(April 12, 2010 at 2:08 pm)tavarish Wrote: Here's a better question:

What kind of tree is a pig?

A television. I thought that was self-explanatory...

(April 12, 2010 at 9:12 am)tavarish Wrote:

(April 12, 2010 at 3:25 am)fr0d0 Wrote: If you go to my posting of Richard Dawkins interview with Father George Coyne Tav you'll see him explain quite clearly from a Christians point of view about the issue of God's existence from the POV of creation/ science. He says of the question that: "it isn't satisfying at all". Theological and philosophical questioning doesn't really answer the question well enough. For the question is a scientific one. What you're searching for Tav is a "God of explanation" as Coyne puts it, and that God is not the Christian God. If you want to find explanation... then use science. Don't try to make ideas of God = scientific ideas. I hope that makes sense.

God has no explanatory value. What good is that then?

None. For explaining things.

(April 12, 2010 at 9:12 am)tavarish Wrote: How can you assert an object's existence and necessary traits if it's not backed by anything?

What object? What assertion?

(April 12, 2010 at 9:12 am)tavarish Wrote: Also, what relevance does this have to my initial questions?

It is the only answer to your question. If you want a different answer, you need to bark up the right tree.

(April 12, 2010 at 2:31 am)The Piper Wrote: I consider so many things valid to the nature of the universe being designed that I could not possibly have the time to write them all down for you. If you are interested, do some research on Google.

I have not been evasive at all, I have answered all of your questions, and repeatedly answered them. I do apologise for not having the time to explain all of the observations of nature that lead me to believe in a designed universe.

I think tavarish, as many others, wants to keep the information here (because we secretly want every possible argument on atheism vs. theism here so we don't have to go anywhere else). Perhaps, DNA would be a good example of something you believe is too complicated to have come into existence via natural causes? You guys are both being 'circular' in the sense that tavarish has been asking you for examples and you keep asking him to Google: "Dude!" "Sweet!" "Dude!" "Sweet!" (reference to Dude Where's My Car [film])

---

(April 12, 2010 at 1:34 pm)Saerules Wrote: If a person defines 'painting' as how they also define 'laptop'... then it would be true that their laptop would be a painting (and same the other way). However, if one defines 'painting' differently than they define 'laptop', then the painting is not necessarily also a laptop... and perhaps the definitions are exclusive of each other.

Darn these annoying semantics... how can I know that the word I use for 'chocolate' is not the same word that you use for 'orangutang'... so that when I ask you, "Would you like some chocolate?": you interpret it as, "Would you like some orangutang?"

I bet you three tigers in a post that Adrian and most people know that words are words. words are words: (i better try explaining myself before someone accuses me of trolling) doesn't everyone know that we could have called horses 'cows' and cows 'monkeys' and we can right now but that would only be confusing and unnecessary?

The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote:I bet you three tigers in a post that Adrian and most people know that words are words. words are words: (i better try explaining myself before someone accuses me of trolling) doesn't everyone know that we could have called horses 'cows' and cows 'monkeys' and we can right now but that would only be confusing and unnecessary?

Or were we instead aware that words are entirely arbitrary and utterly meaningless beyond what meaning we ascribe to them? Are we just now discovering semantics (and her deeper subjective roots), TFS?

(April 13, 2010 at 1:08 am)Saerules Wrote:

The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote:I bet you three tigers in a post that Adrian and most people know that words are words. words are words: (i better try explaining myself before someone accuses me of trolling) doesn't everyone know that we could have called horses 'cows' and cows 'monkeys' and we can right now but that would only be confusing and unnecessary?

Or were we instead aware that words are entirely arbitrary and utterly meaningless beyond what meaning we ascribe to them? Are we just now discovering semantics (and her deeper subjective roots), TFS?

yes, that's what I meant. doesn't everyone know that?

(April 13, 2010 at 1:27 am)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: Yes, that's what I meant. doesn't everyone know that?

They should... but as it turns out not everyone is aware of subjectivity. I kid you not. 0.o

After 7 pages on the topic of what convinced theists, we have learned that:

1. Theists can be vague as hell when it comes to their beliefs
2. Words are words.

Back at ya Tav.

Dualist theism is vague because you can't describe the immaterial. I don't think there is a monist theism. What would a monist theism be?

(April 13, 2010 at 4:01 pm)The_Flying_Skeptic Wrote: Dualist theism is vague because you can't describe the immaterial. I don't think there is a monist theism. What would a monist theism be?

That everything is on the same plane of existence... just some of us can't identify some parts?

Basically naturalism, but from a theist's perspective.