(November 21, 2018 at 12:47 am)CDF47 Wrote:

(November 21, 2018 at 12:43 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: "The Universe is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy." ~ Wikipedia

Did meat fairy create all of space and time or did he exist within all of space and time?

God exists in the eternity outside this universe.

I wasn't asking you, dumbass.

Cool story, but you two don't believe the same things, remember?

Actually Woo Princess the crap you posted from Feser IN NO WAY addresses the science Krauss has written about.
His criticism is about Krauss saying his approach is as an atheist ... then he uses a really stupid "checkers" business to further muddy the waters.
He never ONCE addresses Kraus' science ... not once.
Never once is his science itself actually criticized ... so here we have LIE #3, you saying an article says something it doesn't.

Please tell us who in the 1930's was discussing quantum foam ?
Put up or shut up.

And I do not give a frick about Kraus, and yes he did present a moronic, idiotic, nonsensical, atheist argument. 

(November 21, 2018 at 12:40 am)Chas Wrote: You keep saying that, yet you provide no substantive reasons why.  It's as if you never read the book. 

Lawrence Krauss’s “argument” for atheism is like that of an artist who confines himself to using black and white materials and then concludes that, since color doesn’t show up in his drawings of fire engines and apples, it follows that fire engines and apples are not really red.

The closest Krauss comes to justifying his thesis is in the following passage:

science is an atheistic enterprise. “My practice as a scientist is atheistic,” the biologist J.B.S. Haldane wrote, in 1934. “That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career.” . . . In my more than thirty years as a practicing physicist, I have never heard the word “God” mentioned in a scientific meeting. Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant to our understanding of the workings of nature . . .

Is this a good argument? Only if this parallel piece of “reasoning” is also a good argument:

Checkers is an atheistic enterprise. My practice as a checkers player is atheistic. That is to say, when I move a game piece across the board, I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my career as a checkers champ. In my more than thirty years as a checkers player, I have never heard the word “God” mentioned at a checkers tournament. Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant to our understanding of the workings of the game.


So, it isn’t just science—even checkers proves atheism! Who knew?

Of course, the fallacy in the latter “argument” is obvious. That we need make no reference to X in the course of doing Y doesn’t prove that X does not exist. We need make no reference to general relativity when studying dentistry, but that doesn’t cast doubt on Einstein’s discovery. We need make no mention of the physiology of tapeworms when engineering bridges, but that doesn’t mean that reports of people having tapeworms are all bogus. Similarly, the fact that scientists need make no reference to God when doing physics, biology, or any other science doesn’t prove—or even suggest—that the existence of God is doubtful.

(November 21, 2018 at 12:53 am)Everena Wrote: That we need make no reference to X in the course of doing Y doesn’t prove that X does not exist.

It would..however, demonstrate that there is no need of reference to the meat fairy in y, and that meat fairy was not the only logical conclusion of how or why y works or exists.

(November 13, 2018 at 8:22 pm)Everena Wrote:

(November 13, 2018 at 8:06 pm)Bucky Ball Wrote: When and if it happens, get back to us .... lol, 

Everena: I won't have to get back to you. Science will publish it when it's proven and you can read it for yourself. My guess would be with in the next 5 years
meanwhile it's a baseless assertion to say they can combine the quantum level with the macro level,
Everena: Well quantum biologists are the ones saying it.

(NO ONE has been able to do that, ... which you would know if you had any education, and YOU can say nothing to support your nonsense. You're sounding like a broken record. Got anything of use or interesting ? 


No I don't liar. You've already been schooled on why your "logic" is insufficient ... and you can't even say which logic you use, and why. 

Everena: Wrong. I am the only one using any logic. And 93% of the world can get this, so that should really, really tell you something.


Do you have any plans to demonstrate that ? LMAO. 

Everena: I just did. You don't even understand what "its a matter of when, not if" means.

---

So then, .... rats are surviving and fucking. Hmmm. They may be more intelligent than Evy

Everena: They have intelligence, they have brains. Even ants have intelligence.

(November 21, 2018 at 12:53 am)Everena Wrote: And I do not give a frick about Kraus, and yes he did present a moronic, idiotic, nonsensical, atheist argument. 

(November 21, 2018 at 12:40 am)Chas Wrote: You keep saying that, yet you provide no substantive reasons why.  It's as if you never read the book. 

Lawrence Krauss’s “argument” for atheism is like that of an artist who confines himself to using black and white materials and then concludes that, since color doesn’t show up in his drawings of fire engines and apples, it follows that fire engines and apples are not really red.

The closest Krauss comes to justifying his thesis is in the following passage:

science is an atheistic enterprise. “My practice as a scientist is atheistic,” the biologist J.B.S. Haldane wrote, in 1934. “That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career.” . . . In my more than thirty years as a practicing physicist, I have never heard the word “God” mentioned in a scientific meeting. Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant to our understanding of the workings of nature . . .

Is this a good argument? Only if this parallel piece of “reasoning” is also a good argument:

Checkers is an atheistic enterprise. My practice as a checkers player is atheistic. That is to say, when I move a game piece across the board, I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my career as a checkers champ. In my more than thirty years as a checkers player, I have never heard the word “God” mentioned at a checkers tournament. Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant to our understanding of the workings of the game.


So, it isn’t just science—even checkers proves atheism! Who knew?

Of course, the fallacy in the latter “argument” is obvious. That we need make no reference to X in the course of doing Y doesn’t prove that X does not exist. We need make no reference to general relativity when studying dentistry, but that doesn’t cast doubt on Einstein’s discovery. We need make no mention of the physiology of tapeworms when engineering bridges, but that doesn’t mean that reports of people having tapeworms are all bogus. Similarly, the fact that scientists need make no reference to God when doing physics, biology, or any other science doesn’t prove—or even suggest—that the existence of God is doubtful.

NOTHING in that addresses Krauss' science. Can you even read Woo Princess ?

(November 21, 2018 at 12:53 am)Everena Wrote: And I do not give a frick about Kraus, and yes he did present a moronic, idiotic, nonsensical, atheist argument. 

(November 21, 2018 at 12:40 am)Chas Wrote: You keep saying that, yet you provide no substantive reasons why.  It's as if you never read the book. 

Lawrence Krauss’s “argument” for atheism is like that of an artist who confines himself to using black and white materials and then concludes that, since color doesn’t show up in his drawings of fire engines and apples, it follows that fire engines and apples are not really red.

The closest Krauss comes to justifying his thesis is in the following passage:

science is an atheistic enterprise. “My practice as a scientist is atheistic,” the biologist J.B.S. Haldane wrote, in 1934. “That is to say, when I set up an experiment I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my professional career.” . . . In my more than thirty years as a practicing physicist, I have never heard the word “God” mentioned in a scientific meeting. Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant to our understanding of the workings of nature . . .

Is this a good argument? Only if this parallel piece of “reasoning” is also a good argument:

Checkers is an atheistic enterprise. My practice as a checkers player is atheistic. That is to say, when I move a game piece across the board, I assume that no god, angel, or devil is going to interfere with its course and this assumption has been justified by such success as I have achieved in my career as a checkers champ. In my more than thirty years as a checkers player, I have never heard the word “God” mentioned at a checkers tournament. Belief or nonbelief in God is irrelevant to our understanding of the workings of the game.


So, it isn’t just science—even checkers proves atheism! Who knew?

Of course, the fallacy in the latter “argument” is obvious. That we need make no reference to X in the course of doing Y doesn’t prove that X does not exist. We need make no reference to general relativity when studying dentistry, but that doesn’t cast doubt on Einstein’s discovery. We need make no mention of the physiology of tapeworms when engineering bridges, but that doesn’t mean that reports of people having tapeworms are all bogus. Similarly, the fact that scientists need make no reference to God when doing physics, biology, or any other science doesn’t prove—or even suggest—that the existence of God is doubtful.

Not relevant, douche bag. Try addressing the actual question. Or don't. We get our lulz either way.

As long as the pages keep going up I'm getting mine, lol.

(November 21, 2018 at 12:49 am)Jörmungandr Wrote:

(November 21, 2018 at 12:47 am)CDF47 Wrote: God exists in the eternity outside this universe.

I wasn't asking you, dumbass.

Depends on your definition of universe. If you are talking about the observable universe, known universe, then I already explained that I think God lives in another universe. If you are talking about everything that exists and even everything we can't observe and don't know anything about, then it's still the same answer, just amended to: God lives in a part of the entire universe that we cannot see (or what science calls the hidden universe or hidden universes)

Quote:God lives in a part of the entire universe that we cannot see (or what science calls the hidden universe or hidden universes.

Isn't that precious. Woo princess' god is playing peek-a-boo in a universe we can't see.