is not the truth. I've spent every damn post correcting this idiocy of yours. If the only way you can conduct a debate is to misrepresent your opponent's arguments, you should probably find something else to do.
Dude, you are saying that your god is a logical necissity. String hypothesis and multiverse hypothesis don't account for the design angle you've been pushing as of late. It's clear as day that you're talking about god when you say "fist cause." Stop denying what is so patently obvious. You are making a fool of yourself.

It's quite amazing that as science has advanced, it's only brought us closer to God's reality.
Two questions: what are you on and can I get a hit?

Again, you are only using science to advance your pet theory of a creator while denying it the right to examine it.

It IS faith Nic. Jeez, don't you get it?
This is getting sad on epic proportions. Acknowledging limitations is not faith anything, Mike. The fact that there are things that are unknowable says nothing to the existence of anything. This is just another conclusion you're drawing from your fallacious reasoning.

You just can't seem to wrap your mind around the most basic concept here: that faith uses reason as a tool to further itself, but it is not ultimately reducible to reason because reason itself leads us to things that are beyond our capacity of understanding.
Faith explains nothing. It relies on the subjectivity rather than objectivity for its explainations. Worse, it demands no standard of proof (which makes it unreasonable) and one can have faith in anything (which makes it arbitrary).

So, ideas are entities?
Yeah, and love is a red rose.

I said that ideas are like viruses. L-I-K-E, smart guy.

Nice try douchecock, but your foot is squarely in your mouth and you know it...

Nice dodge...

...Wow, the only thing bigger than this universe is your delusional ego. You don't know how to argue. If you did, I wouldn't have to correct you on basic points on virtually every single post. Argument involves listening and responding, not just sounding off.
Yeah, you're going to have to say something if you want me to respond.

What blows my mind is that I immediately addressed this when I pointed out that I was explaining my understanding of something as you had phrased it – hence the "seem" and the "I could be wrong here" – not that I was making assumptions. I freaking left a football-field-sized door open for you to make clarifications. Instead you accused me of a making straw man arguments. What a load of idiocy. I explained this right off the bat and you just looked right past it. Typical.
I doesn't matter how you phrazed it, the fact of the matter is that I had spent the past few posts up that point saying that that wasn't my position.
Nicato is offline   Reply With Quote