(December 3, 2013 at 11:36 pm)snowtracks Wrote: Universe actually was intelligently created ------------- starting with a hypothesis that it was created, the observations makes sense. that's the proof. now, if the simplest explanation is not acceptable to you then the more complicated method needs to be explained and without this idea of 'appealing to future'.

So... your evidence, your strongest case, is that if you assume the universe was created, then you can see the universe was created?

What the fuck is wrong with you?

In what version of reality is it simpler to assume an all-powerful intelligent being, of at least infinite complexity by definition, over the least complex state possible? Did I turn over two pages or something?

And just to reiterate: I can bend spoons with the power of my thoughts, and the proof is I've just told you I can do it.

(December 4, 2013 at 12:25 am)Stimbo Wrote: In what version of reality is it simpler to assume an all-powerful intelligent being, of at least infinite complexity by definition, over the least complex state possible? Did I turn over two pages or something?

And just to reiterate: I can bend spoons with the power of my thoughts, and the proof is I've just told you I can do it.

drifting off the question again. a principle of science is take the simplest explanation. we observe the U., is there anything is our observation that would negate it being created? if there is, show and prove it. this proof thing is something the atheists just love to resort to like pimply face adolescent bullies on a playground shouting 'prove it'. that's the mantra touted over here by science-based thinkers. so if there is a more complicated methodogy than creation (what's simpler than that?), give the proof since in your minds an observation has been detected that invalidated creationism.

(December 4, 2013 at 1:01 am)snowtracks Wrote: drifting off the question again. a principle of science is take the simplest explanation.

Occam's Razor is not a scientific principle, and if you're talking about some other thing, please present it, because right now it just looks like you're pulling shit out of your ass.

Quote: we observe the U., is there anything is our observation that would negate it being created? if there is, show and prove it.

Dodging the burden of proof, are we? It's not up to us to disprove every crazy little idea that pops into your head; you made the claim, the burden of proof is on you to prove it.

Quote:this proof thing is something the atheists just love to resort to like pimply face adolescent bullies on a playground shouting 'prove it'. that's the mantra touted over here by science-based thinkers. so if there is a more complicated methodogy than creation (what's simpler than that?), give the proof since in your minds an observation has been detected that invalidated creationism.

Literally every part of your contention here is dead wrong.

(December 4, 2013 at 1:01 am)snowtracks Wrote: so if there is a more complicated methodogy than creation (what's simpler than that?), give the proof since in your minds an observation has been detected that invalidated creationism.

It really frustrates me when people say that magic is the simplest explanation (since it is no explanation), and thus that it is correct. You do realize, then, that following your logic, we should attribute everything to magic, right?

I'll only humor you on the condition that you can provide at least some piece of evidence that would at least theoretically exist (if god didn't) proving such a thing. I'll give you a hint: it can't be done. Come back with a falsifiable claim and we'll talk.

(December 1, 2013 at 8:47 pm)snowtracks Wrote: not the best strategy to have a bravdo attitude about eternal destiny issues.

It's only a strategy if you believe that there is an eternal destiny. For those who disbelieve, there is nothing to fear. For those who believe, there is nothing but fear.

(December 2, 2013 at 11:29 pm)snowtracks Wrote: The resurrection of Jesus Christ is the proof.

Nope. Not evidence Snowyboy, not evidence at all.

(December 2, 2013 at 11:29 pm)snowtracks Wrote: Here's the deal: if God created the U., nothing needs to be explained since it was 'created' (blueprint to construction). one may desire to learn the methodization but no explanation needed; whereas, if one doesn't like the idea of God, then they need to get real busy with the 'prove it' non-creation evidence that by now has been cleverly and clearly fashion together. you that worship at the altar of science, lets see what you got.

Cop out with circular reasoning and shifting the burden of proof.

Shit, Snowy, that's all you've got?

Why do you get all pissy when we reject your ludicrous unsubstantiated claims?

---

(December 4, 2013 at 1:01 am)snowtracks Wrote:

(December 4, 2013 at 12:25 am)Stimbo Wrote: In what version of reality is it simpler to assume an all-powerful intelligent being, of at least infinite complexity by definition, over the least complex state possible? Did I turn over two pages or something?

And just to reiterate: I can bend spoons with the power of my thoughts, and the proof is I've just told you I can do it.

a principle of science is take the simplest explanation.

FALSE!

FFS! Parsimony is NOT a 'principle of science'. Some shit ain't easy to explain. Ever taken a look at Quantum Mechanics recently? 'Simple' is a subjective term. You can't say that parsimony is the ultimate aim and THEN just assume that your parsimonious answer is the right one.

Shit, man. This is like, logic for 5 year olds here. What the hell is wrong with you?

(December 4, 2013 at 11:55 am)Fidel_Castronaut Wrote: FFS! Parsimony is NOT a 'principle of science'. Some shit ain't easy to explain. Ever taken a look at Quantum Mechanics recently? 'Simple' is a subjective term. You can't say that parsimony is the ultimate aim and THEN just assume that your parsimonious answer is the right one.

Shit, man. This is like, logic for 5 year olds here. What the hell is wrong with you?

the atheists are showing no proofs, losing credibility really fast and furious. atheists intellectuals is a misnomer, but you're probably doing the best you can, so i accept you have no proofs and thats okay.

(December 4, 2013 at 9:23 pm)snowtracks Wrote: the atheists are showing no proofs, losing credibility really fast and furious. atheists intellectuals is a misnomer, but you're probably doing the best you can, so i accept you have no proofs and thats okay.

And we end on "you can't prove there is no god!" and a set of ad hominem attacks!

Please, a round of applause for our simple little troll, who will be leaving with the home game as a consolation prize, and the blazing contempt of everyone here! Thank you for playing "at least try to disguise those fallacies, moron!"

(December 4, 2013 at 9:23 pm)snowtracks Wrote: the atheists are showing no proofs, losing credibility really fast and furious. atheists intellectuals is a misnomer, but you're probably doing the best you can, so i accept you have no proofs and thats okay.

No matter how much you piss and whine, your attempts to shift the burden of proof will remain futile. You see, only the people making claims need to show proofs, and so far, you're the only one making claims here. No one's trying to one-up you intellectually by playing the "prove it" game. We're just trying to get you provide your evidence behind these fantastical claims you're making, but the more you refuse and insist on resorting to hand-waving and ad hominems, the more it looks like you have absolutely no idea what the words you use even mean.

I have a feeling you're too simple to understand this, though.